Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2781
HOMEBREW Digest #2781 Wed 29 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:
"Brew U" evaluation program (Samuel Mize)
Redhook Blonde clone (Danny Breidenbach)
omega fax (dbgrowler)
starters (Alan Edwards)
Wheat Beer flavor profile (Tom Barnet)
mashing temps for decoction brew (Laurel Maney)
mega-hopped IPAs (revised) (Vachom)
re: soot ("Lou Heavner")
Re: extract % vs grist weight % (Al Korzonas)
Re: dry yeast amounts (Badger Roullett)
Malt modification and analysis (long and technical) (George_De_Piro)
Chlorine Attacks Stainless !!! Wet T-shirt Fun (Bob.Sutton)
re:Cold trub removal (Dean Fikar)
Tripel (Al Korzonas)
% extract vs. % weight (Al Korzonas)
Promoting Homebrewing (Dwayne Robert McKeel)
Points vs. Pounds - yeah, but.... (Bob.Sutton)
Mega IBU? ("Rob Jones")
Corrosion of Stainless Steel (David lamotte)
re: Pear Cider (Dick Dunn)
Spelling schmelling (pbabcock)
botox (yes, that's botulism) (Mark Tumarkin)
Re: How do I remove TSP stains from my carboy? ("Lutzen, Karl F.")
Benjamin CP filler (MicahM1269)
Forced fermentation / fermenting in cornies (George_De_Piro)
Sunday Digest courtesy of a 3-day queue...
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: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:36:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@mail.imagin.net>
Subject: "Brew U" evaluation program
Greetings to all.
Away back in March 1997, the AHA announced:
> Brew U, the long awaited beer evaluation program, is approaching
>roll-out! A complete class schedule and in-depth self-study course will
>be available [later].
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
BUT
If you aren't forwarding official info from AHA, PLEASE don't post to
HBD, just email me. Thanks. I'd rather this post weren't used as an
excuse for another round of AHA bashing.
Also, please let me know if it's OK for me to forward your comments
to other interested parties (if any).
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:42:21 -0400
From: Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach@nctm.org>
Subject: Redhook Blonde clone
Hey,
I've been avoiding Redhook products on general principle's lately (I'm a
support-your-local-brewery kind of guy), but the description on the label of
their Blonde Ale intrigued me enough to convince me to buy a six-pack. Yum!
Any suggestions on how to reproduce it?
Thanks,
- --Danny
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:36:50 -0400
From: dbgrowler@juno.com
Subject: omega fax
Chuck,
I use Omega CN9000's a lot, not for RIMS but for ferment temp controls.
My friend Bob (rzuk@ix.netcom.com) has successfully adapted one he bribed
offa me for 5 gallons of tasty steam beer. I'd be happy to send you a
copy of the manual, just let me know.
Mike Bardallis
Recovering from Portland in Allen Park, MI
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Edwards <ale@cisco.com>
Subject: starters
Steve Alexander answers:
> Starters - wheh - there's a lot to cover here.
> - --
> Alan Edwards writes re: a better starter method? Sorry Alan,
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.
> 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.
For what I'm doing, I'll take your "marginal" anyday. If I apply your
statement to my experience, then the definition of "marginal" must be
"enough to consistently make great beer without too much hassle".
That is my guiding principal.
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.
I even admited that my process is not optimal, right up front:
I wrote:
| I'm going focus on the mechanics and avoid theory of when to oxygenate,
| and when to decant and add fresh wort, and how soon after that is optimal
| for pitching. I'll leave that to the more knowledgeable.
THIS was my point:
| 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! If you
| don't make starters, please have a look--it's easy (and important).
| And for those of you who do, maybe you'll find this method a bit easier.
|
| The reason it's a bit easier is that you boil and ferment in the same
| vessel:
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.
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.
That is what's great about making beer; you can put as much effort into
it as you wish. Tinkerers can be tinkerers; worriers can be worriers;
perfectionists can be perfectionists. And I can adjust my effort knob
to lower the effort enough to make great beer AND keep the process fun!
That's what I'm tuning for.
> You also didn't mention
> aerating/oxygenating the starter - this is critical to get adequate growth
> rates.
Acutally, I did. I said shake it until it foams. Now if you are going
to tell me to stuff an airstone into my 1L flask and pump pure O2 into
the starter, I'm probably going to laugh. (Not to your face; but I will
be chuckling to myself.)
I challenge your definition of "critical". To me, the word critical
means that if I don't do it just right, then my beer will come out
horrible. Or actually, I should instead question "adequate growth rates".
Maybe I will not acheive *optimal* growth rates; but if I always make
great beer, then isn't that "adequate"?
> 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; but it hasn't produced any so far. That's good
enough for me. (You should always taste your starters before using.)
I usually make starters at night, and they always have a kreusen by the
next morning.
Maybe not good enough for you; but good enough for me. Take it or leave it.
-Alan in Fremont, CA
------------------------------
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.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:55:18 -0700
From: Laurel Maney <maney@execpc.com>
Subject: mashing temps for decoction brew
I've been reading up on decoction mashing lately in preparation for an
upcoming weizen, which will also be my first decoction. I'm wondering
why everything I've read so far calls for incredibly high sacch.
temperatures, like 158-162F.
Warner also mentions a "maltose rest" at 149 that I've never heard of.
Now, I know what mashing at these temperatures would mean for a "normal"
mash, so what is it about decoction that needs these seemingly high
temperatures?
Like you, I don't have a lot of experience with decoction brewing, but
enzymes are enzymes. The two principal starch converting enzymes have
different optimal temperature ranges (beta amylase in the 140s F, alpha
amylase in the 150s F), but they continue working on both sides of the
range until inactivated by very high temps. So besides the rest temp,
you have to consider how long it takes to get to and from that temp.
(i.e., the ramp time). This is usually a function of your equipment:
Since beta amylase can only chew up straight chains of starch in units
of two sugars, it produces only maltose - extremely fermentable. Alpha
amylase randomly attacks any straight chain link (can't get at the
branches though), so it produces a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-unit
fermentables and a lot of unfermentables.
Now, if you're doing a decoction, you know you're going to inactivate
all the enzymes by the time you add the boiled portion back into the
main mash. So it probably makes sense to get as much saccharification
as possible done, before that happens. A rise and hold at 149 F would
be delightful for beta amylase, and it would allow the alpha to start
working as well - which just provides more attack sites for the beta!
Then a rise to 158 F would give the alpha lots of opportunity in
adddition to its rest at that temp. The longer you take to arrive at
and leave each of these plateaus, the more of a field day those enzymes
have. The alpha will keep on plugging away till at least 165 F.
(In fact, if someone wanted to make a very fermentable, low residual
carbohydrate beer - i.e., low calorie lite - they might just use that
kind of mash profile, taking a nice long ramp between the two plateaus.
Now what major brewer might have turned that idea into a household
word???)
Meanwhile back in the main mash, the temp is going to be increased by
each addition of decocted mash. If you add it very fast, the ramps will
be relatively short, with less opportunity to convert over the range of
rise. So maybe that's another reason to get all you can out of the
decocted portions. And of course, as the temp in the main mash gets
higher, the next portion you take out can only saccharify at that temp
or higher, thus forcing up the rest temp.
Well, that's all I can think of. I've read lately about the
toasty/bready flavors that the Maillard reaction(s) bring about, both in
the kettle boil and in decoction boiling: proteins + sugars >>>>
browning reaction. I can see how this contributes to a nice amber or
dark beer, but I don't get any of that flavor in weiss beers. Is that
because there's so much else going on flavor-wise, because of the
yeast? Does anybody have any thoughts or experience on that?
The Woodstock Brewer / MATC Brewing Certificate Instructor
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:08:16 -0500
From: Vachom <MVachow@newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: mega-hopped IPAs (revised)
There have been several posts of late about 100+ IBU IPAs. My question
is for those whose palates are more finely tuned than mine. Is there an
IBU level above which differences cannot be perceived? Could an
experienced judge discern the difference in taste between a 70 IBU beer
and a 120?
Mike
New Orleans, LA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:20 -0600
From: "Lou Heavner" <lheavner@tcmail.frco.com>
Subject: re: soot
From: "Schultz, Steven W." <swschult@CBDCOM-EMH1.APGEA.ARMY.MIL>
>>>I used the side burner on my gas grill recently and totally sooted
up the
bottom of my wife's sauce pan. I don't want this to happen to me (my
kettle, actually) when I start using a propane burner for boiling
wort.
Therefore, I would appreciate recommendations for propane burners that
don't
soot up the kettle.
And-- are there any "secrets" which contribute to soot-free
boiling?<<<
Steve,
soot usually means you are operating fuel rich... check the air
register.
There are actually a couple tricks you can try, but most of these
outdoor burners used for brewing don't soot too badly unless you try
to turn them down too far.
For cooking the beans on the side burner, use some aluminum foil to
protect the pot. Just make sure to get as good a contact between the
foil and pot as possible, or you won't get good heating. I only use
the side burner on mine as a warmer, do the cooking inside.
The other trick is to make a paste with pot&pan cleanser like comet or
tsp and coat the kettle with a thin layer. We used to this when we
were camping out regularly and cooking over an open fire. Liquid soap
is supposed to work too, but I've never used it.
Cheers!
Lou Heavner - Austin, TX
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:47:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Re: extract % vs grist weight %
I apologise if this topic has been beaten to death in the last
week or if it there has been no interest, but Rick Cc'd me with
his post and I've been off-line (a week in Portland at the AHA
Conference and Oregon Brewers' Festival). I figured it would
be better to comment now than to wait until I got caught up...
by that time the thread would certainly be long dead.
Rick posted:
>It seems clear (to me) that if one is trying to document a recipe for
>the masses, who
>are likely to have access to somewhat (or very) different ingredients
>and different
>extraction efficiencies, that weight % of grist is not adequate
>documentation and that
>recipes based upon extraction might be useful.
>Al K, in your post you commented that:
>> I *always* have meant percentage by weight and I'm willing to bet that
>> no poster to the HBD or author of a brewing book (except for perhaps Ray
>> and Lewis) has meant percentage by extract when talking about grists.
>
>I think we can all agree with that statement. Could you (or anyone
>else) comment on the
>additional value of recipe documentation based upon extract % rather
>than
>grist weight %. Do you think that the additional info is useful or is
>there so much
>variability for other reasons in reproducing beers that the additional
>precision
>is really not beneficial. And even if that is so, isn't removing, as
>much as possible,
>wort variability not useful?
Actually, I don't know how much more accurate is %extract over %weight.
If you really and truly know the exact extract you get from *all* your
grains, you can then be more accurate, but consider the following:
* Have you ever made an all-wheat malt and all-rye malt batch? If not,
then how can you know exactly what extract you got from these malts?
You would have to make the same recipe with and without the specialty
malt and compare the extract you got... how many of us have done that?
* You can't make a batch from 100% raw grains (oats, wheat, barley,
spelt, rye, etc.)... again, you have to make two batches in which the
only difference is a certain percentage (it will *have* to be by weight
the first time, right?) of the raw grain and compare the extract you
get. I haven't done this yet... have you?
* While DWC Biscuit and Briess Victory will (eventually) convert
themselves, I would be surprised if the extract was the same when you
mash them with more enzymatic malts... you have to do an experimental
pair of mashes.
* There is a difference in extract between steeping and mashing crystal
malt, dark malts and roasted barley... you have to do an experimental
pair of mashes.
Let's face it: 99.9% of us are really only guessing at the extract we're
getting from any of our ingredients (I have made a few batches that
were 100% DWC Pale Ale or M&F Pale Ale or Crisp Maris Otter Pale Ale
malt, so I have *MY* numbers for these malts, but what about DWC Aromatic,
Weyermann Rauchmalz, DWC Caravienne, etc.?). If I write that I used
87% Weyermann Pils and 13% Weyermann Rauchmalz by weight, and you measure
out the same percentages by weight, I contend that we are much more likely
to get similar results than if I *guessed* at what my extract was for
the Rauchmalz and then you *guessed* at what your extract will be for it.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:12:36 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: dry yeast amounts
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: dry yeast amounts
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."
Since my brew days are random, and i have no clue when i am or am not going
to brew, i do not make starters. i have however taken to pitching *2*
packets of yeast for each 5 gallon batch. it works like a charm. i
pitched without rehydrating to my stout, and had to clean up the mess as it
went Boom.. (yes, i forgot the blow off tube)
The moral here, is that if your worried about not enough yeast from dry
yeast, then rehydrate and pitch two packets. they're cheap, and easy..
what more can you ask for!?!? (ok, shush up about them flavor profiles, and
stuff..)
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: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:49:33 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Malt modification and analysis (long and technical)
Hi all,
Jim Liddil writes in to talk about (amongst other things) malt
modification and analysis. In one of his posts he points out that I
misquoted Kunze:
>> 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).
>George read Kunze more carefully. Note that it is suggested that the
>acrospire be only 1/2- 3/4.
Actually, Jim is misquoting Kunze, too. For Pils malt it is
recommended that the acrospire be 2/3-3/4 the length of the kernel
while for "dark malt" (i.e., Munich, Vienna, or crystal) it be 3/4-1/1
the length of the kernel (p. 125). Of course, acrospire growth is not
the only (or even best) way to determine the degree of modification.
Kunze goes on to describe an example of a "good" pale malt (p. 160).
*His* "ideal" analysis specifies:
Total Protein: <10.8%
Kolbach Index: 38-42% (<35=undermodified, 35-41=well-modified, >41=very
well-modified)
Fine-coarse difference: 1.2 - 1.8%
soluble N in malt: >0.65 g/??? (this is missing from the text!)
Friabilimeter value: 80-86% (<75% is unsatisfactory)
Acrospire length: up to 1/4: 0%
up to 1/2: 3%
up to 3/4: 25%
up to 1/1: 70%
above 1/1: 2%
According to the text in Kunze, all of these numbers are
representative of well-modified malt. This is desirable to German
brewers because of the high energy costs associated with multi-step
and decoction mashes. Sure, it takes the maltster a little more time
and some more money to produce well-modified malt, but it is cheaper
to let the young barley plant break down its proteins than for the
brewer to do it in the mash tun (if a brewer spends more than 2 hours
on any one step of the process, they cannot brew 12 batches/day.
Eliminating the protein rest may allow an extra 500 bbl batch to be
brewed *each* day. Think of the production boost there and compare it
to the cost of producing well-modified malt).
At least one modern barley strain germinates pretty quickly (as my
limited experience with Harrington taught me). It may be that the
maltsters aren't using any more time or energy today than they were 50
years ago to produce a higher degree of modification (if all modern
barley germinates as quickly as Harrington). If somebody else knows
more about this, please chime in.
How do Kunze's numbers for an "ideal malt" compare to an American
megabrewers? *One* such man, Paul Smith (Coors), has said (Siebel
notes):
Protein: <12% for 2-row, <13.5% for 6-row
Kolbach Index: 40-42% ideal (38-46% possibly acceptable; <35 should be
rejected and >42 is very highly modified)
Fine-coarse difference: <1.5% is good, 1.8% is marginal and 2.0 is
right out!
Soluble Protein: 0.7-0.896
Friabilimeter value: 75% is marginally low, while >85% is desirable
Acrospire length: 3/4-1/1: ~95%
Please note that Paul Smith is the one who put the emphasis on this
being *one* brewer's opinion. It would be interesting to hear from
some other large-scale brewers, but I doubt they are perusing this
electronic tome.
So now that I've thrown all of these numbers at you, what does it
all mean? A comparison of these two brewers "ideal" pale malt
shows that the American does desire a slightly higher degree of
modification than the German. The German still wants a
well-modified product, though.
The biggest difference between the two "ideals" is acrospire
length. The American wants to see almost all the kernels at
3/4-1/1, while the German is willing to accept some kernels that
have less acrospire growth. Kunze points out that with increasing
modification, there is decreasing extract value. This may be more
important to a brewer who must use 100% malt in beer production, as
opposed to a brewer who gets a substantial amount of extract from
other (cheaper) sources.
The American mega brewer is brewing a relatively light -colored,
-bodied and -flavored, high-adjunct beer. Protein is not desirable
in this product (you wouldn't want to shock your customers with
rich mouthfeel or meringue-like foam). They also like the highest
possible diastatic power (to convert all of that rice starch).
This could be some of the reason for the difference in acropsire
length.
Another difference is in the absolute number for soluble protein
(and total protein). Again, the American wants more, showing a
desire for more modification. I believe this is because the
American is more concerned about adequate Free Amino Nitrogen (FAN)
in his wort. Since his wort will derive up to 50% of its extract
from protein-free sources (rice, corn syrup, etc.), he needs more
FAN in his malt to ensure adequate yeast nutrition. More total
protein allows the absolute number for soluble protein to be
higher, while the Kolbach number remains about the same as the
German ideal.
The other numbers are closer, with substantial overlap. This
indicates that the German also desires a well-modified product.
While Kunze's ideal malt would not be perfect in Paul Smith's
eyes, it would probably be acceptable. The German malt is
well-modified.
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.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:58:24 -0400
From: Bob.Sutton@fluordaniel.com
Subject: Chlorine Attacks Stainless !!! Wet T-shirt Fun
Let me share a chlorine stainless steel anecdote. One of our pharmaceutical
clients prepared a 200 PPM chlorine (industry "standard") sanitization rinse for
a 316L SS filling line. The normal protocol involved a 15 minute ambient
circulation followed by rinsing with high purity water.
One Friday afternoon the manufacturing folks decided to let the chlorinated
solution remain in the system over the weekend. The following Monday the rinse
cycle was activated. Guess what? No shortage of "leaks" at failed welds.
I'd not take the risk with my equipment. If I could afford a stainless boilpot,
I wouldn't put it at risk. And if you kegging, you're creating a major safety
hazard that the poppet valve won't protect against if the unit is materially
weakened.
All for now.
Bob
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
Yesterdays' Technology Today
PS: Philip J Wilcox said: "If you agree, Its time for the wet t-shirt and a
fan."
Gee Philip - sounds like fun - but I hardly know you....
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:21:19 -0500
From: Dean Fikar <dfikar@flash.net>
Subject: re:Cold trub removal
Cold Break - removal ("Steve Alexander") writes:
>You say you are pumping directly from the kettle to the fermentor - so
I
>assume
>you are using an immersion chiller. Between the pot scrubber filter
and the
>'filter bed' formed by the hops residue you are actually removing the
majority
>of the break material at least this is my experience when I used to use
a
>slotted copper manifold, immersion chiller and whole hops. Together
this
>was
>adequate (tho not ideal) for break removal (see below).
Yes, I do use an immersion chiller and filter through a pot scrubber
covered
by whole hops. Still, I get a fair amount of whitish trub in the bottom
of
the fermenter. I would assume that most of this is cold break, no?
>Fatty acids are also another threat if carried over into final beer.
Their
>oxidized products are the most despicable staling products imaginable.
>
Well, I've never had anything like cardboard, sherry, soapy, etc.
flavors
in any of my beers so I would assume that I don't have excess fatty
acids in
the final product.
<Now when making lagers I collect all wort in carboys and leave them in
a
>chest
>freezer overnight. This creates a wonderful separation of the cold
break in
>the near freezing wort. Then I aerate while transferring to another
carboy
and
>pitch. It is amazing to see the nearly trub free wort go into the
freezer
and
>an inch or even two of separated cold break come out.
Sounds like an interesting idea. I assume that you have not had any
infection problems by delaying yeast pitching. I might give this a try
on my next pilsner and see if I can tell any difference.
- --
Dean Fikar
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:15:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Tripel
Attention everyone: "Tripel" has only one P. Look at a Westmalle
label. Only New Belgium's "Trippel" has two Ps and that may have
been intentional. It seems like a half dozen posters have written
it with two Ps in the last month.
Al.
P.S. LordPeter: Tripels typically don't have bitter orange in them
and that Wyeast #1214 will make you banana and nailpolish remover beer...
it may be ready for the 2001 MCAB.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:36:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: % extract vs. % weight
As I'm catching up on HBD, I'm seeing more and more people post on
this issue. I'd like to point out that when I formulate a recipe, I
do use all that math (actually in a much less complicated form) that
Peter suggested. The way I formulate a recipe is that I first decide
what percentage I want of each grain, then I weight them all by their
relative extract potentials (slightly seat-of-the-pants... slightly
closer to the way Sam does than the way Peter does) and figure out
how many pounds of grist I'm going to need altogether based on points
per pound and gallons, including my system efficiency and OG. Then, I
multiply the grist weight by each percentage to get the pounds of
each grain.
Yes, this could all be done very technically as Peter suggests, but
rarely do homebrew shops ever get the actual data sheets for the lot
of malt they have and it's even rarer for hombrewers to get it. Yes,
if you buy 385 pounds of Munton & Fison Pale Ale malt at a time like
I do, you can call Munton & Fison and get the actual data for that lot
(although I've often gotten several different lots out of 7 bags!),
but I've grown tired of that and I get get within 0.001 SG by just
using my intuition.
I'd like to say this is the last word on this topic, but that would
be far too pompous.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 20:06:21 -0400
From: Dwayne Robert McKeel <drmckeel@twave.net>
Subject: Promoting Homebrewing
Greetings Fellow Brewers,
In the current issue of Brewing Techniques, Stephen Mallery, publisher
of BT, announces a joint effort by BT and the Home Wine & Beer Trade
Association to promote homebrewing to the general public. While I
applaud this effort, I think it is a perfect example of the pathetic
atrophy of the AHA. Afterall this is a stated goal of that organization
and their attemps to do so have thus far fallen way short of the mark! I
challenge the readers of this forum to contribute to this effort by
teaching a friend or acquaintance how to brew.
Also, in the near future, when I find the time, further post on the
removal of medium weight protiens by IM (not!), fridge cycling and RIMS
pumps.
Teach A Friend to Brew
Dwayne (I've never met a beer I didn't want to brew) McKeel
Musty Olde Cellar Homebrewery
The smallest artisanal brewery in North Carolina, brewer of the finest
belgian-style and Scottish Ales in Alexander County and as far as I
know the only steam heated RIMS in both the Carolinas
mentioned article
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue6.4/editorial.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:51:41 -0400
From: Bob.Sutton@fluordaniel.com
Subject: Points vs. Pounds - yeah, but....
Although I've enjoyed the banter discussing how to ratio recipe percentages, it
seems that we've lost track of what we're attempting to do. That is, recreate a
particular example of a model beer. "Lord Peter" describes the means to compute
point-based clone, which except for moisture characterization (this shortcoming
is also present in the weight based examples) is a great homework problem. "Lord
Peter" concludes:
"Summary rounded to three digits:
Target : 5.177
Test Brew with:
Briess 2 Row DW/C Pale DW/C Pils
5.167 lbs extract 5.016 lbs extract 4.974 lbs extract"
Admittedly I haven't checked the math, but assuming it sound, the conclusion it
leads to is faulty. These aren't equivalents!. Although they may be point
equivalents, numerous flavor profiles of these grains will influence the taste
and feel of the final beer. If you're going to clone, you need to duplicate the
malts. If you make substitutions, at best you might create a similar beer, but
odds are you probably will miss your mark. Using the same malts obviates the
weight vs. point percentage calculations.
All for now!
Bob
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
Yesterdays' Technology Today
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 02:57:14 -0400
From: "Rob Jones" <robjones@pathcom.com>
Subject: Mega IBU?
Whoops,
My original post, as one HBDer pointed out, didn't include any %AA.
They are as follows:
Northern Brewer - 8%AA
Fuggles - 4.4%AA
Goldings - 5%AA
Thanks again.
Rob
>Hi all,
>
>Here's one for the mathematically inclined in the crowd (or those
>spreadsheet inclined). I calculated the IBU's for a recipe for a British
>style pale ale that I really like after hopping up the original recipe a
>bit.
>
>According to my calculations I get 84 IBUs! Could this be true? I'm
>skeptical about the accuracy of my calculations given that it doesn't seem
>that bitter to me. Could it be my math is right and I'm a lupinomaniac
after
>all?
>
>Here's the facts:
>
>45g Northern Brewer at 75 minute addition
>30g Fuggles at 75 minute addition
>30g Fugles at 15 minute addition
>60g East Kent Goldings dry hopped in pop tank ( if this is felt to be a
>factor)
>
>All are whole hops. I assumed a kettle utilization of 30% for the 75min,
and
>10% for the 15min. Starting boil volume is 27L, or 7.12 gal. 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.
>
>Thanks,
>Rob Jones
>Toronto, Canada
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 15:50:55 +1000
From: David lamotte <lamotted@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Corrosion of Stainless Steel
I have been following the excellent comments and observations posted
on the damage that bleach can do to stainless steel.
Rather than add to the 'Does/Does Not' type of debate by dusting off
my old metallurgy text books, I would like to refer you good people to
the excellent article by John Palmer on Brewery Corrosion. This was
published in Brewing Techniques (March/April 1995). and is available
online at http://realbeer.com/jjpalmer/
Stainless steel is stainless due to the presence of a passive oxide
layer, and chlorine in the cleaning or sanitizing solutions can cause
this protective oxide layer to deteriorate. This WILL happen at any
change on the keg surface e.g. screw threads on a fitting, a deep
scratch, rubber gasket or the waterline between the liquid and air.
The Chlorine in the cleaning solution acts to deplete the area of
oxygen, which then breaks down the passive layer. It can also occur
by allowing chlorinated water to evaporate and dry on a steel surface
allowing the chlorides to become concentrated. The next time the
surface is wetted, corrosion will immediately take place, creating a
shallow pit. This will continue with each drying cycle causing it to
eventually corrode through.
The key issues is not does bleach corrode stainless (it does), but how
much corrosion occurs. If you use weak, cold solutions for a short
time, no damage will be done. If however a stronger/hotter/longer
cleaning is used, then you will probably see little pits develop at
the waterline. Maybe not the first time you use bleach, but sooner or
later you will forget and leave it soaking too long.
This is just a quick summary of John's article, and I would encourage
everyone to read it in full if you wish to understand all the issues
involved.
David Lamotte
Brewing down under in the steel city of Newcastle NSW Australia
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 98 00:38:12 MDT (Tue)
From: rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Pear Cider
caburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) wrote:
[liked Wyder, didn't find recipe he liked]
> Where can I find a simple pear cider recipe and how many pounds of pears do
> I need to crush to get 1 gallon (I'll scale up)?
"Perry" is the name you want. (perry:pear :: cider:apple) The simple
recipe is to get a bunch of pear juice and ferment it, period. You don't
need any additions; if you get fresh juice you probably don't even need to
add yeast. (This is not like brewing beer! It's a lot more like making
wine.) When making cider or perry, you don't want a rip-roaring fermenta-
tion...slow and gentle will give you a better result. Keep the temp down.
Figure at least a couple months for a nice fermentation. Use fresh juice,
and keep everything clean.
Ferment it out, then decide what combination of sweet/dry and still/fizzy
you want, and stabilize or prime at bottling accordingly.
You get about the same yield for pears as for apples--it depends on the
grinder and the press, but somewhere in the ballpark of 40-60% yield depen-
ding on the fruit and the efficiency of the equipment. By this I mean that
you'll get about half the weight of the fruit you start with as juice by
weight. (I figure 20 lb fruit to get a gallon of juice; this way if I'm
ever surprised it's a pleasant surprise.) Figure that the juice will be
around 1050-1060 SG. If you ferment it out, it will finish below 1000.
You're not going to find perry pears...nobody who has them is likely to be
looking to give away those pears or the juice...but fortunately, "dessert"
(eating/cooking) pears make a good perry (much better than dessert apples
make a cider). I think you might be surprised how much character you can
get from pears, given the (apparently bland) taste of the raw fruit.
Don't let the pears get too ripe before juicing. Again, compare/contrast
with apples, you want to get apples ripe and a bit soft to improve the
yield, but with pears if you get them too ripe the pulp gets slippery and
harder to press. If you use a mesh filter bag in your press, the pulp of
ripe pears is slippery enough that the bag can slide around and let the
pulp ooze through.
Perry is notoriously hard to clear. You can work on it with pectinase
("pectic enzyme") at the start, or you can be *very* patient, or you can
accept some cloudiness in the result (or a bit of each). Oak chips or
shavings during fermentation add character and will also help clarify.
Apple and pear combine well...if you've ever got a few gallons of not-too-
interesting apple juice, add a gallon or two of pear and ferment.
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
...Mr. Natural says, "Get the right tool for the job."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Spelling schmelling
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lahgah...
Mark Twain once said that it is a very limited man who can only spell a
word one way.
Now go have a tripppppppppel.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:32:22 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: botox (yes, that's botulism)
I'm sure some of you saw 20/20 last night. They had a segment on Botox -
yes, that's botulism toxin. It was being injected into facial muscles to
eliminate or lessen forehead wrinkles, crow's feet, etc. It paralyzes
the muscle, making it unable to cause the "squint lines", it lasts
approx 6 months. There was dissent, some people saying that it is too
dangerous to be used in such an unnecessary way. As usual for the news
media, the coverage was mostly superficial, no depth. They didn't
mention brewing issues once - although I did notice that some of the
proponents were wearing plaid.
Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:06:46 -0500
From: "Lutzen, Karl F." <kfl@umr.edu>
Subject: Re: How do I remove TSP stains from my carboy?
Jeff Winkler writes:
> I tend to clean my carboys after use with a water/bleach mixture and
> then add several tbsps of TSP to soak for several days. Well, I
screwed
> up and left a carboy full of this solution for about two weeks. This
> weekend I finally emptied my carboy and now I have this white film on
> the inside of my carboy that nothing seems to remove. I've scrubbed
and
> resoaked with bleach and it will not go away. Does anyone have any
> ideas on how to remove this??
Well, Jeff, it has been my experience with TSP that it will etch glass
and ceramics. It says so on the box. Take a look at your box of TSP
and see if it says this. It does depend on the concentration of TSP and
length of contact, so you have been lucky up to this point. As for
removal, I think you're stuck with an etched carboy. Sorry.
=====================================================================
Karl F. Lutzen | Computing and Information Services
Scientific Programmer Analyst II | University of Missouri - Rolla
E-Mail: kfl@umr.edu | 114 Math-Computer Science Bldg.
Fax: (573) 341-4216 | 1870 Miner Circle
Voice: (573) 341-4841 | Rolla, MO 65409-0360
=====================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:05:52 EDT
From: MicahM1269@aol.com
Subject: Benjamin CP filler
>Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:13:08 -0400
>From: David Sherfey <sherf@warwick.net>
>Subject: Re: Counter pressure filling / Benjamin filler
>I'm still using my Benjamin Machine Products filler which uses quick
>release valves for the gas and purge lines instead of the rotary valves.
>Much easier to use IMO. Are these still in production? Does anyone
>sell a similar three valve CP filler? I would like to have source to
>send people who see mine and want one like it.
>Cheers!
>David Sherfey
>Warwick, NY
Yes, the BMP fillers are still available, the web site is
http://members.aol.com/bmpbfd3/index.html
or call 209-523-8874
BTW, I have been using my CP filler for some 10 years now. I would never
consider
any other method of filling beer bottles ( at home ).
micah millspaw - brewer at large
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:37:29 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Forced fermentation / fermenting in cornies
Hi all,
Charley is having trouble with his Bocktoberfest not getting down to
the final gravity he desired. Jim Busch asked the very good question
about whether or not Charley had performed a forced fermentation to
determine the actual fermentation end point. Charley replied that he
had not.
Is this the end for Charley? Will he never know what his final
gravity should have been? Will he have to buy a Clinitest kit?
For the answer to these, and other burning questions, tune in next
week...
Oh, heck, enough dramatics. The answer to all of the above questions
is "No." Charlie can determine his final gravity even at this point.
Simply perform the forced fermentation on the young beer. Remove ~100
mL sample from the fermenter using aseptic technique. Pitch in a
packet of dried yeast (don't rehydrate in water it or you will be
diluting your fermentation sample and get an erroneously low gravity
reading). Let it ferment out at 80F or so for a couple of days (just
to be sure). Measure the gravity. Simple!
------------------------------
Badger asks about using blow-off tubes when fermenting in Corny kegs.
He is concerned that the narrow diameter of the tube could invite
trouble in the form of a clogged tube (and subsequent uncontrolled
pressure release).
I have always used small diameter blow-off tubes without a problem.
Before you try this at home read on:
I always get excellent separation of hot break and hop debris from my
wort in my whirlpool. There is NO visible hop debris in my
fermenters. There are no visible chunks of any kind. Cold break is
there, but cold break particles are far too small to clog a blow-off
tube.
The Corny keg itself is rated for quite a bit of pressure (~120 psi if
I remember correctly), so even if the tube did clog, you aren't going
to send shrapnel flying all over your house. The tube would come
loose (or the clog blown out) before the keg would even think that it
was feeling stressed.
I still wouldn't fill a Corny to the rim, though. You would end up
losing a lot of beer in the blow-off. Why not just use two kegs?
Used cornies are about the same price as carboys (sometimes cheaper)
and you really have to go out of your way to break them.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2781, 07/29/98
*************************************
-------
