Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2504
HOMEBREW Digest #2504 Thu 11 September 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:
hop util/fruit/businesses/Belgian degrees/airstones/dirty head/crystal (korz)
Addresses with spaces... (Homebrew Digest)
Irradiation; Fermentap (Samuel Mize)
Corny Kegging Questions ("Ernst, Joseph G.")
122F again?/Oud Bruin/crystal vs. caramel/re-corking/lidless (korz)
Help!!: right wort, wrong yeast (Jacques Bourdouxhe)
yeast mix/mediciny/protein & hops/why protein rest?/slurry/Utah/SS bottoms/Weizen/Entire/cleaning (korz)
RE: Medicine flavors, Kraeusening, and acid washing (George De Piro)
Home Made Malt Mill (mark.terry1)
Re: Brewpubs/Micros Dumbing Down Beer (silva)
RE: Water & Carboys ("Capt. Marc Battreall")
sour beer ("Bryan L. Gros")
yeast starters ("Bryan L. Gros")
5th annual Peach State reminder (egross)
Homebrew Digest (RangerBill)
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 brewery@realbeer.com
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: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:38:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: hop util/fruit/businesses/Belgian degrees/airstones/dirty head/crystal
A few more old topics...
Dave writes:
>Nathan in Frankenmuth comments about the non-linearity of hop extraction =
>as
>a function of added hops, and not being able to locate this being taken
>care of in formulas estimating the extraction.
>
>To my knowledge, although hop extraction is dependent on time and OG of t=
>he
>wort, it is not dependent on the amount of hops within even abnormal
>amounts being added, unless some kind of mechanical blockage occurs to
>prevent the free movement of hops during the boil.
Just as any solute, iso-alpha acids have a solubility limit for a given
solvent (at a given temperature, etc.). As we all know, nothing in
nature is a step function... I'm quite certain that as the hops approach
their solubility limit, the utilization approaches an asymptote. Also,
there are incredible losses during fermentation (I've proven that the
losses are bigger with blowoff, but there are very big losses even
for non-blowoff -- this is from a talk by Bob Foster (Coors Brewing) at
The Siebel Institute) so actual utilization is considerably lower than
the solubility limit. I'm still not done with the experiments, but
my suspicion is that we cannot get more than about 80 or 90 IBUs in
finished beer unless we add iso-alpha acids post-fermentation as
extract. Stay tuned...
***
Andy asks about fruit in beer...
Basically, you can forget about sterilization. Sterilization is only
achievable via pressure-cooking (which will set the pectins and give
you permanently cloudy beer) or irradation (which none of us can
afford, right?). "Sanitation" is acheivable, but also difficult.
I've had variable success with blanching (freezing the fruit and then
dipping it for a few seconds in boiling water with a sieve to sanitize
the outsides... use only unblemished fruit). What has worked more
consistently for me is pasteurization. I mushed the fruit into a
paste, put it into a kettle and heated it to between 140 and 150F
for 10 minutes. Then I purged the secondaries with CO2 and dumped
the fruit into the sanitized, purged carboys. Finished beer was
racked onto the fruit and left for 2-3 months. These beers came
out very good and out of about a dozen batches only one or two
showed a little overcarbonation after nearly 6 months in the bottle.
One of the beers had a slightly musty aroma and perhaps a little more
sourness than it had 5 months ago, but I suspect transfer technique
and not the fruit on that one.
A final option is to use metabisulphites, but the fruit must be acid
enough, you *must* mush up the fruit or press juice (try not to aerate),
you may be allergic to the sulphites (some people just are), and
the metabisulphites will not kill everything... they will kill some and
stun the rest so you cultured yeast can get a jump on them.
I recommend pasteurization.
I just remembered... don't try that blanching technique on
berries like raspberries and blackberries... the juice will come
gushing out into your boiling water and probably set all your pectins.
Go with pasteurization for berries. Blanching works reasonably well with
whole cherries.
Have fun! P.S. Don't try to make a fruit beer that tastes like fruit
wine... don't overpower the beer flavour with fruit. There should be
a balance between fruit and beer. If you want to make fruit wine,
then don't bother with the barley and hops. Oh yes... almost forgot...
hop very low and use a significant amount of light crystal for some
sweetness... bitterness and fruit just don't go well together.
***
Gordon and/or Cindy write:
>You hit on the reason early on in
>your post, they are a buisness.
>Which its sole purpose in life is
>not to serve us or make our lives
>better but turn a profit. <snip>
Excuse me... some of us have businesses whose purposes *are* to serve and
make peoples' lives better. Turning a profit is necessary to keep the
business going, but not everyone is in it only for the money.
Some examples: Dan Listerman (Phil's products), Dan McConnell (The
Yeast Culture Kit Co.), Kinney Baughman (BrewCo), Jack Schmidling
(JSP MaltMills/EasyMasher). I know these people personally... I'm
quite sure they could make quite a bit more money if they put the same
amount of effort into any number of other fields, but they have stuck
with it. I once calculated how much profit I made with my HB supply
store: $5.00/hour. I could have done better flipping burgers.
***
Scott writes:
>Now that everyone has several ways of computing degrees Plato, does
>someone have a conversion to Belgian legal degrees? My co-worker
>is from Belgium and we don't speak the same gravity.
Roughly, lop off the "1" from the OG and move the decimal point two
places to the right. 1.062 becomes approximately 6.2 Belgian degrees.
***
Several posters have sung the praises of "The Stone" and how they
can easily carbonate their beer overnight without shaking. I contend
that your carbonation has come out more consistent simply because
you are now paying more attention to it. Secondly, it is virtually
impossible to sanitize an airstone with a sanitizer because you cannot
be sure that there are no pores that have been clogged by yeast, hop
bits, or trub. I have a stainless steel airstone I use for oxygenation
and I've replaced the PE tubing with silicone (McMaster-Carr or
US Plastics) so I can boil the whole assembly to sanitize it. Sure,
it will work with a sanitizer for a few batches, but eventually,
I'm willing to bet that you'll get an infection.
***
Keith writes:
>However, I am using the advice of others using this
>(semi-) open fermenting method that it is safe and even advisable to
>skim the dirty yeast that is scrubbed to the surface using a
>sanitised slotted spoon. Thus I am briefly opening the lid anyway.
>Reportedly, this "dirty" yeast contains a lot of hop resins and other
>things that, when they settle back into the beer, can create a
>slightly harsh bitter taste. I don't know how much truth there is
>to this, but I don't think it hurts either.
There is no truth to this. Sorry. See my article in Brewing Techniques
("When Fermentation Raises it's Dirty Head"). The only perceptible
difference (by skilled BJCP judges) was bitterness and tests done by
the Siebel Institute found that they were right: 13 to 18% less bitterness.
Protein, higher alcohol, and ester differences were negligible.
***
Ken writes:
>Can anyone explain the difference (if any) between the Belgian caramel malts
>(CaraVienne, CaraMunich, etc) and say British crystal malt of similar color?
>I assume that different base malts are used, but are different processes
>used, or are they pretty much the same animal? For example, if I made two
>ales using identical base malt, but in one I used 60L crystal and in the
>other I used CaraMunich, what differences between the finished beers might I
>expect?
There are many differences and they are all in the flavour and aroma.
I cannot generalize because there are similar differences between
crystal malts from two different English maltsters or two different
German maltsters. Every maltsters' crystal malts taste slightly different.
Some are biscuity, some have apricot aroma/flavour, some have milk
chocolate aromas, others have raisiny aroma/flavour.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:44:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Homebrew Digest <hbd@brew.oeonline.com>
Subject: Addresses with spaces...
Greetings!
We have recently noticed that people are subscribing using addresses
containing spaces. These are bouncing as the server interprets the first
word to be a local address, and the second part as a full address. The
first part (obviously) bounces and the second sends the digest to some
strange individual or bounces as well.
If your ISP has allowed you to have a space in your address, we (at least
at present) cannot serve you the digest. Check with your ISP to see if the
underscore (_) can be used in place of the space, and, if so, resubscribe
after incorporating the underscored address as your "Reply To:"
Cheers!
The Home Brew Digest Janitorial Staff
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:41:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Irradiation; Fermentap
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:03:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Irradiation;
Greetings to all, and especially to:
>From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
>Nuclear Beer?
> Has anybody got any info on the use of irradiation for the pasteurization
>of beer? Seems like the ideal way to go for my money, except of course for
>bottle conditioning.
> Has it been done before? (Not at home, of course.) But does anyone have
>any info on this?
With the radon levels in some homes, it probably has been done. (I'd
put a smiley, but on second thought I'm not sure that's funny.)
You'll hear a lot of paranoia and FUD about using radiation. As you
probably already know, Rob, (1) radiation doesn't stay in food --
except as heat; (2) the chemical changes due to irradiation are
largely the same as those from the heat of cooking.
OTOH, it takes a heap of radiation to sterilize things. This means
you have to have a ton of shielding and control systems, and that
means money. For a product like beer, that can be pasteurized by
normal means, it's probably quite uneconomical. Irradiation is
best for things like meat or veggies, that CAN'T be heat pasteurized
and retain any apparent freshness.
And I believe you WILL get some chemical changes, just as you would
from heat pasteurization. You're still adding energy to the food.
You'd need to find a nearby commercial food irradiator, and I don't
know if there are any in the midwest. I'd call the county extension,
and/or the nuclear science program at K-State. I'm not sure what the
program's exact name is, but I know it's there, they have some kind
of small reactor on-campus. Check with the physics department.
(Maybe the on-campus reactor is strong enough to irradiate some beer
as an experiment, so you can find out what it does. Sounds like an
experiment that most physicists would be interested in.)
Here are links to some data about food irradiation from the USDA. The
first link is to an annotated bibliography. The second is to a
database of about 11,000 pages of research from the 1950s and 1960s.
Linkname: Food Irradiation 2 Wholesomeness Database Demo
URL: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/ffp.pl/fnic/foodirrad.html
Linkname: Food Irradiation Overviews: A Selected Annotated Bibliography
URL: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/ffp.pl/fnic/pubs/bibs/gen/
foodirrad.html
- ------------------------------
>From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman@reefnet.com>
>Subject: Fermentap ??'s
>According to the instruction sheet that came with it, it recommends
>racking from primary to secondary
... I thought that simply straining the trub and crud out
>of the primary fermenter by using the Fermentap, would in essence be the
>same as racking to a secondary vessel.
According to several posts I read in Deja news, an inverted carboy's
shoulder is not steep enough -- some trub and yeast will rest on it.
However, with an inverted fermenter, you don't have to siphon -- just
drain out and pitch the ugly trubby bottom, then drain the good wort
into another carboy. Apparently the stuff settled onto the carboy
shoulder will stay put if you drain it without turbulence. Or, maybe
they're not draining it all the way down, I didn't find that detail.
Best to all,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
(personal net account)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:31:35 -0500
From: "Ernst, Joseph G." <ernstjg@Maritz.com>
Subject: Corny Kegging Questions
Fellow Brewers,
I have acquired kegging equipment (happy birthday to me) and will be
kegging a raspberry wheat (extract) in a few days. I am looking for
pointers on:
1. Best products/methods for keg cleaning/sanitizing (I have
already replaced all the rings and gotten any obvious gunk out of the
keg)
2. Tips on using the keg as the secondary to avoid double racking
3. Kegging procedures - e.g. do keggers generally fill the keg with
CO2 via the liquid out tube to force O2 out of the keg before racking or
is this not worth the trouble? Any other racking tips?
4. Pressurization - am I better off force carbonating or priming
this first keg attempt? If force carbonating, what are appropriate
pressures for carbonation and later, dispensing?
5. I have heard that keeping the CO2 tank in the fridge is a bad
idea, as it may liquify and/or throw off the pressure in the keg -
what's your consensus?
Many thanks!
Joe (1997 first round draft contender)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:36:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: 122F again?/Oud Bruin/crystal vs. caramel/re-corking/lidless
More old stuff...
(Charley b(me)) says:
>I went over to the local brewpub yesterday and had lunch with a friend
>and spent a good 15 minutes discussing this issue with the brewer. Bill
>makes excellent beers, has the state and national ribbons to prove it in
>addition to a thriving brewpub. I went at the question a roundabout way
>and asked him about chill haze. He said that for both his "Big, But
>Blonde" and "Sloughouse Pale Ale" (both Cal State Fair winners) employ
>at 120F rest for 15-20 minutes before boosting to sacharification temps.
>He uses 100% domestic malts in these two beers, keeping the grain bills
>very simple. They are both light in body, but have plenty to hold up the
>hops and alcohol.
Have him try 15-20 minutes at 135F. If I'm right, he will get the same
haze reduction, more body, and more head retention. "100% domestic"
is not the complete story: US malts often do have more protein than
Continental or British malts (which will give you not only haze problems
but also increased hot and cold break), but 6-row has quite a bit more
protein than 2-row. There's more than one way to get rid of the big
(high molecular weight, haze-producing, break-producing) proteins: you
can cut them into amino acids and peptides (113-122F) or you can cut
them into medium-sized (head-retaining and body-building) proteins
(122-140F). At 122F you get both and just like with low-temp (say,
150F) saccharification, you get more of the little stuff (e.g. maltose)
and less of the big stuff (dextrins). Is it's wonderful how nature
works?
***
John writes:
>I'm thinking of trying to make an oud bruin style Belgian, sort of as a bri=
>dge
>on the path to brewing a faux lambic=2E Has anyone tried to brew one of
>these beers, or have any recipes they would care to share=2E I'm
>particularly interested in: (1) success (or necessity) of using any oak
>cask, (2) suitable microflora, and (3) blending=2E
I tried and failed miserably, but will tell you what I learned so you
don't have to make the same mistakes.
1. brew an underhopped, sweetish Vienna (use 93% German or Belgian
Vienna malt and 7% CaraVienne crystal malt).
2. get the proper cultures either from The Yeast Culture Kit Co. or
from Head Start (difficult to get a hold of lately) or make up a
starter from the dregs of one of the De Dolle Brouwers beers.
3. Ferment that in a *European* oak cask. Taste weekly and rack when
it gets oaky enough. If you can't get a *European* oak cask and can
only get an American oak cask, taste it *DAILY* and be ready to rack
after less than a week! This is where I goofed... I tasted it after
only two weeks and the beer was liquid wood.
***
David writes:
> In reading Jim Busch's and Ken Schwartz' posts I am inspired to
>quote from someone I also admire. I have trouble understanding parts of
>this section of Noonan's "New Brewing Lager Beer" :
> "Crystal and Caramel malts are similar products, but they should
>not be considered interchangeable. Caramel malts have a higher moisture
>content, are not completely saccharified, and are not kilned to the point
>that the endosperm is entirely glassy." he goes on to describe the
>processing of both types. Does this mean that there is at least
>some starch in caramel malts and that they should be mashed? He then
>discusses CaraPils processing before going on :"'crystal' versions of the
>malt are completely saccharified during kilning. they both increase the
>sweetness, fullness, foam retention, and storage stability of beers
>without appreciably increasing the color."
Historically, that's true. Currently, all malts called "caramel" or
"crystal" (except for a few *very pale* ones like Briess Dextrine)
are completely saccarified. All but the very pale ones can be used in
brewing *without* mashing.
***
John writes:
>Does anyone know whether it's possible to recork large Belgian bottles
>with homebrew=2E I'd like to reuse' em if possible=2E They're nice and th=
>ick
>for those high gravity brews=2E
Yes. I've done it. Get some #9 x 1 3/4" or #10 x 1 3/4" corks and don't
push them in all the way. My double-handled corker allows to adjust the
depth of the "push." I simply set it to leave 3/8" out of the bottle.
I "sanitized" the corks by soaking them in boiling water (also helps soften
them). Of course they are not even really sanitized because they are
pourous.
***
David writes:
>I was surprised when I read, first in "Brew Chem 101" (sorry, don't have
>the author's name), and then in Dave Miller's "The Complete Handbook of
>Homebrewing" suggestions that the lid of the brewpot not be left completely
>off. The explanation given in "Brew Chem 101" was that while you do want
>to drive off the volitile DMS compound, you don't want to lose the volitile
>oils of the hops before they become isomerized. The suggestion was made to
>leave the lid partially on. I personally have not brewed enough batches
>with the lid cracked to be able to tell a difference, but perhaps some
>adventerous brewer could do side-by-side batches and let us know.
I'm afraid the authors have confused hop oils with hop resins. The majority
of the hop oils will be driven off during the boil but they contribute
aroma and flavour. It is the alpha acids (humulone, cohumulone and
adhumulone, primarily) which are in the soft resins, that are isomerized
and which impart most of the bitterness. Worts boiled with the lid
completely on will taste/smell strongly of DMS (cooked corn) and this will
carry through to the beer. Many brewers confuse hop oils and hop resins...
book authors should not. No, the three reasons to keep the lid *partially*
on are:
1. burners too weak to keep a rolling boil going,
2. losing too much water during the boil, and
3. brewing outdoors when leaves (or those darned hickory nuts!) are falling.
***
Chris writes:
>So does anyone have any experience w/ adding Malto-Dextrin to their
>beer at bottling to boost the flavor/perception of fruit? I just want to make
Well, adding sweetness will add to the *overall* perception of fruit, but
only because we associate fruit flavours with sweetness. Also, when the beer
carbonates the CO2 that is released will help bring the fruits' esters
out and the beer will indeed have more fruit flavour. We are used to
fruits being sweet and when we taste very dry fruit beers, we feel the
fruit flavour is weak.
You should not add it at bottling time unless you back off on the priming
sugar. There are many different types of sugars made from corn and they
all have a different dextrose equivalent (DE) number. If you tell me the
DE number, I can tell you what percentage of it will be fermentbale. I
didn't track down the DE number for the malto-dextrin I used, but it
turns out that it was 16% fermentable. This was verified by fermenting
it with a little yeast energizer. Started at 1.0400, finished at 1.0336
(high-precision hydrometer - McMaster-Carr).
>Also, I've received a few responses about using Lactose instead. I'm not
>familier w/ lactose. Can anyone provide me w/ the points/gal/lb, and what
>would be the recommended amount to add.
If memory serves, it's 45 pts/lb/gal. 1/2 pound will give you a little
sweetness in 5 gallons... 1 pound a moderate sweetness. Note that many
bacteria will cut lactose into fermentable sugars so you could get
bottle bombs if you are not extra careful with sanitation.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:37:06 -0400
From: bourdouj@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Jacques Bourdouxhe)
Subject: Help!!: right wort, wrong yeast
Hi Braumeisters,
2 weeks ago, I brewed a pilsner for a competition with the following recipe:
quantity : 5 gallons
pale malt Harrington : 95 %
carastan malt( 20L) : 5%
Hallertau 4% alpha : 15 gr ( 0.5 oz ) First wort hopping
60 gr ( 2 oz ) 60 minutes boil
15 gr ( 0.5 oz ) 10 minutes boil
O.G. 1.048
So far so good, but instead of pitching with the wyeast czech pils I picked
the wrong starter and pitched with the wyeast London Ale starter. Of course
the beer will turn tasty but will not fit the guideline for a pale ale, and
I already have a better Pale Ale to enter in that category.
Question: In what category or style other than Pale Ale should I enter this
beer? I was thinking to enter it as a Kolsh. Does it make any sense? Any
suggestion from the collective wisdom is welcome.
Thank's in advance
Jacques in Montreal
*************************************************
* Oh beer! O Hodgson, Guinness, Allsop, Bass! *
* Names that should be on every infant's tongue *
* ( Charles Stuart Calverley ) *
*************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:19:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: yeast mix/mediciny/protein & hops/why protein rest?/slurry/Utah/SS bottoms/Weizen/Entire/cleaning
Jacques writes:
>Is a beer/wine batch more resistant to infection if
>there are two or more different kinds of beer/wine
>yeasts competing for the sugar ?
Not really... if you pitch a big starter of one healthy yeast, it will
be less prone to infection than if you pitched a small amount of two
or more yeasts. One type of yeast that is less prone to infection
are the so-called "Killer Yeast" strains. They will actually kill
competing strains. Unfortunately, all the ones I know of are wine
yeasts, so I don't know if they will make reasonable-tasting beer
(could be very sulphury, could take years to mellow, etc). THey
have a "K" in their name, e.g. "K1."
***
Gerardo writes:
>I have been brewing only for 3 months and all my beers get this
>"very light" medicin flavor...it is not THAT bad and if I really cool
>the bottles it is hardly noticed.....is my beer getting infected all the
>time??
>I clean everything like a hospital before I start and I am using "BOTTLED"
>water so I won't get any chlorine........Can anyone suggest something,
>I am beginning to get frustrated and very angry.
Hmmm... three months... August, July, June... all summer months, all
months where there's a lot of wild yeasts in the air! I had a mild
"medicine" or "clovey" or "bandaid" aroma in my summer beers till I
started transfering my wort gently into the fermenter (without aeration)
and then using either oxygen or filtered air for aeration.
It has been mentioned before that you may be leaving some chlorine
on your fermenter/equipment. This can be a source of the problem too.
It wasn't in my case (I was using Iodophor and One-Step). You can
get wild yeast on your equipment via your rinse water too... if so,
you can use commercial beer to rinse off the sanitizer [Fix & Fix,
Vienna].
***
Dave writes:
>Is it possible to do a hopped wort (maybe hop
>extract??) in which certain longer chain proteins
>will be precipitated as the hop/protein complex
>and certain complexes also help in the
>head formation as is known to occur?
My understanding is that hop extract does not contain the
necessary polyphenols to complex with the proteins. I
don't recall which professional text I read it in, but
I recall that the text recommended that no more than
something like 50% of the bitterness be added via extract,
the balance being made up of whole hops. The formation
of protein-polyphenol complexes was the reason given.
***
Paul writes:
>I think I understand the disputed benefits of a rest at 122 degrees F (to
>eliminate cloudy beer) for some malts, and I am not quite sure of the
>benefits of resting at 135 degrees F. Either way I am still confused.
>Recent discussion seems to be oriented toward the question of what
>these rests may do to your beer. I would like to approach the problem
>from the other side and find out what possible adverse effects my beer
>may suffer by not doing these rests. In other words - what is the worst
Haze, beer loss to hot and cold break, faster staling.
*Any* protein rest will reduce the larger proteins (which are responsible
for these problems)... the question is: "what do you want to make out of
these proteins?" If you want to make amino acids and peptides (at the
expense of head retention and body) then use a 113 to 122F rest. If
you want to make them into body-building and head-retaining medium-sized
proteins, then stay away from 113-122F and do a protein rest around 135-140F.
If you look at the HBD archives, I believe I was the first to suggest
this around 1991 or 1992.
***
Ian writes:
>I have never pitched more than 200-300 ml of white yeast slurry from the
>bottom of the flask. I would like to know how these guys manage to grow up
>a quart of slurry!
They go to their local brewpub or micro and draw a quart off one of the
fermenters. Alternately, you can take the dregs from an entire 5-gallon
batch (that's what I do for Doppelbocks and Barleywines).
***
Jethro writes:
> Louis Amoroco, who started the Beer Across America Club, traveled
>voluntarily from Chicago to Utah to face the charges, basically involving
>the shipment of beer to Utah, principally a tax issue, and found himself
>charged with racketeering, tax evasion, unlawful transportation, and sale.
Another reason to stay out of Utah. For more, see the Sherlock Holmes
Adventure, "A Study in Scarlet."
***
Bob (from Precision Brewing Systems) writes:
></italic>Yes a 9" will prevent the probllem of the flase bottom
>colapsing. But, it will also give a lower extraction rate than a full
>false bottom unless, the wort is runoff proportianetly slower. (see BT
>article Summer 95).
I did look at that article and the diagrams look exactly like the
ones in my 26 October 1992 post to HBD. The problem with both
the article and my post is that it is all *theoretical*. In practice,
the differences are very small [see my article in the Great Grains
Special Issue of Zymurgy].
>A better design is an adequately heavy, full size SS plate that is
>properly suppported
Hmmm... like the one made by PBS?
***
Rick writes:
>I am interested in brewing a hefe-wiezen very similar to Paulaner Hefe-We
>izen Dunkel. It is an excellent brew, very malty! It is also bottle conditi
>oned. So my question is this, How does one go about making a starter using
>yeast from a commercially bottled beer? Or is the yeast sediment a bottling
>strain and therefore different than Paulaners fermenting yeast?
Yes. Paulaner is bottled with a lager yeast, not the fermentation yeast.
Schneider Weisse is a great Hefe-Weizen and is one of the few bottled
with the fermentation yeast. Personally, I would just use the Wyeast #3068
which is the Weihenstephan #68 yeast... used by many, many German Weizen
brewers.
***
There were a number of posts on the origin of "Entire Butt." I'd like
to clarify one point since there was a bit of contradiction. "Entire" or
"Entire Butt" or (later) "Porter" was an ale that came from a *single* cask
yet had the qualities of a drink that was popular around 1722 (the year
that Entire/Porter allegedly was born) but was a blend of two, three, or
even more ales. "Two Threads" was the name given to the blend of two ales,
"Three Threads" was the name given to the blend of three ales, etc. The
publican blended the beers in the glass, which was quite time-consuming.
Part of Entire's/Porter's popularity was due to the fact that it was easy
to serve (came from one cask).
***
Kevin asks about cleaning carboys and:
>I thought about it for a minute,
>and boiled the needed water, cooled it with an ice bath, and used it.
>Right now, I plan to do the same tomorrow with the honey wheat. Is this
>the right thing to do? I know boiling the water will drive the air out
>of the water, requiring extra airation of the wort when putting it in
>the carboy, but wouldn't not boiling the water add lots of germs?
RIGHT! It will not only kill germs and wild yeast, but also drive off
chlorine. I, personally, feel you did the right thing.
As for cleaning carboys, I fill them with water and add a few tablespoons
of bleach. I've soaked these for months with no problems. PBW and
other cleaners that contain carbonates should *not* be used for long soaks.
The carbonates will leave a film on your carboy/bottles/etc. if you allow
them to soak for more than a few hours. PBW took a few days to show a
noticeable film, but Washing Soda (Sodium Carbonate) took only 12 hours
with *my* water.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:30:34 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: RE: Medicine flavors, Kraeusening, and acid washing
Hi all,
Dave B's posts in HBD 2502 need a reply. I don't mean to be picking
on Dave, but he said a lot of questionable stuff.
He says, regarding medicinal flavors:
"Try two (sic) things:
1) Ferment below 70F
2) Do not pour hot wort through the air
Cool it first.
3) Ferment in the dark"
Back to me now:
It is contrary to my experience that any of the things Dave lists
cause medicinal flavors in beer.
1. High temperature ferments are prone to cause the production of
fusel alcohols, which are harsh tasting and may be perceived as
medicinal by some people, but most people taste them as solventy.
High temperature ferments can also cause a soapy taste in beer.
Something to do with fatty acids; the details elude me at the
moment...
2. Aeration of hot wort can cause paper-like tastes in beer, and
perhaps even some sherry notes, but not a medicinal taste.
3. Light causing medicinal beer?! If your beer is skunked, you
should be concerned about light. Skunk is a pretty obvious sensation.
It is not medicinal. Light will not make beer taste medicinal.
As has been said, the leading causes of medicinal flavors in beer are
wild yeast contamination and sanitizers/chlorine in the water. The
fixes are easy: dechlorinate your brewing water (something many
newbies overlook) and be very careful about sanitation. Be just as
careful to avoid getting sanitizer in your beer.
Dave tries to defend his method of Kraeusening, in which he allows
fermentation to proceed to high Kraeusen before adding the Kraeusen
mixture to the beer. I must agree with Al K. that Dave's method is
likely to cause inconsistent carbonation from batch to batch. There
are just too many variables involved to be able to estimate how much
sugar is consumed prior to adding the mixture to the flat beer (yeast
strain, wort fermentability, temperature, yeast health, the list goes
on and on).
It is completely logical that by allowing the yeast to begin
fermentation you will not know how much sugar is consumed before
adding the mixture to the beer. You could compensate by taking a
gravity reading just before adding the Kraeusen mixture, and then
adjusting the amount of Kraesen wort you add based on it's gravity and
expected final gravity, which is how the pros do it. You cannot
expect consistent results without that gravity reading, though.
Eric Warner explains Kraeusening quite simply and well in his great
book, _German Style Wheat Beers_.
Dave also extols the virtues of acid washing yeast, saying that
professional brewers do it regularly.
What's good for the big boys isn't always what is good at home,
though! I would not try to decontaminate a batch of yeast at home by
acid washing! Firstly, it won't kill many bugs, including the ever
popular wild yeasts and lacto- and acetobacters. You also run the
risk of killing your brewing yeast; a doubtful utility!
Acid-washed yeast don't perform normally immediately after the
stressful procedure, either.
If a strain was particularly precious, I might try acid-washing it,
but I'd be more inclined to try single cell culturing or using
selective growth media.
In most cases, you are not going to gain anything by acid washing your
yeast at home.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 19:47:06 -0700
From: mark.terry1@virgin.net
Subject: Home Made Malt Mill
I would be grateful for any advice/diagrams etc. on constructing a home
made malt mill. Private e-mail is fine.
Mark Terry
mark.terry1@virgin.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:15:16 -0700
From: silva <silva@realbeer.com>
Subject: Re: Brewpubs/Micros Dumbing Down Beer
Just wanted to respond to a couple of postings last week about micros and
brewpubs possibly "dumbing down" beer to appeal to mass audiences.
I've recently concluded a two-year tour of the states that included
publishing the Real Beer Page from the road while we visited over 500
brewpubs and breweries to "apple-seed" our business and get closer to our
subject. There are parts of the country which will remain nameless here for
the purpose of allowing for growth where it would be easy to make these
kind of generalizations.
In general, both coasts and some warm spots in between are creating the
most charactered and innovative beers. That being said, Wisconsin brewpubs
and breweries won more medals per capita than any other state last year at
the GABF and more than the east coast combined. One of the best Barley
Wines I've ever had came out of Manhattan, Kansas (about 45 minutes from
Salina for folks from the Midwest; just left of Kansas City, MO for those
unfamiliar with the area). The brewer was none other than the oft-posted
hbder, jethro gump/Rob Moline who said, "I don't care if I was on Mt.
Everest, I'd still brew great beer" when I mentioned that folks would be
surprised about having a beer like this from the heart land. His point was
well taken, and we found great brewers in Topeka and Kansas City (Golden
Tiger had a killer Russian Imperial and Boulevard has earned 10% of the
market there with great beer). However, many more brewers in the area said
that the market was simply not developed enough to appreciate craft beer,
so they made beers that would sell.
I guess my point is that in many cases, the consumer base can and will
dictate the kind of beer they will receive. Not necessarily by criticizing
the beers, but perhaps by encouraging the brewer to make a batch that
matters. Michael Jackson likes to tell a story about Japanese brewers at a
large brewery who brewed a beautiful stout. MJ inquired about expectations
for future distribution of the product and the brewers said that it may
never be available commercially. They brewed it for themselves. They said
it reminded them about why they brew. Many brewers I know can brew
interesting beers and find their hands tied with having to brew "drinkable"
house beers. When possible, we let the owners and general managers know
what other trends we saw coming from around the U.S. and supported the
brewer. I'd also recommend rewarding the owners and general managers by
spending some money in their place and offering to host an event there
should they brew a beer you want.
One of my favorite poets, Charles Bukowski (http://www.realbeer.com/buk/),
said in one poem about a boxer unwilling to finish an opponent, "you have
no idea how many can but don't." Same goes with brewers and brewery
management. The best Hefe-Weizen and IPA's I've had this year came from a
brewer you would never believe brewed it if I told you who it was. And I
doubt you will ever be able to taste this beer commercially. Until we give
the money guys a reason to believe.
In the meantime, support the brewer. And consider that taste profile may
have a lot to do with marketing and some bean-counter's often misguided
read of the marketplace.
Cheers!
Mark Silva
Publisher
P.S. - Tip one to finding an incredbile beer experience -- call for tours
in advance. Tip two -- if they have difficulty or interesting landmarks
describing directions (it's the second mail box when you come up the rise
past the 82 mile marker) you've got a winner.
Publishers of: Real Beer Inc.
The Real Beer Page 2339 Third Street, Suite 23
http://www.realbeer.com S.F., CA 94107
The ProBrewer Page 415.522.1516 - voice
http://www.probrewer.com 415.522.1535 - fax
BEERWeek realbeer@realbeer.com
http://www.beerweek.com Internet Publishers &
RBPMail Consultants
rbpmail-request@realbeer.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 18:18:43 -0400
From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman@reefnet.com>
Subject: RE: Water & Carboys
Kevin Martin wrote:
I am new to homebrewing and the Homebrew Digest. I just made my first
homebrew this week, and dumped it down the drain tonignt. It was a Nut
Brown Ale kit. It looked really good, but I had someone helping me
brew, because it was getting late and I had to go to work the next
morning. I asked them to mix the sanitizing solution and help me
sanitize my equipment. I didn't realize until later that they had used
the wrong stuff.....used corn sugar instead of sanitizer. WOW, talk
about giving all of those nasty little beasties a boost. Oh well, I'm
going to try again with a honey wheat tomorrow.
Also, the first batch left a nasty mess in the carboy. I imagine that
some of you who have been brewing for a long time have had nasty messes
in the carboy. Any tips on cleaning nasty messes from carboys?
Kevin,
What I do is put about a half cup of bleach in the carboy and fill it
with water and let it soak overnight. The next day I scrub it out with
one of those fancy wancy carbot bottle brushes (curved to swipe the
shoulders on the inside) and voila, ready for storage or whatever. I do,
however, sanitize again with the proper dissolution of bleach prior to
fermenting any brews in it.
Hope this helps.
P.S. Got a real chuckle about the corn sugar...Thanks!
Marc
- ---------------------------------
Capt. Marc D. Battreall
batman@reefnet.com
\\|//
(o o)
=========oOO==(_)==OOo===========
Beer is proof that there is a God
Ben Franklin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 13:50:52 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: sour beer
Mike Uchima asks:
>My current plan is to make a starter, but innoculate it with a small
>amount of yogurt, instead of yeast. This culture would then be added to
>the beer at racking time. I'm assuming that a pretty long secondary --
>i.e. months -- might be necessary.
>...
> - Assuming that I decide to give this a try, is it risky to use the same
>equipment (racking canes/hoses, bottling bucket, bottle filler) that I
>use for my other beers? *Intentionally* exposing my equipment to lactic
>bacteria makes me a little bit uneasy... should I get a second set of
>hoses (and a second bottling bucket) to use for this experiment?
I can't say if this is a good method to introduce a lactic character to
your beer, but it shouldn't be that risky, especially with this method
of innoculating a separate starter and aging it. You can then
boil this starter to kill the bacteria before blending the beer and
drinking it. That way, no risk to your bottling equipment is
introduced.
Hopefully our microbiology experts will say if the yoghurt
bacteria is appropriate.
- Bryan
gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 15:22:34 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: yeast starters
I've got a question about building up yeast starters. It echos a
question posed a few days ago about how to get a "quart of
slurry" when starting with a wyeast package.
Is the volume of yeast a function of the amount of food
(sugar) you give it, or the volume of food you give? I put
my wyeast packet in a 0.5L ehrlenmeyer flask (sp?) with
about a cup of 1.030 starter. It starts well and when I let
it settle and stop fermenting, I get a small layer of "stuff"
at the bottom and clear "beer" on the top. I pour off the
liquid and add another 8 or 10 oz. of wort and let it go.
After three "feedings", I have what looks like about a
quarter inch of "stuff" on the bottom of the flask. Mostly
yeast, with a little bit of cold break from the starters, I
hope.
If I keep feeding this yeast 8 to 10 oz. of starter wort, will
the yeast cells keep multiplying? Or do I need to step up
the volume of wort I add? I mean, does the amount of yeast
I get depend on the total volume of wort, or the volume of
wort added at one time? It is easy enough to replace the
fermented beer with new starter wort every few days until
I have time to brew.
- Bryan
gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 18:29:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: egross@emory.edu
Subject: 5th annual Peach State reminder
The 5th annual peach State brewoff is coming up on Saturday September 20th
at john Harvard's Brewhouse in Atlanta, Georgia.We are awaiting entries
and judge registration forms.Feel free to email me with any questions.
lee Gross, organizer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: RangerBill@aol.com
Subject: Homebrew Digest
I am having a hard time getting away from bottleing. There are no clear
choices out on the market that say's "Take me home!". Like most brewers, I
would love to have the Fridge with the cornie setup. It is not only the big
investment, but the space. Ranch home, no basement, North Carolina weather
woud beat down any fridge in the garage. I have looked into the Party Pig.
Seems to be a good system. Relatively low in cost, except for the high cost
of the pressure pouch -3.00 plus shipping a pop; the mini kegs seem nice, the
pressure barrels are wild and you need a huge fridge dedicated for it. I am
looking for the middle ground. Bottle, save money for the cornie setup? Mini
kegs are great, forget the beer meister... Party Pigs are hip! What some has
used all of these items.Let me know what you think. My brew shop sells mini
kegs. Is that the answer?
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2504, 09/11/97
*************************************
-------
