Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3085
HOMEBREW Digest #3085 Sat 17 July 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:
Rhubarb Mead (ernest baker)
RE: temp controllers (LaBorde, Ronald)
Sparge Efficiency (Kirk.Fleming)
Re: Why Homebrew ("John A. MacLaughlin")
Brew pubs in CA (Brad Kuhns)
redox potential, (RCAYOT)
Tastykake (Marc Sedam)
Bottle with CPBF? ("Houseman, David L")
Re: Why Homebrew (Spencer W Thomas)
re: why homebrew? ("Bayer, Mark A")
Cleaners (Jim Larsen)
Mini-Mash vs Decoction? ("Scott Church")
I word, baking ("Paul Niebergall")
Basement ("Crossno, Glyn")
Keg Pressure for Wheat Beer (Brian Kuhl)
More on Dr. Pivo (John Wilkinson)
Mash thickness/FG (John Wilkinson)
Sterilzing Phil's Phillers (Bobpreed)
Fruit Fly/ Yet another Dr. Pive rant... (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
Why homebrew? (Pat Babcock)
Back in town, HBD Clinitest Experiment Part 1 (Dave Burley)
HBD Clinitest Experiment Part 2 of 2 (Dave Burley)
Bread, Beer, and What Emeril Said (Lester Long)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* Subscribe to the Distilled Beverage Digest
* Send "subscribe" in body of note to dbd-request@hbd.org
* Subscribe to the Home Vintners' Digest
* Send "subscribe" in body of note to hvd-request@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 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: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: erniebaker@webtv.net (ernest baker)
Subject: Rhubarb Mead
Never made Mead before, but right now I have three gallons of mead in
the primary working away in the first week. I would like to make a
rhubarb mead and guess the rhubarb is prepared and added to the
secondary. This is a 3 gallon "must" of just honey, water, nutrient and
Wyeast 3632 dry mead yeast. How do I prepare the rhubarb, how much,
when, and how long in the must. Would appreciate help on this one,
anyone out there in HBD land brew this before???
Ernie Baker
29 Palms, CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:19:22 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: temp controllers
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
>trouble with molds
>growing when too much moisture builds up in the freezer. I thought I could
>avoid potential problems (mold,scum in the water that holds the temp
>probe)
>by using rubbing alcohol or vodka for the liquid medium for the temp
>probe.
>Would either of these alcohols harm the temp probe? TIA
I think you could use cooking oil instead of water. Be sure you don't spill
it all over (messy cleanup). If you used water though, why not use a mason
jar with a plastic substitute lid. Drill a hole for a rubber grommet, pass
the probe in tight, then the water would be sealed inside the jar with
little or no evaporation.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:40 -0500
From: Kirk.Fleming@born.com
Subject: Sparge Efficiency
John_E_Schnupp@amat.com asked,
>When adding the water for mash-out the mash
>gets fairly "soupy" (at least it seems thinner than I'd like). I'm
>using a spreadsheet someone sent me that seems to indicate that the
>first runnings are drawn off before the water for mash-out is added.
>Is this correct?
I think when you refer to adding "water for mash-out" you're talking about
sparging, so with that assumption I believe the answer depends completely on
your equipment, grain bill and personal preference. I've not heard of
anyone intentionally brewing this way, but when I've done it accidentally
with, say, oatmeal stout with too much oatmeal, the results were disastrous.
With 'normal' pale ale grain bills, there didn't seem to be any effect
positive or negative. And...
>I've been having low efficiency and could see where
>it might increase my efficiency if I get the initial high sugar
>portion of the mash extracted before I boosted to mash-out.
What is "low" [survey question, BTW]? It's certainly possible, but I doubt
it would be measurable or repeatable. If the final runnings are the same in
the cases where you do and don't conduct a pseudo batch sparge, as I'd
describe it, then I truly believe you will have pretty much the same yield.
Also, my experience indicates huge efficiency variations apparently due to
mash tun aspect ratio, and no measurable efficiency variations due to a wide
variety of lauter techniques.
>If it is correct to take the first running before going to mash-out, do >I
need to recirculate twice? Or do I add the mash-out water gently
>(sprinkler) so as not to disturb the grain-bed/filter I created
>during the recirculation I did to collect the first runnings?
It isn't a matter of being 'correct', I don't think. But I don't understand
your reference to recirculating "twice"--it's a semi-continuous process, no?
In any case, once you've decided to lauter, then you're lautering. By that
I mean, by definition the sweet wort is going into the kettle. At mash out
you could certainly recirculate, especially if you're running a direct fired
mash/lauter tun with a false bottom and want to stop the mash without the
use of sparge water.
I see no point to these exercises, though. If I want a 90 minute mash I
begin mash out with hot water at something like 80 minutes (as though I
actually care if the mash goes 70, 80 or 90 minutes). This is not a mash
out in the strict sense of bringing the entire mash up to mash out temp. I
simply don't bother to run the temperature up with the burner--my palate
would never notice, nor would the palates of anyone I drink with.
Kirk Fleming
FRSL
FRSE
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:14:39 -0400
From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam@clark.net>
Subject: Re: Why Homebrew
In HBD 3083 randy.pressley@SLKP.COM asks whether
cost is the main reason people get into homebrewing.
I doubt it; my illusions in that area did not survive my first
two or three batches. Somewhere I have read that there are just
two things to like about brewing: the process and the product.
I think that sums it up well. Blessed are we who enjoy both.
I agree with Randy about wine-making also. I got into brewing
in hopes of making palatable sulfite-free wines for my wife, and
after a year or two decided that I'm not likely to live long
enough to become a competent vintner because the feedback comes
so slowly. Fortunately she likes some of my ciders.
Unwilling to throw out all that good equipment, or to make only
ciders and meads, I tried a beer kit and discovered that I
really could make an ale as agreeable as those I had found in
Bedfordshire. A life-changing epiphany indeed!
Incidentally, I have discovered that (though the selection is not
large) it is possible to buy sulfite-free wines in the USA. The
trick is to ask for alcohol-free instead of sulfite-free and then
read the label carefully.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Anyone who has even a superficial understanding of the biochemistry
of brewing must agree with Dr. Franklin that beer is proof God loves
us and wants us to be happy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:17:04 -0700
From: Brad Kuhns <brad@p-r-c.com>
Subject: Brew pubs in CA
Hi all,
I am going to be in CA in the Walnutcreek and Redding area this weekend and was
wondering if
there are any good brew pubs to check out?
Thank you in advance
Brad Kuhns
Portland, OR
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jul 1999 12:00:50 -0400
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: redox potential,
AJ writes:
"Mark Bayer asked if it is possible to measure the oxidation in beer
quantitatively. Yes, it is. You will find this discussed in DeClerk at
some length. Whether these measurements are meaningful or not is a
separate question which is on my ever growing list of things I'd like
to look into some day."
What is being measured is Oxidation potential, not the amount of
oxidation that has occured. One needs to account for something called
kinetics, that is the speed at which the chemical reaction takes
place, and the possibility that the oxidation that has occured is or
is not reversible (reducing chlorine to chloride does not make
chloride a reducing agent in this context). That said, what a great
idea! and thanks for the post!
All the talk about HSA, and oxidation recently led me back to reading
Dr. Fix's article, and review some of his other informaiton.
Basically what he is saying is that HSA and CSA lead to STALLING,
which is a complicated chemical reaction where an oxidized compound,
over time, is itself reduced by oxidizing something else. The
chemicals in beer change over time, and the time is LONG when talking
about homebrew, and even longer when talking about beer packaged with
yeast. So, what this means is that HSA does lead to accellerated
stalling, but in the homebrew context, may not be important. It
probably is important to brewers who want to ship beer around the
world. So these homebrew experiments that reportedly don't see any
effect of HSA, well, considering the circumstances, are we surprised?
As for using commercial information in the homebrewing context... it
really depends on the information, fundamental information can be very
helpfull, however, research on production methodology has to be taken
in context, WHY is the information being developed? Just drink some
of that stuff and you know why, it is not for the great taste, it IS
for the less filling! And I really do like the baking analogy!
and Steve:
"I know from private email that at least one person did. Obviously I
didn't.I could discuss Pauls' comment in terms either of the logical
error contained or of the manners I supposedly lack but ... not here."
Who really gives a SH*T what you got by private E-mail!
Regards,
Roger Ayotte
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:48:16 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: Tastykake
OK. We can bash each other all we want, but let's not beat up on
Tastykakes. What could possibly be wrong with those sweet,
delicious Butterscotch Krimpets? They blow Twinkies out of the
water.
Oh, right...make it beer related...Krimpets do not, for all their
merits, go well with beer. Well, maybe a milk stout.
Cheers!
Marc
"Free your mind and your ass will follow."
-25th of May
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:46:35 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: Bottle with CPBF?
I bottle and keg beer. When I keg I use my CPBF to fill bottles for
competitions. But when I bottle beer, I've continued to use my standard,
spring loaded bottle filler. I was thinking about hooking up one of my
CPBF's to my bottling bucket and gravity filling bottles as I normally do
but use the CPBF's ability to clear the bottles of air and fill with CO2 as
a method of eliminating as much O2 in the head space. I wouldn't leave any
pressure in the bottle prior to filling but rather just use the mechanism to
purge air from the bottle. Does anyone do that today?
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:51:57 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Why Homebrew
A few years ago (1995, to be precise) I ran a 3-week online survey
about homebrewing. The full results can be found at
http://realbeer.com/spencer/HBsurvey/SRV-summary.html, but I'll
include here the top answers to "why do I homebrew".
I've added a "Score" column, which has two numbers. The first is
computed as 3*(number of 1st choices) + 2*2nd + 3rd, the second is
computed using the AHA "Ninkasi award" system: 6*1st + 3*2nd + 3rd.
The "Resp." column gives the percentage of responses that included the
reason in their top 3.
The answers are listed in descending order by the first score. Note
that "Save Money" comes in 6th on this list, and was mentioned by only
19% of the respondants.
Of course, this survey is totally non-scientific, since the
respondants are self-selected, and "stuffing the ballot box" was
possible. But it's still interesting.
Total responses: 368
What are your top 3 reasons for brewing?
Enjoy finished product 1st 2nd 3rd Score Resp.
149 91 45 674 | 1212 77%
Enjoy the brewing process 1st 2nd 3rd
90 105 61 541 | 916 70%
Share beer with friends 1st 2nd 3rd
27 47 84 259 | 387 43%
Prefer homebrew 1st 2nd 3rd
39 43 52 255 | 415 36%
Brew non-commercial styles 1st 2nd 3rd
24 33 54 192 | 297 30%
Save money 1st 2nd 3rd
9 24 37 112 | 163 19%
Enter|win competitions 1st 2nd 3rd
14 3 12 60 | 105 8%
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:16:49 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: re: why homebrew?
collective homebrew conscience_
randy wrote:
>It would be interesting to know if cost
>is the main reason people got into homebrewing.
i got into homebrewing because i saw it as a way to create and enjoy diverse
beer styles in fresh condition. that was influenced by the first homebrew i
ever had, which was an excellent all-grain bitter. plus, beer is simply a
topic that interests me. cost was not a driver. if imported beers got to
us fresh and inexpensive, i would have still decided to be a brewer.
in fact, here's a thought experiment: suppose you change professions and
become a brewer, and you produce 3 or 4 beer styles in your brewery. all
are styles you enjoy. would you still homebrew?
brew hard,
mark bayer
stlmo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:19:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jim Larsen <jal@oasis.novia.net>
Subject: Cleaners
This has been discussed before, but I thought I'd share my experience. No
pseudonyms or misleading titles were used in the creation of this post,
and no one is accused of deceit.
I've been cleaning the crud out of my fermenters (6.5 gal carboys) by
soaking for 3-5 days in a strong bleach solution (per Al Korzonas). This
works great, provided you plan ahead. For last weekend's brew session, I
had been lazy and not got the carboys soaking until the morning of. This
has happened before, and usually results a fair amount of work with a
carboy brush. This time I used .25 cup Electrasol dishwasher detergent in
hot tap water, as recommended in this forum some years ago. After three
hours of soaking (during mash and boil), most of the crud had lifted off
the surface of its on accord. A quick wipe with the carboy brush and a
good rinsing yielded sparkling clean carboys.
I've also used Electrasol on my cornies (since TSP has become difficult to
find) with good results. My thanks to whomever first posted of its use.
Jim Larsen
Shadetree Brewery
Omaha, NE
1.0 Deg S 12.1 Deg W Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:41:22 -0700
From: "Scott Church" <schurch@gte.net>
Subject: Mini-Mash vs Decoction?
Howdy fellow Brewvarians,
I am wondering about the use(and ways around) of the "decoction" mash. Have
any of you brewmeisters used an infusion or step mash with unmodified malts?
Most information on the subject of decoction mashing seems to indicate that
various necessities occur during the actual decoction (reducing
protein/starch complexity, slow enzyme acidulation,
more acceptance to alpha-amylase activity, dissolves protein gums,
deoxygenates mash, and better extract yield...amongst other thingies).
What about using unmodified malt in a step mash, with a mini-decoction?(not
used to adjust temp., just for boiled benefits)
What about using modified malt with a infusion or step mash, and doing a
mini-mash with unmodified malts?(like a decoction) Would this
"mini-decoction" impart enough of the "European malt's" flavor? How would
the fact that "all" of the unmodified malt was "boiled" effect it's input?
Large decoctions are difficult for me to do with my current setup.(and
obviously time consuming)
..................
Scott,
Tampa, Fl.
Just a guy wondering about some things 'dat he doont know!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:51:52 -0500
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: I word, baking
Lester Long writes:
>I guess I'd better start looking for a tatoo artist who can tastefully
execute
>"idiot" on my forehead, because before I gave up sparging altogether, I
used
>high-quality pH *test strips* to track my addition of acid to sparge
water.
>Apparently fooled myself into thinking the strips were telling me what I
needed
>to know, as well. Paul, did you mean to exclude test strips, or did you
simply
>mean "without the aid of testing"?
Sorry, I didnt mean to offend. I should have said "without the aid of
testing" rather than limiting my discussion to pH meters alone. For the
record, however, I have never seen a pH test strip that actually worked
good enough to be used for anything other than getting a rough idea
weather a clear, colorless liquid is acidic or basic. If you have better
luck with them, and it works in your brewery, you are exempted from the
derogatory "I" word. For that matter, I suppose there are a extremely few
number of people out there who's water source is so consistent that they
no longer need to test it and they know from years of experience that they
always have to add 2 mL of lactic acid to their sparge water and this
NEVER changes. These people are exempted also. Of course, it would take
many hundreds of pH tests to support doing this.
Jeff Renner Writes:
>Funny you should use that analogy, Paul. As long time readers know, I
have
>a French bread bakery in a separate part of my home that I've run for
>nearly 20 years, starting as a very part time business when I stayed home
>with the kids (who are now grown), and now full time. What you suggest
we
>wouldn't do is exactly what I did when I was developing my recipe for
>traditional French baguettes, something that is virtually not available
in
>most parts of the country, and even much of France. I produce on
basically
>an overgrown home-scale, not much like a regular commercial concern.
Regardless of how tiny the amount of bread is that you produce, you have
crossed over the line from a hobby to a business. Like it or not, this
clearly puts you in "profit" mode (or at least in a sustainable loss
mode).
>Early on, I read all the bakery engineering and science texts I could lay
my
>hands on, ......
I dont have a problem with this at all. Doing a little research before
you enter a commercial business is a good idea. But you cant tell me that
20 years later you are sitting there in your bakery with a pH probe stuck
in one of you loaves of bread.
>I also have taught many adult education classes on bread making, and am
>able to tell students why they do something, not just what. This helps
>them get a feel for the bread and not just make it out of a cook book.
>They can adapt recipes confidently. I couldn't have done this without
the
>"big-boy" research and texts. Similarly, I think we can learn from
>"big-boy" brewing research, as long as we keep our eyes on traditional
>technique and the final product.
And that is good too. Just as every student who has had a formal
education in cooking has probably had more than their share of food
chemistry classes, and then promptly forgot 90 percent of what they
learned the first time they had to prep 50 pounds of onions or a group of
more than 10 people walked into their restaurant. All that stuff has a
place but it doesnt have to be re-visited, used (abused), and debated on a
daily basis. No chef in the world would argue that according to page 219
of his well respected text book, your baguettes are a failure because the
text clearly states that you must achieve a temperature of 358.76 degrees
for the Malliard reactions to be optimized, and that your records show
that you missed this temperature by 1.53 degrees. No, what they would do
is taste, feel, and smell the product. It is as simple as that. (As I am
writing this I am imagining Wolfgang Puck sitting in his kitchen right
now taking a specific gravity reading on some beef stock he just made.
Imagine the profits from high-end gourmet catalog sales of the Puck
"Signature" line of Hydrometers.)
Anyway, I guess I owe a little clarification on my part. Jeff's points
are very good and well taken. I also am a very big fan of science when it
is applied properly. What I dont like is somebody in cyber space telling
another person (through the HBD) that their beer will turn out horribly
because their text book says so. Or that you cant make good beer unless
you are able to understand complex biochemical processes or measure
everything down to the 3 decimal place.
Dr. Pork Chops and Beer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:08:49 -0500
From: "Crossno, Glyn" <Glyn.Crossno@cubic.com>
Subject: Basement
I have lived in 4 houses in east and middle TN. All had basements! However
with the rocky ground and shallow frost line most builders don't like to
build that way. Also in East TN they are a handy way to level the house on
the hill! Warm in winter, cool in summer. Great for fermenting!
Glyn "Working in Spokane" Crossno
Estill Springs, TN
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:06:06 -0700
From: Brian Kuhl <brian.s.kuhl@intel.com>
Subject: Keg Pressure for Wheat Beer
Hello All,
I asked this before but got no replies. I'll give it another shot...
I just got setup to keg my homebrew! I am very happy I don't have to bottle any
more.
I have a question on carbonation however. What are some of you setting the
pressure gage for this type of beer? I read that the volumes of CO2 for wizen is
3.7-4.7. This seems extreme. At 35 degrees F., This should equate to ~21-31 PSI.
Am I in the right ball park?
Brian Kuhl
Folsom, CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:09:53 -0500
From: John.Wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: More on Dr. Pivo
Lester Long wrote (among other things):
>Newbie: Hey guys, is that Pivo a real doctor or what?
>Somebody (maybe even Pivo): No, he just calls himself that. It's a satiric
>pseudonym.
Satiric or satyric? I suppose only the good Dr. knows.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:13:19 -0500
From: John.Wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Mash thickness/FG
I know I have read this several times before but can't find it now. What
affect does mash thickness have on the fermentable/unfermentable ratio of the
run off? I seem to remember that it is supposed to affect it but I can't
remember which direction or why. Does a very thin mash tend to produce a
less fermentable wort?
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:00:16 EDT
From: Bobpreed@aol.com
Subject: Sterilzing Phil's Phillers
Recently I purchased a metalic bottle filling (Phil's Bottle
Philler) and I have a question about how to adequately sterilize
it. In the direction that came with the filler, it says to "Rinse in
Clorox water to clean. DO NOT SOAK".
Is that really all that is needed to sterilize it, just "rinse" with
Clorox water? I thought all sanitizers (i.e. bleach, one-step, etc.)
needed a longer contact time than rinsing. After I rinse it, do I then
rinse with hot water? Any good suggestions? As always, private e-mail are
fine.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Fruit Fly/ Yet another Dr. Pive rant...
____________________________________________________________________________
Fruit Flies:
OH NO, not the fruit fly in the starter thread again! "The fruit fly was
apparently cooked for some 10-15 minutes, will this be OK?" well my answer
would be "probably" but personally I would pitch (as in throw away!) it. Why
take the risk? Some bacteria (mostly their spores) can survive normal
boiling temps, this is the whole reason we use autoclaves in the lab and
pressure cookers at home for canning liquids. I would be especially leery of
using this material for /culturing yeast/ as you are apparently planning to do
since any contamination could easilly be amplified up in the later stages of
starter preparations...
At any rate, this topic was discussed ad nauseum awhile back, so search the
archives and you'll find more than you ever wanted to know!
_____________________________________________________________________________
Professional Titles:
I haven't been able to post much recently, though there are a lot of
interesting threads floating about. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many of
the more practical questions are being drowned out by the rising tide of way
off-topic bickering and name-calling. However hypocriticaly, here I am wasting
(hopefully only a little) bandwidth on the Dr. Pivo thread. Maybe I'm the only
other one, but I do have to lean towards Steve Alexander's side on this issue.
There have been posts claiming that it was obvious that the individual(s)
going by the Pivo name were not, in fact, bona fide doctors. Well, I'll fess
up that it was not obvious to /me/. "Pivo's" use was compared to many
well-known examples such as: Dr. J, Dr. Demento, Dr. Pepper, Dr. Ribs, etc.,
etc. but I submit that there is a BIG difference between the use of the title
doctor in a non-technical field/entertainment-industry setting versus an area
such as brewing (that, contrary to the Luddites has a large and important
technical/scientific component) where the title carries some weight and that's
my main point. Implicit in the title are a degree of training and competence
beyond the majority of laypersons. Booksellers make use of this when they
prominently include the "M.D." next to the authors of health-releted books, or
"Ph.D." on psychology/self-help titles, etc. These labels lend a certain air
of authority to the works. The title Dr. (as in PhD) is especially powerful
in technical areas where it implies the bearer has a decent understanding of
science. The process and products of science, in turn, carry enormous weight
in our society. Advertisers exploit this all the time (correctly or
incorrectly) when they claim that their product has been "Scientifically
proven to.." or "Scientific studies show that..." or "4 out of 5 doctors
surveyed recomend..."
Of course I certainly agree that the title "Dr." is no guarantee that
information obtained from that individual will be either useful, accurate, or
authoritative. What kind of doctor is he/she? an M.D.? Ph.D.? Homeopath? What
field does this person work in? What experience does he/she have? How
competent are they? Steve's example of Geore Fix is well taken. I'll admit
that I felt better buying a book about brewing science written by "Dr. George
Fix." It was only after I received the book and read the back cover that I
discovered he was a /mathematician/ and, after reading the book, discovered
that he didn't have a stellar grasp of biology or chemistry.
Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive because I'm in the process of finishing
up my own PhD and feel that my eventual title should actually /mean/ something
when it's tacked onto the front of my name. As John Houseman might have said,
"I'll get my PhD the old fashioned way, I'll EARN it."
(Of course, he was only television actor... "I'm not a doctor but I ..")
-Alan Meeker
____________________________________________________________________________
Further, it seemed mean-spirited to slam "newbies"
saying that if they were too intimidated to ask too bad, they get what they
deserve. Also, to say, as several posters have, that people use this title all
the time in a humorous manner
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:29:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Why homebrew?
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
I got into brewing because it's what the little voices said to do. Really.
And the little bastages have had laryngitis lately - or so it would
seem...
-
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: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:32:04 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Back in town, HBD Clinitest Experiment Part 1
Brewsters:
Just got back and am working my way through HBDs
and e-mail at warp speed. Thanks for the comments
and questions.
- ---------------------------------
Thanks to SteveA for the references on maltotetraose
fermentation he provided two weeks ago..
Unfortunately, he still doesn't get it. A theoretical
argument just is not going to deny the <results> I get with
Clinitest. Where are your results on a brew at the end of
the fermentation - when you get the same Clinitest result
3 days apart - not on primed HB or chilled, filtered
commercial beers?
I keep trying to address Steve's arguments, using the data
I have at hand, but find that it will do no good - since it
just serves to divert attention from the real issue,
so no more BS and no more theorical argument.
I am sure HBDers gave a collective "whew!"
As I have indicated in past discussions, I have no idea
if Clinitest is even responsive to maltotetraose ( or for
that matter maltotriose) at all. For sure, I do not now how
responsive Clinitest is to it. Likely it is not responsive
stoichiometrically, as Fehling's is known to be not
stoichiometric but is consistent for a given sugar,
but not the same for each sugar. A fact I have pointed
out many times.
It seems possible to me that as the chain of glucoses
lengthen, Clinitest may become less responsive on a
percentage basis, at the very least. Clinitest is not
responsive to sucrose and perhaps chemically similar
higher saccharides are not responsive for the same
reason. Truth is I don't know and don't care, since it
is irrelevant to my observation.
Logically, my results are consistent
with Clinitest being non-responsive to these higher
unfermentable polysacharides, as I get Clinitest of 0%
with some lagers, yet an FG on the order of
1.010-- 1.015.
If the references Steve indicates are correct and
maltotetraose remains unfermented in <all> beer, then
Clinitest is not responsive at all to maltotetraose, based
on my results of 0% with some lager yeasts.
Speaking slowly....... the point is
there could be a pound per gallon of the higher sugars
like maltotetraose and if Clinitest is not reponsive, the
Clinitest reading would be zero. I hope that it is clear that
all those theoretical arguments are meaningless in the
face of facts.
What amazes me is that we have had volumes of boring
discussions on and off-line for the better part of a year!!!
and NOT ONE person who contests my results has
actually done an extremely simple experiment. My e-mail
indicates and logic dictates that other HBDers are
just as amazed as I am, if not moreso.
The fact that Al K and Louis (Korzonas) Bonham were
doing the Clinitest Bop at the latest beer fest
(as reported by Jethro) does amuse me,
but makes me wonder if my trust and patience
has been mis-spent.....
Now let's try to focus on the actual discussion about
the results I get with my beers and Clinitest and why it
is important to HBD readers if my results are extendable to
your beers.
If these results are correct you can detrmine the *absolute*
end of fermentation (EOF) using Clinitest without any
foreknowledge of what the final reading on a
hydrometer is supposed to be. Why is this useful to
HBD readers and not necesssarily so useful to
commercial brewers? HBers make a whole variety
of experimental beers (by both design and mistake!)
and have no knowledge of what the final gravity (FG)
should be. Commercial brewers make the same beers
over and over.
Why do you care? Low amounts of sugar do have an
effect on the overall character of the beer as
commercial brewers know. Chilling and filtration allow
these brewers to control this quantity. If Clinitest
works for most or all varieties of beer and not just mine
( an unliklely event),and perhaps even barleywines
( unknown by me) the homebrewer can evaluate
successful beers and more closely duplicate them.
Part 2 to follow. Here's your chance to help generate
some results and belay all the criticisms about no data.
I am proposing an HBD-wide Clinitest Evaluation.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:47:06 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: HBD Clinitest Experiment Part 2 of 2
Brewsters:
Part 2 of 2
Let's address that issue here and now.
I suggest SteveA and AlK actually do an experiment
(and I'd like Louis to do some also as he promised oh,
those long months ago!) as I have described
it in detail. It is easy. Just leave your beer in a secondary
in contact with yeast until the Clinitest reading is constant
over a three day period or perhaps a week for cold
fermentations - use your judgement.
Typically, I "drop" ( i.e. transfer) the <actively fermenting>
beer after the head has <just> fallen - say 2 to 4 days after
pitching) to the secondary fermenter, including some
yeast from the bottom of the primary. Getting to a constant
Clinitest value could possibly take several weeks in
some unusual cases with highly floccculent yeast and low
temperatures. I have never had to wait that long and if I
did, I would "drop" it again including all the yeast. You
must be certain ( especially in the case of lagers) to include
yeast in the transfer. Yeast flocculation is a major factor in
determining how much of the residual sugars are consumed.
Contrary to SteveA's opinion, bringing wort into contact with
flocculated yeast does produce fermentation.
Normally, I find that I get expected results with
Clinitest when the beer has somewhat cleared
in the secondary, but is still cloudy.
Typically, a couple of weeks after <apparent>
fermentation has ceased, I get 1/2%. By the next
week or even in three days, I get 1/4% or even
<1/4%. If you do this the way I describe you
probably will find, as I do that the reading will fall
over several days from 1/2% to 1/4% and if you
wait long enough, I have the indication that it will
fall to <1/4% and sometimes to 0%. I do not always
wait for it to go below 1/4% before I keg or bottle it,
so I cannot say for certain that all batches will eventually
go to <1/4%. I suspect so, however. In some cases, I
have had a reading of 0% Clinitest with lager yeast.
There is no denying <my> results of many years.
Can these results be extrapolated to others' beers?
I'm pretty sure they can be, but cannot say until
someone actually does a real experiment for which
Jim Liddil and Jeff (Dr. Pivo) Irvine have both
asked.
A far better experiment, I suspect (never having
done it myself), is one Louis Bonham has
proposed using the ASBC end of fermentation
test (EOF) in which the fermentation is stirred
( under airlock) to prevent yeast flocculation or
at least keep the yeast in contact with the wort.
I am told these results always give a lower FG
than the bulk commercial fermentation - which is
consistent with flocculation playing a role in the
final sugar content of the beer.
Commercial beers have a somewhat higher
Clinitest than one might expect if we were to
assume that commercial beers are taken to
completion (EOF). Many aren't - what with
sterile filtration and chilling to clarify. For the
first experiment use an OG of <=1.070 just to
check it out as that is the highest OG at which
I normally operate.Do this carefully and I am
sure you can duplicate my results or if you can't,
keep good notes so we can understand why not..
Continue this stirred fermentation test until Clinitest
is constant over several days The same
Clinitest result three or four days apart is how
I define EOF with Clinitest for most fermentations.
I predict that in every beer with an OG of 1.070
or lower you will get a Clinitest reading of 1/4%
and likely <1/4%. Be sure to record all kinds of
data, like OG, the kind of yeast, the pitching rate,
the temperature, dropping time and the like, so
that if we get an outlier we can be confident of
the result. Use a good yeast, good pitching rate,
oxygenated fermentation to guarantee the
yeast will stay active. With highly flocculent
yeasts you may have to stir or drop to get the
beer to finish at the EOF.
Never having recorded Clinitest determination above
OG = 1.070, I still *suspect* that for beers with higher
OGs ( and for sure lower OGs) you may get the
same result, if the alcohol content has not affected
the yeast other than to cause flocculation. I
suspect my technique of dropping an actively
fermenting beer along with some of the yeast from
the bottom into the secondary may be one
reason some could get different results if they
ferment to completion in the primary. It is common in
commercial practice with highly flocculent ale yeasts
to "drop" them at least once during a fermentation
to promote the yeast to finish the fermentation or
at least reduce the residual sugar content. In these
cases, the entire batch including all the yeast is
transferred to another fermentation vessel. I usually
include just a portion of the yeast in my racking.
I can imagine for OGs greater than 1.1 that some
resudual sweetness will remain, based on
my experience with S. cerevisiae in wine and
the inability of some strains to finish to dryness.
In any event, these barleywines are not part
of the argument at the moment ( until we can
distinguish between unfermented sugars and
higher polysaccharides by analysis), but are
of interest to all concerned. Louis is arranging
to have these analyses done.
I don't know, but
I would expect that a stirred Barleywine made
from a high quality wort ( good FAN, perhaps
added B - vitamins and yeast hulls with
oxygenation), a high pitching rate of yeast from
a well oxygenated starter and stirred should fall
to within 1/4%, given yeast that can remain viable
at the higher alcohol content of these wines.
Not surprisingly, residual sugar will be recorded
by Clinitest and could produce a potential for
misinterpretation of the usefulness of Clinitest
as a tool for us, i.e. mistakenly assuming that
Clinitest is responding to dextrins
rather than the residual sugar. Until we know
more, we should restrict our work to less
than 1.070, later extending it to barleywines.
The problem in all these experiments is to
distinguish between residual sugar
( i.e. not being at the EOF) and a potential response
of Clinitest to dextrins ( which worries AlK, despite
the indications to the contrary) . Louis Bonham
has been working with an analytical chemist/HBDer
to develop a test protocol to do this analysis.
It would be great if several HBDers were to try
this stirred fermentation experiment. Take a
small sample of wort ( ~ 1l ) after the bulk fermentation
is active ( say 24 hours) and <constantly stir> under airlock
to a constant Clinitest result ( i.e. identical reading
over a three day interval (longer may be necessary
with cold fermentations). Report the results here.
Compare your results by doing hydrometry at the
(EOF) on both beers Be sure to use the Clinitest <KIT>
with eyedropper and reagent tablets and NOT Clinistix.
You will have to ask the pharmacist to special order it
- takes about 3 days. It will be interesting to compare
these results with the fermentation procedure as you
you normally carry it out. So be sure to do both.
Frankly, I know it is perhaps a little dangerous to
throw out an experimental procedure with such
sketchy details as above, but if you record a lot of
data we can determine if results are anomalous or not.
Looking forward to some actual results -
other than my own.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jul 1999 02:33:38 -0000
From: Lester Long <LesterLong@redneck.efga.org>
Subject: Bread, Beer, and What Emeril Said
In HBD 3083, Jeff Renner weighed in on baking (I knew it was coming when Paul
brought up the comparison of brewing to baking).
The result was, to my mind, the most succinct and enjoyable post I've seen on
art vs. science, or what-the-homebrewer-can-learn-from-industry, or whatever
you want to call those dichotomies which really aren't.
>It's a triumph of tradition over science, but it was helped by science.
I especially liked that line, because I try to hold to tradition in brewing
(bock for the spring, Oktoberfest for the fall, throw in a pinch of black malt
to keep the witches off). I can smell that good french bread now!! Smells
sort of like Paulaner Salvator.
I mentioned in a separate post that the best thing I've gained from the HBD was
the idea of using a pressure cooker to do a pseudo-decoction (search the
archives for those terms, and for Charlie Rich and Charlie Scandrett). Before
reading about using the pressure cooker, I was trying to achieve the flavor I
was after (MALT and MORE malt) by varying ingredients alone. Every recipe
you've ever seen lists different ingredients, but they all say to boil the
wort. In cooking, is a vast range of flavors and cuisines achieved by boiling
alone? No, there are all kinds of ways to cook things, with vast variations in
the amount of heat applied to the food. Reading the above-mentioned posts, it
was brought home to me that boiling *doesn't get the wort hot enough* to
deliver what I was looking for. I know some out there are hollering
"decoction, you clown" at this point, but that always seemed like too much work
to me.
To make a long story shorter, I got a pressure cooker, and used it on 100% of
the wort on a beer with exactly two ingredients: Munich malt and one kind of
hops (Saaz). Several months later, I'm drinking (finally, after years of
trying) something that approaches what I aspired to (a malt sandwich). Thank
you Charlie Rich and Charlie Scandrett.
Emeril Lagasse has been mentioned, too. I heard Emeril Lagasse say on his TV
show that he started out as a baker's apprentice and moved to cooking from
there. He pointed out that cooking is a by-the-seat-of-your-pants thing, and
you can make things up as you go along and get away with it. He said that
baking was not at all like that, being more like chemistry than art (my words,
but his were close). With baking, he said, there was no room for varying from
the letter of the recipe, because the recipe would fail. How this ties into
brewing, I'm not sure, but it explains why my bread turned out like crap for so
long! Even the instructions which came with my bread machine (it makes fine
bread, by the way) stress the importance of following the recipe to the letter.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3085, 07/17/99
*************************************
-------
