Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2709
HOMEBREW Digest #2709 Sat 09 May 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:
kegging homebrew in an apartment ("Brian J. Paszkiet")
Hop spacing (Al Korzonas)
aldehydes/stout/evaporation (Al Korzonas)
I can't believe it's not.....Dominion Wheat. ("Jim & Shelly Wagner")
Gotts for TX,OK and LA brewers ("Val J. Lipscomb")
Call for judges (Jeremy Bergsman)
make your own malt and more porter stories (AlannnnT)
HBD pH Experiment, MCAB, & other stuff (Louis Bonham)
Re: Re-started fermentation in the secondary ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
Thermal Loading ("David R. Burley")
Re: Oatmeal Stout (Jeff Renner)
Re: Boiling and evaporation rates (Scott Murman)
re: Wisconsin Homebrew Clubs (Matthew Arnold)
Evaporation rates continued... ("Mercer, David")
used tanks (Ralph Link)
Re: Oatmeal Stout / Wisconsin Homebrew Clubs (Spencer W Thomas)
DO/Equilibrium/Acetaldehyde ("A. J. deLange")
Re: pH Experiment (Scott Murman)
Hop Growing ("Rosenzweig,Steve")
Boiling hard.... (Some Guy)
4th Annual 8 Seconds of Froth (AllDey)
BURP's Spirit of Free Beer competition is June 6-7 and entry information
is available by contacting Jay Adams (adams@burp.org).
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, 07 May 1998 12:39:37 -0500
From: "Brian J. Paszkiet" <bpaszkie@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: kegging homebrew in an apartment
I have been thinking, lately, about kegging my homebrew, for all of the
good reasons we hear about in this HBD forum. My hesitation lies in the
fact that I live in a one-bedroom apartment, and don't have the room for an
extra refrigerator. I was wondering how other people have successfully
dealt with a problem like this. I want to use 5 gallon corny kegs. I was
thinking that one of these might fit in the bottom of the refrigerator, on
its side. So, could I keg the beer, carbonate, and then lay the keg on its
side in the refrigerator, taking it out when I want to serve beer? Note
that I am not interested in using party pigs or mini-kegs.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 13:04:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Hop spacing
Matt asks why should hops be planted 6 feet apart.
The problem is with identification. Hops propagate by sending out
runners underground and these can easily go 2' from the crown.
If you have a Saaz and a Columbus next to each other and the Columbus
sends up a bine in the middle of the Saaz hill, you could really
overhop that next Bohemian Pilsner!
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:03:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: aldehydes/stout/evaporation
Dave writes:
>> and I'm not willing to presume that ethanol
>>is more or less likely to be oxidised than the higher alcohols. Is
>there
>>any kind of data on this in chem books? I know that alcohols have a
>higher
>>affinity to the oxygen than the melanoidins... this explains why the
>>melanoidins will give up their oxygen to the alcohols to form aldehydes
>>in stale beer.
>
>Actually, I have read this here, but have never seen it in scientific
>literature. Doesn't mean it is wrong, just that it is difficult to
>explain
>unless the oxidised melandoins were oxidised during the boil ( for
>example)
>and then these react with alcohol after it is formed in fermentation at a
>much later time. I would like to hear a good discussion of the kinetics
>of this reaction.
Actually, it's not during the boil, but rather post boil splashing that's
the problem for most brewers. The biggest effect of HSA (hot side aeration)
is to oxidise the melanoidins. This both darkens the wort/beer and sets
you up for all kinds of oxidation problems in the bottle.
>Other pathways are also theoretically possible in which
>the
>oxidised melandoins break down to aldehydes - a prospect I find more
>likely.
I don't think the two are even close chemically.
>>No, wait... I'm *sure* ethanol doesn't have the highest affinity for
>>the oxygen... the aldehyde of ethanol is acetaldehyde, right?
>
>
>Yes and acetaldehyde is the "sherry" taste. Oxidation of ethanol produces
>acetaldehyde and sherry tastes. Oxidation of acetaldehyde produces
>acetic
>acid. This can form the ester with ethyl alcohol to give ethyl acetate or
>nail polish remover.
I'm afraid you're wrong about acetaldehyde taste/aroma. It is one of
the two most easily identifiable beer "faults" (the other being diacetyl).
Acetaldehyde smells like green apples.
>> Given that
>>there is at least 100 times more ethanol in a typical beer than any
>other
>>alcohol, I suspect that the existance of *any* other aldehyde indicates
>>that those alcohols have a higher affinity for the oxygen. Granted, I
>>don't know what other pathways there are for the formation of
>aldehydes...
>>I know that trans-2-nonenol is a significant player in stale beer. If
>>I'm not mistaken, it's the "wet cardboard" aldehyde.
>
>Well I don't entirely agree with your logic. Suppose all the alcohols
>were
>the same potential then you would still get these aldehydes of fusel
>oils
>and other sources. It is also likely that many of these do not come
>directly from alcohols, so that further disturbs the logic. Also, we
>have
>differing sensitivities to all kinds of chemicals, so what we detect with
>
>our noses is not a representative example of the concentration in the
>liquid..
Your sensitivity point is well taken -- I had not considered it, however,
I still think that my argument holds water... consider this:
I have tasted beers in which there is no noticeable acetaldehyde aroma
yet there are "wet cardboard" aromas. If I'm right and this is from the
aldehyde trans-2-nonenol, then that leads me to believe that the alcohol
from whence this aldehyde (odd that it doesn't end in "yde"... and the
"ol" seems to indicate it's an alcohol) came would seem to have a higher
affinity for oxygen (or losing hydrogens) than ethanol, no? What I mean
is that if you smell an aldehyde that is NOT acetaldehyde, then I suspect
it's corresponding alcohol had a higher affinity for oxygen (or losing
hydrogens) than ethanol... otherwise, since the conditions apparently
were "right" for this alcohol to be converted to an aldehyde, then why
wasn't ethanol converted to acetaldehyde (there's plenty of it around)?
Does this make sense?
Dave also writes:
>Of course, he is dead wrong on this, as one of my quotes ala Lewis
>indicated that the adjective "Stout" was often applied to beers and ale
>in the 17 century and likely before that.
I tend to agree with Spencer in that I believe what Dr. Harrison meant
to say was that the style which has evolved to be called "Stout" in
modern brewing was initially called "Stout Porter." I believe that
it could very well be that "Stout" was used to describe strong ales
that were nothing like "Stout Porter" or modern "Stout."
***
Troy writes:
>kettle and at the end of the 90 min boil I am left with 5.5 gal. 1.5/7 =
>21.4% evaporation rate - way over the recommended 10%
That's typical of most of my batches too.
>I have cut it down to a very low boil (*barely* rolling) and come up with a
>rate at about 15%.
"Barely rolling" has worked for me for ales in the past. I would be a
little worried that the DMS level may be excessive in lagers (which are
made from much higher SMM malt and lager yeast simply removes less DMS
during the fermentation).
Troy continues:
>So, what am I to do?
>
>1. Cut my boil to almost no roll and try to get close to 10% evaporation at
>the expense of hop extraction and protein coagulation.
I say no. Lower hop extraction would be a minor inconvenience, but indeed
protein coagulation (actually break formation) and DMS evaporation would be
impacted significantly (in my opinion).
>2. Bump the boil up to a medium roll and live with evaporation that is way
>over the recommended rate.
Depends on the style, I feel... I feel that the paler styles, especially
like American Light Lager would be killed by this kind of evaporation
(mostly because of caramelisation... it's just that evaporation rate is
more easily measured than caramelisation).
>3. Cover the kettle partially to allow a more rolling boil and to lower the
>evaporation rate to 10%. BTW, isn't this essetially what the pros do? Their
>kettles are partially covered with a vent tube to carry off the
>evaporations, aren't they? To simmulate this design, how about something
>like a wok top with a hole cut in it to allow a limited evaporation? I have
>heard so much about "NEVER cover the boil!" I personally don't see
>anything wrong if you partially cover your boil and hit about 10%
>evaporation rates. This would be enough to drive off the DMS - correct?
I've been covering my kettles about 75% and have never had excessive DMS
in any of 200+ batches.
I feel that the "fermentation problems" that are mentioned by the Fixes and
others may simply be due to caramelisation. What works for one style
could kill another. Carmelisation is encouraged in Scottish Ales (witness
Noonan's suggestion to boil the first runnings to intentionally caramelise
them in Scottish Ales). There has been at least one post to HBD in which
a brewer reported lower than expected attenuation in a batch that was
intentionally caramelised. This is besides caramel being the wrong flavour
in many styles (Wit, German Pils, Munchner Helles, etc.).
Admittedly, I have not made any of these styles that could be ruined by
caramelisation... so maybe my 20-22% evaporation would be a problem
for some styles? Then again... I believe I did get 20% evaporation in
a recent Tripel which was judged excellent in a competition and at a
few club meetings. It seems to me that Tripel would be in that list of
styles with potential problems from excessive caramelisation.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 17:35:43 -0400
From: "Jim & Shelly Wagner" <wagner@toad.net>
Subject: I can't believe it's not.....Dominion Wheat.
Hello all....
I recently had the oppurtunity to sample Old Dominion's Wheat on draft
at a local watering hole that has an excellent reputation for good
sanitation/handling practices. Immediately after the first
wiff/sip.....Diacetyl....big time!!! To quote a friend that was with
me..."There's a stick of butter in here!" I've detected low to moderate
levels of "D" in commercial wheats in the past, but never at this level.
So...my question is; anybody out there from Old Dominion care to comment on
this matter? Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing here....I'm just curious
if this is how they wanted the beer to turn out, and if not, was it
possibly "rushed" due to uncontrollable circumstances? Just wondering.
Jim Wagner
<<<<<<Stoney Creek Brewing>>>>>>
**********Pasadena, Maryland********
Established-1994
~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 17:16:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay@NetXpress.com>
Subject: Gotts for TX,OK and LA brewers
Greetings all,
For brewers in TX,OK and LA, a group of "close-out stores
called "Lot$Off" have,for the next few days, a Rubbermaid 10
gallon cooler for $19.99. I went by today and the thing
has no name on the side and "Rubbermaid" and Model 1610 on
the bottom. I checked my 10 gallon Rubbermaid-Gott and it
has the same model #. That's a really good price for a 10
gallon mashtun!!! No financial affiliation,etc,etc,just a
nosy,old brewer intrigued to see if it was the real thing.
I'm sure they are,go get 'em guys.
Val Lipscomb-brewing in San Antonio
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 19:02:32 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Call for judges
Normally I'd post this on Judgenet, but since it is down I'm posting
here. Sorry for the post of limited, regional interest.
This is a call for judges and/or stewards for the amateur brewing
competition held in conjunction with the Small Brewers Festival of
California, which takes place in downtown Mountain View each summer.
It is a BJCP sanctioned competition. I welcome BJCP and non-BJCP
judges. Novices who wish to learn about judging will be placed on
panels with at least 2 experienced judges--it's a great way to learn.
The main judging will be at 9 AM on Saturday August 1st, at the Tied
House in Mountain View. We will have a preliminary judging the weekend
before, time and place TBA. Let me know if you'd like to do it that
weekend and if so, when. Also there will probably be numerous prelim
rounds arranged informally over the last 2 weeks of July, so if you want
to judge by all means contact me and I'm sure I can give you the
opportunity to judge. BTW the best of show will take place at the
festival on the 8th, so if you're interested in that let me know that
too. BJCP judges only for that please, but I will choose one less
experienced judge for the panel.
By way of inducement, all judges will get a tasting kit to the festival
and participants at the bigger final and prelim rounds will get lunch.
I will also offer some judge education activities and we even have some
surprise activities in the works that may interest you. Also we will be
using the new BJCP scoresheet which you can see at www.bjcp.org. Check
out the coversheet and judge directions sheet at the same URL for an aid
in understanding the changes we made to the sheet.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 22:54:24 EDT
From: AlannnnT <AlannnnT@aol.com>
Subject: make your own malt and more porter stories
To the HBD folks looking for good 'malt your own' info, [ I think it was
George DePiro but I can't remember. ]
Check out Chapter 8 and the appendices in The Historical Companion to House
Brewing. Clive La Pensee, 1990 ISBN 0 9515685 0 7
Chapter 8 is titled Malting at Home. [very good stuff]
Appendix 3 is titled 'Changes in the barley mass during malting'
Appendix 6 is titled 'Making a hop and malt drier'
All very good, practical info for home scale malting operations. Including
hour by hour developments when mashing.
This odd, and slightly 'too British' book is full of little gems if you can
get past the pretentious, inaccurate and anglophilic opening.
About Porter.
This tidbit from the same book is sure to raise some ire;
La Pensee quotes Johann Hahn, a German Brewer, presumably circa 1804
"In England, Buckbean has been used for many years instead of hops, in double
and other beers, which because of their unique taste are called Porters."
No direct reference given, but the Bibliography lists Hahn as the author of
Die Hausbrauerei, Erfurt, 1804.
Best Brewing,
Alan Talman
East Northport NY
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 04:13:23 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: HBD pH Experiment, MCAB, & other stuff
Hi folks:
Bully for A.J. deLange! As will probably surprise no one, I enthusiastically
second his request that you take a couple of minutes next time you mash and
record a little extra pH data according to the protocols he has laid out, and
report it back to him. If even 20 or 30 of us *carefully* collect data in this
fashion, I suspect that we can come up with some worthwhile general rules that
will help the entire brewing community. Don't let the detail A.J. has laid out
scare you . . . it's really not that hard, and by following his directions
carefully you'll probably learn a bit about how to take better, more accurate pH
measurements (and whether your pH electrode is in need of replacement!).
============
MCAB
Five down, six to go! We're almost halfway through the QE's for the first
MCAB. If I haven't said it before in the HBD, I and the rest of the MCAB
Steering Committee thank all the fine folks at the Kansas City Bier Meisters,
the Boston Wort Processors, the Bay Area Mashers, the Mash Tongues, and the
Bidal Society for jobs well done in running the first QE's. If you wanna see
who has qualified so far, check out the MCAB website:
http://hbd.org/mcab/
If you've qualified, I'll be in touch with you over the summer with the entry
package. If you haven't qualified yet, get those beers out! The Sunshine
Challenge is just around the corner, and in June we have the BUZZ-Off and the
Spirit of Free Beer competitions. Then it's a long hot summer until the Dixie
Cup, the CABA Masters, and Novembeerfest in October and November.
And I encourage everyone -- whether or not you qualified for the MCAB
competition -- to mark your calendars for February 12-13, 1999 (President's Day
Weekend) for the first MCAB Competition and Technical Conference. This will be
held at the Saint Arnold Brewing Company in Houston. Tentative scheduling calls
for judging of categories 1-9 on Friday evening, followed by some sort of
light-hearted technical presentation involving beer tasting. Saturday morning
will feature technical presentations by Dr. George Fix, Dave Miller ("scheduled
to appear"), Dr. Paul Farnsworth, and other similar luminaries. Caetgories
10-18 will be judged at midday, with BOS judging thereafter. We're also
planning a pub crawl for Saturday afternoon, and a Texas Bar-BQ feast back at
Saint Arnolds to accompany the awards ceremony Saturday evening. (Again, check
the MCAB website periodically for details.)
Currently, it looks like we'll be able to hold to our stated objective of being
able to make the MCAB Competition and Technical Conference available to you for
no or nominal cost (except for pub crawls and food), so start making your plans
to join us in Houston next February for what we expect to be *the* amateur
brewing convention of 1999!
=============
Other stuff:
Cynmar Corporation -- a discount scientific supply house that I and other HBD'rs
have highly recommended recently -- informs me that because of the surge in
inquiries they have had in recent weeks from brewers, they will be coming out
with a catalog and additional products targeted specifically at brewers. They
will be adding things like narrow range hydrometers, 50ml centrifuge tubes and
sterile transfer pipettes (in quantities of less than the typical 500),
pycnometers, refractometers, test reagents (including, hopefully, cycloheximide
and Wurster's Reagent), etc., to their product line, and are interested in
hearing what additional products we are interested in. If there are specific
kinds of lab equipment or reagents that you've been looking for and that your
local HB shop doesn't carry, lemme know and I'll mention it to the folks at
Cynmar. (Disclaimer: I have no financial or other connection with Cynmar.
Cynmar is, however, donating some of the stuff I'll be using to do the lab
analyses on the HBD Palexperiment beers.)
Fix / Farnsworth Part Deaux
As some of you may recall, about four years ago I produced a weekend seminar
featuring George Fix and Paul Farnsworth that focused on the kinds of things we
kick around here on the HBD. George and Paul have expressed interest in doing
it again, and so I'm in the process of organizing another "Beer Science" seminar
in collaboration with Brewing Techniques and, hopefully, some other sponsors so
that we can offer them at very low cost to those of you who want to attend.
Watch this space for more details . . . the first seminar will probably be
somewhere in Texas, but if it's a success we may be able to offer it in other
parts of the country as well . . .
Louis K. Bonham
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 07:33:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea@frc.com>
Subject: Re: Re-started fermentation in the secondary
On Thu, 7 May 1998 brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com wrote:
> - Dissolved CO2, and CO2 trapped or 'stuck' to suspended yeast can be
> released during the racking process. The result is increased bubbling
> of the airlock and yeast falling out of suspension. This is normal
> and can be ignored unless the bubbling lasts a long time.
>
> - Primary fermentations that are not complete, but happen to have a
> leaky fit around the stopper and airlock (or bucket lid) often appear
> to be done or slowing, but then increase after racking. What really
> happened was that after racking the leaks in the system were fewer or
> gone and the CO2 is now going through just the airlock. Knowing how
> long the beer's been in the primary is your primary clue here, plus
> any SG measurements you may have taken.
>
>From the time I pitched the yeast to when I transfered to the secondary
was two weeks, the beer was at 1.022. This was on a Friday when I racked
it to the secondary and added the hops, it was still bubbling on the
following Teusday. Even a week later (Friday) there was still some air
lock activity.
I'm sure my air lock was seated tightly on the primary, I'm pretty anal
about that. I checked the FG of the secondary when it did stop bubbling
(again) and it was at 1.016, so it wasn't quit done yet but why it stopped
in the primary is still a mystery (to me).
By the way, after being in the bottle for two days, it tasted pretty good,
so I don't think it is infected, time will tell.
Thanks for all the responses I received.
_________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea@frc.com
Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 08:36:21 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Thermal Loading
Brewsters:
Troy Hager and others do a poor job of trying to justify George Fix's
gobbeldygook about thermal loading and boiling off of wort.
> What Fix is discussing in their book is
>the negative effects of excess thermal loading, not of
excess loss of
>water. I think they are saying that the evaporation rate
(loss of water)
>itself is not the problem(though a good reference) -
it is the excess heat
>and all of the ramifications of this to the boiling wort that
is the cause
>of negative affects...
My suggestion is let George explain it, if he can. Like
Scott Murman says, if past behavior is any example - I
doubt if he will provide any data to back this up, nor comment.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 10:55:25 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Oatmeal Stout
marnold@netnet.net (Matthew Arnold) wrote:
> I'm planning on making an Oatmeal Stout with 7 lbs pale ale, 1 lb
>Roasted barley and 1/2# oatmeal. Is this enough to give me that nice sliky
>smoothness? How much more dare I add before I need a beta-glucan rest? 1/2# in
>this recipe = ~6% of the grist.
Two comments. First, I have gone to ~10% quick oats without a problem,
with just a straight infusion, but then I never have a problem with stuck
mashes (knock on wood) with my Pico false bottom and gentle pumped
recirculation. I think I, at least, could go higher, but I don't see the
need. A little 6-row might help if you were worried, or US 2-row.
Second, that is an awful lot of roast barley for the style. 10% is typical
for a dry stout, and I just made one using that, using British roast barley
at 600L or so, and it was too much. American is closer to 375 L, so 1 lb.
of it might be OK. If it were my recipe, I'd go with some dark crystal and
chocolate and drop the roast barley to compensate. Maybe 6 oz each of the
crystal and chocolate and 8-10 oz. roast barley depending on the color. I
like the caramel notes from crystal and the chocolate notes from chocolate
in this style. More of a chord rather than a single note. I also once
used some crushed raw rye kernels (pumpernickel meal) along with the
oatmeal and called it Pumpernickel Stout.
Jeff
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, 8 May 1998 10:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: Boiling and evaporation rates
> Regarding kettle evaporation rates > 10% per hour, Troy writes,
> quoting Scott:
>
> "This is a typical Fix'ism; he makes a statement and then
> backs it up with nothing. The only negative from a stronger boil that
> I can think of is a greater energy ($$) usage."
>
> Talk about saying things without having anything to back it up!
> However, Scott is partly correct: higher energy costs are one big
> reason for keeping boiling times short. There are others, though,
> that are very important:
<snip>
> George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
Well, Troy posted my little drunken diatribe to the digest without my
OK, but now I guess it's too late to put Pandora back in the box. I
wouldn't have taken that tone, especially in regards my comments about
George Fix, had I been posting to a public forum.
I have a lot of respect for the work of Dr. Fix, but I do often find
that he makes points without backing them up, or basing them off of a
single data point, not a complete experiment. I hear many homebrewers
repeating, "well Fix says ...", to the point where his word becomes
momily, to borrow Jack's expression.
As for me being guilty of the same; what I write in a private email to
someone, and what what a beer researcher writes in a published book,
are two very different things. If you (George) want to take me to
task for it, fine.
Regarding the discussion of higher energy boils, and off-flavors. I'm
certain that a higher energy boil will produce more, and/or, different
kettle reactions. I'm very skeptical though that these could be
traced through to the final beer, and be diagnosed as the cause of
off-flavors. As George noted, one much more likely cause of an
off-flavor associated with a high energy boil is over-sparging. There
are many other far more likely culprits for off-flavors in my mind,
including pitching rate, fermentation temperature, mash pH, etc.
George commented on extreme boil times possibly causing problems. I'm
sure it's possible to see some changes, but I'm also skeptical that
these could really cause significant adverse flavor changes. Many
commercial brewers have been reported to boil for 2-3 hours, including
some makers of light pilsners. How long of a boil time are you
talking about George?
The issue of excessive carmelization, and it's place in a light
pilsener-style beer is a little cloudy to me. I know from my own
experience, and also from reading about Urquell, that a triple
decoction, combined with a strong boil will not really add what most
would say is excessive carmelization (more precisely Maillard
reactions, neh?). I would like to get even more reactions, and wish I
could somehow high pressure cook a greater fraction of these brews. I
think that a light lager won't hide other problems in your process as
much as a dark beer, or ale, will. I'd look in other areas to
diagnose the off-flavors, before jumping on the "my boil is too
strong" bandwagon.
I'd imagine that the majority of homebrewers exceed the 10%
evaporation rate, and extract brewers are effectively double boiling
their wort, yet no-one has been screaming, "Damn, this beer tastes
like it's been boiled too hard. Yuck." Then again, what do I know?
SM
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 17:57:02 GMT
From: marnold@netnet.net (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: re: Wisconsin Homebrew Clubs
Sorry about the lack of clarity in my previous post. I am looking for Wisconsin
homebrew clubs _with websites_. As a number of people pointed out, the Brewery
and Cream City Suds (http://www.creamcitysuds.com) have pretty good lists of WI
clubs. Sorry for the confusion.
Matt
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org info@rackers.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 11:04:34 -0700
From: "Mercer, David" <dmercer@path.org>
Subject: Evaporation rates continued...
I'm glad to see some discussion of this but, frankly, I remain confused.
I boil for about 70 minutes - ten to get through the hot break formation
and then one hour for the bittering hops. I start with 7.5 gallons of
wort, I end up with no more than 5.5 gallons (of which maybe a quart
stays in the pot with the spent hops and hot break). That is an
evaporation rate of >25%. I boil outside, using a 35K BTU Cajun Cooker
type propane stove. I try to keep the boil at a slightly more than
gentle roll. It is by no means a vigorous boil.
I'm going to use George's post on the subject to raise my questions, not
because I'm disagreeing with him, but because I'm not sure he and I are
one the same page. (Actually, I'm still fumbling around the table of
contents, while he's back near the index....)
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:22:12 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Boiling and evaporation rates
1. Caramelization and darkening of the wort are NOT always
purposes
of boiling! There are many styles of beer where this is
detrimental
(any pale beer). ...
The caramel flavors produced in the kettle are not appropriate in
light beers, and may be what Fix is talking about. This fits
nicely
with Mike's experience (his dark beers taste better than his light
beers given the same boil parameters).
I don't get any appreciable carmelization or darkening of wort from my
boils. My lighter colored beers are among my best - especially my
Belgian ales, which I try to keep very light and which would be
noticably affected by carmelization. As I said, this is not a high-heat
thing. My boils are not vigorous by any definition.
2. If you have to boil off 20% of your wort to reach your target
gravity, you may be oversparging. While you may be realizing great
mash efficiencies this way, you may be negatively impacting the
flavor
of your beer because of increased phenol extraction during the
sparge.
This could cause astringency in the final product, and some beer
evaluators may attribute it to a sanitation problem.
While I have had some very mild problems in the past with astringency, I
always know (or at least think I know) where they have come from. The
worst case was my first effort at a no sparge beer. I forgot to
recirculate. Textbook astringency. But collecting 7.5 gallons from a
relatively high grain bill (I typically use 12-13 lbs of malt) is not
going to oversparge. I don't "have" to boil off >20% of the wort - it
happens as a matter of course when I boil - again, at a very moderate
roll - for 70 minutes. If I could reduce that to 10% that would be
great, I'd either have more beer, or shorter lautering times. But I
don't know how to, and I don't know why I should (other than to have
more beer or shorter sparges). What's the deal? If it is just to protect
against carmelization, as I said, that isn't a problem with me, so I can
ignore it. But if it really will improve my beer to boil off less wort,
I still am in the dark as to why.
3. Too long of a boil can actually cause hot break to redissolve
into
the wort, or break it up into smaller flocs that are more difficult
to
remove. Neither situation is desirable.
70 minutes is clearly not too long of a boil.
4. Too long/intense a boil can actually cause sugars to revert
back
to their starchy origins! I'm not sure how long of a boil that
would
take, but Dr. Powers at Siebel mentioned this. Anybody care to
talk
about how long this would take?
70 minutes is not too long. A moderately rolling, non-vigorous boil
can't be called too intense. Should I just be simmering the wort? (the
only way I think I could get evaporation down to 10%.)
So, there are some solid reasons to avoid overly long and/or
intense
boils. I'd like to hear some more, particularly from Dr. Fix.
I'd like to hear from Dr. Fix on this, as well. Actually, the
dimensions and geometry of the kettle would have an effect on
evaporation rates, too, I would think. I use an 8.25 gallon enamel pot
that is about as wide as it is tall (another reason why my boils are
gentle - 7.5 gallons of wort come real close to the top). I'd think
evaporation rates would be greater with relatively more exposed surface
area, than in the big commercial kettles which are much taller than they
are wide. Does one rule fit all sizes?
Have fun!
I try to. And thanks George.
Dave Mercer (in Seattle)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:00:42 -0500
From: Ralph Link <rlink@minet.gov.mb.ca>
Subject: used tanks
I have been able to get hold of two used plastic tanks that originally held
phosphoric acid ( I think) They can from a local bottler of Coke, and they
sort of smell like they had Sprite in them.
What opinions does the collective have as to whether these tanks cold be
used as primary fermenters? I calculated that they hold in excess of 20
gal. imp.
Thanks of the responses private or otherwise.
Ralph Link
"Some people dream of success------while others wake up and work at it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 15:23:51 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Oatmeal Stout / Wisconsin Homebrew Clubs
Well, I just made a delicious (if I do say so myself), smooth, silky
oatmeal stout with this approximate recipe:
8 (9?) lbs pale malt
1 lb rolled oats
3/4 lb (just shy) roast barley
1/4 lb (or maybe 2 oz, but I think 1/4lb) chocolate malt
1 lb light crystal
I've made this one twice before. The first time used 3/4lb of roast,
the second time used 1lb of roast. The first one was not quite roasty
enough for me, the 2nd one was too roasty. So this time I cut back to
3/4 lb (besides, that was all I had!) and added 1/4lb of chocolate
malt. That did it (for me).
OG was 1.045 or maybe 1.050 (can you tell my brewing notes are at
home?), and it finished about 1.015. It's amazingly drinkable. At a
recent party, a friend drank 5 (9 oz) glasses of it.
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:47:35 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: DO/Equilibrium/Acetaldehyde
Hugh Hoover assumed quite corrctly that the transfer of O2 into wort
takes place at the surface of the O2 bubble b ut then went on to surmise
that it must, therefore, take place via the foam at the top. Not if you
do it right, but nobody that I know does it right except Rhett Rhebold.
He mentioned to me once that he had learned at Siebel that protein that
participates in forming a froth during aeration is lost as a source of
foam in the final product. As a consequence of this when he oxygenates
he sets the flow so low that foam does not form at the surface.
It is clear that if O2 is flowing into the wort and none reaches the
surface it has all dissolved and this represents the most efficient
oxygenation, at least in terms of the amount of gas used - it might take
forever though. This implies very tiny bubbles indeed. Remember that as
the bubble becomes very, very small the ratio of its surface area to
the mass of oxygen it contains becomes very, very large. An oxygen
cylinder lasts forever under these conditions as 19 L (5 gal) of wort
only requires about 160 mg (112 mL at STP) oxygen. Obviously this
situation does not pertain. There seems to be a minimum regulator
setting necessary to establish any flow at all through an oxygenating
stone and while the bubbles produced may be small, nevertheless, many of
them do reach the surface to escape to the air and, if the stream is
vigorous enough, form foam. Stirring in such a way that the bubbles must
follow a spiral path through the whole volume of wort as opposed to just
rising straight to the top have got to help them dissolve and thus save
oxygen.
I don't have any hard data on this. I just stick the airstone down into
the fermenter and jiggle it about while watching the DO meter. The
jiggling isn't very effective at stirring but nevertheless 100% is
reached within a couple of minutes. I have a medical regulator which
reads flow but the reading is actually the pressure across an orifice
and so it probably isn't better than very approximate. Nevertheless, the
flow rate indicates a liter or 2 per minute. I don't refill O2 cylinders
very often even though I use lots more O2 for growing up starters than I
do oxygenating worts.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I agree that the Nernst equation is only good for telling you what
happens at equilibrium and thought I had made that point clear:
>What we have talked about so far are equilibrium conditions. Biological
>redox reactions often reach equilibrium very slowly, if ever, unless
>suitable enzymes are available ...
>This means that though a
>staling reaction may be energetically feasible it may never take place
>or may take place so slowly that we don't encounter it for a long time.
Nevertheless, it bears repeating. In the same vein, someone asked me
recently why vodka exposed to the air doesn't turn into acetaldehyde or
vinegar. As there isn't any acetaldehyde or vinegar in vodka, the Nerst
equation shows that oxidation is energetically feasible but it doesn't
take place. To make vinegar one requires the enzymes in acetic acid
bacteria (mother of vinegar) or an inorganic catalyst to get over the
"activation energy" hump Dave mentions. By the way, Kunze has a nice,
simple, explanation of this aspect of enzyme action and I'd recommend it
to anyone interested. I think it's in Chapter 1.
Acetaldehyde in sherry is presumably from oxidized ethanol - the casks
"breathe" during aging as I understand it. In beer it comes from the
other (catabolic) direction i.e. from decarboxylated (source of CO2 in
fermentation) pyruvate and is the penultimate product in the
fermentation pathway. As such, it is fairly plentiful in young beers. I
was so very pleased with a group we are grooming for the BJCP exam when
they correctly identified acetaldehyde as the main flavorant/odorant in
a 21 day old Pilsner (no lagering) I gave them during a tasting. The
stuff was so fruity I was certain they'd identify it as an ale (I didn't
tell them what it was) but they surprised and delighted me. In that beer
it was certainly not subtle and definitely tasted (and smelled) like
apple but not exactly like (the exactly like is, I believe, attributed
to ethyl hexanoate). In sherry I expect that the general impression of
"sherryness" is from a synergism of the many flavoring compounds present
including acetaldehyde. I've certainly never smelled pure acetaldehyde.
It must be interesting stuff. Its flash point is around -40 F (or C,
take your pick).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: pH Experiment
I won't be participating in this, but personally I think this is
exactly the type of "experiment" that can be very successful from a
homebrew level. I discussed this briefly with Louis Bonham off-line,
and I think that because of our sheer numbers, we have the ability to
contribute some really good stuff. The Palexperiment, and now this pH
experiment are great starts. Bravo, and good luck.
SM
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 06:44:05 PDT
From: "Rosenzweig,Steve" <Steve_Rosenzweig@wb.xerox.com>
Subject: Hop Growing
I am certainly not an expert hop grower, but here are some observations
and answers to questions recently asked on the HBD;
Matt Arnold asked about spacing when planting hops rhizomes:
My 4 Willamette hops are in their third year and are doing pretty well.
I planted them about 18" apart along the back of my garden so I could
string them up to my 2nd story deck. They now are nearly growing
together, and I have resorted to stringing them two and three to a
line for their trip up to the top of my new 8' trellis above the deck
- about 20' total! In retrospect, I should have given them more space
when I planted them - maybe the 3' recommended. Take this into
account when you plant different types of hops near each other as well
- you may not be able to keep them apart if they are planted too
closely. I would leave a minimum of 4-6' separation for different
types and stick to 2.5' - 3' for the same types.
Kevin TenBrink asked about hop shoots growing away from his main plants;
Instead of just cutting them back, I would try to partially dig them
out of the ground some, so that you can see the little white rootlets,
then cut them off with about 6-8" of that rootlet system intact -
bingo - you've got another rhizome (kind of). You can replant these
and they will very likely grow. I did this last year and had about a
80% success rate. Keep the leaf system intact and plant the rootlets
in a pot of good potting or seed starter soil and use some miracle
grow on them. If you can, place them so that the leaves are in the
sunshine most of the day and the soil stays in shadow to keep it from
drying out. Now I've got three bines growing at my parents house too!
You can also try to do this with just cuttings by putting the
cuttings in a jug of water until they start to produce the white
rootlets - I had less success with this method last year - maybe 20%.
I'll be trying this again soon this year. Once the rootlets appear,
follow the above potting procedure. In either case - when the hops
appear to be doing well, figure out a good place to transplant them
and see if they take.
As far as digging up hops for transplant, it should work, and at worst
case if you can't get the whole hop root system, you can carve them up
as rhizomes, keep tham moist and start again wherever you move to.
Good growing!
Stephen
Growing and Brewing in Ontario NY
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:45:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Boiling hard....
Greetings, Beerlings! Staple me to your chicken...
I rarely boil hard. When it seems I might be, I choose another, similarly
enjoyable activity...
(Someone had to, right? Why not me?)
In Scott's defense, it is in poor taste to forward something written in
private to another, let alone a publication. In the poster's defense,
Scott, it is sometimes a lesson hard learned: It is poor judgement to send
something you may not want to see again to anyone. Whatever you set to
print "exists" and may turn up where you'd least enjoy seeing it...
As for George (Fix)'s assertions: I buy 'em. Momily or no, a too-vigorous
boil could significantly alter flavor constituents, to my way of thinking.
The ol' sputtering brain in my head-bone takes the following tack: the
more vigorous the boil, the higher the heat input. The higher the heat
input, the more likely a portion of that thermal energy might work for the
forces of evil, caramellizing, scorching or otherwise altering the wort.
Thermal and statistical physics both accept that thermal energy causes
molecules to separate by increasing amounts and vibrate at increasing
rates with few (I can't think of any, but for every rule there has to be)
exceptions. Ice to liquid. Liquid to steam/gas. Superheats and plasmas,
etc, etc. Isn't it plausible that the input of thermal energy could result
in the fracturing of certain of the more fragile proteins in the wort
through the mechanics of those vibrations? THe thermal energy overcoming
the chemical bonds? (As you can tell from the above, I really haven't a
clue. Just a few thoughts, that's all...)
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
The AABG's #1 member! No joke! Check the card!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 19:19:51 EDT
From: AllDey <AllDey@aol.com>
Subject: 4th Annual 8 Seconds of Froth
The High Plains Drafters of Cheyenne, Wyoming invite entrants to our homebrew
competition. You can consider the prizes (BOS beer wins an original sculpture
by Cheyenne artist Ron Royer, BOS mead receives 24 lbs of Wyoming honey) or
you can think of the importance of getting constructive feedback from
qualified judges.
Either way, consider sending some entries.
All the details can be found via our web-site:
http://www.tcd.net/~bbriggs
or, email me - alldey@aol.com - and I'll send an entry pack
Cheers,
Paul Dey, Cheyenne, WY
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2709, 05/09/98
*************************************
-------
