Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2816
HOMEBREW Digest #2816 Fri 04 September 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: San Anontio Tx (Steve)
Dissed, but not losing any sleep (Bodie Heflin)
Princeton (Spencer W Thomas)
RE: Harvesting Hops ("Erik Vanthilt")
Chest Freezer Solution ("Gregg Soh")
Yest/yeast/yeast&yeast ("Steve Alexander")
Yeast and Esters ("Steve Alexander")
re: BT subscriptions (Mark Tumarkin)
CO2 by weight ("Dave Greathouse")
Old Grains (AJ)
Iodophor and pH (MAB)
Specialty Malt Kickers ("Michael O. Hanson")
Films and light sources (Joe Rolfe)
Film, 212F, Alt. (Paul Niebergall)
Chest freezer broken :-( (Kenneth Sullivan)
Re: Iodophor ("Marc Fries")
flow rate of wort vs. water (John_E_Schnupp)
10 gallon ferment ("Crossno, Glyn")
Re: unsolicited email (Gail Elber)
alt/film/bt solicitation/insulating inside a freezer (Boeing)" <BayerMA@navair.navy.mil>
Insulation (Ken Schwartz)
FAN Levels in Extracts (Mark Swenson)
More Period Brewing Questions.. (Badger Roullett)
Oatmeal Stout Explosion (todd_ebert)
Beer Review: Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale (AVOID) (Some Guy)
Easy Chloramine Neutralization (AJ)
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: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:38:38 -0500
From: Steve <steves@ro.com>
Subject: Re: San Anontio Tx
>
>Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:46:33 -0700
>From: "NFGS" <fjrusso@coastalnet.com>
>Subject: San Anontio Tx
>
>I am going to be traveling a good deal this fall and want to look for some
>good brew pubs to visit any recommendations?
>
>Hampton, NH
>Palm Springs, Ca
>San Antonio, Tx
>Atlanta, Ga
>Huntsville, Al
>
In Huntsville, The Mill is adequate, but if'n I wuz yew <local vernacular
mode OFF> I'd seriously consider a side trip two hours up the road to
Nashville. Blackstone (Dave Miller's current job) and Bosco's would be the
places to be.
Steve Stripling
(2 hours south of Nashville)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:51:32 -0500
From: Bodie Heflin <bodie@shreve.net>
Subject: Dissed, but not losing any sleep
Hi all,
Glancing through the latest issue of Southwest Brewing News I
noticed an article on brewing in the bayou. In it I suddenly see that
Bob Carbone placed 2nd in the first round of the AHA Nationals with a
"Shreveporter." Now I find myself just a little tad miffed. I have been
brewing a Honey Porter "Shreveporter" for over 7 years which Bob has
tasted, seen my label, and knew this was what I call my porter.
Admittingly I am not a professional and haven't registered the name but
in all practicality it sure reeks of a lack of brewing ethics to steal
my name to use for this publication.I am no longer a member of SUDS as I
was sort of kicked out of the club along with some others by the
president Mr. Carbone because I was brewing so frequently that I could
no longer afford to buy supplies from his little homebrew supply store
"The Beerslayer." I dont know if he is still president but if any
members of SUDS out there see this I'd like to see yall again.E-mail me
at bodie@shreve.net.Id call you but yall dont publish your number.
Bodie Heflin
Dilla Brewery
Shreveport LA
bodie@shreve.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 01:34:17 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Princeton
I'll be in Princeton next weekend. Probably free Saturday night
(9/12). Any HBDers want to hoist a few?
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:39:49 -0700
From: "Erik Vanthilt" <vanthilt@inetworld.net>
Subject: RE: Harvesting Hops
Alan Keith asks in HBD #2815:
>Greetings all, I have a question for those of you growing your own hops.
>This is my first season attempting to grow hops. While my
>Mount Hood and Perle bines did not flower this year I do have one
>very nice Liberty plant that is laden with cones. My question has to do
>with how to go about harvesting. The flowers began appearing/maturing >from
>the lower part of the plant and proceeded upwards. It seems to me that
>many of the lower cones are ready for picking (as per published
>descriptions - they are light, papery, spring back when compressed, the
>internal strig snaps when the cones are bent..) However, as you go up the
>vine there is a definite gradient in maturity, in fact new flowers are
>budding at the very tips. So, how does one handle this? Should I harvest a
>section at a time? I certainly don't want to assay each cone seperately!!
>Is it better to harvest too early or too late?
I grow 10 varieties of hops here in San Diego, California. Because the
growing
season varies, and at times is quite long, I practice the following
procedures:
As soon as they seem ready, pick them.
If there are some that seem not fully developed, leave them, they will be
later.
As odd as it seems, it almost appears that I can "trick" certain varieties,
such
as cascade (which are weeds, IMO) to continue to produce hops, if they are
stripped
of their current crop. I did this last year, and was able to pull three
separate crops,
all the way past October.
So, from my hop experiences, I say get what you got, wait for more, and keep
them
going until they quit.
And since this is your first season, don't worry about the less-producing
plants, they
are just establishing their roots. Expect good crops to come.
Take those hops, throw them fresh from the vine into a nice pale ale recipe,
and create a great fresh hop ale. The taste and aroma is fantastic!
Erik Vanthilt
The Virtual Brewery
Http://www.inetworld.net/vanthilt/index.html
BTW: Still waiting on a response on those soda pumps....
I'd think someone knew something about them....
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:10:53 PDT
From: "Gregg Soh" <greggos@hotmail.com>
Subject: Chest Freezer Solution
In HBD #2815, John E Carsten <John.E.Carsten@oklaosf.state.ok.us>
asks for advice on how to maintain a reliable, steady and accurate
temperature in his chest freezer with little fluctuation. I have a
solution for this as I had this problem when I got my freezer and
thermostat. Ken Schwartz's fermentation chiller was where I got my idea
from. He uses 12vdc DC fans used for electronics/CPUs that come in many
diameters and are very cheap to move cold air in his box. I found one
lying around and fashioned a stand for it so that it sat a couple of
centimetres from the freezer floor and it's blowing direction facing
upwards. That way it circulates the cold air that would normally sink to
the bottom, sort of like an "artificial convection" flow. Of course,
make sure that your stand allows free flow to the intake of the fan.
Hook up the fan to a 12Vdc power supply connected to the same source as
your freezer, you can zip-tie the two leads and the thermo-sensor
together. So now, the air flows when the freezer cycles on. You might
have to change your hysteresis on the thermostat as it will cycle more
often. Hope this helps.
Gregg Soh
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 04:31:45 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Yest/yeast/yeast&yeast
Bruce Carpenter mixes Wyeast and dry yeast -
George DePiro covered it all - but t add emphasis ... I think many beginning
brewers underestimate the BIG flavor contribution made by yeast variety and the
wide range of difference in that contribution. I'll go out on a limb here and
state that yeast variety contributes roughly as much to flavor profile as does
the choice of malt and perhaps even as much as the choice of hops ! intend to
choose yeast for flavor and not convenience.
- --
Mike Butterfield asks about yeast and light.
I'm not aware of any yeast specific reaction to light, although exposure to UV
is a well known method for creating yeast mutations. There are several
photoreactions possible in beer (wort) tho' and I don't believe that any are
desirable. The best known is the "skunking" of hops. It's best to keep your
fermentor out of strong light.
- --
Jim Liddel writes ... of Gee and Ramirez earlier (1988) paper -
>"A typical brewery yeast strain (S. carlbergensis) and a typical brewery
>wort were used in the fermentations. The original gravity of the wort was
>16 degrees Plato...)
>
>It has been pointed out that some of the things I have relayed really only
>apply to light lager brewing. Well the statements above seem to indicate
>that the process being looked at is this same type of brewing.
16P (1.065SG) is light lager ? I haven't tried light lager in a while - maybe
I'm missing something ! Perhaps you are referring to high gravity brewing -
which I do not believe is widely practiced in this country.
>Are the results
>they obtained really applicable to more normal gravity worts? I seem to
>recall that the change in flavor components is not linear with gravity change.
Re - the 1994 'flavor' paper' - Yes Jim - they really are applicable. Of
course flavor products are not linear with respect to SG, but the authors do
not characterize the variation with respect to gravity, nor temperature nor O2
nor many other factors. (tho' they validate the model w/ respect to small temp
changes). They leave these and other dependencies embedded in dependent
variables - which you apparently don't recognize as such.
This paper demonstrates that the equations for sugar uptake, biomass, amino
acid uptake, fusel, ester and VDK production, based on synthetic mechanisms
described and discovered for yeast, mostly in the period 1906 to 1970 do form a
reasonably complete picture of these aspects of yeast biology and have
predictive capability on a quantitative basis. To reject this you'd really
have to demonstrate a new synthetic pathway, or a modification of an existing
one - or at least experimentally demonstrate a discrepancy.
The SG and a lot of other factors impact flavor products - these 'other
variables' may well be
the basis for future improved mathematical descriptions - but it doesn't
invalidate the current model - it only expands the result. This is rather like
the typical chemical kinetics model which describes rates of reaction in terms
on concentrations of antecedents and products and certain energy coefficients.
More advanced discussions will include temperature dependency by expanding the
meaning of one or more the dependent terms. The first description isn't
invalidated by the later - just expanded.
The Gee and Ramirez 1994 paper certainly isn't the last word - there are some
terms which, under their conditions overshadowed others making interpretation
difficult, there were problems reported in separately measuring small
quantities of certain products, yet the results are remarkable - and IMO form
the first steps toward a quantitative understanding of the biomechanisms of
yeast.
To reject it on the basis that SG impact fermentation requires either a lack of
understanding of the mathematics and meaning of the terms, or a lack of
critical thinking. The argument about SG is bit like rejecting Newton's
description of gravity as it applies to falling pears since it was developed
with respect to a falling apple - non sequiteur.
- --
Yeast and lag period -
There has been some discussion that high pitching rates are a solution to the
lag phase. If you consider that increasing the amount of yeast doesn't
significantly impact the environment of newly pitched individual yeast cells in
fresh wort - then this oft' quoted solution starts to look like another HB
Momily. Obviously doubling the pitching will cause the bubbler to start
earlier but it's just that two stunned (lag phase) yeast cells produce twice as
much CO2 as one stunned cell. You haven't avoided lag at all.
Studies have demonstrated that the lag period is a property of many mold/yeast
and bacterial cultures - it is not specific to brewing yeast. Lag time
decreases throughout the exponential (log) growth phase, and pitching yeast
from the late exponential growth phase into similar media(wort) is reported to
minimize the length of lag. As the exponential growth phase shifts to
stationary phase (and your starter begins to clear) the lag will increase.
Higher temps do decrease lag period, but fermenting too warm wort and the
impact on yeast are usually big flavor negatives.
It seems that ideally we'd like to pitch the mid to late exponential phase
yeast (for a lot of reasons) but without a centrifuge this means pitching a lot
of starter wort. You certainly don't want to do that is you've been
continuously aerating the starter as per recent discussions.
As for the centrifuge - most conventional lab models won't conveniently handle
anything like the 4-8L starter volumes under discussion. If any of the highly
ingenious guys who used to write about novel brewing hardware are still
around - consider this a challenge.
Steve A
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 05:45:45 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Yeast and Esters
Robert Arguello asks about yeast and esters.
>My question is about the esters they produce...
>or rather the mechanics of producing esters.
>I know that some yeasts produce more profound amounts of esters than others.
>I know that everything else being equal, a given yeast will produce more
>esters during high fermentation temperatures than at low temps. What I don't
>know is *how* the esters are formed. What is the chemistry? Why do some
You've cited two important factors in ester production, yeast variety and
temperature.
The mechanism - inside a cell the acetylCoA and some of it's variants [an
important intermediate which yeast produce when synthesizing lipids, proteins
and nucleic acids, particularly lipids] reacts with an alcohol in the presence
of a specific enzyme and produces an ester from the alcohol. The CoA are
present during the building and the destruction of lipids.
The big two esters are -
1/ Ethanol + acCoA -> ethyl acetate (limited by the AcetylCoA)
2/ Ethanol + caproylCoA -> ethyl-Caproate (limit caproyl-CoA0
And there are a lot of other minor players related to the minor alcohols such
as:
isoamyl alcohol + acCoA -> isoamyl acetate (limit isoamyl alc)
A similar set of steps can make esters from acids and lipids, but the products
are at low levels compared to flavor thresholds.
Ethyl acetate is obviously the biggest issue since it's created from the most
common alcohol and the most prevalent CoA species. The Gee Ramirez models,
make the total sugar consumed as proportional to the final ethyl-acetate under
otherwise identical conditions. They model the ethyl caproate as proportional
to the amount of yeast growth. They model the other minor alcohol esters as
being produced at a constant rate per unit yeast mass.
What effects ester production ? Pantothenic acid is a precursor of acCoA - so
upping the pantothenate level increases esters. Adding short chain fatty acids
to wort (less than 11 carbons long) decreased the ethyl acetate levels -
presumably by using up acCoA, adding longer chain fatty acids increased the
ethyl acetate levels. Wort fatty acids are longish - so adding trub should
increase ester production. Depriving wort of O2 prevents UFA synthesis and
causes a pooling of excess acCoA and so an increase in ester levels, but later
aerations can increase ester levels ???. pH doesn't seem to have much impact.
Adding nitrogen salts to wort increases ester levels, and diluting nitrogen can
reduce levels. This is probably the result of the yeast producing oxo-acids
which esterify while making amino acids from the nitrogen. The nitrogen level
only ha a moderate impact on esters, but can have a major impact on fusels.
Why temperature ?? The ezyme involved is more active and the internal membranes
are more permiable to alcohol, permitting the alcohol CoA and enzyme to meet.
==
Also see Andy walsh's excellent contribution at:
http://hbd.org/brewery/library/EstFormAW0696.html
and particularly the postscript msg I include in part here from
a Brauwelt article showing an increase in esters in after
re-aerating at pitching+24hours.
The figures are (mg/l).
max 1 ppm 9 ppm 9ppm
9ppm with yeast
w/o yeast w/o yeast w/o yeast with yeast
and second aeration
ethyl acetate 13.3 16.4 13.4 14.1
16.5
isopentyl acetate 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3
1.5
==
Practical advice: To reduce esters - choose the yeast carefully, pitch big,
ferment cool/cold and oxygenate the wort early and fully To increase esters
pick a known ester producing yeast, pitch small, underoxygenate, ferment warm
(IOW just keep doing what you've been doing ;^)
I would personally avoid mucking up the fatty acid or nitrogen levels in order
to achieve ester effects.
There are better means.
Steve A
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 07:10:53 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: BT subscriptions
Paul writes:
>On an unrelated issue, has anyone else received an unsolicited email
>from Jessica Olson at brewing techniques <Jessica@brewtech.com>
>advertising their special subscrition rate. I sure hope that BT isn't
in the
>practice of culling email addresses from the HBD.
I also got an email from them but it said
>We designed this special subscription promotion to give our on-line
readers
>chance to see the magazine "in the flesh."
so I assumed it was because I had looked at their web-site and
subscribed to their online newsletter. At anyrate, I'm going to
subscribe, been meaning to for a while.
Mark Tumarkin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:35:51 -0400
From: "Dave Greathouse" <daveg@citynet.net>
Subject: CO2 by weight
Hi:
(this is my first post to the HBD)
I have a rather "weird" question for some of you "brew chem" guys....
"What is the weight of CO2 per unit volume (liter, gal, oz) in properly
carbonated beer?"
When I was a kid in college we used to force carbonate Kool-aid and grain
alcohol in a 2-liter PET bottle, using DRY ICE! (Don't even ask why...
DUMB I guess)Plop some in the tiny hole, fill up the bottle and cap, swirl
it around.... you could gauge from the "hardness" of the bottle if the thing
was ready for more CO2 or if it had too much... I know, sounds dangerous,
but no one got killed, a little wet maybe.... The results ranged from no
carbonation to way too much. Our methods weren't very "scientific", not
really measured. The "coldness" of the dry ice allowed the CO2 to go into
solution easily, and if we know the right amount to add it would remove
some of the uncertainty... Just weigh out the "solid" CO2 needed plop it in
and go (sounds WAY too easy, I must be missing something...)
I know the "experts" talk of "volumes" of CO2, what does this unit
represent?
I am thinking of force carbonating some root beer in this manner. If it
works
I would try it on beer!
Just a thought...
Dave G.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:00:53 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Old Grains
Chris Frey asked about the consequences of storage of malt. The most
obvious one is that stored malt picks up moisture at an amazing rate. I
opened a new bag of DWC Pale Ale (the stuff I posted an analysis on
yesterday) on Saturday last and measured the 1000 corn weight: 20.2871
grams. Today, Thursday, the 1000 corn weight is 20.8244 - a change of
2.6% is 4 days! Note that the bag is in the kitchen (Mum is away) and
I've had the air conditioner on during this time so that we aren't
dealing with basement level humidity. One of the reasons I did this
measurement was that the beer I brewed using this malt was made mostly
with the remains of an old (January) bag and the extract was
surprisingly low (67%).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:07:56 -0400
From: MAB <mabrooks@erols.com>
Subject: Iodophor and pH
In a recent post :
>From: Paul Niebergall
>Subject: Iodophor
>The information comes from the oldest (and one of the most respected)
>home brew shops in the our area. In a newsletter that was recently
>issued, it was stated that Iodopher doesn't work in an alkali soution
>(specifically above a pH of 8.5). Tartaric acid was recommended to
>lower th pH of the Iodophor solution. Has anyone else ever heard of
>this. It kind of makes me worry since my tap water is usually above pH
>of 9.
This information is fairly accurate as alkaline pH values do cause
elemental Iodine (I2) and hypoiodous acid (HIO) to form less effective
forms of iodine, this is usually only a problem above pH 8.4. It is
very unusual to have a drinking water with a pH of 9 and I would
think this would be an exception and that most brewers who use Iodophor
would not have to worry about pH causing a problem.
BTW Paul, are you on well water or public water? I would inquire to the
water company about my pH if it was that high on a consistant basis, as
this is an upper limit for drinking water. If you are on well water,
You may want to consider adding an inline water treatment system. Do
you have a water analysis handy as I would be interested in seeing your
Hardness and Alkalinity levels.
Matt
Northern VA.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 08:28:24 -0700
From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson@winternet.com>
Subject: Specialty Malt Kickers
Hello Collective,
Have any of you used Morgan's specialty malt kickers? If so, can any of
you tell me whether they give better results in terms of flavor than using
specialty grains?
Thanks in advance,
Mike Hanson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc@shore.net>
Subject: Films and light sources
The best way to determine if a film on the surface:
Find a microscope and a trained eyeball to look at it.
Could be anything - one look will remove all doubt. Wait it
out if you can find the scope and eyes. If it smells and tastes
ok now - try again in a week. If the beer continues to produce
gas eventually youll get a wiff of something "wild" if they (the
film produced) are unwanteds.
>From my personal experience (my yeast /process), Never saw a film
in primary (could not see in them) but when I had a crappy
hose, heat exchanger and lots of plastic parts - I had a nasty
fight with a wild yeast. Never got its name - but it produced
a film that I could see in the secondary (grundy with sightglass)
and overcarbonated. These where 1/4 the size of the normal yeast
and slipper shaped. One look under a scope and comparison to
the normal - and down the drain it went (X5).
Moral of the story (for me) new heatexchanger, tossed platic crap in
the dumpster and bought real hose. Expensive you bet, never dumped
another because of them tho. Plastic is a great place for bugs to hide.
One scratch is all it takes.
- -------------------
On lite source for a scope - I had a real cheap scope - used it
for a long time with one of those candels for the window at
christmas time. I put some milky cellophane tape on the platform
to diffuse the lite. Worked great (ur good enuff). Never used
1000X power tho. 400X is fine unless you want to see "yeast
guts". Most of the time you want to see the general population
rather than the innards. At 400X you can get a general sense of
health (vacuole and outer wall) with a good stain.
Good Luck and great brewing
Joe Rolfe
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:25:44 -0500
From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Film, 212F, Alt.
Greg Lorton writes about Joe*s film
>I just got done reading "Lambic" book of the Beer Styles books, and
>Jean-Xavier Guinard talks about a couple of yeasts (Brettanomyces,
>Candida, and Pichia) that produce a "pellicle" (film) on the surface
of >the beer. Brettanomyces contributes a "horsey" character, and
the >others reportedly add some esters, adding to the fruity character of
the >beer. Lambic brewers NEVER break the film. It supposedly protects
>the beer from oxidation.
If Joe*s film is a truly a pellicle formed by wild yeasts (ala Lambic
style), it will become very evident, very soon. The pellicles that have
formed on the batches of pLambic that I have seen are really thick, white,
and dusty. There is no mistaking it, it*s really gross and it looks like
mold. If you have just a slight film and no discernable off-flavors, then
don*t worry and bottle away.
George_De_Piro writes about the addition of boiling water to the mash:
>Badger is wondering what will happen to the enzymes when using this
>procedure. Modern brewers avoid overheating the mash. Why is this?
>Beers of old were likely to be phenolic, sour, etc. If a modern
> brewer is going to try recreating historical beers pure yeast cultures
>should not be used (especially if one is trying to recreate ancient
>homebrew). The highly dextrinous (and possibly starchy) worts of
>yesteryear could be attenuated by wild yeasts and bacteria. Some >wild
organisms produce quite agreeable flavors (as modern Lambic
>demonstrates). You could get lucky. I'm sure the best brewers of old
>were the ones that just happened to be microbiologically fortunate.
While the science of what George is saying may be true, I would like to
point out that the reality of modern home brewing is quite different. I
have done quite a few decoction mashes and have added enormous amounts of
boiled grains back to the main mash. Not to mention the addition of the
boiled portion of the thin mash (mostly liquid) at mash out. I have never
experienced *phenolic, sour, etc.* flavors in any of my decocted brews.
Neither have my worts been dextrinous (unless I wanted them to be) or
starchy. Also if you are step mashing, or just trying to hold the
temperature of your single infusion mash, the addition of boiling water is
necessary (ever try to raise the temperature of a mash from 150 to 155
degrees with the addition of 170 degree water - you need a really big
mashtun). Just try to keep the additions of boiling water to a minimum
and be sure to let your mash rest until any released starch is converted
(which may take a while longer because some of the enzymes may have been
denatured). Unless you are adding massive amounts of boiling water (like
doughing in 10 pounds of grain with 3 gallons of boiling water) and then
letting the hot mash cool to your selected conversion temperature, there
is nothing to worry about.
I have to agree with Al Korzonas criticism of the Zymurgy article on Alt.
Among the things that Al pointed out, I had a problem with the suggestion
that you can make a credible Alt by using a malt extract and essentially
steeping munich malt. Doesn*t munich malt have to be mashed? Also using
an amber colored extract is not a good idea, as you don*t really know what
makes up the amber color (crystal malt, carmel coloring, etc.). At the
least I would recommend going with a light un-hopped malt extract and
mini-mashing the munich malt with the other specialty grains. Even this
would probably be a long shot.
Brew on,
Paul Niebergall
Kansas City
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:44:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: Kenneth Sullivan <Kenneth.Sullivan@Central.Sun.COM>
Subject: Chest freezer broken :-(
Probst!
My 8 cu.ft. chest freezer ran forever (4 yrs old) on a Hunter Air Stat
but now won't turn on?! I had to unplug it and move it outside while
I built my basement brewpub. Now when I plug it in, it doesn't make
any kind of sound at all. I verified the Hunter was good.
I suspect the starter cap. I bypassed the fridge thermistor, no joy.
Anybody out there have a few troubleshooting tips?
I have a background in electronics but no experience with fridges.
Thnx, KJ
Ken Sullivan
kjsulli@central.sun.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 07:44:58 PDT
From: "Marc Fries" <q_mech@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Iodophor
> In a newsletter that was recently
>issued, it was stated that Iodopher doesn't work in an alkali soution
>(specifically above a pH of 8.5). Tartaric acid was recommended to
>lower th pH of the Iodophor solution. Has anyone else ever heard of
>this. It kind of makes me worry since my tap water is usually above
>pH of 9.
Iodophor is a chemical complex containing iodine atoms. In order to
free the iodine so that it can do its sanitizing work, the iodine atoms
are replaced with other atoms. In this case, free hydrogen atoms from
an acid are used, in what is called a dehalohydrogenation reaction (if
memory serves...!). In order for the reaction to proceed to completion,
you should start with a solution with a pH of about 6 (less is fine).
pH is a direct measurement of the amount of hydrogen atoms suspended in
the solution (-log [H+], if you want to get technical!). My point is;
yes - add an acid to the water in order to get the iodophor to work.
Vinegar will work (acetic acid). So will tartaric acid, or even a small
amount of phosphoric or hydrochloric acid, but those are nasty to
handle. Just make sure the solution is pH < 6 and you're in business!
Marc D. Fries
BS in chemistry, lotta chemistry BS
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:16:34 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: flow rate of wort vs. water
Thanks to those who responded. I think I'm going to go
with some smaller tubing and valves than 3/8". Using
1/4" copper (or SS, I have access to both) will probably
be the best bet for my situation. My 1/2" valve will, by
necessity, need to remain, however I will install another,
smaller valve further downstream. The smaller tubing and
smaller valve should allow me better control. Thanks.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:18:45 -0500
From: "Crossno, Glyn" <Glyn.Crossno@cubic.com>
Subject: 10 gallon ferment
- Bradd Wheeler asks
>Does anyone have experience with this particular item, or have access
>to a more suitable vessel for fermenting 10 gallon batches?
My batch size varies based on OG. From 8 gallons of BW to 13+. For the
money I've just stayed with a 6.5 gallon carboy and several plastic
pails. Your situation is probably different, but I don't really want to
carry any more at one time than about 5 gallons. Moving from the
outside boil, to the ferment/furnace room, to bottling line even with a
pump would seem to be a plumbing/cleaning hassle. And you can justify a
couple more cold ones after all that work.
ALAN KEITH MEEKER asks concerning hops
>So, how does one handle this? Should I harvest a section at a time?
I try to harvest a section at a time. This is one area where you have
an advantage over the commercial guys.
>Is it better to harvest too early or too late?
>From my experience it is better to pick a little late. Several years
ago when I brewed my first homegrown batch I got a grassy taste. I had
picked most of the hops in one picking and not want to do it again for I
while I pick some early. Since then I've been more careful and have not
had this flavor. It did seem to fad with time.
Glyn Crossno
Estill Springs, TN
- ---------------
"You know you're a homebrewer when you measure beer in gallons. You
know you're a homebrewer when you have 60 gallons of beer in your car.
You know you're a homebrewer when you don't think 60 gallons is much
beer." Sully
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:44:12 -0700
From: Gail Elber <gail@brewtech.com>
Subject: Re: unsolicited email
>an unsolicited email
>from Jessica Olson at brewing techniques <Jessica@brewtech.com>
>advertising their special subscription rate. I sure hope that BT isn't in the
>practice of culling email addresses from the HBD.
Those e-mails went to former subscribers, people who requested a Buyers
Market Guide, and others who have ordered something from us in the past.
HBD's mailing list is safe from us. <g>
Gail Elber, Associate Editor
BrewingTechniques
P.O. Box 3222
Eugene, OR 97403
Tel. 541/687-2993
Fax 541/687-8534
http://brewingtechniques.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:42:41 -0400
From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA@navair.navy.mil>
Subject: alt/film/bt solicitation/insulating inside a freezer
collective homebrew conscience:
al k wrote, regarding recent alt fiction in zymurgy:
>I urge everyone to be wary of the recipes and guidelines presented in this
>article and the book "Altbier" from whence this article was extracted.
it sounds to me like bt needs to send a correspondent to the fatherland to
do one of their "styles" articles, to set the record straight. (maybe
they've already done this?) volunteers?
*********************
paul niebergall wrote:
<snip>has anyone else received an unsolicited email
<from Jessica Olson at brewing techniques <snip> advertising their special
subscrition rate. I sure <hope that BT isn't in the practice of culling
email addresses from the HBD.
ouch. yeah, i got one too.
********************
regarding film on the surface of beer in the secondary, i have had this on a
few beers, mostly ones that i get lazy with and don't bottle or keg when i
should. i tried to compensate for this last year by purging the secondary
headspaces with some co2, but i must not have purged well enough (or the
purging was inconsequential for the microbe(s) in question), because i still
developed a film on one beer that had sat around many days too long at close
to room temp. the beers, despite this, were not horribly impaired. they
were more than drinkable. (moral: laziness + room temp = invitation to
microbes. laziness is not a tenet of the "brew hard" philosophy.)
*********************
marc battreall wrote:
<I don't know if the slants will gain any insulating properties by being
stored inside the container and <maintain a slightly higher temp or if they
will eventually settle down to the same temp as the freezer. <Maybe some
foam insulation?
the only way to maintain the interior of a container, inside a properly
operating freezer, at a higher temp than the interior of the freezer, is to
have some sort of heat source within the container. unless you have 100%
efficient insulation (i.e. zero heat transfer), the slants will eventually
reach the temperature of the interior of the freezer.
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 12:24:31 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: Insulation
Cap'n Mark wants to keep his yeast in the deep freeze and wonders if
insulation will help maintain a warmer temperature.
It's a common miconception that insulation by itself keeps something hot
or cold. All insulation does is slow the flow of heat from one area to
a colder area. If you have hot coffee in a Thermos sitting outside at
10F, it will still eventually freeze, but it will take much longer than
a cup of coffe in an uninsulated mug.
Unless the yeast is somehow producing heat, given enough time in a foam
box, your yeasties will reach the same temperature as your wife's rump
roast.
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
kenbob@elp.rr.com
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:32:23 -0400
From: Mark Swenson <swenson@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: FAN Levels in Extracts
In a private response to my recent question about published FAN
levels in extracts, it was suggested that there was an article in Zymurgy a
few years ago in which they actually tested the FAN in a dozen or two
extracts. I would be willing to get a back issue of this if I could
identify the issue. Does anyone out there know the Volume and Number of
the Zymurgy issue in question?
TIA
Mark Swenson
Key Biscayne, FL
Miami Area Society of Homebrewers
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:18:25 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: More Period Brewing Questions..
Greeting Modern Brewers..
(i hope that i am not entirely out of the scope of this list with all of my
historical and period brewing questions. please let me know if i should stop
cluttering the list.)
I have recently stumbled accross a couple of early beer and ale recipes, and
have of course, some more questions..
recipe 1: (circa 1503) 71% malt, 14% wheat, 14% oats, and is hopped
recipe 2: (circa 1079) 16.5 % barley, 16.5 % wheat, 67 % Oats. no hops.
Questions:
1. what is the water absortion rate of grain? ie. if i want to yeild X
amount of runoff, i should use Y more water to account for water
absorbtion...
2. what is a rough idea of how much water will boil off during a roiling
boil, uncovered? this is also related to #1 so i can get a predetermined
amount in teh fermenttor. many period recipes state how much ale or beer
was made from such and such amounts of grain..
3. I am assuming that the Quaker rolled oats would NOT do here.. any
suggestions on how to simulate the Oats? would they have been malted? one
would think so, since rec. 2 is 67% oats.. otherwise would you get enough
sugars?
4. ditto with teh wheat.. any idea whether it was malted or unmalted?
5. will fire or straw kilned malt have a certain flavor difference over gas
kilned malt? since i am assuming that the malt is probably not evenly
malted, would a mixture of different kilnings of malt (pale, brown, etc.)
give me a more period malt approximation?
6. what is a good source of information on the history of grain, adn
malting techniques that reaches back to at least the 16th century?
7. ditto with teh history of Hops.. i am assuming the massive alpha acid
hops are relatively recent creation... to simulate period hops, i am
thinking of using Noble, low alpha acid leaf hops...
I hope i am not wasting bandwidth with all this.. I am working on some
papers and projects for a Arts and Sciences championship in October, and
need to get my ducks in a row soon.
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: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:30:29 -0400
From: todd_ebert@rovisys.com
Subject: Oatmeal Stout Explosion
I made an oatmeal stout a week ago and forgot to check my airlock every day
and you can probably guess what happened. The airlock plugged and my bucket
lid blew off. I am not so worried about the carnage on the walls as I am
with how the batch might be damaged by having the bucket lid completely off
for 24 or so hours. When I noticed I put the lid back on (forgot to clean
it but I think it wasn't to dirty) and cleaned out the airlock. 5 days
later I racked it into a carboy and did not notice any off smells.
Do you think the batch will have any problems from the lid being off that
long? What indicators should I look for as I complete the process?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 21:11:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Beer Review: Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale (AVOID)
Greetings, Beelings! Take me to your lager...
In deference to Steve Alexander, a review.
On my way from Oakville, Ontario Canada today, I had $10 Canadian to rid
myself of, so I stopped at the Duty-free and picked up a 12 of the subject
beer. India pale it ain't. No hop character at all. SOme muted fruitiness.
Sweet finish. Is that corn I detect in the palate? Stunningly light in
color; stunningly clear. Nice bright-white head. A bit overcarbonated.
Overall, a pitiful example of the style. Sigh. Unless you're looking for a
slightly more full-bodied example of American Ultralight (Lager), you
don't want this 'un. Kind of rounded out a rather diappointing (in terms
of beer) visit this time around...
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:23:29 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Easy Chloramine Neutralization
A few months ago I posted "Chloramine Heresies" in which I indicated
that some literature and single-data-point experiments had suggested
that chloramines were actually more volatile that free chlorine and
could, thus, be removed by standing, aeration and boiling. Additional
reading and experiments now indicate that dichloramine and trichloramine
are indeed more volatile than free chlorine but that monochloramine is
less volatile than free chlorine and that the majority of the
chloramines found in municipal water is monochloramine. This does not
mean that boiling, standing and aeration are ineffective. Several tests
have shown that a few minutes boil will remove both free chlorine and
chloramine. Tests also show that monochloramine will leave water upon
standing but that it does so at a rate about half that of free chlorine.
In other words, if a particular configuration of container and air
circulation (e.g. 500 mL sample in a 500 mL beaker in one experiment)
results in a reduction of free chlorine to half its initial value in
12.54 hours (experimental data), it will take about 24.87 (same
experiment) hours for the monochloramine concentration to fall to half
its initial value.
Messages to consumers from water districts implementing chloramination
caution aquarists that neutralization of chlorine with photographer's
hypo (sodium thiosulfate - the traditional method for these folks)
cannot be used any more because hypo reacts with chloramine to release
ammonium ions which convert to ammonia as fish metabolism raises the pH
of the aquarium water and ammonia is toxic to fish. But hold! Yeast
don't raise pH - they lower it. And ammonium isn't toxic to yeast - they
love it. Most "yeast nutrients" contain urea (which breaks down into
ammonium) and/or ammonium phosphate.
So why don't we just all trundle off to the photo shop and buy a bag of
hypo to eliminate chlorine/chloramine from our brewing water? The answer
is that we probably already have (at least those of us that do wine or
mead) another equally effective reducing agent in our cupboard that we
know is food grade because we bought it at the brew shop - Campden
tablets. I've experimented with Campden tablets and determined that 1
tablet (686 mg Potassium Metabisulfite) will "neutralize" the
chlorine/chloramine in 20 gallons of water with a total chlorine (free
chlorine plus chloramine) content of up to 2 mg/L - as much as you are
likely to see except under exceptional circumstances. If a brewer
treats 20 gallons of brew water with 1 Campden tablet (note that the
label recommendation for wine is 1 - 2 tablets per gallon) the potassium
content will increase 5 mg/L and sulfur dioxide will be released into
the water. Some of this will be oxidized to sulfate by the
chlorine/chloramine and that which is not oxidized by chlorine or
otherwise will be driven off in the boil. If all is oxidized to sulfate
the sulfate will increase by 6 mg/L. These amounts are not significant.
In addition, based on experimental data, chloramine at 2 mg/L reduced
by the metabite will yield about 0.2 mg/L ammonium ion - not an
appreciable amount but enough to give the yeast a little FAN snack.
Thus I'm offering the suggestion that chlorine/chloramine removal is
easily effected by simply adding 1 Campden tablet to 20 gallons of water
- no activated carbon filters, no boiling. Certainty that this will be
effective can be obtained by measuring the total chlorine content of the
water with a cheap test kit first to be sure that the level is at or
below 2 mg/L. If above, the amount of water treated by one tablet can be
scaled. The amount required to neutralize the chlorine/chloramine more
precisely can be determined more accurately if desired but as the
quantities required are so small it is probably not worth the effort to
do this.
Can this be all there is to it? Comments? Questions? Observations?
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2816, 09/04/98
*************************************
-------
