Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2758
HOMEBREW Digest #2758 Sat 04 July 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:
Re: Lager yeast/grist%/CO2 scrubbing/low-temp rests ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
Snapple bottles (TPuskar)
Crystal Malt & Unfermentables (Ken Schwartz)
re: What kind of capper is best? (randy.pressley)
Wine Equipment / Bottle Capper / Newbie Fears (Marc.Arseneau)
OK Jeff, I'll join a discussion about crystal malts (George_De_Piro)
repitching wee beasties ("Jay Spies")
RE: Bottle cappers (Robert Arguello)
Re: picking nits; Flying Dog's Old Scratch ("Tidmarsh Major")
Proposed Caramelization Experiment (Paul Ward)
Fermentables from Crystal ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
dough in ("Mike Allred")
Barleywine aging / New hops (Matthew Arnold)
Re: crystal malt: call for discussion ("Brian Wurst")
Re: Kraut/Lactobacillus ("George P. Lohmann")
siRIMS (greg_young)
re. brass vs stainless steel (John Palmer)
salt (MicahM1269)
Oud Bruin ("David Johnson")
Which Kind of Capper is Best ("Michael O. Hanson")
More about "medical gases" (Bob.Sutton)
RE: crystal malt: call for discussion ("Mort O'Sullivan")
Have you entered a MCAB qualifier yet?
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, 2 Jul 1998 06:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea@frc.com>
Subject: Re: Lager yeast/grist%/CO2 scrubbing/low-temp rests
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Al Korzonas wrote:
> Arnold writes:
> >On page 287 of the "Encylopedia of Beer", it says under "Lager" (talking
> >about ale yeast), "If the temperature of the ferment drops much lower
> >(than 58F), the yeast goes into a state of hibernation, building a cyst
> >around itself in a process called sporulation"
>
> AJ replied to this, but his response was far too polite and his point
> (that this is incorrect) may have been lost amidst his politeness. AJ
> took the tack of pointing out the difficulty in causing yeast to sporulate
> rather than pointing out the fact that many lager yeasts perform best at
> 50F (well below the 58F noted above) and traditionally lagering is done
> at 33 to 40F, which would not work if the Encyclopedia of Beer was right.
> You need live yeast for lagering to work!
Sorry, my fault for not being more precise. The phrase was found under
"Lager" but was talking about "ALE" yeast, it went on further to say that
this does not happen with the "lager" strains.
_________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea@frc.com
Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:59:50 EDT
From: TPuskar@aol.com
Subject: Snapple bottles
My wife and adult kids don't drink my homebrew (or any beer) that much (Where
did I go wrong???) but seem to consume mass quantities of Snapple Iced tea.
Rather than lug all those bottles to the recycling place I was wondering if I
could use them for my brew. Clear glass not withstanding, does anybody know
if they would hold the pressure of carbonation? Are the lids reusable? How
about for soda? I make them root beer once in a while and wondered if I could
reuse the Snapple bottles for that. All comments would be welcome.
Cheers to all,
Tom Puskar
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 06:08:54 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: Crystal Malt & Unfermentables
Jeff Renner raises questions about crystal malt production -- do they
really contribute "unfermantables"?:
>It seems to me that there is nothing inherent about this procedure that
>should produce more unfermentables than a standard mash. If a temperature
>regime is used in stewing that would result in higher unfermentables in a
>conventional mash, the result should be the same.
Obviously a maltster would have more control over the stewing process
than those of us making crystal at home; I know I have had batches turn
out distinctly differently with regard to perceptable sweetness, which I
attribute to temperature. But in any case, Jeff's point is that even if
you (or a maltster) made crystal with a high percentage of dextrinous
sugars, wouldn't they be broken down in a mash just like any other
existing starch or dextrin?
Mash regimes that emphasize beta amylase activity should act to degrade
crystal malt unfermentables, so you point is well-taken. This may give
some credence after all to the practice of adding crystal malt at the
end of the mash (long enough to be incorporated into the wort yet not so
long as to experience enzymatic degradation, especially since your
enzymes are pretty much toast at this point). Better extraction could
possibly be obtained by separately steeping the crystal (use the same
water ratio as a typical mash) and adding the grist at mashout (or even
run off separately into the kettle?). Is it possible that the reported
benefits of late addition of roasted malts may be somehow due to less
processing of those grains by the mash enzymes?
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
kenbob@elp.rr.com
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 8:31:03 -0500
From: randy.pressley@SLKP.COM
Subject: re: What kind of capper is best?
> Has anyone else had bad experiences with these type of cappers? I am
> thinking of getting a bench capper. Is there less of a chance of
> breaking bottles with a bench capper since nothing wraps around the
> top of the bottle?
> Thanks for the info, Shannon
I have also broken my share of bottles with the old lever hand capper.
I
purchased a bench capper for $25 and not only have I not broken any more
bottles the capping process is much faster. The only pain is when you
use
different height bottles then you have to readjust the capper.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 05:29:40 -0400
From: Marc.Arseneau@fluordaniel.com
Subject: Wine Equipment / Bottle Capper / Newbie Fears
Tom Clark <rtclark@eurekanet.com> wrote:
...
> Is there significant risk in using my beer making equipment to make
> wine? Will it still be OK for making beer?
My personal opinion is to keep winemaking and beermaking equipment
separate. But if the budget is tight and you don't want to acquire
any additional equipment, then as a last resort I would consider
allowing any glass equipment (carboys, hydrometers) to be used for
both, but buying a second set of any plastic equipment (racking hose
and cane, bucket), only because I find glass is easier to clean (try
smelling the inside of your racking hose sometime!)
================================================================
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:38:26 -0400 (EDT)
Shannon Miller <Shannon_Miller@transarc.com> wrote:
> While capping my 2nd batch of beer last night I broke 3 bottles.
I use a two-handled capper regularly, and the only bottles I ever
break are the twist-off type (the glass is very thin around the mouth
of the bottle). I have spent a great deal of time and effort
accumulating a stockpile of thick-lip bottles that don't twist off
(McEwans is a good example), and I have never broken one of them. And
I also have several dozen "Grolsch" bottles with the ceramic swing
lid. None of them have ever broken from capping yet, either. :)
(although I did hear of someone who alsmost broke a 750 ml bottle with
a capper. Seems he was corking his wine, and was using a beer capper
by accident. The amazing thing is that he actually CORKED TWO
BOTTLES!)
=========================================================
And as a fairly new poster to HBD, I would say that for a long while,
I was intimidated by the digest, with it's 7-page discussions on SRM
calculations, the microbiology of yeast growth, and many other topics
that I can't even pronounce.
But, buried within all that information, lies the answers to several
questions that have been nagging me for some time. And the petty
bickering is rather amusing as well! Just like a regular family!
(D'Oh!)
=========================================================
Thanks to all the responses regarding labelling beer
And thanks to Michel J. Brown for the info on Belgian Strong Ales!
Now, a question. I use an aluminum pot for my boil. I have heard
rumors and whispers that this is BAD. Oh someone, please tell me why.
Marc Arseneau
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:06:57 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: OK Jeff, I'll join a discussion about crystal malts
Hi all,
Jeff Renner suggests something radical: a discussion about crystal
malts to replace some of the less interesting threads that have been
winding their way through our beloved digest as of late. Good idea!
First, a minor correction to Jeff's post. He said that Munich malt is
kilned at 122F (50C), but not brought into the amylase range. This is
half right. It is brought up into the amylase range for
saccharification during kilning (~149F, 65C). One major production
difference between Munich malt and crystal malt is the *moisture
content* during the different stages of kilning. Crystal malts are at
40-45% moisture when kilned at amylase temperatures (and beyond) while
Munich malt is at about half that. This makes for less efficient
saccharification in the Munich malt but helps preserve its enzymes.
After saccharification Munich malt is dropped to 50C (122F) and the
vents are opened in the kiln, allowing the malt to dry before it is
roasted at higher temps (~220F, 104C; more or less depending on
desired malt color). In this way it retains some enzymatic activity
and does not become glassy.
Crystal malt, on the other hand, is brought up to high temperature
while the vents are still closed (therefore the malt is quite wet).
This promotes greater melanoidin formation than in Munich malt, and
causes the endosperm to become glassy. The vents are opened after a
time at the high roasting temperature (the exact temperature is
dependent on the color of malt being produced). The malt then dries.
If the moisture is driven from the malt too soon, the malt will look
shriveled, and some extract may be lost (you get a sticky puddle that
caramelizes on the bottom of the kiln; still not quite sure why this
happens). Commercial maltsters get around this by allowing the malt
to "pop" (like popcorn, but not as dramatically) before driving off
all the moisture.
This is a trick I will try the next time I make crystal malt. The
first time I did it I got shriveled grains and a sticky mess. It
tastes OK, but doesn't look so nice.
As to the fermentability of the sugars in crystal malts: I've been
trying to figure this one out, too. I don't believe that they are any
more or less fermentable than other sugars. Your mashing regime will
break them down and that will determine the fermentability of the
wort. Somebody more knowledgeable should feel free to jump in here,
though.
The major difference is that crystal malt is rich with melanoidins.
This definitely effects the flavor and aroma of the beer thus
produced. The rich, caramel character will add to the perception of
sweetness and mouthfeel, regardless of how attenuated the beer is.
Last summer I tried a courageous experiment in which I cooked some
wort (from a stout) and turbinado sugar up to soft ball stage (or was
it hard ball? ~250F, 121C) and dumped it into the kettle. The goal
was to determine if caramel is fermentable. The resulting beer was
less than good. There were some pretty major fermentation problems,
and I don't know for sure what caused them. Maybe it was the caramel,
maybe not. Je ne sais pas. In any case, the results were
inconclusive.
As a quick footnote, the kilning schedules for ALL the different malts
in Kunze's _Technology Brewing and Malting_ utilize a rest at 122F
(50C) while the malt is still fairly moist. This further supports my
preaching that protein rests are unnecessary in modern malts. Not
only is the acrospire allowed to grow to almost the length of the
kernel, but they then rest the green malt right in the middle of the
proteolytic temperature range. It is indeed well modified (yes, even
the pils malts).
Of course, each maltster may do what they wish, but if they are
teaching aspiring young maltsters this stuff, what do you think they
are doing in practice?
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:06:13 +0000
From: "Jay Spies" <spiesjl@mda.state.md.us>
Subject: repitching wee beasties
All -
Firstly, thanks to the collective for the many responses on the
ammonia smell from my starter. The culprit seems to be the yeast
nutrient, which has since become plant food.
Having brewed the belated Big 10, I have one additional question for
the masses . . . The recent thread on whether or not a yeast cake
population that has fermented a high-gravity wort can be reused has
piqued my curiosity. I'd ideally like to make another batch of the
b-wine, and was considering the possibility of using the present
Edme yeast cake (it's now almost 2" thick). Are these yeasties indeed
"toast"? Can I reuse them for a second 1.1-something b-wine? I know
that dry yeast is cheap as hell, but I'd be interested to know what
people think on the subject . . .
TIA, as usual !!!
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Arguello <robertac@calweb.com>
Subject: RE: Bottle cappers
Shannon Miller wrote about breaking bottles with a wing capper and asked
about bench cappers:
I used a wing style capper for awhile when I first started brewing. While it
was fine for me as a beginner, one of the best purchases I have made was the
purchase of my "Super Agata" bench mounted capper. The Agata adjusts
automatically to virtually any size bottle, ( I have capped everything from
7 oz nips to champaign bottles with it), will cap even those bottles that
don't have a lower lip and have never broken a bottle in the process of capping.
At only $25.00, it is definitely money well spent.
"All In A Day's Wort"
Robert Arguello <robertac@calweb.com>
CORNY KEGS FOR SALE! $12.00 each
http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/keg.htm
ProMash Brewers' Software - http://www/calweb.com/~robertac/promash
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:35:32 +0000
From: "Tidmarsh Major" <tidmarsh@pop.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: picking nits; Flying Dog's Old Scratch
AlK responds to Arnold's post about yeast sporulation:
> >On page 287 of the "Encyclopedia of Beer", it says under "Lager" (talking
> >about ale yeast), "If the temperature of the ferment drops much lower
^^^^^^^
> You need live yeast for lagering to work!
Just to keep you honest, Al, the Encyclopedia of beer seems to be
talking about ale yeast, rather than lager yeast. I'm no expert on
yeast behavior, so I don't know whether ale yeast sporulate, but the
section cited does seem to exclude lager yeasts, which as you point
out do work quite well at low temps.
############
While I'm on the line, I've recently picked up some of Flying Dog's
Old Scratch lager, which has a wonderful malty aroma and flavor.
Does anyone know anything about the malts used? This is my wife's
new favorite beer, and we all know how much brewing for the S.O.
keeps everyone happy.
I've called the 800 number on the bottle, and the woman who answered
said she'd forward my query to the brewer and took my number; I'll
report back if I hear anything and if anyone's interested. (She also
highly recommended their pale ale, but since it isn't available here
in Alabama, I guess I'll have to wait for another trip out of town to
try it)
Cheers,
Tidmarsh Major
tidmarsh@mindspring.com
Birmingham, Alabama
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:56:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Ward <paulw@doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Proposed Caramelization Experiment
Mr. Jeff Renner's post in yesterday's HBD touched upon something I
have questioned in the past, and may also impact on other recent
discussions.
Jeff said:
>Brewers
>
>The fact that crystal malt can be used to add unfermentables is accepted by
>us as a given, I think, but I thought it might be worth looking at and not
>accepting blindly. It could turn out to be a momily. This may be
>especially true for homemade crystal.
> ....<snip
>............................................................... And, of
>course, the caramelization of most crystal malts' sugars adds an important
>flavor component not easily (or at all?) achieved otherwise. Perhaps it is
>these caramelized sugars that are less fermentable than they would be
>uncaramelized? I don't think so, but I'm trying to think of all of the
>angles.
I have read repeatedly that table sugar is table sugar, that it's fully
fermentable, and that your not going to change that. I question this premise.
I think that caramelization MAY alter the fermentability of sugar. I
first questioned this after heavily caramelizing (by accident) some priming
sugar and getting a noticeably lower amount of carbonation. I
couldn't be sure if the difference was due to caramelization though due to
batch to batch inconsistencies.
I know nothing about chemistry, but I know that something is
happening during caramelization. People have recently asked why Belgium
(Belgian?) candi sucre comes in different colors and imparts
different tastes (and someone recently discussed possible increased head
retention) as opposed to using regular table sugar. Decoctions are
another example of where caramelization affects outcome. Whatever
conversions are happening during the caramelization process result in
(strictly supposition here) sugar components which are no longer as
fermentable by our pet yeasts. Caramelization oviously darkens the
sugar, and imparts taste (flavinoids?). Do these changes leave
a residual unfermentable sweetness? Do they significantly affect the
potential attentuation along a linear track as the caramelization
darkens? I don't know. But I think so.
If somebody had several of those pyrex lab flasks, it seems that it
would be easy and cheap to run a set of experiments. 4 flasks
(beakers?) 1/4 cup of table sugar mixed with a cup of water in each
of them. Boil 3 of them for different lengths of time to achieve
different degrees of darkening, keeping the 4th as a standard (boil
just long enough to sterilize). Cool, measure the specific
gravities, aerate, and pitch 1/4 teaspoon of rehydrated cheap yeast
starter slurry in each flask and ferment to completion. Measure the
specific gravities. I'd wager that as the sugar solution gets
darker, the specific gravity gets higher. Not sure about residual
sweetness though, you'ld have to taste for that.
Is the proposed experiment flawed? Was it already done a hundred
years ago by Pasteur or someone? Anybody close by got some flasks
they want to loan out? I'd do the experiment myself if I had the
equipment.
Paul in Vermont
paulw@doc.state.vt.us
- --
According to government height/weight charts,
I'm seven and a half feet tall.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:58:24 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Fermentables from Crystal
In #2756 Jeff Renner discusses the question of whether there are
unfermentables available from crystal malt (caramalt, caramel,
colored...etc). In talking to several professional brewer's in town
about this I came to the conclusion, "It depends." The fermentability
of crystal malts will be determined by the maltster, different
crystals from different malsters will have varying levels of
dextrine content and fermentabilty. The consensus was that crystal
malt is not added for unfermentables, it is added for color and
flavor. In an all-grain beer the mouthfeel and residual sugars
will be determined by the temperature profile of the mash. The
common usage of steeping crystal for addition to an extract beer
undoubtedly will add some varying amounts of dextrines and unfermentables
to a beer otherwise lacking in these components. The method of steeping
is
quite far from mashing in that no enzymes will work on the sugars
released
by the steeping so there is a gain to be
gotten from simple steeping of crystal. I have handled some German
crystal that was obviously meant to be decocted, it was quite mealy
with steely tips, this particular crystal did not do so well in
steeping, it released considerable amounts of unconverted starch and
added to starch haze and instability of the finished beer. So I
repeat myself as to whether or not crystal adds unfermentables to a
beer, it just depends on the malting process and how you use it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 08:50:00 -0700
From: "Mike Allred" <mike.allred@malnove.com>
Subject: dough in
>Ronald La Borde wrote
>First, I put the hot water into the Igloo, cover it up and wait 5
>minutes or more for the temperature to stabilize. If it's too hot, I
>stir or put in a little more cool water, then set the amount at 1 quart
>per pound of grain. The Igloo is marked on the inside for water levels
>in gallons, so this makes it real easy to get the volume right. After
>everything has stabilized, I stir in the grain.
Ok, I have often wondered about this. It seems a lot easier then the
traditional method for dough-in. But wouldn't this method tend to
denature the enzymes quicker then the traditional 'grain first' method?
I would imagine that instead of the temperature of the grain slowly
increasing as you add water, that the temperature would slowly decrease
as grain was added. Am I off base on this? If there is no effect, Ron's
method would be much easier (on the arms that is).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>this does put a small homebrewer at a disadvantage compared to
>>>someone with analytical lab equipment and professional experience.
>>
>> I'm curious...Why would I be at such a disadvantage, just because
>> I'm only 5'5" and 115 lbs.?
>Makes it harder to lift heavy bags of grain, and threaten judges.
Small brewers don't have to threaten judges, our beer is better :)
Mike Allred
5' 5" and 140 lbs. - brewing the best damn beer in Syracuse Utah
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 15:22:56 GMT
From: marnold@netnet.net (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Barleywine aging / New hops
Greetings, HBDers!
I have a barleywine that I brewed on May 26. The O.G. was 1.095 (about .005
lower than I wanted, but that's another story). I reused the dregs from a
previous batch (Danstar Nottingham) and it promptly (and violently) fermented
down to 1.028 after one week. At that point, I racked it to a corny keg along
with an ounce of EKG whole hops. There it has sat for a month (70F basement).
My questions are these:
1) I know that a "decent amount" of yeast (more than I usually take over to the
secondary) made it over to the corny keg. Should I rack it again to avoid
yeasty off-flavors?
2) If I do rack it again, is the dry hopping that I did all going to be for
naught by time I drink it?
I tasted it at racking time and it was _very_ nice. I could have just tapped it
right then and there. I'm going to have a very difficult time just letting this
one sit for (at least) two more months.
- -----
I planted three Kent Goldings rhizomes this spring. When the first came up, it
had a nice little bine, about an inch long. Apparently, a local rabbit found it
to be a tasty treat too and left only a leaf. This was about three weeks ago
and I haven't seen any new activity from this one. Is my rhizome ruined?
Now all three are surrounded by a protective ring of chicken wire. Now if I can
only find a way to electrify it . . . (or maybe tiny land mines?)
Matt (trying to set a record for most parenthetical statements in a single HBD
post)
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org info@rackers.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:50:41 -0500
From: "Brian Wurst" <brian@mail.netwave.net>
Subject: Re: crystal malt: call for discussion
Jeff Renner challenges us with:
- --------------
The fact that crystal malt can be used to add unfermentables is accepted by
us as a given, I think, but I thought it might be worth looking at and not
accepting blindly. It could turn out to be a momily.
- -------------
Here is my experience, do with it what you wish:
I have brewed extensively (N=104) using DWC CaraPils, CaraVienne,
CaraMunich and Aromatic (is this a "crystal" malt?), varying the total
percentages of these malts in the grist from 6% to 33%. Since a great
number of these mashes (N=70+) were performed via single infusion at the
same temperature on the same system and fermented with the same yeast, I
think I am able to draw a reasonable conclusion as to the contribution of
these crystal malts to the FG of the beer: It isn't much, if at all. I
believe mash temps are way more influential on the FG of a beer than the
percentage of crystal malts in the grist.
However, checking back to my extract/spec grain brewing days when I used
Northwestern Gold extract exclusively and just steeped the grains (N=90+),
it seems the crystal malts added much more to the FG versus the same
percentages in a mashed brew.
This information implies that mashing crystal malts may actually convert
some/part of their carmelized sugars to fermentables, thus reducing the
contribution of these grains to the FG.
Caveats: YMMV. My results are useless to you if you live in a different
zip code. I wear no plaid while brewing. I am not a BJCP judge nor do I
knowingly subject my beers to BJCP-certified palates. (c) Copyright HBD
1998
Happy Trails!
Brian Wurst brian@netwave.net Lombard, Illinois
"Nature has formed you, desire has trained you, fortune has preserved you
for this insanity." -Cicero
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 11:33:38 -0400
From: "George P. Lohmann" <glohmann@whoi.edu>
Subject: Re: Kraut/Lactobacillus
Steve Alexander broadened our understanding of natural fermentation
processes with his excellent description of sauerkraut. He then
recommends:
>As for sanitation and health issues and of course botulism(highly
>unlikely!) - simmer your kraut before consuming. There is no better
>protection for a wide variety of potential ills than simmering the
>product.
Is simmering really necessary? Is fermenting kraut really any more risky
than fermenting beer, wine or yogurt? One of the appeals of homebrew
(beer or kraut) is that its fresh and unpasteurized.
>Now my question - since nothing goes better with a hoppy ale on a hot
>summer day than Kim Chee (think chunky sauerkraut with tons of garlic
>and cheyenne)does anyone have a 'recipe' for this over-the-top Korean
>fermented vegetablefood ?
The best I've found are in: "Kimchi, A Natural Health Food" by F C Lee
and H C Lee (Hollym International Corp., 18 Donald Place, Elizabeth NJ
07208). Reminiscent of some recipes for cock ale and scrumpy cider (which
call for roosters as an adjunct), these traditional kimchi recipes
include oysters, shrimp and corvina in their "grain bill" and are
fermented right along with the cabbage. And some people worry about
pathogens in beer. Sanitation must be the key.
Another fermented product that's good (once you acquire the taste) with a
cool lager is surstromming...fermented herring. I'm not sure what's
responsible for the fermentation, but its spontaneous. Essentially the
same recipe as for sauerkraut.
Pat Lohmann
Woods Hole MA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:37:48 -0400
From: greg_young@saunderscollege.com
Subject: siRIMS
Howdy, gang. I've finally launched my official RIMS web page, so if you get
a chance go ahead and take a gander at
http://home.earthlink.net/~gregyoung1/rims1.htm
Of course, I'm open to any questions or comments on the system.
Cheers,
Greg Young
Philly, PA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:10:05 -0700
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: re. brass vs stainless steel
Jim asked:
>my current 3 vessel(converted keg) system utilizes all
stainless steel inside the kettles, but I do have a few valves and
fittings
on the outside that are still brass. Besides the obvious reason of cost
and
that brass is a softer metal than SS, what are the pros and cons of
using
brass vs SS?
Brass is a good metal for brewing valves and such. It is not as
corrosion resistant as stainless, and under prolonged contact can suffer
from de-zincification, but I have continued to use it in my 3 keg
brewery with no regrets. (Well, an all-adamantium brewery would be
nice.)
Just don't clean it with bleach, and it will last a long time.
John Palmer
The following is an article I wrote for BT on brewery corrosion
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/brewcorr.txt/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:48:45 EDT
From: MicahM1269@aol.com
Subject: salt
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:45:41 -0400
From: Paul Mahoney <pmmaho@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: salt
> So how many of us add a pinch or one teaspoon of table salt to our wort?
>Will salt speed up our processes? Who does it, and does it improve your beer?
>Do you recommend it?
I have been adding salt to the boils of my stouts, dunkles, and brown ales, as
well as a few barleywines, for as long as I have been brewing. I assume that
thiis is a common practice for most home brewers. I am not aware of its impact
on head retention, but it certainly effects the finish of the beer. The
perception of fullness is added to the beer. I say try it, you'll like it.
micah millspaw - brewer at large
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:21:51 -0500
From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj@inwave.com>
Subject: Oud Bruin
Brewers,
After my post on using my cherries in a brew, it was suggested that I
make an Oud Bruin (sp?). I am looking for help in formulating a recipe. I
have consulted Cat's Meow and Gambrinus' Mug. I also consulted Pierre
Rajot's book and Phil Seitz' Brewing Belgian Beers. There seems to be some
variation in recommendations. For example, use of crystal Malt ranges from
1/4 lb to a full pound (sorry for the anachronistic units but they are
comfortable). Yeast recommendations are all over and include recomendations
for pedicoccus and Brett cultures. What about contaminating my equipment
with this stuff. Some include the red ales as a subset. Oak is also a
consideration. Seems pretty complicated! Do the Rodenbach beers fall in
here? Alexander seems pretty wonderful.
Private email is OK. If you think there might be enough interest post
publicly.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 15:06:45 -0700
From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson@winternet.com>
Subject: Which Kind of Capper is Best
I've used a bench capper for about six months and had no problems. I
wouldn't go back to a capper with two handles now. The extra expense is
worth it to me.
I've broken some bottles with a two-handled capper. In my experience, this
happened with bottles I used more than once and originally got from a
liquor store. I've broken no bottles with a bench capper. Two-handled
cappers can put pressure on bottlenecks. Bench cappers don't. A bench
capper can be used for capping American sparkling wine bottles if you ever
decide to make wine, mead, or fermented apple cider.
I hope this helps,
Mike Hanson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:55:59 -0400
From: Bob.Sutton@fluordaniel.com
Subject: More about "medical gases"
If you want to know more about "medical gases" go here:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/compliance/fresh98.htm
or
http://www.fda.gov/cder/compliance/fresh98.pdf
You might be interested to know that according to Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic
Act, Section 201(g), Definitions, that scuba diving tanks hold compressed
breathing air, which is not a medical gas, but is, along with fittings and the
regulator, regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Empty
tanks are regulated by the Department of Transportation which addresses cylinder
specifications and hydrostatic testing.
May the scuba folks can comment on the presence of fungicides ;)
Someone (sorry, I forgot who - darned aluminum boil pot) attributed the
difference in medical and welding grades to the cylinder. This is true in part.
Per FDA:
"Industrial cylinders are widely distributed throughout all types of industry,
and are routinely exposed to hazardous substances, some of which are extremely
toxic, i.e., hydrocarbons, arsenic compounds, chlorine, etc. Therefore, it would
be nearly impossible to determine what a specific cylinder had been exposed to
and to analyze for that specific contaminant.
On the other hand, medical gas cylinders are prepared under carefully controlled
conditions to ensure that the drug product meets the requirements of both FDA
and the U.S.P., and are not exposed to contamination from industrial sources.
Each high pressure cylinder undergoes rigorous pre-qualifying inspections and
examinations with one of the most significant being the vacuum evacuation step,
prior to filling a product."
Re: Medical grade Oxygen purity:
The U.S.P. oxygen monograph lists the potency as being not less than 99.0% by
volume of O2. It also states that oxygen produced by the air liquefaction
process is exempt from the requirements of the test for Carbon dioxide and
Carbon monoxide.
Note: If a firm fills Oxygen U.S.P. and fails to have a certificate of analysis
on file documenting that the oxygen is produced by the air liquefaction process,
then a firm is required to perform the identity, strength, carbon dioxide and
carbon monoxide tests, not just an identity and strength test.
The official method which is commonly referred to as the "ORSAT" buret method
utilizes a calibrated 100 ml buret, copper wire, and ammonium chloride and
ammonium hydroxide solutions which are mixed together and equilibrated by
agitation with the copper wire. A 100.0 ml sample of the gas is drawn into the
buret and agitated, the residual gas is then measured.
In addition, a specific identity test is required to be performed at the same
time, since carbon dioxide is capable of giving a similar test result. This is
usually accomplished by using either a carbon dioxide detector tube or a
properly calibrated handheld oxygen analyzer.
The accuracy of the U.S.P. procedure is +0.1%.
All for now...
Bob (from Sawth Caroliner)
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
Yesterdays' Technology Today
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 22:12:04 +0100
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater@brew-master.com>
Subject: RE: crystal malt: call for discussion
Jeff Renner calls for a discussion on crystal malt, primarily
questioning whether it is really true that the sugars from crystal
malt are less fermentable than those from standard malts.
>It seems to me that there is nothing inherent about this procedure
that
>should produce more unfermentables than a standard mash. If a
temperature
>regime is used in stewing that would result in higher unfermentables
in a
>conventional mash, the result should be the same.
>
>Now it may be that the stewing is indeed done at such temperatures
>routinely, resulting in high unfermentables. I think that maltsters
have
>researched the results of temperature regimes, both regarding sugar
>profiles and protein profiles, and control these precisely. And, of
>course, the caramelization of most crystal malts' sugars adds an
important
>flavor component not easily (or at all?) achieved otherwise. Perhaps
it is
>these caramelized sugars that are less fermentable than they would be
>uncaramelized? I don't think so, but I'm trying to think of all of
the
>angles.
These are very good questions. The starting point for creating crystal
malt is usually well modified green malt at >43% moisture and the
initial air on temperature is usually 65-70*C. Holding at this
saccharification temperature is often compared to mashing within the
kernel, but some important differences should be kept in mind. First,
at about 43% moisture, the liquor:grist ratio is much lower than in a
normal mash; and second, the "grist" is never milled but simply
consists of starch-and-protein-containing endosperm cells whose walls
have been degraded during germination by endoproteases and beta
glucanases. These conditions limit the amylase enzymes' access to
substrate compared to normal mashing conditions. There are still
plenty of reducing sugars released to react with the primary amines in
Maillard reactions to form the reductones, furans, pyrroles, pyrazines
and countless intermediates that provide the characteristic flavors
and colors to crystal and caramel malts. Once caramelized, these
sugars are no longer sugars, and so are not fermentable by yeast.
However, only a small percentage of the sugars actually undergo
Maillard reactions and so presumably there are plenty of other sugars,
dextrins, and partially degraded starch molecules remaining that would
eventually contribute to fermentability, especially after they are
mashed in the presence of the "healthy" enzymes from the normal malt
that makes up the majority of your grist. But this is not the case.
Why?
Starch molecules in barley are approximately 25% amylose, and 75%
amylopectin. Due to the limited enzyme mobility described above, the
amylopectin is preferentially broken down because the complexity of
the molecules "entraps" enzymes in microchannels on the surface of the
amylopectin molecules. The much longer, straight-chain amylose
molecules are solubilized, but survive the process relatively
unscathed. During the later, high temperature stages of kilning and
subsequent cooling, these solubilized amylose molecules tend to
recrystallize in a process called retrogradation. For reasons not
entirely understood, these recrystallized amylose molecules are very
resistant to enzymic hydrolysis and so will not yield fermentable
sugars.
It has also been noted by many researchers that regardless of the type
of malt being produced, there is an inverse relationship between the
time spent at high temperature in kilning and the fermentability of a
malt. As crystal and caramel malts can spend quite a long time at
temperatures as high as 150*C, it makes sense that their
fermentability may be severely reduced.
Hope this helps.
Mort O'Sullivan
Edinburgh, Scotland
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2758, 07/04/98
*************************************
-------
