Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2661
HOMEBREW Digest #2661 Sat 14 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:
diacetyl/O2-barrier caps/foil labels/aeration/PET bottles/Lacto d./DWC (Al Korzonas)
all grain boil over (Jon Macleod)
mead myth (Jon Macleod)
Partial-Mashing Made Easy (KennyEddy)
>Quick wort chilling via pump<< (Al Czajkowski)
dark malts pH/flour/135F rest/pH measurement/mags/Weisse/HSA (Al Korzonas)
Iodophor and stainless steel (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
Half and Half (Bob Fesmire) (DGofus)
NCYC1187 vs Ringwood (Daniel S McConnell)
Homebrew Filtering (Charles Peterson)
IPA (gary furrow)
Chlorine removal (George_De_Piro)
Mill Rollers (Bill_Rehm)
Priming, Gelatinzation ("David R. Burley")
Younger meads (Ken Schramm)
Re: Using Bleach on Sankey Kegs (Jeff Renner)
Chlorinic courtesy (Samuel Mize)
Be sure to enter the 7th NYC Spring Regional Competition
3/22/98. Surf to http://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, 12 Mar 1998 10:33:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: diacetyl/O2-barrier caps/foil labels/aeration/PET bottles/Lacto d./DWC
Sorry about the huge posts, but I really got backed-up and I believe
that 99% of these questions have gone unanswered.
rjw writes:
>The first time I made this I racked of the trub, and racked into a
>secondary after 2 weeks. It reeked of butter. A friend that has
>been very successful with lagers said that I should leave the trub
>and not rack to a secondary, so that is what I tried this time. It
>still tastes like a movie theater smells. I love diacetyl in an ale,
>but this is totally out of style in a pils.
>
>I just kegged it yesterday. Will further lagering cure this? Is there
>anything I can do next time to prevent this "Orvil Redenbacher" effect?
>I was really looking forward to brewing this style, but I'm starting to
>lose my enthusiasm for it.
Lagering will help, but with these kinds of levels, I suspect that you
may have a bacterial infection, in which case the yeast won't be able
to keep up. Incidentally, diacetyl (within reason) is desirable in a
*Bohemian* Pilsner. There are so many other factors (some books have
as much as two pages of causes (nudge, nudge)) I don't have the room to
write them all here.
***
Roger writes:
>bernie kb2ebe asks about boiling O2 barrier caps. As someone has already
>posted, don't. One of the wholesale suppliers of homebrew supplies covered
>this in their newsletter to their retailers about a year or so ago. They
>recommended as first option a mixture of Sodium Metabisulphite Solution
>at 2 oz per gal of water. Just a quick dip in solution and shake off excess
>and cap immediately. Second option was iodine solution such as Iodophor.
>Same as before, quick dip, shake, and cap. The O2 barrier caps are
>activated by moisture and you lose all O2 protection with more than a quick
>dip in sanitizer solution. They go on to mention ozygen based sanitizers,
>using one they market and say they are not recommended because the
>O2 scavenging agent will adhere to the released O2 from the hydrogen
>peroxide and have very little left for the headspace in your bottles. They
>also state that the Metabisulphite is recommended by the manufacturer of
>the O2 barrier crowns.
I've seen that newsletter and I'm afraid that the wholesaler was mistaken.
Metabisulphite in water is *NOT* a sanitiser. I have spoken personally
to the lead engineer at the company that developed the oxygen-absorbing
material for Zapata. He said he recommends bleach solution (200 ppm,
about a tablespoon in a gallon) or iodophor (12.5 to 25 ppm). Boiling
and oxygen-based sanitisers will *ruin* the absorbing capabilities and
simple metabisulphite solution will do nothing at all.
***
Greg writes:
>I used to have a devil of a time getting [foil] labels off until I stumbled
>on this technique: I disolve about 3/4 cup of sodium carbonate in about 4
>gallons of water in an old 5 gal pail. I then soak the bottles in this for
>5-10 days (depending on the temperature and when I have time to get back to
>them). After soaking the labels just slide right off. This works for most
It does work, but even 12 hours of soaking in what you suggest (using
MY tapwater) causes a carbonate film to form on the bottles. You don't
see it when the bottles are wet. Acid will take this film off... vinegar,
lemon juice, phosphoric acid, lactic acid. etc. My advice... don't
soak long-term in sodium carbonate (washing soda), OneStep, B-Brite, or
PBW solutions.
***
Mike writes:
>A simple and
>effective solution is to attach a short length of copper or plastic tube
>in the end of the siphon hose that goes in the target container. The
>tube has 4 small holes drilled at 90 degrees to each other (i.e., 12, 3, 6, &
>9 o'clock position). As the wort passes the holes, it sucks in air and,
>viola, aerated wort!
You would be surprised. AJ did an experiment to test the effectiveness of
various methods of aeration and this method did not work any better than
simply pouring the water (in his experiment) once from one bucket to another.
Filtered air is much better and oxygen is several times better.
***
Jim writes:
1) buy the CO2 bottle and regulator
2) buy a whole bunch of PET bottles of whatever's cheap (it's
the bottles you're after)
3) buy a few replacement valve stems at your local auto-parts store
4) buy a replacement tire-pump hose (hook up to regulator)
5) drill holes in a few of the PET bottle caps and insert valve stem
(you just push them through)
<snip>
Careful... is the rubber on those valve stems food grade? Will your beer
smell like a car tyre? Also, I suggest club soda/sparkling water, not
just "whatever's cheap." I've found that I can't get the orange soda or
cola or ginger ale smell out of the bottles.
***
Nathan writes:
>Lacto d. culture in the fermentation. Two things, where can I get one?
>Second, are there any special considerations for building a starter of this
>or culturing it? He indicates 4 3/4 ounces of yeast slurry and 1 oz of
>Lacto d. slurry. Certainly, I'll have to "build" yeast starters for each.
>Any special considerations?
I'm not familiar with anything called Lacto d. Two common bacteria used
in brewing sour beers are Lactobacillus and Pediococcus. Perhaps you
mean Lactobacillus delbrueckii? This would be abbreviated "L. delbrueckii."
The two best sources for brewing bacteria for homebrewers are The Yeast
Culture Kit Company, owned by the HBD's very own Dan McConnell and Head
Start Brewing Cultures which is owned by Dr. Brian Nummer (who appears
to be extremely busy with his new brewpub, so the last time I heard, Head
Start was running slowly if at all... anyone know more?). These two
gentlemen are extremely knowledgable and could give you tons of information
on these cultures. One thing to consider is that if you are building
a starter of an anaerobic microbe, you don't want to aerate your starter.
>Second topic. Dave Brockington mentions in his Sister Star of the Sun
>recipe that you can use Hugh Baird, M&F, or Crisp Maris Otter Pale ale
>malts, but to avoid DWC Pale ale malt. Any ideas why? I couldn't reach
>him via e-mail.
I suspect that it is because DWC has quite low modification by modern
standards. I find I lose more than a gallon to hot and cold break in
5 gallons of wort if I don't use a protein rest (I recommend 15 min at
135F).
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: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:16:15 -0500
From: marli@bbs2.rmrc.net (Jon Macleod)
Subject: all grain boil over
I've been brewing for about ten years, but just switched to all grain
last year. There's lots of variables, but it seems to be the all grain
derived wort is much more eager to boil over than my old partial mashes
were. This is true throughout the boil, not just at the beginning. Any
hop addition is almost a sure fire occasion. I can't think of a good
reason for this. Any ideas?
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:13:39 -0500
From: marli@bbs2.rmrc.net (Jon Macleod)
Subject: mead myth
My wife and I have been brewing meads for several years. While the
honey and yeast are certainly not completely certain (i.e. biological)
variables, we have come to a couple of conclusions. Some of this will
reiterate what others have said.
* Irish moss makes a HUGE difference in clearing time - from a couple
of months with to a year without.
* We also always boil the full batch for 10 minutes. It makes me feel
safer, and it removes a ton of haze producing stuff.
* Our fermentation generally takes 1-2 months. The mead is clear by
2-3, if we've used irish moss. We almost always use a dry champagne
yeast, and ferment in the basement, at around 55F. They finish off dry
(as we like) unless a lot of fruit was used.
* Our mead is typically drinkable all the way through the process,
though it smooths considerably as time goes by. We've finally managed
to get enough ahead to be drinking only year old mead. Way to go.
We've had a few go up to 5 years, and while they are quite nice, its not
a knockout difference. Actually, in a couple of cases, they had lost
most the interesting/distinctive flavor notes.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:01:27 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>
Subject: Partial-Mashing Made Easy
If you've wanted to try partial-mashing but have been hesitant to "complicate"
your system, the following may offer you another approach that is about as
simple as it gets, yet produces excellent results.
As part of an "experiment" I'm doing, related to my website article
"Converting All-Grain recipes to Extract", I've been messing with brewing an
extract and an all-grain version of the same recipe. The extract version
requires a small partial-mash. In the past, I've espoused the "tea-bag"
method of steeping the grains to be mashed in a grain bag for an hour,
draining the bag back into the pot, and bobbing it around in a second pot of
"sparge water". The two pots are combined and brewing continues as usual.
Al Korzonas (among others) has been a fairly outspoken critic of this
technique (see his excellent book "Homebrewing Vol. I"
[http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/hbv1.html] along with past posts to the
HBD), pointing out several potential problems with this technique. These tea-
bag mashes typically take place with a relatively dilute water to grain ratio,
and therefore the grain has a harder time pulling the pH of typical tap water
down to optimum range for mashing. It also can adversely affect conversion
efficiency as the enzymes are that much more diluted. Further, the pH of the
sparge water is an even bigger problem, and the bobbing/rinsing action would
run the risk of leaching tannins due to the relatively high pH (likely > 6.0,
which is kind of a "magic number" cutoff point for this to occur). In my
experience, a goodly amount of husk and grain material makes its way into the
final wort as well.
The water ratio problem can be handled easily enough by mashing the grains in
the proper amount of water (say three pounds to a gallon) without a grain bag,
but rinsing the grains is often a PITA using some of the contraptions the
literature has suggested in the past. The "Zapap" bucket-in-bucket lauter tun
is a great idea for full-sized batches but can be real inefficent and bulky
when you're only dealing with a very few pounds of grain. Al suggests
crafting a lauter tun system using small plastic bowls instead of buckets.
Great idea, but when I started looking around at such bowls, I found that the
curved shape makes installing the drain a little tricky, at least the way I
had it concepted (using a stopper as a bulkhead). Flat-bottomed bowls would
be much better, but I went back to the bucket-in-bucket approach, this time
using two small (5-qt) pails from Builder's Square. The straight, vertical
sides and relatively "sharp" edge at the bottom gives less interference for
the stopper bulkhead system I used, and the bucket's design creates just the
right gap between them when stacked together. They're also cheaper than most
of the bowls I saw.
The pH problem is a bit trickier for stovetop brewers who don't want to
complicate their lives with using acid and making pH measurements. I think
I've found an easy way to solve this. I found that if you add one measly
tablespoon of malt extract to a gallon of *distilled* water, the pH will drop
below 6.0 all by itself! It's not surprising given that wort tends to about
5.3 pH naturally; I was just a bit surprised that it took so little to
influence pure water.
In my experiment, I mashed three pounds of pale ale malt (Paul's) in one
gallon of 170F distilled water to which I added a tablespoon of extract. The
mash pH settled happily at about 5.3 pH and 158F (maybe a tad warm). I put
the mash pot in the oven (set to 200F to keep the mash at temperature) for an
hour. Meanwhile I prepared another gallon plus a tablespoon of extract for
sparge water, heating to 170F. After the mash rest, I carefully transferred
the mash to the pail lauter tun with a ladle, recirculated, and sparged into
the kettle. When the sparge water was depleted I simply let the mash run dry.
Any brewing salts or other additives could be added once the wort is boiling
and the extract has been added.
The lauter tun I made is inexpensive (less than $10), very compact, and easy
to use. It's also remarkably efficient: I collected almost 1-1/2 gallons of
1.057 wort, representing an efficiency of nearly 75%, comparable to many full-
scale all-grain systems. Since the sparge water was treated to reduce the pH,
tannin extraction should not have been a problem.
The 5-qt pail I used held the three pounds of grain and accompanying water
nicely but wouldn't hold much more than that. A 2-gal or 10-qt pail would
allow you to mash up to six pounds, providing well over half of the gravity of
a typical batch while still allowing you to use stovetop methods and equipment
(I'd expect to collect about 3 gallons of wort from six pounds).
Now, the pail system I devised is nothing new, but the use of extract to treat
distilled water is a method I haven't seen before. The point is that it
represents a simple, almost foolproof method of ensuring excellent mash
conditions (pH) and efficiency for the brewer who wants the benefits of
partial-mashing without complicating his/her existing setup and process with
some of the systems that have been put forth in the past.
I've written up all the details of the equipment and process I used on my
website http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy. Go to the Article on "Converting
All-Grain Recipes to Extract" and find the link to the partial-mash sidebar.
This article also offers some additional thoughts on improving extract brews.
You can also go directly to the partial-mash article at
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy/extract/partial.html.
I hope this opens a new door for extract and "kit" brewers who have been
hesitant to try the partial-mash method.
Comments welcomed.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:10:09 -0800
From: Al Czajkowski <aczajkow@ford.com>
Subject: >Quick wort chilling via pump<<
In #2659 Keith Royster <keith@ays.net> asked about any perceived
problems with using his pump to recirculate wort while using an
immersion chiller.
While I don't consider myself to be more than a beginning intermediate
at brewing, I have been chilling this way for a couple of years now.
My equipment is 1/3 of a PICO system and I primarily do partial mash and
extract beers. During this time I have always left the pump running
with my hose outlet submerged in the pot during chilling. When the temp
get below 80 degrees, I lift the hose outlet well above the wort
surface and let it splash merrily (how else could beer to be splash?)
back into the pot for another 5-10 minutes to take care of airation. My
fermentation lag times are usually in the 2-4 hour range (I like to use
fairly substantial starters). To date (knock on wood or my head which
ever is closer), I have not experienced any off flavors that can be
traced to HSA. I have been criticized by other brewers who have watched
me do this - saying I was inviting an infection, but I haven't had that
problem either even though I always brew out doors. So my
recommendation is - go for it...
Al Czajkowski
Brewing at the top of Wayne County with the
Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen
and a few miles northeast of Jeff Renner.
I L*O*V*E my setup especially because 1/3 of a PICO doesn't gong quite
as loudly as the full system when my wife tosses it out of bed....
(sorry Pat)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:28:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: dark malts pH/flour/135F rest/pH measurement/mags/Weisse/HSA
I'm terribly, terribly sorry about posting so much... please forgive
me, but I have just found another bunch of unanswered questions (in
addition to this one here) and so I figured it would be better to
post this bunch now and let the queue get caught up over the week end...
I'll try to spread the rest over the next week in smaller posts.
***
Kyle writes:
>i.e. darker malts generally lower the mash pH, design water recipes the
>account for this... Doesn't Daniels in his book DGB suggest that the
>mash pH will be lowered by 0.2 for every 10% of dark malts that comprise
>the grist?
Daniel's does say 10% crystal and roasted lowers *HIS* pH by 0.3 and
20% lowers it 0.5 pH, but he is careful (wisely) to specify that this
is for *HIS* water. This will vary immensely depending on your water.
If you have high bicarbonate/carbonate water, it may lower it less. If
you have very low bi/carbonate water it could lower it much more.
This brings up an interesting point, which I hope doesn't get lost amidst
this huge post. Your mash pH will not only vary with your water, but
also how you handle it. If you have high bi/carbonate water (say 300 ppm)
and you have a reasonable amount of calcium (say 75+), I suspect that you
would get a different mash pH if you brought your water to a boil and then
cooled it to your strike temperature (let's say 120F for a 110F rest) than
if you simply brought your tapwater to 120F and mashed-in. Note that I'm
assuming you are decanting off the precipitated CaCO3. What do you
chemists/chemical engineers think? What's the solubility of CO2 at 120F?
Is the pH of the water (due to CO2 bubbling off) significantly different
at 120F than it it boiling? Is the amount of bicarbonate that the water
will support in solution significantly different at 120F than it is at
boiling?
I know that I often miss my strike water temp and have to cool it down.
I usually heat half of my strike water in the SS mash tun and half in the
kettle. After mashing-in with half the liquor, I add the rest a gallon
at a time, stirring and checking the mash temp. Note that if you simply
put all your strike liquor (precipitates and all) into the mash tun and
then dump in the grain, this is a moot point... once the pH drops, the
calcium carbonate will redissolve and bring the pH back up.
***
Rob writes (quoting answers from Siebel):
> Avoid increasing the percentage of flour on the bottom of the sieve.
>This usually indicates pre-damaged malt or too tight settings and will
>inhibit runoff.
> Paul Smith (?)
I presume that he doesn't literally mean flour as in powdered endosperm,
but rather minute husk particles. Flour (powdered endosperm) makes
dough-in more difficult (higher chance of balled starch... i.e. pockets
of dry starch), but should *not* inhibit runoff at all. If you mash
properly, all the starch will be converted to sugars and dextrins, right?
As for small husk particles, yes, these can clog your screen/false bottom/
slotted tube.
AND:
> 2. A rest at 135 F is not appropriate for much of anything. Too high
>for protease and glucanase - too low for starch digestion.
I disagree most strongly! Years ago, I made two consecutive infusion mash
batches with 100% DWC Pale Ale. The first was a single step mash for 1 hour
at 156F. The second was a two-step mash for 15 minutes at 135F and then
1 hour at 156F. The temperature rise was with boiling water and was
virtually instantaneous. On the first batch, I lost more than a gallon of
beer to break, whereas on the second batch, there was no more than a quart
of fluffy break at the bottom of the fermenter. BIG DIFFERENCE!
I've since repeated this "experiment" a dozen times on various batches
and on some malts (such as the DWC Pale Ale and Pils) I simply know
I need a 135F rest or I will be overwhelmed by break in the fermenter.
***
Ken writes:
>7) In any case, let the pH of the mash be your guide, rather than sweating
>over copying a certain profile exactly. Mash pH should be 5.2 to 5.4 (cool
>your sample to room temperature first).
I really would like some clarification from the "brewing researchers" amidst
us (AJ, Andy, Dave, Dave, George, George, Jim, Mort, Rob, etc.). I've read
in one professional text (on two nearly consecutive pages), where in one place
the book says that the pH of the mash should be in the low 5's when measured
at *MASH* temperatures and in the other place it says it should be in the
low 5's measured at *ROOM* temperature. Since there is a 0.2 to 0.5
(depending on your water chem, I presume) difference between the pH at mash
temps and at room temp, I would *really* like to know which is correct.
***
I wrote:
>I once read a completely unfounded criticism of my review of the book Using
>Hops in the letters section (didn't see it before publication, despite the
>fact that I was a Technical Editor at the time) and was told by the (now
>former) Managing Editor that I could respond in another letter (in a
>subsequent issue). I think that authors should be given a bit more respect
>than that.
This was in a paragraph in which I was talking about Brewing Techniques.
>From context, it may appear that it was BT that did this to me. On the
contrary, it was Zymurgy.
***
Dave writes:
>OTOH, the
>advantage of adding the lactic acid after fermentation is that
>you can have both Berliner Weiss and the southern Weisse
>from a single batch. Berliners sweeten this acidic brew
>sometimes by adding sweet simple syrup, Kir or other fruit
>flavored syrup. Using an actual Berliner Weisse culture has
>the disadvantage of potentially contaminating your equipment.
Southern Weisse (Bavarian Weizen) is supposed to have a clovey/banana
character which comes from the yeast. In a Berliner Weiss, this would
be inappropriate and you should use a more "normal" yeast (i.e. one that
is not so fruity and does not create so much 4-vinyl guiaicol). Therefore,
you cannot make a good Berliner and a good Bavarian Weissbier from
the same fermenter. You could if you split the wort and used two
different yeasts, however...
***
Steve writes:
1/ What is the mechanism of HSA, and what is the relative importance of
oxygen, temperature and brewing methodology on HSA.
Hot-Side Aeration (HSA) is really a bad part of a poorly-planned brewing
methodology. What it means is that air (or oxygen) is being introduced
into the wort when it is hot (on the hot side of the chiller). HSA results
in the oxidation of various malt and hop compounds and leads to premature
staling, sherrylike aromas, loss of hop aroma, haze from oxidized polyphenols,
darkening of the beer and a few other unpleasant side-effects. DeClerck
says that the majority of the damage occurs when oxygen (or air) is introduced
into wort that is over 60C (140F), but the defacto standard that has evolved
among homebrewers is that wort should be cooled to below 80F before aeration/
oxygenation to minimize oxidation effects.
Note that HSA can be from bad process (e.g. pouring hot wort through a sieve)
or from faulty equipment design (e.g. air leak into a hot wort line).
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: Thu, 12 Mar 98 19:16:43 MST5EDT
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter@bitterroot.net>
Subject: Iodophor and stainless steel
I was browsing through the new Williams Brewing catalog the other day and
came across this statement in the description of Iodophor sanitizer:
"...preferred by brewers who use stainless steel kegs, as iodine can stay
in contact with stainless steel for extended periods (2 weeks or longer)
without corrosion."
How about 3 months longer? I have been in the habit of sanitizing my SS
kegs and then storing them full of Iodophor (diluted 1/2 ounce to 5 gal
water) and purging the headspace with CO2. I believe I picked up this
technique from someone on the Digest. The question for the chemists in the
crowd is will Iodophor, at the strength I am using, corrode SS...ever?
Dan Ritter <ritter@bitterroot.net>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Hamilton, Montana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:49:34 EST
From: DGofus <DGofus@aol.com>
Subject: Half and Half (Bob Fesmire)
I am wondering if the stouts and ales or lagers that we brew as homebrewers
can be made as half and halfs. I enjoy a good 'arf and 'arf with Guinness and
harps, or Fullers, but want to try with homebrew. Any help would be
appreciated. Thanks.
Bob Fesmire
Madman Brewery
Pottstown, PA
Dgofus@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:22:45 -0500
From: danmcc@umich.edu (Daniel S McConnell)
Subject: NCYC1187 vs Ringwood
>From an exchange with AlK that seemed appropriate to post:
>No doubt you have seen the discussion of 1187 and Ringwood on the HBD.
This comes up every now and then.......
>In the interest of keeping my appendices current, I would like to update
>them in the Errata pages if I could. Jeff mentioned that YeastLab
>Brewpub A10 is 1187 in his post.
Jeff Renner is right. YeastLab A10 is NCYC 1187. I purchased the culture
directly from NCYC in 1994. I have 3-4 isolations of Ringwood from several
of the Pugsley operations. They all behave the same. Here is tha data
directly pasted from the NCYC catalog for NCYC 1187:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1187. British brewery (1960).
Flocculent.
1:5:3:4:5
Max. Temp. 37.0C, Min. Temp. 13.4C, Optimum Temp. 32.0C.
<<<And the key to the coding of the numbers>>>
Most brewing strains have been assessed at the Brewing Research Foundation
(R J
Walkey, & B H Kirsop, 1969, J.Inst.Brew., 75, 393) by means of the European
Brewery Convention (EBC) fermentation tubes. The information so obtained is
provided in each entry (eg. 5:3:1:5:3). The numbers range from 1 to 5 and
indicate the degree to which certain fermentation characteristics are
exhibited,
5 indicating the highest degree of expression. The five characters tested
are:
* Head formation the accumulation of yeast at the surface of the
fermentation:
1 : no head3 : intermediate5 : good head.
* Deposit the amount of yeast deposited.
1 : < 8mm,3 : 8-15mm,5 : >15mm.
* Attenuation the degree to which fermentation occurs.
If the lowest specific gravity (S.G.) is :
1.006, then an attenuation after 6 days of 1.006-1.008 : 5,
1.008-1.010 : 4,
1.010-1.012 : 3,1.012-1.014 : 2,1.014-1.016 : 1.
ie 1 denotes a product which is sweet at the end of fermentation with
a high S.G. (1.016)
5 denotes a product which is dry at the end of fermentation with a
low S.G. (1.006)
* Rate of fermentation if the drop in S.G. between 3 days and 6
days is:
0-2 : 1,2-4 : 2,4-6 : 3,6-8 : 4,
8-10 : 5.
* Clarity of the final beer if the nephelometer reading of a 1:20
diluted sample is :
0-10 : 5, 10-20 : 3,>20 : 1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In other words, thi cultures coding of 1:5:3:4:5 translates to-- no
head:lots of deposit:medium attenuation:quick fermentation:Clear beer
This makes this strain particularly well suited to unitank brewing and very
poor for open fermenters.
>Are there new YeastLab yeasts? Are there new Yeast Culture Kit Company
>yeasts?
NCYC1187 is available from YeastLab to breweries as A10. It is available
from YCKC as 1200-A51.
Ringwood is available from YeastLab A09. It is available from YCKC as
1200-A15.
NCYC1187 is not Ringwood. Mechanically these are very different. Ringwood
is a vigorous top cropper, NCYC1187 has no top crop both from my experience
and from the NCYC data. Many of the organoleptic characteristics seem
similar, although I've never aerated 1187 during fermentation to see how
much you can crank up the diacetyl (one of Ringwood's main features at
least from most of the beers I've tried: Wild Goose, Shipyard, Grizzly
Peak, Traverse).
Hope this helps.
DanMcC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:52:29 -0500
From: Charles Peterson <chasp@digex.net>
Subject: Homebrew Filtering
HBDers -
I've been standing on the sideline a bit while the latest filtering thread
has been churning through the HBD. I've shared this info before, and
thought I'd kick in my $.02 again.
Last year I invested over $150 in a .5/1/5 micron filtering settup. Most
was purchased through the Filter Store (no affiliation, but they were very
helpful folks). The bottom line is that for most all beers you make,
filtering adds *nothing* to the final flavor IMHO. I filtered a wide range
of beers last year and compared them to a few bottles of the same beer that
were left unfiltered. Here is a Pro/Con sort of list for filtering:
- filtering is quite a PIA and takes alot of time (talking an extra 2-3
hours to package 10 gallons)
- with the filter I used, it takes a few gallons to "load" the filter (so
you can either re-filter the first few gallons or live with a little
yeast/haze flowing through)
- after about 6-7 gallons with the 0.5 or 1 micron levels, you gotta crank
up the pressure to get even a reasonable flow through the filter; as AlK
pointed out, this probably leads to pushing some yeast and haze through the
filter.
- filtering had little flavor improvement (only reduced the impact of the
yeast, that is if you want to reduce the yeast flavor)
- filtering did not reduce the hop flavor much, as far as I can tell, but
it did reduce bitterness levels (10% by my tounge). This, I am told by a
respected German brewer, is due to a bitterness associated with the yeast
cells themselves.
- unfiltered beers, even unfined, will eventually clear to a similar
clarity level as the filtered ones. Noticable differences could only be
seen in the lightest of beers -- pileners, american wheats, kolsch, etc.
I also had a strange occurance with my filtered beers. They seemed to
overcarbonate. Not sure why -- I sanitize the sh** out of the filter and
even changed to disposible cartridges. So I don't think its a cross-yeast
strain problem. Since moving away from filtering my bottled beers, my
carbonation has returned to predictable levels (note: I would filter 90% of
the bottled volume and reserve 10% of it unfiltered to provide the yeast
necessary for bottle conditioning).
So what do I do now? I only filter beers that are sufficiently pale (am.
wheat and kolsch are this year's candidates). I may consider filtering a
keg if I have to deliver beer for some social event, and I need to get it
presentable and carbonated fast. This has yet to occur.
All in all, I hate filtering. But then again, I love decoction mashing.
Guess each brewer has his or her own biases. But for my time, something
like decoction mashing contributes a much more noticable flavor improvement
than filtering. Again, this is just my preference.
Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md
===========================================================
Chas Peterson chasp@digex.net
Director - Product Development 301-847-4936
Custom Enterprise Networks
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:41:01
From: gary furrow <gfurrow@cablenet-va.com>
Subject: IPA
Hi;
I am an extract brewer that is starting to do quite well. I truly enjoy
the beers that I brew now after a horrendous start.
I am going to brew my first IPA in the next few days and I do not like any
of the recipes that I currently have. Could someone e-mail me an IPA
recipe they have particulary enjoyed? I am also looking for a good bitter
recipe.
Thanks for your help and time.
gary furrow
540-483-3661
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:40:22 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Chlorine removal
Hi all,
Sam Mize asks what the point of my recent chlorine post was.
Perhaps I was not abundantly clear:
AJ's experiment (not just what he heard somebody say) implies that
allowing water chlorinated with sodium hypochlorite (bleach) does NOT
become as dechlorinated as water treated with chloramines after
standing a few hours.
Since I know my brewing water is treated with bleach, and I used to
dechlorinate by allowing it to stand for a few hours, I was wondering
why I never had a chlorophenol problem. I also mentioned that I know
of a few breweries that don't remove chlorine from all of their
brewing water, and yet have no chlorophenol problems that I can
detect.
Is it possible that the threat of chlorinated water is overemphasized,
or are some people just lucky?
I have only detected obvious chlorophenols (the kind that smell like a
swimming pool) once in homebrewed beer (in a Vienna at the 1997 Spirit
of Free Beer). Perhaps the brewer is reading this and would care to
comment? Could the source of the problem have been using chlorinated
water, or was it more likely caused by inadequately rinsed chlorinated
sanitizer (which might provide a lot more chlorine than your average
tap water)?
Since I have only detected this flaw in one homebrew out of hundreds
that I have evaluated, my guess is that it was not caused by the water
(I would think that there are more beginner homebrewers that use
untreated tap water than there are people who forget to rinse
sanitizer out of equipment).
For the pro's out there: What kind of chlorine is in your water? Do
you remove chlorine from your water, and if so, how? If you don't, do
you notice any problems at all that can be attributed to the chlorine?
(probably not or you would do something about it...)
I hope this was more clear, have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:49:12 -0600
From: Bill_Rehm@DeluxeData.com
Subject: Mill Rollers
I have been thinking of building myself a roller mill, I know that I can
buy one but that just wouldn't be as much fun. The problem is finding
something to use for the actual rollers. Does anyone know of anyone who
sells rollers like this or is my best bet to have them made at the local
machine shop.
TIA
Bill Rehm
Milwaukee, WI
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:46:32 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Priming, Gelatinzation
Brewsters:
AlK says:
>Dave again posted his priming method with which I disagree. I have
>been meaning to put together a web page to which I can point when he
>posts about this or some of his other... er... contraversial methods.
>I really have to get to that some day.
To repeat, prepare a priming starter using beer and yeast
from the secondary. Add priming sugar and a tablespoon of
malt extract which have been dissolved in a minimal amount of
boiling water and the mixture cooled. Allow to come to
kraeusen in about 12 hours and bottle by adding a fraction of
this to each bottle to minimize HSA from bottling . This will
produce an active yeast acclimated to the sugar and the beer and
have sufficient FANs ( from the malt extract) to allow the
yeast to carry on and carbonate quickly and reliably, unlike
"less-controversial" methods of adding sugar alone which
work poorly, slowly or at least unreliably.
Al, perhaps it is only "controversial" because you have never
tried it or didn't read it in someone's book. Before you give
me the notoriety of making me part of your webpage - try it.
- ---------------------------------------
AlK says:
>>Dave writes:
>>I always thought the maximum on the mashout temperature
>>was to avoid starch gelatinization of any remaining bits of
>>unreacted starch. Keeping the pH of the sparge down was to
>>control phenol extraction.
and AlK further says:
>I think we may have a problem with terminology here. Gelatinisation
>takes place at much lower temperatures than mashout (it would have to,
>right?). The actual temperatures depend on the grain variety, but
>they are generally below 140F. Above about 176F the starch granules
>in the steely tips literally *burst* out of their protein matrix.
What do you choose to call this phenomenon? As far as I can
tell it is gelatinization. And, of course, as usual, it doesn't make
any difference to your out-of-context comment, since my point was
that the it was the pH that controls the extraction of phenols not the
mashout temperature.
- --------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:51:57 -0500
From: Ken Schramm <SchramK@wcresa.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Younger meads
OK, so you struck a nerve. The thread on short fermentation and
maturation times for meads deserves some clarification, if I may be
so ostentatious (Dick Dunn, I know you could have said all of this,
but I felt it needed to get said).
Yes, meads can be made and brought through fermentation to
drinkability in well under a year, but doing this generaally requires
some effort or extraordinary luck. On the effort side, the inherent
barriers to quick mead fermentation lie in the absolute dearth of FAN
(free amino nitrogen) in must, and the lack of the other nutrients
needed for vigorous yeast reproduction. Judicious use of nutrient
and energizer will create a far more hospitable environment for your
yeast culture. Use of a large culture is essential (you are
generally hitting a must of at least 1.080, some folks pushing well
above 1.130). Oxygenation is critical, too. But the single largest
mistake made by most mead makers is the pre-fermentation addition of
acid or acid blends. Wine and mead yeasts do not like low pH (below
3.5). Most commercially available honey has a pH of about 3.2 - 3.9
(the must will be identical, assuming a fairly neutral water source),
and the addition of the acid blend - in combination with the
consumption of the majority of the buffering compounds by the yeast
during initial reproductive phases - crashes the pH to a point where
the yeast just trudges along ( 6 months. 9 Months. A YEAR...),
dragging out the fermentation, and producing higher alcohols and
other off fermentation by-products, which end up necessitating a long
maturation. Use of calcium carbonate or potassium carbonate to keep
the pH above 4.0 will keep the fermentation healthy and vigorous.
Test pH AND gravity when considering a pH correction to avoid
addition of carbonates to a nearly-finished fermentation. Add acid
blends AFTER the fermentation is complete. It is surely no more of a
crap shot that adding them before fermentation.
I also feel that boiling and long maturation times tend to go hand in
hand, but my evidence is anecdotal, and personal bias may be getting
the best of my powers of reasoning.
On the luck side, you could end up with a honey like prune plum which
has a pH around 6.0, or a particularly nutrient rich variety, and your
fermentation could just blast along on its own.
As for the difference between beer and mead yeasts, the strains being
marketed and mead yeasts are wine strains, which have been used (in
their wine application) to ferment sugar blends strong on fructose
and dextrose (very similar to mead must) rather than the
maltose/isomaltose/maltotriose blend that is the basis of wort. They
also tend to have higher alcolhol tolerances than beer yeast (note
that that is qualified), and have been selected for their respective
inclinations to throw different aromatic compounds. Many mead makers
have taken to using specific wine yeasts for their combination of
fermentation characteristics and aroma/flavor profiles.
Selection of a good honey variety, an appropriate yeast, and
attention to optimum fermentation conditions for the must will
dramatically improve your chances of creating a mead that is
drinkable in 1-3 months. Finally, just like an imperial stout can
hide bad habits (did I say habits? I meant flavors and aromas), so
can a big, syrupy sweet mead. Dry meads are the equivalent of what
Dan McConnell calls "brewing naked," i.e. low gravity, moderately
hopped and short grain bill lagers and ales. If you can pull either
one off, consider yourself "no longer a beginner."
Good luck. Check out:
http://www.atd.ucar.edu/homes/cook/mead/mead.html
http://www.atd.ucar.edu/homes/cook/mead/danspaper.html
E-Mail me if you need more on line references.
Yours,
Ken Schramm
"Mead Guy"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:33:56 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Using Bleach on Sankey Kegs
In Homebrew Digest #2660 (March 13, 1998), Doug Geiss <dgeiss@ford.com> wrote:
>Jeff Renner wrote(about cleaning Sankey Kegs):
>"Soak the inside with bleach water for a few hours and boil the valve/drawtube
>to sanitize it."
>
>Uh, Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought bleach (chlorine) pitted
>stainless steel. I have always used B-Brite or Iodophor to clean out my
>corny kegs.
If you use the recommended rate of 1 Tbs/gallon and limit it to a few hours
you shouldn't have any problem, according to what I've read here over the
years and my own experience. Actually, I use even stronger solutions for
shorter contact times because it cleans organic gunk better.
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, 13 Mar 1998 10:56:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Chlorinic courtesy
Greetings,
I recently typed in "What's your point?" as part of a post, then
thought "gee, that comes off kind of rude" and meant to rephrase
it. But I failed to do so before posting. I apologize if anyone
thought I intended to be rude to Mr. DePiro.
Sam
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2661, 03/14/98
*************************************
-------
