Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2783
HOMEBREW Digest #2783 Fri 31 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:
reply to Mega IBU? (Herbert Bresler)
RE: carboy safety (John Wilkinson)
Brewer's Gold Backyard Hops (Charley Burns)
German malting (Al Korzonas)
Yeast Concentration Prior to Fermentation Stage ("LordPeter")
Kubessa and polyphenols (Al Korzonas)
Oven mashing? (Badger Roullett)
Fermenting in Cornies ("Larry Maxwell")
Wheat Beers ("Bob Zamites")
Oh, yeah, I forgot ("Bob Zamites")
Teaching Brewing ("Bob Zamites")
Sanitation ("Michel J. Brown")
women brewers? (Jon Macleod)
Jim's post-Siebel post (Al Korzonas)
Fermenting in Cornies ("Ludwig's")
Sierra Nevada Recipie ("Mark Phillips")
PBW - ok for glass? (Charles Burns)
Re: pitching temps (hollen)
re: Wheat Beer flavor profile (David Elm)
re: Perry (Dick Dunn)
re:not re: better starter methods ("Steve Alexander")
New Belgium Brewery (Dan Ryan)
Brewery Finance 101 (Results)
Conical Fermenters (randy.pressley)
Pitching temps - second thought (Samuel Mize)
BrewU evaluation program (Cathy Ewing)
Dan Cole's BYO discussion; speling/spellling; force carb technique (Samuel Mize)
simplest force carbonation ("Anton Verhulst")
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: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:31:21 -0400
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7@osu.edu>
Subject: reply to Mega IBU?
Greetings all.
Rob Jones <robjones@pathcom.com> asked if his recipe really had Mega IBUs?
since it didn't taste THAT bitter. Since he provided the %AA, we can now
attempt to answer his question.
I plugged the numbers into Glenn Tinseth's Hop Bitterness Calculator
http://realbeer.com/cgi-bin/hops/Bitterness.exe (that's the one that uses
metric units) and came up with 62.2 IBU. That's much lower than the 84
IBUs! that Rob calculated. If you assume that a change in 5 IBU can be
detected by the mouth of the beer drinker, then this is a large difference,
i.e., very perceptable.
If you consider the hop bitterness in terms of its balance with the malt
you might look at the BU/GU ratio (the IBU divided by the starting gravity
units). An IBU of 62 yields a ratio of 1.2 (62/52 = 1.2), on the high end
of what you'd probably find for the style that Rob was brewing, an
English-style Pale Ale (IPA?). Whereas, an IBU of 84 would yield a ratio
of 1.6 (84/52 = 1.6), way bitter (even for an IPA). Given Rob's target
style, and his comment that the recipe was "a British style pale ale that I
really like after hopping up the original recipe a bit," I'd say he got
just what he was aiming for. [Rob, may I have some more of that brew,
please.]
The details and my assumptions.
Rob's recipe:
>45g Northern Brewer 8%AA 75 minute addition
>30g Fuggles 4.4%AA 75 minute addition
>30g Fugles 4.4%AA 15 minute addition
>60g East Kent Goldings 5%AA dry hopped in pop tank
>Final volume post fermentation is 19.5L (5.14 gal).
>Equipment losses probably total about 2L ( 0.53gal).
>OG at 19.5L was 1.052
My assumptions: For the purposes of calculating I assumed there was no
significant effect of wort gravity on hop utilization, so I left the boil
gravity at the default 1.050. I added the equipment losses to the final
volume and used 21.5 liters as the Final Beer Volume. I also assumed that
the dry hops did not add to hop bitterness.
Good luck and good brewing,
Herb
Columbus, Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 98 14:30:22 CDT
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: RE: carboy safety
Scott Murman wrote:
>The best advice I got for handling glass carboys was this - whenever
>sanitizing or cleaning them, do it in a bathtub (the sanitizing or
>cleaning that is).
The only carboy I have broken is one I was cleaning in a bathtub. The thing
slipped out of my hands and found the porcelain too hard for its liking. I
only got a small nick but never cleaned carboys in the bathtub again. I went
from that to taking them outside to clean in the yard on the grass. Much softer
than porcelain. That may not be true in the current Texas drought, though.
Now I keep them in plastic crates, place them on a bench, add 5-6 tbs of TSP,
fill with warm water, and let sit. When they have soaked clean I siphon the
TSP solution into the next thing to be cleaned or down the drain. When they
are empty I pick them up out of the crate and rinse over my plastic laundry
sink. They are not long out of the crate and handled very carefully and for
very short distances when they are. One has a handle which I use when the
carboy is empty. I probably should get one for each. Love those plastic crates.
I feel much better about putting the crate on the concrete floor instead of the
glass carboy.
- ------------------------------
Jeff Winkler asked about getting TSP stains out of his carboy. I have left TSP
in contact with glass for extended periods without getting any film or residue.
However, my water is extremely soft so I suspect the deposit is from minerals
in the water, probably calcium. I would try rinsing with vinegar.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 98 13:20 PDT
From: caburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)
Subject: Brewer's Gold Backyard Hops
I should probably consult my books tonight at home, but...
A friend who grows Brewer's Gold hops in his backyard harvested a bunch of
them and gave 'em to me last week. Some were ready some didn't really look
ready. I don't have a food dehydrator so I laid them out on a papersack on
top of my asphalt driveway in 105F heat for a couple hours. They were crispy
when I brought them back inside. I immediately stuffed them into a plastic
(not oxygen barrier) baggy and into the freezer.
The hop chart from the last special zymurgy doesn't list Brewer's Gold as
recommended for ANY style of beer. My friend only grows them due to their
looks (he drinks corona) and easy maintenance (cut and throw away every
year). These are 3rd year bines.
Any recommendations on what to do with these? I thought an aroma addition to
a pale ale might make sense.
Charley (with extra hops) in N. Cal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:00:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: German malting
Jim writes, quoting Steve:
>>This description of the economics of undermodified malt makes little
>>sense. The *very* big energy cost in malting is in drying the green malt,
>>not in allowing it to continue to modify.
>
>Every hour the malt spends in the malt house is a cost. Air has to be cool
>and humidified and force through the malt. This all requires energy and
>ties up resources that could be used to make more malt. Germans are so
>concerned with energy costs that they have all kinds of energy recovery
>systems built into the breweries (Klaus Zastrow said this and it was
>confirmed by a person in the class from Warsteiner). Molson looked at
>doing this and decided it was not worth it do to the lower energy costs in
>Canada (as reported by a person in the class from Molsons).
Actually, when I initially read Jim's post, I interpreted it backwards and
thought that he was saying that the German maltsters were modifying the
malt more due to the higher energy costs of *brewing* with undermodified
malt. This is my understanding, which is contrary to what Jim wrote and
coincides with what Steve said.
At the 1st Spirit of Belgium conference, Eric Toft (who was formerly a
brewer in a large Belgian brewery and is now a brewer in a medium-sized
German brewery) said a few things about German malts and methods during
his talk which was primarily on Belgian methods and malts. Eric said
that the small- and medium-sized brewers are reluctantly having to change
from triple- to double-decoction and from double-decoction to single-
decoction (i.e. they are simplifying their mash schedules -- removing
the protein rest!) because the malt they are getting is overmodified for
their traditional mashes. The BIG brewers dictate the specs for the
malts and the smaller brewers have to adapt. The big brewers want the
malt to be more modified because of the energy costs of multiple decoctions.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:13:24 -0700
From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE@prodigy.net>
Subject: Yeast Concentration Prior to Fermentation Stage
Steve Writes in concerning my yeast growth question:
>From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
>>The rate of fermentation will depend on the rate and extent of yeast
>>growth.
>Hmmm - this isn't really right - it's the total viable yeast mass that is
>proportional to the fermentation rate. Certainly NOT the growth rate.
I quote my source:
Lyn Kruger, in notes from Siebel Short Course, 1997:
"Governing principal in fermentation:
The rate of fermentation will depend on the rate and extent of yeast
growth."
>Peter's notes are pretty good, but there is some nomenclature that bears
>repeating. Lipids are any material that can be dissolved in non-polar
>solvents, fatty acids, phospholipids, sterols and a lot of others. It's a
>pretty generic term and doesn't represent much about the structure or
function.
>There are a lot of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, and relatively
>smaller amounts of sterols in yeast.
Again, Siebel Course 97:
"Lipid is a generic term given to a group of alcohol, ether, and fat
solvents."
>>The fermentation stage will only begin when the yeast reach an approximate
>>concentration of 50,000,000 cells per ml. The longer it takes to reach
that
>>point, then the longer it will be before fermentation begins.
>Nonsense. Do you really think the yeast wait around for a population
increase
>before fermenting ?? Where is their census bureau located ?
Ok, admittedly this is silly, and upon further review, I realize I took it
out of context:
Siebel Short Course Notebook 1997
"Yeast pitched at about 10,000,000 cells/ml, usually increases to about
50,000,000 before active growth ceases."
Now, during this time many carbohydrates are taken up and metabolized by the
yeast. So, I concede my earlier post was incorrect in this respect.
But:
"Once sufficient oxygen has been adsorbed from the wort to build up the
ergosterol concentration, and the sugars and amino acids are utilized by the
yeast, the cells begin to multiply. Multiplication continues in geometric
progression, called the logarithimic phase of growth, until the material in
shortest supply is used up, growth then slows down and finally the number of
yeast cells remains constant."
And:
"Under normal brewery conditions the factor that usually limits yeast growth
is the amount of oxygen available in the wort."
And:
"When the rate , on a per cell or per gram basis, at which yeast uses the
sugar in wort when growth has ceased is measured, it is found to be very
slow. In contrast, sugar is utilized relatively rapidly when growth is
occurring."
So, my thinking here is:
1) Oxygen is the primary limiting factor in yeast growth.
2) The yeast will not begin the logarithmic growth phase until they have
proper amounts of aforementioned ergosterol.
3) The lag time is the period between pitching and the logarithmic growth
phase.
4) Therefore, O2 in sufficient quantities will remove this limiting factor
of growth. The yeast did not have to wait around to get the proper
components they need to begin the growth phase.
5) Does this not mean that not only will the fermentation proceed at a
faster rate because of increase growth, but also that it will begin the
fermentation sooner because it had the proper tools to begin with?
I have not seen any reports or studies that directly rule out O2 sat as a
factor in lag phase length, nor have I seen any that directly support this.
What I do see is a lot of evidence that points me to believe that O2 sats do
indeed influence the length of lag. Please, someone quote a reliable source
to dispel my thoughts, and / or point to the holes in my logic. Timo?
Cheers.
Peter Gilbreth
barleywine@prodigy.net
www.barleywine.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:28:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Kubessa and polyphenols
Steve writes:
>3/ Also I'm not an advocate of the Kubessa process - I've never tried it nor
>see the need. It *may* reduce excessive phenolic level and produce stable
>beer. <snip>
If you'll recall where Jim originally snagged the text for this issue, it
was my post questioning how the Kubessa process decreased polyphenols.
(For those of you that have forgotten, the Kubessa process is where the
malt is separated from its husks which are reintroduced to the mash only
at the very end.)
Ironically, I pointed out in that post that according to Malting and Brewing
Science, beer made from de-husked malt was *not* significantly lower in
polyphenols (although it was much lower in silicates). My point is not
that the Kubessa process was worthless, but rather that I don't believe
that it reduces *polyphenols*.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:02:20 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Oven mashing?
A quick question for the homebrewing collective.
can you use your oven for mashing? like simple steeping of specialty grains
but real mashing? toss all teh grains in your brewpot, put it into the
oven, turn it to 150, let it sit for an hour, (or more to let it heat up?),
then crank it up to 170? pour it into a collander (big one) and pour 170
deg water thru it?
no brainer all grainer? this can't be this easy..
(no experiece yet with all grain, just 4 max lb, specialty mashes of grain +
extract)
badger
***************************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger
Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger
Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:25:54 -0700
From: "Larry Maxwell" <Larry@bmhm.com>
Subject: Fermenting in Cornies
I'm a longtime lurker on HBD, and while I haven't seen this addressed,
the recent
thread on fermenting in 5G cornies rekindled my interest in an idea I had.
It seems to
me that the major drawbacks of fermenting in cornies are that the dip tube
and poppet
valves are prone to clogging, and that if racked off the sediment one will
be left with
less than a full five gallons. I have been considering a possible
solution. I'd be
surprised if I were the first to think of it, so I'm hoping for
feedback. The idea
is to ferment in cornies laying horizontally rather than standing
vertically. My thinking
is that the keg could be laid horizontally with the inlet and outlet ports
vertically
aligned. The ports are fairly close to the walls, so I'd guess that not
very much space
would be wasted if one were to fill it such that the wort level is just
below the upper
port. The upper port would be used for blowoff and, later, for gas
pressure. The beer
would be drawn off through the lower port. Yeast and trub would deposit
between the
lower port and the wall. Why do I want to do this? Because while carboys
are unwieldy,
cornies could be stacked in this orientation like cordwood or fitted into
a rack of some
kind. Moreover, they allow closed fermentation and transfer under
pressure. And no
dip tube to clog. The only real drawback that I can think of is that I
suspect at least a
gallon or so of space above the upper port is wasted. Anyone tried this
or have any
comments?
Larry Maxwell
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:29:48 -0600
From: "Bob Zamites" <bamzam@trail.com>
Subject: Wheat Beers
In HBD #2781, Tom Barnet posts:
>I've brewed a few batches of wheat beer this summer and have been
somewhat unsatisfied with the results.
<snip>
>The flavor however does not seem to have the
character i've read it should. For example, there isn't really any
bannana or clove-like flavors, and there seems to be a somewhat bitter
aftertaste--also some smoke-like flavor.
<snip>
>Are the high fermentation temps. my problem? What do these
'Fusel Alcohols' and 'Esters' taste like?
Well, I'm certainly not the Wheat beer expert Eric Warner is ;^),
but I have made some pretty mean ones.
The ferment temperature, I found, does effect the flavor, however,
the smoky flavor you are describing reminds me of some
porters I did. The smoke characters are phenols, and many
of the smoky tasting ones are caused by wild yeasts ( particularly
S. Cerevevesiae var. Bayanus)....I would check my sanitizing
procedures.
The wheat beers I did using #3068 were extremely tasty, with
lots of banana and clove flavor, in fact my notes say, "...is very
reminiscent of Spaten Club-Weisse ! ...."
I fermented at 75 deg.F BTW...your mashing procedure seems allright,
and I would surely point the finger at wild yeasts as the culprit.
Hope this helps...
Bob Zamites ( First Fire Brewing Co.), Santa Fe, NM
**Current Offering: Apricot Cyser (not a beer, but what the hey?!)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:31:12 -0600
From: "Bob Zamites" <bamzam@trail.com>
Subject: Oh, yeah, I forgot
BTW, fusel alcohols, to me, tasted like the smell of
rubbing alcohol.....ecch!
Bob Zamites (First Fire Brewing Co.) Santa Fe, NM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:39:05 -0600
From: "Bob Zamites" <bamzam@trail.com>
Subject: Teaching Brewing
My next door neighbor makes great wine, but wants to make beer! I make great
beer (IMHO) , but want to make wine -- it's a great exchange of info.
The AHA really seems lame on this point of promoting homebrewing, but I
am doing my part to get it going in my neck of the woods (besides, then if
I'm out of brew, my neighbor will have some ;^) )
Do as Dwayne McKeel posted, "Teach a friend to brew" !
Bob Zamites (First Fire Brewing Co.) Santa Fe, NM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:07:32 -0700
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade@spiritone.com>
Subject: Sanitation
There's been a lot of press lately on cleanliness, and on infections with
processes and procedures to combat them. As a physician, and also a food
technologist (my first career), I know of no foolproof or guaranteed route
to success (something about royal routes to learning?) with keeping the
good bugs happy, and the bad ones at bay. In the food industry, three types
of sanitizers (one being an actual sterilizer) are currently in use. First,
there is polyphosphoric acid, and at 5% concentration, not recommended for
home use -- unless you don't like having fingernails ;^) Second, there is
Iodophor, which when used at cold temperatures, 25ppm for 3~5 minutes makes
for a good inexpensive alternative. I use it 4/5 of the time, and then use
number three on the list of USDA approved agents. What could it be? (hint:
it's in your kitchen, and you can make it up in seconds and it's NOT
bleach). Give up? Try peracetic acid! I make it up all the time, and it
works great, except that it will eat up your skin, so gloves are
important!!! To make it up, get one pound of glacial acetic acid (99%
acetic acid) and dilute to 10% in water -- remember to add acid to water,
OK? Then add it to 3% hydrogen peroxide in a 1:3 ratio (i.e. 1/4 acetic
acid to 3/4 H2O2) and use immediately as this stuff is unstable, and will
deteriorate quickly. I use it at 0.25% for 3~5 minutes, and it kills all
bugs I have in my brewery (mostly acetos and lactos) verified by gram and
methylene blue staining. Try this stuff sometime, and let it no rinse air
dry, and see if it makes a difference in your brewery. Drop me a line if
you need help, or have problems. TTYAL!
Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR}
2222 miles due west of Jeff Renner
homemade@spiritone.com
http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html
"In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind"
L. Pasteur
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:18:05 -0400
From: marli@bbs2.rmrc.net (Jon Macleod)
Subject: women brewers?
I've been kinda perplexed about the lack of women brewers too (in my own
dumb guy sort of way). I certainly know plenty of women who drink
beer. Many of them even like guys like us who brew it (although that
narrows the field more). Here's the only idea I can come up with...
Most brewing is done in 5 gallon batches. At some point, (regardless of
equipment for most everyone) you've got to pick up the beer and move
it. That means being able to routinely lift at least 40 to 50 pounds,
without a good way to hold it.
I know I grunt and groan a lot, maybe this is the barrier. I'll accept
a flame from a woman, but you guys know about as much as I do.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:31:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Jim's post-Siebel post
Jim writes:
>One of the instructors at Siebels
>went on about this at great lengths when I asked about Irish Moss. He
>viewed it as a band aid approach for poor brewhouse techniques. In his
>experince of brewing millions of barrels of beer he saw no need what so
>ever. After making sure you have these two things covered. Then you can
>worry about HSA. And if you bottle HSA goes way to the bottom of the list
>becasue you need a really good low oxygen bottler more than you need to
>worry about HSA.
That "millions of barrels" experience suggests to me that he was
brewing Industrial Light Lager (maybe not... maybe he was brewing in
Germany). In Industrial Light Lager, one reason for the corn and rice
is as a *protein dilutant*. Could it be that this instructors' view
that Irish Moss is not needed be due to the fact that the American
Industrial brewers handle protein reduction in a different way than we
homebrewers? Now that I think of it, even the German brewers would find
less use for IM... decoction mashes (yes, the more modern breweries are
going to infusion and direct-heat mashing) extract a lot more polyphenols
than we typically do (when we watch pH and sparge temp) and so they have
a lot more protein reacting with polyphenols in the kettle. Finally,
the long lagering times they use are partly needed for clarification.
In my experience (and I did a series of side-by-side boils with varying
amounts of Irish Moss), the correct amount of Irish Moss improves clarity
and yeast flocculation *significantly*. According to my research, I
believe that for refined, flaked Irish Moss, 1/4 teaspoon is proper amount
for average-gravity extract beers and 1 teaspoon is the proper amount for
average-gravity all-grain beers (per five gallons). Increased gravity
means you need more. How many of those instructors and brewers at
Industrial breweries have done side-by-side boils on all-malt worts with
varying amounts of Irish Moss? My guess is none.
For as much heat I'll probably get for questioning the accuracy of methods
and information presented at Siebel, I say nobody's perfect (including me)
and there is the possibility that those at Siebel using the Clinitest have
not fully investigated the range of sugars that do and don't cause a positive
reaction. I'll offer that if they had, they probably would not use it.
As for measuring pH at room temperature, Jim presented several more "votes"
for *not* compensating for change in pH with temperature. I've read it
both ways in professional texts, so I'm still slightly confused as to how
to interpret it when a book says "the pH should not be allowed to rise above
5.8 during the sparge." Do they mean 5.8 at 170F (which would be between
5.9 and 6.1 after cooling to 68F) or 5.8 at 68F?
Let me ask you this, Jim: did you mention to them the fact that the pH
is physically lower at higher temperatures and if you did, what did they
say in response to that?
Hell of a report... I'd like to hear even more!
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:57:33 -0400
From: "Ludwig's" <dludwig@us.hsanet.net>
Subject: Fermenting in Cornies
I'm going to try fermenting in a corny soon, but I'm sure going to miss
watching the ferment. Thats the prime advantage of using a carboy. If
you're just starting out, you owe it to yourself to use a carboy if only
to observe the ferment. Simply fascinating!
Dave Ludwig
Flat Iron Brewery
SO Md
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:58:00 -0400
From: "Mark Phillips" <phillipsmj@erols.com>
Subject: Sierra Nevada Recipie
I am looking for an authentic Sierra Nevada clone in a 10 gallon batch
size. All the recipes I have found are for 5 gallons, and I don't want to
give more life to the % grist by weight vs. % extract thread by just
doubling the recipie. Any help appreciated.
Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 98 20:29 PDT
From: caburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: PBW - ok for glass?
In one of our local HB shops this afternoon I got a couple of "sample packs"
of Five Star PBW. Says to use it "warm". HB shop dude says use 175F water if
possible. My questions are: how long is it supposed to soak (2 min, 2 hours,
2 days????) and can I use it on glass carboys? The directions only say to
dissolve one packet into 2-5 gallons of warm water.
Charley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:13:13 -0700
From: hollen@woodsprite.com
Subject: Re: pitching temps
>> Samuel Mize writes:
>> From: hollen@woodsprite.com
>> Subject: Pitching Temps???
>>
>> Today ... my CF chiller only managed to cool the wort to 82F.
>> Well, I pitched anyway. As normal, within an hour, I had activity in
>> my blowoff hose. So, the higher than normal pitching temperature
>> appears to have been OK for the yeast.
SM> Sure, the yeast love it. They'll work fast and create many unusual
SM> and exciting flavors for you, esters and higher alcohols, which is why
SM> we usually try to pitch cooler.
Thanks for the info. I agree that this can be the case, but as I was
talking to a yeast biologist, he seemed to think that the period of
high temperature would be so early in the life cycle, that any
precursors to higher alcohols and esters would not yet be present.
Since the wort cooled down soon after to the ambient temperature of
70F at which the bulk of the fermentation would occur, it most likely
will not have off flavors.
However, the proof to this theory will be in the tasting. Will keep
all informed.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen@woodsprite.com
Home Page: http://woodsprite.com/hollen.html
Brewing Page: http://hdb.org/hollen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:36:26 -0600
From: David Elm <delm@cadvision.com>
Subject: re: Wheat Beer flavor profile
>Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:16:47 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Tom Barnet <barnets@physics.auburn.edu>
>Subject: Wheat Beer flavor profile
>Hello all,
> I've brewed a few batches of wheat beer this summer and have been
>somewhat unsatisfied with the results. I've been employing a step-mash
>procedure, with rests at 100F,122F,155F and 170F, followed by a thorough
>sparge. I've made a starter with Wyeasts Weihenstephan yeast and have
>had strong fermentation. The flavor however does not seem to have the
>character i've read it should. For example, there isn't really any
>bannana or clove-like flavors, and there seems to be a somewhat bitter
>aftertaste--also some smoke-like flavor. I'm following the basic recipe in
>Warner's book on german wheat beer. The fermentation temperature was
>75-80F, and i'm wondering if this is the reason for the beers taste profile.
>Warner suggests that these higher fermentation temps. result in
>'Fusel Alcohols' and 'Esters'. I have know idea what that tastes like.
>Are the high fermentation temps. my problem? What do these
>'Fusel Alcohols' and 'Esters' taste like? thanks. tom barnett.
I make a hefe weizen as follows: 70% wheat malt, 95,122,147,168F and
primary fermentation at 70F with Wyeast 3068. Secondary can be at 70F or
45F in the winter. I suspect your main problem is the high fermentation temp.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Elm delm@cadvision.com (403)932-1626 888-660-6035 fax:(403)932-7405
Box 7, Site 16, RR 2, Glendale Rd., Cochrane, Alberta, T0L 0W0, Canada
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jul 98 00:40:36 MDT (Thu)
From: rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Perry
David R. Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com> wrote:
> ...Dick
> Dunn's excellent dissertation on Perry omitted what I consider to be
> critical with pear fermentation and that is to treat every 5 gallons of
> juice with 1/8 tsp of potassium metabisulfite immediately after pressing.
Dave - I omitted it because I don't do it (and thus, *I* don't consider it
to be critical). But YMMV and I grant that sulfiting *will* improve your
odds against a failure. I don't do it because it's a step that I haven't
found to be necessary (yet?!?).
I'm curious about the amount, too. 1/8 tsp is approximately one Campden
tablet. The usual recommended dose is 1 tablet per _gallon_ (not per 5).
Not to argue for adding any excess of a chemical agent, but if you're going
to use it, you need to use enough to do the job. And then again, on the
other end of the scale, Correnty recommends _2_ tablets per gallon, which
I think is really overkill.
> Failure to do so or if at any time the juice is transferred will result in
> what the Brits call "Pear Drops". We call it finger nail polish remover
> aroma.
Failure to sulfite *might* cause you problems.
I'm not trying to argue against sulfiting; I'm just saying you don't need
to be dogmatic about it.
Oh, one more thing: If you do sulfite the juice, you need to wait about a
day and then inoculate it with a yeast starter, since the sulfite is pretty
good at killing off the natural yeast you might otherwise use.
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
...Mr. Natural says, "Get the right tool for the job."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:25:57 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re:not re: better starter methods
I asked for better starter methods. Alan Edwards responded that he had a
simpler method. I critiqued the method and Alan responded indignantly.
First - if Alan or anyone is happy with their product(beer) more power to them.
I asked a very specific question about how to improve starters, not how to do a
quick and easy job of it. A few points should be made however.
>Actually, I said I have a *simpler* method. I said nothing about having
>a better method. But the subject line may have made it look that way.
You responded to my thread about a better method with a "re: better
method" subject line.
>> a 0.8L extract
>> only starter should produce a marginal sized yeast crop at best. You'd be
>> better off with 1+L for ales, 2L for lagers and some yeast nutrient that
>> includes amino acids or an ammonia source.
..
>If you say that 1.0L is fine for ales, then why must you put down my
>"marginal" 0.8L? The difference in volume is insignificant; and not as
>nearly as important as process.
Commecial practice would require about a 2L starter for ales. 0.8L is marginal,
particularly w/ extract which tend to be low in amino acids. I said 1+L would
be better, not that 1L is adequate. If you have never tried adequate pitching
levels don't knock it.
>| I wanted to take this opportunity to show those of you who think making
>| a starter is a hassle, that it doesn't have to be hard at all!
We certainly agree here Alan - nearly any starter is better than no starter.
And you method isn't particularly bad. It's just that I was asking about
improved methods, not methods that match the standards of HB books from 10
years ago.
>If you perfectionist types want to step up your starters four times
I can taste the differnce Alan. That's the bottom line. Ad hominem attacks
('you perfectionists') just display that you can't support your point by
evidence. Maybe you 'lazy types' should try a commecial sized starter for a
change.
>But what I'm saying is that you don't *have* to go to all that trouble
...
>Two words: diminishing returns.
We agree again, 75% of the advantage is available by stepping up to a 1qt
starter, like yours. There is no doubt. Why leave the other 25% on the table
?
>> You also didn't mention aerating/oxygenating
>Acutally, I did. I said shake it until it foams
Mea culpa - I missed that - tho' I'd suggest shaking rather vigorously, not
gently.
>I challenge your definition of "critical".
I stated that oxygenation of a wort like yours is critical to attain adequate
growth rates. I think we may be miscommunication here. The introduction
of oxygen, by shaking, airstone or O2 injection is critical. Please review
Tracey Aquilla's article on yeast in BT and the followup editorial letters
between AlK and John Palmer for a review of the necessity of oxygen
to yeast metabolism.
...
>; but if I always make great beer, then isn't that "adequate"?
Depends, could you make greater beer with a little more effort ?
>> Pitching the dregs from several bottles of SNPA is also a formula for
>> more serious underpitching problems.
>Pitching the dregs of a few bottles of beer into an 0.8L starter *may*
>be asking for problems;[...]
In your original post it appeared that the footnote about pitching the dregs of
a few SNPA was IN PLACE of creating a starter, which others have
advocated here. Not as a method of creating a starter.
>Take it or leave it.
I'm leaving it Alan. Yours is a very conventional method of creating starters
and similar methods and amounts have appeared in HB books for years. It's not
particularly bad and it has huge advantages over no starter. Nothing wrong
with repeating it on HBD - but it really wasn't a followup response to my
thread - try to pick a new subject line.
More important -Try a full sized nutrient added starter sometime - you might
really like the result.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 06:23:27 +0000
From: Dan Ryan <kcmoryan@gvi.net>
Subject: New Belgium Brewery
Jim Busch provided information about the New Belgium Brewery's equipment
. . .
Fat Tire is, as he points out, their most popular, but, on a lark, I
tried their Old Cherry Ale. Absolutely fantastic.
Of course, I e-mailed the brewery with praise and requests for
assistance in replicating the product, and received a very helpful and
informative response from Brian Callahan, the production manager. He
did not suggest firing up the soldering iron to make fermenters from
triangular steel, though he did insist that extracts were not going to
get me to my goal.
Now, if the Canadians will send down enough cool air so that Kansas City
becomes cool enough for brewing, I'll give it a cherry ale a try . . .
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:56:52 -0500
From: Results <results@win.bright.net>
Subject: Brewery Finance 101
>>...about a year+ ago. At that time it was possible to contract
>>brew beer for less than it cost A-B to produce !!
>
>I am sure this equation still holds. The small contract brewer doesn't
>have AB's overhead sucking precious $ away from operating earnings. AB
>has to pay all those accountants, financial analysts, HR folks,
>researchers, etc. etc., just to produce one drop of beer.
Ah, but the small brewer has to amortize all that depreciation over a
very small amount of beer. It is true that we don't have all the other
expenses, but our equipment cost per bbl and cost of ingredients is
*way* larger than even the regionals... It gets to be real expensive and
I don't think that this formula holds true; I know that my cost of
production is above the wholesale price of our local regional. The
reason that micro style beer is so expensive is a) there is more stuff
in it and of better quality and b) there is less of it. You aren't going
to see A-B putting out imperial stout...
>>but still the point is that production capacity isn't the limiting
>>factor in making a success in the beer market today.
>
>And this is the critical point. If you develop the distribution
>channels you can then "expand it and they will come". Most micros seem
>to do just the opposite, build the capacity and then try to find a home
>for it.
Some micros do this, yes. Summit is in this process now. You have
somewhat of a chicken and egg problem here; it is hard to expand
substantially. This can be seen with Summit. They had a largish facility
(for a micro) and built a brand up. They then built huge and are now
finding homes for the beer. You go in streaks that way. We are now in a
similar situation. We had more capacity than market, now we have more
market than capacity.. It'll be the other way around for awhile when we
expand.
The point here is exactly the same for us and Summit and A-B; all else
being equal, marketing is everything - production capacity needs to
reflect current and *future* markets. One of the major points overlooked
here is that the *local* market is the major market for a micro. Once
out of this market any micro is just another bottle on the shelf with a
houndred other micros. This was the basis of the beer industry untill
the likes of Miller and A-B started going national with advertizing.
Once a micro attempts to do this, they are in the same boat as Miller
and can build market only by advertizing right along with the big boys.
> Rest assured that the megas do it because of $$$.
And so, in the end, do micros....
Randy Lee
Viking Brewing Company
Dallas, WI
http://www.wion.bright.net/~results
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 9:05:43 -0500
From: randy.pressley@SLKP.COM
Subject: Conical Fermenters
Has anyone ever used the plastic connical fermenter sold by Afordable
Conical
(http://members.aol.com/aconical/index.htm)? It's a 6.5 gallon
fermenter which
looks just like the ones the pro's use except it's plastic and little.
Looks
like it would take away the hassle of the secondary transfer. I'm a
little
concerned about using plastic, however. I also investigated in a gadget
that
can be used to make your glass carboy an inverted fermenter. I friend of
mine
bought one and said he did not like it because the yeast stuck to the glass.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:41:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@mail.imagin.net>
Subject: Pitching temps - second thought
Dion commented on pitching ale yeast at 82F, and Sam Mize
replied that this was a little hot. What a maroon. It's warm for
fermentation, but should be fine for pitching if the batch cools to
fermentation temperature in a few hours. I haven't seen advice
suggesting that an ale needs to be pitched cooler than that. Heck,
*I* pitch at that kind of temp, so it *must* be right.
Pitching a lager too hot, then cooling it rapidly, can "crash" the yeast
into dormancy (I've heard), but cooling from 82F to 70F or so should not be
a problem.
Sorry, cerebral arhythmia.
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:15:34 -0600
From: Cathy Ewing <cathy@aob.org>
Subject: BrewU evaluation program
Sam Mize wrote-
>Is there any news on this? I assume they may have changed the name to
>avoid conflict with "Brew U" in Houston. I'm interested in actual
>announcements, inside info, speculation, slander
BrewU has been holding a few classes at various organized events - like
a festival/homebrewing event in Anchorage Alaska, the National
Homebrewers Conference and various regional events - specifically geared
toward providing more in-depth information about various beer styles.
This was just one piece of our original plan.
The other piece includes self-study guides and guides for people to
teach classes. We have contracted to have these completed twice and both
writers were unable to complete the project. So, we are trying to
contract with writer #3. There is an AHA committee who is planning to
oversee development of the project, but again, without the person to
build the guides there hasn't been a lot to develop.
If your interested in being on the committee and are an AHA member or
know someone who is contact Paul Gatza at paulg@aob.org.
>Also, please let me know if it's OK for me to forward your comments
>to other interested parties (if any).
Definately okay.
Cheers! Cathy Ewing
- --
Cathy Ewing
Vice President
Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 120 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 cathy@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:09:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@mail.imagin.net>
Subject: Dan Cole's BYO discussion; speling/spellling; force carb technique
Dan Cole asks:
> Has anyone seen my discussion with the editor in BYO magazine
> regarding the validity of HSA? Am I wrong, or is he giving bad advice re:
> splashing of hot wort?
With no prejudice toward either magazine or its readers, I think this is
more a Brewing Techniques crowd. Can you summarize?
- - - - - - - - - -
Spelling: the style was named when a warrior had a few, then went to
practice and saw three target poles instead of one. So the correct
spelling is tri-pell. You see, the poles they use for practice are
called pells. Never mind. Hi, Badger.
- - - - - - - - - -
Marc Battreall writes a testimonial paen about a force carbonating
technique, then writes:
> Get your copy of this procedure at Robert's web page at:
> http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/carb.htm
Could you summarize it, or get permission to copy it to HBD? Web pages
come and go, HBD is archived.
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:22:38 -0400
From: "Anton Verhulst" <verhulst@zk3.dec.com>
Subject: simplest force carbonation
Every body seems to have the simplest way of force carbonating - so here's
mine:
I rack straight from the fermentor into the keg, hook up the CO2 line, and go
away. That's it!
After a week the sediment has setled to the bottom and the beer is fully
carbonated and ready to tap. The keg is completely unmodified (dip tube
not cut) so the first half glass has sediment and is discarded. After that,
it's clear beer the whole way.
- --Tony V
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2783, 07/31/98
*************************************
-------
