Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2802
HOMEBREW Digest #2802 Wed 19 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:
Re: Spectrophotometric measurment of IBUs/Color (AJ)
sources for Sankey kegs ("Cameron LiDestri")
Funny Guy/Brew Pub Mash Schedule (EFOUCH)
killer yeasts ("phil grossblatt")
Some Pump Wiring Help? (Bradd Wheeler)
AHA bashing/ bottling Imperial Stout ("Victor Farren")
First Batch Questions (IAN FORBES)
Cesky pivo/yeast storage ("Brad McMahon")
Carbonation confusion (Steve Jackson)
water analysis (JPullum127)
Amber Ale (OGP-Tempe)" <vjm@ogpnet.com>
Secondary fermentation / accidental high mash temp (George_De_Piro)
kegging ("arne seeger")
AOB/AHA (John Wilkinson)
New Hop Variety: Santiam (Tim Burkhart)
autoclaving bottles (Eric James Urquhart)
water reports? (Badger Roullett)
parti-gyle, Party Guy (Badger Roullett)
weizenbock ("Bryan L. Gros")
Yeast Growth (Jim Liddil)
Beer Label of the Week ("Jay Krause")
Women & beer ("Hans E. Hansen")
Toronto weekend (Bill Watt)
Yeast Data ("Mort O'Sullivan")
Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as
every sentence deserves proper punctuation...
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, 17 Aug 1998 20:56:00 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Spectrophotometric measurment of IBUs/Color
Fred Johnson had some questions about my post on measurement of BU's and
suggested that the HBD might want to see them and my answers:
> You recently posted to the HBD regarding measuring IBUs
> spectrophotometrically. I have read the standard homebrewing texts and
> publications regarding the measurement of IBUs and SRM
> spectrophotometrically and in both cases the upper end of the range of
> these values more bitter or dark beers (and not-so-dark beers) is well
> above 2 absorbance units. Now I was always cautioned in my graduate and
> post-graduate training (1980) that reading absorbance above about 1.2 was
> unreliable.
I've seen many similar comments and conclude that spectrophotometer
technology has come along a bit in the last 15 years or so. As I mentioned in
my post the very expensive (Varian/Cary) machines are advertized as being
able to read absorbances as high as 7. The instument I use (Hach DR/4000) is
probably more typical of what would be found in a small brewery's lab. It is
spec'd as having a photometric range of 3.0 and a stray light level of 3.3.
The noise floor is probably around 4.0. Linearity is, however, spec'ed only
at 1.0 and it is clear that non-linearity increases as absorbtion increases.
This is probably not so much from actual non linearity in the detector (which
could be taken out by the microprocessor) but from noise. Noise at 4 would
would cause a reading of 2.9 if the true absorbtion were 3. The first of the
two procedures I describe below indicates that my instrument is definitely
good to 2.0 but does show a noticeable decrease in linearity at 3.0. The
stray light is well below 3.3 but may be a factor in the nonlinearity at 3. I
tend to blame it mostly on noise because I see noise starting to creep in
above 3 and become very noticeable at 4 which is the maximum the instrument
displays.
> Reassaying the sample was required and in some cases dilution
> could be performed.
>
> I have been skeptical of the reported "non-linearity" or departure from
> Beer's law that is typically encountered in measuring color in beer,
> because the departure is on beers that have very high absorbance units by
> the standard measurement techniques (not diluting the beer). I suspect
> that the departure from linearity could be from the instruments
> limitations, not a true departure from Beer's law.
I have suspected the same. Certainly some of the things published on this
subject reveal some naivite with respect to the workings of
spectrophotometers.
> Your post to the HBD
> suggested to me the same phenomenon when measuring IBUs.
That's possible too, which is why I put in the comment about it being
incumbent on the analyst to know his instrument.
> Could you provide some reference or tell me how one distinguishes
> nonlinearity of the instrument versus a true departure from Beer's law?
I think the best way to do this is to put a sample of dark beer into a cell
whose thickness is such that the analyst is assured of a reading in the
linear part of his instrument's response (say below 1.2 to be really
conservative). Now dilute the beer 1:1 and place the dilution in a cell of
twice the thickness and measure again. Repeat for other combinations of
dilutions and cell thicknesses which should give the same absorbtion. If
Beer's law is being obeyed, the readings will be the same. If they are not,
it isn't.
A quick practical check on the limits of linearity can be done by running an
absorbtion scan from 400 to 700 nm on a darkish beer in cells of several
thicknesses, converting each to the same pathlength and plotting the curves.
As absorbtion at 430 nm is typically 25 times the absorbtion at 700 nm a wide
range of absorbtions will be encountered. The curves, when adjusted to the
same path, would overlie one another if the instrument were linear. With a
real machine the adjusted curves for the thicker paths will show less
absorbtion than the adjusted curves for thinner paths for values of
absorbtion at which deviation from linearity becomes appreciable. Note that
the adjustment to the common path uses the Lambert part of the Beer - Lambert
law. I have never seen the Lambert part questioned though there are logical
explanations as to why the Beer part may fail. These are consistent with many
of the explanations given for failure of other laws of physical chemistry
(interraction between charged particles) which are closely followed only by
"ideally dilute solutions", a phrase which some wags take to mean slightly
contaminated distilled water.
As an alternative to the procedure just given a beer could be measured in a
1 mm cell, 2 mm cell, 5 mm cell, 1 cm cell, 1" cell etc and the results
plotted vs path length. Departure from a straight line is a measure of the
nonlinearity of the instrument at the absorbtion at which the deviation
becomes noticeable defines the limit of the instrument's useful range. A
better way still would involve the use of neutral density filters which had
been calibrated on one of the super instruments or standard solutions of
dichromate.
Note: I have only checked Beer's law for the beer I am drinking as I write
this. It is fairly light (14.5 SRM) and does obey Beer's law in a 2.54:1
dilution.
Another Note: If doing any of the suggested measurements it is imperative
that the beer be free of bubbles. Even a bubbles here and there can scatter
light and make absorption appear to be substantially greater than it is.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:55:16 -0400
From: "Cameron LiDestri" <cameronl@wshu.org>
Subject: sources for Sankey kegs
I've been for awhile and have really gleaned alot from this list. Now I
have a question. I've read alot about converting sankey kegs for brewpots
etc, but no one has mentioned where they get them. Paying the deposit and
keeping the keg ain't kosher. I read somewhere that metal scrap yards have
them stacked like firewood and would be glad to sell 'em for about $10.
None of the scrap yards around here (southern CT) have them. Nor the
recycling centers. I called the local Bud distributor and he said they
always send 'em back to the brewery, no matter what condition. So...how
'bout it? Where else do I look?
-Cam
------------------------------
Date: 17 Aug 1998 09:48:53 -0400
From: EFOUCH@steelcase.com
Subject: Funny Guy/Brew Pub Mash Schedule
HBD-
Ok, due to the number of queries about my quip about our Electronic Janitor,
Pat Babcock, allow me to elucidate:
OF COURSE I was kidding! I thought the ludicrousness of someone being upset
about such a trivial thing was hilarious! I guess I'm just not as funny as I
thought I think I am. I'll keep my day job.
Apologies to anybody I responded to privately regarding their perceived
prudishness in not getting my joke. I take it all back- I'm sure all your
dogs are not gay.
On the discussion regarding brew pub mash schedules:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:39:52 -0700
From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak@home.com>
Subject: Simi-brew
Scott writes:
> Would it be fair to say that if
>all of your beers are made with a single temperature infusion mash,
>and 80% 2-row, and you use the same yeast strain for each, and the
>same fermentation strategy, that you're going to end up with beers
>that all pretty much taste the same?
Nope, wouldn't be fair to say that at all. Unfortunately, most brewpubs
offer very similar tasting beers because a) the brewer doesn't know what
the hell they are doing or b) market appeal dictates that they offer the
same (or similar) bland beer but in various colors (whatever seems to be
the current trend) e.g. bland red, bland nut brown, bland porter, etc.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I toured the Kalamazoo Brewing Co. last year (HBD 2453) the tour guide
claimed that they do all their mashes as single temp RIMS: They heat the
infusion water to 170F, and reheat the recirculations to 170F.
I found that hard to believe given the quality and flavor of Kalamazoo Brewing
Co. products. The only one of their beers I have not loved is their new "Home
Grown Ale" Needs work. The one bottle I had was skunky and tasted of
diacetyl. Others have reported similar experiences to me regarding that beer.
Larry Bell definitely knows what he is doing, and has blazed the trail for
Midwest brew pubs. Presumably with one yeast strain, and a single temp. mash
profile. I would have thought these were two of the most restrictive
parameters in making a distinctive quality product: ie. if you limit yourself
to one yeast strain and one temp for infusion, you have shot yourself in the
creative foot.
Maybe a lot more talent and skill is involved, eh?
Eric Fouch
Minister of Apologetics
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood MI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:10:50 -0600
From: "phil grossblatt" <philgro@swcp.com>
Subject: killer yeasts
Dave Burley doubts my calling him on his incorrect assertion that
killer yeast are so named because they create large amounts of
sulfite:
> Phil Grossblatt doubts my comment about Lallemand's
> Killer Yeast being due to sulfite production and then proposes
> some unknown protein which is supposed to kill undesired yeast
> ( but not bacteria?).
>
> Well, my information came from a discussion with a
> Lallemand Yeast Salesman some years ago. It is possible
> he was incorrect. Would you care to provide us with the "real"
> information Lallemand has instead of postulating some unknown
> protein? Kinda leaves us up in the air, particularly since you appear
> to be speaking for Lallemand. sort of.
The exact name of the protein is unknown by ME,but it is not an
"unknown" protein.Yeasts can be screened for this protein ("killer
factor"),and those that create it are then dubbed killer yeasts.
The most common strain,K1,is just one of these types.Some yeast
actually show resistance to the killer factor.
My sources for this fact are Amerine+Ough's textbook on wine
production,and a conversation with Scott Labs,which is a dealer for
Lallemand's products.I'd quote the text with the page number and
edition,but it's at work.I believe you were the one speaking for
Lallemand-I merely suggested that I doubted they would be giving
out misinformation,when the true situation is an established fact
and has been known for over a decade.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bradd Wheeler <braddw@rounder.com>
Subject: Some Pump Wiring Help?
I recently purchased a magnetic drive pump from Moving Brews. the
specifications being 110v, 60Hz, 1 Phase, 80 Watts, 1.2 Amps.
I have a very rudimentary understanding of electricity so let me explain
my situation and perhaps someone can help.
Coming from the pump I've got 3 wires Black, White and Green. I purchased
an extension cord (Heavier gauge than the leads from the pump) which also
has Black, White and Green wires. I know at least that Green is the
ground and I am assuming Black is negative and white is positive.
Now, If I were to cut off the female plug from the extension cord
and then connect White to White, Green to Green, and Black to
Black the pump would work properly once plugged in correct?
My question comes about installing a switch between the pump and the wall
plate. For this purpose I would like to use a simple household light
switch in a watertight PVC housing. On the switch there are 3
connections, one for the ground, and 2 for the switch. As I understand
it, with the switch in the off position, the connection between the latter
two is broken and with the switch in the on position this connection is
completed.
Now my question. Can I simply wire the ground to the ground, the White to
the White, and then Wire the Black wires one to each of the connections on
the switch? Therefore interrupting the circuit when the switch is off and
completing it when the switch is on?
I apologize for my rudimentary explanation here, but if anyone can help
out I would be much obliged.
I'd hate to have to pay an electrician to do what I assume is pretty easy
to do, but then again I don't want to burn out my pump, or for that
matter, me!
All this work, I'm gettin' real thirsty for that Best Bitter .. .. .. ..
Thanks alot .. ... ....
- Bradd Wheeler
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:20:50 -0400
From: "Victor Farren" <vfarren@smtp.cdie.org>
Subject: AHA bashing/ bottling Imperial Stout
I do not want to start another AHA bashing thread, please! It is just
that I am fairly new to the digest and have noticed a definite anti-AHA
current amongst certain members. I have to say that I am not a real big
fan of their publication (Zymurgy) as I find they have a lot of fluff in
it. I prefer the more technical articles found in Brewing Techniques, but
that is just me. Anyone care to provide me a short history of why the AHA
is despised? Someone posted something about the AHA trying to do
something to the digest??
Private emails are fine, in fact encouraged.
I posted a long question about a week ago and never got an answer so
I'll post again. I am about to bottle an Imperial Stout (OG 1.090) and
had read in a post that it is a good idea to include some fresh yeast in
order to ensure proper carbonation.
Can I add fresh starter from the dregs of the 2ndary and use the newly
fermenting yeast when bottling or will the high alcohol in the IS have
made them too loopy to do a good job? Will they be prone to giving off
flavors? I know that it is not a good idea to ferment another batch with
yeast that has fermented a BIG beer b/c the alcohol content mutates them,
but I don't know if that would hold for bottling where there is a small
addition of fermentable sugar and thus not a lot of new fermenting going
on.
Thanks in advance,
Victor
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:30:19 -0400
From: IAN FORBES <IFORBES@BCBSCT.COM>
Subject: First Batch Questions
Hello to all,
I just brewed my first batch of beer last Wednesday and I have several
questions/concerns. I know that I will receive valuable information from
the collective so I have decided to post the recipe and my notes here.
First the recipe;
6.6 lbs John Bull Light Malt Extract
3/4 lb Honey Malt
1 oz Styrian Goldings Hops (plugs) 60 min
1/2 oz Styrian Goldings Hops (plug) 5 min
1 pkg EDME dry yeast
boil volume 2.5 gal
final volume 5 gal
og 1.056
ok. I steeped the honey malt at 170 deg for 30 min, removed grain bag,
added the extract, and brought the wort to a boil. I added my hops per
schedule and completed the boil. Towards the end of the boil I
rehydrated the yeast in 90 deg water. At the end of the boil I removed
my hop bags and added the wort to 3 gal cooled sanitized water in the
fermentation bucket. I tried to avoid splashing as much as possible.
After I had combined the wort and water the mixture was still about 125
deg. I don't know why, but I thought it would be much cooler (in
hindsight I guess I wasn't thinking very much). I cooled and aerated the
wort to just under 80 deg and pitched the yeast.
Now for my questions and concerns;
1) Even though I was trying to be careful not to splash hot wort, I know
for a fact that several times when I took the spoon out I let drops fall
back in (I need to work on cultivating a "brewer's mentality" my habits in
the kitchen). How bad is this?
2) It took a looong time to cool the wort down to 80 deg from 125 (about
1.5 hours). During this time I had the fermentation bucket (plastic) in a
cool water bath and I was constantly stirring the wort gently so as not
to aerate the mixture. What is the likelihood that I have infected my batch
due to leaving the wort exposed to my kitchen air for so long. What is
the likelihood that the wort suffered by being to hot for to long and how
likely is it that I caused HSA even though I was trying to be careful?
3) When I pitched the yeast into the wort I did not stir the yeast in, I just
poured it into previously aerated wort. Should I have mixed or stirred
the yeast in?
4) Is there any type of guide as to how tight or loose the weave on hop
and grain bags should be? The ones I used seemed kind of loose and it
seemed that quite a few particles were released into the wort. Is this
normal?
5) I also need to learn patience, but I just couldn't help myself. Last night
(Monday) I had to peek at my fermenting brew. I never really saw active
fermentation (plastic for this batch, but never again!), but I knew
something was going on, even though there was no bubbling in the air
lock, because the next day the Fermomoter (sp?) showed a temp of 78
when the air temp was 70. My curiosity got the best of me so I opened
it up and took a hydrometer reading. The gravity is at 1.020. I figured
out that I should get down to between 1.016 - 1.019 based on the
apparent attenuation listing for the yeast I used. So I am guessing it is
nearly completed. Having never witnessed a batch of fermented/ing
beer I have a few questions about appearance. This batch smelled like
beer. The top was not clear which is what I expected. On the top there
were clusters of bubbles that I would describe as bubbles that a spittle
bug would produce (if you know what that looks like). There are also
very small (half a pea) sized "globs' on the surface. Some of these
stuck to my hydrometer when I pulled it out and I am guessing that it is
some type of break material? One of the reasons that I wanted to see
the beer is that I was having nightmares that I would take the top off and
there would be such a bad infection that the beer would pull itself out of
the bucket. I am thinking that this is probably not an infection because; 1
- it doesn't smell infected, and 2 - the fermentation must have occurred
incredibly fast (started within 6-8 hrs and completed within 36 hours) so
that it doesn't seem like there was a large window of time for infection
to occur. What do you think. Should I let this sit for awhile longer,
should I rack and bottle or what?
Before I brew my next batch I plan on purchasing a glass carboy so I
can make sure I am keeping the air out and so I can see what is going on
when curiosity gets the best of me. I also plan on making an immersion
chiller and I plan on buying some iodophor for the quick contact time
requirements.
Before I go I would like to thank all of you who contacted me after my
first post with recommendations for starter kits. I would also like to
thank Al K., and Al if I had followed all of your advice I would be writing
this post! And a big thanks to HBD for an amazing amount of useful
information. Keep up the good work everyone.
Ian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:03:04 +0930
From: "Brad McMahon" <brad@sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Cesky pivo/yeast storage
>One thing I've noticed in many American clones, and even several
>European lagers, is a lack of the acidic undertones that make a PU,
>Lobkowicz, or Velke Popovice so great.
Ahh, pivo primo od kozla!
I don't perceive them as being acidic, rather than that taste being
a product of bitterness and yeast.
>I'm curious to hear what the more expert tasters have to say about
>the sour undertones. For example, Sam Adams's Bohemian lager falls
>flat on its face (IMHO), yet I recall (vaguely) that its
>decoction-brewed and uses only the finest Saaz hops.
Haven't tried SA Bohemian lager, but have tried their Golden Pilsner
and that wasn't close, though Pete's Wicked Bohemian Pilsner was
a credible version, that was reminiscent (to me) of Mestan or
Radegast.
Sour undertones? Only on old kegs. I had _terrible_ Velkopovicke
Kozel at that American sports bar on Vodickova (I think, somewhere
off Vaclavske nam. at any rate), couldn't finish the glass.
>I've recently found an article Ed Basgall posted in HBD #2151,
>regarding freezing yeast in a 15% DME solution. I thought this might
>be a good idea for me, as I'm kind of clumsy and inexperienced in
>handling slants. I can't decide which would be a better method,
>slants or frozen wort.
Storage in vials with distilled water should be OK, but I store in
freezer with 25%yeast,and a 50/50 solution of distilled water and
glycerine.
> However, I've often read that weisen is usually brewed with
> one strain, filtered, and bottled with yet another.
> If this is so, how should I go about capturing and reproducing a
> truly genuine weisen?
That's usually the case, but the culturing strain page at
http://www.nada.kth.se/~alun/Beer/Bottle-Yeasts/
shows that Schoefferhoffer doesn't do that. I can get this
beer locally, but haven't tried culturing their hefeweizen since
learning this, so I can't vouch for its validity.
>Do they breed in captivity?
At the risk of sounding glib, yes. I can't see the problem with
trying the Wyeast/Yeastlabs/whoever strains. They have been cultured
from Weihenstephan or Bavarian breweries anyway.
Na Zdravi!
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Carbonation confusion
I was contemplating the issues of bottle carbonation last night
(nothing better to do, I guess) and came across a paradox that I can't
figure (or find) an explanation for.
As I understand bottle conditioning, it typically takes the yeast a
very short amount of time -- on the order of a day or two -- to
ferment the sugar (I'm assuming the use of glucose here, since wort or
DME would take longer). The remainder of the wait is for the evolved
CO2 to dissolve into solution.
Now, CO2 will more readily (and more quickly) dissolve into solution
at lower temperatures. So, logic would dictate that after fermentation
of the priming solution has been completed, carbonation would occur
quicker if the bottle were dropped to a lower temperature.
My experience runs completely counter to this. In the winter months,
when the apartment is kept around 70 (and the beer closet probably
around 65), it frequently takes a good three weeks for my beer to
carbonate. In the summer months, when the apartment is about 78 (and
the beer closet probably in the low 70s), I frequently have beers
carbonate in a week.
Given CO2's "reluctance" to dissolve at warmer temps, I would think
that carbonation would take *longer* during the summer, at least in
theory. Of course, I realize that there are many things that are
supposed to take place in theory and operate completely differently in
practice, and this may be one of them. I'm simply curious as to why
theory and practice don't mesh in this case (or if I'm simply
misunderstanding or misapplying the theory).
-Steve in Indianapolis
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:55:06 EDT
From: JPullum127@aol.com
Subject: water analysis
beyond a doubt brewers are the nicest and most helpfull folks around. i got
over 1/2 dozen offers to help me interperet my water analysis. thanks to all
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 98 08:55:00 EDT
From: "Mitchell, Vincent (OGP-Tempe)" <vjm@ogpnet.com>
Subject: Amber Ale
Howdy all,
First I would like to thank Al Korzonas for responding to my dirty dishwater
question. Second I was wondering if anyone out there has a good recipe for
either a Irish red type ale or an amber ale. I am an extract and specialty
grain brewer, but have been known dive into an all-grain from time to time.
Your replies will be greatly welcomed.
Vince Mitchell
vjm@ogpnet.com
mitchells@inficad.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:37:05 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Secondary fermentation / accidental high mash temp
Hi all,
Dave H. relates a tale of woe about his fermentation being sluggish
despite the fact that he pitched a high-volume starter. The ferment
was going strong shortly after pitching, and after just 72 hours
airlock activity at fallen off, so he racked the beer to the
"secondary fermenter." The SG was 1.020. Several days later is it is
only down to 1.017.
Once again the term "secondary fermenter" has caused a fermentation
problem. It really should be referred to as a "clearing tank" or
somesuch. Dave removed the majority of the yeast from the beer before
his fermentation was complete. No wonder it is sluggish now!
Unless the young beer has been on the primary yeast for so long as to
cause you concern about yeasty off-flavors (1-2 weeks depending on
temperature and strain) leave it on the yeast until fermentation is
done (or really close to it). The poorly named "secondary" is really
a clearing tank where excess yeast can be allowed (or forced) to
flocculate, and finings and such can be added.
I often don't bother using a "secondary" at all for some styles of
beer. If clarity isn't an issue (like with Hefeweizen) I prefer to
minimize the number of transfers (each transfer brings the risk of
oxidation and infection, not to mention extra work).
Dave's beer will probably finish, but if he wants to speed things up
he could give it a dose of Kraeusen wort.
------------------------------
Lou H. asks about the consequences of holding the mash at 160F (71.1C)
for 20 minutes before cooling it down to his intended saccharification
temperature.
Beta amylase can only survive for 10 minutes at 158F (70C). Your wort
will be very dextrin-rich and finish at a higher gravity than you had
hoped. You probably achieved complete conversion (your clear lauter
runoff indicates this, as well as the long time you spent at alpha
amylase friendly temperatures.
I have made sweet stouts without milk sugar by mashing at 71C and
using almost no hops. Works pretty well, and your lactose intolerant
and vegan friends will be able to drink it.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:04:37 -0600
From: "arne seeger" <seeger@pdrpip.com>
Subject: kegging
I am getting ready to purchase my first korny kegging system and I have a
few questions. I like the idea of force carbonation so I don't have to
wait so long to try my brew, what is the best way to force carbonate? When
force carbonating does the carbonation stay indefinetly? Looking through
many catalogs I noticed a lot of places sell carbonation stones. What are
they, how do they work, and are they worth the $20? I live in a place
where there are no homebrew shops or clubs so HBD has been a great source
for info. I hate venturing into new territory blind so any help is greatly
appreciated.
Thanks,
Arne Seeger
seeger@pdrpip.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 98 12:13:17 CDT
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: AOB/AHA
Jim Liddil wrote:
>Remember what the AOB/AHA tried to do to this forum.
I don't remember them trying to do anything to this forum. As I remember it
they picked up HBD when the original janitor had to let it go and they tried
to adapt it to a different mail server. They had problems and were flailed
pretty well for every error. When they abandoned it after all the abuse
Pat and Karl were good enough to pick it up. Granted they are much more
competent and are doing a much better job but I don't think AOB/AHA tried
to "do" anything to the forum. They didn't do the job of taking over HBD
very well but I can't say I blame them for dropping it after all the hell
they caught. We are quite lucky anyone will take this on and should keep in
mind what it is costing us. Nothing.
Thanks again Karl and Pat.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:53:46 -0500
From: Tim Burkhart <tburkhart@dridesign.com>
Subject: New Hop Variety: Santiam
I'm not a hop grower (yet) or a user of Tettnanger but thought this might be
of interest to someone.
The USDA-ARS is announcing their "Santiam" hop as a new naturally seedless
variety of Tettnanger.
They say that while Tettnanger is grown in the U.S., its yield is lower
than Tettnager grown in Germany. Santiam supposedly yields twice as much as
U.S. grown Tettnager.
There is a very short article on the Science Update page of the August '98
Agriculture Research magazine.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/aug98/sci0898.htm ...scroll to the
bottom of the page.
Tim Burkhart
Kansas City
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric James Urquhart <eurquhar@sfu.ca>
Subject: autoclaving bottles
In response to the use of an autoclave to "sanitize " bottles, just do it.
I have done this many times with not 1 bottle ever breaking. A 20 minute
run on dry cycle at 121 C will STERILIZE the bottles. Put a small
aluminium foil cap over the top ( about 4 inches wide before forming over
the opening) and run. Just make sure the bottles are free of deposits as
they will harden and darken during sterilization. They will be sterile
though.
Eric Urquhart, Centre for Pest Management,
Dept. of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University,
8888 University Drive,
Burnaby, British Columbia, CANADA V5A 1S6
lab (604) 291-3090 fax (604) 291-3496
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:29:02 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: water reports?
is there a web page that is collecting the major cities water reports out
there? i am from Seattle, and i know some has done it. if somewhere out
there is a water report for my city, can someone point me in the right
direction?
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: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:29:04 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: parti-gyle, Party Guy
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:49:26 -0700
From: "Riedel, Dave" <RiedelD@PAC.DFO-MPO.GC.CA>
Subject: Parti-Gyle Brewing/Thanks Mark!
>Badger brought up the parti-gyle concept of big/small beer
>brewing in a single batch. I have a data-point to pass on.
Thanks!! this is exactly what i was looking for. this and all the helpful
mails i have recieved are making this learnign curve less steep, and more
fun!!
>Using about 12 lbs of malt, I made 3 gallons of 1.099
>Barleywine and 6 gallons of 1.048ish Brown Ale by using
>the first runnings for the BW, then adding some chocolate
>malt, recirc'ing a bit then sparging the grain bed to get the
>brown ale. Both beers came out very well.
i am guessing you added the choc malt to the grain not the BW... :) I
would very much like to see your recipie, and amounts if you still have that
information around. what size mash tun did you use for this.
Of all the mails i have recieved. two methods seem the most likely to
achieve two good beers.
1: above method. smaller first runnings, larger second. hydrometer
readings to reach a set gravity control this method.
2: same size batches, but adding more grain to the mash tun for the second
runnings to achieve a slightly less "small" small beer. the factoid posted
(to me or to list i don't remember) about 2 equal sized runnings woudl
result in 70% of sugars in first runnings, and %30 in second runnings are
useful here.
I am not sure which way i am going yet, but i have a weekend freeing up in
two weeks, and i am going to try then. i will post results when i get it.
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: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:23:25 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: weizenbock
For my holiday beer this year, I'd like to make a weizenbock. I
had a great pint (okay, half litre) at Baltimore Brewing one day.
My understanding of the style is basically that it is a "high gravity"
bavarian wheat beer. I'm definately looking for the weizen esters
and phenols.
Questions.
What OG should I shoot for. 1080?
Does the Wyeast 3068 work well for this style?
Any mashing or fermentation advice?
Thanks.
- Bryan
Bryan Gros gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.valhallabrewing.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:43:24 +0000
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: Yeast Growth
Steve Alexander has mentioned how various sources indicate yeast
multiplication amounts. so I thought I would post what I have found. Do
these numbers matter to us as homebrewers is the question I will address
later. This will be in the context of what I think matters adn what I do.
Not what everyone else should think or do.
As far a books go I personally feel one should have every brewing book ever
written. Also a good basic chemistry text, organic chemistry text, an
analytical chemistry text, a copy of Ionic Equilibrium by Q. Fernando, a P.
chem text, and a biochem text. A few microbiolgy books are also good. And
access to a good university library. And yes it certainly help to have a good
grasp of all of the above when one goes to a brewing school.
Jim Liddil
Yeast Technology
"Generally, there is a sixfold to eightfold yeast growth during a commercial
brewery fermentation"
M&BS vol. 2 pg 619
"Commercial fermentations generally result in between two and three doublings
of the yeast population."
>From Brewing Science J.R.Pollock
For lager a maximum of 30-50 million cells/ml
For Ale 60-100 million cells/ml
The Practical Brewer
Reproduction ratio of 4 for bottom yeasts
Pitching rate (g/L) yeast collected (g/L)
0.54 3.01
1.10 3.56
1.60 4.08
2.32 4.7
4.62 6.91
Declerck
Fourfold increase for lager
Tenfold increase for ale
Brewing by Lewis and Young
"the brewer can expect to produce about five times the amount of yeast he
or she uses"
"Even on wort yeast must be cajoled into producing the maximum amount of
alcohol and the minimum amount of growth by restricting the availability of
oxygen and using lower fermentation temperatures (9-20 C) than those
preferred by the organism (25-28 C)"
The Biotechnology of malting and brewing j.s hough
"such an inoculum therefore only multiplies 4-5 fold, equivalent to each cell
dividing by budding 2-3 times"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:18:41 -0500
From: "Jay Krause" <krause@galis.com>
Subject: Beer Label of the Week
Sorry for the wrong address, it should be:
http://members.tripod.com/~beerlable
You just get in the habit of typing "www."
Thanks,
Jay Krause
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:19:54 -0700
From: "Hans E. Hansen" <hansh@teleport.com>
Subject: Women & beer
Monika sez:
<
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:07:04 -0500
From: Monika Schultz <mschultz@spacehab.com>
Subject: Women Brewers
There has been some speculation lately about why so few women brew beer
these days. One poster suggested lifting heavy carboys, etc may be one
reason. As a female brewer, I think it's even more basic than that.
Most women simply don't like beer. Certainly not ALL women (no gender
slight intended), I know a few who love beer. > <snip>
I know quite a few women who like the taste of at least some
beers, but won't drink them because they complain that beer
"makes me gassy."
I thought that was, in part, the object of beer drinking. :^)
Hans E. Hansen
hansh@teleport.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:32:18 -0700
From: Bill Watt <wattbrew@buffnet.net>
Subject: Toronto weekend
I am going to Toronto this weekend and unfortunately will not have time
to visit all the beer places I would like. So, I turn to you for help.
If you could only visit 1 or 2 pubs or breweries, what would they be? I
will go with the majority.
TIA for the tips.
Bill Watt
- --
Brewing beer in Lancaster, NY
Watt's Brewing
Bill Watt - wattbrew@buffnet.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:20:42 +0100
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater@brew-master.com>
Subject: Yeast Data
A while back someone (I can't remember who) asked for for representative
cell counts for a given weight or volume of sedimented yeast.
The problem with this request is that the cell concentration in your yeast
cake depends on the packing density of your yeast. This will in turn depend
on a number of factors such as average cell size, flocculation
characteristics and other cell surface phenomenon, and probably a half
dozen other factors. Thus the concentration of cells in your cake will vary
not only between different yeast strains, but also with the same strain if
the average age and/or size of the cells is different from one batch to the
next.
You could minimize these differences somewhat by forcing tighter packing of
the cells through centrifugation. This is what I do when pitching my
experimental fermentations and as a rule of thumb, it generally works out
that 0.35 g of yeast cells centrifuged at 4000g for 5 min and pitched into
100 ml of medium will give a cell concentration of 12 million cells/ml.
The other day I happened to have 7 flasks of leftover yeast so I decided I
would demonstrate how the concentration of yeast in the sediment varies
between strains. I let the yeast settle naturally and stored it under fully
fermented beer in the refrigerator for 72 h. I then decanted off the liquid
and transferred a known weight of the yeast cake to a clean centrifuge tube
and added distilled water to make approximately 10 ml (but I knew *exactly*
how much in each particular case). I then counted the yeast and calculated
the cells/unit weight in the original slurry.
To test my own rule-of-thumb method, I then centrifuged each of these tubes
at 4000g for 5 minutes, decanted off the liquid, and weighed the yeast so
that I could calculate the cells/g.
The data for 7 different yeast strains is shown below. I am only providing
the data so that those who wish can use it as a rough guide for figuring
out how much yeast to pitch. However, I make no claims that my results
would be the same you would achieve, even using the same 7 strains. (I
hope the rows don't wrap to multimple lines--they are all 75 or fewer
characters):
+++Cell Concentration of Yeast Cake (Gravity Sedimentation)+++
A B C D E F G
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Wt. of yeast (g) 0.55 0.9 1.88 2.06 1.2 1.31 2.32
Dilution (ml) 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.20 10.25 10.62 10.13
Conc. (cells/ml) 4.6E+8 2.3E+8 7.7E+8 5.6E+8 2.3E+8 3.6E+8 8.2E+8
Viability 85.1% 89.0% 96.4% 96.4% 93.5% 97.9% 100.0%
Total Cells 4.6E+9 2.3E+9 7.7E+9 6.8E+9 2.4E+9 3.8E+9 8.3E+9
Cells/g of cake 8.4E+9 2.6E+9 4.1E+9 3.3E+9 2.0E+9 2.9E+9 3.6E+9
Wt. needed for 22.6 74.1 46.2 57.1 96.3 64.9 52.9
commercial pitch
rate* (g)
Approx. volume for 0.77 2.50 1.56 1.93 3.26 2.19 1.79
comm. pitch rate*
(fl. oz.)
*Commercial pitching rates generally vary from 10-20 million cells/ml, but
will be assumed to be 10 million cells/ml for purposes of calculation.
+++Cell Concentration of Centrifuged Yeast (4000g 5 min 4C)+++
A B C D E F G
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Wt. of yeast (g) 0.37 0.69 1.51 1.40 0.63 0.69 1.87
Vol. of yeast(ml) 0.4 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.7 1.9
Total Cells 4.6E+9 2.3E+9 7.7E+9 6.8E+9 2.4E+9 3.8E+9 8.3E+9
Viability 85.1% 89.0% 96.4% 96.4% 93.5% 97.9% 100.0%
Total Cells 1.8E+9 1.6E+9 1.2E+10 1.0E+10 1.4E+9 2.7E+9 1.6E+10
Cell conc if 4.4E+7 1.2E+7 1.8E+7 1.7E+7 1.3E+7 1.9E+7 1.6E+7
0.35g pitched
into 100ml wort
I also noticed some very old Wyeast packs hiding in the corner of the
refrigerator and thought it would be interesting to show the cell
concentration that would be achieved by pitching into 5 gal. of wort by
following the manufacturers instructions and then comparing this to the
rate achieved when using dried yeast packets. (This has probably been shown
before on the HBD, but at least this will provide some more data).
For the preparationof the Wyeast, I broke the packs and allowed to incubate
for 48 h. After this time one pack (1084) had completely expanded, while
the other (2124) had only expanded to about 3/4-inch thick. I poures the
contents of each pack into a graduated cylinder to measure the volume (50
ml in both cases) and then counted the yeast and calculated the pitching
rate if the entire volume were pitched immediately into 5 gal. of wort.
For the dried yeast, I rehydrated the packs in 100 ml of 40C water for 15
minutes before enumerating.
+++Cell Concentrations in Wyeast Smack Packs+++
C H
------ ------
Conc. in Pack(cells/ml) 5.8E+7 8.0E+7
Viability 80.0% 97.8%
Total Cells 2.9E+9 4.0E+9
Conc. in 5 gal (cell/ml) 1.5E+5 2.1E+5
% commercial pitch rate* 1.5% 2.1%
Note: Strain C = Wyeast 1084 (Irish Ale), 21 months old; Strain H = Wyeast
2124 (Bohemian), 22 months old.
+++Cell Concentrations in Dried Yeast Sachets+++
I J
------ ------
Net wt. (g) 12.17 4.63
Dilution (ml) 100 100
Conc. (cells/ml) 2.5E+9 1.5E+9
Viability 99.4% 99.3%
Total Cells 2.5E+11 1.5E+11
Conc. in 5 gal (cell/ml) 1.3E+7 7.9E+6
% commercial pitch rate* 132.1% 79.3%
Note: Strain I = EDME dried ale yeast; Strain J = Gervin Commonwealth Ale
Yeast
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2802, 08/19/98
*************************************
-------
