Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2574
HOMEBREW Digest #2574 Thu 04 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:
New Brew Kettle (Charles Burns)
RE: Histamine reactions from beer ("Riedel, Dave")
Wyeast #1214 (Al Korzonas)
Re: water chemistry... is this going to work? (brian_dixon)
Malt Sugar Profiles (Mallett,Mark)
Re: Re: Sparging advice please (brian_dixon)
yeast growth, respiration and O2 (Joe Shope)
Re: Proper Irish Moss use (brian_dixon)
Bubblegum, Cleaning carboys, etc. (Paul Niebergall)
cold break change after immersing copper coil (Linus Hall)
rye/flaked wheat, identifying yeast, roux (Jeremy Bergsman)
Bottled Water to Top Off ? (Steph10344)
Noche Bueno (KennyEddy)
Energizer Bunny Ferment... (RobertS735)
Brewery Design Considerations ("Myers, John")
yeast question (Bob and Susie Stovall)
Saul's nutrient agar (Daniel S McConnell)
Decanting starter (Tom Clark)
Neophyte - Conditioning / Fermentation temps question (Tim Plummer)
On Shocking Yeast ("Michael Gerholdt")
Buena Noche obscura cervesa ("David R. Burley")
warmish lager ferment (Jeff Renner)
Re: brewing with a microwave (Lou Heavner)
Re: Traquair House Ale Attempt (Charles Burns)
flaked wheat and sparging (James R. Layton 972.952.3718 JLAY)
Homebrew, Italy and a New Beer Page (Massimo Faraggi)
=====================================================================
A Public Service Announcement (experimental feature):
Check out the "Le Premier Spectacle De Houblon du Monde" -
The PALE ALES home brew competition. Entry deadline is Dec. 4th, 1997
Visit their website at www.angelfire.com/biz/paleales for more info.
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, 1 Dec 97 13:07 PST
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: New Brew Kettle
Speaking of significant others, mine has asked me my wishes for a holiday
gift. I think she knows what's coming.
My preference for a new brew kettle is on the order of a 20+ gallon
stainless kettle. I prefer the squat wide kettle as opposed to the converted
keg (tall and skinny) style. I think that the larger the bottom, the more
wort/kettle interface occurs at high heat, giving better carmelization and
better melanoidin creating environment (no science, just a calculated
guess). I see tall fermenters but short wide kettles and mash tuns in every
brewhouse I visit.
Any recommendations for a best buy in a 20+ gallon brew pot? I'd like one
with a lid, spigot and thermometer all built in.
Private email best for this request.
Charley (creating a holiday list and checking it twice) in N. Cal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:42:27 -0800
From: "Riedel, Dave" <RiedelD@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Subject: RE: Histamine reactions from beer
Ann asks about reactions to some beers.
It is my understanding that some people are
affected by hops. The Oregon State University
Extension Service notes
"When handling fresh hop plants wear long sleeves
and gloves because the hooked hairs of the plant
may cause a slight rash."
Recently, a friend of mine got a stuffed up nose
after drinking my IPA. This beer was dryhopped.
Perhaps your friend is allergic to hops. Try waving
a handful of whole hops past her... :)
cheers,
Dave Riedel, Victoria, BC, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:48:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Wyeast #1214
Well, now we have many datapoints that Wyeast #1214 can lend a bubblegum
aroma. I have used this yeast, but I must admit that it was many years
ago and because that one experience with that yeast was rather bad, I
have not used it again (although I should). The one (bad) experience
I had was with a 1.087 OG wort that resulted in a beer so strong in
banana and nailpolish remover (most likely ethyl acetate) that you could
have hidden skunked aroma in there! I realize now that I underoxygenated
and underpitched (this was 5 years ago) and that the volcanic fermentation
probably raised the temperature of the fermenting beer from the 65F
ambient to about 75F.
I often rush and may sound a little pompous, but what I meant by pointing
out my experiences with various yeasts was simply those were my datapoints.
Your datapoints are no less important than mine.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 97 13:52:38 -0800
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: water chemistry... is this going to work?
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:07:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca>
Subject: water chemistry... is this going to work?
>I plan to brew a scotch ale this weekend. Recently, an
[snip
>
>My (Victoria, BC) water is:
>
>Ca 5.2
>SO4 3.5
>Mg 1.0
>Na 2.1
>Cl 4.2
>CO3 12
>Hardness 17
>Alkalinity 16
>
>This water is reported as pH 7.4, but BreWater calculates
>8.24??
Hi Dave. I imagine AJ deLange probably got back to you by now since he
typically responds to this type of water chemistry question, and I also
suspect that it's all history by now since I'm behind in my HBD reading
and you've probably already brewed by now. BUT, just for educational
purposes, I thought I'd throw in my 2-bits worth anyway.
First of all, for your Scotch Ale, you want fairly soft water.
Depending on which aquifer the well water was drawn on, Edinburgh had 2
types of water: sulphate/hard, and soft. The soft water was the more
prized water and used for Scottish and Scotch ales. The hard water was
used only for bitter pale ales that were brewed to compete with the ales
being imported from the London (and other) areas. With that said, your
Victoria water should be just fine as-is. Just adjust with CaSO4
(gypsum) or CaCO3 (chalk) as appropriate to drive your mash pH to 5.3 or
so. (Yes, add all salt adjustments to the mash).
As far as the pH goes, it's hard to say what the BreWater program is
doing, but I suspect that it is probably calculating a pH of neutrality
(electrical) to balance the ion profile that you input. This is almost
always going to be wrong because the ion ppm's (mg/L) will be average
numbers, quite often not even measured at the same time. Any one water
sample will of course balance electrically, but the average numbers
taken from different samples at different times and possibly places,
will generally not balance electrically. The result is going to be a
miscalculation of the expected pH because the pH will have to provide
the H+ or OH- blend that'll balance the water. I'd believe your
reported pH of 7.4 as being the more accurate and not worry about the
8.24 predicted by BreWater.
>
>Using BreWater, I determined that to prepare 13 gallons of
>brewing water with an appropriate 'Edinburgh' profile
>(midway between Noonan and Papazian's numbers) I would need
>to add:
>
>1.0 tsp epsom salt
>0.5 tsp baking soda
>3.0 tsp chalk
>0.5 tsp calcium chloride
>1.5 tsp gypsum
>
>BreWater reports this to be pH 8.33 with the following values:
>
>Ca 114
>SO4 125
>Mg 10
>Na 14
>Cl 21
>CO3 139
>Hardness 326
>Alkalinity 201
>
As I mentioned above, going with the 'hard sulphate' water is probably a
mistake for your Scotch ale, as is using some midway number from more
than one profile. Edinburgh can be confusing until you read the history
of that brewing area and the 2 major categories of beers brewed in the
area, and which water profile is appropriate. BTW, by "mistake" I mean
"not exactly appropriate to the style". It's not that it won't work,
but Scotch and Scottish ales just don't usually get made with much of a
sulphate profile because it would change the malt and hop taste profiles
that would be more appropriate ... but it'd be a good beer anyway. If
you don't want it, send it my way!
>I am only using 1% roast barley; will the pH of my mash be way
>off? Speaking of that, I will need to add all the chalk to
>the mash as it won't dissolve in plain water. Am I going to
>end up with a mash chemistry nightmare? Comments? Flames?
Your intended water profile above is pretty equal in sulphate and
carbonates, and a Scotch ale, as you mention, is not extremely high in
dark malts, nor is it super light either. Best thing to do is to go
ahead with the mash. Check the pH and adjust with CaSO4 or CaCO3 to
move the pH to the 5.0 to 5.5 window that you desire (5.3 optimal).
Brian
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: 01 Dec 97 17:23:28 GMT
From: mallem60@wales.bbc.co.uk (Mallett,Mark)
Subject: Malt Sugar Profiles
On the web site of a malt extract producer was the sugar profile
for one of their products as listed below:
Fructose 2%
Glucose 11%
Sucrose 1.5%
Maltose 48%
Maltotriose 13%
higher sugars 25%
Does anyone know what the profile of other extracts are?
Also how do mashed grain runnings compare to this?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 97 15:08:04 -0800
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Re: Sparging advice please
>If your extraction efficiency is in the 80's then you're fine.
>You don't want to be any higher than that.
This brings up an interesting point for me, Kent. My efficiencies
consistently come in at around 90-94%, which seems ungodly high. I
don't usually tell anyone about it because I fear that they won't
believe me. For maximum theoretical yield numbers, I use the "most
often published" column of yields from the latest Zymurgy Great Grain
special issue. I crush using a Valley Mill set just tight enough to
leave husks 99% whole and to leave few if any unbroken kernels. I
typically use a single temp mash at around 152 to 156 F. I mash out for
10-15 minutes at 165 F. The mash is kept within 1 to 2 degrees during
the entire mash, which typically is run for 60 minutes. I take an hour
or slightly less to sparge, using 170 F (untreated, very soft) water.
If I sparge quicker, say in 40-45 minutes, I get the expected
corresponding drop in yield (only 90%). I use an insulated plastic
bucket with a Phil's Phalse bottom in it. I terminate sparging when my
boil pot is full to around 6.5 to 7.5 gallons, depending on how 'big'
the beer is. Gravities and pH's of the final runnings are never lower
than about 1.020 or higher than 5.4 respectively. So why the heck am I
getting such high yields? Are today's malts so highly modified that
they actually have a higher max theoretical yield than what was
published in the Great Grain issue? I can't figure out why my yields
come in so high (most of the time ... my last batch came in at 82%).
Also, what risks are there in having such a high yield? The beer is
never astringent, always forms a nice head, has good clarity and color
and is generally pretty great stuff ... should I worry?
[Snip ... but here's some of Dr. Lewis' points]
>C. Sparge slowly with or without recirculating depending on the
>condition of the first run off. If it's fairly clear recirculating
>isn't necessary. Temperature is not important!? Dr. Lewis recommends
>staying on the low side. Run first running trough, followed by one
>running of warm water, followed by *cold* water. Once the cold water
>hits the outlet of the lauter tun you are finished.
Considering water lost due to grain absorption, I bet this technique
would only produce about 6 gallons in a typical 5 gallon batch ... seems
low. What are the affects on efficiency, and what were the reasons
(quality, efficiency etc.) for sparging this way? This is new to me!
To me, your explanation means a) Sparge with about 5 gallons of water,
then b) start sparging with cold water, quitting when the temp of the
runnings drops 'enough'. My final runnings are typically around 134 F
... so the arrival of "cold" water would drop them to say 115 F or so?
When would you say to stop, based on the temperature of the runnings?
Or just go by feel with a finger in the stream? The temp change is
probably quick enough to justify doing it this way.
>D. Adjust mash temperature or temperatures to the type of malt
>used. This can have a great impact on efficiency. Rests of longer
>than 30 minutes are a waste of time.
Longer for undermodified (continental) malts, eh? Is that what you
mean? Longer than 30 minutes a waste? Are you saying that the gain in
efficiency of the longer rest is not worth the trouble, or are you
saying something about the extract from a longer rest being lower
quality somehow? The intent being a start-to-sugar conversion, is there
some risk of something else ending up in the wort when you go longer, or
is this just an efficiency issue?
>E. Mash out is a waste of time.
Again, it raises the efficiency a few points. Was Dr. Lewis just
implying the extra extract isn't worth the extra effort? Or what?
[snip]
>>ii) Does pouring boiling water on top of the grain bed adversely
>>affect the end result ? And to what extent ? I realize that
>>boiling the grains extracts undesirable stuff. But if these
>>dissolve in the water at temperatures >77C (>170F), will they not
>>precipitate back out as they pass through the cooler grain bed
>>below ?
>>
>This isn't necessary so why do it? Some tannins will precipitate in
>the boil but to what degree is unclear to me. I wouldn't take the
>chance since there are safer ways to solve the problem.
One advantage, besides the small gain in efficiency, to a mash out is
the increased grain bed temperature during the sparge. Not a big deal,
the temperature that is, but it does help give you some leeway on
maintaining the sparge water temperature and for preventing stuck
sparges from getting too cool. As far as the boiling water thing goes,
I wouldn't worry about it. If the Germans can boil the mash
(decoction), then I don't imagine that adding boiling water could hurt
much. This is indeed the standard infusion mash technique (infusion of
hot water is where the name comes from). Finally, the boiling water
cools to the equilibrium temperature quickly enough. It can't possibly
have enough time to extract unwanted tannins from the grain that
quickly, nor does it have time to deactivate the enzymes in the mash.
[snip]
>>iv) Can anyone suggest to me a better way of managing my sparging.
>>Somebody out there must have this one figured out without the need
>>for heaps of expensive kit (ie. anyone who wants to talk me into a
[snip]
>You have all the equipment you need. And "really hot" water in not
>necessary. Although brewing 1050 gravity beer in a ten gallon Gott
>means your grain bed is on the shallow side. I would change to a
>five gallon for beers less than 1060, and save the ten gallon for
>high gravity (>1060) beer.
Good advice. Only thing I'd add would be a more cost effective
alternative: a 6.5 gallon plastic bucket with a spigot and a Phil's
Phalse bottom (probably what you'd put in the Gott anyway). Cost is
about $6-7 for the bucket, $6-7 for that silver bubble plastic
insulation (if you decide to use it) plus a little duct tape, $2-3 for
the spigot, and finally, $12-14 for the Phalse bottom. Total comes to:
about $28.50. The total is less than the cost of just the 5-, 7-, or
10-gallon Gott (or Rubbermaid) cooler alone. The cooler's benefit is
excellent temperature control, which implies that you can do your mash
in the cooler, followed by the sparge without transferring the mash.
The cheap route means you probably need to mash in a pot (or pots) that
you set in your oven, preheated to 150 F, to maintain the temperature.
I do the plastic bucket thing, but just recently purchased the Gott and
differently sized Phalse bottom to go with it. I'll try switching
sometime when I feel like putting it together ... it's hard to switch
from a tried and true technique that gives high efficiencies!
Brian
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 05:06:09 +0000
From: Joe Shope <sltp5@cc.usu.edu>
Subject: yeast growth, respiration and O2
I have read many of the recent posts regarding the need for O2 in
rapid yeast growth. The statement that S. cerevisiae desires to be
anaerobic (and therefore would not need O2 for respiration) made me
curious. I paid a visit to the "yeast lab" down the hall. Although
I failed to get any "numbers" from them I learned that S. cerevisiae
will only respire aerobically at high O2 concentrations. When I
asked what they thought the yeast needed O2 for they were hesitant to
postulate, but did mention that sterols were important.
I have a respirometer available to me and I think that I will run a
simple test on a starter culture as follows:
1.) Determine the net gas volume changes for the culture (CO2
production minus O2 consumption).
2.) Remove the CO2 by adding KOH to the well to determine the rate
of O2 consumption. This does not allow any contact between the yeast
and the KOH.
3.) Estimate the rate of CO2 production by taking the difference
between the net and the rate of O2 consumption.
This assumes that there are no other major sources of gas consumption
or production. IF the yeast are respiring aerobically I would
*expect* the net volume change (step 1) to be near zero due to the
use of carbohydrate (glucose) as the energy source. However if the
yeast are respiring anaerobically there should be a net increase in
the volume and O2 consumption should be relatively low.
I will do this early next week so if you see any glaring errors
please let me know so I can change my procedure. As for the use of
O2 in sterol production...maybe I'll just add some ergosterol to my
next starter and let it grow anaerobically and compare growth rates
with aerobic cultures.
Joe Shope
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 97 15:29:48 -0800
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Proper Irish Moss use
>I've read that you should hydrate your Irish Moss before adding, and a
>couple of questions come to mind.
>
>Is the day before necessary or is 15' in hot water enuf?
Place 1/4 cup of the hottest tap water you can get in a cup or glass
along with the Irish Moss at the beginning of the boil. Then at 15
minutes prior to the end of the boil, dump the gloppy Irish Moss water
right into the boil and let the boil's natural agitation blend it in for
you ... easy! I read once that Irish Moss "doesn't work" unless boiled
for at least an hour, but that's contrary to all the other references
I've read, and to my experience. Even my stouts come out very clear,
and I just do as I described above (with 1/2 teaspoon Irish Moss per 5
gallons).
>After hydration there is a jellied mass. Can this be dumped in the
>boiling wort intact or does it need to be stirred into solution with
hot
>fluids and then added?
Just dump it in at 15 minutes before the end of the boil!
Brian
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 21:06:13 -0600
From: Paul Niebergall <NOSPAMpnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Bubblegum, Cleaning carboys, etc.
Brewsters,
I have gotten extreme bubblegum flavor when using Wyeast 1214 (Belgian
Abbey), even at low fermentation temps. I have used this yeast 5 times
over the past 3 years and consistantly get this flavor. The last time I
used this strain it was in January and the fermentation temp started at
55 degrees F and rose to 60 by the end of the ferment. Even at these
low temps, the beer had a pronounced bubblegum flavor (can you say
Bazooka?).
For cleaning carboys, try a quarter cup of automatic dishwashing
detergent dissolved in 5 gallons of really hot tap water (I use
Cascade). It is really cheap and knocks off extremely grundgy deposits
in a matter of minutes. Rinse, and follow up with a dilute bleach
solution soak (overnight). Yes it has surfactents in it, but before
anyone slams me for supposed loss of head, think about what you are
saying. This is the same stuff that I wash my precious collection of
pint glasses in. I never get any loss of head when using the glasses to
pour a tall cold one (and the pint glasses haven't had the benefit of
being rinsed, soaked in bleach solution, and rinsed again before use).
Sorry if I ofended anyone with the use of the term Nazi when describing
some of our more over zealous contributers. I was thinking more along
the lines of the Seinfeld episode in wich the term soup-nazis was coined
rather than WWII atrocities. I guess if this forum is to remain
totally PC, I (and many others) should stop using the term anal as well,
as it may offend some of our alternative lifestyle brewers.
Later,
Paul Niebergall
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 22:27:37 -0800
From: Linus Hall <lnl@bellsouth.net>
Subject: cold break change after immersing copper coil
Hey HBD,
I wa making an all grain batch this weekend and noticed a strange
thing. I have just finished reading Greg Noonan's new book, and he
suggests taking samples of boild wort at different stages in the boil
and force-cooling it, while observing the formation of cold-break in the
sample. Well, this batch was the first one I did this in. Toward the
end of the boil, about 15 minutes until I cut the burner off, I took a
sample in a thin glass jar and cooled it by running cold water around
the glass. The effect was dramatic - dense flakes of trub appeared
within seconds, and the wort turned crystal clear. I then put my
cooling coil made of 25' of copper into the boiling wort. I took
another sample about five minutes later, but now the wort did not
'break'. It did form much smaller flakes that did not clump together,
and the wort stayed cloudy. I worried about this change, but went
ahead, adding my finishing hops about 5 minutes later, for a 5 minute
boil. At the end of the boil I took another sample, and this one did
'break', but not as clear as the first one I took before I added the
copper coil.
The copper was pretty clean, but not as shiny as it was after I took it
out of the wort. Did adding the copper coil somehow affect the pH of
the wort and screw up the cold break? Is this something that normally
happens?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 00:33:31 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@stanford.edu>
Subject: rye/flaked wheat, identifying yeast, roux
There has been a thread on mashing a bunch of flaked wheat (I'd echo
others' advice and get some malted wheat), and a few comments on
Sheena's question about mashing rye. I've had good luck and posted
about this, most recently in #2537:
http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/Beer/Threads/HBD/1997/2537
***************************************************************
Joe Rolfe <onbc@shore.net> asks:
> whilst attending siebels, Dr Joe Power found these commercially
> available tubes of various sugars, a sample would be drawn thru
> and in several days you would be able to tell what sugars the "beast"
> could deal with...kinda neat toy but probably expensive for homebrewers.
>
> anyone know of these devices?? not sure if they were ever successful
> in commercial applications or not....
I've never used them, but in a post on the Lambic Digest, these were
discussed. They are called API Rapid CH, produced by Analytab Products,
200 Express St., Plainview, NY. They are not cheap. There is an article
that explains how to make an expanded version of these yourself (if you
have access to a chemical supply house). The reference is:
Heard, G.M., and Fleet, G.H. "A convenient microtitre tray procedure for
yeast identification." Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 1990, 68:447-51.
I have this so if anyone *really* wants to know, I could fax it or
something.
***************************************************************
smurman@best.com (are you on the Peninsula?) continues with the cooking
lessons:
> Reduce this down until it makes a nice sauce. If you've ever made a
> rou, this is basically what your doing now.
In fine HBD tradition, I must say that a roux is when flour is cooked in
oil (or butter etc.), and you're not really doing that unless you have
reduced this sauce back down just to the added oils. This gives a
different effect than flour added to a water-containing sauce. For
convenience, one can make a roux by itself and freeze it in small pieces
and add some right to sauces whenever desired.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu <--Does this say enough about where I am?
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:22:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Steph10344@aol.com
Subject: Bottled Water to Top Off ?
Our recent cooperative brewin with 10 of our club members created different
opinions as to using spring water from the jug to top off a batch, without
boiling. Does anyone have any specifics as to the contents of the spring
water? and its suitability for use in this manner?
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:16:52 -0500 (EST)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Noche Bueno
About Noche Bueno:
"If anyone DOES have the answer, contrary to Mark's request, please
post it here to the Digest. I'm interested, too!"
I picked up what I hope is a "fresh" 12-pack of NB in Juarez last Friday
($9.75 US), and had one Friday night. I did not notice any "metallic" notes
at all, just a nice smooth rich cervesa.
Ken Schwartz (about 600 miles west of Dave Draper)
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:55:34 -0500 (EST)
From: RobertS735@aol.com
Subject: Energizer Bunny Ferment...
Greetings to the Collective: I am not worrying.... but I did make a very nice
Steam Beer (aka Lone Star Steam) which went into the fermenter on November
21, and racked to secondary on the 24th. Yeast is 2112. It has been quietly
doing its thing since then- at about 62F plus or minus a couple.... still
very tiny bubbles rising near the edge of the glass carboy, and also still
maybe a quarter inch or so head on the wort/beer.
Is all this normal? This is the first Steam/Lager I have made since moving to
Texas from hot Florida, just wondering, not worrying, just wondering....
Bob
Houston, TX
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:08:07 -0500
From: "Myers, John" <JMyers@polkaudio.com>
Subject: Brewery Design Considerations
Thanks to those who made suggestions for moving wort from the patio to
the utility room. Copper is preferred over CPVC. To those who were
confused by my original post, I wanted to move wort from an outside
ground level patio to an inside subterranean utility room. I do not
fancy moving 5-10 gallons of wort by hand due to the chance of hurting
my beer or myself. Water is approximately 8 pounds to the gallon, and
tends to slosh around. I had considered an in-line chiller, but was
correctly reminded of hot side aeration, so only cooled wort will travel
the pipe line. Now I'm trying to come up with a clever name for the
pipe line...
john
John Myers Polk Audio
Mechanical and Industrial Design Manager "The Speaker
Specialists"
Vox 410.764.5231, Fax 410.764.5491 Baltimore, MD
jmyers@polkaudio.com http://www.polkaudio.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 08:10:21 -0600
From: Bob and Susie Stovall <urbanart@netropolis.net>
Subject: yeast question
Greetings Beer Friends... Question of the day.
Yeast. I am a devoted convert to liquid yeast- I can taste the
difference in my beers when I use the liquid. The question deals with
the little yeaty buggers themselves... are they different in some way
_because_ they are in a liquid carrier? Or is it because the dry yeast
is not as pure? Or what? Why is yeast in liquid form better?
What if one rehydrated the dry yeast and then built up a starter...
would it still make a beer tasting different from the beer made from
liquid?
Opinions, facts and speculations all welcomed... thanks
Brewin' Bob
in Houston
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:55:31 -0500
From: danmcc@umich.edu (Daniel S McConnell)
Subject: Saul's nutrient agar
From: Saul Laufer <laufers@vaniercollege.qc.ca>
>With the recent and ongoing thread on yeast and yeast ranching I thought
>I'd ask if anybody knew whether a Nutrient Agar (23 grams per liter)
>could be used as a slant material. The breakdown of the 23 grams is:
>Pancreatic Digest of Gelatin-5 grams;
>Beef Extract-3 grams; Agar-15 grams.
If this is all that is in the nutrient agar, you will need to add a sugar
source. I would add dry malt extract to provide a balance of sugars for
yeast. So...take 23 grams of the NA and add to it 15 grams of DME. Now
use it at a 38 grams/L ddH2O. This will give 1.5 % sugar which should do
well for normal yeast culturing although it will be very rich.
Try it.
DanMcC lat 42^0 17', lon 83^0 44'
(~5 miles SE of Jeff Renner and ~20 miles W of Pat Babcock)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 09:30:24 -0500
From: Tom Clark <rtclark@eurekanet.com>
Subject: Decanting starter
Is it adviseable to decant a starter?
I thoroughly aerate at each step up. Will this create acetyl? Is the
amount of acetyl generated in the process of creating a two quart
starter going to be excessive? Significant?
Should each step up be decanted?
BTW - in my last brew I used a dry yeast, re-hydrated, then pitched to 1
pint of .20 wort. 12 hours later I pitched it into 1 quart of wort and
after another twelve hours pitched that into 5 gallons. It sounded off
it's first "GLURK!" in less than 2.5 hours. Within a few hours it was
bubbling merrily along. It is still in the secondary right now.
Tom Clark
Ohio River mm191.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 10:14:47 -0800
From: Tim Plummer <plummer@brick.purchase.edu>
Subject: Neophyte - Conditioning / Fermentation temps question
Hello,
I've been brewing for about a year, and a question concerning
fermentation/conditioning temps has come up...
My pantry is the only place in my apartment appropriate for fermenting
beer and for storing the cases of tasty brews once bottled. This
winter, I've discovered that depending on how I configure the screen and
storm windows, I can achieve different temperatures in the pantry.
(Double window = 65F, single window = 60F, screen = 50F.) Conveniently,
these are pretty good temps for brewing, and in fact means that I can
probably get away with brewing up a lager or two this winter, something
which I had previously thought undoable.
So... I will be brewing an imperial stout tonight. After 4 weeks or so
in fermenters, I'll bottle and store for a few months. If I should
chose to brew a lager while the stout is conditioning, how will the
colder temps affect the conditioning stout? Should I let the stout
condition at ale temps for a period of time before chilling my pantry
down to lager-fermenting temps? If so, how long?
TIA to anyone sharing insight.
Tim Plummer (Port Chester, NY)
plummer@brick.purchase.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:44:01 -0500
From: "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu>
Subject: On Shocking Yeast
Someone posted a few weeks back a comment/question about shocking yeast. He
or she had a memory of reading somewhere that yeast are not shocked by a
sudden introduction from refrigerator temps to pitching temps - i.e., not
from cold to warm. It's the sudden shift from warm to cold that will shock,
this person was suggesting.
I haven't seen any reference to this comment in subsequent HBDs, but have
been looking for one. I've always been careful and gentle with yeast,
allowing them to warm slowly to room temp before pitching. I notice that
George de Piro repeats the commonly held wisdom ("but be sure to warm it
slowly") in HBD # 2572.
Any authoritative response to this?
Thanks,
Michael Gerholdt in Chautauqua County, New York
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:38:40 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Buena Noche obscura cervesa
Brewsters:
Mark Weaver and Pat Babcock have been discussing that metallic
taste that seems to appear only when Mark pours this Dos Equis
varietal into a glass.
1) I always have to rinse inside and out any glass with water =
or I can taste/smell the detergent/ rinse aid used in the dishwasher.
It has a drying, saline, metallic taste to me. Somewhat
choking/drying smell.
It is supposed to be standard practice to rinse out any beer glass =
with cold water before you pour. Do you?
2) It may be that you aren't tasting the metallic taste so much as
you are smelling it, if you don't get the same reaction from a bottle
as a glass.
I can smell tap water often and sometimes in high iron areas
can detect the iron content before I ever place it to my lips.
Crazy as it sounds, I can often tell if foods, especially green
vegetables and starchy foods, need salt as they cook
just by the aroma. I have often wondered about this, having
never read about it, have considered it my imagination lots of times,
but have done it for enough decades to believe it's true.
I recall my mother had the same facility. Perhaps the salinity
content alters the vapors??? Or the smell of the vaporizing of =
salt's minute organic impurities is what I subliminally detect? =
An aerosol of salt [ an "aerosal"?! {8^) ] is a possibility?
Any other comments/experiences?
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:02:11 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: warmish lager ferment
"Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK@hartcrowser.com> wrote:
>In HBD 2570 Jeff Renner writes about getting bubblegum flavor after primary
>ferment of a CAP with Wyeast 2124:
>
>>I'm not ready to draw a conclusion about fermenting 2124 at 56F on the
>>basis of one trial, but I don't think I'll do it again. I did it this
>>time because I wanted to save a few days.
>
>Just a data point, used 2124 for my first lager, a CAP, ferment started at 57
>degrees for one day then 8 days at 54 degrees before racking to secondary.
>This
>was great beer, especially for a first lager. No hint of bubblegum. Love
>that
>"Your Father's Mustache" recipe, BTW
As promised, here's the final report on this from me. I'm quite sure that
my problem wasn't the warm ferment but contamination, either by me or by
the micro that I got the yeast from. It sure looked good, I even wonder if
I got their weizen yeast, because more than bubblegum, it's phenolic. This
doesn't go very well with a well hopped pilsner, needless to say. I think
that if I had fermented at 46-48F, I might have gotten a cleaner ferment
because the wild yeast/bacteria might have been more stunted by the cold
temperature than the lager yeast, but who knows. Unfortunately, I have a
1/4 bbl. Sankey of undrinkable CAP, my first failure in many years. In
private email Grant suggested using it for cooking, but that's an awful lot
of cooking beer.
Fortunately, I was able to provide the promised beer for my friend's
wedding by blending about 4+ gallons of 1.054 Munich dunkel, 1+ gallon
1.048 CAP and 5 quarts cold, boiled water for a light, only slightly too
bitter, red lager, which I CP bottled with a friend yesterday in quart
longnecks. (The reception hall won't deal with draft.) Thank goodness I
had quarts. CP bottling is certainly a pain. I put the filler in the
freezer before using it, had the bottles and beer at 32F (@16 psi, I want
carbonation and a real pffft when they're opened), and still got foaming in
some bottles, and none in others, and have no idea what the difference was.
Jeff, located right here in my chair, where I'm beginning to feel that I'm
the center of geographic reference.
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:59:58 -0600
From: lheavner@tcmail.frco.com (Lou Heavner)
Subject: Re: brewing with a microwave
From: "Francois Landry" <flandry@hotmail.com>
>2) Would it seem stupid to try boiling my wort in my microwave? :-) I
>know it sounds freaky for most of you but I would only try small 1-2
>gallons batches, maybe not even fully boiling the wort. It's just that
>brewing in college dorm room is not like brewing at home... and I don't
>really want "no-boil" kits.
Francois,
I do yeast starters and my priming solution in the microwave to sterilize
them. The big problem is boilover. You gotta watch it like a hawk! I
only boil it for a short time and when it's about to foam over, I open
the door to stop the heating and let the foam settle down. It takes a
few minutes to reach boiling and then I only boil for a minute or so. I
do get a surprisingly nice hot break. Maybe operating at a lower power
or with larger mass would help minimize boilover, I don't know. Use
pyrex microwave safe pot and allow as much freeboard as possible. I
don't know if the microwaves, themselves would do anything bad to the
wort, but I doubt it.
>Thank you for your .02$
Your welcome, hope you still think it is worth all of that... (btw,
Canadian or US? ;) )
The Thankgiving holidays were very good to me. I brewed a brown ale
the Saturday before and hooked a neighbor into this fine sport! Then
the Sunday after, I brewed an ESB on top of the yeast from the brown
ale, (Wyeast 1098) and did it ever take off!! Shortest lag I have
ever seen! It was bubbling within 3 hours. Maybe sooner as I didn't
even check any sooner than that. What a trip! Can't wait to taste
them. Sadly, my ESB hit lower sacc temp than I planned and I didn't
have enough hot water to get it up where I wanted. We'll see how
important a few degrees are. First time to use my new 7 gal Gott as
my hot water tank and my new microvalves for sparging. Way cool!!
And as long as we are at it... I got spousal approval by watching the
toddlers over the holidays while she shopped. She thought I was the
brewing king on Sunday while brewing one and bottling the other and
still helping with the kids! Next I will tell her I want to craft a
beer just for her! he he A lighter colored lager like maybe a CAP.
Got to brew it soon so it will be ready by the Superbowl!
Regards,
Lou, fermenting and formenting in Austin, TX
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 97 05:13 PST
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Re: Traquair House Ale Attempt
At 06:34 AM 11/27/97 -0500, Jim Wallace wrote:
<snip>
>Charley, In talking to the brewer at Traquair, the one thing that surprised
>me the most, was that they used a fairly warm(high 60's to low 70's) temp
>for fermentation (not typical of the scottish style). Frank said they did
>have problems getting to their final gravity at times and they would
>control this by cranking up the temp a bit and rousing the yeast some. If
>you find the final brew has less character than the Traquair then may be
>you could try this next round.
I thought about doing this when I discovered the high FG but I already had
the beer off the yeast (into the secondary) when I found it. So I checked
style guidelines and this makes it just barely acceptable attenuation. I
decided to leave it be. I kegged it today at 1.027. It had an amazing amount
of C02 still in it. When I diverted the syphon tube into the sample jar I
ended up with a 1 inch high very very dense head in the sample jar. It took
a good 15 minutes to go down to the point that I could read the hydrometer.
>
>How did you handle the residuals of your mash after taking off the higher
>gravity wort? did you make a small beer out of it? or just discard?
I wasted the sugar. Basically I've got this thing about brewing specific to
a style (i know, AR) and I really didn't know what to do with the leftovers.
And after an 8 hour brew day, I was too tired to really care.
Charley (lamenting lost sugar) in N. Cal
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:55:57 -0600
From: layton@sc45.dseg.ti.com (James R. Layton 972.952.3718 JLAY)
Subject: flaked wheat and sparging
Mark Weaver asked about techniques for sparging a mash containing
flaked wheat...
The sparge on my last wit beer (approx. 50% flaked wheat) stuck before
it drained a quart. I figured I had tried to run it off too fast. I
transferred the mash into a pot and reheated it to 170F while I cleaned the
manifold in my lauter tun. Transferred the mash back to the lauter tun
and started a _slow_ runoff. Recirculated about a quart, and it started
slowing down to a trickle. In an effort to salvage this mess I took a
knife and cut the bed, at first shallow and then all the way down. No
improvement. Then I took a big spoon and started to stir the mash. I
discovered that the top 1 inch of the grain bed had the consistency
of a stiff mud, almost like clay. I stirred the top three inches or so of the
grain bed and saw the runoff rate pick up a bit. I repeated this stiring
every few minutes (the mud layer kept re-forming) while keeping about two
inches of sparge water over the grain. The runoff was really slow for about
40 minutes, then the rate increased a bit and held steady without further
stirring. I think that the sparge water had finally diluted the mash liquid
and lowered the viscosity enough to allow a normal sparge. The runoff at
first (after the initial recirculation) was hazy but had no visible
particles, later it became pretty clear. Total time for this sparge was
around 2.5 hours, but that is counting the failed first attempt.
The sparge was a pain but the beer turned out so good that I don't plan
to change anything. Anyway, I hope this might be of help to those of you
who choose to deal with those sticky ingrediendts.
Jim Layton (Howe, TX)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:18:20 -0800
From: Massimo Faraggi <rosamax@split.it>
Subject: Homebrew, Italy and a New Beer Page
After more than 1 year since my first post to HBD about homebrewing in
Italy, just a little update is due.
Personal homebrewing: this has been my best homebrew year ever, and I
have to thank mainly this great forum that is HBD. It may seem a waste
of bandwidth, but I think that 1 cumulative thank each year is not too
much.
I learned much also from new books and other Internet resource, but this
Forum has been the main sources of improvements of my extraxt brewing
(from sanitization tips to using liquid yeasts and culturing them, to
the correct way of using specialty grains and which ones and more and
more...). And HBDers suggestions were also quite useful when I had my
first (beer)trip to US, but this will be the subject of another post.
Homebrewing in Italy: something is moving, beer kits are now widely
available, and I could find even 1 (one) shop selling also grains, hops
etc although with a limited choice by now. I could meet (by email only)
other Italian homebrewers using mainly extract (we can find 25 Kg.
extract cans) but also some all grain (getting grains and hops from a
German village) and some hbrewers even trying malting their own grains!
Microbreweries/brepubs: I could find some! Just the address, not yet
visited, but there ARE 3 or 4 and possibly more. Some just opened in
1997. The first are already mentioned in my Beer Page, and I am checking
for the others.
My Beer Page: OK, I admit it, it's the main purpose of this message. I
won't bother you any more. There is a Hbrewing section which is more
useful to Italians (I know some are reading HBD), data and ratings of
810 beers, and a pub and microbrew guide to Italy which by now is a bit
limited but I hope will grow. And labels, beer trip reports (Belgium)
etc. Oh, it's almost completely dual-language (english/italian) The URL:
http://www.split.it/users/rosamax/
So, thanks for the attentions & cheers
Massimo Faraggi
Genova - Italy <-- a Jeff approved signature! :-)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2574, 12/04/97
*************************************
-------
