Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3050
HOMEBREW Digest #3050 Mon 07 June 1999
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:
UBA / LMDA (Louis Bonham)
Crystal Malt Extract Yield ("Phil and Jill Yates")
re:Salvation for a Pilsner (Mark Tumarkin)
Smacked Pack Longevity (Mark Tumarkin)
juniper beer = turpentine ? (David Rueber)
Re: New Brewery & Foam (Rod Schaffter)
p-lambic formulations etc (jim williams)
Variation in Carbonation Levels ("Peter J. Calinski")
maltose not sucrose ("Christine and Marc Sedam")
Yeasty pour, Dextrins, Art, Science and Religion (Dave Burley)
hot wort aeration ( HWA) (Dave Burley)
A further digression... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
Lallemand Yeasts ("Rob Moline")
just curious..?? (jim williams)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Boneyard Brew-Off 6/12/99
* (http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/contest5.html); Buzz-Off!
* Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)
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 hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 05:28:16 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@hypercon.com>
Subject: UBA / LMDA
In HBD #3049, Wayne asked:
> Someone have a better growth media (available to homebrewers) for identifying
> bad beer bugs?
Yup. What you need is LMDA (Lee's Multi Differential Agar). *Much* better than
UBA for IDing bacteria. (I did a fairly extensive write up on LMDA in my column
in the May-June 1998 issue of BT.)
You can get LMDA at very reasonable rates ($1/plate) from the fine folks at the
Brewing Science Institute (no affiliation, just a very satisfied customer):
http://www.brewingscience.com/
They now have photos on their website showing what various bugs look like after
they've grown on LDMA.
If you do a lot of yeast work, try some of their RDMA as well (one shot screen
for petite mutants . . . easy to use)
I'd strongly advise everyone to go to BSI's website (go to the "education"
subpage) and download a copy of their Brewers' Laboratory Handbook, which I just
learned that they are now giving away (they used to sell it, but they're now
giving it away). Neat little publiction . . .
Louis K. Bonham
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 21:25:45 +1000
From: "Phil and Jill Yates" <yates@flexgate.infoflex.com.au>
Subject: Crystal Malt Extract Yield
In HBD # 3048 Dave Burley wrote:
"I can't find a comparative extract yield for
crystal versus pale malt, but my recollection
is that it is only a few percentage points different"
The "laboratory" figures that I have from a British reference show
crystal extract yield measured in kg/lt as 268, compared to pale malt at
296. I can't confirm the validity of these figures with any personal
experiments, but they show an extract yield difference of nearly 10%.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 07:17:48 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re:Salvation for a Pilsner
Edward Seymour writes:
For the second batch I brewed a pilsner. I had it in the primary
for 5 days followed by 3 weeks in the secondary. The beer transferred
into the bottling bucket exceptionally clear. I had some left over
wort that I canned and plan on using instead of corn sugar for bottling
(an idea I got from Charlie P's book). The wort that I canned was clear
except for the some turb in the bottom of the jar. I thought that the
fine mesh strainer in the funnel would remove this when I poured it
into the bottling bucket.
I now have 50 bottles of beer that has 1/2 inch of gunk in the
bottom that quickly mixes with the beer when the bottle is slightly
moved. My question: can I pour all of the beers back into the
secondary, add some polyclar and let it settle for a couple of days
and try to re bottle?
Firstly, welcome to homebrewing and to the HBD. As to your question, you
could try that but I would suggest just leaving it alone. If you pour
the beer back into a fermenter or bottling bucket, add polyclar and then
rebottle, you are risking both oxidation and infection. I know, you can
be very careful and possibly get away with it (hopefully clearing your
beer in the process), but I don't think it's worth the risk. I suggest
that you just drink it yourself and brew up another batch to share with
your friends.
Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 08:15:15 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Smacked Pack Longevity
I know that the older a Wyeast smack pack is, the longer it takes to
start up and swell once you smack it. I've got a question about the
other end of the spectrum. I smacked a very fresh package, it swelled up
very quickly --- and then it sat there (is still sitting there) for over
a week and a half. I was sidetracked by other issues and never got
around to pitching it to a starter. So my question is, how long will the
yeast stay viable once they have used up the nutrients in the small
amount of wort in the smack pack? Would there be any problems in just
doing a starter from the pack at this late date?
Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 21:47:14 -0500
From: David Rueber <isunfarm@netins.net>
Subject: juniper beer = turpentine ?
I made some juniper beer by mashing juniper berries with the grain and
then running the hot liquid slowly (20 min)through a small bed of
juniper branches. Having made turpentine spruce beer before I didn't
want the branches in contact with the liquid for very long. But the
young beer still taste like turpentine. So the following questions.
1. Does juniper beer always taste like turpentine?
2. Does the bad taste come from the berries or the branches?
3. Does the turpentine taste go away with age?
Replies by private e-mail ok.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 22:32:23 -0400
From: Rod Schaffter <schaffte@delanet.com>
Subject: Re: New Brewery & Foam
Hi Gang,
I first sent this off on the 28th, but it got lost in la-la land. Hope
it is still slightly relevant.
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Dan Listermann wrote:
> Dave Radzanowski ( radzan1000@aol.com) of Siebel is open to
> suggestions regarding a verb to describe the collapsing of foam.
> May I suggest "defobulation."
My first "real" job was at a lubricant additives company. We
evaluated foaming of lubricants formulated with our additves
(most commonly with the sophisticated Waring Blender and precision
stopwatch ;-)).
The term that we used, and I believe the ASTM used, was the "breaking"
of the foam. When it is used in that sense, it isn't a verb, even
though the foam is breaking (verb!!)in the test. However,
"defobulation" isn't a verb either.
Cheers!
Rod Schaffter
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 21:33:01 -0800
From: jim williams <jim&amy@macol.net>
Subject: p-lambic formulations etc
Hello,
I'm getting ready to brew my first p-lambic. I'm interested in hearing
others experiences, yeast strains, mash and yeast addition schedules.
Anything, that could help me plan my first one.
What about fermentors? Plastic vs. glass.
Turbid mash? Infusion? Decoction?
Malted vs. unmalted wheat?
I may be moving in a few months. Possibly across country! What's gonna
happen to it on this long move, possibly in hot weather? Should I wait
till I know for sure if I'll be moving?
To rack or not to rack? (single vs. 2 stage)
Thanks, Jim
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 08:03:53 -0400
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: Variation in Carbonation Levels
I have found two different factors that have caused the level of
carbonation to vary widely within a given batch.
In one case, during the filling process, some of my bottles managed to
"acquire" some hop particles. Just sloppy on my part. Well, the bottles
with the hops in them became bombs. They were _much_ more highly
carbonated than the others in the same batch. So much so that I would
inspect the bottle for particles before opening to decide if I needed to
open it over the sink or not. I assume this was the result of the hop
particles helped the yeast much like the beechwood aging idea. Anybody
have any other theories?
In the other case (actually two cases) bottles that were normally
carbonated and refrigerated were later heated. In one case the light
switch in the refrigerator stuck on and it got very warm inside. In the
other case the refrigerator door was left open on a warm day. In both
instances the bottles that were in the refrigerator (and carbonated to a
reasonable level) became gushers after being subjected to the higher
temperatures. (I recooled them before opening of course.) The
cooled-heated-cooled bottles were much more highly carbonated than the
other bottles from the same batch that had never been cooled-heated. In
particular, the bottles that were nearest the light seemed to be more
highly carbonated than the ones on a lower shelf. I can't understand why
this happened unless the yeast quit before consuming all the corn sugar I
used for bottling. If so, the yeast is quitting in every batch I brew
because my carbonation levels are consistent batch to batch except for
these instances. Again, anybody have any other ideas?
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
0 Degrees 30.21 Min North, 4 Degrees 05.11 Min. East of Jeff Renner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:37:10 -0400
From: "Christine and Marc Sedam" <sedam@bellsouth.net>
Subject: maltose not sucrose
I had a pretty obvious brain-cramp in the message I left on Saturday's
digest. Beta-amylase produces maltose, not sucrose, when acting on starch.
Sorry for the confusion and thanks to Domenic (of PrimeTab) for reminding me
to post the correction.
Cheers!
Marc Sedam
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 13:11:36 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeasty pour, Dextrins, Art, Science and Religion
Brewsters:
Edward Seymour, new to brewing, bottled beer
and has a thick yeast cake on the bottom of the
bottle and asks what he should do. Do like we
all used to do before kegging and like centuries
of bottle drinkers before us, pour in one motion
into a large glass or pitcher most of the contents
of the bottle. Leave 1/2 inch or less of the beer
in the bottle and you will have a clear beer.
Don't bother rebottling as the likelihood is you
will inject oxygen and spoil the beer. Yeast in
the bottom of the bottle seems to provide some
protection to oxidation. Some people actually
insist that the yeast be poured along with the
beer so that the B vitamins therein can be
ingested. Weissbier typically has a yeasty
pour on purpose as part of the character of
the beer.
- ----------------------------------------
Nathaniel Lansing says he believes Dextrins
are what is left when enzymes have done their
best to degrade starch.
I agree that these beta limit dextrins ( due to
the branching of the amylopectins) are a part
of the dextrins, but also dextrins are controlled
by mashing conditions and therefore some
are subject to enzymatic degradation. Alpha
limit dextrins can also exist.in the absence
of beta amylase.
Otherwise, we would not have control over the
dextrin content of beer by controlling beta
and alpha amylolysis with time and temperature.
It doesn't surprise me that commercial
brewers believe that the only purpose for crystal
is flavor and color, since they always add
crystal with the rest of the grist . I normally
also do this, as I pointed out in a past
note. However, if it is true as you postulate
that crystal does have only 20% dextrins
then it makes sense not to include crystal
as a meaningful source of dextrins. What
does this mean about the lower kilned
crystals like Cara-Pils(r)? Where
did you get this number of 20%?
While it is true that dextrin(e)s are used as
wallpaper paste, these are typically
produced by acid hydrolysis of starch and
have little to nothing to do with the use of
the word "dextrin" which is a valid brewing
term and not a shorthand for "malto-dextrins"
as many texts will demonstrate.
- ----------------------------------------------
Mike Maceyka talks about art, science
and religion and how they interact. This
is more than a one beer subject.
Unlike Mike, I do not think any oppose
the other. Historically, art has predated
science and is often used as the
beginning to the understanding
( in a scientific sense) of an industry.
Art exists where there are too many
parameters to grok. Science
separates these parameters as best as
it can and understands the influence of
each as best as it can. Science is
about reproducibility of results. Art
is about maximizing quality, I believe.
Science tries to understand how to
maximize quality all the time.
Religion is about the art of living and
interacting with others and dying in a
society and more. It represents an attempt
to grasp a great many parameters and
gives us empirical and intuitive rules to
follow if we want to live happy lives.
Science often supports religion, but
sometimes does not realize it until more
understanding evolves.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 14:09:49 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: hot wort aeration ( HWA)
Brewsters:
I was perusing DeClerk on another subject and came
across this statement relevant to a recent topic - hot
wort aeration.
p312 vol1:
"As a rule, the wort is not heated immediately after
it is run into the copper [ kettle-DRB]. It is allowed
to stand at a temperature of 70-75C [ 158- 167F - DRB]
till all the spargings have been collected, in case
any unconverted starch which may have been
carried over by sparging the spent grains with too
hot liquor, may be saccharified. This stand in the
copper, however, exposes the wort to oxidation,
and precautions must therefore be be taken to see
that the wort is not unduly aerated and a close
watch must be kept on the pH to see that it does
not rise above 5.4-5.5. In these circumstances
the danger of oxidation is reduced to a minimum."
Several issues we HBers must note. 1) always
have the drain from the sparger under the surface
of the receiving vessel so it does not splash.
2) do not pour the receiver contents into the kettle.
I submerge the receiver in the wort in the kettle and
then remove it after inversion.
3) keep an eye on the pH, as the higher the pH,
the more easily oxidisable wort is, since the
anion of phenolic compounds is very easily oxidised.
We are always more at risk compared to
commercial sized brewers as has been pointed
out, since we expose a higher percentage of our
wort to air.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 16:33:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: A further digression...
Howdy all,
I have received several letters concerning my recent post on science
vs. art in brewing. I feel that most of the letters are expressing the same
sentiment as I was trying to express, but I think some confusion has arisen
because of slight differences in terminology. Or maybe I missed (some of) the
points. In most of the letters a dichotomy was made between art and science
that I would define as being between science and technology. To my mind, art
is a blending of experience, intuition, and creativity to achieve a goal.
Science is an art. Let me digress a little further.
I am a molecular biologist, a few months from a Ph.D. Every day I
come to the lab and I think of all we don't know about the world, what we
think we know but just doesn't add up, what would happen if I did this (i.e.
what don't we know that we don't know)? I formulate experiments, based on
facts, assumptions, guesses, intuition, and the tools on hand, and off I go.
This is also the way I brew. The only difference being that I have much much
less control over the variables in my brewing and that I am much less rigorous
about the beer (it's a hobby not my job and the beer is usually drinkable
enough to make me loose my train of thought). However, I still call both of
these activities "science." The technician across the bench from mine comes
in and merely inserts tab A into slot B.
So is my job science or art? I think both, as science is an art, as I
define art. I wanted to raise this point because I think many people confuse
science as it is done at the cutting edge of knowledge with science as they
learned it in high school (or even lower level college courses). High school
science is what I would call technology, a retelling of what we already know.
And the way science is taught on this level is usually so uninspiring and
didactic that it is easy to understand why people have such unpleasant
associations with the very word. Rote recitation of fact makes science seem
dangerously like religion. It also makes science seem sterile and uncreative,
as if facts just reveal themselves, as if scientists just go around measuring
things. The exact opposite is true. Some of the most creative people I have
met are scientists, their medium not being paint or stone but test tubes and
beakers (for a good example check out the new biography of Seymour Benzer
called "Time, Love, Memory: A Great Biologist and His Quest for the Origins of
Behavior," by Jonathan Weiner).
So is homebrewing science or art? Science is an art, so I say both.
I said every homebrewer is a scientist. Perhaps I was generalizing or
projecting. What I mean is that homebrewers who change or improve their
product or technique (and why else would you read the HBD?) are doing the art
of brewing science. They take information from the HBD, other brewers' beers
and their own, etc., and combine it with their intuition and creativity to
design, make, and then critique their product. Some wish to call this art, to
me an equally applicable term is science, and the best term is brewing.
Again, I think the real dichotomy is between scientist/artist and technician.
It's like the difference between the head chef and the fry cook, between the
head brewers at a megabrewery and the people under them who physically brew
the beer. I may get some comments on the last one, but even with all of the
advanced equipment at the disposal of the head brewer at a megabrewery, they
still don't understand all of the variables they need to control in order to
have the same tasting beer from batch to batch. Why else would there still be
a journal like JIB if it had all been figured out?
OK, so maybe the head-megabrewers are close enough to be called
technicians by my definition. But what is the head brewer at Sierra Nevada to
do with the oh so important yet ever changing oil profile of cascade hops?
You may call this art, but I bet he is doing more than guessing. It's
educated guessing, which is exactly what scientists do in the labs. Of
course, he gets to drink his results, which is usually frowned on in my lab.
Mike Maceyka
Baltimore, MD
Stopping, dropping, and rolling even more after posting to RFDB...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:04:48 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: Lallemand Yeasts
Lallemand Yeasts
Jeff Kenton asks about Lallemand yeasts....
<"I'm interested in attenuation, esters thrown and at which temps, and
<flocculation. "
Firstly, I know that it is understood that attenuation numbers are merely
that, numbers....and as such are only useful as a guideline....
Factors such as mash temps, grain selection, fermentation temps, and others
are also influential in attenuations... and ester production, floccing, etc.
Ultimately there are so many other possible influences that attenuation
numbers are possibly only useful in your ProMash, or other software, or hand
written calcs....to the extent that the brewer realizes that they are only a
starting point.
With that in mind, here are the expected attenuations and recommended temp
ranges for the Lallemand yeasts...BTW, these numbers have served me well.
Nottingham 80...57-70F
Windsor 70...64-70F
Manchester 75...64-70F
London 75...64-70F
Jeff also asks about esters thrown, and flocc'ing characteristics. For my
money, any discussion of esters has to be tempered with the knowledge that
discrimination of esters is a highly subjective area.....you might
smell/taste licorice...I might smell/taste...*.*
Looking over my Siebel notes, I am reminded that even fermenter geometry can
be influential in ester production....you already know that temps are also
inportant...
So all I will say on esters is that the Nott is very neutral in esters,
Windsor is described as fruity, Manchester as woody, and I have found the
London to be very flowery. Sorry that I can't give you a more detailed
response, but the truth is plain....there are too many variables....
Flocc'ing characteristics are easier to describe....my own observations are
that Nott is a grand flocc'er, Windsor tends to be more powdery, London and
Manchester tend to lie between the other 2.
Hope this helps a wee bit...
Rob
Rob Moline
Lallemand Web Site
jethro@isunet.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 19:44:01 -0800
From: jim williams <jim&amy@macol.net>
Subject: just curious..??
Just out of curiosity, if I was to try to make a malt whiskey, what type
of "beer" would I need to make before distillation?
-What type of gravity?
-Neutral ale yeast?
-Quick fermentation?
-aging before distillation?
-hops? (Didn't think so)
-shoot for bland beer?
-alcohol %
thanks, just curious, jIm
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3050, 06/07/99
*************************************
-------
