Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2801
HOMEBREW Digest #2801 Tue 18 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:Mead conditioning question ("Grant W. Knechtel")
Nettiquette and Balderdash ("Timothy Green")
Outatown ("David R. Burley")
water analysis (JPullum127)
Uses for an autoclave - Bottle Sanitizer? ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
Yeast storage and transport / Weizen yeasts / beer reviews (George_De_Piro)
hbd, the brewery (Jim Liddil)
Killer Yeasts, Undercarbonartion ("David R. Burley")
Hops-Off-The-Vine ("Eric Darrow")
Karl Lutzen aka "Squonk" (Rick Olivo)
N. Michigan brewpubs? (Christopher Peterson)
reply to: Using Cornies HBD#2799 (Herbert Bresler)
stuck mash/CAP (Lou.Heavner)
Clinitest Utility as a Measure of Completion of Fermentation ("Steve Alexander")
Apology (Some Guy)
Wyeast 1098 (British Ale) performance (Dave Humes)
Parti-Gyle Brewing/Thanks Mark! ("Riedel, Dave")
Grapefruit soda? ("Bret Morrow")
Lunar Rendezbrew (EFOUCH)
Brewing School . . . Science or Craft? ("Mort O'Sullivan")
Galena hops (Mark Kellums)
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: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:53:16 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK@hartcrowser.com>
Subject: RE:Mead conditioning question
Ron asks in HBD2800:
>Folks-
> I have a light ginger mead (only 9 lbs honey for 5 gal batch) which
>has been sitting in secondary since 2/14/98. I want to bottle now for
>New Year's consumption. I want a sparkling beverage. Wyeast Dry >Mead
yeast was used.
>Do I have adequate remaining viable yeast to carbonate the bottles
>using 3/4 cup priming sugar? Should I pitch a conditioning yeast? If
>so, what yeast would you suggest?
Ron,
My understanding is that Wyeast dry mead yeast behaves similarly to a
champagne yeast. If you take care to include some yeast sediment when
racking onto your primings, it should carbonate fine, at least this has
been my experience. 3/4 cup corn sugar should be fine, if you want higher
carbonation similar to sparkling wine, ala champagne, use 7/8 to 1 cup.
Use good strong bottles, the recappable better American "champagne"
bottles or 'Martinelli's' sparkling cider bottles are my favorite. If you
remain concerned about viability of your yeast, I recommend rehydrating a
packet of Redstar Premiere Cuvee or similar clean dry white wine yeast and
adding with your primings. This has worked well for me in the past with
ginger meads very similar to yours. Good luck and Wassail!
-Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 03:14:14 -0400
From: "Timothy Green" <TimGreen@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Nettiquette and Balderdash
robert wrote:
"I have been recently spanked for the content of my "sig".
I was informed that I was using poor "nettiquette". HBD'ers who feel
offended by my sig are asked to e-mail me and inform me of their feelings on
the matter. I thought that my "nettiquette" was just fine, but I will bow to
the general consensus."
You know, the pure pomposity of some of the people who post to this list is
completely unbelievable. How a line on someone's sig should be a problem is
beyond me.
My question is simple and to the person who manages this list. Hey Pat, did
you find that Robert's sig was a problem?
To the rest of the folks who seem to be afraid of someone who has something
to sell that a number of us may need, what's the problem. Robert is a
regular poster, helps people out when needed and does not blatantly wave
commercial messages in our faces.
To the people who were vocal about this, I am also a member of this list,
abiet and quiet one normally and one who has junk email as much as the next
person. If someone gives more than he takes, why blast him for a sig line.
It's sad when people raise hell with someone for no good reason.
Scuse me while I get down from the soapbox...
Tim Green
Mead is great...
Beer is good...
(But beer is much faster)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:02:03 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Outatown
Brewsters:
For those correspondents who send me a message, I'm not
ingoring you, just outatown helping make wine at a commercial
winery for the next two weeks or so and computer-deprived
- thank goodness!!
In the meantime,
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:12:49 EDT
From: JPullum127@aol.com
Subject: water analysis
i just got an analysis of my local omaha water from the utility. rather than
print all of it here would someone experienced at this be willing to e-mail me
and help me understand it and advise what if anything i should do to it to
start allgrain brewing? thanks in advance
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:36:27 -0500
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton@iastate.edu>
Subject: Uses for an autoclave - Bottle Sanitizer?
Howdy. I now have an electric autoclave. Has anyone ever used an autoclave
to sanitize bottles?
I recently read a discussion on using steam to sterilize bottles. I would
use SUPREME CAUTION using live steam from a pressure cooker to sterilize
hand-held bottles. I do think that beer bottles are fairly high quality
glass, but heat shock is the killer of glass. I don't know how good the
brown glass is at resisting heat shock. Use a thick heat resistant pad to
hold the glass and safety goggles, so if one of them suckers decides to
shatter into billions of nearly invisible shards, we don't read about you
and your lack of sight in one (or both) eye(s).
(By the way, my autoclave is year 2000 compatible, as long as the
electrical power grid is also year 2000 compatible)
<personal opinion>This year 2000 frenzy is really getting out of hand. I
was just at the Iowa State Fair over the weekend. A booth is giving away a
year 2000 kit, which includes a bike, a bunch of batteries, a flash light,
etc. to a lucky winner. These guys were computer support professionals from
a group of businesses in Des Moines, if I recall correctly. I think it's
pathetic to get people worrying about something that most people have no
control over. </personal opinion>
Jeff
Jeffrey M. Kenton jkenton@iastate.edu
Ames, Iowa brewer@iastate.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:36:49 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Yeast storage and transport / Weizen yeasts / beer reviews
Hi all,
Bill Anderson asks about the best ways to collect and store yeast for
easy transport.
Slants are pretty durable, and they have the advantage of not having to
be kept frozen. If you are going to be on the move, how will you keep
yeast frozen under wort? If you will only be traveling a couple of
weeks, yeast on slants should be OK at room temperature.
An even better method could be to store the yeast in sterile distilled
water, as described in one of last year's issues of _Brewing
Techniques_. While I haven't done this yet, it sounds like just the
thing for you. The yeast can be kept at room temperature and will
(supposedly) have a high survival rate.
------------------------------
Bill Also asks about Weizen strains, specifically asking about the
importance of filtering the primary strain out of the beer and
replacing it with a second (often a lager yeast). He also asks if he
can get yeast from the bank at Weihenstephan.
The reason to remove the primary strain from Weizen is largely one of
beer stability. The flavor of the beer will not improve because the
primary strain has been replaced with a lager yeast for bottle
conditioning. The reason big brewers do this is because Weizen yeasts
tend to autolyze readily, and the result of this is a dramatic decrease
in head retention and thinning of body (because of the release of
proteolytic enzymes during autolysis).
I find that my Weizenbier is peaking 6-8 weeks after brew day, after
which it quickly turns south, losing its head and body. I could
purchase a filter and do the yeast switching trick that the big boys
do, but why bother? I just try to finish the beer while it's good!
As far as buying yeast from Weihenstephan, be prepared to shell out
some major cash. Just buy it from a homebrew supplier here in the
States.
--------------------------
Bill also offers a review of Ipswich Stout (he didn't like it, finding
it "undrinkable-oxidized.")
First, before you go bashing a beer, think of what you are saying. If
the beer is oxidized, is it the brewer's fault? Maybe, but it is just
as likely to be the fault of the myriad people handling the beer after
it left the brewery. I know that the owner of Ipswich insists that
his beers be kept refrigerated (unfiltered, unpasteurized, etc.). He
has even gone as far as saying that you should not buy his beer if it
is not in the refrigerator case.
Was that how the beer you hated was handled?
I feel that beer reviews here on the digest are of very limited
usefulness. Reviews of brewpubs are pointless to anybody outside of
the geographic region of the reviewer (i.e., almost everybody).
Reviews of beers are highly subjective, and many micro and import
beers do not travel and store well.
As a beer geek (and BJCP type) I think it is important to try as many
different commercial beers as you (and your liver) can afford. This is
essential to improving your own brewing and beer evaluation skills.
Drinking your own beer all the time isn't going to help you expand your
horizons.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:49:53 +0000
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: hbd, the brewery
Just a quick note of praise to Karl and Pat. Remember what the AOB/AHA
tried to do to this forum. Also if you are surfing The Brewery and find
broken links please try to find the new link and let the Webmaster know
about it. The Brewery works as a source of accurate information only
through constant vigilance and volunteer effort. We are the ones who make
it work.
Jim Liddil
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 11:36:48 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Killer Yeasts, Undercarbonartion
Brewsters:
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.
In any event, the production of sulfite by yeast is real as Phil agrees
and it does depress competition from wild yeast and especially
bacteria, since they are more sensitive - which was my main point.
- ----------------------------------
I recently had private correspondence from an HBDer who was
trying a recenty purchased Clinitest on his existing bottled beers
and he found some of the beers gave Clinitest greater than 0.25%,
which I consider to be the maximum reading for a finished beer.
Some were undercarbonated and gave readings as high as 0.5%
and all his beers, while good, were perceptibly sweeter than the
commercial counterparts. He was curious as to what this meant
and did this mean his beers weren't finished fermenting or what
was Clinitest telling him?
First, he was not using the test in the manner I prescribe as an
indicator of the end of the fermentation phase, since he tested
bottled beers. As I interpret it, some of hIs results showed a "stuck"
priming fermentation, since they were higher than 0.25%. He was
examining to what extent his priming sugar ( since he used glucose
and not sucrose) had been consumed. Had he tried Clinitest on the
finished beer and then on the bottled beer ( he hasn't been able to
yet since he just bought the Clinitest) he could have definitely known
if the carbonation was complete and what was the cause of the
sweetish taste in his beer. The bottled beer should be equal to or
lower ( in some cases with true lager yeast) than the fermentation
end %glucose based on Clinitest. If this is not the case, then you
need to do some work in getting a better set of bottle fermentation
conditions ( like adding a small amount of FAN to the beer at bottling)
and increasng the active yeast content at bottling. Note for this test
to be thoroughly useful you cannot prime with table sugar, since
sucrose is not a reducible sugar and Clinitest will not respond.
It is unlikely that if you have a "stuck" priming fermentation due to
inadequate yeast activity, that the extra-cellular invertase produced by
yeast will invert all of the sucrose to reducible sugars and not
consume it.
Based on these results, I suggested that he inject active yeast
into some of the bottles and follow it with Clinitest to prove that this
was his problem. In the future, I recommend the use of an active
priming "kraeusen" ( see the archives) to ensure the yeast will
consume all the priming sugar.
It would be interesting to repeat AlK's double blind and double deaf
carbonation experiment ( see the archives) in which he detected a
difference in carbonation, based on the headspace in the bottle and
use Clinitest to see if the priming sugar content between different
headspaces is different.
I have postulated that, if Al's results hold up, it may be a result of
increased yeast growth due to the increased amount of oxygen
in the headspace, leading to more yeast and ultimately more of
the priming sugar being consumed. Using this technique, we can
for sure establish if more priming sugar has been consumed
( and convincingly support AlK's observations). An interesting
parallel experiment would be to flush the headspace with nitrogen
on some bottles.
It may be necessary to increase the sensitivity of the test by
using more drops of beer so that the results for a "normal"
0.25% reads 1%. This can be easily be done by using 20 drops
of beer rather than 5 drops as in the standard test. This is not too
far in volume from the current test which uses 5 drops of beer and
10 drops of water. The results on teh various haedspace
experiments should be comparable in any event,
since the results are within the 2% range of the standard test.
Any of you bottlers ( I keg) out there want to take the challenge?
- -------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:46:53 -0800
From: "Eric Darrow" <edarrow@cmdpdx.com>
Subject: Hops-Off-The-Vine
I was glad to hear that its possible to brew with hops right off the vine.
I have another question I was hoping there might be an answer to. My
Cascades are in thier second season and although the flowers appear to be
big and healthy, they aren't nearly as aromatic as the Cascades I can buy
so I have been hesitant to use them for fear they'll add very little to the
finished product. I've sampled them several times this season as well as
last season and haven't noticed an "optimal" time to harvest. Just no aroma
like I think Cascades should have.
Comments?
Eric Darrow
Graphic Designer - Multimedia Group
Creative Media Development
Portland, Oregon
http://www.creative-media.com
(503) 223-6794
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:01:43 -0500
From: Rick Olivo <ashpress@win.bright.net>
Subject: Karl Lutzen aka "Squonk"
Warning: this post is off topic, but save your flames; I'm too thick
skinned and thick-headed to notice.
I would like to heartily concur with Pat Babcock's assessment of Karl
Lutzen. It is rare that you get to run across a person of such selfless
quality and balanced good humor. I am pleased to number "Squonk" as he is
known to his many fans and friends at Skotrat's Brew Rat Chat (another SIG
plug!!!) among my friends as well. Karl, thanks for the many slings and
arrows of outragous misfortune you have endured for the Brewery and HBD. I
think very few know how very much they owe to your efforts. I for one just
want to say I appreciate it, please; keep up the good work you do for all
of us. There are some who have greatness, there are some who have greatness
thrust upun them, and there are some who grate onions. Uhhh... Let me
rephrase that. Seriously though, Thank you Karl. Your work does not go
unnoticed.
Rick Olivo
The Strange Brewer
"Vitae Sine Cervesiae Sugat!!!"
("Life Without Beer Sucks!!!")
ashpress@win.bright.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:25:04 -0400
From: Christopher Peterson <peterson@ucmg65.med.uc.edu>
Subject: N. Michigan brewpubs?
Beer geeks,
I've seen the recent post that gave a critique of Michigan brewpubs. I'll
be near traverse city (45 minutes away), and was thinking of checking out
any brewpubs up there. Unfortunately, the review of the traverse city
brewpubs indicated they werent worth making much of an effort to seek them
out. I'd just as soon go somewhere that has a good selection then waste
time drinking poor quality brewpub fare. Is there anyone else out there
that thinks any of these brewpubs are worth seeking out? Private emails
welcome.
Christopher Peterson
peterson@molgen.uc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:38:08 -0400
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7@osu.edu>
Subject: reply to: Using Cornies HBD#2799
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 Keith Christiann wrote in HBD#2799:
[snip]
I racked a hoppy pale ale to secondary (a Corny keg) after
10 days in primary. It is still cloudy. I usually wait for it to
clear before racking but I couldn't wait this time. Is it a
good idea to put minimal pressure in the keg and chill it or
go ahead and force carbonate? Does it matter? I don't
mind racking from one keg to another once it clears. It is
sitting patiently at 32-35F.
________________________________________________
Keith,
I did almost exactly what you are doing now with the last British-style
Pale Ale I made. I kept it at room temp (60's F) for a week or so after
racking from the primary and checked the pressure daily (just to make sure
I wasn't incubating a time bomb). It never rose above about 10 psi (partly
because I kept stealing a few ounces a day to "inspect" it). After a week
of secondary fermenting I moved it to the fridge and maintained the
pressure at about 10 psi by adding CO2 as necessary. This meant that I
really only had to add CO2 back after I stole some of the brew for tasting
(again, I couldn't wait). It took a little longer than usual to clear even
though I was using a highly flocculent yeast (Wyeat 1968, no finings). But
it was worth the extra week. The result was a very good, mostly naturally
carbonated beer. (Many of you may have had some at Beer & Sweat in
Cincinnati last weekend. There's precious little of it left now.) I will
definitely use this technique again. Nice mellow carbonation, full body,
mmmm-mmm good.
Let us know how yours turns out.
Good luck and good (natural) carbonating,
Herb
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:51:43 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: stuck mash/CAP
From: "Steven Braun" <visualdelights@powernet.net>
My system consists of a RubberMaid 10 gallon cooler and a Phils Phalse
Bottom. The Phils has had the drain bored out to 5/8ths inch and I
have a
5/8ths inch ID braided hose connecting to the bulkhead fitting. Thru
the
valve to the pump 10 inches below the drain. The false bottom sits
pretty
close to the bottom of the tun.
I get the feeling that the false bottom is my problem. Does anyone
have any
ideas. My mash this AM lasted 4 hours! Three of those at 120 degrees.
Cant
wait to taste that one!
Steven Braun
visualdelights@powernet.net
www.visualdelights.com
Steve,
I'm not experienced with RIMS, but I am with Phil's Phalse Phloater
(PPP). What I did was take 3 quarter inch stainless sheet metal
screws and screw them into holes in the PPP equally spaced around the
perimeter about 1.5 inches from the edge. Then I screw them into the
bottom of my gott cooler about 3/4 or 1 turn until they hold. Voila!
No more grain under the false bottom, better lautering! I use a
sliding stem valve (cross between a needle valve and a ball valve) and
it works fine with gravity. I've found if you open the valve to wide
too fast, you can get stuck and mine is smaller diameter than yours.
I'd 1) make sure your false bottom isn't floating up on you, 2) just
crack the valve on the pump suction to prime it, 3) before you turn on
the pump, open the suction side wide, but just crack the discharge
until you get your filter bed established.
And some mashes are harder to lauter. I made a CAP last week of
dubious character. Instead of 6-row and corn meal and decoction mash,
I used 2-row and flaked maize and single infusion plus mash out.
And that brings me to my questions. I misread the thermometer and for
some reason mis-calculated my strike water, or it was hotter than I
thought. Maybe my contacts had fogged over. Anyway, I ended up
resting at 160F for about 20 min before I realized and added some ice
down to 152. It was a 90 min mash plus 15 min @ 168F and I didn't
test for starch. I really didn't want to know if it hadn't all
converted. Lauter took 90 mins and as a result I ended up with over
80% efficiency which is much better than my normal 75%. So there must
not have been much channeling or else I screwed up other calculations
as well. ;) Boil and chill were all normal. I ended up with just
under 5 gals of 1.058 wort that was very turbid. Going into the
kettle it had been crystal clear! I used Wyeast 2035 stepped up to a
3 Qt starter. I filled one babyfood jar with pre-pitched wort for WST
and another with pitched wort for FFT. There was about a gallon of
break in the kettle where I normally get about a half gallon. I
brewed last Thursday. As of Monday morning, the WST sample is still
turbid and the color of dark honey or light maple syrup. It has shown
no visible activity of any kind. By Saturday night the FFT sample had
foamed and frothed and cleared to a beautiful clear golden color only
a hair darker than a Bud. But there was snow white sediment on the
bottom and a tan colored layer floating on top. The floating layer
does break up and settle to the bottom in clumps if I move the sample
very much. Is this normal? Other than using a microscope or plating
samples, is there any easy way to tell if I have a problem, or what it
is? The main batch is fermenting normally (as far as I can tell in a
plastic pail) at 50F while the babyfood jars have been kept at room
temperature which around here is running between 77F-80F.
Cheers!
Lou Heavner - Austin, TX where the sky is falling! Hey! What is this
wet stuff anyway???!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:36:02 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Clinitest Utility as a Measure of Completion of Fermentation
Clinitest Utility as a Measure of Completion of Fermentation
Clinitest kits cost about $20US recently priced. The bottles of (refill)
tablets are available for approximately $12US. They are intended to measure
glucose or keto-sugars that pass into the urine of uncontrolled diabetics, but
current practice in diabetes care requires use of the much more direct method
of measuring blood sugar levels with analytic meters and reagent strips that
are glucose specific. Therefore Clinitest may require special order at a
pharmacy. Clinitest is an implementation of the 'Benedict' test for reducing
sugars.
Clinitest measures the reducing end concentration of all reducing sugars by
comparison with a color charts. The suggested '5 drop' test will permit a 1/4%
resolution of glucose concentrations from 0 to 1% with an added point for 2%
and greater. Note the Clinitest percentage readings are referenced to glucose
so a 1% reading, (which I will call 1% reducing sugar glucose equivalent(RSGE)
concentration) corresponds with a 1 gram glucose per 100ml of water
concentration, but in the more general case of solutions containing other
sugars indicates a total reducing sugar concentration of 55.6 mMol. The table
below lists the available Clinitest color chart readings (RSGE) versus the
equivalent Molar concentration of reducing sugars.
Clinitest
reading reducing conc.
---------- -----------------
negative 0 mMol
1/4% 14 mMol
1/2% 28 mMol
3/4% 42 mMol
1% 56 mMol
2+% 111 mMol or greater
>From [1] in 1.043 SG wort the following sugar and dextrin concentrations are
given, and I calculate the fermentability, reducing sugar concentration and the
reducing concentration after 'extreme fermentation', meaning the removal of all
fermentable sugars: Note especially that certain sugars such as sucrose are
not reducing sugars, yet contribute to fermentability. From several sources I
have estimated that the non-reducing dextrins represent no more than 5% of
dextrins.
sugar conc. fermentable reducing conc
r.c.after extreme ferment.
Glucose 40.0 mM y 40.0
0
Fructose 13.9 mM y 13.9
0
Sucrose 5.8 mM y 0
0
Maltose 162. mM y 162
0
Isomaltose 3.5 mM n 3.5
3.5
maltotriose 21.0 mM y 21.0
0
other trisacc. 1.0 mM var 1.0
0-1.0
dextrins 10.2 mM n 9.7-10.2
9.7-10.2
totals 257.4 251.1-251.6
13.2 - 14.7
After removal of all fermentable sugars, which is not entirely realistic, the
final reducing sugar concentration does correspond with a 1/4% RSGE . The wort
above is medium-high fermentability due to a mash schedule with an initial rest
at 63C/145F for 60 minutes. The fermentable sugar to total extract ratio is
70.0% which falls in the middle of the range of data in reference [2].
If a less fermentable wort of 65% fermentable extract (see ref[2], col 8],
68.3C/155F mash) was created, we should expect that there would be a loss in
fermentable sugars of 5% extract, and a corresponding gain in non-fermentables.
The loss of fermentables would decrease the reducing concentration by about
12.1 nM and the increase in nonfermentable adds to reducing sugars reducing by
about 4.7mM, assuming a proportional mix of fermentable/non-fermentable
sugars. So for a less fermentable wort after extreme fermentation, we should
expect that the reducing sugar concentration might be roughly (add 4.7) 19 mM.
In higher gravity wort typical in homebrew, the non-fermentable sugar
concentrations should increase in proportion with the extract per volume (OG
points).
In practice fermentations do remove that vast majority of fermentable sugars,
but certainly do not remove all fermentable sugars. Here the limits and
flocculation of the yeast and the fermentation conditions become important.
Reference [3] give values of residual fermentable sugar in commercial unprimed
beers (5 ales, 7 lagers) that correspond with reducing concentrations over a
range of 0 nM to 52 mM, with a mean value of 18.6 mM. These residual
fermentable sugar levels correspond to 0% to 0.94% (mean value 0.33%) RSGE.
Three beers of twelve contained only trace fermentables, while five of twelve
contained greater than 0.4% RSGE (22 mM).
In the tables of reference [3] there is no clear relationship between initial
SG (OG) and the residual fermentable sugars in beer.
Conclusions:
In beers made from wort with widely varying mash temperatures and so
fermentability and widely varying SG values, we would expect a non-fermentable
reducing sugar concentration of roughly 10 to 30 mM. Residual fermentable
reducing sugar concentrations in commercial examples vary from trace to 52 mM.
This forms an expectation that values for normally fermented beers should fall
in a range of 10 mM to 80 mM (0.18% to 1.4% RSGE) for 'real world' beers with
the greatest part of the variation due to residual fermentable sugars.
A Clinitest reading of 0.25% RSGE confirms completion of fermentation. At
levels above the "2% or greater" color chart value Clinitest indicates
incomplete fermentation. Intermediate readings of 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0% RSGE
available with Clinitest may be useful for assessing completion of
fermentation, but only in the hands of an experienced brewer capable of
estimating wort fermentability and yeast performance by other means.
[1] Proc.EBC Congress, Interlaken, 1969, pp 205, 'Dextrins in Brewing', Bent
Stig Envoldsen, Tuborg Breweries Ltd.
[2] Malting&Brewing Science, 2nd ed, 1981, Chapman Hall, Pub,vol 1, pp
288-289, reporting results of Hall quoted by Harris, 1962.
[3] M&BS, vol2, pp 777, 'representative analysis of beers', table 22.1 and v2,
pp 784, table 22.5 'sugar content of commercial beers'.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:51:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Apology
It seems I stepped on a set of toes with my statement regarding the "night
of beer". My apologies to the offended individual. The insult you
perceived was not my intent...
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: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:33:32 -0500
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net>
Subject: Wyeast 1098 (British Ale) performance
Greetings,
I have a batch of American Pale Ale fermenting now that has performed
rather strangely (to me) and was wondering if anyone has some recent
experience with it that could comment. This was my first attempt at
a big starter, so that may explain all of this. First some specifics
on the wort composition just in case that's a factor:
11 gallon batch
17 lb Briess 2-row pale
1 lb 40L crystal
1 lb Biscuit
Mash-in at 104F, hold 30 min.
Boost to 140F, hold 30 min.
Boost to 158F, hold 30 min.
Boost to 168F and lauter.
Mash and sparge water treated with gypsum to provide approximately
450ppm sulphate and 130ppm calcium.
Bittered with Galena and finished with Fuggles.
Boil 90 min and CF chill into two 6.5 gal carboys.
Oxygenate with pure O2 through a stone for 60 sec in each carboy.
O.G. = 1.050
The yeast was prepared by pitching the 50ml swollen Wyeast package
into 500ml 1.040 well aerated wort. That was allowed to ferment out,
roused and divided into two 2000ml flasks each filled with 1200ml
sterile, well aerated 1.040 wort. Each was allowed to ferment out.
24 hours before pitching, the clear beer was removed from ontop of
the starters and replaced with 500ml sterile, aerated 1.040 wort in
each flask hoping to have active fermentation at the time the
starters were to be pitched. However, after this feeding the yeast
went almost immediately into fermentation and they were fermented out
by the next morning. The starters were pitched at about 5PM that day
into 75F wort and then placed in a temp controlled freezer at 68F.
Airlock activity was visible 5 hours after pitching and the beer was
in high kraeusen the next morning. The fermentation was VERY
vigorous and was just about done in 48 hours. At 72 hours there was
almost no airlock activity, so I racked to secondary carboys, S.G. =
1.020. It's now been 4 days since racking, and the gravity is only
down to 1.017. There is still some minimal airlock activity and the
beer's still cloudy, so I think it might make it down to 1.012, but
I've never seen such a dramatic difference between primary and
secondary fermentation. It just flew through the first 30 gravity
points and is now crawling through the last 10. What worries me is
that the last batch with basically the same recipe quit at 1.020 and
was way too sweet for the style. It got dumped. I realize the mash
schedule is somewhat excessive, but is not something that should
produce an overly dextrinous wort. I was just playing with some of
George Fix's schedules to see if they are any better than a straight
infusion.
So is this pattern typical of Wyeast 1098? Or possibly a side effect
of a big starter? Or should I just relax and stop worrying ...
Thanks in advance
Dave Humes >>humesdg1@earthlink.net<<
------------------------------
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.
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. A completely
different hop schedule for each and the chocolate malt
made for two totally different beers. A couple of things I
learned:
1. I got much more small beer than I expected despite a
lot of calculations trying to predict the amount so, be
prepared to calculate your hop amounts on the fly after
you've collected the wort.
2. It was a very long brewday- I suggest that you continue
your sparge/runoff for the small beer as you boil the big
beer. Put the runnings in a bucket or something... it takes
a long time to brew a batch, back up, sparge/runoff and
boil again. You have to clean the boil kettle too.
- -------
Mark Bridges congratulated me on my success at our
small local competition. Thanks Mark!! I appreciate it!
cheers,
Dave Riedel
Victoria, BC, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 17:24:08 PDT
From: "Bret Morrow" <bretmorrow@hotmail.com>
Subject: Grapefruit soda?
Greetings,
Sorry for posting a non-beer question. Does anyone have a recipe or
know of a source of grapefruit extract for soda. The brewing season is
officially over here until it cools down a bit and I'm looking for some
distractions for the next month or so.
TIA
Bret Morrow, Johnson's Brewing, Home of the Yale Ale.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: 17 Aug 1998 16:01:39 -0400
From: EFOUCH@steelcase.com
Subject: Lunar Rendezbrew
HBD-
Did anybody else send beers to the 5th Annual Lunar Rendezbrew? I sent two
beers in, got conformation that they arrived at the shipping point, but have
not received any scoresheets yet.
The final judging took place on the 19th of July, and scoresheets were to be
sent out within two weeks. I sent e-mails to the two contacts listed for
judges and stewards two weeks ago, and have recieved no correspondence.
Anybody affiliated with the LR or the Mashtronauts that may shed some light on
the situation?
Sign me....Curious
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 01:27:56 +0100
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater@brew-master.com>
Subject: Brewing School . . . Science or Craft?
George De Piro asked:
>Perhaps Mort could tell us about the tastings and style lectures at H-W?
When I was interviewing at Heriot-Watt, I asked the director of admissions
about whether certain beer styles were emphasized during lectures, pilot
scale brewing, etc. He looked at me blankly for a moment and then said that
was irrelevant--the point of the course is to impart a thorough knowledge
of the scientific underpinnings of brewing. Focusing on particular styles
would be limiting and if I were truly able to grasp the theoretical side of
brewing, then I should be able to brew any style of beer I wanted.
I must say that there have been no *formal* style lectures at Heriot Watt,
and I think this may be due to the fact that over 70% of the students come
from major breweries in the UK, Africa, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, etc that
only brew one style (can you guess which one?). However I must say that
bits and pieces about styles come through in other lectures. For example my
notes are full of references to lambic, wee heavy, IPA, berliner weisse,
dubbel, classic pilsners, traditional bitters, american light lagers,
stouts, porters, etc. I also remember particular lectures going into great
detail about the workings of particular famous breweries such as St. James
Gate, PU, Heineken, Carlsberg, Bass, Youngs, AB, Coors, Old Dominion. I
would also say that the survey of brewing systems (including many systems
little used these days, such as the Yorkshire Square, Burton Union System,
etc.) inherently teaches a lot about classic styles. Also,
not-so-thinly-disguised qualitative judgements about certain styles
sometimes slip out during lectures: "Any brewer who doesn't use an all malt
grist deserves those problems . . ."
The opportunities to explore styles outside the classroom have been
tremendous. Spending time in some of Edinburgh's traditional pubs has given
me a grasp of the range in quality I can expect in cask conditioned beers.
I attended a 10-week lecture series given in a local pub by Scottish beer
historian, Charles McMaster. Visits to Traquair House, Caledonian, Youngs,
as well as several larger and smaller breweries have been informative.
There have been many opportunities to attend beer festivales, and I have
also been able to take advantage of the cheap airfare to the continent to
sample other styles in their natural settings (Dusseldorf was particularly
enjoyable). Not to mention the resources in Edinburgh's libraries and at
the Scottish Brewing Archives. This week I was reading about
turn-of-the-century brewing with tapioca, and about Braga beer--now there's
a style I haven't even seen Michael Jackson write about. I also participate
in twice-weekly nosings for the Scotch Whisky Research Institute, but
that's getting off the subject isn't it?
I must say, however, that the average student at Heriot-Watt is not as
interested in beer styles as I am, and there are some students who leave
the program and will probably never brew or drink anything other than light
lager. Basically, I'd have to say Heriot-Watt emphasizes the science of
brewing. Information on the history and craft of brewing is certainly
available, but it's up to the student to take advantage of it.
Cheers,
Mort O'Sullivan
Edinburgh
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:34:03 -0500
From: Mark Kellums <kellums@springnet1.com>
Subject: Galena hops
Robert Arguello writes
"I have been fairly successful with my Cascade vines. This is their
third
year in my yard and despite very poor growing conditions, (not much
light
and very poor drainage), I harvest enough from two rhizomes to make the
effort worth while. I am wondering if I might have similar luck with
Galena.
I live in northern, central California. Anyone out there with experience
with Galena?"
Robert,
I've been growing some Galena vines on the west side of my garage for
for a couple of summers
now. It seems no matter how much I neglect them they still put out a
pretty decent amount of hops.
Hec, they don't even get any direct sunlight until after 1 pm. I run
twine from the eaves of the garage
down to the plants. It's a very neat growing hop with not very many
laterals but the laterals they do
put out are very long. Evidently it's a top cropper because most of the
hops end up at the top of the
plant. It's a very vigorous hop. I also used to grow some Chinook and
still do have some Eroica
plants. They are both very vigorous and good hop producers as well.
Mark Kellums
Mt.Zion Illinois
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2801, 08/18/98
*************************************
-------
