Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2519
HOMEBREW Digest #2519 Wed 01 October 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:
Brewboy's Closing Statement (Brewboy1)
Cell walls (korz)
Koelsch / Boennsch (HBD #2514) (Volker R. Quante)
Rogue yeast culturing (Randy Ricchi)
Re: AHA Stuff (Jim Parker)
More on the MCAB . . . ("Louis K. Bonham")
Re: Science in Brewing ("Mark S. Johnston")
Brewing Techniques (Tim.Watkins)
British Beer Books (MCer1235)
Drilling holes in refrigerator (Ian Smith)
Freezer Problems (John B Yust)
GABF Bound ("Brian M. Rezac")
Freezing Yeast ("Randy A. Shreve")
Re: Subject: Holiday Ale Recipe ("Charles L. Ehlers")
RO Water Acidity (A. J. deLange)
Re: Science in Brewing (Spencer W Thomas)
Visit to LA area (Spencer W Thomas)
Blinded me with science (David S Draper)
Hot/cold break from siphon tube ("Kerr, David")
Re: Weizen; Starch? Help?; RO water & PH (Mike Uchima)
Ipswich Ale yeast ("Peter Touborg")
re:malt confusion (Charley Burns)
Hazy Beers, Infusion Confusion, Malt modification, Part 1 ("David R. Burley")
Part 2 ("David R. Burley")
RO H2O/Up or Down/Where'd it go? (EFOUCH)
Boil tun manifolds (HH)
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: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:03:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brewboy1@aol.com
Subject: Brewboy's Closing Statement
Ladies and Gentlemen of the HBD I have sat patiently and listened to the
conversation which has ensued from my initial post. While everyone is
entitled to their opinion on this matter, I will go to my grave with the
conviction that a great man has been wronged. These are the facts which I
will always carry with me:
FACT# 1. On September 8th Brett Kimbrough made a post to the homebrewing
recipe boards on AOL in which he released the Gold Medal winning recipe for
the Little Apple Barleywine. He stated " Since the recipe was that of the
former head brewer, I don't plan to ever make this beer again, so I thought I
would share the recipe with you." As I read Mr. Kimbrough's post(more than
once) it became apparent that Mr. Kimbrough believed the "recipe was that of
the former head brewer..." Taking this statement in context, I emailed Mr.
Kimbrough to express my belief that the posting of a recipe, specifically one
belonging to " the former head brewer..." was not only unethical but not
widely regarded as a move beneficial to a brewer's career.
Fact # 2 At the end of his post, Mr. Kimbrough reiterates the recipe does
not belong to him when he says: " Again, this is not my recipe..." These
quotes are THE evidence which support my claim this recipe is the
intellectual property of Rob Moline, the former head brewer to whom Mr.
Kimbrough refers to.
Fact #3 On September 11, I made a post to the HBD which included the
following line: " I think his wife gets mail at this address as well so you
might want to send her your condolences or love whichever you feel is most
appropriate!" While I offered some sarcasm to color the post, I now know
that I errored in a BIG way. My attempt at alerting the bandwith to Mrs.
Kimbrough's presence at the address was surely missed. I had hoped most
would understand and see my opinion that Mr. Kimbrough had sealed his fate in
the brewing community with such an empty post. Obviously, I failed.
Fact #4 On September 16, Mr. Kimbrough attempted to contact the owners of the
Solana Beach Brewery where I am employed. I believe this action was a
strongarm tactic used to ellicit an apology specifically for the comment
about his wife. And, while I do not believe I violated her privacy with my
post, at this time, I would like to retract the words about Mrs. Kimbrough.
As this is my closing statement, I would like to state at this time that I
did not appreciate the phone call to my employer who had ABSOLUTELY nothing
to do with this conversation. And, I have been asked to state for the record
that " the opinions expressed in this forum are those of the author(Tomme
Arthur) and they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners,
management or staff of the Solana Beach Brewery."
Fact #5 According to the voice mail from Brett Kimbrough, head brewer at
Little Apple Brewing Company, he recieved over 40 emails on this topic from
my initial post.
Opinion: I don't know who you are or where you are but I think Mr. Kimbrough
got the message loud and clear from the 40 plus messages.
Fact #5 Rob Moline will always be a great brewer no matter who the employer
may be!!!
Fact #6 Brewers need to stick together and as more homebrewers go pro, I
offer the following words- Good Luck, Please take the time to learn "THE
CODE."
I have borrowed enough bandwith for now, this is the last post on this
subject that will flow from my computer. At this time, the Plaintiff rests!
Hey Dave, I heard Tulsa is nice this time of year, it's a shame we'll never
find out!
Thanks for listening,
Tomme Arthur
" it puts eloquence in an orator, it will make the philsopher talk
profoundly... it is a great friend to the truth... it will put courage in a
coward... it is the seal to a bargain... it is the nourisher of mankind."
John Taylor on Ale
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:05:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Cell walls
Charley writes:
>Anyway, the gist of this theory is that when we are stepping up
>starters, its common practice to take them to high krausen and
>immediately feed them more wort, generating almost instant growth. This
>can go on for several cycles. This person's (name unknown) theory is
>that when we do this, we are 1)"training" the yeast to go for the the
>simplest sugars and ignore the more difficult to metabolize, and 2) we
>aren't giving they yeast any time to build strength in the cell walls.
>The results could be yeast that a) can't handle the more complex sugars
>and b) that die young resulting in "stuck" fermentation.
>
>This guy's recommendation is to let the yeast fully ferment the starter
>including the yeast going to dormancy. Its on the way to dormancy that
>the yeast rebuild their strength in their cell walls which just makes
>them that much stronger when reawakened and re-oxygenated later. It also
>lets them work on the tougher sugars so they don't get too lazy.
I'm very skeptical. Every other source I've read indicates that the
yeast synthesize the sterols they need for building strong cell *membranes*
(not walls... big difference... I'm told by experts that it's the
membranes that mediate water, alcohol, and other flows into and out of
the cells.. when the membranes get weak, the alcohol "leaks" back into
the cells and kills them). Sterol synthesis requires oxygen. Feeding
with un-oxygenated wort will, indeed, stretch the available sterols
and decrease alcohol tolerance. Feeding with well-oxygenated wort should
(to the best of my knowledge) provide the yeast with the oxygen needed
to synthesize the sterols they need for healthy membranes.
Possibly you misheard David or David misheard his friend at UCDavis or
maybe the research was still incomplete and the hypothesis being tested
doesn't hold water. I've built-up starters both ways, feeding at high
kraeusen and feeding after sedimentation and have never had a stuck ferment
(except for that underoxygenated 1.120 Imperial Stout and the Tripel
fermented at too cold a temperature, but the Tripel restarted when I
warmed and roused the yeast).
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:32:46 +0100
From: V.R.Quante@t-online.de (Volker R. Quante)
Subject: Koelsch / Boennsch (HBD #2514)
in HBD #2514 dblewis@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>(...) Koelsch is an appellation. Only beers
>brewed in Koeln (Cologne) can be called Koelsch. Beers brewed in Bonn
>are colloquially called Boennsch (...)
My dear fellow dblewis, you've made a small mistake: Indeed Koelsch is
an appellation, but in a slightly different way. All breweries, which
have signed the so called Koelsch convention some twenty years ago are
allowed to call their beer Koelsch. And the brewery of Kurfuersten
Maximilian Koelsch has done that! (As well as some other breweries in
Leverkusen, Wiehl and other towns not too far away from Koeln.)
Boennsch is a beer brewed - of course - in Bonn by a micro brewery,
which didn't exist at the time the Koelsch convention was signed. So
they are not allowed to call their beer Koelsch, and decided to call it
Boennsch.
I'm living in a small town between Bonn and Koeln, and I'm not able to
decide which style I should prefer. Boennsch would give quite a good
Koelsch, on the other hand there are a lot of worse Koelsch beers.
But, hey, you know a lot of our special Koelsch beers and describe their
taste much better than I could - have you often been here in Koeln? (I'm
asking especially, because Paeffgen is not sold outside their brewpub!)
All the best,
Volker
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:12:42 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Rogue yeast culturing
In HBD #2517, Scott Rohlf asked about culturing the yeast from a bottle of
Rogue Old Crustacean to use for his own barley wine. I wouldn't recommend
it. Any yeast that has spent a year in a strong alcohol environment is
probably not going to be as vigorous as it should be for a barley wine
fermentation. This is especially so if it's the same yeast used for
primary fermentation, although I don't know if that's the case with Rogues.
You'd be better off culturing up a large starter of fresh Wyeast 1056 or
some other yeast noted for high alcohol tolerance, and then aerate the H---
out of it when you pitch it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:03:04 -0600
From: Jim Parker <jim@aob.org>
Subject: Re: AHA Stuff
RANDY ERICKSON writes:
>
> Like others here, I was pleased to see Brian Rezac's quick response to
> the style guidelines concerns expressed recently. Certainly some at
> AHA care and are working to make things better. That's good.
>
Thanks, Randy. We're trying.
>
> Brian however echoes a theme that Jim Parker has expressed over the
> last few months, one that drives me nuts, namely, "Take it easy on us,
> we're the new guys, the old guys were the evil ones, we're nothing like
> they were".
>
One small quibble here. Neither I, nor any of "the new guys" have ever
said the "old guys" were "evil." Those guys -- and gals -- are our
friends and we very much respect and appreciate all they did. And,
believe me, they did plenty to help grow this organization and the
hobby. All we're saying is don't ask us to explain why things were done
the way they were in the past. We don't know. We weren't here. I assure
you, we will make plenty of our own mistakes for you to call us on. And
when we do, we don't want you to "take it easy on us." We're big kids,
we'll take our licks and, hopefully, learn from the mistakes and improve
as we go.
>
> I, for one, am going to reserve judgement a while longer.
>
Good call. Like I say, we simply want to be judged by OUR performance --
good and bad. And we want to hear what you think. That goes for everyone
in the brewing community.
>
> Actions really do speak louder than words, and I will be watching for
> action to see just how much improvement gets made.
>
Please do. And please let us know what actions and improvements you'd
like to see. We are right now entering our planning and budgeting
sessions for the next year. What kinds of programs and benefits would
you, the brewers, like to see?
>
>I will watch with
> particular interest the development of the Masters Championship of
> Amateur Brewing. This seems to be a great idea that truly has the
> potential to advance the art of homebrewing. It will be interesting to see
> if the AHA can keep their hands out of this worthwhile, albeit competing
> effort.
>
Two points: One, I don't consider the MCAB to be a "competing" event.
Any event that advances homebrewing and gets more people to brew is one
we support -- even if it isn't "ours." Two, I have told Louis Bonham
that he can expect as much -- or as little -- support as he desires from
us. In other words, if the MCAB steering committee asks us to donate
prizes, no problem. If they ask if we can sponsor a speaker for their
conference -- as we are doing for this year's Dixie Cup -- you bet we
can. Other than that, our only involvement will be that Brian, Amahl and
I will be brewing our butts off, trying to qualify for the competition
and maybe winning a medal or two -- since we're ineligible to compete in
our National Homebrew Competition :).
>I have high hopes, but I remain a little skeptical.>
Thanks, let us know how we're doing.
Cheers,
Jim
- --
Jim Parker
Director
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 122
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 -- FAX
PO Box 1679 jim@aob.org -- E-MAIL
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 infor@aob.org -- AOB INFO
U.S.A. http://www.beertown.org -- WEB
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:27:07 -0500
From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: More on the MCAB . . .
Wow, have we hit a nerve! Thanks to all of you that have
been filling my mailbox with expressions of support and
offers to help with the MCAB. It's definitely off to a
fast start!!
I am pleased to announce that the Steering Committee for the
MCAB consists at present of:
Louis Bonham Foam Rangers [host club] representative
Steve Mallery Brewing Techniques representative
Dee Robertson HWBTA representative
Pat Babcock HBD representative
George Fix At large
Jim Liddil At large
Scott Birdwell At large
Byron Burch At large
We'll probably be adding about 3 other members of the Steering
Committee soon.
The organizational meeting will be in Denver this Thursday
evening. *** Be sure to e-mail me if you plan to attend.***
(We may have to move the meeting.)
I hope to have more news to report next week, and my personal
goal is to have the Steering Committee decide which competitions
will be the QE's for the initial MCAB by October 24 so that it
can be announced at the Dixie Cup.
Again, we're still in the early planning stages, so now's the
time to make your thoughts known. We're all ears . . . .
Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham@phoenix.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:03:21 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst@talon.net>
Subject: Re: Science in Brewing
>I rarely read this journal anymore. I have seen so many people just
screw
>up science and scientific method. Those people that are interested in
>spitting out terms because they have a vague idea about what they mean
>make homebrewing unenjoyable for others.
>I guess my main point here is how much science is necessary?
SNIP
>Those that have the gift of a scientific mind shouldn't ruin a great
thing
>for others that have gifts in other areas.
While I agree that there may be a bit of erroneous info occasionally
posted on HBD, I feel that your reaction (i.e.- Not discussing science at
all) is a bit extreme. I tend to scroll through any postings that do not
interest me, including some of the techno-babble about malo-lactic
reactions, et al.
However, as with any hobby, people approach it differently. In the case
of homebrewing, many people never progress beyond a canned kit and a dry
yeast pack. Others may progress to all-grain. A few may actually find all
of the scientific stuff fascinating, and wish to persue that area of
expertise.
I think there is plenty of room on HBD for all of these POV's as they
allow others to advance to the level at which they feel comfortable, and
they let others know that there are many areas of the hobby to persue.
That, in itself, is the purpose of HBD.
>I invite your personal slander via email.
No slander. Just another POV.
- --
"If a man is not a liberal at eighteen, he has no heart. If he is not a
conservative by the time he is thirty, he has no mind." - Winston
Churchill
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97 19:04:40 EDT
From: Tim.Watkins@analog.com
Subject: Brewing Techniques
Hey all,
I was just browsing the Brewing Techniques web site, and ran across an
article about building a temperature probe. Does anyone out there have a
March/April 1994 issue of Brewing Techniques. I'm trying to get a copy of
the article about the "BruProbe". If you have a copy, let me know, and we
can try and arrange some way of getting it to me.
On a brewing note. About a month ago, I brewed Jeff Renners Classic
American Pilser, "Your Fathers Mustache". As my first attempt at a lager,
I'm a bit concerned (not worried, just concerned). My brewshop didn't have
WYeast 2007 available, nor did he have 2035 nor.... you can see where I'm
going with this. I ended up using 2112, which, I realized after pitching
it, is the California Common beer yeast. Anyhoo, I raised the temp in the
fridge to 58F, which from what I understand, is the lower temp range of
this yeast, and it's fermented out just fine.
A couple of questions: How should I lager this? Will the yeast crash
out if I lower the temp to the lager range (<40F)? How will the flavor
have been affected? This was my first attempt at a lager, so bear with me.
Many thanks,
Tim (Lowell, MA)
Thanks much,
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:53:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: MCer1235@aol.com
Subject: British Beer Books
Hi!
Could anyone tell me where I can find "Old British Beers and How to Brew
Them" (recently mentioned by Alk) and "How to Brew Real Ale at Home" (or
something like that)?
I tried Amazon and could not get them.
Also, could anyone out there review/critique them? Would you recommend them
for someone that is very interested in brewing British ales? Any others
recommended?
Private email if fine, I will post a summary.
Thanks, Rene'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:43:15 -0600 (MDT)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
Subject: Drilling holes in refrigerator
Has anyone tried drilling holes through a modern 21 cu ft (Amana)
refrigerator - the condenser is located in the base of the machine and is fan
cooled. Where is the evaporator ? I suspect it runs through the back and
sides of the refrig. is this true ? I remember someone saying recently that
the walls had a bazzilion tubes in them. If I drill willy-nillie through the
back or walls IMRR (is my refrig ruined).
Cheers
Ian Smith
isrs@rela.uucp.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:13:35 EDT
From: jyust@juno.com (John B Yust)
Subject: Freezer Problems
Greeting Homebrewers
I've had the same experience with a chest freezer that Eric has just had.
I can't be too optimistic about the chances of a simple fix. In my case
the gradually diminishing frosty spot and increasing temperature in the
freezer meant that the freon had gotten out of the system. According to
the refrigeration repair shops I spoke to, this is a pretty typical
failure in a freezer once it reaches about 15 years. The freon probably
escaped through a hole caused by corrosion, and it is probably in a place
where it would be almost impossible to fix, if you could ever find it.
Sorry Eric, but I think its time to start shopping for another freezer.
John Yust
Jyust@juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 02:02:40 -0600
From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian@aob.org>
Subject: GABF Bound
HBDers,
I too, like George Fix, am heading to the GABF. Please don't interpret my
unresponsiveness to any AHA questions as lack of interest. I'm just too
busy with the beer at hand! I wish all who'll be attending the GABF will
take Jim and I up on our offer to provide the first round at the HBD
gatherings at Falling Rock each night of the GABF sessions. We have
arranged a couple of kegs of Tabernash Weisse (and possibly another) for
your drinking enjoyment.
Keep Brewin'!
- Brian
Brian Rezac
Administrator
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 brian@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Randy A. Shreve" <rashreve@interpath.com>
Subject: Freezing Yeast
Dear BrewGurus:
I noticed recently in one of Papazian's books, that he talks about freezing
yeast for long term storage by adding Glycerol.
Does this really work? I don't brew often enough to keep yeast in the
'frig, and freezing would be a great option for me if it really does work
well. It tears the heart to dump all that perfectly good yeast from the
secondary down the drain!
Anybody out there doing this? I would appreciate any detailed info you
would care to pass on.
Thanks,
Randy Shreve Salisbury, NC
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:39:05 -0500
From: "Charles L. Ehlers" <clehlers@flinthills.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: Holiday Ale Recipe
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:49:52 -0400 (EDT)
"Art McGregor (703)695-0552" <mcgregap@acq.osd.mil>
wrote:
<<Hi Everyone!
I'm going to brew up a Holiday Ale this weekend for the upcoming office
party,
and have a few questions. My proposed recipe (attached ) is mostly from
Philip
Gravel's "Merry Christmas! Ale" from the Cats Meow 3. I'll be kegging the
batch after fermentation (1 week primary, 3-4 weeks secondary -- all at
room
temp.).
1.) Are there too many spices, correct boil times?
2.) Should the spices be left in the fermenter or strained out?
3.) What is the best way to get the zest from the oranges, a
vegetable/potatoe
peeler, or a grater?
4.) Should I store the keg in the refrigerator while the spices mellow, or
is
room temperature ok?>>
Art,
Not too many spices, but use whole, not ground clove and allspice.
Speaking from experience, if you use ground, and use the amount the recipe
calls for, you'll overpower it w/ clove.
Boil times will work.
Strain the spices out, don't leave them in the fermenter.
I've made beers similar to this quite a few times and have never used a
peeler or grater. Cut the oranges into quarters, peel them, and run the
peels through a food processor. I also cut the ginger root into app. one
inch pieces and put them through the food processor.
I've never tried storing (conditioning) the finished product in the
fridge, but it's not a bad idea.
Have fun.
Charles Ehlers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:00:02 -0500
From: ajdel@mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: RO Water Acidity
Matt Gadow asked "Is it usual for RO water to become acidic???"
That's a good question but not one you should concern yourself with as you
should just be hanging in there, relaxing and enjoying yourself. To answewr
this question might require someone to think and as we all know artisanal
brewers don't think - they just create in accordance with the current humor
of the muse!
At the risk of offending the Luddites I'll answer the question by throwing
around some multi-syllabic words I found in a book. I don't really know
what they mean but I hope they'll make me look smarter than I really am and
just impress the hell out of the newbies.
RO water is quite pure when it leaves the RO unit (I hope it's purer than
100 ppm - 10 ppm woud be more like it) and as a consequence it will
dissolve carbon dioxide from the air forming carbonic acid until the
partial pressure of CO2 in the water equals the partial pressure of CO2 in
the air (0.00025 - 0.0005 atmospheres). Pure water has minimal buffering
capacity (alkalinity 2.5 mg/L as CaCO3) so that even the mimute amount of
carbonic acid formed is enough to lower the pH, typically into the middle
5's as you at first observed.
Another note: It is unlikely that the water would get below 5 and your
reported mash pH's also seem low for RO water and Pilsner malt unless you
had a fair amount of caramel in there as well. Are you sure of your test
strips?
A. J. deLange
- Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
- --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:20:00 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Science in Brewing
On the other hand, Aaron, there are many of us who *are* interested.
Sure we get it wrong sometimes, but you can't learn without making
mistakes.
I'm not much interested in most of the "how do I clone beer xxy"
discussions. But it doesn't mean I don't read and participate in the
HBD, it just means that I don't read those notes.
Think of the HBD as a huge, continuous brew club meeting. There will
be groups of people scattered about the "room", each having a
different discussion. There's no reason we can't include all of them
(except for the folks in the corner talking about football. :-)
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:27:46 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Visit to LA area
I'll be in Long Beach, Oct 5-7. Getting together with other HBDers would
be a plus. My brother is working Sunday eve, so it's (at the moment)
open. We will probably do a "brewpub crawl" on Mon or Tue eve.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:49:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: David S Draper <ddraper@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Blinded me with science
Dear Friends,
Just a short note in response to the recent comments that we should
lighten up on how seriously we take our hobby, and presumably the way in
which that seriousness spills over into these pages. It is true, the HBD
is frequently heavy on gory details for which having a degree is helpful
for full understanding.
There is no question that I fall into the category in question here; I am
what my friend Andy Walsh likes to call "pointy-headed." I love to use
what I have learned during my science career to help me understand what is
happening in my brewing, and I really enjoy interacting with others who
share that, of whom there are many here in the land of the HBD. I would
urge anyone who has no use for this kind of information to do what all of
us do when we come across a post that does not interest us: Use that
ever-so-handy Page Down key. It's safe and effective (use only as
directed). As a counter-example, there are lots of posts here about RIMS
systems, and many of the most science-oriented HBDers often participate in
those discussions. Me, I have zero interest in RIMS, so I hit page down
every time, but I would not dream of asking for less RIMS content in the
digest. Things ebb and flow; sometimes a lot of posts on particular
subjects appear, then give way to other things. It's like the weather in
many parts of the world: if you don't care for it, wait a day.
As has been noted by many here over the years, the digest is an uncommon
marriage of the relatively inexperienced and some of the most
knowledgeable experts out there. It is, to me, a pretty wonderful thing
that both groups can get what they seek here. I don't chide people for
asking a frequently-asked question on the digest; why should the reverse
be true? And I think it is fair to say that many of us Geek-brewers are
quite willing to help out when less experienced brewers ask for it, and do
not look down our nose when that happens. If we *did*, then the arguments
against being so detailed would have more weight. But the fact that
brewers of all experience and interest levels can get solid, useful info
here is something to be praised. Sure, there is lots of puffery every so
often, but where in life is that *not* the case?
Proud to be an internet beer geek and jealous as hell of those going to
the GABF,
Dave in Dallas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:56:30 -0400
From: "Kerr, David" <David.Kerr@ummc.ummed.edu>
Subject: Hot/cold break from siphon tube
Drew Avis asked about using a copper siphon ring with kerfs sawed around
the base.
Funny - I made the same thing from an MJ Beerhunter homepage tip and
used it for the first time this past weekend - I had pretty good results
as well.
1/4" of trub on the bottom of the fermenter is not necessarily a bad
thing - the proteins, etc. provide some good yeast nutrients.
You didn't mention what kind of hops you used. I used whole Cascade
cones, which serve as a good filtering medium. Whirlpooling the wort
before siphoning also helps.
Dave Kerr "Be good and you will be lonely" - Mark Twain
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:12:54 -0500
From: Mike Uchima <uchima@mcs.net>
Subject: Re: Weizen; Starch? Help?; RO water & PH
Rick Gontarek asks about brewing a Weizen using yeast from a bottle of
"Thurn und Taxis"...
Schneider apparently bottles with their fermentation yeast (I've used
Schneider bottle cultures successfully), but as you note, a lot of other
Weizen brewers use a different bottling strain. I don't know whether
"Thurn und Taxis" uses a bottling yeast; I've never heard of this
brand. If the beer was -- as your friend claims -- "rather clean and
not bitter", I think you might be better off just using a clean ale
yeast, and forgetting about the bottle yeast he saved for you.
John Penn asks whether he should have mashed his Cara-pils, and IMBR...
I think the source of the confusion is that there are at least two
different types of malt, *both* called Cara-pils. I seem to recall
hearing that the US domestic one should be mashed, but the Belgian one
(from DWC) does not. (I might have that reversed.)
I doubt that the batch is ruined, but it may have some starch haze.
Does the beer appear to have a permanent haze (even when warm), or is it
still too early to tell?
and Matt Gadow says:
> Is it usual for RO water to become acidic???
I believe the answer is "yes". Small amounts of atmospheric CO2 will
dissolve in the water, driving the pH down (water + CO2 = carbonic
acid). As an experiment, try boiling it; if the pH after boiling is
close to 7.0, then drops back down over time, then dissolved CO2 is
definitely the cause.
I don't think this effect is worth worrying about, because a weak
carbonic acid solution has little (or no?) buffering ability. Pretty
much anything else you add to the water is going to have no trouble
pushing the pH up (or down).
- --
== Mike Uchima == uchima@mcs.net ==
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 97 18:40:48 UT
From: "Peter Touborg" <vanfunk@classic.msn.com>
Subject: Ipswich Ale yeast
Neal from Boston-
Ipswich Ale yeast can indeed be cultured with great success and used in
homebrew. In fact, I credit their yeast with one of the best batches I have
ever brewed, and it is obviously an essential factor in cloning the line of
Ipswich Ales. Try as best you can to buy a fresh sample, decant the beer off
the sediment and introduce a quart of wort, all with aseptic technique, of
course. I usually see activity within 24 hours. Older samples may take as long
as 4 days to get going, in my experience. It seems to benefit from *thorough*
aeration, ala Wyeast 1968, and produces a similar flavor profile, but appears
not to share 1968's tendency to flocculate with a vengeance. Good luck!
Peter Touborg
Rackin' Frackin' Fork and Firkin Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:11:42 -0700
From: Charley Burns <cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re:malt confusion
Tim (in hbd 2516) asks for clarification about malts and rests.
In the last two issues of Brewing Technicques, Jim Busch has done an
excellent job of laying out the temperature issues regarding modern
malts and the enzymes/proteins/starches in them. I for one will be sorry
to see Jim's regular column disappear from the magazine.
The bottom line (for me) is to forget any rest below 135F in today's
malts unless you're doing a high percentage of unmalted wheat or rye
(those things require all sorts of additional attention). For pale ALE
malt, forget any protein rest at all. All that you'll get from a protein
rest (anything below 140F) with pale ALE malt is less body. All
necessary protein rests have already been accomplished in the malting
process of pale ALE malt.
When using Lager, Pilsner, 2-Row or Pale malts (anything other than Pale
ALE) its ok to do a protein rest from 130-140F. Staying on the high side
of that range will give you more Medium Molecular Weight Proteins that
contribute to body and head retention. Resting at the low end of that
range will give you more Low Molecular Weight Proteins that are great
for yeast nutrition, but you'll give up body/head and the yeast don't
seem to do any better with the extra protein anyway (difficult to
measure).
These opinions may be biased towards my equipment. I do not have the
capability to apply heat directly to my mash tun and must rely on
additions of boiling water and a little luck to hit temperature changes.
Its not easy so it adds to my reluctance to even attempt additional
temperature rests. I also keep a 1 gallon jug of ice handy to stuff into
the mash when I overshoot and it gets too hot.
Munich and Vienna malt I'm not sure of. Probably worth an experiment and
I hope we get some comments from others on this. I've never used these
as a base malt, only as specialty malts. The one batch I did with half
Pilsner and half munich, I rested the pilsner malt at 135F but added the
munich only after raising the temp to 155F. Came out nice but I don't
know what it would have been if I had rested the munich malt also.
Good luck in your search for the truth. The 2 articles by Jim Busch were
really excellent and I highly recommend reading them. They are based on
currently available (modern) malts, not some theory about malts
available 50 years ago.
Charley (finally feeling comfortable about proteins and enzymes) in
N.Cal
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:24:44 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Hazy Beers, Infusion Confusion, Malt modification, Part 1
Brewsters:
Been busy with my annual crush for winemaking this past weekend and the
preparation leading up to it, so Parts 1 and 2 are a collection of severa=
l
HBD responses.
- ---------------------------------------
Dave Riedel doesn't want to get involved in the 122F mash discussion, but=
has haze problems using the 40/60/70 mash sequence with pale malts and
single infusions with Pale Ale malts. =
I can only suggest you try my recommendations and see what you get. Mash =
in
at 122F, hold for 20 minutes, change the temperature by 2 deg/minute to
135F hold for 30 minutes and then infuse with boiling water to 155 to 158=
F(
depending on the kind of beer you want), hold within 2 deg F for 90
minutes, mash out at 167F, etc. The SHORT hold at 122F is necessary in m=
y
experience to get really clear unfilered beers. It is my opinion that it =
is
necessary to clean up gums and miscellaneous proteins from the germinatio=
n
which lead to cloudiness in the beer.
It may be unnecessary, but I use this procedure with all malts and my bee=
rs
are unfiltered and very, clear after being in the Cornelius keg stored in=
the fridge for a couple of weeks or so. And the head is terrific, thick =
,
compact and leaves a ladder down the glass as a reminder of each sip.
- ------------------------------------------
Tim Martin is confused about modification of malts. So am I and so is mos=
t
of the professional industry as far as I know - since "modification" has
been discussed for the last century and is still a point of discussion in=
modern professional literature even today. =
Tim says:
> I often see the terms "modern malts" or "well modified"
>used here but never a reference to which one are modern or modified
>except Pale Ale. In all my reading I have yet to find these malts listed=
in
>this manner.
> Sometimes I feel like everyone knows except me.
Well, Tim, that makes at least two of us.
>In George Fix's recent post he states "we used some well modified
>(what else is there these days!) Pilsner malt in the following mash:"
I have publically and/or privately asked George Fix and AlK and SteveA an=
d
anyone else who says all Lager and Pilsner malts are well modified (like
Jim Busch and his Weihanstephan trained brewers) - and I hold all of thes=
e
guys with the highest esteem - to support this contention with actual
professionally written articles which clearly define what is meant by
"modification" and how today's malts are different from historical malts.=
=
I assume for something which seems to be "so well known" - as George and
other individuals contend - there must be definitive proof.
I am still waiting for an answer.
To be as clear as I can be, I believe that the average modification of
*Pale* German malts used in the Hochkurzmaishen and other infusion relate=
d
mash schedules can (and maybe must) have a higher modification than
*Pilsner* and *Lager* malts of yesteryear used in Germany. I do believe
that the grain bill of modern German Pilsner Beers could have changed fro=
m
yesteryear. I do believe that the logical direction for that change woul=
d
have been to more highly modified malts. I would just like to see some
proof and a recommendation of what I should do with it.
What I fail to get proof of is HOW has the modification of the malts
changed or even how one knows that. As far as I know there is no magic te=
st
which indicates the degree of modification. Does this statement that
"modern" Pilsner and Lager malts are "well modified" mean we can treat
all Lager and Pilsner malts like Pale Ale malts and use a single infusion=
mash as one might conclude from George's and others' statements? In my
experience - the answer is "no".
In my experience there is a clear difference in malts labeled Pilsner and=
Lager versus Pale Ale. If I bite the malt grain, the Lager and Pilsner
malts are much harder, indicating to me less modification. British and
Belgian Pale *Ale* malts literally explode in my mouth into flour
indicating a highly modified malt.
It is only with malts labelled "Pale" that confusion arises. Some are har=
d
and some are powdery. I suspect that this is due to a labelling problem =
in
which British (and perhaps Belgian) Pale Ale malts are mis-labelled "Pale=
"
as they are called in Britain, but are really highly modified pale *ale*
malts and should be so labelled in the US to avoid confusion with North
American and most Continental *Pale* malts. Confusion along these lines i=
s
rife in brewing hobbyist literature. =
Perhaps this labelling problem is at the center of confusion. =
Tim says further:
>the malt puzzle that confuses me is, can I single infuse
>all modern well modified malts or just Pale Ale malts? =
Tim, I think we all deserve a clear, professionally supported answer to
that from those who contend that things have changed greatly in the
modification of "modern" malts.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:24:47 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Part 2
Brewsters:
Mark Lubben says about my suggestion to investigate degree of
modification by holding at 40C and measuring the change in the refractive=
index for various malts:
>What are you assuming is causing the change in refractive index?
>I know that glucan remnants, various soluble peptides, enzymes, =
>and starch all cause SG increases like sugars. But how do they refract?=
>The refractometer is calibrated to read equivalent SG for a =
>measured rotation of polarized light for a particlar sugar =
>(the main one in grape juice but maltose is close).
Mark is confusing *rotation* of polarized light by molecularly assymetric=
al
natural sugars and other molecules with the change in the *refractive*
index of a solution which has something dissolved in it versus water. Th=
e
change in the refractive index ( related to the speed of light in a
solution and measured by how much the light is bent), within limits, is
related to the amount of substance (optically active or not) dissolved in=
the solvent versus the pure solvent.
The advantage of the refractive index is that it works for lots of things=
,
needs only a drop of solution and is easy to use. The disadvantage is th=
at
it doesn't tell us *what* substance is causing the change in refractive
index.
As the glucans are solubilized by the glucanases active at 40C ( and most=
other enzymes are active to a much lesser degree) the change in the
refractive index will be a measure of the increasing concentration of the=
solubilized glucan products. Since the glucans are largely responsible f=
or
the difference in the hardness of malts of different modifications, as I
beleive, I proposed this might be a way to qualitatively or quantitativel=
y
evaluate modification of malts.
- ----------------------------------------
Mark Gadow's experience with the use of RO water without salts addition f=
or
lager production parallels mine in that I produce excellent lager with no=
added salts. In my experience, the mash comes to the correct pH a little =
on
the high side (about 5.6 like Pilsen). The salts and other substances in
the malt alone bring it to the correct pH region for mashing.
For those who use well water neutralized with limestone (as I do), it see=
ms
logical that CO2 passes through the RO membrane in the non-ionized state.=
=
I notice bubbles on walls of the bottles of water I store between brews a=
nd
while it could be just air, CO2 seems likely also. This CO2 could affect=
the pH of the mash.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:47:14 -0400
From: EFOUCH@steelcase.com
Subject: RO H2O/Up or Down/Where'd it go?
Date: Tuesday, 30 September 1997 2:40pm ET
To: Sendout
From: Eric.Fouch@STC001
Subject: RO H2O/Up or Down/Where'd it go?
In-Reply-To: The letter of Monday, 29 September 1997 0:40am ET
HBD-
Just thought I'd weigh in on the RO issue. The comments about RO water
systems being expensive and the water being aggressive run counter to
everything the local Rainsoft RO water system sales guy told me..(how do these
guys keep getting in my house?) To be fair to him, Rainsoft's patented system
uses an ion exchange system to remove all the "nasties" from the water.
Apparently this system is more efficient (in terms of regenerating the resin
bed) than RO membranes. I still didn't buy into the $3,300 to install a
household unit. Most of those "nasties" are good for you (minerals), and I
gotta believe RO water going through my pipes is going to leach all the stuff
precipitated out over the last 10 years of city water running through.
A comment on whether the slots should be up or down- If you batch sparge, it
don't matter, since channeling is not an issue.
A question about my Pumpkin Ale- I had high hopes after filling the
fermenter: The wort tasted like a slice of pumpkin pie] Yummy pumpkin aroma,
nice spices, good malty flavor. I canned (don't ask) a quart or two of the
wort for starters. After a few weeks in the bottle, the beer tastes very
good, a nice spice ale, but NO PUMPKIN FLAVOR (FLAVOUR) or aroma] "Oh well",
I thought, until I used the canned wort for a starter and got a reminder how
pumpkiny the original wort was] Where did my nice pumpkin aroma/flavor go?
It survived the boil (It was an all grain brew with 16 ozs of pumpkin pie
stuff), so why would the rigors of primary fermentation scrub the aromas out?
The only other thing I can think of is that I did "dry spice" with some more
spices cold extracted with vodka in the secondary, but I don't think that
should have covered up the pumpkin flavors.
What if I mashed the pumpkin stuff with some amylase enzyme separately and
added the resulting wort to the secondary (after boiling, of course)?
Anybody else had problems losing the pumpkin aroma/flavor?
Thanks in advance for what I'm sure will be numerous responses.
Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
efouch@steelcase.com
"Where's my Thing?" - Rush
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:33:36 -0700
From: HH <hhouck@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Boil tun manifolds
Combine the slotted copper coil in the bottom 'corner' of your boil kettle
with careful whirlpool stirring for less particulates in your fermenter. Hot
break and hop fragments will move to the middle. Remember to start with
more volume to make up for the dished bottom if you have one.
-HH
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2519, 10/01/97
*************************************
-------
