Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2697
HOMEBREW Digest #2697 Sat 25 April 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:
pH & Temp. Revisited, again ("A. J. deLange")
decarbonating beer/blowoff tubes/topping off (Al Korzonas)
Re: Tinseth's IBU calculation (brian_dixon)
re:Maris Otter ("Frederick J. Wills")
RE: Raspberry Wheat; Hole size ("Steven Jones")
Clear wave = snake oil? ("Frederick J. Wills")
re: Foundation water ("Frederick J. Wills")
Water (fwd) (Some Guy)
Re: Keg handle repair ("John Lifer, jr")
Refractometers and correction for alcohol (Harlan Bauer)
Magnetic Water Treatment ("Dennis or Janice Johnson")
Favourite brewing books (Andrew J Marsh)
Styrian Goldings ("Mr. E. Hitchcock")
hops / Charlie Bamforth/malt protein (Andy Walsh)
gluing kegs ("Ray Estrella")
Split Fermentation ..Same Yeast ..Different results ??? (Jim Wallace)
Re: lactose & choc. syrup at bottling ("J. Matthew Saunders")
D.C. Area HBDers ("Barry Wertheimer")
Clear Wave revisited (Harold L Bush)
Liebfraumilch, Ancient Guiness, ("David R. Burley")
re:protein content (Charley Burns)
FWH & test at German breweries ("Bret Morrow")
Re: Condom oxygenators (Cookie Monster)
Breathalyzer boo-boos ("Hans E. Hansen")
JudgeNet is under repair and will return online May 1.
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, 23 Apr 1998 15:41:54 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: pH & Temp. Revisited, again
Jim Bentson wrote:
>The average life of a pH probe at 158 deg F is 4 weeks compared to 3
>years at room temp. Strong recommendation to cool the wort to room
temp.
Yes, but you don't store it at 158F, you store it at room temperature.
Nevertheless, it is true that high temperature and especially going from
room temperature to high temperature (as for example, when plunging a
probe into boiling wort) is hard on electrodes. Regardless, an
electrode properly designed for high temperature applications which is
properly maintained should last at least a year under the frequency of
use to which a home brewer subjects it. More important is whether the
reference junction can withstand mash temperatures. Calomel, the old
standby, is largely being replaced by more modern reference formulations
these days but it cannot withstand mashout temperatures - it melts.
Furthermore, it is poisonous so even though it is unlikely it would
escape the electrode, I advise people not to use calomel electrodes
other than in a sample withdrawn from the mash tun, kettlle or whatever
and discarded after measurement.
Cooling of samples introduces a change in the actual pH of the wort
(acids' pK's generally decrease with temperature). Most of the textbooks
indicate that this change is about 0.3 pH in going from mash to room
temperature. This depends to some extent upon grist and water
composition. In my experience it is more like 0.1 pH regardless of type
of beer or the water I brew it with so it is possible that the 0.3
number is one of those innacuracies that continues to be widely accepted
in the brewing community but I'm not prepared to assert that based on my
experiences alone.
If one wants to measure at mash or boil temperatures, he should buy an
electrode that is designed to handle those temperatures and while
choosing an electrode look for the double junction type with harmless
potassium chloride as the fill solution. A sleeve junction design is
preferred as they are less likely to foul in thick, proteinaceous
mash/wort and are easy to clean if they do. These things cost but their
cost is coming down - close to $150 these days I think.
> if the pH was 4.01 @ 60 deg F then @ 158deg F it would read 4.10.
This looks more like the pH change of the standard operational pH 4
pthalate buffer (one of few acids whose pK goes up when temperature goes
up) than the way in which an uncompensated meter reads. The
uncompensated electrode voltage is directly proportional to the absolute
temperature of the solution being measured, electrode voltage becomes
more positive with decreasing pH, most modern electrodes read 0 mV for
pH 7 and the slope of an electrode at 25C (298K) is theoretically 59.1
mV/pH. These facts taken together imply that the pH of an uncompensated
meter at 158 F (i.e. 273 + (158 - 32)/1.8 = 343 K) in a solution at a
true pH of 4.01 would read
pH' = 7 - (7 - 4.01)*59.1*(343/298)/59.1 = 3.56
At 158F the slope is (59.1*343/298) = 68.02 mV/pH and that is why that
factor appears in the numerator. An uncompensated meter thinks that pH
varies 1 unit for every 59.1 mV and that is why 59.1 appears in the
denominator. In a pthalate buffer at 158 F the true pH is closer to 4.1
and the uncompensated reading would thus be
pH' = 7 - (7 - 4.10)*59.1*(343/298)/59.1 = 3.66
A good meter calibrated at 158 F in a pthalate buffer would read pH 4.10
but would take into account (it has the pH of this buffer as a function
of temperature stored) the fact that the temperature was high in
calculating the slope of the electrode to be used in subsequent
measurements. Thus a good meter (and most of the modern ones are this
sophisticated) can be calibrated at one temperature and used at another.
The two calibration buffers don't even have to be at the same
temperature (though the phosphate 7 buffer's temperature dependence is
much less than the pthalate buffer's).
It's probably clear that I don't advocate cooling samples because of
uncertainty in the change of true pH. At the same time I understand that
not everyone wants to pay over $100 for the electrode. I suggest that
these folks cool the sample to room temperature and subtract 0.1 pH from
their room temperature readings.
While on the subject, I'd like to ask that other brewers who take
readings at the mash and or boil temperatures start taking readings on
cooled samples as well as the hot ones. I'd like to see if we can pin
down the pH rise as a function of temperature difference, beer type and
starting water composition. I'll volunteer to be a repository for the
information and pull it together when there is enough to draw some sort
of conclusion.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 16:13:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: decarbonating beer/blowoff tubes/topping off
Harlan writes:
>I can handle decarbonating a few drops of wort from
>the fermenter, but if I have to decarbonate ~300-mL of wort from 4
>fermenters every day, it might start feeling like a job.
Firstly, congrats on the pro gig. Secondly, I believe that the
standard procedure in a brewing lab to decarbonate beer is to
spin it in a blender for a few seconds. I believe that Dan McConnell
has the ASBC Methods book and perhaps could look this up for us?
I'll Cc him on this post.
***
Sam writes:
>It's a pretty universal consensus that you should avoid blow-off
>tubes entirely. Don't use a glass carboy at all for your primary
>fermenter, use a plastic pail.
>
>(Pat said he wanted more brewing-related posts -- if that doesn't
>hot up a flame war, I don't know what will... ;-)
Just in case Sam's humour is missed by some, he doesn't really mean to
say that there is a consensus that the blowoff method shouldn't be
used. My experiments (written up in Brewing Techniques) indicated
that the main difference between blowoff and non-blowoff is nothing
more than bitterness. If you compensate for the change in bitterness,
there's nothing wrong with using the blowoff method.
I, personally, use 6-gallon glass carboys for 5-gallon batches, but I
use a blowoff-tube, just in case.
>Seriously, I don't know why you'd bother topping up a primary
>fermenter. It will be producing enough CO2 to keep most oxygen
>out of the carboy (I know, gases diffuse, but during the primary
>the CO2 generation creates a gas flow out of the carboy).
I agree and let's not forget the sanitation issue. Even adding
boiled/cooled water can introduce an infection. Furthermore, unless
the oxygen has been boiled out of the water (and more hasn't
dissolved in it as it is cooling), you will be oxidising the beer
which already has some alcohols which you don't want to oxidise.
>Once your fermentation has settled down, most people either just
>bottle, or siphon to another carboy to get the beer off the trub
>and dead yeast on the bottom of the primary fermenter. At this
>point, it makes sense to top up -- there is no longer a flow of
>gas to keep oxygen out of the carboy. Most people switch to an
>airlock on their secondaries, although I would think a blow-off
>would be just as good -- either one must be kept full of water.
Actually, I feel it still doesn't make good sense to top-up in
the secondary. Infection and oxidation aside, there is little
benefit. "But what about the oxygen in the headspace of the
secondary?" An unwarranted concern, in my opinion... whenever
you siphon, you have length of hose that has beer at a slightly
lower pressure in it (from the peak down to the exit of the hose).
This lower pressure causes some of the dissolved CO2 out of
solution and *this* will purge the oxygen out of the headspace
of the secondary (or priming vessel).
The only way that I would consider topping-up a fermenter would
be if I was shooting for a particular target gravity and overshot.
Rather than top-up the primary and get, say 6 gallons of wort,
I would rather ferment it at that higher gravity and then either
add de-oxygenated water in the secondary (which I rarely use) or
at priming time. This way I would minimize the risk of blowoff
from my 6-gallon carboy (which I had presumably not compensated
for in the hopping calculations).
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 14:47:27 -0700
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Tinseth's IBU calculation
[snip]
>I agree that the formula should be derived from average gravities of
>the boil during the time in which the hops are present (which will be
>different at different addition times); however, the formula Tinseth
>created appears to be derived from post-boil gravity data. One would
>simply be introducing additional error into the calculation by using
>the average gravities.
>
[snip]
>I believe there is still a significant amount of fundamental work
>yet to be done to produce formulas for predicting IBU levels in our
>brews.
>
[snip]
>How about it, Glen? Can you plug in values for the theoretical
>average gravity during the hop additions and come up with new
>formulas?
Interesting observations. I didn't realize a lot of this. My
responses are two-fold though. First of all, a thought that keeps
ringing in my ears (hollow skull) is that using a general formula to
predict IBUs is generally thought to be a waste of time by
professional brewers. There're just too many other variables involved
(open/closed boil, rigorousness of the boil, variations within the
hops themselve ... Zymurgy had a great article on this alone, etc.)
that are hard to estimate. These first thoughts lead me to feel that
fine tuning formulas such as Glenn's is really splitting hairs and the
normal variance that occurs during brewing will far outweigh the
difference that fine tuning his formulas would make. Now for the anal
side of me. My normal approach to anything scientific is to, at each
step along the way, be as absolutely accurate as I can. Then for the
final answer, I round according to the rules of significant digits and
when necessary, calculate the known or estimated errors through the
calculations according to the rules for propagating uncertainties
through mathematical formulas (sums, differences, products, and
quotients). Acceptable error is measurement error. Unacceptable
error comes from known errant formulas. So, the second thought that
bugs me is that I also _would like_ to see Glenn's formulas refined
... but I don't see it as necessary, that's all. If I remember right,
there's also an issue of normalization with the numbers that Glenn
produces? I can't remember. The aforementioned Zymurgy special issue
on hops normalized Glenn's numbers in some way to make them comparable
to other IBU calculation methods...
Brian
PS: I think everyone knows all about significant digits and the simple
rules associated with them. But if you're interested in uncertainty
and the propagation of it through mathematical formulas (so you can
estimate the error in your 'answer'), I recommend "An Introduction to
Error Analysis" by John R. Taylor. ISBN 0-935702-07-5 (paper bound).
Publisher is Oxford Press.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:59:09 -0400
From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills@compuserve.com>
Subject: re:Maris Otter
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
<<Lately, many people have been mis-using (and mis-spelling) "Maris
Otter."
This is a barley *strain* and *MANY* maltsters make malt from it. Marris
[sic] Otter couldn't send malt to the US any more than Klages or
Harrington
could send malt to England.>>
I'd like to try to help clear up some of the pervasive confusion
regarding
this malt. My understanding (heresay only) is that there is a "Maris"
company that produces barley for malting among other things, one strain
of
which is named "Otter".
This barley is (has been) malted by several companies (maltsters) the
most
well known of which in the US is "Crisp Maltings". I think the use of
both
the "Crisp" and "Maris" company names in describing Crisp Maris Otter
malt
has led to some of the confusion. Another contributing factor to the
confusion may indirectly be due to the purported high quality attributed
to
this Crisp malt at least in homebrewing circles.
Of course, now that we are seeing other malsters selling the Maris Otter
barley variety in the US that are taking good advantage of the Crisp
company's earned reputation and marketing their maltings only as "Maris
Otter". Not Munton's Maris Otter as an example... get my drift?
Cheers,
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH
PS - I'm with you, Al, on the 132-134 degree rest. Good head - Clear
beer
- no worries!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:02:07 -0400
From: "Steven Jones" <stjones1@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Raspberry Wheat; Hole size
Tom writes about a raspberry wheat, and AlK responds about
being unsuccessful with Carlson fruit extracts.
I made a raspberry wheat extract kit from WindRiver Brewing
about a year ago which turned out real good. The extract was
a dark red color in a 4 oz package (no name), and it had a
prominent raspberry flavor. Since moving to all grain last
December, I recently brewed the same recipe converted to
AG, but this time I used the clear raspberry extract from
Carlson's, and there was only a hint of raspberry flavor. I had
won 3 4oz bottles of Carlson's extract (3 different flavors) in
a drawing at one of our hb club meetings, so I just added a
bottle of Cherry extract (pink) to the keg. It added a little more
flavor, but not near as much as my extract batch had. As for
my next attempt, I won't use the Carlson extracts again.
Andrew asked about hole size in pizza pans. I made my false
bottom for my 1/2 bbl keg masher from the bottom of another
keg, turned upside down. I drilled about 750 holes in it using
a 3/32" drill bit (I only burned out 2 bits in the process) and it
works great. I also made a bottom for my boiler using a piece
of sheet stainless about 7" in diameter using the same method,
but it has warped slightly and doesn't seal well around the
edges. I drilled a 3/8" hole in the center for the copper tubing,
and made a simple jig for my drill press by drilling a 3/8 hole in
a piece of plywood and inserted a length of 3/8" dowel in it for
the stainless to set over, and clamping it to the drill press table.
I drilled a series of holes about 1/4" apart in a circle,
reclamped about 1/2" farther out, and repeated drilling circle
patterns until I finished. There is room for many more holes,
but my mash efficiency averages about 83%, so I'm not sure I
would gain much.
I've heard that Oregon Fruit makes a fruit puree for homebrewers,
but haven't been able to find out much about it. The closest HB
shop of any size is almost 100 miles away, so I do 95% of my
buying thru mail order. Does anyone know about how to contact
Oregon Fruit to see if I can buy direct?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:03:58 -0400
From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clear wave = snake oil?
From: Harold L Bush <harrybush@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clear Wave
<<I am one that usually discount devices such as this as total bullsh-t,
but after having heard (from a doctor) some positive testimony on those
magnet-containing belts for controlling back pain ("they actually can
provide some relief"), I'm willing to listen.>>
I'd double check the credentials of that physician, especially if you go
to
him for any sort of actual medical reasons. Other than the psychological
effect (ie placebo) there is no reason to believe that a magnetic field
of
any strength will have either a positive or negative effect on
controlling
pain. The devices that are worn around the wrist or in an elastic brace
on
the back are a scam.
It takes rapid and large changes in magnetic fields to produce any
tactile
stimulation in humans, this due to current being induced in the nervous
system. Even an extremely large static (ie DC) magnetic field has no
known
effect whatsoever.
As far as conditioning water with a magnetic field, it could probably
trap
any ferrous particles that might pass through the pipe. Other than that
I
would only expect it to lighten the wallet of the buyer.
OTOH, there are some certain (rare?) forms of bacteria that are known to
have paramagnetic properties, but I doubt that these are the ones we are
trying to keep out of your beer.
Good Luck,
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:59:13 -0400
From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills@compuserve.com>
Subject: re: Foundation water
<<From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: foundation water
I have a false bottom in my Gott. It requires about 1 gallon
of water to get to the screen. The drain is about 1/4"
off the bottom so I won't have excessive wort left behind.
I know that this water needs to be in addition to that
calculated by Suds, but what about the temp? >>
John,
What you'll want to do is to include the foundation water as part of the
volume of strike water when calculating your strike temperature, but to
subtract it from the volume of strike water when determining mash
thickness
targets. This is actually easier than it may first seem.
Here's an example using a single step infusion mash:
First calculate your Strike Water Volume (SWV). You'll need to know the
approximate amount of water that will fit below your false bottom. You
can
determine this experimentally.
SWV(gals) = (Lbs. grain * Mash Thickness (qts./lb)) + Foundation Volume
/
4.
Now that you have determined the strike water volume you can calculate
the
Strike Water Temperature (SWT) with this formula:
SWT = (((Wg / 20.85) + Wt) * (Tr - At) + (SWV * Tr)) / SWV
where:
Wg = weight of grain in lbs.
Wt = water equivelent mass of mash tun (use .15 for your cooler)
Tr = Desired rest temperature
At = Ambient temperature of grain and equipment
SWV = Strike Water Volume
So, assuming 2 quarts of foundation water, 8 lbs of grain to mash, a
target
of 1.2 qts./lb desired mash thickness and a 70 deg ambient room
temperature
to hit a mash rest temp of 154 deg the formula would look like this:
SWV = (8 * 1.2) + 2 / 4 = 2.9 gallons
and
SWT = (((8 / 20.85) + .15) * (154 - 70) + (2.9 * 154)) / 2.9 = 169.4
degF
The Suds program is not flexible enough to make these kinds of
accomodations which is why I have entered some formulae into a
spreadsheet
for my own use in determining these things on brewday. Using similar
calculations you can also determine the amount of 212 deg. (ie boiling)
water to add to do step infusions if desired.
Regards,
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Water (fwd)
Forwarding a misdirected post...
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:11:02 -0400
From: Judy & David Wooten <wooten@bmd.clis.com>
To: webmaster@hbd.org
Subject: Water
I am on city water , which goes through a salt-based softener outside
the house, then through a reverse- osmosis unit under the sink. I have
read that salt-softened water should not be used for brewing, but that
reverse-osmosis water ( to which minerals may be added as needed) is
excellent. Should my water be OK?
Also, does R-O water need to be boiled?
Thanks for your thoughts!
David Wooten (wooten@mail.clis.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:32:51 -0500
From: "John Lifer, jr" <jliferjr@misnet.com>
Subject: Re: Keg handle repair
Try to find 3M's weather strip adhesive. I believe it is #2001.
It is usually found at an automotive supply store, called 'Yellow 3M'in
the trade.
Will bond rubber to metal rather well and is waterproof.
John Lifer
- --
Cornelius Ball Lock Kegs for Sale
See Web page for details.
http://www2.misnet.com/~jliferjr/Kegs/Default.htm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:54:44 -0500
From: blacksab@midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Subject: Refractometers and correction for alcohol
George De Piro wrote:
>A refractometer won't really work on wort once alcohol is being
>produced. The alcohol alters the refractive index of the liquid, and
>without knowing how much alcohol is in the liquid, you can't correct
>for it.
I knew this was the case, but what is the extent of the error? And how does
it compare to the error caused by alcohol using a hydrometer? Would it be
fair to say that a refractometer is MOST useful prior to pitching yeast and
a hydrometer most useful AFTER?
>As far as degassing the sample, it need not be work. Simply putting
>the sample on a stir plate for a few minutes should do the trick (and
>you don't have to stand there watching it).
George, you must work in a lab ;-) Stir plate? Are you kidding? Hee hee. We
can't even get another butterfly valve to replace the one the owners kid
"dropped" by throwing it across the room.
TTYL,
Harlan.
Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can
Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to
man. <blacksab@midwest.net>
- --A.E. Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:22:10 -0700
From: "Dennis or Janice Johnson" <pinetown@volcano.net>
Subject: Magnetic Water Treatment
Dear Brewers,
Harold Bush recently asked about attaching magnets to incoming water lines
to treat drinking water. He said he normally discounts devices like this as
total bullsh-t; Harold, trust your instincts, they are right in this case.
I have played around with magnets to treat water, which has proven totally
worthless for me. I think Consumers Report magazine tested one a year or so
ago and found it to be worthless. I have read other studies that also show
it to be worthless. We should keep an open mind, however, so if the
manufacturer can show us a few favorable tests, conducted by independent and
qualified testing labs, I could change my mind.
By the way, was the doctor who told you about the benefits of magnetic belts
for controlling back pain a chiropractor? This use for magnets is a very
old quack remedy that has been proven worthless countless times. For more
on chiropractors, see the following web page (I know this has nothing to do
with beer, but it sort of relates to Mr.. Bush's discussion of the magnetic
water treatment):
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiroinv.html
Happy brewing,
Dennis
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:13:08 -0700
From: jethro@inetex.com (Andrew J Marsh)
Subject: Favourite brewing books
Thanks to all who wrote in to answer my request for a good brewing
reference book. Ray Daniel's "Designing Great Beers" got the most votes,
followed closely by Greg Noonan's "New Brewing Lager Beer" and Dave
Miller's "Homebrewing Guide" Also listed as favourites were Charley
Papazian's "Complete Joy of Homebrewing" and Stephen Schneider's
"Brewmasters Bible".
Cheers
Andrew Marsh
Victoria, BC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:14:08 +0200
From: "Mr. E. Hitchcock" <ed@njc.ch>
Subject: Styrian Goldings
Greetings all, old and new. Fter a prolonged absence and change of
continent, I'm back on HBD and thought I'd just add my two centimes
worth to the Goldings discussion. One thing to remember with hops is
that we use them for flavouring and bittering, not for their DNA.
Simply because a particular hop grown in a particular region is from the
same stock as another hop from another particular region in no way
guarantees that the two hops will taste or smell the same, or have the
same bittering characteristics.
And speaking of Styrian Goldings, when Jackson was at the CABA GCHC
in Toronto a few years back someone asked him what his favourite hop
was. He replied: "I don't have a favourite hop, but if I did it would
be Styrian Golding." A sentiment I share.
Cheers,
Ed Hitchcock
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:23:19 -0700
From: Andy Walsh <andyw@ventrassist.com>
Subject: hops / Charlie Bamforth/malt protein
Hello.
hops - Thankyou for the kind words about my BT article (the cheques are
in the mail Daves).
The lab techniques used to identify hops are intentionally chosen to
minimise environmental effects. This does not mean the same hop grown in
different locations will brew the same way. Alpha acid levels can
change, as can essential oil levels and composition. Myrcene (and
oxidised byproducts) in particular varies substantially, along with
other oxygenated compounds. ie. The same hop can brew very differently
when different environmental conditions exist during growth and storage.
However, if hops of the same genotype such as Fuggle, Styrian Goldings
and US Tettnanger are all grown side by side, picked at the same time,
and stored in the same way, they should be pretty similar in the way
they brew. Since there will always be some variability in the way hops
are treated, there will always be some variation in their brewing
qualities. Simply smelling raw hops is not much indication either, since
the raw smell consists mainly of myrcene (low brewing relevance). Raw
two week old Fuggles can smell different to 8 week old Fuggles, yet they
are still the same hop.
*********
The legendary Charlie Bamforth has just had a new book published "Beer;
Tap into the Art and Science of Brewing". It is available at amazon. I
haven't seen it yet, but it promises to be of very high quality: Charlie
Bamforth is prolific in his writings on brewing science. Mine is in the
mail. Amazon sell it for US$20, which seems absurdly cheap considering
the normal cost of brewing texts. More later...
*********
I have also read in several sources that higher protein barleys are
intentionally used for producing darker malts (for the melanoids)-
independent of Kunze and Siebel. I think it is pretty well established
practice. (skeptical me - just an excuse to use cheaper barley). George
Fix seems to prefer the reverse. As for Fix affecting what Narziss
writes - I think you'll find it is the other way around. Narziss has
been around for a *long* time and has a far greater influence in brewing
science than Fix (homebrewers' microcosm again).
(not to denigrate George Fix, just to put it in perspective)
Andy in Sydney. (*Eastern* (Rob!) Suburbs *Brewers* (Dave!))
PS. I hope everyone involved in the Big Brew thing has a great time. Go
Jethro!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:45:01 -0500
From: "Ray Estrella" <ray-estrella@email.msn.com>
Subject: gluing kegs
Hello to all,
Paul asks,
>Has anyone had success or failure trying to re-glue the handle to the keg?
>I was thinking of using a semi-flexible all-purpose epoxy -- something that
>would provide sort of a vacuum seal.
I have fixed them with 100% silicone adhesive. You can get it at Home
Depot, Lowe's, Menard's, etc. for about $5 a tube. Do not get
siliconized caulk, it wont work. Get clear, or black. Squeeze it as far
in as you can, then put a weight on top. (Grain bucket or something)
Let it cure for a few days, and it should be as good as new.
Ray Estrella Cottage Grove MN
ray-estrella@msn.com
****** Never Relax, Constantly Worry....have a better Homebrew ******
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:08:25 -0500
From: Jim Wallace <jwallace@crocker.com>
Subject: Split Fermentation ..Same Yeast ..Different results ???
Looking for a little insight into my problem from the wise ones out there...
Having brewed all grain for 2 years now I have raised the bar a bit.... now
brewing double batches (10Gal). After preparing twin yeast starters of 1qt
@, I brew enough to split off into 2 fermenters and pitch the yeast. The
wort is handled the same (I check both OG just before pitching and they are
the same)... aeration, fermentation containers, temp are all the same.
The first batch was a Brit Pale Ale w/.. both started at OG47... I checked
one fermenter when Kreusen fell FG=12 and I was happy with that. Racked it
and its twin to 2ndry... then checked the twins gravity ... it was 22... 10
points higher. I had a backup yeast going and just added that and roused
the 2nd fermenter but after another 8 days gravity is still not much lower.
....... Ok, that was the first batch ... scratch it off to the brewing gods..
2 weeks later I double a batch of HeffeWeissen ....
same wort OG, aeration, fermenters, etc....
kreusen falls ... check gravity ...
same thing .. one half reads 1.018 the other reads 1.012
......... Any ideas on what is going on here...
my first thoughts are that the fermentation process has some factors that I
must be ignoring or unaware of..
___________________________________________
JIM WALLACE ... jwallace@crocker.com
http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace
___________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:42:24 -0400
From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: lactose & choc. syrup at bottling
Dan,
you write:
>Hi all, quick question. I brewed a coffee stout. I want a little more
>sweetness. Can I add lactose with my priming DME for bottling? Will DME
>give me enough residual sweetness? Is chocolate syrup a good idea? Thanks
>a million!
You can add lactose. Lactose isn't fermentable so any sweetness that you
get from it will stick. I would recommend adding lactose to a limited
known quantity (say 500 ml) and keeping track of how much you add. Add and
taste, taste and add until you have your desired sweetness. From that,
calculate how much lactose you need for your full batch. Add the lactose,
then prime and bottle as usual.
On chocolate syrup...I wouldn't. Chocolate has ALOT of oil in it. It'll
destroy your head retention. Now, that being said, if you want the
chocolate taste and don't mind a headless beer go ahead and experiment!
Cheers!
Matthew.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:44:39 EST
From: "Barry Wertheimer" <wertheim@LIBRA.LAW.UTK.EDU>
Subject: D.C. Area HBDers
Greetings,
I will be in the D.C. area April 30-May 3. If anyone would like to
get together for a pint, drop me a line. I am particularly
interested in a Baltimore area pub crawl on the 2d if anyone feels
like acting as tour guide.
- ----------------------------
Barry Wertheimer
wertheim@libra.law.utk.edu
Knoxville, TN
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:03:16 -0400
From: Harold L Bush <harrybush@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clear Wave revisited
My turn to gobble up a little bandwidth on a tangential issue. Thank you
to
those who answered both privately and publicly on my Clear Wave question.
The unanimous consensus echoed my first reaction to the product- whatta
load of crap! Unfortunately, no one has referenced any testing that
proves
our intellectually founded but still gut-based reaction. I agree that
there is no logical reason why this product should work- however, do you
know how many effective and time-proven drugs contain the following
statement or something similarin their PDR writeup, " ...the mode of
operation of this drug is not understood...". At least these drugs have
clinical trials to back them up.
I guess I'm becoming the ultimate cynic- not only do you have to prove to
me that it works- you have to prove to me that it doesn't!! Give me
facts,
give me data!!! Trust no one, blah, blah blah.
Another tangential issue regards the magnetic belt for pain relief- the
consensus is that its only efficacy is through placebo action. Its funny
how predictably well that placebo works. Take a look at a typical
clinical
drug trial. You'll always find a small but significant percentage of
participants who were forced to suspend their use of the placebo due to
severe side effects! Damn that's strong stuff ;-)
What was that about beer?...
Harry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:04:19 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Liebfraumilch, Ancient Guiness,
Brewsters:
Steve Alexander comments :
>D.Burley ...
>>Liebfraumilch ( Mother Mary's Milk ) [...]
>Gee the literal translation is so much more evocative - are you sure
>this is right Dave ? Drink a QmP Kabinett or Spatslese instead
>anyway.
I didn't say I drank Liebfraumilch, just that "milk" was used
in marketing in a number of alcoholic beverages to evoke
sweetness and smoothness and life-giving health.
Although it is not conventional, I go the full range of QmP
from Kabinett to Trockenbeerenauslese, depending on
what I'm eating, even with some good Schwabish, Franken
or Bayern Kuchen and when I'm not drinking some good Munchen
Lager beer with it. TBA with Strudel is terrific. Bayern Deutche
would drink Frankenwein from a Bocksbeutel if they were
really traditional and not drinking beer. And the
Bavarian once-a-year grape equivalent to cloudy weisse beer
is Federweisser ( feather white and also a name for chalk),
a still warm, fermenting cloudy wine with spritzels.
Maybe a native German speaker among us will comment
on the colloquial translation of Liebfraumilch.
- --------------------------------------
Lee Carpenter - Check with Heublein to see if they
can help you on the import information. Also try Guiness.I
wonder about the green glass bottle. Is it possible that
this is from some other Guiness Brewery besides Ireland?
- --------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:29:31 -0700
From: Charley Burns <cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re:protein content
George asks for support of the high protein content argument for Munich
malts.
I wish I could remember where I read this but somewhere...
"... malliard reactions (creating melanoidins) will take place in an
enzyme rich (protein rich) environment at the kettle/wort interface
where the temperature is much higher than 212F."
Its the protein that creates an environment that allows the melanoidins
to be formed. Its the boiling of the mash that gets things hot enough in
a decoction to set up the other half of the equation. This is why
decoctions DO affect beer flavor (contrary to Dr Lewis' assertion).
I just wish I could remember where I found that reference. Probably
Noonan or Miller. If I have time this weekend I'll try to find it.
Charley (still double decocting and loving it) in N.Cal
PS - that also helps to explain the malty flavors created when pressure
cooking first runnings that are thick with enzymes (proteins) no?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:48:06 PDT
From: "Bret Morrow" <bretmorrow@hotmail.com>
Subject: FWH & test at German breweries
Greetings,
In the 1997 Special Issue of Zymurgy, Amahl Turczyn had a sidebar
article on "The Mystery of First-Wort Hopping." In this article he
discussed 2 German breweries which ran an almost-scientific test of
first wort hopping (FWH). The results of the blind taste test was 8:3
in favor of FWH in the 1st study and 11:2 in the 2nd. A selection of
the reasons given:
"a fine, unobtrusive hop aroma"
"a more harmonic beer"
'a more uniform bitterness."
They then went on to try and identify anything different between the 2
beers using a gas chromatograph, a large, expensive piece of scientific
equiptment which can spearate out multiple chemicals in a solution. It
also can reheat pizza, no kidding. Anyways, the analysis noted 3
components which were substantially reduced in the FWH batch: linalool,
terpineol and humulene epoxide. One conclusion is that the prolonged
boil of FWH results in a reduction of harsh components from the hops.
Some more details are in the Zymurgy article, but here are the basics:
Study 1: FWH used Saaz and Tettnanger (34% of total hops).
Study 2: FWH used Tettnanger (52% of total hops).
Neither study used any aroma hops in the FWH batches.
An alternative explanation may be that using better hops to bitter will
make better beer. I don't know what hops were used to bitter the
control batches, but it may simply be that they contain higher levels of
the "harsh" components naturally. The possibility was not addressed.
Cheers,
Bret Morrow
Johnson's Brewing (not a real brewery!), Home of the Yale Ale
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:16:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cookie Monster <snewton@io.com>
Subject: Re: Condom oxygenators
>- ------------------------------
>> From: Rick Olivo <ashpress@win.bright.net>
>> Subject: Condom oxygenators
>>
>> Don't worry about exploding condoms. The lubricant is always water based.
>> Condoms, being made of latex,
>Is latex flammable in a high-oxygen environment? I'm not sure I'd be real
>comfortable about using any organic to contain a bubble of oxygen. No hard
>data here, just conjecture. Cosmonaut Valentin Bondarenko and the Apollo 3
>crew (Grissom, Chaffee, and Young) were killed when things that don't
>ordinarily burn well, or at all, caught fire in high-oxygen environments.
That would be Apollo 1, and it wasn't just the pure oxygen, it was O2
at about 15psi. In these conditions, as one poster to sci.space.history
aptly said "it's a wonder snot doesn't explode". A condom full of O2
isn't going to be a fire hazard. (At least, much less of a fire hazard
than than tank of O2 under what pressure?)
cm
- --
The world is so full
Of a number of things
I'm sure we should all
Be as happy as kings.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:51:18 -0700
From: "Hans E. Hansen" <hansh@teleport.com>
Subject: Breathalyzer boo-boos
Hello all.
kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> wrote:
>Subject: cops and HB club meetings
>The Capital Area Brew Crew had their monthly meeting last night >complete
>with cops and breathalyzers. Toward the end of the meeting (2-1/2 hrs
>in), the local communities finest were invited to stop in and educate
>us about breatholyzers.
>We started with the lightest @ 150# who blew .07. In Michigan, .08
>gets you an OUI, and .1 gets you a DUI. .07 turned out to be the
>highest of the evening with most in the .04-.055 or less and he had a
>designated driver. I couldn't even blow .01 on an estimated 60 oz in 3+
>hours.
One thing puzzles me about these results. Did you rinse your mouth
before
the test?
I saw a clever attorney get a lady off of a DUI by proving that some
beer
was retained in her dentures causing a false reading. He called in an
'expert' witness (a retired state cop) who had the lady swish beer
around
in her mouth and spit it out. After 10 minutes or so, she blew into
the breathalyzer and had a moderately high number - I don't remember the
exact figure, but it was somewhere in the .08 range. This obviously
makes
sense because you are blowing the vapors from a 5% beverage instead of
just the vapors from your lungs. (The lady should have been convicted,
incidentally, but as I said she had a clever attorney.)
I make it a practice to order a pint of water before leaving a public
house, just in case.
Hans E. Hansen
hansh@teleport.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2697, 04/25/98
*************************************
-------
