Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2656
HOMEBREW Digest #2656 Mon 09 March 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:
Salts and Reinheitsgebot (Siegi Chavez)
Yeast/Reinheitsgebot/Reactive/Constant pH (AJ)
RE: swap dog for fish (Bruce Baker)
yeast ranching/California prop 65 (Kevin TenBrink)
Mash Tun Insulation ("Gregg Soh")
RE: PID or T-couple problem? (John Mitchell)
Dry yeast for lager? ("Schultz, Steven W.")
Simple Question (Cava Christopher)
re: Aeration stone santitation / In-line wort aeration (Jeff)
Re: Does yeast eat protein? (Jeff Renner)
the slow-mead myth (Lars)
New All Grain Question - Mash Out (Dan Thompson)
LC50 for Bud ("Brian McHenry")
1/2" Food Grade Plastic Valves ("Mark Prior")
legalities of transporting HB across state lines (Tidmarsh Major)
keg lube (Tidmarsh Major)
RE: RIMS Achilles heel / PID or T-couple problem? (LaBorde, Ronald)
Re: steeping dark grains (Sean Mick)
Plastic fermenter ("David Hill")
Esters ("Mort O'Sullivan")
Chloramine Heresies (AJ)
post@hbd.org ("Shaun Funk")
sanitizing air stones (Jeremy Bergsman)
Ringwood = 1187? (Jeff Renner)
Re: Ringwood = 1187 ("Capt. Marc Battreall")
Pistachio Porter? (Steve Gabrio)
Be sure to enter the 7th NYC Spring Regional Competition
3/22/98. Surf to www.wp.com/hosi/companno.html for more
information...
----------------------------------------------------------
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@hbd.org
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: Thu, 5 Mar 98 13:52:20 EST
From: Siegi Chavez <schavez@ad.ENET.dec.com>
Subject: Salts and Reinheitsgebot
As I understand the text of the law, the Reinheitsgebot has nothing whatever
to say on the subject of water treatments. It makes no mention of mineral
salts as being okay or of unnatural acids being forbidden. It is simply
silent on the subject. I would presume that some sort of treatment of the
water takes place, for reasons of health if nothing else. I am not certain
what traditions exist among brewers to limit water treatments, but would guess
that these would be as firmly binding as any law.
The thing I find most interesting, and least commonly publicized, about the
law is the exemptions it carves out for those not producing domestic lagers.
The requirements for a top fermented beverage are much more lenient. Paragraph
1 covers lagers and says what you would expect. Paragraphs 2 and 3 then say:
"2.The brewing of top-fermenting beer underlies the same regulations, however
other malts may be used and the use of technically pure cane, beet or invert
sugars as well as dextrose and colouring agents derived from these sugars is
allowed.
3.Malt shall be taken to mean: any grain that has been caused to germinate."
This means that the Kolsch I make with wheat and prime with dextrose is
Reinheitsgebot, as are my Hefeweizen and my experimental Dunkel Roggen.
Further, even these requirements can be circumvented as stated in paragraph 7:
"7.Upon request, in individual cases, such as the preparation [of] special
beers and beers intended for export or scientific experiments, exceptions to
the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 can be made."
If you are interested in the full text (in English and German) it is
available at http://www.xs4all.nl/~patto1ro/reinheit.htm. The article there is
interesting in viewpoint, but has some sound logic. In the end, though, I am
neither pro- nor anti- Reinheitsgebot. If you brew good beer, you are doing it
right and if you don't you are doing it wrong. It is all pretty subjective.
S Chavez
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 14:46:21 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Yeast/Reinheitsgebot/Reactive/Constant pH
Martin A. Gulaian asked why yeast don't consume protein in beer. Well
they do of course. Brewers and bakers use the same species of yeast
although the strains are different in many ways (respiration!) their
nutritional needs are similar. It is important that the mashing process
digest proteins so as to arrive at a proper spectrum of molecular
weights. Low molecular weight fragments are required as nitrogen sources
for yeast nutrition. Worts with low FAN (Free Amino Nitrogen) experience
poor fermentation. This FAN comes from amino acids and low molecular
weight peptides which have been broken from proteins during malting and
the protein rest (note that not everyone accepts that the protein rest
is really effective)/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim Busch asked about Reinheitsgebot. The Reinheitsgebot says "..kein
Stueke mehr as alein Gersten, Hopfen und Wasser...". Not much doubt to
my way of thinking that this proscribes acid and salt additions. Before
the EEC the governing law was the Biersteuergesetz which was less strict
than the Reinheitsgebot. In particular it allowed sugars other than malt
sugars and fining agents as long as their action is mechanical. I
_thought_ I remembered that mineral acids were allowed in some
circumstances but the version I pulled up on the net today doesn't seem
to say anything about that (or my German isn't good enough to spot it).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald J. La Borde asked in #2653 why I mentioned reactive power. Pat
Babcock knows the answer as revealed by his post in the same number.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Frederick (Rick) L. Pauly has some puzzling observations n #2653 re
mash pH. I can't tell exactly what happened but can make a guess as to
what might have caused the observations. To sumarize, as I understand
it, two samples of Briess 2 row malt were mini-mashed with,
respectively, tap water (pH 5.8) and spring water (pH 7). Both samples
went to pH 5.3 and neither gypsum or chalk caused a pH change. In
addition runoff at pH 5.3 tasted astringent. There is only one
conclusion which fits _all_ these observations is Dave Burley's in this
same number: many pH papers aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
For starters, municipal tap water would never be released into
distibution with a pH of 5.8. The USEPA wants it between 6.5 and 8.5 and
the utility wants it high because water in that area isn't that hard and
low pH leads to pipe corrosion when hardness is low. Second, ale base
malt (no crystal etc.) mashed with water of the mineral content
typically found in Virginia should go to a pH of around 5.6 if that low.
Third, gypsum should cause a drop in pH though it probably wouldn't be
more than 0.1 or so and this would be hard to detect with strips.
Fourth, a teaspoon of chalk is definitely going to cause a substantial
increase in pH. Rick asked "How can the pH stay the same?" It can't and
therein lies the clue to what I think is the probable answer.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 08:33 +1000 (AEST)
From: Bruce Baker <Bruce.Baker@asx.com.au>
Subject: RE: swap dog for fish
As for the effect of recycled homebrew on tropical fish, please refer to the
study by George Alfermeister of Port Douglas on the Great Barrier Reef, who
during the early 1980's did several such tests. His works make fascinating
reading. If you wish to repeat his tests, please take note of his warning
not to perform the projectile stomach reflux procedure whilst in the water
with large scary fish. It seems they do get in a state of frenzy.
Bruce Baker,
taysoft@ibm.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 16:53:31 -0700
From: Kevin TenBrink <tenbrink@jps.net>
Subject: yeast ranching/California prop 65
Hello-
I am just getting into yeast culturing and storage. I start by making a
1 gallon "minibatch" of unhopped beer with 1 lb. of DME. I pitch the
yeast sample I want to grow (from smack pack or commercial bottle) and
let it ferment. After fermentation has subsided, I decant off some of
the liquid, swirl the jug, and then pour this yeast "slurry" into 12 oz
bottles and cap for future use. The question I have is, How long can I
keep the yeast stored in this alcohol containing solution? I have read
some sources that say 6 months, while others say that you should never
do this. If indeed I should not be storing in an alcohol containing
solution, could I simply add a step where after bottling and letting the
yeast settle, I decant the "beer" off and add sterile water? I am
really excited about being able to keep several yeast varieties and want
to make sure I will not be harming the little buggers or worse, mutating
them so they do not even resemble the original kind.
Secondly:
I recently moved and now have a yard and outdoor spigots. I am getting
geared up to move my brewing and clean-up procedures outdoors. I
purchased a hose at the local mega-hardware store. When I got the hose
home, I noticed a label on it that says:
"WARNING: California Prop 65 This product contains chemicals known to
the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or
reproductive harm. DO NOT DRINK FROM THIS HOSE."
Does anyone know what these "chemicals" are that could be in my hose? I
am not so concerned about the cancer or the birth defects, but damnit, I
dont want to screw up my brew! Should I refrain from filling the
brewpot from this hose, will boiling drive off these "chemicals", any
input would be appreciated!
thanks,
that's all for now
Kevin TenBrink
Salt Lake City
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:33:56 PST
From: "Gregg Soh" <greggos@hotmail.com>
Subject: Mash Tun Insulation
I'm sure there have been many discussions on the HDB about mash tun
insulation. 'Been searching the archives for some definitive answers,
but I still have a vague understanding in this area. I know for one that
most insulations will not be fire-proof, so I'll probably not be able to
apply external heat to maintain it. What I would like to ask those who
have experience in this area is, what is a good 'k' factor for
insulating materials and does 1/k = R? I have got a source of 1 inch
close cell sheet that has a 'k' factor of 0.044. Is this good enough for
mashing for the average period of 1-1.5 hrs? Any help is appreciated.
Can I use Q = mc(theta) = kAt x temperature gradient to approximate the
heat loss? (obviously not accurate, considering we don't know the
specific heat capacity the mash and we disregard the tun itself, but
roughly)
Greg
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 06:16:16 -0500
From: John Mitchell <jlmitch@charlotte.infi.net>
Subject: RE: PID or T-couple problem?
I have had many problems with thermocouples. I tried using heavy-duty bare
wire thermocouples for fast response. I find that after a period immersed
in liquid, the reading dropped without the temperature dropping. The
electrical engineer who used to run the I&E shop at the plant I work at
said this shouldn't happen unless there is a "cold junction." This happens
when the wires are making contact at a place other than the desired one at
the end of the thermocouple. My wire seems OK, but I have problems. In
addition, there is enough variation between the 6-8 thermoucouples I have
that I would carefully choose and calibrate. I would suggest testing your
thermocouple with a different reader (if you don't have one, let me know
and I'll lend you one) to see what happens.
john mitchell
Carolina Brewmasters
Gastonia, NC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:44:11 -0500
From: "Schultz, Steven W." <swschult@CBDCOM-EMH1.APGEA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Dry yeast for lager?
I just made an ale using Lallemand/Danstar Nottingham dry yeast. The
label of "neutral for an ale yeast" is true-- this was about the
"neutralist" ale yeast I've ever experienced!
Manufacturer information: "The Nottingham strain was selected for its
highly flocculant (precipitating) and relatively full attenuation
(transforming sugar into alcohol) properties. It produces low
concentrations of fruity and estery aromas and has been described as
neutral for an ale yeast, allowing the full natural flavor of malt to
develop. Good tolerance to low fermentation temperatures, 14C
(57F),
allow this strain to brew lager-style beer. Recommended 14 to 21C
(57
to 70F) fermentation temperature range."
My question is, has anyone used this yeast to make a lager, and if so
how did it turn out?
Also, a couple of weeks ago, someone asked about making lagers with
Morgan's dry lager yeast. Was there any feedback? If so, please post.
Thanks in advance.
Steve Schultz
Abingdon, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:52:30 -0500
From: cavac@stjohns.edu (Cava Christopher)
Subject: Simple Question
We (my father and I) started homebrewing late last year - all of it done
with kits. The first batch went incredibly well - clear, good head
retention, and great taste. We were advised for the first batch to go from a
primary to a secondary (we were told even though there would be little
fermentation there, more sediment would settle out). For the next kit, we
tried a pumpkin ale (our first mistake) and decided to use some Irish Moss
(which we had not used in the first batch). We wound up with a thick layer
of sediment on the bottom of the primary and "floaties" distributed
throughout. Many of these "floaties" got pulled up through the syphon tube
when we went from primary to secondary and many were still there a week
later and wound up in the bottle. Two weeks later we had spicy beer (spices
were part of the kit) with floaties and sediment. One month after that we
had beer that did not taste as spicy, but did still smell that way, and had
a lot of sediment at the bottom. It went down the drain. Only recently did
I see the post warning to keep beer at least a year before you give up on
it. The third kit was called an "American Ale". Again we used the Irish
Moss, and again we got floaties in the primary and secondary. I split the
batch in half before bottling and added half a container of Blueberry
extract to one and half a bottle of Apricot extract to the other (my
curiosity far outruns my skill level). They have been in the bottle for 1
week now. My questions/problems: First, and most important, why am I
getting these floaties - are they related to the Irish moss and why aren't
they falling out. Second, some of the blueberry bottles, while somewhat
clear, seem to have pinhead size things growing on the inside walls of the
bottles (all bottles were cleaned, then soaked in bleach and water, and then
rinsed with water). The apricot is very cloudy - but no spots. The
blueberry extract did have "natural blueberry color". Any advice for any of
these problems would be appreciated.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:30:38 -0500
From: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: re: Aeration stone santitation / In-line wort aeration
Hi All,
George DePiro recently wrote:
>>>>>
To keep the stone clean I follow two simple rules:
1. Always leave the gas on when it is contact with the wort. This
way flow is always out of the stone. I even rinse the stone under
water before I turn the gas off.
2. *Immediately* after use flush the thing with water, and then boil
it to sterilize (just in case something got in). A 20 mL syringe
works great for flushing the stone.
<<<<<
I'd like to add a thrid rule: NEVER biol your aeration stone in your
kettle with the wort. When I first got my Oxynator <tm> I thought that
this would be the easiest way to sanitize the stone. Sure it sanitizes
it alright, but it also quickly plugs it up solid. I had to soak and
backflush mine with caustic to get it clean again.
============================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 841-7210 x21390
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 841-7250
Launcher Technology and email: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Analysis Branch
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2
Newport, RI 02841-1708
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:24:03 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Does yeast eat protein?
mag6@po.CWRU.Edu (Martin A. Gulaian) asks "Does yeast eat protein?"
A good question. I've been a baker about as song as I've been a brewer,
and I even make my living baking French bread. I've done a lot of reading
about the science of bread. I'll leave the beer answers to people who know
more, but here are some thoughts about bread.
Actually, your sourdough (and regular yeasted dough) is probably not so
much "eating" the gluten as unlinking it. I suspect that it is also
utilizing a small amount of it, but it isn't "living" on it. It
metabolizes the small amount of sugars that are present in the flour, and
0.1% malted barley flour is typically added to bread flour to provide
additional sugars from analytic activity on damaged starch granules. But
there are definitely enzymes that break down the gluten as you've noticed.
I believe that these are the same enzymes that "mature" the gluten in the
first place, making a well fermented dough much more elastic than a freshly
kneaded one.
One of the qualities that wheat breeders have improved over the years is
"fermentation tolerance." Dough made from modern wheats can last in peak
gluten condition over a longer "plateau" of maturity, which is very useful
to me in my business. I make up five oven loads of dough at once and bake
it off over five hours starting 12 hours after I start, with one "punch
down" four hours before I make up each batch of loaves. This is a much
longer ferment than is typical in modern baking. I use very little yeast
and get a far more flavorful product due to the effect of all of the wild
micro organisms in the dough that are not overwhelmed by the typical huge
amount of yeast (big "pitches" are not good with bread).
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:34:28 +0100
From: Lars <skyking@e193.ryd.student.liu.se>
Subject: the slow-mead myth
In HBD #2654 Dick Dunn wrote about aging times of mead and stated that
mead should not need long maturation times unless something is done
wrong.
I would like you to enlighten me what everybody seem to make wrong. I
can't say I'm a experienced mead maker, but when I did a mead it took
quite a time to carbonate. It took even longer to mellow tastes and I
would say it hasn't done that yet. Mr Dunn also states that there
should be no difference between straight meads and methegiln since the
spices aren't fermentable, but doesn't the spices need time to mellow?
And for the newbie scaring part of long maturation times it should not
be a problem - if you're going to make mead you have to be patient
anyway due to long fermentation times. On the other hand is mead
somewhat simplier to brew than beer since it doesn't need long
boiling.
/Lars
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:58:38 -0400
From: Dan Thompson <thompson@cotf.edu>
Subject: New All Grain Question - Mash Out
Hello Brewing Collective.
First I'd like to thank all those that contribute this digest. I've been
reading it for about a year and have learned a lot from it.
Now let me ask a question. I've been extract brewing for about 5 years and
have recently started doing some all grain beers. I use a Gott cooler for
my mashturn, so I do a single step infusion mash. I've read that the mash
I should raise the temp to 170(f) for a 10 minute mash-out. How important
is this step? What does it accomplish? I guess I should add x gallons of
boiling water to raise the temperature. But won't this use a lot of my
sparge water? Should I just recirculate more, than? I've done one beer
skipping this step and the results seem fine. Any comments are welcomed.
TIA
Dan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:11:53 -0600
From: "Brian McHenry" <tbncentralus@email.msn.com>
Subject: LC50 for Bud
Andy Walsh <awalsh@crl.com.au> wrote:
Subject: swap dog for fish
<snip>
>I for one, plan on trialing the toxicity of recycled homebrew on tropical
>fish...
>Andy
>(BF = 72%)
Andy, your name and email address have been forwarded to PETA. BTW, I used
to work as an aquatic biologist and I have already performed the
flow-through acute toxicity testing on our finned buddies (aka test
organisms). LC50 for bluegill sunfish using day-old Budweiser is 580ppm.
Hope this helps.
;^)
- --
Brian
Bushido Brewing Co.
"Death Before Dishonorable Beer"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:29:55 -0700
From: "Mark Prior" <priorm@email.msn.com>
Subject: 1/2" Food Grade Plastic Valves
Does anyone know where I can buy a bottling bucket valve that will accept
1/2" ID tubing?
Thanks,
Mark Prior
Chandler, AZ
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:31:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Tidmarsh Major <tmajor@parallel.park.uga.edu>
Subject: legalities of transporting HB across state lines
Does anyone know what legalities one should consider when transporting
homebrew across state lines. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that one
is moving to another state and one's movers have refused to haul any full
bottles, leaving one to load the car with 10 or so cases of beer and mead.
What perils might this hapless and hypothetical homebrewer face if pulled
over by, say, an Alabama state trooper just past the state line?
Cheers,
Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama
tmajor@parallel.park.uga.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:37:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Tidmarsh Major <tmajor@parallel.park.uga.edu>
Subject: keg lube
I was at the local hardware store this morning and noticed that they had a
90% silicone O-ring lubricant that contained no petroleum products and was
labeled "non-toxic." Is that the same as "food-grade," and if so, would it
be a suitable lubricant for keg O-rings and fittings?
Thanks,
Tidmarsh Major
tmajor@parallel.park.uga.edu
Birmingham, Alabama
"But we must drink as we brew,
And that is but reason."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:54:01 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: RIMS Achilles heel / PID or T-couple problem?
>From: "Keith Royster" <keith@ays.net>
>and this most recent
>replacement was returned because it consistently read 15dF too high.
>......
>I received my fourth PID this week and hooked it up
>yesterday only to find that it also is reading 15dF too high,
>regardless of the actual temp
>......
>so I'm beginning to
>wonder if the error might be somewhere else, such as the
>thermocouple (or other human error)
>......
>So... is there anyone out there that knows a little bit about these
>items that could give me some insight as to whether the problem is
>more likely to be with the PID again, or if it's the thermocouple.
I wonder if you have made any wiring changes over the troublesome
period. It is my understanding that thermocouples need special wiring
and connectors that have the correct metal type junctions. That is -
you cannot use a regular connector or terminal strip in any of the
wiring from the thermocouple to the input terminals of the PID. If you
do, then you are actually creating a thermocouple at each connection!
To test this, try connecting your thermocouple directly to the PID,
eliminating all other wiring or connections in the path.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:59:34 -0800 (PST)
From: homebrew@dcn.davis.ca.us (Sean Mick)
Subject: Re: steeping dark grains
Nathan ponders:
>WRT steeping dark grains. I've heard mention that if you add your "dark"
>grains (roast, chocolate, black, etc.) at mashout, you achieve a smoother
>profile. I've never read anything about this in the limited literature
>that I have. I don't imagine that Guiness adds the black malt at mashout,
>but I don't know. Does anybody have any good evidence or experience that
>indicates it is better to add dark grains to mashout, rather than including
>them in the entire mash?
Dr. Michael Lewis (UC Davis Master Brewers coordinator/head instructor)
reports that Guinness DOES in fact add their roast material (barley for
domestic product, malt for export) separately. At the St. James's Gate
brewery only, though. They extract the soluble roast "wort" in a separate
tank and add it to the kettle with the pale wort. This was reported to me
by one of my customers, who is enrolled in his course at UCD (and confirmed
by reading it in his _Stout_ book on pg. 48). I believe the rationale
behind this is to limit the extraction of tannins (phenols), which would
lend to a more smooth, mellow palate. The student with whom I spoke also
mentioned Dr. Lewis said something about the limited exposure to enzymes
caused by adding the roast at mashout. This intrigued me, and we both
couldn't explain the reasoning. I'm not sure if he meant that
1) the acidity of the roast malt had an undesirable effect on pH (too low)
and hence enzyme activity or
2) that the enzymes somehow degraded the roast material in an
unsatisfactory manner or
3) he misinterpreted Lewis' statement and concluded it had something to do
with enzymes.
Any thoughts on this? My guess is that there would be some advantage to
extracting roast material separately, as the pH would be significantly
lower (about pH 4.3-4.5, according to a chart in _Stout_, pg. 44) than in a
mash with pale malt and roast (pH 5.0-5.4). The lower pH would probably
lower extraction, but also inhibit phenol extraction. If Steve Alexander is
out there, perhaps you can help explain it in light of your recent article
in BT on phenols (especially the passage on pg. 74 WRT enzymatic activity,
pH and temperature). I tried to follow it, but some of the chemistry eluded
me.
Long live the Digest!
Sean Mick
Mick's Homebrew Supplies
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~homebrew
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 07:25:38 +1000
From: "David Hill" <davidh@melbpc.org.au>
Subject: Plastic fermenter
I brew pilseners in a fridge set at 10-11C.
I larger in the same fridge.
The size of the refrigerator is my major limiting factor.
Using 25litre cubic food grade containers as fermenters and laager vessels I
can accommodate 100 litres in the one fridge.
with carboy it would be 25 lit
with round "fermenters" it would be 50 lit.
so cubes it is!
To clean I add about 4 lit NaOH solution, cap, shake well and put aside.
Every time I walk past I pick it up give another shake and put down other
way up to what it was before.
After a while (varies on the state of the moon, urgency to brew again and
other factors) rinse with water, then with iodophor and re use.
I have no evidence of infection in these containers.
Air locks consist of a 10ml vinyl tube stuffed into a 10ml hole in the
filler cap lead off to a small bottle of water.
Simple,
works
cheap,
efficient use of fridge space.
David
David Hill. davidh@melbpc.org.au :-)>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:58:43 -0000
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater@brew-master.com>
Subject: Esters
In Digest # 2654, George De Piro writes:
>Alex is correct about higher pitching temperatures yielding beer with
>increased esters. The general rule is that anything that increases
>yeast growth will increase ester and higher alcohol production...
I'm glad to see this thread coming up again as I've been doing some
thinking about esters recently. In his post, George did a good job of
conveying the complexity of ester formation, however a few statements
did not quite sit right with me and I wanted to explore them further.
A good overview of the literature on ester production was provided by
Andy Walsh in digests #2080 and #2086, so I won't repeat what he wrote
(go back and read them if you need a refresher). But I would like to
offer a few thoughts.
George says that "The general rule is that anything that increases
yeast growth will increase ester and higher alcohol production." He
also states that increased O2 levels led to more esters. I'm OK with
the bit about higher alcohols, but I immediately objected to the
statements about esters because they contradict published literature
about ester production. However, I realize that George's observation
(and that of others mentioned by George and Andy Walsh) that more
yeast growth = higher ester levels is based on empirical evidence and
there must be some validity to that observation.
The brewing literature presents ester synthesis as a competitive
process to yeast growth and various papers have consistently shown
increased production of esters (including ethyl acetate, isobutyl
acetate, isoamyl acetate, 2-phenylethyl acetate, ethyl caproate, and
ethyl caprylate) with decreased yeast growth achieved by lower levels
of aeration/oxygenation. In thinking about the discrepancy between the
brewing literature and the experience of George and others, the
following thought occurred to me:
The literature indicates that the inhibition of growth will increase
ester concentrations because of an increase in availability of
acetyl-CoA or an increase in factors that stimulate alcohol
acetyltransferase (AAT). I think this is very well established.
However, cell growth vs. ester synthesis is not strictly an inverse
relationship; i.e. normal cell growth is still associated with a
certain level of ester synthesis. I think it is possible that high
levels of cell growth only compete against *excess* ester production
associated with inhibited growth--that is, the ester production
associated with normal cell growth will not be diminished and may even
increase with the increase in cell growth (but would not increase as
dramatically as with inhibited cell growth). This would explain the
experience of many people who see higher ester levels with increased
growth (I think this type of model would explain the figures shown by
Andy Walsh in HBD#2086), but still be consistent with research that
shows high ester production with decreased growth. I know this is
slightly confusing; does anyone follow what I'm trying to say? This is
mainly conjecture but I have a feeling it may have some validity. The
trick is to prove it. This would be extremely difficult because it
would involve showing the dependency of ester-related enzymes
(including AAT, other ester synthases, esterases, and proteases that
degrade these enzymes) on both growth and non-growth conditions (which
would be dependent on factors such as O2 conc, free amino N, temp,
pressure, fermenter design, initial lipid concentations, sugar
distribution, suspended solids, initial condition of yeast,
availability of other nutrients, etc). This would be a very complex
system to try to monitor. Plus the results would probably be valid for
just one yeast strain.
My own interest lies in how the levels and distribution of flavor
compounds changes during the stationary phase of fermentation. One
article I ran across recently suggested it is possible to adjust ester
levels and distribution after primary fermentation by controlling the
conditioning parameters (i.e. a beer fermented at 14C will have a
particular ester distribution; by conditioning the beer in contact
with the yeast at, say, 18C the ester distribution may shift toward a
spectrum that would have been produced initially if the beer had been
fermented at 18C). Has anyone out there found this to be true? These
claims seem a little questionable to me, and I certainly don't think
it would hold true in all cases (probably strain dependent), but I
would be interested in others' experiences.
- ----------------
Cheers,
Mort O'Sullivan
ICBD (Edinburgh, Scotland)
tarwater@brew-master.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 22:19:30 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Chloramine Heresies
I came across this the other day:
"While free chlorine is far less volatile than combined chlorines, it is
not easily removed by aeration. However, combined chlorines are easily
removed by aeration, and the volatility or vapor pressure increases with
increases in chlorine atoms in the combined chlorine compounds."
...
"Di- and trichloramines contribute more significantly to tastes and
odors than free chlorine and monochloramine....Free chlorine and
monochloramine in treated water contribute minimally to the taste of
water."
>From Connell, Gerald F. "The Chlorination/Chloramination Handbook",
American Water Works Association, Denver 1996 p29.
Am I the only one that thought it was the other way around? I've
certainly been preaching the gospel of boiling/aeration for chlorine and
active carbon filtration for chloramine but if the people at the AWWA
aren't expert in this area I don't know who is.
Ever the skeptic, I lugged the gear into the office today (I'm on a well
and so have no chlorinated water available to play with at home) and
amused my co-workers (infantile buggers - one picked up a cuvette,
headed for the door and said he'd be back in a minute with a sample) by
doing some tests in the kitchen there. A sample from the tap measured
1.10 mg/L free chlorine and 0.41 mg/L chloramines. I boiled a portion of
this sample for a few minutes in the microwave and cooled it. The cooled
sample measured 0.02 mg/L free chlorine and 0 chloramine but note that
chloramine is estimated by measuring total chlorine (which measured 0.02
mg/L) and subtracting the free chlorine reading of 0.02. The precision
(not the accuracy) of the measurement is 0.01 mg/L so both readings are
"in the noise" but the conclusion is the first heresy: Boiling removes
chloramine!
I then took a tumblerfull of the water to my office and actually did a
little work. Five hours later I ran a test on the water which had
remained in the tumbler undisturbed for that period. It measured 1.17
mg/L free chlorine and 0.18 mg chloramine. Thus the second heresy:
chloramine is indeed more volatile than chlorine and thus escapes from
standing water more quickly than free chlorine. How could the free
chlorine be higher after standing five hours than at the outset? I
believe the answer is that some chloramine had decomposed into free
chlorine and ammonia which is consistent with the statement of the local
water works personnel that free chlorine is a couple of tenths of a mg/L
when the water leaves the plant. This is also consistent with the fact
that aquarists treat chloraminated water for ammonia if they don't
remove chlorine and chloramines with activated carbon.
Finally, I took the remaining water in the tumbler and poured it back
and forth a few times. A final test gave 1.01 mg/L free chlorine (a 14%
reduction) and 0.13 mg/L chloramine (a 28% reduction). Thus the third
heresy is confirmed: chloramine is more effectively removed than free
chlorine by aeration.
So what do you all think of that? Apparently about 25% of large water
utilities and about 5% of small ones are now using chloramination (are
you there, Al?). Thus many of you are starting with chloraminated water.
Are any of you using just a boil, aeration or standing to remove the
chlorine and getting away with it?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:30:06 -0500
From: "Shaun Funk" <brewfunk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: post@hbd.org
I have a couple of hop questions:
1. There are 2 homebrew suppliers in my area.
One is a beer and wine store. The other is a
healthfood store. The healthfood store does
not refridgerate their hops. However the hops
that they sell are all commercially packaged,
from the supplier, in nitrogen purged oxygen
barrier bags. Assuming this information is
all true, what is the risk of purchasing these
hops? How can they oxidize without oxygen,
regardless of the temperature they are stored
at?
2. We all know the contributions that hops
provide to our beer with repsect to bitterness,
flavor, and aroma. Most of us also are aware
of the reputed preservative properties of hops.
I have never seen an explanation of what it is
about hops that gives them this property.
I've seen plenty from the yeast experts, the malt
experts and even the water chemists. Where
are the HBD Hop experts?
Shaun Funk
brewfunk@ix.netcom.com
Moon Shadow Brewery
Clemmons, NC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 23:12:40 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@stanford.edu>
Subject: sanitizing air stones
There have been a few posts about sanitizing air stones.
I clean mine thoroughly right after use and allow it to dry.
I then *sterilize* it by wrapping it aluminum foil and baking
it, typically at 350F for ~30'. I then cleverly recontaminate
it right before use by fitting it into the end of some iodophor-
sanitized tubing and dropping the whole lot back into the iodophor.
I do this because it is hard to fit the tubing on without touching
the tubing (I don't touch the stone by holding it in the foil).
When I'm ready to use it I blow the sanitizer out of the tubing
through the stone.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:01:08 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Ringwood = 1187?
In Homebrew Digest #2652 (March 04, 1998), "Capt. Marc Battreall"
<batman@terranova.net> asked about an unknown yest he got:
>The strain is described by the Brewmaster as "Ringwood" and he also
>referred to it as "1187". I looked it up in Fixs' Analysis of Brewing
>Techniques and it mentioned Food Research Institute's Norwich NCYC 1187
>and also gave an unnumbered Wyeast strain.
I can speak on one aspect of this as I've used both of these yeasts. Here
in Ann Arbor, we have two brewpubs. Grizzly Peak is a Pugsley/Ringwood
brewery which uses (presumably) the real Ringwood yeast (there are several
"reputed" Ringwood yeasts). It is a definite top cropper which has high
oxygen needs, at least as they use it. On the second or third day, they
toss a submersible pump into the fermenter and pump a "fountain" of
fermenting beer over the yeast head. Not surprisingly, there is a
distinctive diacetyl quality to all of their beers.
Arbor Brewing Co. (my definite favorite and with some of the best beers of
any BP I've been to anywhere) is a DME setup. They have been using NCYC
1187 (YeastLab Brewpub A10) since perhaps six months after opening, or two
years. Its physical properties are the opposite of the Ringwood - it forms
no top crop. It drops to the bottom quickly after fermenting, which is
great for a BP or micro with a conical bottomed fermenter. This leaves a
clear beer with no filtering (one of the things I like about ABC's beers).
While the beers have no diacetyl,they are characterful, with nice
fruitiness.
I don't know why 1187 has been referred to as the Ringwood yeast with this
dramatic difference. I've brewed with both and they in no way resemble one
another. I'd say that if it doesn't form a yeasty head, it's not the real
Ringwood.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 13:13:25 -0500
From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman@terranova.net>
Subject: Re: Ringwood = 1187
> In Homebrew Digest #2652 (March 04, 1998), "Capt. Marc Battreall"
> <batman@terranova.net> asked about an unknown yest he got:
> >The strain is described by the Brewmaster as "Ringwood" and he also
> >referred to it as "1187". I looked it up in Fixs' Analysis of Brewing
> >Techniques and it mentioned Food Research Institute's Norwich NCYC 1187
> >and also gave an unnumbered Wyeast strain.
Jeff Renner's Reply:
> I can speak on one aspect of this as I've used both of these yeasts. Here
> in Ann Arbor, we have two brewpubs. Grizzly Peak is a Pugsley/Ringwood
> brewery which uses (presumably) the real Ringwood yeast (there are several
> "reputed" Ringwood yeasts). It is a definite top cropper which has high
> oxygen needs, at least as they use it. On the second or third day, they
> toss a submersible pump into the fermenter and pump a "fountain" of
> fermenting beer over the yeast head. Not surprisingly, there is a
> distinctive diacetyl quality to all of their beers.
>
> Arbor Brewing Co. (my definite favorite and with some of the best beers of
> any BP I've been to anywhere) is a DME setup. They have been using NCYC
> 1187 (YeastLab Brewpub A10) since perhaps six months after opening, or two
> years. Its physical properties are the opposite of the Ringwood - it forms
> no top crop. It drops to the bottom quickly after fermenting, which is
> great for a BP or micro with a conical bottomed fermenter. This leaves a
> clear beer with no filtering (one of the things I like about ABC's beers).
> While the beers have no diacetyl,they are characterful, with nice
> fruitiness.
>
> I don't know why 1187 has been referred to as the Ringwood yeast with this
> dramatic difference. I've brewed with both and they in no way resemble one
> another. I'd say that if it doesn't form a yeasty head, it's not the real
> Ringwood.
To the collective and Jeff;
I just today racked an ale that I am fermenting with the above said
yeast and it definately had a size large yeast head on it but for only 3
days then it flattened out to nil. I did manage to crop some of it off
with a sanitized meat baster but it proved to be difficult at best
seeing that the brew is fermenting in a 6.5 gallon carboy. Anyway, I
refered back to Fixs' AAOBT and it says nothing about the fermentaion
characteristics of either possible strains. The mere fact the the
Brewmaster I acquired the yeast from repeatedly mentioned "1187 leads me
to believe that the strain is either from the Food Research Institute or
Wyeast, probably the latter. His [Brewmaster] reference to the term
Ringwood was probably assumed. Fix states in AAOBT that Ringwood strains
are "close to NCYC 1187 in most aspects". This leads me to believe that
what I have is most likely either NCYC 1187 or Wyeast (unnumbered) as
stated in AAOBT.
Nevertheless, the brew that is fermenting now seems to be doing fine and
the taste test samples at racking time verified that.
Follow up coming soon (for those of you that are interested)
Cheers,
Marc
- --------------------------------------------
Captain Marc Battreall
In The Fabulous Florida Keys
Future site of "The BackCountry Brewhouse"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:30:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Gabrio <gabrio@premier1.net>
Subject: Pistachio Porter?
The other day I was drinking a porter and eating pistachios. The two
flavors complimented each other well. So...
- Has anybody tried brewing with pistachios?
- Would they work best in the mash, boil or fermentor?
- What quantity would be needed for a 5 gallon batch?
TIA
Steve Gabrio
gabrio@premier1.net
Everett, WA
You can't be a Real Country unless you have A BEER and an airline-
it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear
weapons, but at the very least you need a BEER.
- Frank Zappa
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2656, 03/09/98
*************************************
-------
