Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2622
HOMEBREW Digest #2622 Thu 29 January 1998
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:
Amber Ales ("Michel J. Brown")
varied ("Myers, John")
On politeness, critiqueing, chillers and Dunkelweizens (TheTHP)
Priming for bottling. (John Hessling)
Best Way to Remove Chlorine From Brew Water? (Lynn & Mike Key)
oxygenating starters (Al Korzonas)
Homebrew Digest Post ("Bryan L. Gros")
re: Practical Boundary Layers ("C.D. Pritchard")
False Bottom Type / Malt Modification "Sinker Test" (Kyle Druey)
B+ Grade on the Protein Rest Quiz (Kyle Druey)
Re: Simple Yeast Culturing ("Michael Gerholdt")
ultra fast fermentation (Heiner Lieth)
Mit Trub? (Calvin Perilloux)
Water Chemistry (KennyEddy)
Late Hop Additions Revisited (John Varady)
RIMS (Bill Giffin)
[ANNOUNCE] New stuff in recipe calculator. ("Joseph S. Sellinger")
aeration (Anti-spam: email blocked)" <demonick@zgi.com>
More Propane and Propane accesories... (RooJahMon)
Re: Fast starts ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
a hell of a technical problem ("Paul A. Baker")
nip bottles (Dave Sapsis)
Be sure to enter the...
The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition
Brooklyn Brewery, Brooklyn, NY
Entries due by 1/31/98, competition 2/7/98
Contact Bob Weyersberg at triage@wfmu.org for more info.
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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, 26 Jan 1998 03:02:32 -0800
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade@spiritone.com>
Subject: Amber Ales
I looked at the latest AHA style guides and discovered that American Amber
Ale was added. I have tried Full Sail Amber ale and have found it a full
bodied, well hopped ale with a nice long dry finish. Bridgeport also makes
a nice Amber Ale, a bit closer to an ESB than an Amber IMHO, but was well
flavored with malt and hops. Crisp finish that left my palate a bit
wanting, perhaps from using dry hops? Portland's MacTarnahans Gold Medal
Scottish style Amber Ale was even lighter still in color, and in body as
compared to the first, but was a well balanced brew, albeit a bit light on
the body, and color. Finish was a bit on the tart side, which may be due to
their yeast strain. Widmer makes a passable Amber Bier that reminds me of a
watered down Alt. Perhaps this is what they do with their leftover Alt. No
hop flavor, as compared to the previous brews, but balanced bitterness to
the lightly bodied malt profile. Short abrupt finish that left my palate
feeling like the carpet on my garage floor, ie a bit fuzzy. Althought it's
not an American Amber Ale, Fuji makes a nice Amber ale (right color too
imho), which is very malty with a pronounced hop nose and palate. Long
clean finish which fades away into a hoppy, malty, slightly dry taste that
beckons for another. Altogether, I'd rank these beers as I have reviewed
them (actually tasted in reverse order), and would hold the Fuji up to the
Full Sail as archetypes of the style. As for the rest, well, nice try, but
not close enough, given that the rest weren't even AMBER beers! Full Sail
even admits to using just Pale Ale, Crystal, and Chocolate malt. Hops are
Mt. Hood, and Cascades, most likely around 35~40 IBU's which blends well
with the OG which I'd say would be around 1.062 to get the claimed 6%ABV.
No mention of the yeast, but my guess would be Wyeast 1056, as it appears
to be the defacto microbrewery yeast of choice in this area. I'd like to
try cloning this brew, and use the Wyeast ESB (#1968) yeast instead, as I
feel it gives a rounder brew which American Amber deserves IMHO.
Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR}
homemade@spiritone.com
http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html
"Big Man don't drink no stinking light beer!"
"Big Man drink beer what got BIG TASTE!"
Big Man Brewing (R) 1996
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:50:12 -0500
From: "Myers, John" <JMyers@polkaudio.com>
Subject: varied
Hiya Friends.
This Saturday last, I was at my local homebrew store for supplies and
equipment. Working part time is the brewer for a local brewpub. I had
the opportunity to ask him his opinions of some recent threads. I'll
call him "Artemus" (not his real name) because I did not ask his
permission to repeat his thoughts. Also, I did not wear a wire. (Take
that, Mr. Starr and Ms. Tripp.) As I have yet to go all grain, I have
no bias in some of the issues...I merely report, not editorialize.
* RIMS or Mash Mixing?
Artemus: Basically, we mix the mash. However, I recirculate
during the last 30 minutes of the mash. The object is to get the
clearest wort possible into the boiler, and then the clearest wort
possible into the fermenter.
* Single temp or step mashing?
Artemus: Single step is all you need with today's highly
modified malt. When it was less modified, or if you were to use a less
modified malt, you'd need the temp rests. But most small brewers do
single temps. Ask a German brewer, though, and he'll read you chapter
and verse about why you must step mash.
* Sparging: Do you stop at a certain pH, or when you've collected
enough liquor?
Artemus: Neither, really. I sparge until I'm at 1:020 gravity.
See, brewpubs aren't going all out for that last bit of efficiency. We
net about $375 for a barrel of beer. A micro brewer, though, has to
sell his beer for, say $50 for a barrel, so he'll cross all the tees and
dot all the eyes to get as much efficiency as possible.
* Yeast: Do you culture your own, and how often do you use a new
culture?
Artemus: We don't have a lab. I just buy a litre of live yeast
and use it for about a year. We've not noticed any "off" flavours, and
I just got a new culture just because I thought I should. I use
the same yeast in all our ales, typically Wyeast 1056. The yeast
collects in the cone of the fermenter. The idea is to harvest
the yeast in the middle of the strata. The bottom has a lot of trub,
and the top has a lot of floculents, so I collect what's in the
middle, put it in the available fermenter, and add new wort. I don't
"wash" the yeast, I just take care to get what's in the middle.
Nice chap, that Artemus. If things had been slower in the store, I
think he would have chatted me up for hours. He told me he went to a
brewer's school in California, and that it was very cool although quite
intense: 8 hours of class followed by 5 hours of homework and projects
daily. Enough to make your brain explode. His brewpub has been
reviewed in several publications including Ale Street News, and the
beers got good reviews. As I said, I'm presenting another's opinion on
these issues, and have no bias. Also I am relying on memory here, but I
think I got it right.
cheers,
john
John Myers Polk Audio
Mechanical and Industrial Design Manager The Speaker Specialists
mailto:jmyers@polkaudio.com http://www.polkaudio.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:49:28 EST
From: TheTHP@aol.com
Subject: On politeness, critiqueing, chillers and Dunkelweizens
In HBD 2618 Eric Fouch commented on his lack of knowledge on how to run a brew
pub. I second that opinion and raise the point of how to politely review a new
brewing establishment. Eric, If you don't what you are talking about. Don't
talk about it!
On Harpers.
Nobody got the smoked Rye? What a brew! Darn shame. Its heads and tails above
the rest. Especially that awful porter. I made my first visit just after the
new year--I had the pleasure of being the first customer to quaff the smoked
rye. I almost stopped in again last night after the game for some yeast, but
alas the weather and time of day kept me away. If your going to publicly rag
on a brew pub you'd better have at least tried all the beers. Get a sampler.
For $4.50 you get six 7oz samples--My friend thats the best beer buy for the
dollar of any of 30+ brew pubs I've visited in North America and thats even if
you don't discount the Canadian exchange rate. I ranked Harpers beers like
this.
Smoked Rye - A delicate winter warmer. Smooth rye overtones and a not quite
subtle hint of smoke when its cold. As it warms the smoke fades into oblivion
and a more malty presence quietly makes its way to the front of the palate. An
Excellent brew that will only improve with age.
Stout -- Its a stout. Dark, dry, and roast. Nothing fancy here, just a good
quality brew pub stout.
Am Wheat-- Their biggest seller. Its wheat. Its cloudy. Its not too clove and
no Banana hints at all. It is however right in the middle of the Am. Wheat
category. Note: Its cloudy beer! And its selling well in a brew pub smack in
the middle of Michigan State University. That says something.
Amber Ale-- Its ale. Its amber. It had some hops. Uneventful
Cream Ale--Or shall we say pale ale. Bland, Pale and not real "Creamy."
Marketers...
Mocha Java Porter--What a disaster. They should serve it in a cup and saucer.
Or like English tee with a strainer to filter out the coffee grounds. Yelch!
Hello, Bartender, I'd like some beer with this coffee! Way over done. Only
flavor is that of coffee GROUNDS! According to brewing staff, it was made by
steeping 5 10 lb bags of grounds for an amount of time. To say the least it
didn't turn out they way they had intended. And they know it. On
oxidation...did'nt taste any.
Brew pub Operations--
If you don't understand how they work-SHUT UP!!!! and stop making stupid
offers to redesign them. Within 4 feet of the base of the kettle is a large
water cooled chiller. Just where and just like ever other brew pub in
Michigan. The bright/serving tanks are located on the same level as the
brewery/pup because there is a HUGE Dance club underneath the pub that been
there for 30+ years. They couldn't go straight down and create a cold room
like most brew pubs. Instead they have to pipe it across roof into glycol-
chilled copper-clad serving tanks located around the restraunt. Its visually
beautiful--and practically awful (PITA) not to mention expensive. But there
is no place left to go.
Now, I've only been there once, but I did catch them while they were brewing.
I had a really good discussion with the brew master and assistants about their
process, yeast strains and brewery design. And they were polite enough to warn
me about the porter. I did sample ALL of his brews, ranked them by mostly
empty glass and left instructions with the bartender for the brewer to see
them. But beyond that, I took the time to really study the place. When I
sampled the beer, I analyzed it as I proceeded slowly and carefully. The
bartender was even nice enough to offer to pour our samplers one at a time.
It's a nice establishment. Well, layed out and still being worked on. Please
remember its new, The equipment is new, the staff is new, and yes the brewer
is new too. He may look like a teenager wearing his dad's brewery shirts, but
he's not. Their his, and they look old and faded because he earned them with
the experience that got him to where he is today. The brew master at the
newest brew pub in Michigan.
I don't want to turn this into a flame war with Mr. Fouch, but I think we need
to review what we learned from the last LABCO flame war.
1. A little politeness goes a long way.
2. If you don't know all the facts don't fuel the fire with incompetent
speculation.
3. If you insist on making you opinions known, take the time and effort to
know what your talking about.
4. Goto #1
On chillers--
I like my Helically-wound finned copper tubing chiller. Its 20 ft of 3/16 ID
tubing with 1/4 inch fin wound on it with 1/8" gap. Its has twice the
efficiency of standard tublar copper (80% VS. 40% Heat transfer rating). Or so
the manufacturer claims. Currently I am putting together an article on
chillers for my clubs newsletter. I'm also currently web-less which seriously
hinders my research abilities. If any of you out there have write-ups on how
to make a chiller (any and all kinds) on there web page or If your someone who
just wants to be "Published" I'd love to be able to know about and or use your
article in next months "Sentencing Guide".
on Dunkelweizens
Mark T A Nesdoly was having problems with color. If your going to take the
time to do a triple decoction why not try doing one or more using a pressure
cooker. I made a similar beer this fall. A Double "Pressurized" Decoction
50/50 HB wheat and briess pale ale. My target was blond bock, but i got a
Dunkle Wietzen instead. I was really suprised at how much Darker the P-
Decoctions made it. I think the recipe I used in the the AOB Recipator.
Thanks in advance for any and all help.
(Wow that was long, sorry for the bandwidth)
Phil Wilcox
The Poison Frog Home Brewery
Sec/Tres. of the Prison City Brewers
(Jackson, MI [32 miles west of Jeff Renner
and 32 miles south of Harpers])
Editor of "The Sentencing Guide"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:14:52 -0600
From: John Hessling <hessling@inlink.com>
Subject: Priming for bottling.
I brewed an all-grain beer about three weeks ago. It is had a 1.060
starting gravity and is finishing at about 1.012. I am considering
using some of my 1.040 gravity canned wort for priming instead of the
priming sugar which I have used in the past, but I haven't a clue about
how I should figure out how much to use. I have read a couple of
sources which just say you have to play with it. That's okay, but were
do I start? Any body have some experience with this? (Either good or
bad?)
Thanks for your help,
John Hessling, St. Louis, MO.
hessling@inlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:14:43 -0500
From: Lynn & Mike Key <flakeys@ibm.net>
Subject: Best Way to Remove Chlorine From Brew Water?
How important is it to remove chlorine from brew water? Is the
difference in flavor significant? What is the best way to remove the
chlorine? Dave Miller says to boil or filter. Boiling will take too long
and use too much propane. The carbon filter I bought at Home Depot
("attach to the sink faucet"-type) is also really slow (rated 1 gal. per
minute). Is there a faster carbon filter available? How do the
commercial breweries remove chlorine? Or do they? Has anyone had any
luck buying filtered/treated water from local breweries? Thanks.
- --
Cordially, Michael Key
"Extremism in the pursuit of prudence is no vice"--
Greasy Fingers, Chicago Gangsters
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:33:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: oxygenating starters
Andy writes:
>In any case, type B yeast [fresh anaerobic, 30% glycogen, 0.1% sterols]
>is what we generally have close to the end of
>a fermentation. Aerating such yeast for about 2 hours prior to pitching
>will reduce the glycogen to about 5% and increase sterols to about 1%.
>Such yeast is in optimum form for immediate fermentation.
I've read one paper where they dispute this assertion. They claim that
their research showed increased levels of various fermentation byproducts
(I know acetaldehyde was one) and significantly lower attenuation rates
from pitching low-glycogen yeasts[1]. I do suspect, however, that they
were not using this method of aeration in water prior to pitching, so
maybe it counteracts the negative affects of low glycogen levels. I
don't know, but I did want to bring this up anyway.
I'd also like to point out, that in my case, I think that I would use
submicron-filtered air due to the fact that I know that aerating with
room air gives my beer a mild clovey character.
Finally, I think that while we may learn a lot of things from the commercial
brewers, their methods may not always be in the best interests of flavour.
The research that attracts the most investment is that which results in
cost savings for the brewers and not necessarily improved beer. We should
keep this in mind when considering applying their methods.
Most commercial brewers don't store their hops in oxygen-barrier packaging
purged with inert gas... I do. Most commercial brewers use one yeast
strain and only a handful use three or four... I use 20 or more. We have
the benefit of doing this for fun and personal interest which means we
can do some things that a commercial brewer would think wasteful (like
not sparging or bubbling oxygen through a fermenter) or not physically
possible (like rocking a fermenter back and forth to resuspend yeast!).
I'm not saying that this is one of these examples, but rather just trying
to offer the other extreme to help us keep it all in perspective.
[1] Pickerell, A.T.W., A. Hwang, and B.C. Axcell, "Impact of Yeast-Handling
Procedures on Beer Flavor Development During Fermentation," ASBC Journal,
49 (2), 1991, 87-92.
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, 26 Jan 1998 14:50:26 -0800
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Homebrew Digest Post
Mr. O'Shea, Five Star Products:
I read with interest both Jim Liddil's "review" of your product
and your response on the internet. You wrote that you wished
Jim had conferred with you prior to his post, and that you
would appreciate such collaboration with others in the future.
In my opinion, Jim's and anyone else's opinions and experience
with this product is much more valuable when it comes as
an independent remark. Any "collaboration" would be seen,
at least by me, as advertising.
Most of us realize that an experiment such as Jim described
is not the final word on any idea or product, and we also
appreciate any additional information you can supply.
But independent remarks and debates are the most valuble.
- Bryan
Bryan Gros gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the Draught Board club website:
http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:54:19
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: Practical Boundary Layers
If discussions of fluid flow gives you a headache, hit PgDn...
Charlie S. posted (in part):
>However in a small tube like a RIMS, 2 metres per second would usually
>produce turbulent flow, the diameter of flow influences the calculation.
YIPES! In the typical 1.5" Cu tubing that's used for a RIMS heater
chamber, that's an astounding flow of 36 GPM! No RIMS technology I know
of can possibly induce such a flow. The grain bed would have to be rather
radical also.
Marks' Mech. Engr. Handbook (8th edition- kinda long in the tooth...) says
flow is turbulent when Reynolds number >= 4000. For your 2 m/sec, I calc
the Nr at 160,000! (Assumming abs. viscosity of wort is about that of 140
degF water). One important item not considered is the heating element in
the tube. Neglecting it in calculating Rn is conservative tho.
OTHO, Charlie's right- 2 m/sec will "usually" produce turbulent flow. <g>
>The turbulence is achieved rather suddenly, it can be calculated by
>esoteric math involving Prantl and Renyolds numbers, however this is
>best left to thermodynamic engineers...
For determining if the flow is turbulent, the principle and the math are
straight-forward and easy. Heck, there's not even an exponent to be found
in the equation <g>.
As for the Prandtl number and it's application to boundary layer heat
transfer, I strongly agree that the math is esoteric as is the principle
embodied in the math!
Thus concludes fluids 101...
c.d. pritchard cdp@chattanooga.net
Web Page: http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:29:29 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey@ibm.net>
Subject: False Bottom Type / Malt Modification "Sinker Test"
>Subject: Commercial False Bottoms
>Is there a consensus among the collective as to the best commercially
>available false bottom. I've reviewed past issues and have a wealth
>of information, but a recommendation from someone who has already
>done the experimenting with different models would be appreciated.
The best type of false bottom to use is dependent on your mashing
process. How do you get it done: decoction, single infusion, RIMS,
BladePlowing (tm), kettle mashing...?
*********************************************************************
Testing for Malt Modification
Noonan describes a very simple method for estimating malt modification.
The purpose of such testing is to determine if and what type of protein
rest is needed. A simple procedure to determine malt modification is to
administer the "Sinker" Test:
1) Shake 50 kernels of malt into a container of water and let it sit
for 10 minutes.
2) Count the number of kernels that float and the number that sank.
Noonan suggests that with good malt (does he mean highly/well modified?)
95% of the kernels will float parallel to the surface of the water. At
the very least 70% should float (does he mean moderately modified?). I
thought this test was very practical for home use. Has anyone tried
this test, and if so is it fairly accurate? Somebody please fill in the
blanks...
I plan on obtaining samples of various base malts and performing this
test, then looking up the modification numbers in the BT market guide.
I will report results if they appear useful.
Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:48:24 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey@ibm.net>
Subject: B+ Grade on the Protein Rest Quiz
Thanks goes to Al K for being the first HBDer to take the protein rest
quiz. Al, I gave you a 'B+' grade instead of an 'A' because you did not
show some of your work and provide references :)! I have some comments
and questions to your responses (only because I want to learn when the
protein rest is needed):
>e pretty much a waste of time better spend elsewhere. Modification
>determines whether you need a protein rest, not the style.
OK, I agree. Style should not determine if a protein rest is needed.
The more appropriate statement might be that one should use malt from
the country that exemplifies the beer style. (e.g., don't use highly
modified British lager malt to make a pilsner, use a German pilsner
malt)
>Going back to "3" for a second, why would you do the rest at 122F and
>not 131F (or 135F or 140F)? Because it is *even less modified*? Again,
>I think you are somehow associating modification and rest temperature.
Well, seems as if some homebrewing icons adapt the protein rest
time/temperature to the degree of malt modification. Here is the most
recent example: check out the protein rest Fix recommends in his new
book AoBT for the following malts:
1) no protein rest, malt = 2-row ale (44 Kolbach, 1.6% FG/CG, 10%
protein)
2) 15' @ 122 F, malt = European pilsner (38 Kolbach, 1.7% FG/CG,
10% protein)
3) 15' @ 131 F, malt = domestic 2-row (40 Kolbach, 2.2% FG/CG,
11.7% protein)
Fix further explains that from his experiments there is no significant
difference in reduction of chill haze proteins from a rest at 122 F
versus the same rest at 131 F. So, if there is no difference in chill
haze reduction at the two temps, maybe all he is doing is controlling
the FAN level of the wort? Why does he distinguish between 122 F and
131 F for a protein rest? Hopefully you can make better sense of this
than I can...
>All modern malts will have more than enough amino acids in all-malt
>worts. A rest at 122F simply increases wort amino acid levels at the
I have often read this, and perhaps the more critical problem with
modern
malts is that they may provide too many amino acids? Comments... If
this really is a problem how can the wort FAN be reduced to acceptable
levels (besides using adjuncts)?
>expense of body and head retention. With our modern malts, I contend
>that NO recipe needs a 122F rest! If you are using an undermodified
Never say never! The one exception might be mashing with wheat malt
which needs the 122 F rest to generate sufficient yeast nutrients and to
degrade HMWP proteins for easier lautering (see Warner's wheat beer book
p. 59). The other exception is if you have poorly modified malt with a
Kolbach index less than 35.
>I've posted about this before and I'll say it again. Here's how I
>determine whether I need to use a protein rest for a particular malt:
>1. brew a batch using this malt and *don't* use a protein rest,
>2. if more than 1/5 of the carboy is filled with break material
>the next morning, then next time I use this malt, add 15 minutes at
>135F, and
>3. if there's only a small amount of break material in the carboy
>the next morning, then *don't* add a protein rest next time.
>Simple, no?
I like the simplicity. But it assumes you are using a glass carboy, if
you use a plastic bucket as a fermentor your method won't work. Perhaps
for 'bucket people' like me Burley's 'Bite Test' or Noonan's 'Floater
Test' could be used instead to estimate malt modification before
mashing, and if or what type of protein rest is needed. I am still
looking for references for the Floater Test, but I did find a reference
supporting the Bite Test "possibly the best measure of malt modification
is the kernel's hardess. Chewing on a kernel of poorly modified malt is
much like chewing on a steel ball bearing. Properly modified malt, on
the other hand, will have a soft, mealy texture caused by the breakdown
of the hard protein matrix in the endosperm." (Fix, PoBS p. 103)...
thought Burley would enjoy reading this :).
Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Ben Fanklin
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:45:29 -0500
From: "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu>
Subject: Re: Simple Yeast Culturing
Mark Nelson wrote:
>In short the idea is to brew a mini-batch of unhopped beer, then bottle it
with all the yeast in suspension. In other words swirl the carboy to get
all the yeast suspended, then bottle and cap as normal. Each bottle
becomes
the equivalent of a smackpack (or better) and can be used in a starter for
an upcoming batch, or probably to pitch directly into an upcoming batch.
WARNING:
Make very sure the beer is _fully_ fermented before trying this. A friend
gave me a beer bottle with about 3/4 inch yeast cake on the bottom and some
beer on top. A couple of days later it exploded, and all I can say I'm glad
the kids and wife were away when it did. Cleanup time was 7 hours, and the
damage it did was enough to make me realize what it would have done to
human bodies had any been in its path.
Safe brewing,
Michael Gerholdt in WNY
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 22:32:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth@telis.org>
Subject: ultra fast fermentation
After posting a question regarding partially open fermentation, I
involuntarily did one last night.
I took all this "oxygenation" and "big-starter" talk seriously with the brew
I did yesterday. I had the yeast cake from a California Common (Wyeast
2112) ready to be reused. After cooling the wort (partial mash, 3-gallon
boil) I brought it to a gravity of 1.046 in my bottling bucket. Once it was
ready, I let it run slowly out of the spigot into the sludge. This really
did a great job getting the yeast cake back into solution and it seemed to
really oxygenate.
I had this baby bubbling at a steady pace within 20 minutes. I moved it to
the garage (T=65F) and by the time I went to bed it was bubbling as fast as
I've ever seen it.
Unfortunately my teenage daughter had some sort of crisis this morning (not
surprising) so I couldn't check on the fermenter. But when I got home this
afternoon I found the the lid had been blown off (very surprising - those of
you with these buckets know that that requires an enormous amount of force).
It made surprisingly little mess when it blew. I transfered to a glass
carboy right away. What is really strange is that the fermentation is just
about done (i.e. within 24 hours): gravity at 1.012, there was little or no
foam left on top of the beer. The sample from the hydrometer flask tasted
real nice (no yeasty flavor).
So here is what I'm wondering: (the age-old question) Is my beer ruined? I
figure the chance of microbes (bacteria, yeasts, fungi,...) making its way
into that bucket is pretty high. Will these cause problems or will the
alcohol in the beer prevent spoilage?
Heiner Lieth
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 06:57:41 -0500
From: Calvin Perilloux <peril@compuserve.com>
Subject: Mit Trub?
>From Dave Burley, =
>I have seen "mit Trub" on the bottles and it just =
means with sediment. Nevertheless it doesn't say
"mit Hefe" which would be with yeast.<
Odd. I can't question what you've seen in the States
(I assume you are there), but all I ever saw in Germany
was "mit Hefe" or "Naturtru:b" (don't forget the umlaut!),
the former meaning with yeast and implying cloudy, =
and the letter stating naturally cloudy but attributing =
that to no particular source, though most Bavarians
would have been mightily disturbed to have the =
cloudiness come from anything but yeast.
Living in Erding, home of Erdinger Weissbier, I had
heard frequently that the strain of yeast used in the =
bottles was a lager yeast (cleaner flavor, but still =
throws the desired sediment when you want it).
That was a quite mild Weissbier in relation to others,
perhaps due to the yeast they use (or don't use).
I can vouch, though, that some like Schneider had =
live cultures that friends were able to use for brewing. =
These were from bottles bought in Germany, where
they were certainly not pasteurized, at least according =
to the brewery and drink markets. (Blasphemy! Might
as well drin beer from a can!) Unfortunately, I can't tell =
you if the bottles destined for shipment to the States =
are pasteurized or not, though a few Weissbiers I had =
there over Christmas tasted quite unpasteurized to me.
Guesswork and speculation follows: I would tend to =
trust the smaller, local breweries in Germany to have =
"real" Weissbier yeast in the bottle; I would avoid the
trouble of trying to propogate from any of the bigger =
breweries bottles (Paulaner, Erdinger especially, z.b). =
Calvin Perilloux
Bayerisches Bier -- Sta:rker als Heimweh...
'ber als 'ne besseres Job leider net, deshalb bin ich hier.
Bondi Junction, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:19:13 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>
Subject: Water Chemistry
AlK asks about my comments on water chemistry:
"I've only read "accentuates flavour." Could you email me or post the
source
that gives these descriptors?"
My references for what I posted included:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wsawdon/www/water.html
Pappazian, Complete Joy, p. 272
Pappazian, Home Brewer's Companion, pp. 76-68
Miller, Complete Hdbk, pp. 66-67
Foster, Pale Ale, pp. 59-60
Foster, Porter, p.75
Mosher, Brewer's Companion, pp. 164-165
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:06:40 -0800
From: John Varady <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Late Hop Additions Revisited
I asked a question recently about the amounts of hops to add to a pale ale
and when to add them. Well, I found a good definitive answer in the Brewing
Techniques article, The Great Pale Ale Experiment. For those not aware of
the article, it is about Pac NW brewers attempting to brew identical
recipes to see if it was possible to reproduce another brewerys ale. All
the brewers in the experiment meet, debated, and came up with a pale ale
recipe. The grain bill was 74.5% pale, 15% Crystal 40, 10% Munich and .5%
Chocolate, and hops were Columbus 13% aau at 60 & 30 mins (40 ibus) and 5
oz Cascade per barrel @ 15 & 0 mins.
My original question was if 60 gms of hops (in 13 gallons) at 20, 10, 0
minutes was too much. Well it turns out that my 60 gms of hops scaled up to
a barrel actually comes out exactly to a 5 oz addition in a barrel. If 10
brewers from Oregon can collaborate and come up with such a hop bill, then
in my head it must be ok. I will make the switch to 30, 15 and 0 mins for
my finishing additions (although the 30 min addition they were using was
apparently for bittering).
BTW, My BT subscription ran out after the issue containing this article and
I didn't renew it in time for the next issue. The experiment was supposed
to be continued in the next issue but browsing it in the bookstore, I
didn't see the article. Is it there?
Thanks for the time,
John
(G.D.P - I think the porter I sent you will be ready to sample when you get
home from Seibel...)
John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Glenside, PA rust1d@usa.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:46:39 -0500
From: Bill Giffin <billg@ctel.net>
Subject: RIMS
Top of the morning to ye all,
Why in the world would anyone want a RIMS brewing system? When an
enamelware pot will do everything that a RIMS will do only better. How do
you do decoction mashs with a RIMS? How do you do a mixed mash with a
RIMS? If you are doing an infusion mash why do you need to recirculate?
Brits don't!
I can brew a lot of beer for the cost of the pump alone, and better beer at
that.
Those of you who are planing to go all grain use the KISS system and stay
away from RIMS, too much cost and the potential for problems without enough
gain to warrant building a RIMS.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:12:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph S. Sellinger" <jss@jrock.com>
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] New stuff in recipe calculator.
Hello HBD,
I am posting this note to announce some new functionality of
my recipe calculator.
The URL is http://www.jrock.com/recipe_calc
I have now completed two authors IBU calculations and created a
graphic for the results. The Rager and Tinseth calculations
are complete. I think you might find it interesting to
see in a graph the results. There is some surprizes to be found
in the data.
Once the see a IBU calculation graphic click on it.
I have done a page to display the values that went into the calculations.
You might also like that.
Please take a look and add a recipe or comment about a recipe.
Joe Sellinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:57:37 -0800 (PST)
From: "Domenick Venezia (Anti-spam: email blocked)" <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: aeration
First, let me say hello to all who may remember me. Life has conspired
against my brewing and drinking beer for the last year, but all is well
now. Thank god for gin and vodka and tequila and brandy and port and
wine. It is VERY good to see the HBD healthy and going strong. Thank you
to Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen for stepping up and taking the reins.
Spencer wrote in #2619:
> ...
> SHEESH! SHUT UP OR PUT UP!
> Make a batch of beer. Split it into two (or more) fermenters. Aerate
> one during fermentation and don't aerate the other.
> Take notes.
> ...
This harkens back to a thread from way back that I took to heart and
tested. I did not split a batch (I wish I had) but I did use a recipe
that I have brewed many times. I aerated 5 times during a 100 hour
primary fermentation. The details:
9# HughBaird 2-row
1# 80L Crystal
1# flaked maize
The yeast was bootlegged from a famous English brewery.
OG: 1.057 (5.75 gallons)
Temp: 17-19 C (63-66 F)
Wort was aerated with aquarium pump, microbial filter, and ultrafine
airstone. Initial aeration was 26 minutes, subsequent aerations were
5 minutes at hours 14, 24, 54, and 101.
Fermentation peaked at 40 hours.
The final aeration was an attempt to kickstart the fermentation after it
had apparently stopped. At the time of the final aeration there was no
airlock activity and subsequent to the aeration there was no airlock
activity. Oops!
FG: 1.019
The beer sucked! Can you say "oxidized"? Can you say "sherry"? Can you
say "cloying"? The aerations did not bring the FG down anymore than
previous batches with basically the same grain bill and the same yeast.
I tried to salvage the brew by making almost 2 gallons of hop tea and
replacing that much of the brew.
What did I learn? The aeration did not seem to increase the vigor of
fermentation any more than simple non-aerating "rousing". So, aerate the
heck out of it at pitching time, and perhaps during the fermentation, but
do NOT aerate after the fermentation has peaked.
What do I do now? Aerate the heck out of it at pitching time only.
Domenick Venezia demonick@zgi.antispam.com (remove .antispam)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:14:02 -0700
From: RooJahMon <RooJahMon@Brew-Meister.com>
Subject: More Propane and Propane accesories...
AN UPDATE on the LP bottle exchange, I exchanged my old style bottle for
a new one at the local Conoco gas station this weekend. The attendant
just gave me a key, you open the cage and trade yours for a full one.
There were both types of valves in there, just pick your poison. The
biggest DRAWBACK is I paid $16 for $10 worth of propane, but now I'll
just refill my "new" bottle.
Jeremy Bergsman had a question;
Here's a bunchocrap about LP and NG. The air to gas ratios are quite
different, so watch that too. The conversion you seek is at the bottom,
but I've never done it myself, YMMV.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PROPANE, BUTANE AND METHANE(natural gas).
PROPANE(LP) BUTANE Natural Gas(Methane)
Chemical formula C3H8 C4H10 CH4
Specific Gravity (lqd) .509 .582 .3
Specific Gravity (gas) 1.52 2.01 .64
Weight Per Gallon 4.24 lb 4.84 lb N/A
Boiling Point -44F 31F -260F
Ignition Temp 920-1200F 900-1000F 1150F
Maximum Flame Temp 3595F 3615F 3400F
Flammability Limit-Upr 9.6% 8.6% 14%
Flammability Limit-Lwr 2.15% 1.55% 4%
Ideal Combustion Ratio
(Air to Gas) 24:1 31:1 10:1
Heat Value
per cubic foot 2,516 BTU 3,280 BTU 1,000 BTU
per pound-liquid 21,591 BTU 21,221 btu N/A
per gallon-liquid 91,547 BTU 102,032 BTU N/A
Cubic Ft Per Gal 36.4 ft3 31.1 ft3 N/A
Cubic Ft Per Lb 8.6 ft3 6.5 ft3 N/A
PROPANE VAPOR PRESSURES;
0 deg F 30psig
70 deg F 132psig
100 deg F 205psig
PROPANE OCTANE NUMBER, 125
PROPANE/METHANE JET CONVERSION CHART:
OK, changed my mind, I'm not going to type out the entire NG/LP jet
conversion chart, but you can use the following example; To run a
Methane (NG) burner with a #60 (.040) jet on Propane (LP) it would
require a #72 (.025) jet. The approximate ratio is the Natural Gas jet
is 1.6 times bigger than the Propane (LP jet*1.6 = NG jet or
LP jet/1.6 = NG jet)
Just thought you might want to know. If you use electric heat, just so
you won't feel left out, 1KW = 3413BTU.
Unless Otherwise Specified,
RHG
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:31:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea@frc.com>
Subject: Re: Fast starts
In an attempt to make it easier to make a fast starter, I did the
following for Brewday (Sunday).
Friday
1. Take 5 Tbs DME and 2 cups water, boil and cool.
2. Pour into a 2 liter pop bottle
3. Add tube of lager yeast and shake vigorously
4. Store at about 68 F.
Sunday
1. 8:00am take 3 Tbs DME and 1 cups water, boil and cool.
2. Pour into the 2 liter pop bottle with yeast.
3. Shake vigorously.
4. 12:00pm add to the cooled wort in the carboy.
First signs of activity was two hours later, 12 hours later at 57 F, it
had a nice layer of foam on top. The total time I had to attend either
day was about 10 minutes and the yeast seamed to be very happy.
P.S. I started heating the water for the mash at about 6:30am, by 12:30pm
I was out in the yard sledding with the kids.
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Charles L. Ehlers wrote:
> <<From: "Andrew Avis" <Andrew.Avis.0519423@nt.com>>>
>
> <<I use a yeast starter method that is unorthodox and in theory should lead
> to bad beer, but has in practice made excellent beers that start in 2-4
> hours. I've done this with both lager and ale yeast:
> 1) I make a 1 litre starter w/ OG 1.040, well aerated, & pitch the smack
> pack or washed yeast from a previous batch. The starter is kept at about
> 70F. I do this 2-3 days before brewing. (I'll step up once if brewing a
> strong beer).
> 2) I pitch the entire starter at high karausen into well aerated 85F
> wort.......>>
>
> This is essentially the same technique I've used since I began using
> liquid yeast and have always had excellent results with both ales and
> lagers. However, my wort has usually cooled lower than 85F, but usually
> not lower than 75F. Have always wondered why others have complained about
> slow starts.
>
_________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea@frc.com
Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:36:25 -0600
From: "Paul A. Baker" <pbaker@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Subject: a hell of a technical problem
Fellow brewers:
I recently tried to make E-mail contact with a relative.
My attempt failed. Here's the unedited error message
I received from the server:
Unable to deliver the message due to a communications failure
MSEXCH:IMS:KYGOVTMAIL:DISCH:DISCHEXCH1 0 (001202AA) Too Many Hops
I should have known. . .
Paul Baker
Wisconsin Center for Education Research
(608) 263-8814
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:39:07 -0800
From: Dave Sapsis <DAVE_SAPSIS@fire.ca.gov>
Subject: nip bottles
Tom Puskar inquires about a source for the small "nip" bottles so nice
for packaging barleywines.
However, in doing so, he unfortunately violated the 11th commandment,
also known as Renner's Rule:
Its easier to tell you where something might be available to you if we
know where you are at, nicht var?
That said, California Glass Co. (Cal-Glass) makes a very nice 7 point
something ounce nip, in very dark green glass, complete with punt (the
cone on the bottom as found on Champagne bottles). They are located in
Oakland, but have (or at least had as of a couple years ago) a 50 buck
minimum order. Given that the bloody things are kinda pricey though,
this isnt actually that many bottles (as i remember they went for around
$10/case!). One retailer that carries them that I know of is Oak Barrel
in Berkeley (oakbar1@aol.com). No affiliation, other than a friend and
occasional customer when I can't get my stuff on the free.
- --dave sapsis, in lovely Sacramento (some folks say), or 12,047 km NE of
Sir Andrew of Sydney
"Man, you ask too many
questions" -- Latrell Sprewell, to NBA inquirey
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2622, 01/29/98
*************************************
-------
