Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2884
HOMEBREW Digest #2884 Wed 25 November 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:
BeerSpeak (Jeffrey_Tonole/CA/americancentury)
Re:HBD2880--More on Co2 (homebru)
Yeast propagation (Dave Russelllocalhost)
Re: Aluminum open fermentors/I hate carboys ("Swintosky, Michael D.")
Metallic flavors / Aluminum / Printing what others write ("George De Piro")
Clear Beer (Nathan Kanous)
Trub X Competition ("Bruce Daniels")
reply to "Westmalle Triple Yeast" HBD#2883 (Herbert Bresler)
aluminium pots (Andrew Stavrolakis)
clear beer ("Spies, Jay")
scorchmaster mixmasher ("Spies, Jay")
CO2 toxicity to yeast (NEWTRADBC)
Weizen question (NEWTRADBC)
An idea I had for computerized recipe exchange ("Tim Dallmann")
He lost...that weizen flavor... / yeast nutrient (Brian Pickerill)
Yeast came back, Site Glass, Making ZIMA??, Runoff (Joe Rolfe)
hBd or hbD (Jason.Gorman)
Re: proununciations (Free State Brewing Co.)
Re: pronounce . . . (Project One)
Tap Room/Phenolic Lagers ("Tim Burkhart")
Zymurgy "road tests" (Spencer W Thomas)
Reprinted without permission... (pbabcock)
hBd or Hbd (pbabcock)
lactose (David Whitman)
Copper oxide?? (Mark T A Nesdoly)
priming with actively fermenting yeast (Al Korzonas)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event On Earth yet?
Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
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!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen) Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from janitor@hbd.org.
COPYRIGHT for the individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without first obtaining EXPRESS written
permission from the author. The author and HBD must be attributed
as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:22:32 -0800
From: Jeffrey_Tonole/CA/americancentury@americancentury.com
Subject: BeerSpeak
John A. MacLaughlin writes:
>A recent visitor to the Pacific northwest tells me that the local
>pronunciation of "Willamette" in that area is more like will-LAM-met
>than the will-lam-ETTE I had expected. Can anyone verify this?
Yes. Will-LAM-met is correct.
I got my undergraduate degree from Willamette University (no, I
didn't major in hops), so I've heard people (mis)pronounce it
several different ways. Having a not-well-known and difficult-to-
prounounce alma mater made for some great job interviews:
POTENTIAL EMPLOYER: So you went to school at Will-uh-MET?
ME: Yes, I went to Will-LAM-met.
PE: Will-LAM-met. I've never heard of it. Is that a junior college?
ME: No. Is that a hairpiece?
Fred Johnson asks:
>How about someone pronouncing "kraeusen" for me? (I misspelled
>this word twice before I finished this post!)
KROY-zen. The German spelling is "krausen" with an umlaut (two dots)
over the "a."
Here are a couple of other random brewing pronunciations:
autolysis: aw-TAWL-uh-sis (not aw-toe-LIE-sis)
Curacao (as in the orange peel for Wits): KYOOR-uh-soe
jeff tonole
SlothBrew
Adrift in the universe but currently just a mile up the road from HBD
chef Scott Murman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 06:59:46 -0500
From: homebru <homebru@tir.com>
Subject: Re:HBD2880--More on Co2
In HBD 2880, Roger Meridith wrote:
> Also, there may be advantages to leasing instead of buying a cylinder.
Inspection and hydrostat test at about $50 >or so every 5 years. If you buy,
you're responsible for the test. If you lease, they take care of it.
I know that prices may vary in different areas of the country for the same
services but, I just got my 5 lb. CO2 bottle back from testing and the cost
was $24, including a refill. Test alone is $14. I know when I originally
bought my setup, leasing the CO2 was suggested to me, due to the fact the that
if it should happen to fail the 5 yr. test, the bottle is not returned to you.
But when I had this bottle tested, I asked about the failure rate and was told
they don't see many failures. Granted, this is but one shop in my area, but my
previous and ongoing experience with SCUBA tanks (which are subject to the
same test) leads me to believe they last a LONG time. I have one SCUBA tank
that was used when I got it back in 1963 and it still passes it's test. Just
my $.02 worth.
Terry Dornbos, Lansing Mi .... approx. 70
miles NW of Jeff Renner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 07:20:54 -0500
From: Dave Russelllocalhost <drussel3@ford.com>
Subject: Yeast propagation
Sorry, I am a few weeks behind in reading my hbd's. I have some
questions relating to the creating and storing of wort for yeast
starters. The posts were concentrated around canning wort, and
refridgerating it for later usage. First question I have, I have never
canned anything. Any special equipment involved in the canning
process. I know there are jars and lids/seals involved. How do you go
about canning wort? Any help would be appreciated.
There was no discussion on creating wort, and directly bottling it in
sanitized bottles. My thoughts were to create a batch the size
necessary to fully step up my starter, then bottle & fridge the wort.
This wort wouldn't be around for more than the "week" needed to step up
the culture for pitching. Why wouldn't this method work?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:36:42 -0500
From: "Swintosky, Michael D." <Swintosk@timken.com>
Subject: Re: Aluminum open fermentors/I hate carboys
Chad writes
try this... take your clean aluminum pot and a piece of paper, fold
the paper a couple times and rub vigorously on the inside of the pot for
about 10 seconds, then look at the paper (an exaggeration, but this gray
gunk is getting into your beer);
White paper is highly abrasive due to the addition of "whiteners", typically
titanium dioxide. The above test would produce grey or other gunk from
virtually any metallic pot, including stainless.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 9:09 -0800
From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: Metallic flavors / Aluminum / Printing what others write
Hi all,
Ed asks why his last batch of beer has a metallic flavor. He says
that it fades away if the glass is allowed to sit a couple of minutes.
He notes that the appearance of the off-flavor coincides with a change
in his cleaning regimen.
Metallic flavors are most often the result of oxidation, not exposure
of the wort to metal. The First George (Fix, that is) has written a
rather nice article about oxidation in the most recent issue of
Brewing Techniques. This is complemented nicely by Scott Bickham's
flavor-series article about oxidation flavors (earlier this year in
BT).
By the way, the picture of the brewer on the title page of my BT
article this month is NOT me! My picture is at the end of the article
in a little 1" square box. My brewery really is the 40 square foot
kitchen that is pictured in the article, though.
------------------------------
Some people have been wondering if Aluminum can be used for brewery
vessels. Yes, it can. The major reasons aluminum is not often used
in commercial operations:
1. It is quickly corroded by most cleaning agents used in Clean In
Place (CIP) systems.
2. It is softer and more easily damaged than stainless.
3. It is not a strong as stainless (structurally).
Wolfgang Kunze, in his text, _Technology Malting and Brewing_, says
that aluminum will impart no off-flavors to beer or wort.
Eric Warner (Weihenstephen grad, writer, and all-around great brewer)
won a gold medal at the AHA NHC a few years back with a Weizen that
was fermented in an aluminum vessel.
--------------------------------------
John Palmer mentioned that he will be reprinting a recent post of mine
to his web site. I just wanted to mention that he did ask for my
permission before doing this, and for this I was grateful.
I occasionally get requests from people to reprint my writing in
various places. I appreciate (and always say "yes") to such requests.
I have noticed a bunch of web sites that have printed my writing
without permission, though (including some commercial enterprises).
You know who you are.
The reason this upsets me is because what I write here is not always
up to my usual standards of grammar and basic good writing. I don't
like to be represented on some stranger's web site like that. If you
ask permission, I can fix things like typos, etc. I also don't like
the idea of my writing being used for commercial purposes without any
kind of compensation (not even a "thank you"). I realize that there
is little I can do about this in the modern age, but I will remind
folks that a little courtesy goes a long way.
Sorry for the minor rant, have fun!
George de Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:15:32 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Clear Beer
Met a friend this weekend that had some homemade "wine coolers". He said
he used a litte extra light malt extract, a lot of corn syrup and
maltodextrin...flavored with Kool-Aid. He said he got the recipe from
Brew-Your-Own Mag (no affiliation). I'll get in touch with him later this
week for a recipe...if somebody wants it.
nathan in Madison, WI
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:13:32 -0500
From: "Bruce Daniels" <bdaniels@rbscorp.com>
Subject: Trub X Competition
Did anyone enter the TRUB X homebrew contest held Oct 31. And if so, have
you received your score sheets back? Their competition web site has not
been updates, and Emails sent to them have not been answered.
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:31:24 -0500
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7@osu.edu>
Subject: reply to "Westmalle Triple Yeast" HBD#2883
B. Schneider wrote in HBD#2883:
>I am wondering what yeast is in the bottle of this beer. Do they use the
>same yeast in bottle conditioning from the fermentation, or is it another
>used just for bottling? I was thinking of growing it up after reading about
>the Chimay yeast propogation. - bas
bas,
I think I remember reading in the Belgian Ale style book that Westmalle
uses the same yeast throughout their process (including bottle
conditioning) and for all their beers. It seems that the Wyeast Trappist
High Gravity strain is Westmalle yeast. I copied the stats below from the
web page at
http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy/wyeast.html
Wyeast 3787 -- Trappist High Gravity
Robust top cropping yeast with phenolic character.
Alcohol tolerance to 12%, ideal for Biere de Garde, ferments dry
with rich ester profile and malty palate.
Temperature range: 64-78F
Apparent attenuation: 75-80%.
Flocculation: medium.
Source: Westmalle
I have a starter culture growing right now, but have not yet brewed with
it. I found it to be a little slow to swell in the package, but a fast
fermenter in the starter wort (O.G. 1.040). I don't think I'd go to the
trouble to culture up from a bottle since I can get the same strain from
Wyeast much easier (but perhaps not as much fun).
I hope this helps.
Good luck and good brewing,
Herb
Bexley (Columbus), Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:41:47 -0500
From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis@harvard.edu>
Subject: aluminium pots
Chad Bohl writes in hbd #2883:
"try this... take your clean aluminum pot and a piece of paper, fold the paper a
couple times and rub vigorously on the inside of the pot for about 10 seconds,
then look at the paper (an exaggeration, but this gray gunk is getting into your
beer)"
I don't think vigorously abrading the pot is a valid representation of what
happens when you boil wort (or anything, for that matter), and I don't
believe you can conclude the "grey gunk" (aluminium oxide?) is getting into
your beer from this experiment. I've brewed in both aluminium and stainless
steel, and have never detected any flavor defect attributable to the former.
Just one man's observation...
Cheers,
Andrew
99 miles east of Hartford
andrew_stavrolakis@harvard.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:52:02 -0500
From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies@dhcd.state.md.us>
Subject: clear beer
All -
Jeff McNally wrote: >>>Maybe brewing a light bodied, low hop,
blonde/golden ale, filtering it through a tight carbon filter, adding
lemon to taste, and then
force carbonating it would produce something close to Zima. Adding
more lemon would get close to 2-Dog Lemon Brew.<<<
Substituting some cheap adjuncts for the lemon would get close to
Budweiser.
;-)
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:11:43 -0500
From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies@dhcd.state.md.us>
Subject: scorchmaster mixmasher
All -
Badger chimes in thusly: >>>I use a jet style propane burner, its an
outdoor cooker, but i have no idea of the BTU output. If scorching is a
problem, how big a problem is this, and how does it affect the beer?
Burner question: It has a small square plate that can be swung over the
flame output. What is this supposed to be used for?<<<
You got yo' self a King Kooker. It's plenty hot (I think around 130K
BTU's??) but the flame control is nil. That plate thingy is swung in
place to (I think) divert some of the heat off of the pinpoint-sized
location where the flames normally go. If I were you, I'd go for the
copper manifold because if you do step mashes, you'll be doing *plenty*
of frenzied stirring, and I can just see you whacking the fragile
easymasher into oblivion, and with 20 or so pounds of grist on top,
digging it out is bound to be somewhat, uh, frustrating.
Scorching is likely to be a factor, and it will darken the beer (not a
big deal if it's a dark beer, but a big deal if you're doing a CAP or a
German Pilsner) and denature some of the enzymes (not sure of the
potential ramifications here), and worst on my list, provide you with
considerable headache scrubbing out the burnt gunk. I'd either do
single infusion or try to adjust the flame down as much as you can.
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:20:45 EST
From: NEWTRADBC@aol.com
Subject: CO2 toxicity to yeast
About a year ago it seems, there was a thread on CO2 toxicity to yeast.
I have a data point. I acknowledge up front this is not a rigorous scientific
method experiment (wasn't experimenting, I was brewing!), but its probably
pretty good as far as anecdotal evidence goes.
Brewed a helles type lager, 11gal, split into two 6.7 gal carboys (as usual),
same temp (low 50s), same yeast (American Lager by Wyeast), same amount of
yeast (sludge from 1 gal starter into each carboy), same oxygenation routine
(2 min pure O2 through stone).
Difference: allowed wort to settle for a few hours, siphoning carefully from
just below surface. First carboy was very bright, second was fine until I
sucked in some trub and hop sludge, ending up with a turbid wort. I kept
track of which was which because I was curious to see if there would be a
flavor difference.
After 10 days, I was planning to keg (my lagers always have finished 7-10
days), but, as always checked gravity before siphoning. Turbid carboy FG
1.014 (OG was 1.053 by the way), perfect. Bright carboy 1.030! with no real
activity present (both carboys had clumps of foam that had been there for a
couple of days).
Now, first line of thinking is, 'so the trub allowed the yeast to synthesize
sterols (I think that's right) and all you have is an
underpitched/underoxygenated wort situation (systemic error).' BUT, I
agitated the carboy to drive out the CO2, (also resuspending the yeast). NEXT
DAY, SG down to 1.024, and no trub added, which lends support to the CO2
concentration affecting the yeast theory. So I've racked it to drive out more
CO2 (taking most of the yeast along cause I still need it to finish). Almost
racked onto the turbid carboy's dregs, but chickened out.
Never had this problem before, but also never so carefully siphoned the wort.
Used to just drop the tube in and both carboys got a load of trub and hops.
In this unintentional experiment it seems that most variables have been
eliminated (approximately equal situations-not lab quality data to demonstrate
splits were equal), EXCEPT for rising CO2 concentration. So maybe that's
something to keep in mind. Don't get your wort too bright, especially if
making lagers where the cold temps will hold a higher CO2 concentration that
may impede the progress of the yeast.
Just for info.
Tom Bergman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:20:43 EST
From: NEWTRADBC@aol.com
Subject: Weizen question
Someone asked about Weizen losing its banana clove note quickly. Yep, I seem
to notice Weizen has a remarkably short shelf life with respect to these
flavors, although I don't notice them vanishing for a couple months. I used
to brew 10 gals at a time, but now only brew 5 gals of weizen since I really
like the ester's, and they don't last . The last keg/case never as good. So
your Weizen sounds normal (and I've brewed lots), just drink it quick. I do
find keeping the yeast roused helps,which is why I tend to bottle weizen,
getting good at the german inverted bottle pour into a weizen glass.
Tom Bergman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:41:07 -0700
From: "Tim Dallmann" <tdallmann@gr.com>
Subject: An idea I had for computerized recipe exchange
Hello Brewers,
Being a home-brewer and computer programmer has led me to explore the
various recipe calculators that are out there. While many of them do a good
job formulating, printing, and saving recipes, none I have found enables
true sharing of recipes between brewers. Sure, I can add a recipe to the
Recipator at brewery.org, or submit it to Cats Meow, but then it's just a
text recipe for others to use. No program out there, that I know of, allows
you to pull a recipe from the web and work with it on your home PC without
typing it in again. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) In other
words, I want to get a recipe from the web, have it import directly into my
homebrew software, and work with it for a new batch. I should then be able
to upload the batch recipe back to the original web site.
I've got an idea that I want to start batting around with any of you who
like to use computers in your homebrew endevours. XML is quickly becoming
the de-facto standard for organizing data that needs to be shared by
multiple systems. I would like to develop an XML vocabulary for use in
storing homebrew recipe data. Once the vocabulary is developed, I also want
to develop a few reusable components to allow software developers to add the
import/export functionality to their programs and web sites. And of course,
I want it to be free! :)
If any of you are interested in this, please let me know. I can set up a
mailing list so we can discuss the topic outside this forum.
Tim Dallmann
Denver, CO
(Actually, Westminster...but no one outside Colorado knows where that is!)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:48:21 -0500
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: He lost...that weizen flavor... / yeast nutrient
"...he had that weizen flavor, now it's gone, gone gone..."
Several people have mentioned problems lately with Weizens losing their
wonderful character after a few weeks. It happened to mine this year, too.
But I don't think it has anything to do with the yeast settling out. I
think it's not the flavor of the YEAST that is missing after time, it's
that the beer chemistry is changing because the wheinstephen yeast keeps
attenuating and changing the beer past the point of it's prime.
I first read about this theory in HBD 2850 from Randy Ricchi in response to
Alan Meeker. Basically, Alan talks about how his first weizen, with a 200ml
turned out great and kept it's flavor for a _year_. He wonders if it was
_because_ it was underpitched. Randy argues for a somewhat underpitched
and minimally aerated weizen:
>I wouldn't severely underpitch, but I do minimize aeration. A lot of yeasts,
>when underpitched, will not attenuate as much as they should, but every
>weizen yeast I have used (5 different strains) seems to keep chugging along
>until it attenuates the hell out of the beer, compared to most other ale
>and lager yeasts.
This set off bells with me because my first weizen was great, and I had it
for a month and a half and it lost no flavor. In fact, it was awesome at
the end. OK, so it didn't last nearly a year, but the last weizen I made I
pitched a huge starter and aerated a lot and it was fine at first but a
major disapointment after only a week or two in the keg. I am definitely
going to slightly underpitch/under aerate next time, too. No doubt about
the vigor of the 3068 yeast strain--it's incredible.
Incidentally, on that first weizen, I popped the 3068 smack pack at least a
week before pitching it the night before in about a 20-32 oz starter! I
had just made a venturi tube and used that for aeration. (not much
aeration, I'd say.) There were a lot of other variables (first batch was
extract+ bottled, later ones have been all grain + kegged) so my mind isn't
completely made up, but I'm really curious about this.
Does anybody else have any datapoints on this? Maybe my first weizen would
have gone south too, if I had kept it more than 6-7 weeks, but I could live
with 6-7 weeks, it's 1-2 that I have a problem with.
- -------
Thanks to everyone who posted or emailed me about my yeast nutrient
question. (IMYNR?) My first mead is chuging along, slowly. BTW, the
nutrient turned out to be Fermax, rather than just diamonium phosphate.
(DAP). So, I'm not sure if it breaks down over time or not. I would guess
that it would to some extent.
Art Cemelli wrote:
>I would not take the chance in using old di-amonium phosphate. The best
>yeast nutrient is "yeast hulls" you can get them by putting some yeast in
>the boil. This will kill the yeast and only leave the Hulls ( poor little
>yeast).
My take on it was that the DAP itself would probably be pretty stable. I
think it's the yeast that were in there that would have broken down over
time. I definitely wanted to boil whatever it was, rather than add it
straight.
I used the old Fermax and I guess the mead is going alright. There is
definitely fermentation going on, but it's more subdued than most beer
fermentations. This is normal I suppose?
- -------
Pete said:
>You are probably familiar with the large stainless steel coffee dispensers
>that most of us have in the break rooms where we work. I just noticed we
>have some real nice large ones here where I work, with spigots on them,
>sight glasses, they are stainless, and they plug in to heat up water and
>maintain the temp. The ones here actually have thermostats on them. Seem
>like they would make awesome HLT's to me. Or even a mash tun if you rig a
>false bottom or something.
Now you'are thinking like a homebrewer. Congrats, and welcome to the
support group.
- --Brian Pickerill, Muncie Malt Mashers, Muncie IN
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:29:10 -0500
From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe@sky.sky.com>
Subject: Yeast came back, Site Glass, Making ZIMA??, Runoff
Just a data point about long term storage of yeasts. I had obtained a nice
bottom yeast in 1992 from Pierre Rajotte. I used it a few times and stored it
away under 10% sterile sucrose solution. I started to reanimate it for a
brew this past Saturday. I was getting worried Monday AM, no activity....
This morning - it was getting active (gas being produced). I looked at it
under the scope to insure they were as I remembered. Sure enough they were
looking pretty good (size, shape and health wise). Just a data point.
My .02cents on a site glass: if it is glass make sure you have
some protection (metal tube) for the glass. You may be better
off using food grade plastic hose - at least it wont break
in the middle of the brew.
mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff) wrote
>Someone posted here a while back about filtering a pale ale through
>a sub-micron carbon filter and turning their pale ale into a Zima like
>brew (ie. it stripped almost all of the color and flavor).
Filtering with sub-micro pads/cartridges in one shot could make for a
long day. Try clearing the beer of all particle matter first (gelatine,
isinglass
long cold storage, or other finings) then prefilter at least once down to 1u.
Even them submicron - youll probably want a large filter area. Good luck...
As for lauter rates, several of the professional brewing level texts have
rates and data for runoff. A rough guide line is runoff completes in about
2 hrs, giving a total grain/water contact time of 3 to 4 hrs. IMHO best
results
are obtained with manifolds under a false bottom and not a manifold in the
grain
bed. Monitoring of the different aspects can be done by having two site glasses
(see above tho) to monitor suction across the false bottom, and a variable
speed
runoff pump pulling the runoff to the kettle (via grant). But again what works
for
me wont work for everyone....
Good luck and great brewing
Joe Rolfe
------------------------------
Date: 24 Nov 1998 13:11:39 -0500
From: Jason.Gorman@steelcase.com
Subject: hBd or hbD
So is the correct pronunciation of the HBD, hBd or hbD? Inquiring minds want
to know.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:43:45 +0400
From: fsb@freestatebrewing.com (Free State Brewing Co.)
Subject: Re: proununciations
>A recent visitor to the Pacific northwest tells me that the local
>pronunciation of "Willamette" in that area is more like will-LAM-met
>than the will-lam-ETTE I had expected. Can anyone verify this?
Yes, That is how the natives pronounce it. Also, for anyone who is
interested in further pronunciation guidelines, try the "Dictionary of Beer
and Brewing" published by Brewers Publication. The latest edition is very
thorough.
Cheers
S. Bradt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:53:52 -0800
From: Project One <project1@pond.net>
Subject: Re: pronounce . . .
That is exactly how we pronounce it here in ORYGUN...
----------------->Denny Conn
I don't know where you are, but I'm here....
>
>Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:09:26 -0500
>From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam@clark.net>
>Subject: Re: . . . pronounce . . .
>
>A recent visitor to the Pacific northwest tells me that the local
>pronunciation of "Willamette" in that area is more like will-LAM-met
>than the will-lam-ETTE I had expected. Can anyone verify this?
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:08:26 -0500
From: "Tim Burkhart" <tburkhart@dridesign.com>
Subject: Tap Room/Phenolic Lagers
I Just had the opportunity to get out to NYC and happened by the Tap Room
(18th between 5th/6th).
I got a sampler of their Hefe, Marzen, Pils, and Helles (Dunkel and Bock
were out). The Hefe was wonderful with nice bananna and clove aromas and
flavors (clove a bit heavy for me), a little phenolic (band-aid I think)
right up front but faded quickly. Pleasant and suprisingly hoppy aftertaste.
The Marzen, Helles, and Pils were each good in their own right. Stylistic
considerations aside, the phenolic flavor upfront carried through to each
brew. Fine in a Hefe, but not so in a Pils. The Marzen, Pils and Helles also
lacked that lager crispness and clean body/texture that I would expect.
Any HBDr's been there recently? Did you taste the same thing? ... would it
be attributed to extraction in the mash or sanitation? I'd like to hear some
opinions.
Tim Burkhart
Kansas City
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:21:14 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Zymurgy "road tests"
In my limited experience participating in a single "road test", and in
viewing from afar a couple of others, it appears to me that one common
flaw is the **EDITORIAL DEADLINE**. There is pressure on the "road
testers" to just *finish the darn thing* so the article can be
printed. This would especially be true of an article for a special
issue. If a problem comes up (like the brews being agitated in
transport for the yeast article) there is just not time to correct it.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:06:22 -0500 (EST)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Reprinted without permission...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
George writes, in reference to having material reprinted without
permission...
"I realize that there is little I can do about this in the modern age,"
Au contraire, mon ami! The copyright belongs to you, and the date
associated with your post when it appears on the Digest constitutes legal
proof of said copyright - as long as no-one can *prove* they said it first
in a copyrightable manner, you can, in fact, sue them. (Note that the
commercial entity quoting George provided full attribution and didn't
claim credit for it. Discourteous yes. Illegal: not at this point, I don't
think. Read on...)
Folks: this comes up now and again. DO NOT repost things found here
without askng the originators opinion for any "cutting edge" information
or even for some long-held information that was simply put more
eloquently. The poster holds the copyright for their post and minimally
deserves credit for their work through a request for the use of said post
ant then the proper attribution for it when and where it is reposted.
The Digest as a collection is Copyright by hbd.org. The individual posts
are copyright by the individual contributors. Please contact the copyright
holder to assure you are clear to repost. And posters: Please also be
courteous and make sure they can reach you via e-mail. I am amazed at the
number of AutoMagical response that bounce these days because of SPAM
paranoia affecting your e-mail addresses...
To George and others concerned with this, see the header of the next
Digest...
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: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:23:49 -0500 (EST)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: hBd or Hbd
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
it's HAITCH (or AITCH) BEE DEE as if it's three separate words...
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: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:01:38 -0500
From: David Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
Subject: lactose
In HBD#2883 John Schnupp asks:
>Does anyone know the gravity contribution of lactose?
It's just a tad higher than for corn sugar. From CRC handbook of chemistry
and physics:
10% glucose in water = SG 1.0393
10% lactose in water = SG 1.0409
------------------------------
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca
From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290@mail.usask.ca>
Subject: Copper oxide??
Hi all,
A friend of mine and I have been discussing the question of copper somehow
leaching into wort during the brewing process.
Says he:
>I have mostly SS in my RIM system but I still use a little copper here and
>there. I have noticed that after having contact with hot wort the copper is
>quite shiny. Previously it was mildly discoloured; a much darker brown. I
>assume that the discolouration is copper oxide. So.......
>if now it's gone it's gotta be in the wort.....no?? Anyone have any issues
>with this and noticed the same?
To which I replied:
**********
I notice the same thing with the copper in my system (strainer tube that I
fashioned and my immersion chiller), but I'm not sure if it's copper oxide
or just gunk from the brewing process.
I just thought of a way I could test this out: copper in solution is blue.
I'll wipe/scrape off some of that gunk and mix it up with a little water and
maybe a little lactic acid (maybe it will help it dissolve), and see what
colour it turns. I'll get back to you when I do this.
**********
And he replied:
>Have you got any Chem-Eng friends you can ask. I am trying to look up one
>from '89 who has his MSc. After 25 years of brewing I don't want to end up
>poisoned. I also have to consider all the friends who drink the beer I
>make.
>I want to build a kettle with an electric immersion heater. Then I can
>safely brew in doors with no fumes and risk of burning the house down with a
>Cajun cooker. You can get water heaters elements for $20 Cdn. The problem
>is the finish they are tin plated or something. They rust over time. I am
>thinking of copper plating one. Copper platting is easy ; 6 Vdc, copper
>sulfate, a sacrificial piece of copper and your away. My concern is how
>pure the copper plating will be. Any impurities in the electrolyte may
>possibly bond to the plating and finally get in the beer. Also there is
>this oxide issue.
>The easy answer is to get a S.S. element but the price....look out!
Can anyone help us out?
- -- Mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:05:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: priming with actively fermenting yeast
Sorry about this being so late... I was offline for a week and a half
and now I'm still more than a week behind in my HBD reading.
Dave writes:
>Pete Gottfield has experienced a common problem with beer that has
>been racked and stored too long before bottling. The yeast goes dormant
>and cannot satisfactorily ferment the added priming sugar. The result?
>Flat beer. This is especially a problem with high alcohol beers. His wife
>accepts this flatness as a common occurrence for male brewers from
>time to time. Paul disclaims any personal knowledge of this until now.
Who is Paul? I thought Pete had the problem...
>I suggest you review my method in the archives for bottling with a
>"kraeusen starter" which uses a boiled and cooled starter consisting of a
>tablespoon of malt extract, the priming sugar and to which is added
>some of the yeast and beer from the bottom of the secondary.
>In 12 hours you will see activity and can bottle. Your beer will
>reliably come to condition quickly and to the same amount every time.
>AlK has repeatedly criticized this technique ( never having tried it,
>to my knowledge) because he believes it to be unreliable since the priming
>sugar can be fermented. I do not doubt that at all if it is left too
>long. In my experience I have been quite successful with waiting 12
>hours and then bottling. Frankly, the way you are doing it now, and
>as Al suggests, produces the most unreliable level of carbonation of
>all doesn't it?
I do appreciate Dave's attempt at covering both his and my positions on
this topic. It *almost* eliminated the need for me to post a rebuttal.
Dave is right that my objection to his method is because some of the
priming sugar can be consumed. I contend that some of the priming sugar
*will* be consumed and you *will* get variations in carbonation even from
something as simple as waiting 10 or 14 rather than 12 hours or by
storing this "primer starter" a few degrees warmer or cooler than last
time. I further contend that since Dave kegs most of his beer (by his
own admission in HBD), variations in carbonation are unlikely to be
noticed and would even-out when the been began to be served under external
CO2 pressure.
Dave claims that doing it the way I suggest produces an unreliable
carbonation. This is incorrect. I have posted numerous times on the
fact that high-gravity (and thus high-alcohol) beers are going to have
some difficulty with carbonation. I even posted on some of my own
experiences with this phenomenon with some *very* high OG beers (one
was 1.120!). The *correct* way to prime with actively fermenting yeast
is to begin not with a few tablespoons of DME and a measured amount
of priming sugar, but rather make up a small batch of beer in which you
know the OG and expected FG. You start this batch fermenting and then
you measure its SG. You then calculate how many SG points remain in
this mini batch and with that you can determine how many ounces of this
fermenting beer you would need to add to the main batch to prime it
properly. No guesswork... you are priming with actively fermenting
beer and you are adding a measured and predictable amount of fermentable
sugars for the purpose of priming. Incidentally... you may have heard
of this technique. It's called *kraeusening*. All other definitions
or differing descriptions of this technique are *not* kraeusening.
I don't have the time at this moment to describe this technique in
real numbers (i.e. how to calculate how much of the fermenting beer
to add), but if there is interest (email me privately), I'll write
something up and ***post*** it to the HBD when I have a bit more time.
> I started this method when sucrose was the only sugar available
>( way back in the dark days of home brewing) and I wanted the yeast's
>external enzyme invertase to invert the sugar before using it to prime.
>Having it concentrated improved the chance that it would work on the
>sugar. It really works very well and gives reliable carbonation.
See above. Its variability would be far more evident when bottling
than when kegging as you typically do.
>If you prime with corn sugar, then this combination of the suagr and
>starter is not needed and you could undoubtedly re-energize the yeast
>in a small sample from the bottom of the secondary with the tablespoon
>of malt extract boiled and cooled in a small amount of water by itself
>providing the FAN necessary to get some growth of this yeast in the beer.
>You should then boil the priming sugar separately in water and let it
>cool. Although I do not think it is necessary and have never tried it,
>this latter method should remove AlK's objection to this technique.
Oh, it's okay for you to suggest something you haven't tried personally,
but I can't criticise something that I know from experience has flaws?
Also, I've mentioned this before... there is no need (or desire) for
yeast growth at bottling time. In fact, we would like to discourage
yeast growth because it only means more sediment at the bottom of each
bottle. It is a moot point however, because properly done, you would
not be introducing much oxygen at priming time and *oxygen*, not FAN,
would be the limiting factor for yeast growth at this point in the
process.
>To produce the equivalent of Viagra for your current brew I would start
>some yeast in a little boiled and cooled malt extract solution and add is
>to each bottle. 4 ounces of water with a tablespoon of malt extract
>boiled and cooled. Pitch the yeast and allow it to become active. 1/2
>teaspoon of this in each of 50 bottles will do the trick I'll bet.
But what if there is *considerable* unfermented (but fermentable) sugar
remaining in the wort (not just the first primings, but some left over
sugar from the main wort)? Then your teaspoon of active yeast will
produce bottle bombs. What were the OG and FG? From this we can
calculate apparent attenuation and determine if you have leftover sugar
from the main ferment or not. To simply recommend more yeast without
knowing the OG and FG is like diagnosing an illness without even getting
the patient's temperature.
As much as I razz Dave, I know he means well and I really mean it when
I say I appreciate his trying to cover both his and my positions on this
issue.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2884, 11/25/98
*************************************
-------
