Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2576
HOMEBREW Digest #2576 Sat 06 December 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:
Sparklers ("C&S Peterson")
Re: histamine reactions from beer ("David Johnson")
re:whirlpool (Charley Burns)
Beer kept outside (Steve Adams)
Allergic reactions to beer (Matthew Arnold)
Engineer's view of chemistry,a bad day sparging is better... ("David R. Burley")
Sparklers and Nitro Dispensing (George De Piro)
Clinit*st er Clinitest and some new uses part 1 ("David R. Burley")
Clinit*st er Clinitest and some new uses part 2 ("David R. Burley")
Hydrometer temp (haafbrau1)
Belgian Wit/pDopplebock/My 20 (EFOUCH)
Lagering in a Capped Bottle (Lorne P. Franklin)
Re: Sparklers (Jay Reeves)
Corona Grain Mill (Bill_Rehm)
Clinitest part 1 (Al Korzonas)
Re: Boiling grain experts revisited (brian_dixon)
=====================================================================
Have you hugged your mash tun today?
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: Wed, 3 Dec 97 14:36:22 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON@classic.msn.com>
Subject: Sparklers
HBDers -
Just wanted to quickly thank Al for his comments on a properly served pint. I
always wondered if the sparkler should be submerged or what. Now its clear.
FWIW, the company I ordered the sparkler through (Banner, no affiliation, time
will tell if I am satisfied...) sold 0.7mm, 1.0mm and half moon holed
sparklers. I can only assume for the various carbonation and serving styles
Al mentioned.
I have no pretention that afixing this thing to a picnic tap or other plunger
tap will in fact qualify as pulling a pint of real ale. I simply don't drink
the beer fast enough to allow for air infiltration, separate cellar temp
control, etc. But I am hoping that the beer pours closer the real thing than
what I normally get from the tap.
Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:22:58 -0600
From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj@inwave.com>
Subject: Re: histamine reactions from beer
Greetings,
I thought I'd jump in on the allergy thread. The most common beer
allergy is to hops. And it may be just to certain varieties. I would be
careful with this because, over time, with continued exposure, your friend
will probably become allergic to other varieties. Exposure is an important
part of the developement of allergies in the allergy-prone person. My wife
suffers from this. I undertook to make a hop-free beer for her. In order to
balance the sweetness of the malt, I used cranberries. Unfortunately,
because of her allergy, she never aquired a taste for malt beverages and did
not like the beer, although she appreciated the effort (see spousal approval
thread). Comments from judges(score 30) said basically that it could have
used more cranberry flavor. Interestingly they noted a nice orange note.
Since I did not put any orange peel in, it must come from the yeast or the
coriander. The recipe follows:
6lbs Northwestern weizen LME in boil 30 min
.25 lbs crystal 20L steeped
.25lbs Victory malt steeped
2 lbs clover honey steeped at end of boil
1.5 lbs crushed frozen cranberries boil 30 min
freshly crushed coriander 2 tbs @ 5 min, 1 tsp in primary, 1.5 tsp in
secondary
1/4 tsp ground cumin @ 30 min
Wyeast #3942
OG 1.062
TG 1.013
I now know that the victory malt should have been mashed. The beer has been
stable for over a year. I was probably saved by the fact that it takes
forever to get 5 gals to boil on my stove. Fermentation temps were a problem
on this beer. My basement flooded and I got the temp up to 80 degrees drying
it out. Hope this helps someone.
Dave in Monroe, WI
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 08:38:52 -0800
From: Charley Burns <cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re:whirlpool
Dave asks about whirlpooling north of the equator:
You'll probably get a zillion emails on this one.
I use an immersion chiller in my 8.3 gallon enamel/steel pot. When the
wort gets cool enough (anywhere around 70F), I turn off the water flow,
disconnect the hoses and then use the (now sanitized) chiller to start
the whirlpool. I swing that baby as fast as I can, round and round as
hard as I can without sloshing the wort out of the pot. I do this for at
least 30 seconds to get it going really fast, then yank the chiller out
and clamp the lid on.
I wait from 20 to 30 minutes (probably only need to wait 10-15). Then
siphon from the edge, keeping the racking cane just barely under the
surface. I will always get a pile in the middle but as the surface of
the wort reaches the top of the pile, the pile starts to flatten out and
creep toward the edge. When my gunk starts to come into the racking
cane, I quit.
I always leave 2 quarts of wort in the kettle. I let it sit overnight
until well cooled and the hop spooge/cold break is well settled, then
pour it through a very fine strainer into 2 quart jars. These jars make
great starter wort, unless its a really dark beer which I just toss out.
The starter wort goes into the fridge and when I need to use it, I
reboil to be safe (remember the "b" word).
Charley (too cheap to buy DME for starters) in N. Cal
PS - I always whirlpool in counter-clockwise fashion. Am I doing this
right ;-) ??
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 97 11:54:48 est
From: paa3765@dpsc.dla.mil (Steve Adams)
Subject: Beer kept outside
HBDers:
Well, through a combination of misfortunes and mishaps, I've been out of
brewing for about a year. Out of general enthusiasm for beer drinking during
the holidays I went out and purchased four cases of pretty nice ale. However,
one case was filtered and had no preservatives -- which means I have to keep it
cold. (I didn't realize this until I got it home.) Around here in Philadelphia
this time of year, the temperatures fluctuate between about 30F and 50F.
Keeping the beer in my picnic cooler outside seems to be maintaining it between
40-45F. But I got to thinking that it might be a good idea to put all of my
store-bought beer outside for the holidays just to keep it fresh. I got used to
leaving the homebrew at basement temperatures almost indefinitely while it
improved.
I figure somebody out there must know the freezing point of beer -- let's
say at about 5% volume alcohol -- although I have considerably stronger ales in
the other three cases. Any other general tips about keeping beer outside. It
might get below 30F and stay there between Christmas and New Year, but I guess I
could bring it inside then.
My apologies to those who find this a bit off topic, but I think it might
have some practical value to homebrewing in general, particularly lagering.
Steve Adams
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 17:34:05 GMT
From: mra@skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Allergic reactions to beer
>I've never heard of anyone being allergic to hops or varieties of malts
>without being allergic to all bread. However, yeast is a likely
>possibility, but that would not explain the absence of her reaction to
>some of your beers and not all.
I've known a number of people with varying allergies to hops. One person's
allergy was so severe that he had to be taken to the hospital. People can also
have allergic reactions to some kinds of trees but not others, so I assume it
would be possible for someone to be allergic to certain types of hops but not
others too. Tricky things, these allergies.
I have noticed that I tend to get rather violent headaches when I have as
little as two pints of "good" beer (homebrew or otherwise) in an evening (not
anywhere near enough for someone of my body weight even to be legally
impaired). I did notice that these were not "hangover" headaches but rather
nasty sinus headaches.
I've eliminated every other ingredient as a possibility and seeing as I am
allergic (to one extent or another) to nearly every green thing in the world, I
assume it's the hops, which is rather a pity seeing as I am a hophead. I've
noticed that if I take an allergy pill before I plan on drinking > 1 pint in an
evening or if I take one before I go to bed, I am good as new in the morning.
One caveat: there is no problem with combining allergy pills and _moderate_
consumption of alcohol (check with your doctor or pharmacist to make sure about
your particular medication, though). Allergy pills do have the effect of
heightening alcohol's effect on your system: i.e. you will feel the effect of
alcohol more quickly. Make sure you have a designated driver (which is always a
good idea, no matter what). Heavy drinking has a bad enough effect on your
system, much less throwing any medication on top of it. As always, everything
in moderation . . .
>The point of this reply is a warning: your friend is having a type I
>hypresensitivity reaction to something. As this is an amnestic
>response, you can expect it to get a little bit worse with each exposure
>to the allergen. It is possible (and has happened) that your friend
>will have mild reactions and then suddenly have a very violent and
>potentially fatal reaction.
Actually, if this were true, then allergy shots would be quite deadly because
they inject you with a small amount of what you are allergic to so your body
can build up defenses against it. I'm taking this "allergy shot" approach to
it. Hopefully, with repeated small exposures to hops, I can overcome this
allergy. I'm willing to give it a shot (obviously terrible pun intended. Lord
only knows why.)
>The best advice, if you can convince her insurer that it is justified,
>is to have her undergo allergy testing to determine what (s)he is
>sensitive to.
This wouldn't be a bad idea at all, especially if she seems to be allergic to
other things. Fortunately, up here in the US Midwest, winter has come, so my
allergies are all gone until next spring.
ObBrewing: I'm getting a cornie keg set up going. I've read what I can find in
Papazian and on the 'Net, but no one seems to discuss dispensing pressure. I've
dug through the archives and the topic is alluded to, but not fully discussed.
Basically, I will be drawing a pint or two per day from it. Do I need to leave
the CO2 on a 5-10 lbs pressure (I've got about three feet of hose to the
picnic-style tap)? Or do I just wait until the pressure drops far enough that
it can no longer dispense and then pressurize the keg to about 5-10 lbs? FWIW,
the CO2 canister, keg, and everything else will remain in the fridge.
Later,
Matt
(Directions for the inquiring: 30 miles north of Green Bay, WI. A Lions'
fan--and former Bay City, MI resident--trapped in the land of Cheeseheads)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:36:50 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Engineer's view of chemistry,a bad day sparging is better...
Brewsters:
Pat Babcock's comparison and contrast of why it's OK to boil
decoction mashes and not ok for steeping is very close to
the mark - but turpentine and paint brushes!? {8^)
The basic answer is *it's the pH which controls the solubility
of the tannins to a large degree.* The higher the pH , the more
soluble are the husk tannins in the wort. Since pH is a
logarithmic function and solubility is related to the
concentration directly, a few pH points will make a lot of
difference in the solubility. The lower the water to malt ratio,
the higher the concentration of the buffers to control the pH =
of the wort and reduce tannin solubility. The much higher
ratio of water to malt/adjuncts typical of a steeping method will
encourage the extraction of the tannins.
Of course, his main point is that you shouldn't boil malts and
other starchy products if you don't return them back to an
enzyme laden wort as in decoction mashing or you will make a
nice starchy barley soup - which may taste like turpentine once
all those bacteria and wild yeast get to it.
- -------------------------------------------
Rich Hampo had a bad day sparging his brew.
>I made an all grain
>bock (a-la Miller) =
>9 lb light munich malt, =
>1.5 lb 40L crystal malt
>13 qt 136F mash water
>30 min rest@ 131F
>2 hours @ 150
>5 min mash out at 168F
>Sparged with 7 gal of 170F water
>My extraction was significantly worse this time (OG =3D 1.054 versus 1.0=
61
>last time) also. The crush of the grain looked OK to me. =
I suspect it is the unorthodox temperature hold for 2 hours at 150F
- (which you do need at this low of a temperature but did you =
really hold it to within a degree or two for that long?). This will
encourage the beta amylase and discourage the alpha amylase. =
You probably ended up with a lot of damaged starch even though =
both enzymes are active at 150F. Your method will produce a VERY =
thin beer with no almost no dextrins and provide reduced
opportunity for the alpha amylase to attack the starch. Perhaps
in the heatup to mashout you produced cooked starch which led
to your problem.The lowish extract is a indicator of this kind of thing.
Cloudy beer and a positive iodine test are other indications
if you have them.
>Any suggestions for improvement?
Next time hold at least at 155F or even higher at 158F to get a
style closer to the German beer of choice.
- -------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:51:37 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Sparklers and Nitro Dispensing
Hi all,
I just wanted throw my .02 rant into the sparkler thread. Page down
now if you were hoping for a useful brewing technique post.
It is my opinion that the current trend of dispensing beers through
sparklers and/or with nitrogen is a gimmicky way of making a beer look
great. If that were all it did, I wouldn't mind it so much, but
knocking all of the gas out of beer as it is served transforms it in
other ways.
When the beer is forced through the restricted tap, the gas is knocked
out. This violent treatment whips the head into a long-lasting
meringue while instantly releasing most of the aromatics from the
beer. The consumer is denied the pleasure of smelling the true nature
of the beer! It probably smells great next to the tap, where all the
lovely hop aromas and esters are driven from the beer as it is poured.
I prefer beer to be served in a more natural state that allows me to
discern all of its aroma and flavor. A well-crafted beer should have
a great head and nice body without resorting to gimmicks.
Remember, it's just my opinion. Your free to serve your own beer as
you like. That's the beauty of homebrewing.
For what it's worth, you can imitate the "nitro dispensed beer through
a restricted tap" trick pretty well (and for NO extra $$$) by simply
increasing the dispense pressure of your CO2 system and not opening
the picnic tap completely. You will need to wait a while for the foam
to settle so that you can drink your beer, but draft Guinness is a
pretty long wait, too! You do not need to leave the high pressure on
the keg when you are not serving.
Have fun!
George De Piro
(Nyack, NY; on a galactic scale, I practically occupy the same space
as Jeff Renner)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:56:16 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clinit*st er Clinitest and some new uses part 1
Brewsters:
This consists of two parts, since I decided to collect everything
I could think of about Clinitest and it usefulness, its hopes and
fears all into one spot. This may put an end to this endless
discussion- I hope. Go try it, you'll love it!
AlK says on the subject of the usefulness of Clinitest to brewers:
>Correct me if I'm wrong,
OK. You're dead wrong!
The Clinitest method goes back more than a century in
the form of Fehling's and related methods. Its usefulness
in predicting sugar content and its response to various sugars
is about as well known as any chemical reaction can be.
It has been used for reliably detecting sugar content in urine
for many decades. Clinitest is convenient for us to use
because it is well packaged, fast, cheap, available and
takes a very small sample at any temperature.
Perhaps more importantly it requires no instrumentation to use,
except your ability to detect color changes with your eyes.
=46rom orange to kahki to green to blue in decreasing sugar content.
My posts stretching back to when I first suggested to HBDers
that Clinitest was useful in finding out when a brew was
finished, clearly stated that Clinitest was useful for reducible
sugars as a direct indicator of the sugar content and
should be used for this purpose in favor of that nearly
useless object of your affection called a hydrometer.
This antediluvian object responds to sugar content,
dextrin content, bubbles on the instrument body, =
the height of the meniscus and the temperature.
The reading is obscured by the foam and beer color,
takes 80 mls or more of beer and the reading is
dependent not only on the FG but the OG because of the =
alcohol content. Cleanliness of the instrument as well as
the sample holding tube can affect the reading.
The hydrometer is hardly a dependable instrument, =
since it has all these errors which can easily show up
in the reading. Something as simple as a 10 deg F
difference from the calibration temperature will cause
an error larger than the day to day difference being read =
to determine the end of a fermentation. Bubbles of course
can make the hydrometer rise right up and give you the
impression that your SG is going up as the fermentation ends!
( and a past HBD contributor has commented on his
consternation when observing this). This makes the
hydrometer totally useless for distinguishing a stuck
fermentation from a finished fermentation
- *especially* if it is a new recipe.
And particularly for an inexperienced user.
The whole point is Clinitest tests for sugar directly
a hydrometer doesn't.
When is the hydrometer useful ? For estimating (+/- 0.5%)
the alcohol content of a new recipe and the efficiency of an
all grain extraction and other quality control functions
(such as apparent attenuation for comparison with history)
on known batches.. =
Clinitest is reliable and easy to use even for the newbie if the
following caveats of when to use it are borne in mind.
All fermentable sugars of interest to us are reducible sugars,
except sucrose. Lactose is a reducible sugar, but not
fermentable by S. Cerevisiae. So what does this mean?
There are potential errors in the use of the Clinitest method
if used improperly,as I have often pointed out and as in any
method.
In every technique developed for evaluation we must
always ask:
How big is this error? =
I have never had a beer test out at more than 1/4% sugar
when it was finished fermenting even for very high dextrin beers
which I routinely make. This 1/4% represents less than a division
on a hydrometer and is much better than can be reliably be read
by the brewer using a hydrometer under field conditions.
Most often the Clinitest results are none or <1/4%. This is a
practical estimate of the error.
According to Brewing and Malting Science ( 1st ed p 352)
the sugar composition (g/100 ml) of typical worts from
NA and Continental lagers lagers to British pale ales
range as follows:
Fermentable sugars:
Fructose 0.1 - 0.97
Glucose 0.5 - 1.47
Sucrose 0.1-0.6
Maltose 3.91 - 6.04
Maltotriose 1.46-1.28
Total 6.78 - 9.56 =
Unfermentable sugars:
Maltotetraose 0.2 - 1.27
Higher sugars 1.95-2.94
Total Dextrins 2.39 - 4.21
First of all note the non-existence of lactose in the list. This is
consistent with my finishing values for Cliniest.. =
Sucrose content is at its maximum in British worts at about 8% =
of all fermentable sugars, but in lager worts was about 3-5%
and may reflect added sucrose in the British worts. =
What does this mean? In the *worst* case if you were to
determine the sugar content on an unfermented wort
( which I don't recommend) using a quantitatively diluted
sample of wort to get in the range of the Clinitest method, =
your results would be in error by about 9%. In the case of a
normal OG ( 1.060) this would be about 6 points
in the fourth place on the hydrometer and give a result too low =
in fermentable content because the sucrose is not detected
by Clinitest. Use it *incorrectly* and your error could be as
high as say 10%.
Sounds horrible, but this is just about the size of the error
used in estimating alcohol content with an hydrometer,
anyway, isn't it? (5%+/- 0.5) i.e 0.5X100/5 =3D 10%.
So with all kinds of handwaving, I suggest =
you could estimate the *majority* of the fermentable sugars in
your all grain worts and after applying volume changes, =
estimate the alcohol content before you ever started the
fermentation. This could be useful in recipe development, =
even if an imperfect method.
How do we use the Clinitest method reliably and with
full confidence? It should be used at the *end* of the
fermentation. Why the end of the fermentation? =
All of the sucrose (possibly from the addition by the brewer
or extract manufacturer or the approx 3-5% from malt) =
has been converted by the yeast's extracellular enzyme
'invertase' and the sugar concentration is within the range
of the test. These inverted sucrose sugars, if any are left, will be
detected by the Clinitest. The hydrometer is nearly useless =
in this region since its broad reading gives indistinguishable =
results for nearly the same sugar content in the 0-2% range,
especially if it is interfered with by any of the many above variables.
See Part 2 for the rest of the discussion.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:56:11 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clinit*st er Clinitest and some new uses part 2
Brewsters:
Here is the second part.
AlK further says:
> but I believe that AJ's post clearly pointed
>out that the Clinitest reacts with some non-fermentable sugars
AJ did agree with my past posts that lactose is non-fermentable
by S.Cerevisiae and is reducible.
> This is what I've *thought* all along yet
>had no proof, so I posted simply that I was "skeptical" of its usefulnes=
s.
You only had to read my past posts both public and
private to *clearly* understand this.
>If you always brew the same recipes and always use the Clinitest, you
>can get a feel for what level of sugar (as reported by the test) is
>expected for each recipe. However, I've only brewed the same recipe
>perhaps 6 times. The other 150+ beers were in 30+ styles from 150+
>recipes. Given this kind of variation in dextrins from batch to batch,
>I don't think it's practical to try to use Clinitest for predicting
>anything, *expecially* how much fermentable sugar remains in a partially=
-
>fermented batch (i.e. adjusting down priming rates to account for
>unfermented, but fermentable sugar).
Whoa!!. You've got that backwards. It's the hydrometer that
is totally useless in the above scenario. Clinitest always =
lets you know when the batch is fermented out *regardless* =
of the FG. This is the real strength of this method. No guesswork.
I repeat again, in my years of experience with using Clinitest,
I have never had a Clinitest reading of greater than 1/4% sugar =
at the end of a fermentation. ( Actually I don't remember one this high).=
This represents the maximum error possible from normal worts
with which we normally deal. If you ferment to this endpoint of =
<1/4%, you really don't care about the specific gravity for
this purpose. =
For special cases like lagering under pressure, I routinely test the beer=
=
and put it in the Cornelius keg when its sugar content is
below 1%, but it is not completely finished fermenting. Using this
method of testing to adjust priming sugar is fine, but as I have
commented elsewhere you get a lot more yeast in the bottle,
since the beer has not been to the secondary for settling. I have
done this only a few times under time pressure, but successfully.
If the brewer added lactose before fermentation ( why?) then
this will have to be taken into account. Were this the case, it
would represent the same problem for the hydrometer method
in finishing "high". In either case, successive readings would
show that there was no change and the Clinitest method is no
worse that the hydrometer in this highly unusual and concocted
case. The Clinitest still uses only a small sample and is easier to
use without all that cleaning up.
This maximum error of 1/4% in the sugar content is better than
can be read with the hydrometer under the absolute best field
conditions. Clinitest takes only a few drops and the results are
clearly read. Compare this with the hydrometer.
For all those struggling all grainers who have been taking =
100 ml or larger samples at the end of your sparge, cooling =
them while continuing the sparge, measuring the specific gravity
to find a value less than 1.010,and finding you are reading a result =
that does not reflect current results of the sparge stream, try the
Clinitest as an *indication* of the sugar content at the end of the
sparge. It's not as perfect (bearing in mind the above comments) =
as when used at the end of the fermentation , but it sure is
faster, easier and good enough for this application. It is certainly
superior to those $1800 diffractometers used by some
craft brewers and doesn't break when you drop it or
stick together when you forget to clean it.
1.010 is approximately 3% sugar, so one drop of sparge
will do it nicely. When it falls below 1.5% as read on the two
drop chart, then you're finished sparging.
Al, I respect nearly all of your opinions and read them carefully, =
and I cannot believe you have never tried Clinitest, yet you have
all these dark, unfounded suspicions about it.
I suggest the only way you will be satisfied is to actually
go out, buy one and try it in parallel to your current method =
and draw your own conclusions instead of writing about
something of which you admit to knowing nothing.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
KC2LZ =
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:53:21 -0500
From: haafbrau1@juno.com
Subject: Hydrometer temp
I've read much in HBD about hydrometer calibration, but have never seen
anything on operating temperature. Most are designed to be accurate at
60' F, some are set for 68'F. What kind of adjustments have to be made
if the hydr. is consistantly used at say 72'F, or 75'F? If the temp is
the same for OG & FG readings, how inaccurate are your readings? Is
there a math formula to adjust the numbers? Now to further complicate
(or simplify) matters, what if you were more concerned with alc % as
opposed to actual gravities? These questions have been nagging me for a
long time. One last, what if the reading temps are different, what then,
or am I really pushing my luck?
Labels? We don't need no stinkin' labels.
Paul Haaf (EHT, NJ)
haafbrau1@juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:20:57 -0500
From: EFOUCH@steelcase.com
Subject: Belgian Wit/pDopplebock/My 20
Date: Wednesday, 3 December 1997 3:13pm ET
To: Sendout
From: Eric.Fouch@STC001
Subject: Belgian Wit/pDopplebock/My 20
HBD-
I have made a very nice Belgian Wit (one of the few times I've ever adhered
strictly to style- almost). What commercial example defines the style?
Hoegarrden? (sp?) Celis? Blue Moon? I would like to compare side by side
with the Quintessential Wit- it's cheaper and more fun than sending off to a
contest.
I have in the fermenter my pDopplebock (or is it an pOctoberfest?); a "repeat"
of last years Manioc Dopplebock, utilizing tapioca granules as an adjunct.
After reading at The Brewery an article about shortcutting an Octoberfest by
using ale yeast (German ale yeasts, not British ale yeasts) I stepped up my
Widmer Bros. Hefeweizen yeast (A German alt yeast) and pitched about a quart
of "slurry".
An observation: By running the cooled wort out of the brew kettle down the
inside of the 6.5 gallon carboy, I increased the surface area of the liquid by
a few orders of magnitude (too lazy to calculate), which increases the
absorption of air (aeration). I had activity in about 6 hours.
A question: I have constructed a Son of Fermentation Chiller (ala Ken Eddy?)
and am complete short of a thermostat or controller. Since the rest of the
materials were scrounged, begged or stolen, I want to wait 'til I can wangle
something for free. Anyway, I put the fermenter in there with 3 gallons of
ice, and it holds about 62 F. The fermenter itself stayed above 70 for the
first day, then dropped off the aquarium thermometer stuck to the side.
What should the temp range be for this yeast? I want to stay close to the
lower end, but since I don't have a corresponding Wyeast number, does anybody
know if there is a general rule for alt yeasts? I'll keep it at about 62 F
unless activity drops off.
Thanks
Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood MI- From Jeff's house, take 23 North to 96 West into Grand Rapids.
Then take exit 43B, which is 28th Street West. South on Patterson, West on
52nd Street to Pillar Creek, last house on the left- about 133 miles.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:51:40 -0400
From: lachina@mindspring.com (Lorne P. Franklin)
Subject: Lagering in a Capped Bottle
I recently picked up an upright freezer for free that I hoped would allow
me to cold secondary lager my beers. But unfortunately, the unit has
permanent shelves with cooling coils beneath each shelf. So, no carboy
lagering is possible.
Is bottle lagering effective? For instance, what kind of results can I
expect with the following process: a) ferment lager at 50-55 degrees b)
move to secondary for cleanup c) bottle d) allow the bottles to carbonate
for 2-3 weeks at fermentation temps e) cold store bottles in my freezer for
a couple of months.
Will lagering after bottling mellow and smooth the beer as well as
secondary bulk lagering? Or does it do no good since the beer can not vent
gasses and such?
Any input is appreciated.
Lorne
You can't close the door when the walls cave in!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 14:50:21
From: Jay Reeves <jay@ro.com>
Subject: Re: Sparklers
>From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
>Subject: Sparklers
(snip)
>frowned-upon by CAMRA. The argument against them is that they knock
>virtually all the CO2 out of solution while creating that marvelous head.
It also knocks some of the hop flavor into the head, or completely out
altogether. I think I read this in CAMRA's Cellarmanship book. Tasting
the same beer with and without a sparkler showed me that this is true.
What the mechanisms are behind this, I have no idea.
>During his Cellermanship talk at the 1996 (not 1997) Real Ale Festival
>in Chicago, Mark Dorber (Cellermaster at the famed White Horse on Parson's
>Green) said that he tries to get as much carbonation into the beer as he
>can while still allowing the finings to work.
(snip)
>Dissolved CO2 interferes with the operation of the
>Isinglass and thus you are trying to strike a balance between a nice
>level of carbonation in the glass and the performance of the finings.
Can you explain why carbonation affects the action of isinglass?
-Jay Reeves
Huntsville, Alabama
(I've never heard of Michigan, and doubt it's existance, so I
don't know how close, or far, I am from Jeff or Spencer - I
doubt if they, too, even exist!) ;^p
-Jay Reeves
Technical Support Engineer
Integrated Technology Systems, Inc
Huntsville, Alabama
Here autoharvesters, harvest THESE:
Pres. Bill Clinton: bclinton@whithouse.com
Vpres. Al Gore: agore@whitehouse.com
Chmn. Reed Hunt: rhundt@fcc.gov
Comm. James Quello: jQuello@fcc.gov
Comm. Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov
Comm. Rachelle Chong: rchong@fcc.gov
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:28:27 -0600
From: Bill_Rehm@DeluxeData.com
Subject: Corona Grain Mill
I've had a Corona grain mill for quite a while now, works great for
specialty grains in my extract brews, but I'm in the process of setting up
an all grain system and don't like the idea of hand cranking all that
grain. Has anyone ever motorized a Corona? Is it safe? Any input would be
greatly appreciated. Private email prefered(abstract of responses will
follow).
Thanks
Bill Rehm
Riverwest, Milwaukee, WI
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:40:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Clinitest part 1
Dave writes (and was good enough to Cc me):
>My posts stretching back to when I first suggested to HBDers
>that Clinitest was useful in finding out when a brew was
>finished, clearly stated that Clinitest was useful for reducible
>sugars as a direct indicator of the sugar content and
>should be used for this purpose in favor of that nearly
>useless object of your affection called a hydrometer.
You are presuming that I use a hydrometer to detect the end
of fermentation and this is very rarely what I expect to get
from it. I use the hydrometer to measure OG (as you later
suggest in your post) and the SG at bottling time, and to then
later figure out what the apparent attenuation was. Twice,
it has saved me from bottling a batch suffering from a stuck
fermentation (both cases which would have been also detected
by the Clinitest, but because I record the SG at bottling as
a rule, I have to make this measurement anyway). Once was a
Barleywine whose yeast pooped-out with only 60% apparent
attenuation and the other was a Tripel that was fermented far
too cold and the yeast went into hibernation once their
activity (and therefore the heat they generated) decreased,
resulting in a 50% apparent attenuation. In both cases the
beer was saved (in the former, more yeast was added; in the
latter the fermenter was warmed and swirled; the fermentation
restarted in both cases).
I bottle (or keg) when the beer clears. I double-check that
I got a reasonable apparent attenuation before bottling, but
I (usually) know my yeasts, pitch BIG and use oxygen, and
therefore I rarely need to rely on the hydrometer to tell me
that the apparent attenuation was lower than it should have been.
Since I'm taking an SG reading anyway, I would not benefit
from the use of the Clinitest even if it were 100% accurate.
>This antediluvian object responds to sugar content,
>dextrin content, bubbles on the instrument body, =
>the height of the meniscus and the temperature.
>The reading is obscured by the foam and beer color,
>takes 80 mls or more of beer and the reading is
>dependent not only on the FG but the OG because of the =
>alcohol content. Cleanliness of the instrument as well as
>the sample holding tube can affect the reading.
I don't have bubbles on the instrument because I don't even
think about using it until fermentation is over. The
proper way to read a brewing hydrometer is to ignore the
meniscus and look at where the beer level *would* cross
the scale if the meniscus were not there, so that's a moot
point. I have made Imperial Stouts that are impervious
to high-beam halogen headlights, but yet did not have any
difficulty reading the hydrometer, and since I transfer
the beer into the hydrometer test jar gently, I don't have
foam on top -- the beer is uncarbonated and if it creates
a head, you were either too rough on it, or it is still
fermenting. I measure OG and FG. I'm aware that FG
is influenced by alcohol, but that does not change the
fact that I'm reading the FG. I am also aware that I'm
calculating the apparent attenuation and not the real
attenuation, so I simply ignore the alcohol and think of
it as one of the compounds that contributes to the FG
(albeit negatively).
>The hydrometer is hardly a dependable instrument, =
>since it has all these errors which can easily show up
>in the reading. Something as simple as a 10 deg F
>difference from the calibration temperature will cause
>an error larger than the day to day difference being read =
>to determine the end of a fermentation. Bubbles of course
>can make the hydrometer rise right up and give you the
>impression that your SG is going up as the fermentation ends!
>( and a past HBD contributor has commented on his
>consternation when observing this). This makes the
>hydrometer totally useless for distinguishing a stuck
> fermentation from a finished fermentation
> - *especially* if it is a new recipe.
> And particularly for an inexperienced user.
Again, I don't recommend using the hydrometer to determine the end
of fermentation. I use a table which tells me how much
to compensate for the measurement temperature, so that's
a non-factor. Again, I don't measure the FG of a fermenting
beer, so there are no bubbles. If it's a stuck fermentation
the fermentation will be over, right?
>All fermentable sugars of interest to us are reducible sugars,
>except sucrose. Lactose is a reducible sugar, but not
>fermentable by S. Cerevisiae. So what does this mean?
>There are potential errors in the use of the Clinitest method
>if used improperly,as I have often pointed out and as in any
>method.
<snip>
>I have never had a beer test out at more than 1/4% sugar
>when it was finished fermenting even for very high dextrin beers
>which I routinely make. This 1/4% represents less than a division
>on a hydrometer and is much better than can be reliably be read
>by the brewer using a hydrometer under field conditions.
>Most often the Clinitest results are none or <1/4%. This is a
>practical estimate of the error.
Again, you are presuming I'm using the hydrometer to detect the
end of fermentation. I *only* use the hydrometer to measure
the OG and for calculating apparent attenuation... I don't take
daily samples and try to determine when the attenuation has stopped.
I calculate the apparent attenuation, consider the recipe (how
dextrinous the wort is or if I've added malto-dextrin or lactose),
check the range of apparent attenuations for the yeast I'm using
and either bottle (or keg) or take corrective action (because
the fermentation is over, the yeast has settled and if the apparent
attenuation is not high enough, I need to do something).
<snip>
>in fermentable content because the sucrose is not detected
>by Clinitest. Use it *incorrectly* and your error could be as
>high as say 10%.
>
>Sounds horrible, but this is just about the size of the error
>used in estimating alcohol content with an hydrometer,
>anyway, isn't it? (5%+/- 0.5) i.e 0.5X100/5 =3D 10%.
I don't follow where the 0.5 came from. With the precision,
narrow-range hydrometers I use (something like $20 each at
Cole-Parmer or other lab supply), I can read 0.0005. Still,
let's say I'm within 0.001 on both the OG and FG. If the
OG was, say 1.050 and the FG was, say 1.012, if I were
calculating the alcohol content (ABV is then roughly 1.050 - 1.012
times 131), the actual alcohol content would be about 4.99% ABV.
Had I misread by 0.001 high on the OG and 0.001 low on the FG,
I would have calculated 5.24% ABV, which is only 5.01% off.
However, I rarely care what my alcohol content is, because I
usually estimate it as my OG points divided by 10 (1.050 == 50 points
== 5.0%... close enough). On the other hand, since I primarily
use the hydrometer to calculate the apparent attenuation and because
I'm only interested the beer is within the expected range or if
it is grossly outside it, even 10% accuracy is enough for me.
The precision comes in handy when testing new yeasts and calculating
extraction efficiency.
End of part 1.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 97 14:50:33 -0800
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Boiling grain experts revisited
Item Subject: cc:Mail Text
>I *KNOW* I've seen this subject addressed in this forum once before,
>but I don't recall the conclusion. As you all know, I'm not a
>proponent of the "boil the grains" steep procedure propagated by the
>likes of CP. "Never, never, never boil the grains!" is one of my
>battle cries.
>
>But what of decoction mashing? A friend and I kind of fell into this
>discussion recently, and neither of us really *know* why one is good,
>the other isn't. We both agree that boiling the grains in a steeping
>situation produces a titanically tannic, starch-hazey brew. We
>understand why there isn't a starch haze problem in the decoction
>mash, but why doesn't decoction produce nasty tannins from the grain
>husks? (Though I could site one hefeweizen I did that is pretty
>tannic, but that was an accident in the sparge...)
Pat,
I've thought about it too, and have discussed it with a few people.
Your ideas about saturating the 'solvent' (water) is a new one that I
haven't thought of, but I doubt that the water is saturated enough to
really make a big difference. That's because it doesn't take that
many tannins to be able to taste them, or the compounds that come from
them.
The conclusion that I've reached via discussion with others is that
there are three main things that can increase tannin extraction: heat,
time, and pH. In the 'boil to steep' method recommended by our
beloved Charlie P., and in the decoction, they have plenty of heat.
The decoction, which I assume (yikes!) has fewers tannins extracted,
spends more time at boiling temperatures than the typical CP-method of
boiling the steeping grains (I bet Charlie makes bad coffee too...).
So time does not appear to be an issue here. How about pH? Bingo!
The decoction pH will be around 5.0 to 5.5, while the pH of the "boil
to steep" solution will be a lot closer to the pH of the underlying
untreated water ... typically 6.0 to 7.0. The decoction pH is well
below 6.0, and consequently has a much more difficult time extracting
tannins, while the "boil to steep" solution has a pH above 6.0 and has
a much greater chance of extracting the tannins. The "boil to steep"
solution would have a lower pH if the volume of water is kept as low
as possible, and a higher pH if the volume is higher. This alone may
explain why some people experience problems with this method and
others don't.
Anyway, that's my 2-bits worth. The lesson is the same: steep at more
reasonable temperatures (150-160 F), or do a partial mash instead
(nearly as easy as a steep).
Brian
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2576, 12/06/97
*************************************
-------
