Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2358
HOMEBREW Digest #2358 Tue 25 February 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Responses to various questions ("Graham Wheeler")
Contamination Q? / YCKCo experience ("Paul Kensler")
RIMS pipe construction ("Michael T. Bell")
AHA (Terry White)
Sierra Nevada Ale Yeast (Steve Moore)
AHA/AOB/School teacher gone globe trotter (ThE-HoMeBrEw-RaT)
Zinc/skunkiness,contamination, yow-yowing, Malts,chemotherapy ("David R. Burley")
Homemade corny-uni-tank (Kevin McEnhill)
First Gold Hops ("Val J. Lipscomb")
Scaling down from commercial operations. (Michael Newman)
altitude & carbonation? ("Robert Waddell")
Semi- Rims (Jay Ward)
First All-Grain Lessons (animnate)
Sake ("David R. Burley")
Cold Break/Moffetta (A. J. deLange)
Pilsner Urquell Brewing Specs. (Lorne P. Franklin)
Pale Ale and its kin (Tim Plummer)
blonde recipe (REX CLINGAN)
Re: Lots O' Trub (#2353 ) ("John R. Bowen")
Bleach & SS (Chris North)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://brew.oeonline.com/
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:17:28 -0000
From: "Graham Wheeler" <Graham.Wheeler@btinternet.com>
Subject: Responses to various questions
In part response to Hal Davis's questions in #2353:
1). There is no popular name for a mixture of mild and bitter. Bitter is a
relatively modern, almost 20th century term.
2). It would be difficult to make the stale. Some of the microbes
responsible for souring the stale are aerobic and require a limited
accessto air. The stale was traditionally made in large oak vats, but oak
has a certain porosity to air. The aerobic microbes, I believe, seed
themselves in the inside surface of the oak vessels and got access to air
via the oak.Other redox reactions took place during the period of twelve to
eighteen months it took for the stale to sour. It is significant that the
brewers that still sour their beers with stale, Guinness and Rodenbach of
Belgium, still use oak vessels to make the stale. Everything else,
certainly in the Guinness brewery, is made from stainless steel. Belgian
Rodenbach is the nearest thing to old time porter still being made.
Guinness would not be, because only certain Guinness beers are soured, and
then with only about 3% stale -- much less than old-time porter used to be.
The best bet if you want to try to make a porter is to find out if
Rodenbach is obtainable in the USA (it must be somewhere). The stuff simply
called Rodenbach is a porter in all but name, but another product called
Rodenbach Grand Cru is the sour part of the blend sold separately. You
might consider buying a
quantity of Rodenbach Grand Cru and using this to blend with your homebrew
(start with about 15%) to produce a porter, just until you have learned how
to make your own stale. You will not be able to culture from it because it
is pasteurised.
3). The term "mild" in old-time parlance had nothing whatsoever to do with
strength or bitterness. It simply meant fresh, or immature, in the same way
that, in England at least, cheese is available in mild and mature
varieties. Mild beer was cheap because there was no expensive ageing
process. Today, mild beer is still expected to be cheap, but they achieve
this by reducing the ingredients! Few beers these days are matured for any
length of time, so most of them would be regarded as mild under the old
meaning.
In part response to Dave Hinkle's question in #2353
Guinness purchased Smithwicks in 1967. Beamish was purchased by Carling
O'Keefe of Canada in 1962. Murphy's was purchased by Heineken in 1985.
Graham Wheeler (UK)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:43:55 +0000
From: "Paul Kensler" <pkensler@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Contamination Q? / YCKCo experience
Brian Deck asked about yeast contamination, and the Yeast Culture Kit
Company...
I can't comment on your contamination problem, but I have used the
Yeast Culture Kit Co. yeasts before, and they are among my favorite
yeasts. I have used the Dry Irish yeast and the Belgian ale... I
could give the exact strain numbers, if you're interested. However,
I have had bad experiences with other brands of yeast (namely,
Brewers Resource, a very reputable yeast culturer). I wonder if your
theory of yeast handling might be on target. That is, if a certain
strain of yeast is cultured and maintained at the originating lab in
a different manner than at the homebrewery, does it affect yeast
performance?...
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:52:29 -0600
From: "Michael T. Bell" <mikeb@flash.net>
Subject: RIMS pipe construction
In HBD#2355 Mike Szwaya writes:
>In the article, John Roberts has the heating element is mounted inside a 1
>1/2 inch copper tubing but the Vulcan element has a 1 inch NPT(M) fitting.
> Can anyone give a schematic of the materials they used for their heating
>element housing and suggestions as to where I could get them?
>Thanks.
>
I purchased all of my pipe from a local plumbing supplier and from
McMaster-Carr. On the horizontal form left to right, it consists of a 1"
to 1.5" brass bushing(A), a 1.5" SS tee(B), a 12" x 1.5" SS nipple(C), a
1.5" SS coupling(D), a 1.5" to .5" brass bushing(E), and .5"brass quick
disconnects(F). For the vertical part of the tee fitting connect a 1.5" to
.5" brass bushing with another .5" quick disconnect.
A B C D E F
---- ------- --------------------- ---- __
__
____ _______ _____________________ ____ --
| |
| |
| |
E | |
F |
Hope this helps.
Michael T. Bell
Boomerdog Brewing
Arlington, TX
Michael T. Bell
Boomerdog Brewing
Arlington, TX
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:43:21 -0800
From: Terry White <brew@buffnet.net>
Subject: AHA
I, for one, am getting sick of the constant complaining about the AHA
and Charlie. If you don't feel that you are getting your moneys worth
from the AHA then leave, no one is holding a gun to your head. I
personally think that the AHA has done a great job. Through their
publications and the efforts of Charlie they have promoted the hobby of
homebrewing for 20 years now. It is safe to say that if it weren't for
the AHA a lot of us would not even be brewing today. So, like I said if
you don't like the AHA then don't be a member. Or you could start your
own Association, quit your nice comfortable day job and work long hours
for little money and when things finally start to come together and you
can take a decent salary you can put up with the constant whinning from
a group of people that probably have never run anything but their mouth.
The common thread seems to be that there are a few people out there who
want to have some control over the AHA. I have sat and read people argue
for a month about weather it is better to have the water go in the top
or the bottom of your wort chiller. How would anything ever get done?
Charlie started the AHA and I think he deserves any compensation he
gets, have you ever checked out the salary of other heads of non profit
organizations, $100,000 is not out of line. So quit your whinning and
make some beer.
And Charlie, keep up the good work!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:42:15 -0600
From: Steve Moore <stevem@phoenix.net>
Subject: Sierra Nevada Ale Yeast
HOUCK KEITH A <HOUCK_KEITH_A@Lilly.com> wrote:
>Out of curiosity, does anyone know the origins of this yeast (aka chico
>yeast, WY1056)? Is it an English ale yeast? Something cultured from the
>clean and slightly fruity Sierra Nevada air? On a related note, a local
>brewpub, reportedly using this yeast, has somehow created several ales
>reeking of diacetyl. In the many ales I tasted made with this yeast,
>I've never found this. Anyone ever experience this and have an idea
>what caused it?
I believe Dr. Fix once stated that the Sierra Nevada strain was the
original Ballantine's IPA yeast. Ballantine switched to another strain
when they were bought out (or something). In Darryl Richman's _Bock_
book he says that it's also the Narragansett yeast. Beyond that, its
origins are shrouded in mystery. Given it's low ester production, I
wonder if it might have originally been a German ale strain.
The butterball effect at the brewpub was probably caused by removing the
beer from the yeast or vice-versa before the diacetyl reduction phase
was complete. Sometimes brewpubbers get in too much of a hurry,
especially when their serving tanks are getting low.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:34:52 -0600
From: ThE-HoMeBrEw-RaT <skotrat@wwa.com>
Subject: AHA/AOB/School teacher gone globe trotter
Hi all,
Being the original poster of all the "Boycott the AOB/AHA" posts to the HBD,
RCB and countless homebrew forums I feel with all the comments and hair
flying back and forth again with them and us I will make matters worse with
my two cents worth again.
I realize that to many of you I seem to be some freakish fanatic that runs
around like a hippy shoving flowers in all the MP's guns I can find; but
really this isn't the case.
I do however believe that our (the american homebrewers) best interests are
not be looked out for by the AOB/AHA.
When I first started my postings about seven months ago I had no idea what
was to follow. For the most part 90% plus of the responses I got were
positive to my Boycott the AOB/AHA feelings. The other 10% told me to get a
life.
Well here we are seven months later and the AOB/AHA have still not responded
in any way other than telling us that we are all whining about nothing. I
don't feel this way. I am not a whiner or a complainer. I also believe that
calling anybody else in the homebrewing community that is looking for reform
those things is a crock.
I have received email from just about everybody at the AOB/AHA (except for
Charlie who has not responded as of yet and I really doubt he even reads his
own email) asking me why I am such an awful person and why would I ever be
angry with such a perfect organization as the AOB/AHA? I even got one email
that said "Quite frankly Mr. Abene, perhaps you are not AOB/AHA material!".
Well maybe I am not.
This whole discussion boils down to one question as far as I am concerned.
"Is the AOB/AHA really doing anything for america's homebrewers?"
I don't think they are and from almost everybody that I have talked to they
don't think they are either.
So then, what do we do about it? Well for one we can try to fix they AOB/AHA
with good old lobbying. Call them on the phone (303-447-0816) FAX them
(303-447-2825) or email Charlie P. himself (charliep@aob.org). Let them know
what your issues are. Tell them what the problems are... I have done it time
and time again. I personally have lost faith in the AOB/AHA maybe if all of
us ban together they can come back to being a great true organization for
homebrewers.
On the other hand... If they continue to not even give us the time of day
then BOYCOTT them. Cancel your subscription, don't buy their products, Don't
relax (but have a homebrew anyway). If we as homebrewers can not bring about
change in the AOB/AHA perhaps it is time we come together and create a new
organization that meets the needs of todays homebrewers and clubs. Perhaps
it is time to bring in a new player to the plate.
One where all the homebrewers and homebrew clubs around the country had a
say as to what goes on in their organization.
By the way. I do have a life beyond homebrewing. And I am not whining or
complaining. I am trying to bring about change. A change that needs to be made.
You know, being part of an organization is a lot more than a $30 magazine
subscription. I think the AOB/AHA has lost sight of that fact. When I pay
dues to my homebrew club every year I get an awful lot more than a magazine
subscription (and nobody tries to sell me anything) I get a club that is
full of information and brewing skills. Are you getting this from the
AOB/AHA anymore? I wasn't and I think the "Special Issue" really pointed
that out. For that matter, so did the way they dealt with the HBD. Running
the HBD was just too much trouble. It was too big for them to handle. They
didn't have the resources.
FROGWASH! I believe now that when they (the AOB/AHA) saw that there was no
cash in the HBD they let it go to hell and if some of us wouldn't have done
something about it they would have left it for dead.
Pat Babcock brought it back in the original form with far less resources
than the AOB/AHA had. Because he cares. That's right.... Pat gives two turds
about homebrewing in this country. The AOB/AHA could learn something from
him. They used to have a great attitude about helping brewers with any problem.
Tell me. Please tell me. Where did that attitude go?
I have said this before and I will say it again. If we can't change them and
they won't hear what we as "Members" have to say then Boycott them.
-Scott "No I am not a fanatic" Abene
################################################################
# ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT #
# Scott Abene <skotrat@wwa.com> #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page) #
# OR #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat/Brew-Rat-Chat/ (Brew-Rat-Chat) #
# "Get off your dead ass and brew" #
# "If beer is liquid bread, maybe bread is solid beer" #
################################################################
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 97 13:44:28 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Zinc/skunkiness,contamination, yow-yowing, Malts,chemotherapy
Brewsters:
Steve Alexander provided us with a FWIW reference to a patent claiming to reduce
skunking by zinc addition, without proving it actually reduced skunking. When I
questioned the likelihood that sulfur compounds in general were involved in the
generation of prenyl mercaptan Steve says:
> Prenyl mecaptans contain sulphur, humulones don't. So where does the
> mercaptan sulphur come from ? Doesn't seem likely to come from the
> X-methyl-sulfides in the hops oils to me. Without knowing more about
> the chemistry producing the mercaptans from isohululones I'd be
> hesitant to state what is or isn't involved in this sequence of
> reactions.
Spencer Thomas during our private discussion on this has been providing some
fairly modern photochemical references and summaries of his reading on the
subject of the mechanism of skunking which come down to the following conclusion
in one of the papers:
" It has been suggested that LSF is caused by 3-methyl-2-butene-1-thiol,
which is formed by the reaction of the 2-methylbuten-2-ylradical (see
above) with sulfur compounds (10). But there is no obvious mechanism
for this reaction."
Despite this suggestion which supports the position of the patent and George
FIx's contention ( based on someone's recent quote) that this is a well
understood reaction, it is still under debate what the exact chemical and
photochemical mechanism is.
One comment in the literature that I found very interesting was that:
" dark Munich beer is more susceptible to ... LSF
than light Pilsner beer. .."
Could it be a higher hop content? Melandoins are the light absorbers? It is
unknown, based on the references Spencer provided.
I believe that with British style beers the exact opposite situation prevails.
Am I correct? Is it because the darker beers are less hopped? The coloring
agents are derived form the malt treatment, rather than during mashing? Any
comments on this?
- -------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Deck has a problem with batch to batch contamination. A winey flavor in
his beers. One thing I can suggest is if you are using a closed fermentation
(carboy/overflow hose) configuration for your primary is to get a new overflow
hose and all connected material. My preference is to go to an open primary
fermenter configuration in which you can actually contact the interior surface
with concentrated bleach and rubbing with a cloth or paper towel (rubber gloves
and glasses) to remove ALL the organic deposits. Because this is so difficult
(if not impossible) to do with dilute bleach and soaking, the overflow hose can
be a serious source of bacterial contaminants and you will eventually get bitten
by the bugs it can contains.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Val Lipscomb wants to stop what he defines as yow-yowing on the HBD. I apologize
for focussing on you,Val, but I have resisted commenting on related comments by
others when it involved me, even though it does hurt me to read it. Val, I
challenge you and others who have made comments in the past to show me one
comment I made that was personally disrespectful to AlK and if it's put into
proper context, I will apologize publicly for it. In fact, if you go back you
will find many times where I said how much I respect Al's excellent
contributions ( and I said it privately to him on more than one occasion). It
is because of this respect that I spend the time and effort to fully appreciate
and understand his position and how it relates to the position of other writers.
I nearly always learn something from Al's presentation, experience of others, my
digging into the existing literature and mini-experiments and expect most other
HBDers do also.
If you are saying that it is your opinion that we can't have an open debate in a
personally respectful manner where we bring forth arguments that may sometimes
not always agree and may even get intense in the presentations, well, I ask
what's this digest all about? Are you and others suggesting we all turn our
activities to where all discussion is offline and no one benefits and other
points of view and information do not get contributed? This is not an ego trip
for me as it is, perhaps, for others. I am trying to have fun with my virtual
brew buddies, learn something and pass on what I have learned in decades of
brewing.
I do refuse to be categorized incorrectly and attacked personally by anyone
without cause. If there's a sin in that - I'm guilty. SO, until you and others
bring forth examples, I am going to ask that yow -yowing about this non-existent
problem as it concerns me directly to stop. Go back into the archives and bring
forth an objective summary based on all the facts.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Brian of Bierkiester Brewery asks for the contribution of various malts. Try
Charlie Papazian's Beer Companion. Very complete list pp 44ff
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Royster asks
> Has anyone else out there experienced a loss of
> taste/interest for beer related to chemotherapy?
I was on chemotherapy for a year and while it sapped my strength and reduced my
interest in and ability to do physical activites like brewing, I continued to
drink an occasional beer ( as I normally do) despite doctor's orders to the
contrary. It did provide temporary reduction from constant pain. While I
wouldn't recommend this action to others, since I am not an MD, it worked for
me. I did not detect any loss in taste. My wife recently experienced a complete
loss of the ability to smell ( and therefore taste) and she lost all interest in
eating. An operation to open up her sinus cavities was entirely successful in
restoring her olfactory abilities and interest in eating. Perhaps the
chemotherapy or other medication has caused the buildup of fluids in your nasal
areas. Ask your doctor.
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:48:38 -0500 (EST)
From: kevinm@kci.wayne.edu (Kevin McEnhill)
Subject: Homemade corny-uni-tank
Howdy one and all,
I saw the add in BT for the 11 gal. unitank with a ball-lock fittings on
top and thought that it was a great idea... untill I saw the price. Kripe!
With that kind of cash, you can buy more grain than most people use in a
year! Any way, it got me thinking (I know a bad habit but what else are you
going to do at work, work?) why not modify a standard corny to do the same
thing? I have a couple of questions though.
1) How thick are the walls of the keg? The welders that I have talked to
have told be that if the thicknesses are too different, there might be a
problem.
2) Is it possible to get a smooth, sanitary internal joint by welding only
from the outside? The other possability is to silver solder the welded
cone-ball valve assembly to the keg. If I solder it (with cadnium free
silver solder) would it hold 25 psi?
3) Could I use some kind of filler to make a smooth fillet if the weld is
too rough inside? Is there a food-grade bondo that would stick to SST?
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:02:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay@NetXpress.com>
Subject: First Gold Hops
Hey again, brewfolks,
In the last few months I've come across several references
to a new British hop, First Gold. Does anyone know of a US
source for this. Private e-mail is fine, so no one commits
"spam-icide".
TIA,
Val Lipscomb-brewing in sunny San Antonio
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:39:57 -0500
From: Michael Newman <MWNewman@compuserve.com>
Subject: Scaling down from commercial operations.
Al K said:
"The only factors I can think of are:
1. surface-to-volume ratios affecting fermentation heat loss and therefore
a different fermentation temperature,
2. the dimensions of the fermenter being much smaller so that the currents
in the fermenter that form (due to heat and CO2 evolution) are going to
be different (actually, they will still be there, but the currents will
be much less intense), and
3. the utilisation of the hops is higher in commercial operations, but
whether this is an issue of brew length or just more burner BTUs per
gallon of wort, I don't know."
These three points are certainly true. But there must be others. A couple
spring to mind:
1. Commercial fermenters are larger and deeper. The differential
temperature of the centre of the fermenter compared to the outside would
most likely be greater. Different temperatures produce different tastes
2. The pressure at the bottom of the deeper fermenter will be significantly
greater. Many microorganisms including yeast are sensitive to pressure.
This is one of the reasons why "traditional real ale" isn't always
successfully made in conical fermenters. Yeasts working in different
environments will produce different flavour compounds.
3. Commercial boilers use steam heating and those fountainy things I can't
remember the name of which will result in different degrees of
caramelisation and "overheating" of the wort compared to out direct heat or
electric immersion heaters etc..
4. The large volume of the mash tun results in pressure effects again
(affecting the enzymes) and, I guess, greater thermal inertia so that
fluctuations in temperature are reduced.
Some of these effects may be very minor and perhaps undetectable to the
average taster (a dubious argument often heard from producers of commercial
foodstuff- usually products that taste b. awful!) but there combined effect
may be noticeable. Remember some taste compounds can have an affect on
taste in concentrations below their taste threshold, assumably due to their
interaction with other compounds.
Of course in the case of the Hopback Brewery it might be because they make
very good beer indeed. and I'm not saying this because their first pub is
my local at work!
Michael Newman
MWNewman@compuserve.com
Beer isn't the most important thing in life--it's far more serious than
that.
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 97 18:48:00 MST
From: "Robert Waddell" <V024971@Tape.StorTek.Com>
Subject: altitude & carbonation?
Greetings fellow brewfolk,
I recently submitted a mead in the Bay Area Brewoff. All 3 of the judges
comments that I received stated that I had submitted a still mead in a
sparkling mead catagory. I ran out to the brew-haus and snapped a cap on one
and it tried to crawl out of the bottle. OK, I'm in Longmont, CO and about a
mile high. If the carbonation is fine here will it be deminished at sea
level? Did they open it and let it set for a while before tasting? Did they
get it too cold? I'm at a total loss as to what might have happened to it.
It scored a 27, a 28, and a 34, so I'm not too disappointed, but this
carbonation thing has left me slack and agape. Any ideas??
RJW
__
I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that
gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it
off the bed at night. Women...
--Pat Babcock
*** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! ***
******************************************************************************
V024971@TAPE.STORTEK.COM / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared (though not by my employer).
Owner & Brewmaster: Barchenspeider Brew-Haus
******************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:03:18 -0500
From: Jay Ward <jaywward@gate.net>
Subject: Semi- Rims
In my response to Tad Selyer I inadvertantly attributed an article on
electric bucket building to Dion Hollenbeck. Dion was kind enought to
set me straight. He has a terrific site on RIMS setups and an impending
book on the subject that promises to be well worth the reading.
http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/RIMS.html
The gentleman I should have steered Tad to is Ken Schwartz. The correct
URL is http://alpha.rollanet.org:80/library/ElectBrKS0396.html
Sorry for the mixup. Thanks for the great article Ken.
Now that I've wasted all this bandwith sucking up, back to our regularly
scheduled brew session...
- --
Jay W Ward
Husband, Father, Brewmaster
Check out the brewery http://www.gate.net/~jaywward
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:22:02 -0500
From: animnate@rocket.nwohio.com
Subject: First All-Grain Lessons
Homebrewers,
Hi! Been lurking and enjoying the HBD for 3 months. Nice sutff here.
I did my first all-grain last week, and it raised some questions.
What did I do right to get what I'll call an unstuck mash? I throttled
back on the valve to end up mashing/sparging over about an hour, but it
seemed as if I could've done it in about five minutes. No slow periods,
no restriction noted. Was this right? This is with a double bucket tun
I made out of two $3 K-mart wastebaskets and a sillcock, with about 700
1/8 inch holes in the bottom of the inner, and a bent piece of
plexiglass in the 1.25 inch space between to support the inner. Foil
bubblepack taped to the outside for insulation.
The first runnings were relatively clear, and after about a quart they
were really clear; this was with a half a gallon of foundation water.
Does that make sense? I kept about 1/2 inch of water above the grain
while sparging the whole time, and it went all to easy, I think. There
was about 2 cups of husks/finings in the bottom of the outer bucket.
OG for the brown ale was slightly above what the recipe said (1.054 vs
1.043), although I added an extra 1/2# of Crystal. I crushed the grain
in a homemade mill (thanks C. D. Pritchard for the help and info).
Must've worked well!
Also, instead of three days of mad fermentation then stillness, I had
one day of blowoff, followed by 5 days of steady bububbling, which is at
about 1 bub per 15 seconds now. Is it normal for the fermentation to be
different? I'm racking to secondary today even so, as the time factor
kinda bothers me. I've just got to know what the gravity is.
I'm not worried but does it always go this well? :-)
Anyway, I enjoy the info here. Thanks, all! E-mail welcome, but
replies may be delayed due to a new server coming.
Nate Wahl
AnimNate@rocket.nwohio.com
BTW, I've got to tell somebody that understands. My first contest was
three weeks ago at the first Toledo Winter Microbrew Fest, and I got a
blue ribbon on a 1.5 year old Gear Lube Stout (my third batch), and a
red for Too Many Suitcases, (heavy) Porter! Thanks to all that helped
on the bottling kegged beer question!
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 97 08:59:22 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Sake
Brewsters:
Thanks to Matsuo Hoshido for his comments on Sake. Eckhardt and Kondo have both
written books on this subject which are quite readable and cover different
aspects of this subject. According to what I read, home sake production in Japan
is where home brewing in the US was until the 1970's - illegal. Eckhardt's
belief is that if it were legal, Sake sales in Japan would be going up and not
down.
As a precautionary note, Koji Tane - the pure dried Aspergillis Oryzyae spores
can cause problems for people who have compromised immune systems, say, as a
result of illness or medication. Apparently the effects are related to the
problems caused by Aspergillis Niger, although I have nothing but my own
supposition for this latter comment. I suggest if you are preparing your own
koji from rice and spores, wear a face mask to cover your nose and mouth and
glasses to cover your eyes. Work in a place where the dried spores won't
concentrate. Wash the area and yourself after using it.
Kampai!
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:18:07 -0500
From: ajdel@mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Cold Break/Moffetta
Mike Spinelli asked whether cold break winds up in the fermenter when a
counterflow chiller is used. Yes, it does (or at least you hope it does
because you don't want it trapped in the chiller). Is this a problem? Not
usually. For an ale fermentation the cold trub just goes to the bottom of
the fermenter and sits there. The beer is not on it long enough to cause
trouble (pun?). In a lager fermentation a decoction mash has probably been
done and the quantities of trub are thus substantially reduced. The beer
can, of course, be gotten off the trub by racking. If a cylindroconical is
being used (and I see thay are now making some plastic ones) the chilled
wort can be allowed to settle and the valve at the bottom of the cone
opened briefly to let the trub out. If an open fermenter is being used,
aeration with a stone will raise a frothy head which will float finely
divided trub particles (i.e. the type associated with lagers) to the top
where they can be skimmed. Finally, bear in mind that the jury isn't in as
to whether cold trub should be removed. It contains sterols that the yeast
can use during growth phase.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Massimo Faraggi aked for some help in undertanding what "skunked" means. A
skunk is a North American mamal in the weasel family. There are three
genera (Mephitis, Spilogale, and Conepatus) all of which have vents under
the tail from which they emit an oily liquid when disturbed. This liquid is
rich in mercaptans and has a strong unpleasant odor. There is an Italian
word, moffetta, for skunk but I don't think there is any animal in Europe
which resembles the North American skunks .
When hopped beer which contains sulfur (i.e. lager) is struck by sunlight
(or any light in the appropriate wavelength range) photons cleave a sidearm
from the isohumulone molecule. This picks up a sulfur atom and becomes a
mercaptan so that the beer's odor resembles that of a skunk. I can't think
of a good way to describe the smell except to say that once you have
smelled it you will never forget it. The best way to experience it as
applied to beer is to take a bottle of Pilsner beer (Pilsner Urquell,
Moreti, Peroni....) and expose it to direct sunlight for about half an
hour. Now return it to the refrigerator and, when it is cold, pour some
into a glass next to a glassful from a bottle which has not been exposed to
sunlight. This is what we do when training beer judges. You will notice a
distinct odor in the beer which has been exposed to the sun. This is
isopentenyl mercaptan.
Certain plants in North America, called "skunk cabbages" produce the
mercaptan odor. These are usually found in swampy areas. I have no idea
whether similar plants are found in Europe.
Information on other smells and their causes are to be found in many
places. Diacetyl is a byproduct of valine synthesis and has a buttery
flavor and aroma. DMS comes from a sulfur bearing precursor found in malt
and is formed when wort is hot. It is volatile and so is carried away
during the boil. It has the odor of cooking vegetables and especially
resembles corn (maize).
A. J. deLange
- Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
Please Note New e-mail Address
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:10:57 -0500 (EST)
From: gu151@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lorne P. Franklin)
Subject: Pilsner Urquell Brewing Specs.
Al inquired about the mash temps. for Pilsner Urquell. While not
divulging that particular bit of information, an article by Phil Doersam
in v4/n3 (Feb/Mar 1997) of _Southern Draft Brew News_ does provide a lot
of good data on the production of PU.
. . . Brewmaster Pavel Prucha, head of quality control and
research [for Pilsner Urquell] . . . was eager to share the story and
recipe for the world's finest Pilsner with our readers.
Prior to 1988, the brewery bought most of its malt from outside
sources. Since then, all malt used at the brewery is malted on site--so
much so that they sell the surplus to other breweries. A triple-decoction
mashing process is utilized in one of the 16 200-hectoliter mashing
vessels to create the 12 degree Plato starting gravity.
The 16 200-hectoliter copper brew kettle utilizes Saaz hops--
60 percent flowers and 40 percent pellets--at the rate of 40 International
Bittering Units, in three additions: at the start of the two-hour boil,
20 minutes later, and finally 30 minutes before the end of the boil.
Three batches of wort are then transferred in one of two 600-
hectoliter whirlpools to help remove particles undesirable for fermentation.
Three batches of whirlpooled wort are then combined in an 1,800-
hectoliter primary fermenter. This stage of fermentation is conducted
at 9 degrees Celcius.
Two batches of beer are then transferred to a secondary fermenter,
where it stays for one month at .5 degree C. in a 3,300-hectoliter vessel.
The yeast used for fermentation is repitched a maximum of three times--
rather conservative for a large brewery. The final gravity is 3.8 degrees
Plato, which results in 4.4 percent alcohol by volume.
The finished beer is kegged or bottled and then pasteurized. The
bottles are put through a tunnel pasteurizer, and the kegs are put through
a flash pasteurizer.
A freshness date code appears on the front label of the bottles;
however, it uses the Czech alphabet, so it's useless to the average
American consumer.
When asked why the brewery does not switch to brown bottles from
the traditional green to help guard against the damaging effects of light,
Prucha's response was that the date he has read indicates a minimal dif-
ference in light protection between the two colors. He seemed sincere on
this point, which surprised me given his ovbious knowledge and experience
with brewing. . . .
- --
L o r n e F r a n k l i n
gu151@cleveland.freenet.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:59:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Plummer <plummer@brick.purchase.edu>
Subject: Pale Ale and its kin
Hi
I am planning to brew my third batch of beer tonight, and during the
planning of this fine brew (Opening Day American Ale, just in time for
baseball season!), I have come up with some questions/ponderings about the
various sub-styles of pale ale; ie English vs. American, Pale Ale vs.
Bitter.
Before I continue, let me say that I realize that style guidelines are
just that--guidelines--and not exact specifications to which one must
strictly adhere. That said, I must say that, in researching Pale Ales, I
have become fascinated with all the subtleties (sp?) and styles.
OK, on to the discussion. I'll begin with my calculations with my own
recipie since this is what prompted my inquiries. It is intended to be a
light-medium bodied ale, perfect for cracking open a few with a buddy over
a ballgame on a Sunday afternoon in spring. I calculate the OG to come in
around 1.042. I am using American malt extracts, and Perle and Cascade
hops. Color should come in around 9L, and IBUs in the low 20s.
As I realized that the OG would probably come in a little low for a "true"
Pale Ale, I started flipping through style guidelines to see if I was
unwittingly creating something else instead. That is what has led to my
posting.
Given the following (which are my interpretations of AHA guidelines and
Foster's 'Pale Ale' from the Classic Beer Style Series):
The significant (only?) difference between an English Pale Ale and an
American Pale Ale is the native area of the ingredients, in particular the
hops.
The difference between an English Pale Ale, and the varieties of English
Bitters is OG and carbonation levels--bitters being traditionally
cask-conditioned, not bottle-conditioned, and therefore lower in CO2.
So, my question is, if I have a low O.G., American-hopped pale ale, which
style is it most appropriately classified to be? American Pale Ale?
American Pale Ale LITE? If I cut back on the priming sugar a bit, could
it be called an American Special Bitter?
If the only real difference between English and American pale ales is
their hop characteristics, why aren't there styles of American bitters to
correspond with the English bitters? Is the MOST important distinction of
a bitter considered to be its rather un-American low carbonation, making
an American bitter too much of a contradiction?
OK, those are my questions. Like I said, I'm not insane about classifying
my beer--I'm content with American Ale--I'm just a new brewer who has
stumbled upon a lot of info and history about a style of beer which I knew
absolutely nothing about 2 months ago, and I'm trying to gain
understanding from experieced brewers, wiser in the ways of beer than I.
(And I've drank about a pot of coffee on this sunny Sunday morning!!!!!)
E-mail responses are probably appropriate.
TIA,
Tim Plummer
plummer@brick.purchase.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:48:33 -0800
From: REX CLINGAN <KDASH1@idt.net>
Subject: blonde recipe
David Lubar enquires about Leffe Blonde. I don't have a recipe, but have
seen another blonde, from dutch micro christoffel, in the 2 L, brown
glass widemouth swingtop with metal handle. there is also a label on p
143 of mj's the new world guide to beer for luxembourg's beicher's
meisterbock blonde. blonde may generally refer to a pale bock beer
style. is leffe blonde strong/sweet/malty like a bock?
perhaps you might find some information on mj's home page, found recently
by netsearchin on beerhunter (sorry lost all of my bookmarks last week).
cheers
rex clingan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:45:04 +0000
From: "John R. Bowen" <jbowen@primary.net>
Subject: Re: Lots O' Trub (#2353 )
I haven't yet seen a reply to Scot Goeke's question about accidental
excessive shaking increasing trub. As a related observation, I still
think I see a lot more trub (and maybe new trub) when I siphon onto my
primary through an aeration wand. I know that shear forces are
created as the air mixes with wort passing across the small holes in
the wand, and I wonder if this is denaturing or precipitating
something. Scott's excess shaking might do the same thing.
Do those of you who aerate with airstones with small holes see more
trub, or new trub formation if your wort was already fairly clear? Do
we have another trub formation/removal variable here?
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:18:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Chris North <chrisn@infohwy.com>
Subject: Bleach & SS
Saul Laufer <laufers@vaniercollege.qc.ca> Writes in HBD#2356:
<snip>
>Also, there was some talk recently about bleach and its effect on SS. I
>have been kegging for quite some time and have used bleach to sanitize
>the kegs with no apparent damage. The insides are mirrorlike and there
>is no evidence of pitting (I own 3 coke soda kegs). I have looked for
>iodophor with little success. Perhaps it's not yet available in Canada.
<unsnip>
IMHO, comments like these can be dangerous for (particularly) new
homebrewers. No criticism intended towards Saul as he is only questioning
a conflict between what he has experienced and what he has been told. This
is essential for understanding and is part of the learning process. The
danger comes is when a homebrewer spends $150 (or more) on a kegging system
and after a few batches, his keg is rusted, pitted, or even cracked. All
because he thought bleach would not hurt his stainless. This could make
one want to drown his sorrows in a bottle (or can) of bud!
Truth is, bleach (or chlorides, or hypochlorites, or free chlorine) is
harmful to many stainless steels (type 304 included). The degree of damage
depends (in part) on concentration, temperature, and exposure time. I am
not suprised that people have sucessfully used bleach to sanatize their
stainless containers. I also know that the concentrations used to sanitize
(say 200 ppm) will cause corrosion problems with stainless. I can't speak
for others, but my typical attitude for using bleach to sanitize my (glass)
carboys is "better too much than too little". Using the minimal effective
concentration will reduce the damage done to the stainless. Of course,
limiting contact times and *thourough* rinsing are also important.
It seems to me there is a lot of similarity between the reactions posted on
the HBD to the botulism thread and those on the bleach and SS thread. They
typically run "Yeah, I know what the experts say, but I've done it like
this for years and never had any trouble". With botulism, it only takes
one bad jar to wipe out all the time saved by not boiling your starter
before use (or cost you a whole lot more than a pressure canner). With
bleach and stainless, I make the same argument (although a ruined keg won't
kill you). My favorite piece of brewing equipment is my (one of four)
corny keg(s) and I don't want to do anything intentionally that will harm
it. While iodophor costs a whole lot more than bleach, at $7 per pint it
costs less than $.05/gallon diluted 1/2 tsp per gal. I usually use 1 gal
and the "roll around" method to sanitize my kegs. I'm really not
interested in saving a nikcel if it jeopardizes my keg.
As far as where to find iodophor, check with mail order homebrew suppliers.
A more expensive solution would be to go to your drug store. Ask your
pharmacist for some betadine (sp?) (an iodine based disinfectant). I'm not
sure if it is exactally the same thing as iodophor, but my doctor has told
me they can be used interchangeably. I don't really know as I've allways
used iodophor.
chris north
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2358, 02/25/97
*************************************
-------
