Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2449
HOMEBREW Digest #2449 Thu 26 June 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Stick it in your ear (Jason Henning)
effect of CO2 on yeast ("Andy Walsh")
fill & carbonation (again) ... (Steve Alexander)
Malts and Re: Decoction Theories Put To Test (Steve Alexander)
I'm Baaaaack (Steve Alexander)
Re: Kegging at WARM tempetures... ("David Augsburger")
CO2 Pressure in bottle (Charlie Scandrett)
LUNAR RENDEZBREW IV (michael wiley)
Bells Amber Ale/Motorized Mills/ (eric fouch)
Leak detection / Igloo mashtun spigots ("Dave Draper")
Biermeisters' New Web Page!!! ("Decker, Robin E.")
SUDS Databases / Galley Pump Beer Engines (KennyEddy)
Strawberries ("Robert L. & Arletta J. Seiple")
RE: MM motor ("Bridges, Scott")
La Fin d'Fin ("David R. Burley")
Miller and botulism (Jeremy Bergsman)
hop balance ("John Penn")
RE: Beer engine with corny keg (Luke.L.Morris)
bottle baking (smurman)
A simple approach to decoction mashing ("Hubert Hanghofer")
Water analysis (John Wilkinson)
Ale yeast for Beck's clone (Randy Ricchi)
Brewing software (Dennis & Jennifer Britten)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
hbd.org /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
E-mail...
ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with
the word help for instructions.)
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:18:48 -0700
From: Jason Henning <huskers@cco.net>
Subject: Stick it in your ear
Hello friends,
I've seen a couple of post to Hardpipes (what kind of a handle is
Hardpipes?!) about using soappy water to detect co2 leaks around the
regulator. Well if your not excited about soapping your co2 rig down,
don't. Use about a foot of 3/8" tubing as a stethoscope. Stick it in
your ear and listen around the connections. Be sure to go all the way
around, a very small leak has a very small 'voice'. Works great.
Cheers,
Jason Henning (huskers@cco.net)
Big Red Alchemy and Brewing
Olympia, Washington - "It's the water"
"You should've tasted the one that got away" - Fish Tale Ales
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:33:20 +1000
From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh@crl.com.au>
Subject: effect of CO2 on yeast
from Dave,
>I would like to hear more facts from that article in BT or Zymurgy. Anyone
care to comment
on examples of fermentation under CO2 pressure?
OK. I'll bite. Except I'll reference
(1) GJ. Arcay-Ledezma and JC Slaughter.
"The response of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae to fermentation under carbon
dioxide pressure"
Journal of the Institute of Brewing. V90. pp81-84. 1984.
(2) RS. Renger et al.
The formation of esters and higher alcohols during brewery fermentation;
the effect of carbon dioxide pressure". JIB. V98. pp509-513. 1992.
At pressures up to 0.2 ATM, CO2 stimulates yeast growth, generally thought
to be because of its use as a substrate in carboxylation reactions.
0.3 - 0.5 ATM, CO2 acts as an inhibitor, especially in the tricarboxylic
cycle (part of respiration), not that this is generally relevant in real
wort fermentations.
Alcohol production is unaffected up to 4 ATM.
2.5 - 3.0 ATM CO2 is said to prevent cell division completely.
Brewery fermentations depend upon a certain amount of cell growth so are
unlikely to function above 2 ATM, depending upon the exact temperature.
Within the zone 0-2ATM there is little effect of CO2 on fermentation rate
*per cell*, although at the upper end a reduction in growth rate occurs,
leading to an extension in the time required to reach a given level of
attenuation.
"The influence of the size and geometry of brewery fermentation vessels on
beer flavour and aroma is generally attributed to carbon dioxide pressure."
(2)
Fermentations with CO2 pressure maintained at 2 ATM show prolonged
fermentation times, with reduced final ester and higher alcohols. Reduced
yeast biomass is another feature, as is higher final pH. VDKs and
precursors are in general reduced with lager yeast and increased with ale
yeast (variable results). Commercially, it is common to ferment at higher
temperatures to accelerate fermentation, and with applied CO2 pressure, to
reduce fermentation byproducts.
Application of 2ATM CO2 at 16C decreases the fermentation rate by
approximately 40%. Under the same conditions, daily agitation increases
fermentation rate by 10%. "The total yeast crop was unaffected by the
resuspension treatment so it seems that the faster fermentation under this
condition must be due to improved mixing of yeast and fermentation
medium".(1).
Under static conditions, the CO2 pressure in a homebrewery fermenter is 1
ATM. This is significantly less than the 2 ATM said to retard yeast growth.
There *must* be a higher CO2 pressure than 1 ATM during the fermentation to
cause bubble formation - the more nucleation sites there are, the lower
this difference will be. In commercial situations (big), the fermenter
height will be a significant factor in contribution to CO2 pressure (as
already posted).
My money goes on more CO2 bubbles causing better mixing, rather than CO2
"toxicity" as such, at least on homebrew scales.
Andy.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:24:55 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: fill & carbonation (again) ...
re fill level vs carbonation ...
David Burleys analysis a few weeks back makes a lot of sense - and I
suspect that some residual priming sugar in the overfilled bottles is
not fermented (at least not as quickly) as in underfilled bottles. Just
a guess right now tho'.
Aaron Kelleys' comments were quickly, and correctly ripped to shreds
here. But in case it was missed - the notion that water freely migrates
across yeast cell walls is nonsense. The tough part about being a
single celled creature is keeping the high concentrations of 'good'
soluables in, and the water out. A classic experiment is to drop a bit
of lysozyme enzyme to a cell slide and watch the cells absorb water and
burst as the enzymes breaks down the polysaccharides in the cell wall.
Did I mention that biologists are cruel people ?
AlK asks about the CO2 production in the aerobic vs anaerobic metabolism
of glucose .... Jeff's math is indeed correct. In anaerobic (normal)
fermentation you get 2 mols of CO2 per mol of glucose. In aerobic
fermentation you get 6 mols of CO2 per mol of glucose, *but* you use 6
mols of O2 to accomplish this and so end up with the same amount of
gas. In any case even a 2/3rds bottle fill with air vs an inert gas
will not add enough oxygen to make more than about a 6% difference in
the amount of CO2 produced. The included oxygen, if used for yeast
respiration, is not the answer to this puzzle.
Yeast do react to hydrostatic pressure, tho a good lit search would be
necessary to find the critical data -(I'm still studying phenols at the
moment).
I don't understand Dave Whitmans comment on yeast suspension as a
colloid nor the concept of the "zeta potential". Can you explain Dave ?
Dave Burley wrote ...
>I can explain all of the observations, so far,
>simply by postulating premature flocculation of the yeast - which is a
>well-recognized phenomenon among ale yeasts, especially.
Flocculation doesn't necessarily mean the fermentation ceases. Also my
underfill=overcarbonation experiment was performed with lager yeast,
Wy2308 I believe. In any case you'll need to explain the reason for the
(seemingly consistant) differential flocculation with respect to bottle
fill level to make this one fly - tho' there are a lot of good potential
reasons to choose from IMO. Oxygen might allow for some cell membrane
growth (sterol+ergosterol production) which could prevent flocculation.
The hydrostatic pressure increase might impact cell membrane properties,
that in turn might effect flocculation. Simple sugars (like a priming
addition) are known to disperse flocs, but perhaps oxygen is needed.
Many possibilities.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:02:10 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Malts and Re: Decoction Theories Put To Test
Rob Kienle writes about his recent decoctions and uses a 122F=50C rest
temperature for break and haze reduction in his altbeir. I find that a
40C/58C/70C schedule with Durst malts produce beers of great clarity -
no haze - YMMV.
The "1997 Brewers' Market Guide" from the publishers of Brewing
Techniques is out. The section on malt technical specifications however
shows that no specs or very vague ranges are given for many parameters
in this table. I realize that there is no point in listing diastatic
power of crystal malt, but wouldn't you think that every pils and pale
(ale) malt would list diastatic power ? Wouldn't you think that
screening(size assortment) information would also be available for most
pale/pils malts ? SNR ?
I don't know whether to blame BT/New Wine Press or the maltsters for the
omissions, but this table would be much more useful if there were more
comparable numbers for the various malts.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:55:00 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: I'm Baaaaack
No it not Nokomaree - just me.
Sorry for the non-brewing note but briefly, please use the email address
above for correspondence. My employers' IT department has apparently
been taken over by the borg - thus no personal email traffic is
permitted via my previous address.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 07:31:00 -0400
From: "David Augsburger" <daugsbur@monroe.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Kegging at WARM tempetures...
>I have been trying to get into kegging, and been having problem with
>FOAMing in a big way. I have been told that i need to keep the kegs
>cool, but i cannot afford (space and money) to get a beer fridge, plus i
>wanna take them camping and stuff with me (medieval style, i do SCA) so
>thats not really an option either..
>what tricks have the experienced keggers used to to Carbonate at warmer
>tempetures? Any advice you all can give is great....
>Plus anyone build a portable bar out of wood with a draft system? i
>would like to build a case for 3 kegs that has an extended (upwards)
>back peice that has 3 taps in it. build it with wheels (like a
>handtruck) and make it look like a free standing cabinet (hide the
>hoses)... i would love to hear how other people have done portable
>draft systems...
I have been keging about 40-50 % of my beer for about a year or so now. I
keep my kegs warm for the same reasons you do, cash flow.
Have you ever heard of a jocky-box? They work pretty good. This is what I
use to cool my kegged beer. I have not had a problem with excessive
foaming, but you can adjust keg pressure for both tapping and dissolving to
stop foaming.
First I dissolve CO2 at about 25 lbs., Adjust this to your desired
carbonation level.
I have a beer line going into a cooler which attaches to 30 feet of copper
coil, Stainless would be better. I mounted a Tap Spicket on the cooler.
Then I fill the cooler with ice and water. There you have it cooled beer
from a warm keg.
A couple of things to keep in mind.
1) The tap hose and copper coil must be the same Inside diameter,
or get smaller as you progress to the spicket. If you get larger you
create a beer engine, i.e. major foam. Also make sure the way you attach
the coil to the hose does not change diameter for even the shortest
distance.
2) With 30 feet of coil you will have to keep about 25-30 lbs of
presure to get a good flow. This is no big deal because you need this
much pressure to get enough dissolved CO2 at room temp.
Hope I was able to help, with all these ramblings.
David Augsburger
daugsbur@monroe.lib.mi.us
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:21:37 +1000
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino@squirrel.com.au>
Subject: CO2 Pressure in bottle
Kelly Jones wrote
>we see that the equilibrium pressure for beer (with 2.5 volumes of CO2)
>at 32F is 8.2 psi, whereas the eq. pressure at 80F is 34.8 psi. The
>pressure increases fourfold, for only a 50F rise in temperature - much
>greater than what is predicted by incorrectly applying Boyle's Law.
And he is right, I did my calculations at 1 volume of CO2 in which case the
increased solubility of CO2 at higher pressures exactly matches the decrease
in solubility at higher temperatures that produce the higher presssure. In
this case Boyle's is a very good approximation. I failed to think it through
to other cases. Apologies to Spencer Thomas whom I refuted on this point
offline.
I still don't think pasteurization is an explosion problem as pressure
vessel regulations require a large margin of safety and this is common
practice commercially, and bottles are made for "them", not "us".
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 07:27:29 -0500
From: michael wiley <mwiley@flash.net>
Subject: LUNAR RENDEZBREW IV
ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After numerous requests, here's some FAQ's answered:
1. Yes, we're AHA & BJCP certified
2. The address really works. I screwed up the placement. It's
http://www.ghgcorp.com/rlivingston
3. Yes, we accept 7 oz. bottles for mead & barleywine entries
4. Ticket prices for the festivities: $12.50 prior to the 20th, $15.00 the
day of the event...Beer entry prices are $6.00 per entry....
5. Yes, we'll accept "grolsch" type bottles...
I hope this clarifies some issues. Again, any other questions can be
answered at mwiley@flash.net.
Pull down your entry forms, laelling info, and rules at:
http://www.ghgcorp.com/rlivingston
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:42:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: eric fouch <S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021.efouch%Steelcase-Inc@mcimail.com>
Subject: Bells Amber Ale/Motorized Mills/
Date: Wednesday, 25 June 1997 8:36am ET
To: STC012.HOMEBRE3@STC010.SNADS
From: Eric.Fouch@STC001
Subject: Bells Amber Ale/Motorized Mills/Fill Levels
In-Reply-To: The letter of Wednesday, 25 June 1997 1:51am ET
HBD-
A newly converted neighbor (to home brewing) has entered the fold. As his
shepherd/guide/beer myth debunker, my first task is to procure for him a Bells
Amber Ale clone extract recipe. Anybody got one? I do know a guy who was the
college roommate of the present assistant brewer at Kalamazoo Brewing CO.
I guess this guy wandered into the brewery carrying a case of his own
home-brew, and when questioned by a secretary said "Uh..delivery for Mr.
Bell.." The secretary let him into Bells office, he dropped off his beer with
a resume, and was hired the next week. Cool, huh?
Concerning the motorize your own malt mill thread, I bought an Italian grain
mill intended for gelatinizing wheat grains and whatnot (the users manual
contends that the heat generated by rolling the grains gelatinizes the grain
on the fly). It has three rollers (about four inches across) two above the
one, and is somewhat adjustable. I set it in-between markings for a first pass
then set in at one of it's fixed settings for a second pass, and it takes
about an hour to grind 12 pounds of grain to a good crush. I motorized it with
a 12 volt motor through a step down gear box that turns the mill about as fast
as you could turn it (unloaded) by hand. I don't know other particulars about
the motor, as an electrical engineer buddy whom I also converted to
home brewing "procured" the motor for me at no charge (to me). The mill, a
"Marga" I believe, cost $50 at a local HB shop. If the third roller was
independently adjustable (working on it) it could be a three roller single
pass malt mill.
Keith Roysters' experiment for fill level vs. carbonation sounds like trying.
I'll try it on the barley wine I have in the secondary right now. I'll let you
know in a few years.
As an aside, a month after transferring the barley wine to the secondary (on
top of Champagne yeast) I siphoned off one gallon onto 12 ounces of
raspberries to test a previous theory submitted here (don't remember who)
regarding fruits working better in thicker, darker brews. Once again, let you
know in a few years.
Thanks for pretending to listen.
Eric Fouch
efouch@steelcase.com
Bent Dick YactoBrewery
Kentwood MI
The opinions expressed here could very well be those held by Steelcase Inc.
I've just never bothered to check.
PS- Any Primetime Brewers frequent this electronic rag?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:39:39 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Leak detection / Igloo mashtun spigots
Dear Friends,
John Schnupp wrote about using soap solutions for leak detection, and
mentioned both a product called Snoop and child's soap bubbles. For
what it's worth, I've used both in my labwork over the years (we
often run various mixes of hydrogen, argon, CO2, O2, and CO in our
experiments) and ordinary soap bubbles from the toy aisle at your
favorite grocery work just as well as Snoop. Cheaper too, and a lot
easier to get, I'd imagine? Anyway, just confirming John's surmise
that they work great.
Dave Thomson asked about replacing the push-valve in his Igloo.
When I got going again here after my recent relocation, I had an
Igloo to work with as well. Mine just has a drain hole at one end,
not a valve. It turns out that the ID of that hole is a perfect
friction-fit with the OD of the tubing I have on hand, so what I did
was just slide the tubing through the hole (had to work at it for
about 10 min-- *very* snug fit), attach the end inside the cooler to
my copper manifold (another good press-fit), and put a plastic
hose-clip on the outside end to regulate the outflow. Bingo,
instant mash/lauter tun. So, it may be that you need not have to
replace the valve with anything else at all.
Cheers,
Dave in Dallas
- ---
*****************************************************************************
Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083
ddraper@utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper
Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
Pitching your yeast at 70F instead of 90F *does* (in my experience)
improve the taste of your beer. ---John de Carlo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 9:47:00 -0500
From: "Decker, Robin E." <robind@rmtgvl.rmtinc.com>
Subject: Biermeisters' New Web Page!!!
Greetings!
You are all cordially invited to visit our brand new web page at
www.biermeisters.com. Please keep in mind that we are still under
construction, and a little rough around the edges (heck, the pics aren't
even there yet), but we are very excited about our new venture. Please stop
by and let us know what you think... and pass it on to your friends and
neighbors! ;>
Regards,
Goldings
South Carolina
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:14:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: SUDS Databases / Galley Pump Beer Engines
Badger asks about expanded SUDS databases fro malts & hops:
"Has anyone expanded the malt and extracts databases? could i get pointers
to a link to download or simply send me theirs?"
Check out my web page (URL in sig line below). I added all the malts from
the Zymurgy Great Grain Issue (1995) and all the hops data I could find from
a number of sources. Simply download and replace your SIDSHOP.DBF and
SUDSMALT.DBF files. **WARNING**: The way SUDS deals with the database, if
an existing recipe calls for something that isn't in the database anymore
(whihc will happen after replacing the old databases), the recipe will end up
with screwy numbers for color & gravity. You will have to convert all of
your old recipes' malt & hops bills if you use the new database. Another
option would be to manually edit the new database to include all of the old
offerings. This will result in some duplication of items, with slightly
different names, but will make the databases backward compatible with your
old recipes.
If you don't care tovisit my web page, the direct ftp address is:
ftp://members.aol.com/kennyeddy/files/sudsmh.zip
Mike Spinelli brings up galley-pump beer engines:
"My local HB store, informs me that galley pumps used in motorboats are
perfect
to adapt as a beer engine. I guess they have the same design of pulling
liquid
up from below. I would guess it would be a cheaper alternative than the
commercial beer engines.""
Check the May 1997 Brew Your Own magazine for the poop on this idea.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, Texas
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:24:00 -0500
From: "Robert L. & Arletta J. Seiple" <seiplesr@ziplink.net>
Subject: Strawberries
Beers to All,
Being new to homebrewing (two years) and especially new to the Digest
(third issue) my question may have gone before and I was just not around
for it. If so, please forgive . . . if, not please help . . .
even so, please help, any road!
I am considering a batch of brew with strawberries (my all-time favorite
fruit). I have read recipes with just about every other kind of fruit
(and nut) but, alias, no strawberries.
Do I just brew a batch as usual and add the berries? . . . or, is there
something special I need to do? . . . or, should I just forget the whole
thing and buy a (ugh) Bud? I am thinking along the lines of a wheat
beer, or maybe a honey wheat beer . . . or is there something else that
may go better with strawberries?
Any input would be greatly appreciated. Private replies are welcome
(will save me the humiliation of being publicly flogged for repeating
questions). Thanks in advance.
R.DW.HAHB.
Bob Seiple
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 10:05:00 EDT
From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess@mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Subject: RE: MM motor
Martin writes:
>I'd say not. The MM seems to have a pretty high starting torque, and If I
>remember correctly, JS once said he tried a 60 in-lb gearmotor without
>success in a standing start, loaded condition. I have a 30 in-lb 150 RPM
>motor driving a Glatt mill, which works fine, at about 1 lb of grain per
>minute. The Glatt's rollers, however, are only about 4 in long compared to
>the MM's 10" (effective length being somewhat less). You may be able to
>reduce the speed using pulleys, thus multiplying the torque, but at a loss
>of through-put. Look for a bigger motor.
>
>Martin Manning
Martin,
I have a used GE gear motor to drive my MaltMill. It has 30 in lb torque,
and turns at 154 RPM. It does just fine with the MaltMill. I've been using
it for a good while with no problems at all. You could get a beefier motor,
but I don't think you need it. Not sure why JS did not have success with a
motor with 2X the torque of mine.
Scott
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:55:02 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: La Fin d'Fin
Brewsters:
Spencer Thomas, Denis Barsalo, Gino - brewmaster at Unibroue - via Denis
and AlK all corrected me on the type of beer that is La Fin Du Monde of
Unibroue in Montreal.
I called it a Gueuze because of the Lactic /Sauerkraut aroma that was
obvious in the bottle I tasted. I assumed it was a Gueuze style imitator=
with lots of young beer blended in. Remember, however, it had been give=
n
the road test - along with my Explorer - over an hour's worth at 45 mph o=
n
BuMpY Northwoods Canadian dirt logging roads, so it was cloudy despite tw=
o
days in the fridge and it had endured a ( how long?) stay in a Provigo
Supermarket. I recall some of the beer bottles were dusty.
All declare that it is a strong Belgian ale type ( like a double or tripp=
le
according to Gino). Its quality of manufacture was obvious, even if a
little infected, as I really enjoyed it. I'll have to get a fresher bott=
le
next time.
Thanks to all who corrected me.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:04:04 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Miller and botulism
Steve Claussen posts David Miller's comment on the botulism thread:
Well, I was willing to give Miller a break for the little slip on
that odd concept he has of bottle conditioning, but I feel he has
made a number of potentially dangerous errors in his comments here:
> Botulism, however, is
> a Gram-positive organism, and most Gram-positive bacteria are inhibited by
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> hop resins. So if you have been putting hops in your wort, there is probably
> little cause for concern.
What if botulinum is not included in "most?" And inhibited doesn't mean
absolutely prevented from growing/producing toxin.
> "I would also point out that if bugs start to grow in wort or any other
> growth medium they show signs of their activity -- clouding of the wort,
> bubbles on the surface, and strange odors, for example.
> [snip] in jars of clear wort, the signs [of botulinum activity]
> should be much easier to read.
If the botulinum growth is slow and hasn't progressed very far (maybe
due to inhibition by hops?) one wouldn't expect any of these to be
noticed. Anyway, not everything clouds the growth medium, causes
bubbles, or strange odors.
It doesn't take much botulinum growth to cause a problem. I have here a
reference for producing one of the botulinum toxins (C1--the one I use).
The reference is FEMS Microbiology Letters 30:47. They produce at least
25mg of purified toxin from a 600mL culture. That's the size of a starter.
And don't forget that there must have been losses during purification.
25mg is on the order of 100,000-1,000,000 lethal doses of toxin. In other
words, if they have grown only 0.01-0.1% of what these authors get in your
starter, you are dead (assuming dilution in the beer of 1/100 or less).
This also ignores the risk that growth might continue in the beer.
[Description of Tyndallization deleted.]
> you might
> want to Tyndallize any jars of canned wort (steps two and three; you did step
> one when you canned them) that you have on hand
I think he misses the point of Tyndallization as well. The steps must be
carried out according to the timing he first presents since you don't want
to allow any re-sporulation to occur (although I am not sure if that would
happen in anaerobic wort or not).
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jun 1997 13:45:30 -0400
From: "John Penn" <john_penn@spacemail.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: hop balance
Subject: Time:12:24 PM
OFFICE MEMO hop balance Date:6/25/97
First some answers and then a question.
>About that iron in your well water--You might look into one of those Brita
Filters, or something equivalent, and use that for your brewing water. There
was a post about those in a previous digest and I've tasted the water from a
Brita and think they are pretty good.
>Peat Taste--I used a 1/2# of peated malt in a scottish ale and it was much
different than a previous scottish ale (Alex's Scottish Ale from the Cats
Meow) which used Wyeast 1728 Scottish Ale yeast. If you want a peaty or smoky
flavor in your scottish ale use the peated malt. Alex's scottish ale was
quite good using 1728 but I wouldn't call it peaty/smoky if thats the flavor
you want.
>Update--My stout which I had posted some questions about previously seems to
be doing well after a month. I had aerated it when I transfered it to the
secondary in an attempt to wake up the yeast and get away from the seemingly
stuck 1.040 SG. It ended up at 1.035 from a starting 1.085 and is thick and
would have been sweet except for the 60 IBUs of hops which about balances it.
So I guess I didn't ruin it but next time I will rely on pitching plenty of
yeast to start and if I get a high FG I'll just leave it alone.
Now for the question--Hop Balance? Somewhere I saw a reference which gave a
ballpark figure for "hop balance". It was a linear scale which made me wonder
because I thought bitterness was a non-linear function. This one gave about 8
IBUs / 1.010 of starting gravity. Why isn't final gravity factored in. This
would give 36IBUs for a 1.040 OG beer but if that 1.040 OG beer attenuated 75%
in one case and 50% in another case, I would think that the 1.010 FG beer
would taste more bitter. It would seem to me that a ballpark hop balance
figure would be non-linear, would take into account Final Gravity as well as
Initial gravity. Any ideas or leads on a ballpark "hop balance" equation or
table. Thanks,
John Penn
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 03:37:02 +0800
From: Luke.L.Morris@woodside.com.au
Subject: RE: Beer engine with corny keg
Reference HBD 25 June 1`997:
***
Roy writes:
>I'm interested in possibly obtaining and using a beer engine with a
>"corny" keg instead of a CO2 bottle. I know that many of the pubs draw
>their ales...with these 'pumps' in the UK. <snip>
***
Al writes:
Ideally, you should finish the keg quickly. A way to cheat, that no
respectable CAMRA member would ever do (;^), is to:
1. vent the keg and leave the vent open,
2. connect the handpump,
3. serve the beer,
4. disconnect the hanpump,
5. purge the headspace with CO2,
6. close the vent, and
7. store the beer at 55F till the next drinking session.
Beer will keep quite long this way, but is time-consuming, non-traditional,
and wastes a lot of CO2. <snip>
***
I wonder:
For a small capital investment and an hour or so of playing "plumber";
it should be possible to fit a secondary (low-pressure) regulator to
your CO2 delivery line so that it delivers CO2 direct to your "corny
keg" at atmospheric pressure (or only slightly higher than
atmospheric). Not enough pressure to force beer through your beer
engine or force-carbonate your beer, but enough that you can draw off a
beer and have the "airspace" filled immediately with CO2 rather than
air (I guess that makes it CO2space).
LPG regulators are cheap from camping suppliers and deliver LPG at low
pressure (I forget how much exactly - in the order of a couple of psi).
Try plumbing one of these into the CO2 line AFTER the main regulator
(these LPG regulators are generally rated to 250 psi). The better regs
have a cap on top which can be removed to expose an adjustment screw.
By unscrewing this slightly you can reduce the delivery pressure.
**How to adjust the delivery pressure**
Connect the inlet of your LPG reg to the outlet of your high-pressure
CO2 reg, leaving the outlet of the LPG reg open to the air. Turn your
CO2 bottle on and CO2 will come out the LPG reg outlet. Unscrew the
adjustment screw slowly until it **only just** stops delivering CO2 to
atmosphere. Now connect the outlet of the LPG reg to the "corny keg"
via the appropriate delivery tube etc.
As soon as there is vacuum in the "corny keg", generated by your
pouring off a creamy pint, CO2 will be delivered to replenish pressure.
**Warning**
If you adjust one of these regulators, it should not then be used for
LPG until it has been profesionally re-adjusted to deliver the correct
working pressure.
**Another warning***
This is not a traditional technique. Nor is it endorsed by CAMRA, I
suspect. It should however save you time and CO2 once you have set it
up, and seems to be a fair compromise for home use.
**Disclaimer**
I have not done this yet, so I can't step forward and guarantee the
technique. Actually, I haven't even started kegging yet. I'm still
saving my pennies to buy a kegging set-up. But I plan to try this
myself someday.
Can anyone pick holes in this plan ??
Luke Morris
Brewing in Perth, Western Australia.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:36:41 -0700
From: smurman@best.com
Subject: bottle baking
Those of you who have been on the HBD for a while may remember the
discussion of bottle baking we had last year. The idea is to slowly
heat and cool the bottles in an oven at about 250F or so in order to
sanitize them before bottling. I've been doing this since last
summer, and I've bottled over a dozen batches this way. It is very
simple and convenient to do, and I'm not going to do it any longer.
The repeated heating and cooling fatigues the bottles too much in my
opinion. The thicker bottles bear up better, but I'm even starting to
see fatigue damage in these. This is leading to fractures while
baking, and also fatigue fractures when the bottles become carbonated
to high levels such as with wheat beer or Belgian ales (my favorites
natch.). I know some of you will chime in and say you've been doing
it that way since 1906 and never had a problem, but I'm just reporting
what I've experienced. I don't feel the risk of giving my friend or
relative a bottle that may later crack or worse is worth the
convenience, and I'm tired of worrying about it. This is especially
the case since I don't think it's even a necessary step, because of
the pH and alcohol level of finished beer.
YMMV,
SM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:33:30 +0200
From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hhanghof@ping.at>
Subject: A simple approach to decoction mashing
Reviewing recent posts on decoction, we feel that some authors and
homebrewers have discovered and developed advanced philosophies on
decoction. -That's fine, one more fact that shows the infinite world
of brewing. ON THE OTHER HAND HOWEVER, ONE MUST KEEP AN EYE ON
TRADITIONAL ROOTS, OTHERWISE THINGS GET VERRY INVOLVED AND PREVENT
HOMEBREWERS FROM USING DECOCTION TECHNIQUES.
In particular, people seem to worry about:
1) Low control over extended protein rests (head retention problems)
2) Force of starch conversion during decoction, leading to long
schedules.
3) Fear of transition from 65C to 75C with a decoction that contains
unconverted starch.
- --- ad 1) ---
No matter if using double or single decoction, our PR temp. is tuned
to the degree of malt modification:
low (sometime back in the past) 50C
medium (now and then) 54C
high (as usual now -even here in central Europe) 57C
If using high modified malts and a double decoction schedule (triple
makes not much sense for such malts), try PR at 55-57C *AND
immediately* -without delay- take the first decoction. But although
commercial brewers do it, I don't feel it makes much sense to
step from 57C to 62-65C, using a decoction. -Having no possibility to
independently heat the mashtun, I get more control over the proteins,
if I mash in thick and step up with hot water into the 60-65C range.
Later, taking a decoction to go from 62-65C to 75C, I could increase
boil time to some extent to get almost the same flavor profile as
with double decoction.
- --- ad 2) ---
Just bring the decoction to a boil at a rate of 1C/min instead of
wasting time by resting and testing with jodine. You needn't force
starch conversion in a decoction (expect some comments here)!
Decoction will physically aid yield and starch conversion in an
indirect way -by bringing starch into solution, so the enzymes in the
remaining base mash can easily break it down.
Decoction varieties without conversion rests are well documented
in both old and new literature. It should be noted however, that
rests at 70C are not touched by the base mash either and the value of
such a rest is far beyond converting starch only. But our quality
control (competition results) shows, that this may not be necessary
for every beerstyle.
- --- ad 3) ---
Keeping ---2)--- in mind, going to 75C with a normal-mash decoction
(homogeneous, neither thin nor thick) will cause unconverted starch
to be added to converted mash. But you needn't worry, due to
a-Amylases there is much of enzymatic activity left at 75C. Although
Amylases are degraded at their optimum working temperatures (70-75C
for the alphas), enzymes are working fast in the range of 75C and
complete kill of a-Amylase occurs at 80C. Problems may arise, if
mashing in too high and the rate of enzyme degradation exceeds the
rate of releasing them.
REFERENCES:
All German brewing scientists from Philipp Heiss in 1855, Emil
Leyser in 1900 to Dr. Narziss in 1995 have described and documented
single and double decoction schedules involving normal or even
thick-mash decoctions to go to 75C. Even the thin 3rd mash
used in triple decoction is usually not free of grain (e.g. water /
malt mass ratio = 5 / 1).
ADVANTAGES:
All we need is classical, traditional brewer's equipment:
1) A simple kettle without stirring engine, even direct heating with
low control (e.g. wooden fire) could be used.
2) A well designed, insulated mash- / lautertun that can be built in
many ways.
3) If you thrust physics and have some routine, the whole method
consists of resting and heating. -Much time to read the HBD.
Sometimes my wife doesn't even recognize that I'm brewing.
4) It's an IDEAL METHOD FOR BEGINNERS.
JAWOHL!
EXAMPLE:
WHEAT
GRAIN BILL:
4.0 kg Wheatmalt / Plohberger -Grieskirchen
3.6 kg 2 row Lager / Liesing -Vienna
0.4 kg dark Caramalt / Stadlau -Vienna
MASHING:
kettle full with 27L water, added 5.4 grams CaCl2x2H2O
thus remaining alkalinity adjusted to 8 dH = 142 ppm CaCO3
*FIRE ON, FULL THROTTLE*
pasted grist with 12L water of 41C to 39C
rest 30 mins (heating time)
stepped up to 55C with 9L water of 81C
10 mins
stepped up to 63C with remaining 6L water of 92C
20 mins
stepped up to 75C with normal mash (1 / 3.4)
TURBO DECOCTION -30 mins to start boil,
boiling for 10 mins, returning
jodine negative after 10 mins, rest for further 10 mins,
mashed out at given temps of 74-73C
Total mash time: 2 hours
mashing yield 70%, brewing yield 60%
(shortcut sparge, both refer to grain mass)
total wort boil time: 100 mins
Boil gravity 1.070
HOPS
Malling, P90 6%a 35 grams 70 mins boil
Hersbrucker, P90 4%a 40 grams 5 mins boil
total IBU's about 15
OG adjusted with boiled water to 1.050
open fermentation, Wyeast #3068 (slant)
bottled 4 days past pitching, adding green wort to +0.8P above FG
(1.015 / 1.012), yielding in carbonation level of about 6g/L.
RESULTS:
Entered Bavarian homebrew competition in Aschau after 4 weeks
GOT A 1st PLACE :-)
got a 2nd place for my Alt, used an even shorter mashing schedule
(leaving the 39C step, 95 mins!).
QUESTION:
SO WHAT'S THE PAIN WITH DECOCTION?
MIME-Note: Hope I didn't hit special characters this time (Sorry,
German PC keyboards are packed with them).
...and sorry for my German English and for being so long winded...
Cheers &
sehr zum Wohle!
Ing. Hubert Hanghofer <hhanghof@netbeer.co.at>
Salzburg / Austria
http://www.netbeer.co.at/beer/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 16:42:40 CDT
From: jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Water analysis
In HBD #2448 Michael Fay wrote of water analysis being expensive (over a
hundred dollars). I have seen other such references and thought I might
suggest something.
In Texas water analysis is available from Texas A&M for $20. Analysis
request forms and instructions are available from county agricultural agents.
I would not be surprised if other states had a similar setup. You might try
looking in the telephone book for a county agricultural agent or ask at any
ag. school. A lot of states have land grant colleges like Texas A&M and they
may well provide such a service.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@imtn.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:03:33 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Ale yeast for Beck's clone
Mark Johnson asked about what type of yeast to use to brew an ale that
tastes somewhat like a lager (Beck's) and mentioned that someone
recommended California Common. If he meant California lager yeast
("steam") I would advise against it. I tried the same thing using that
yeast (Wyeast, I believe) and fermented at 55 - 60 degrees, and the esters
were quite powerful.
I did the same thing using Wyeast 1338 European, and got really nice
results; clean and malty.
Another choice, although IMO second to the 1338, is Wyeast 1007. This
gives a nice maltiness and a real "beery" nose, but has a slight ale like
complexity that I wasn't crazy about, which diminished with cold storage
for 3-4 weeks.
Come to think of it, cold storage (38 - 40 degrees F, in my case) really
smoothed out the 1338 beer also, and made it more lager-like. I don't have
the refrigeration for large scale cold storage, so I just put a bunch of
bottles in the fridge for a few weeks and drink english style ales stored
at cellar temp. in the meantime.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:26:40 +0000
From: Dennis & Jennifer Britten <djbnajke@iserv.net>
Subject: Brewing software
I would like to get some feedback on brewing software. I have seen the
demos for a few but I am interested in Homebrewer's Assistant and they
dont have a demo. If anybody has any info please e-mail me.
djbnjake@iserv.net
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2449, 06/26/97
*************************************
-------
