Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2786
HOMEBREW Digest #2786 Mon 03 August 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:
Malt Specifications ("Mort O'Sullivan")
sulfites (was Perry) ("phil grossblatt")
HSA discussion in BYO (Dan Cole)
artistic pitching rates re-visited (Paul Niebergall)
sanitizing w/ peracetic acid (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
Air Superiority (Some Guy)
Dry hopping a corny wilth pelletized hops. ("Michael Maag")
fermentation questions ("Lou Heavner")
Competition Announcement/Call for Judges-1998 Pacific Brewers Cup (The Holders)
Improving beer through bigger starters ("George De Piro")
Quaternary Ammonium ("Sandy Macmillan")
RE:Brewer's Gold Hops ("Marc Battreall")
Yeast Attenuation (Ken Schwartz)
Re: Improving beer through bigger starters (Alan Edwards)
Sulphiting Perry (Aaron Shaw)
Re: Fundamentals of SS Passivation/SS Observation (David Lamotte)
yeast starters/pitching rates (MicahM1269)
Fusel alcohols (Ron Warner)
Keg conversion and sight tube insight (GuyG4)
TSP vs. NaOH (Jeremy Bergsman)
RE: carboy safety (John_E_Schnupp)
priming problems (John_E_Schnupp)
There will be a Sunday Digest this week...
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: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:30:16 +0100
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater@brew-master.com>
Subject: Malt Specifications
Somehow when I sent this post a couple of days ago it got posted 9 times. I
cancelled 8 of them but the remaining one also got deleted somehow. Here it
is again . . . .
- --------
Jim Liddil, George De Piro, and others have been talking about malt
specifications of late. I just wanted to interject a note of caution about
placing too much value on any given malt specification.
There is no single test or index of malt quality that is capable of giving
a true indication of how a malt will perform in the brewhouse. This is why
there is such a long laundry list of specifications--brewers hope that the
more parameters they can "fix" in the specification, the better chance they
will get a decent malt. However this is erroneous thinking. A malt
specification is an *average* for the malt that is sampled in a particular
lot. Unfortunately our brewing equipment doesn't really care about
averages. Consider the case where soluble protein, HWE, friability,
viscosity, etc. all indicate a well-modified malt, but the malt is actually
an even mixture of undermodified and overmodified grains. The average of
these grains will cause the specs to look fine, but the undermodified
grains will cause no end of headaches in processing. The situation is even
more subtle than this because the degree of modification can vary within
single grains and that is very hard to pick up with standard malt tests.
When brewers send their problem malts to our lab at Heriot Watt, it is
standard practice to perform a distal-end sectioning of 200 grains to get
an indication of the degree and uniformity of modification within each
grain. This often reveals extreme variation in modification between and
within grains and thus the reasons for the brewer's problem.
Brewers often create their own problems in this respect by requesting
unrealistic malt specifications and thus causing the maltster to blend
different batches of malt in order to meet the specification. It seems that
some of the more enlightened brewers are reducing the number of parameters
in their malt specs and instead working with the maltsters to understand
how malt from a particular variety of barley works on their system (the
impact of variety on malt analyses can not be stressed enough).
Just to highlight the shortcomings of two parameters that have been talked
about recently:
- --FRIABILITY: It is often assumed that high friability = good modification.
However this is a dangerous assumption. For example, North American 2-row
Klages can produce an excellent malt that is very well modified, and has a
friability of around 75 percent. On the other hand, some malts would be
completely unacceptable with a friability less than 90 percent.
- --ACROSPIRE LENGTH: Often used as a guide to the level of modification, but
this is misleading because embryo growth and endosperm modification do not
necessarily occur at the same time. It has been shown that malts with
acrospire length greater than 1 can be very undermodified and that malts
with virtually no acrospire growth can be almost overmodified. Malting
conditions are largely responsible for this variation (e.g. spray steeping,
the use of bromate, etc.) so knowing knowing about the maltster's process
is essential if you want to use this parameter as a quality indicator.
Acrospire length is probably a better measure of uniformity (>80% in a
single category) than of the level of modification.
This post is not to discourage you from even considering malt analyses, but
just to warn you that they can be misleading. Your brewing equipment and
the final product should be the ultimate judge of malt quality.
Cheers,
Mort O'Sullivan
Edinburgh, Scotland
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:51:33 -0600
From: "phil grossblatt" <philgro@swcp.com>
Subject: sulfites (was Perry)
This recent thread inspired me to comment on 2 things:
The "nail polish remover" smell. This is ethyl acetate,though I'm not
really sure of its origin in this case.I've noticed it many times when
cold settling grape juice with no or low sulfites.Since there should
not be much ethanol at this point its formation is a mystery to me
(perhaps the small amount that has been formed by wild yeasts is
enough,if the sensory threshold of ethyl acetate is very low).
Anyway,this will volitalize completey once fermentation in
underway,and should not be considered a problem.
2nd- the sensitivity of yeast to sulfites... Any of the common
commercial wine yeasts are not at all inhibited by reasonable
amounts of SO2.In the case of Red Star,it even says so right on
the package (at least the 500gm and 10kg ones).Most wild yeasts
ARE inhibited by SO2,and this is about the only valid reason to
use sulfites pre-fermentation,IMNSHO.
we now return you to our regularly scheduled discussions on
BEER!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:40:24 -0400
From: Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: HSA discussion in BYO
Several people have replied to my post about my ongoing argument with the
editor of BYO magazine, wanting to know the details.
This starts in the June 1998 issue where in a response to a letter asking
when is the best time to aerate your wort (140F, 110F or 70-80F), the
editor replies "The short answer is that it's not a matter of what's
"safe"; it's a matter of what's efficient. Oxygen does not dissolve or
remain in solution well in hot wort, so while aerating the wort when still
hot won't harm anything, it won't do much good either." He then went on to
explain how solubility of oxygen increases as the wort temperature decreases.
To which I wrote in a letter to the editor: "In the response to the "Air
Wars" letter, you say "so while aerating the wort when still hot won't harm
anything, it won't do much good, either." Did you truly intend to debunk
HSA with that response? I think that even your resident "wizard" in his
response to the ubiquitous question about aeration, recommends against
aerating hot wort because of its promotion of staling compounds which
eventually will ruin your beer."
His reply in the August 1998 issue was: "Hot side aeration is one of the
most talked about and least important issues in homebrewing. Scientific
tests have found little evidence that staling compounds develop if a small
amount of air gets into the wort whil it's still hot. Because it's
difficult to get more than a small amount of air into hot wort anyway,
this is truly an issues homebrewers shouldn't stress over. However, there's
no problem with erring on the side of caution, as Mr. Wizard recommends,
and being careful not to splash the wort when you transfer to the fermenter."
It sounds like he wants it both ways; it doesn't really matter, but don't
do it anyway. And he made himself technically correct by stating that a
"small amount" of air won't harm the wort, but since the discussion was
about aeration of the wort, I don't think we are talking about a small amount.
Finally he seems to be confusing DO with chemical
reactions. It is true that it is very difficult to get oxygen to dissolve
into hot wort, but that doesn't provide any protection against HSA. HSA is
a chemical reaction that starts at the physical interface between the hot
wort and the air, and considering the dimensions of a lot of our
homebrewing equipment, that is [relatively] one large interface.
Am I off-base, or is he steering people in the wrong direction?
Dan Cole
Roanoke, VA
P.S. I am considering letting my subscription to BYO expire; Brewing
Techniques and Zymurgy are much more useful now.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:50:36 -0500
From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: artistic pitching rates re-visited
Alan Edwards writes:
>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.
Exactly right! When talking about yeast we are using an exponential
scale to measure things like cells per mL of wort (as in 1EXX cells per
mL). Only after this basic scientific principle is understood, can one
appreciate the absurdity of arguing the merits of an additional 25 percent
of starter volume.
>If you perfectionist types want to step up your starters four times at
>optimal volumes and time intervals, to reach an optimal pitching rate,
>go right ahead. You will assuredly be reducing your odds of
>the possibilities of infection, etc.
Pitching up starter volumes an unnecessary number of times actually
increases the risk of having the starter itself become infected. Which
would you rather have? A mildly infected starter that grows into a
horrendous infection in your 5-gallon batch of beer, or a mildly infected
batch of beer that stays mildly infected? Although I*ve never experienced
either, I would vote for the latter. Remember, if your starter is
infected, you are effectively pitching an infection into your wort (along
with a weakend yeast strain).
>But what I'm saying is that you don't *have* to go to all that
trouble
>to pitch the absolute optimal amount of yeast into your beer.
>Two words: diminishing returns. Of course they are very subjective
>words. Define them as you wish.
Diminishing returns is right. I would go a step further and call it
exponential decay of returns.
Samuel Mize wrote:
>"Dry yeast does contain about 50 times the yeast in a Wyeast pack, but
>I still don't think it's enough for pitching directly. If you
believe
>your dry yeast is 100% viable (is that a big or little if these
>days?), then 2 typical-sized packages (5g) would be about the minimum
>for a 5 gal. batch. If you don't trust that your yeast is 100%
>viable, then scale up from there. It's cheap and effective."
Let*s see if we can follow this reasoning:
Using a typical maximum step up volume of 5x that I*ve seen so often
posted in the HBD (i.e. 50 mL Wyeast smak pack to, to 250 mL flask, to
1.25 liters, etc.), pitching 2 packages of dried yeast is a recipe for
severe over pitching. Now let*s take a look at the numbers:
Dried yeast = 50 times Wyeast smak pak, therefore 1 dry yeast package is
equivalent to the yeast present in a mega-pack of 2.5 liters volume (50 mL
x 50). OR, you can think of it as pitching 50 regular sized (50 mL) smak
paks. So if this is true, pitching two dried yeast packs is like pitching
100 regular sized (50 mL) smak paks, or the equivalent of a super-anal 5
liter starter volume.
Of course you can say that not all of the yeast in a smak pak are viable.
And then I can say that not all of the yeast in a smak pak are viable
either.
I think the yeast police are at it again!
(Note to the sarcastically impaired: The above example shows that there is
a serious flaw somewhere. I am not saying that I believe what I have
posted above to be true and I certainly am not advocating under pitching.
I am simply providing an example calculation based on information that was
previously posted.)
George De Piro writes:
> In closing, I will explain the term "friability." It is a
measure
> of the malt's hardness. A higher number means more of the malt
> kernel was soft enough to be crushed in the test. Softness is an
> indicator of complete modification.
Actually *hardness* is usually the term that is used to describe a
material*s hardness. *Friability* is a term that is used to describe the
tendency of material to be easily crushed or broken up into little pieces.
Example: A diamond is very hard, but not friable. Sandstone is both hard
and friable. A slightly damp ball of cornmeal is extremely soft and
extremely friable.
Nazdrowie,
Paul Niebergall
Kansas City
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: sanitizing w/ peracetic acid
Michel Brown suggested the use of peracetic acid for sanitation
purposes...
Michel, I was wondering why you (seemingly purposefully) excluded chlorine
bleach amongst your suggested sanitization agents? I've been using bleach
and have had no problems so far neither from the bleach itself nor from
contaminating nasties. Plus, at about $1 per gallon I can't think of
anything as economical as bleach, so why should I go to all the trouble to
make homemade peracetic acid?
-Alan
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life."
-Jim Squire
-Alan Meeker
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Dept. of Urology
(410) 614-4974
__________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:29:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Air Superiority
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net> writes...
> Subject: HSA discussion in BYO
>
<SNIP>
> His reply in the August 1998 issue was: "Hot side aeration is one of the
> most talked about and least important issues in homebrewing. Scientific
> tests have found little evidence that staling compounds develop if a small
> amount of air gets into the wort whil it's still hot. Because it's
> difficult to get more than a small amount of air into hot wort anyway,
> this is truly an issues homebrewers shouldn't stress over. However, there's
> no problem with erring on the side of caution, as Mr. Wizard recommends,
> and being careful not to splash the wort when you transfer to the fermenter."
>
> It sounds like he wants it both ways; it doesn't really matter, but don't
Indeedy-do! What he means to say is "I don't know". Fence straddling
answers usually mean either you don't know and are afraid of it; or you
don't care and are afraid of it. Either way, there are few in this world
who will admit they don't know something when the spotlight of their
"experise" narrows to the laserbeam of scrutiny. Again, it's quite
possible he thinks he's defensibly right on the money. I'd ask him for
some technical references to support his opinion. (I'm not a psychologist
or anything like that, by the way. Nor a spotlight operator. Do have a
laser pointer, though.)
> Finally he seems to be confusing DO with chemical
> reactions. It is true that it is very difficult to get oxygen to dissolve
> into hot wort, but that doesn't provide any protection against HSA. HSA is
> a chemical reaction that starts at the physical interface between the hot
> wort and the air, and considering the dimensions of a lot of our
> homebrewing equipment, that is [relatively] one large interface.
Like some people confuse oxygenation with oxidation. One is when you get
oxygen in it, the other is when you.... Lessee, um, one is when you...
Never mind.
I won't get into whether or not HSA is a "momily" (Hi, Jack!), but I will
note that since I've been brewing all-grain and not pouring my wort
through the cosmos in order to cool it, the brews haven't been as dark.
And have kept much longer. Anyway, I think you've got it. If not for
steam, as I understand HSA, it would occur in the boil, too - due to all
the unexposed wort churning to the surface all the time.
The thing I think he's missing (this is my _OPINION_ by the way. I am not
a food scientist, chemist, nor anything that remotely resembles one. Nor
do I play any on radio or television. Have worn a labcoat a few times,
though...) IMHO, is that though the dissolution of oxygen into the wort is
reduced at high temperatures, the chemical reactions between the oxygen
and the wort are accelerated. Another one of those natural "governors" on
the process: O2'll damage it, but statically, not a lot gets exposed since
O2 won't dissolve in it. Any damage occurs at the top of the wort in the
pot, barring any steam or vapor reducing air's access to it... Anyway, now
pour that wort through the air, and you've gone from the
algebraic equation for the area of the pot to some nasty integral for the
area of the sheet of wort flowing through the air vs delta-t. (Again, I'm
not a mathemagician. I'm a kind of limited, twisted physicist who's been
shaped and molded into a... {shudder})
> Am I off-base, or is he steering people in the wrong direction?
My opinion? You're right and he's not incorrect. Ha! Caught you! Why, he's
not steering! He's still trying to find the keys! (Not a mechanic, by the
way. Nor a driving instructor.)
> P.S. I am considering letting my subscription to BYO expire; Brewing
> Techniques and Zymurgy are much more useful now.
Yes! One for imfomative articles, the other for imformative ads! I leave
it as an exercise for the reader to determine which serves which purpose...
(I am a bit of a cynic.)
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:48:03 -0400
From: "Michael Maag" <maagm@rica.net>
Subject: Dry hopping a corny wilth pelletized hops.
I brewed an excellent SNPA clone to keg. My local homebrewing supply store
had no whole cascade hops for dry hopping in the keg, so I decided to try
pelletized. I put 1 oz in a very tight weave nylon bag and put it in the
keg, then force carbonated. Apparently the weave was not tight enough,
because the first 2 pints of the brew were a light green color !!! The
stuff is almost too hoppy to drink. I fished the bag out of the keg and am
letting the beer rest. I'm sure the hop powder will settle to the bottom of
the keg. I am drawing off a 1/2 pint or so each evening for a nightcap.
Makes me sleep well and I have some wild dreams!!
Cheers,
Mike 8*)
In the middle of the Shenandoah Valley (Staunton Va.)
PS. By the time I am posting this, the beer is clearing up and tasting
better and better!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:34 -0600
From: "Lou Heavner" <lheavner@tcmail.aus.frco.com>
Subject: fermentation questions
Greetings,
I have a couple of questions for the fermentation gurus out there.
First, I have reused the yeast from the bottom of my fermenter when
making ales where I only do a single stage ferment. No problem, as
long as I'm careful about sanitation. But if I want to reuse a lager
yeast, should I use the yeast in the bottom of the primary or the
bottom of the secondary? Typically I secondary and lager in the same
carboy (I don't really differentiate between them), so the beer will
be sitting on the yeast for quite a while.
Second question. I have heard that some yeast nutrient is DAP or
synthetic chemicals like that. But other yeast nutrients are actually
spent/dead/destroyed yeast cells. If that is true, would it be
possible to feed the live beer yeast with a packet of my wife's bread
yeast that had been previously boiled? If so, would it be better to
add the packet to the wort kettle? to boiling starter wort? to the
primary at pitching time? Bread yeast is cheap and plentiful, so this
would be a big plus for me. Although I guess DAP isn't that expensive
either.
Cheers!
Lou Heavner - Austin, TX (where the grapes are turning into raisins!)
"If con is the opposite of pro,
What is the opposite of progress?"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:51:34 -0700
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
Subject: Competition Announcement/Call for Judges-1998 Pacific Brewers Cup
The Long Beach Homebrewers, of Long Beach CA, are pleased to announce
the 1998 Pacific Brewers Cup. This is an AHA sanctioned competition, to
be held on October 24th.
Entry forms and fees will be due no later than Sep. 25th, with bottles
due between Oct. 10-16th. Online entry (thanks Dion!), as well as
printable forms are available from the official competition website
located at http://mozart.andinator.com/PacCup98 . Hard copies of forms
and rules are available by sending an email to PacCup98@lycosmail.com,
or by calling Rob Wise at 562-425-4477.
Potential Judges and Stewards are asked to use the online registration
available at the website.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 98 03:59:01 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro@fcc.net>
Subject: Improving beer through bigger starters
Hi all,
In today's digest Alan asked about Steve's evidence that pitching a
proper starter can improve beer greatly.
I have said (on several occasions) that the single biggest thing you can
do to improve your beer is to pitch
a large starter. Like Steve, I can taste the difference. Many people
can. Reasons:
1. Pitching a large starter minimizes yeast growth. Excessive yeast
growth ALWAYS (not often you can say that in
brewing) results in increased higher (fusel) alcohol production. These
taste hot and solventy, and seem to be good
hangover emphasizers. This is an incredibly common flaw in the beers at
homebrew contests. Ester levels are
effected by this, too.
2. Pitching a large starter minimizes the chance of infection. There
will ALWAYS (boy, twice in one night) be
contaminating organisms in your beer. The trick is to keep them from
getting anywhere in it. Pitching a
proper starter will do this.
3. Pitching a large starter helps to ensure complete attenuation of the
beer. You don't need a magic palate to taste
the difference between a stuck ferment and a complete one.
I'm sure there must be other reasons, but it's late and I'm tired (I
spent the day brewing; what fun!)
The bottom line is to never increase the volume the yeast are in by more
than 10 times (for normal gravity ales).
That means your average 19L (5 gal.) batch should have a 1.9 L (2 quart
starter) as a minimum. More won't hurt
(to a point). Pitching a proper starter is part of the "80%" of effort
that creates great beer. It is not anywhere near
the point of diminishing returns.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:27:46 +0300
From: "Sandy Macmillan" <scotsman@ncc.moc.kw>
Subject: Quaternary Ammonium
My local guy is trying to tell me that F25 sanitizing rinse by Rochester
Midland will not harm by stainless steel kegs and is a no rinse sanitizer.
Anyone have any experience with this product or any advise to a non chemist.
Sandy Macmillan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:18:26 -0400
From: "Marc Battreall" <batman@terranova.net>
Subject: RE:Brewer's Gold Hops
Charley asks about the use of Brewer's Gold hops in HDB2783:
>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,
Don't know where I saw it (on the web somewhere) but I read that Brewer's
Gold was allegedly the hops that were used to bitter and flavor Pete's
Wicked Ale.
A few years back I wanted to replicate Pete's and searched high and low for
the hopping info. I preferred the draft version far more than the bottled
and became obsessed with cloning it. I brewed a standard brown ale following
AHA style guidelines and used Brewer's Gold hops exclusively. Looking back
through my recipe book I used:
1 oz. - 6.0% AA - boil 60
1 oz. - 6.0% AA - boil 30
.5 oz. - 6.0% AA - finish 15
(All the hops were Type 90 pellets as opposed to your fresh cones)
This was a while ago and I don't have exacting details on the hop flavor
profile but I certainly remember that I was extremely pleased with the beer
in general. The hops provided a soft bittering effect that did not linger
and balanced the maltiness well. The flavor did not jump out at you like I
wanted it to, but it was a pretty damn close copy of Pete's as far as I was
concerned.
Who knows for sure if that is the hop the Pete's had, but it was all part of
the learning process for me.
Hope this helps.
Marc
=======================
Captain Marc Battreall
Backcountry Brewhouse
Islamorada, Florida
batman@terranova.net
captainbrew@hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 11:27:57 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: Yeast Attenuation
George DP sez:
> I brew 15 gallon batches and almost always split the batches into
> smaller ones that are each fermented with a different yeast. I have
> never measured a difference in final gravity between two different
> brewer's yeasts. I know that wild yeasts super attenuate, and there
> are probably some brewers yeasts that may behave very differently from
> others, but I have not found them. Even ale and lager yeasts have
> ended up at the same gravities when pitched into the same wort.
>
> I think the mash parameters have much more of an influence on the
> attenuation than the yeast strain (when using your average yeast).
>
Interesting. I remember Dave Burley once citing DeClerck's similar
assertion. How does this play against the oft-quoted (and varying)
attenuation figures the yeast suppliers offer?
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
kenbob@elp.rr.com
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Edwards <ale@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Improving beer through bigger starters
George De Piro wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In today's digest Alan asked about Steve's evidence that pitching a
> proper starter can improve beer greatly. I have said (on several
> occasions) that the single biggest thing you can do to improve your
> beer is to pitch a large starter. Like Steve, I can taste the difference.
> Many people can. Reasons:
> . . .
(George gave several specific reasons why you should limit yeast growth
to a factor of 10 or less.)
Thanks Geroge!
Do you think it would be acceptable to bring a starter up to 2 liters
and only pitch the settled yeast after decanting? I *really* want to
avoid making the starter wort 10% of the recipe. If that is not acceptable,
what about bringing a starter up to a gallon and then decanting and
pitching the settled yeast?
Thanks!
-Alan of Fremont
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:53:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: ar568@freenet.carleton.ca (Aaron Shaw)
Subject: Sulphiting Perry
>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?!?).
As a winemaker (from grapes, apples, pears, raspberries, etc...) by
profession, I would highly recommend the use of potassium metabisulphite
when making any wines or beers with the use of fresh fruit. While I grant that
it is Dick's choice to not sulphite his perry, he is taking what I would
consider to be a serious risk of contamination by not using any sulphur.
The usefulness of sulphur is that it readily reacts with oxygen as to
preclude oxidation of the must (unfermented juice) and prevent 'browning'
of the fruit.
>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).
Campden tablets are Sodium Metabisulphite, not quite the same as
Potassium Metabisulphite.
I would consider 1/8 tsp. of Potassium Metabisuphite as sufficient.
Are you sure that the 1 tablet/gallon is not for finished wine or perry?
That seems awfully high for sulphiting fruit pre-fermentation.
>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.
The key to proper sulphiting is that most of the bacteria that are a
threat to the winemaker/perrymaker are more sensitive to sulphur than
the yeast employed in fermentation. Therefore it is useful to add enough
Potassium Metabisulphite to kill the bacteria but not the yeast that will
perform the fermentation.
>> 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.
Amyl acetate ("Pear Drops") also occurs because of insufficient
nutrient.
>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.
Dick is right in saying that failure to sulphite 'might' cause you
problems. I view sulphiting in much the same way as sanitizing my
brewing equipment. You do not necessarily have to do it, but the
more careful and meticulous you are about doing it, the better
your chances of success.
>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.
Again you have to sulphite properly, about 35 p.p.m. should be
sufficient.
- ------
>From: Dan Ryan <kcmoryan@gvi.net>
>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 . . .
Today (July 31) it was 26' C in Kansas City and 24'C here in Ottawa,
Canada. We have seen temperatures of 35' C (95' F) a few times this summer.
Sorry to be trivial, but I just wanted to remind some of our friends
south of the border that Canada is not always a land of ice and snow. :)
I have encountered on one occasion a couple from North Carolina with skis
on the roof of their car inquiring as to where the "good snow" might be
......in July!
Cheers!
- --
"Come my lad, and drink some beer!"
Aaron Shaw
Ottawa, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 11:18:58 +1000
From: David Lamotte <lamotted@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Fundamentals of SS Passivation/SS Observation
Matt Brooks wrote about aspects of Stainless Steel passivation, and
while it contains a lot of usefull information, I would like to
comment on some items which may cause some people uncessary concern.
> 3) "Passive surfaces can be maintained naturally when exposed to an
> oxidizing environment. Natural sources of oxygen include air, aerated
> water, and other oxidizing atmospheres. Beside naturally occuring
> passivation, chemical (nitric acid) and electro-chemical processes can
> be used to re-establish an anodic oxide film".
Yes, this is correct as the oxide film can form wherever oxygen is
avilable.
> Even if you dont use chlorine you
> should have a routine for repassivating your kegs. We rinse ours
> after use (lightly scrub if necessary) and store them dry without the lids
> on for a couple of weeks, until needed again (natural repassivation with
> no real work involved), we have "extra" kegs to allow use to store some
> empty for awhile.
This is not really necessary for normal use. Think of repassivating
as repairing the stainless skin. If there is no damage, there is no
need to repair. Consider all the stainless items in use at home or
work. All the SS cutlery, bowls, saucepans, sinks etc remain
stainless during normal use. Passivation is a natural process, which
occurs any time that the oxide layer is damaged. Under normal
atmospheric conditions I believe that it takes about 1 week for full
protection to be restored.
>
> If I dont use chlorine why should I repassivate?... I have witnessed a
> 10 gal. stainless corny keg used as a portable eye wash station
> (stored with "just plain water" in it for over a year) begin to rust on the
> inside, mostly around the welds, no chlorine contact at all, yet it
> still began to rust due to the fact that the water in it was slightly
> corrosive (Deionized Water).
Rust on stainless steel is caused by a different process. For rust to
occur, free iron must be exposed to the surface. This iron can
originate externally if you use steel wool or grinding wheels
previously used on mild steel on SS, particles of iron will become
embedded in the surface and cause the rust.
When it occurs around welds, it is usually due to sensitisation. This
occurs whenever SS is heated in the range 500-800 deg C. The Chromium
which normally combines with oxygen to form the passive oxide film,
combines instead with Carbon in the steel. This means that it is not
available to form the oxide, and leaves areas of unprotected iron.
Passivation with Nitric acid will dissolve the iron contamination on
the surface of the stainless steel, as well as assisting the oxide
film to reform. This would normally be performed after the item has
been fabricated.
Further information can be found in 'The Care and Feeding of Stainless
Steel' by Micah Millspaw, which is available online from
BrewingTechniques' July/August 1994.
**********************
Dave Houseman also observes during his vacation, that the
swimming pool, so high in chlorine, has all these stainless steel
fixtures like ladders, railings, etc. emmersed in the chlorinated
water.
I would think that it all doesn't rust away because :-
1. The chlorine concentration is fairly low (ie we don't swim in
bleach)
2. The temperature is relatively low
3. All surfaces are properly passivated during manfacture
4. Crevices and pockets which can become oxygen depleted are minimised
5. The surfaces tend to stay wet, so that concentration of the
chlorine by drying does not occur.
Hope this helps...
David Lamotte
Brewing down under in Newcastle NSW Australia.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 21:57:12 EDT
From: MicahM1269@aol.com
Subject: yeast starters/pitching rates
I thought that I would chime in on this yeast topic.
First point - In order for this current version of an on going discussion (
and it has been discussed in the past ) to have a more clear and useful
effect, I would like for the densities ( cell counts ) of the yeast to be
included. So far most of the discussion has been in terms of volume. For
example ' I pitched x ml of yeast and and then this happened' . This is too
vague.
Second point - Yeast viablitity, it is not enough just to know how much yeast
you have, you know how much live yeast you have. The average home brewer
should be able to do this using the same equipment needed to do cell counts.
Third point - The reason behind growing up a yeast starter is just that, to
grow yeast, not to make a little batch of beer. Do not be a brewer, be a yeast
grower.
The considerations begin to change. Time to take advantage of the Pasteur
effect.
The figures that have been posted recently for pitching rates ( ales and lager
) are likely values assuming that a sufficient a viable biomass is achieved.
The benifits of adequate pitching are many and are wide ranging, I will not go
into them at this time, as many references are available on this topic.
=======================================================
And now my personal yeast growing procedures.
I would like to point out that my techniques may or may not be conveinient for
anyone else. They are how ever effective in achieving my brwering goals.
- in a 2 litre flask prepare a solution of 1 l water and malt extract at .5 -
1 degree Brix, and 0.05mg/l of biotin, 0.05mg/l amonium nitrate. THe ph should
be adjusted to be 4.1- 4.2. Boil the above solution for 15 min and cool to 80F
then add in the yeast
The starter should be agitated at regular intervals.
Every 24 hours the starter should be fed - that is the .5 - 1 degree B sugar
density is re-established. The volume already in the starter should be
factored in and an appropriate higher density malt extract mixture added.
The cycle of agitating and feeding will continue until the desired amount of
yeast in achieved.
Note: your water may vary, some may use tap water, others not. Proper
santitation should be observed at all times.
micah millspaw - brewer at large
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 22:07:54 -0400
From: Ron Warner <rwarner@annap.infi.net>
Subject: Fusel alcohols
Anyone know a "cure" for a young batch o' beer with high fusel alcohols
due to pitching at too high a temperature? Very good/fast ferment as
one would expect.
Ron in Severn (MD)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 00:06:48 EDT
From: GuyG4@aol.com
Subject: Keg conversion and sight tube insight
Ah, it's good to write you again. I sometimes post to announce results of
experiments or such, and this time it's a construction project. I did a great
deal of research, and with thanks to AlK, Marty, Dion, KennyEddy, and all of
you with keg conversion pages, here's what I did to build my boiler.
I got a sankey keg from a friend who obtained it in a repossession. I cut out
the top with a sawzall, after letting the pressure and 7 year old beer out of
the keg, along a line I scribed with a pencil and a string. I drilled a hole
near the bottom for the bulkhead fitting: (1/2 inch MPT brass) and also
drilled and tapped a hole near the bottom for a 1/8 inch MPT by 1/4 inch
compression elbow. I installed another compression elbow of the same size
above this one, up by the handles, for a sight tube.
I used poly tubing first to connect the two elbows. It melted. Very bad. I
went back to the place where I got the bulkhead fitting, and they sold me 1/4
inch OD teflon. It doesn't melt. Very good.
I installed a screen made from 1 1/2 inch copper end cap soldered to 3/8 inch
dip tube in the bottom, hooked to the bulkhead fitting with a 3/8 compression
to 3/8 MPT connecter, and put a 1/2 inch brass ball valve on the outside. It
boils, it works.it siphons out all but about a cup. I also scavenged a lid
from an old fry pan.
Cost: about 20 bucks for all fittings, valves, and assorted stuff. Tubing is
about 1.80 per foot, bulkhead fitting 3 bucks, valve 4 bucks, etc. etc., and 2
sawzall blades for 4 bucks. I used my brothers' hole saw for the valve hole.
I'm really looking forward to quitting these test boils and making beer!
If you're installing a sight valve in this fashion, make sure the top of the
sight guage drains back into the kettle. If it does, you won't lose beer, it
just goes back in, as the water in the tube gets air pushing it around prior
to boiling.
Just a tip, but I got most of this stuff at a local industrial hose shop, who
carry lots of strange connecters, and whose countermen are significantly more
knowlegeable than the geeks at Eagle. Cheaper, too, by about half. And no,
it isn't stainless, but if you're mixing copper, brass, and stainless at all,
you might as well go all the way from a corrosion perspective. Oh, and Pickle
the brass like John Palmer says.
Remember, teflon tube for sight tubes. It doesn't melt.
Guy Gregory
GuyG4@aol.com
Lightning Creek Home Brewery
Boiling Large in Spokane, WA.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 22:26:06 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: TSP vs. NaOH
Is it possible that the problems reported with TSP are the precipitation of
calcium phosphate?
> "Anton Verhulst" <verhulst@zk3.dec.com> writes:
> Since TSP has been getting a bad rap from the Environmental Protection Agency,
[snip]
> I'm anticipating the day when TSP will be banned in the US and have bought
> what I anticipate to be a lifetime supply (10 pounds).
I have largely given up on TSP in favor of NaOH ("lye" or "caustic").
While potentially a little more dangerous than TSP it seems to me that
the hazards are similar in nature and magnitude and it is cheaper and
easier on the envionment (as far as I know anyway). Does TSP offer
any cleaning power other than the high pH?
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 23:30:05 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: RE: carboy safety
>Never do anything with carboys unless you're wearing good solid foot-
>wear. (Even good sandals are an invitation to disaster.) You never
>intend to break a carboy, but if it does happen you're going to find
>yourself in the middle of a mess of very wet sharp nasty glass, and
>you're going to want all the help you can find to get out and grab
>something to clean it up.
If I may I'd like to add $.02 to this discussion.
I've always use glass carboys. The uses of which are varied and upon
which I won't expound. I rarely use a mike crate when I transport
them. In fact one of the few times I did use a milk crate I broke
one. Here's how:
I usually obtain 10 gallons of maple sap in the spring from a friend
who produces VT maple syrup. I put the carboys in milk crates in the
back seat of the car so they won't bounce and break while transporting
them over frost heaved, winter roads. I was carrying a carboy full
of maple sap into my house. I tripped on the sidewalk and started to
stumble forward. I knew I was going down and had just enough room,
time and strength to heave the milk crate in the general direction
opposite my fall. Yep, it shattered and glass went everywhere. I
was lucky, got a few scrapes from falling on the concrete sidewalk
but not any from the glass shards lying around me.
Morale is, glass will always lose when combined with gravity and
a hard surface. Know the risks and use caution and common sense
when working with glass, any glass: bottles, beakers, test tubes...
Just because it's small doesn't mean it's any less dangerous.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 00:37:21 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: priming problems
Martin & Christine write:
> We usually are putting about a tablespoon of the sugar to that of
> a bottle. Is there some way of measuring this to proper priming?
Al said:
>grams_corn_sugar = 0.94 * grams_table_sugar
>It's also easier to accurately measure 1/2 or 3/4 cup of sugar
>than 50 tablespoons into individual bottles.
If you add 50 TABLESPOONS to a batch you'll have bombs! I think
the unit of measure should be TEASPOONS.
approx. 3 teaspoons = 1 tablespoon
approx. 16 tablespoons = 1 cup
I'm assuming you are all taking about the standard kitchen
measures for teaspoon and tablespoon. In all the cookbooks I
have at home teaspoon is *t* and tablespoon is *T*. Did you
ever read a recipe in a hurry and then wonder what's missing
in the finished product or why it tastes too salty?
Also, the *standard* spoon used at the table is not/should not
be used as a measure. Use a measuring device which has been
filled and leveled. The spoon used at the table as an eating
utensil is actually closer in measurement to a teaspoon.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2786, 08/03/98
*************************************
-------
