Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3217
HOMEBREW Digest #3217 Mon 10 January 2000
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:
Valley Mills (MaltHound)
barleywine carbonation ("Alan Meeker")
RE: Politics, Agronomic or Beer, What's it gonna be? ("Fred Kingston")
GMOs - again ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
More on GM (RCAYOT)
microwave sterilizing?? ("Alan Meeker")
re: Rescuing Uncarbonated Barley Wine (Jeff)
Moving, skimming, chill proofing, dictionary skills (Dave Burley)
Re: chill haze (Jeff Renner)
GM and Brewing? ("Scholz, Richard")
microwaves ("Dr. Pivo")
Remove the breaks or not?? ("Alan Meeker")
RE: Rescuing Uncarbonated Barley Wine (LaBorde, Ronald)
7th Annual America's Finest City Homebrew Competition ("Peter Zien")
Getting un-personal, the MIY2K Conference ("Ken Schramm")
Questions and Ramblings ("J. Doug Brown")
AOB/AHA Representation - For REAL?? (Robert S Wallace)
Help needed on All Grain ("Russ Hobaugh")
Tannins ("Paul Niebergall")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:16:44 EST
From: MaltHound@aol.com
Subject: Valley Mills
In HBD 3215 Joe Kish <jjkish@worldnet.att.net>asks:
"So, where is a good place to buy a Valley Mill?
What's the price?"
Joe,
You can buy Valley Mills directly from the manufacturer at:
http://www.web.net/~valley/valleymill.html
Valley Brewing Equipment
1310 Surrey Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1V 6S9
call (613) 733-5241
The price there is $138.50 (US) which includes $19.50 shipping & handling.
As an aside, I have never understood why mailorder merchants insist on
charging for "handling". Shipping, sure, but wouldn't they have to "handle"
the mill if they were wholesaling it to a retailer? It's just a flimsy
excuse to mark-up an item IMO and should be included in the quoted price.
They also are carried by a few homebrew shops, but I am told by my local HBS
owner that the retail markup is not very good (only ~10%), therefore, not
many retailers want to carry them and prefer to do business with one of the
other mill manufacturers.
I own one of the earliest models with the plastic bushings. Not nearly as
nice as the current model with Ball Bearings, but a great mill none the less.
I have run well over 500 Lbs of grain through this mill under power and it
is still going strong.
The ONLY thing that I would have prefered feature wise is if the rollers were
of a larger diameter. I also own a Brew-Tech mill which is adjustable and
has larger 2-1/2 inch rollers running in bronze bushings. That mill seems to
give a superior crush but it is not as easy to use as the Valley due to the
mill's configuration.
Cheers,
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:20:16 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: barleywine carbonation
Mike in CT asks about carbonating his barleywine:
> Unfortunately, the beer never carbonated for some odd reason.
> Anyway, how can I get it carbonated in time for a March contest?
Why didn't it carbonate in the first place? If you added priming sugar it
could be that your yeast has technically speaking "pooped-out." Were you
relying on residual yeast in suspension from the primary fermentations? What
yeast did you use? Maybe they have reached their limit as far as alcohol
toxicity goes if it's a big barleywine or they could be mostly dead/ flocced
out if the barleywine has been lagered for a year or so as is commonly done
with these big beers. You could try adding an active champagne yeast culture
but this might be risky if there is an abundance of fermentable sugar around
you might get over-carbonation. If you had time and wanted to do this with
yeast I'd suggest you first add champagne yeast to mop up all the residual
sugars, then bottle with more champagne yeast and priming sugars but you're
running out of time. My guess is you'll have to go the force-carbonation
route...
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:31:04 -0500
From: "Fred Kingston" <Fred@Kingstonco.com>
Subject: RE: Politics, Agronomic or Beer, What's it gonna be?
John Wilkinson <jandjwilkins@earthlink.net> Posts:
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:42:17 -0600
> From: John Wilkinson <jandjwilkins@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Insults
>
> I, for one, did not find Dave B.'s comments about GM seeds insulting and
> don't see how any reasonable person could. How about we get back to
> brewing and leave the environmentalist and other political discussions
> to the proper forum.
AND THEN PROCEEDS TO POST:
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 00:17:46 -0600
> From: John Wilkinson <jandjwilkins@earthlink.net>
> Subject: GM seeds
> >As far as genetically modified seeds, yes, we have been modifying our
And:
> >Many organic minded people stock and trade vegetable/fruit seeds that
> >have linages from hundreds of years back. They don't trust the same
> >folks that gave us DDT.
AND:
> DDT saved millions of people on this earth from starvation and, I
>
> And:
>
> >Luckily, farmers are getting the message REAL quick. Europe and Asia
AND:
> I suspect many European restrictions on U.S. food exports are more
> rooted in protectionism than in alarm over GM seeds. The Europeans,
Make up your mind John.... or at least follow your own damn advise.
Fred Kingston
Kingston & Company
http://www.KingstonCo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:23:15 -0500
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com>
Subject: GMOs - again
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 Dave Burley commented on GM:
> As far as these GM potentially
>causing problems by crossbreeding
>in nature it won't happen because
>these plants are <sterile> as Robin
>points out.
I just need to point out one glitch in this assumption. If we are talking
about plants such as hops barley and wheat, then fine. Many GM varieties of
plants come about from selective/cross breeding techniques and *MAY* be
sterile as a result. However, once we start talking about things such as
brewer's yeast and bacteria, which multiply by binary fission, we have a
whole new ballgame. Crossbreeding is not an issue with these little buggers
since they reproduce asexually but they can share pieces of DNA by various
means, such as through transposons and plasmids. It's not as easy in nature
as it is in the lab because we create the environments and situations which
are condusive to these phenomenon, but it can still happen on occasion "in
the wild".
As for planned sterility and other growth limiting factors of GMOs, I don't
care. If company X spent Y million $$ on developing a new technology then
they damn well better be able ensure their profits and protect their
technology. Anyone who thinks big business is around for some altruistic
purpose is naive. It all about the buck.
Don't get me wrong, I like GM. It makes for prosperous crops, good food and
has the potential to enhance the quality of life for many third world
nations who would love to have even our U.S. table scraps.
For those of you who may be more interested in GM and it's safety issues
visit http://www.fda.gov/oc/biotech/default.htm. It's a good starting place
for getting educated.
Glen
------------------------------
Date: 07 Jan 2000 08:24:45 -0500
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: More on GM
The reason for GM foods is not to trap growers into some kind of
devious plot, it is pure economics. The cost of seed goes up (more
money in the seed producers pocket) the cost of pesticide/herbicide
goes down (less money for the chemical producers, sometimes the same
company). OR the herbicide resistent crops allow the planting and
treatment of farm land at one time rather than waiting for the roundup
to dissipate before planting. These things help farmers grow food for
less money. The reason for making GM food seeds sterile is also very
easy to understand, if they were not sterile, then the seed producer
would only be able to sell them once!
Now for the Monarch Butterfly problem, well what exactly was the
experiment? I read in Scientific American that 25% of th eMonarch
Butterflys that fed on milkweed treated with pollen from BT producing
corn died. The report did not say 25% MORE died! How many
butterflies died as a control? Very poor reporting by SciAM! The
other question would be how many monarch butterflies would die as a
result of overspray of pesticide?
I believe that it is avery real possibility that the genetic traits
like roundup resistance, or BT producing corn will eventually find its
way into some wild plants at some time. I just don't believe that
this will be a total disaster.
Roger Ayotte
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:30:27 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: microwave sterilizing??
John S Thompson asked about the possibility of sterilizing w/ short
microwave hit:
- ---------------------------------------
I have some petri dishes which I use for streaking out yeast. I was
wondering if a short blast in the microwave, say 5 to 10 seconds, would
sterilize a thin layer of wort/agar. If so, this would eliminate the need to
steam them. One could boil them in the microwave, but that gets pretty
messy...
- -------------------------------------
Microwaving in this manner will not sterilize. It will at best get the
liquid portion up to boiling but boiling is not sufficient for true
sterilization. Anyway, you would only be boiling for a few seconds. Steam is
much more effective than just boiling and pressure cooking is the best of
all since it allows you to reach even higher temperatures. Sterilization
requires that you kill heat-resistant bacterial endospores and this takes
about 20 minutes at autoclave temps so merely boiling for a few seconds
would be theoretically insufficient but of course it depends upon what type
of contaminants are present in your media...
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:50:39 -0500 (EST)
From: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: re: Rescuing Uncarbonated Barley Wine
Hi All,
Mike in Middletown, CT (venesms@NU.COM) wrote:
>I've been thinking of: 1) pouring a dozen or so bottles into a corny keg;
>2) pumping up the CO2 real high (how high?); 3) chilling the corney keg
>pretty cold (how cold?), 4) then carefully transferring the beer into bottles
>with a racking wand; and 5) capping immediately.
A fellow homebrewer in my homebrew club had the same exact problem and came
up with a solution that is so simple, it is very easily overlooked.
Simply take your uncarbonated bottles, remove the caps, and place the full
bottles in a sanitized and purged Corny keg. Stack them together so that they
can't tip over. After you get as many in there as you feel you can comfortably
fit, seal up the keg, and pressurize it. Get the keg as cold as you can and
set the pressure to achieve the desired carbonation level at that temp.
Once the full bottles are force carbonated, release the pressure on the keg,
remove the full bottles, and cap immediately.
This method avoids pouring the beer out of the bottles and having to
re-bottle later.
Hoppy brewing,
Jeff
==========================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250
Naval Undersea Warfare Center email:
Systems Development Branch mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW:
Newport, RI 02841-1708 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:06:23 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Moving, skimming, chill proofing, dictionary skills
Brewsters:
Peter Santerre is moving and asks how
he can ship his CO2 cylinder, since the
moving company won't do it. I suspect
the simplest way is to put it in the trunk
of your car.
Having just suffered the indignities of
moving this past summer, I went
through the same thing with my
propane tanks and CO2 cylinders.
I ditched the propane tanks and
bought some new ones here , but with
my CO2 tanks, I convinced them
that it was OK because these were
really the same as fire extinguishers
which they had no problem shipping.
Their point with propane is they have
to pass through tunnels and the like on
roads and don't want to do it illegally.
I don't blame them for that or for not
wanting a truck full of propane gas
from a leaky valve.
- ----------------------------
Ken Smith asks about skimming
"the scum" off the fermenter during
the fermentation. That scum in top
fermenting ale yeasts is a combination
of yeast and complexed tannins and proteins.
It tastes very bitter and has perhaps led to the
idea that leaving it there will cause excess
bitterness in the beer. However, it is insoluble
as demonstrated by it coming out of solution
and cannot make the beer bitter.
There is more than one opinion on
skimming as you indicated, but this
technique probably comes from early
home brewing books which emulated
old time British brewing which did do
skims as a part of their open vat
process. This skimming method may
have been a way of reducing infection
from other beasties captured on the
surface of the fermentation. These other
beasties may have given the beer a
bad taste if they fell into the beer
and led to the idea that skimming was
to prevent "yeast bite". If you cover
your fermenter with a plastic sheet
this will not be a problem.
Some homebrewers
advocate a truly open fermentation with
no cover, but note the incredible difference
in surface to volume ratio between 5 gallons
of beer and several thousands of gallons in
deep fermenters. IMHO I find this is taking
unnecessary risks of infection for no payback.
I believe few professional brewers today
advocate open fermentation in a non-clean
room (i.e. under positive pressure and filtered )
environment. They often use automatic
skimming based on overlow from the
fermenter, which also reduces the chance
of infection
A few years ago , Al Korzonas did an
experiment in which he demonstrated
that it didn't make any difference to
bitterness, skimming or not.
Ergo, leave well enough alone and
don't skim. You just risk infection.
I use a 6 gallon waste basket covered
with a plastic sheet for my primary
and I don't have any problems
associated with intentional or
unintentional overflow methods.
This "open" fermentation method
is necessary if you plan to skim.
If you plan on using this yeast again
and you have a TRUE top fermenting
yeast, that forms a thick pad on the surface
you may wish to skim about 2 -3 days into the
fermentation and then a day or so
later to capture a purer yeast free
from potential spoilers. Wash it with
cold, sterile distilled water to remove
soluble organics and store under sterile
distilled water in the refrigerator
between fermentations.
Use a plastic paint edger as
your skimmer. It is big enough
to carry most of the yeast in
one swipe. This reduces the
open time and minimizes the
potential for infection from repeated
skims with a smaller spoon or
whatever.
- ------------------------
Lou Heavner asks about
chill proofing barleywines
without keeping them in the
refrigerator to clarify naturally.
I am fortunate that I can store
mine in cornies before bottling,
so I have never used, but have
read of using silica treatments to
reduce chill haze. Anyone use this?
Check Williams Brewing,as I think
I saw some silica there. They
may have some tips.
- -----------------------
Alan Talman fell for an old joke.
Of course "gullible" is in the dictionary.
That's the point. You figure it out. {8^)
- -----------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:00:45 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: chill haze
Lou.Heavner@frco.com has a problem with chill haze in his barley wine:
>A couple weeks before New Years, I put a case in
>the fridge. On New Years Eve, I opened the first bottle and it looked
>more like fresh unfiltered apple cider than beer. <snip> I looked at the
>bottles which had been refrigerated since October and
>they were clear except for the bottom inch or so which was very
>cloudy.
and asks:
>Can anybody guess what may be going on here?
No mystery here - you've just described what happens with chill haze. The
protein/tannin complex precipitates out, but as the particles are very
small and nearly the same density as the beer, it takes time for them to
settle to the bottom of the bottle. If the October bottles are left in the
fridge another month or so, the beer will be compeltely clear. This is
what happens in lagering.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:21:06 -0500
From: "Scholz, Richard" <RScholz@refco.com>
Subject: GM and Brewing?
Stephen Alexander writes in HBD 3215:
>
Clearly we are trading other species for added human population. We could
choose to limit population or alternatively we could do as our yeast and
grow till the limits are reached and flocculate. -S
>
Given the preponderance of evidence the human race has shown us over the
past 10 millenniums, can you seriously believe they/we will do anything else
but flocculate eventually?
On to Brewing:
As I pull together the parts for my mash mixer, I wanted to get another set
of opinions on the speed of the blades. I thought a slow 3 rpm would keep
things moving without grinding or aerating the mash. My recollection from my
professional days at Rheingold, was that the mash paddles moved slowly in
the tun, just enough to mix the mash and keep the temps even. So, what the
consensus? I know some have faster speeds and some use slower. Last week,
we had some band width on how much torque is necessary and how paddle design
effects mixing but as I look back in the archives I still need to resolve if
I need a faster motor. TIA
---
Richard L Scholz
Brooklyn, NY
(212) 587-6203
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 17:02:30 +0100
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se>
Subject: microwaves
Use of microwaves for sanitizing comes up now and again.
Microwaves work just fine. 18 seconds caused "no growth" on a prepared
agar for me. In reviewing my 'spurment with this, I'm guessing that it
is actually the agar that is functioning as a heat transfer medium at
these exposure times rather than direct heating of the little bacteria spuds.
Planning a follow up on this to look into that, but just haven't got
'round to it yet.
The original I wrote on this subject was "pretty long"... you might want
to look in Dejanews in RCB, if interested.
Looking at some other literature, it seems that they can even be used
for Thermophilus spores, so I'd say they can be pretty effective.
If you're working with petri dishers anyway, it's pretty easy to streak
the agar with pathogen crud of your choice (perhaps a booger?), zap
them, and see what happens.
Failing that, you could just listen to a lot of advice on why it won't work.
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:11:56 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Remove the breaks or not??
Along the lines of the recent questions about early racking, etc. I went
back and did a little digging into the question of whether or not it is
beneficial to remove the hot and cold breaks. Here's a brief summary of what
I found. This is by no means an exhaustive analysis! The papers cited below
have pretty extensive reference sections if anyone wants to go further.
In the Nov/Dec BT Ron Barchet had an article on Hot Trub. His conclusions
were basically:
1) Hot break is mostly protein and eliminating this material takes out a lot
of high molecular weight proteins which could later react with tannins to
cause chill haze.
2) Total removal of the hot break material may negatively impact the beer's
body and head-retention
3) (paraphrasing and condensing) "...effective removal is critical because
it can smear the yeast cell walls impeding transport (of nutrients) leading
to head-retention problems, poor stability, and harsh bitterness." Now to
me these effects on the quality of the resultant beer don't seem to follow
directly from "smearing" the yeast cell walls. However, in later references
it is claimed that leaving a lot of break material around means that your
yeast cake will become significantly contaminated with trub which can then
be carried over into your next fermentation if you are re-pitching this
yeast. This idea of trub carry over causing problems makes more sense to me
as a potential cause of the quality defecits Barchet lists so maybe this is
what he is referring to (?).
4) pH doesn't affect trub amount much unless it falls below 5.0 where break
formation falls off sharply. The best sedimentation takes place at pH =
5.0 - 5.2
5) In the conclusion he states "Removing hot trub is essential to producing
a quality beer."
In the Mar/Apr BT Barchet wrote on Cold trub:
1) Opinions vary on how important it is to remove.
2) Studies have shown that total removal of all the cold break leads to
decreased yeast growth and viability and increased levels of acetate esters.
3) Trub particles act as nucleation sites for dissolved CO2 and their
absence leads to higher CO2 levels which, in turn, inhibit yeast growth and
fermentation.
4) Removal of some of the break material has been shown to improve yeast
viability, improve the quality of the finished beer, and be beneficial to
the beer's stability.
5) In high gravity situations yeast may benefit from the presence of cold
trub.
6) Most American brewers no longer remove cold trub.
A research paper (kindly supplied by Steve Alexander) entitled "The
Influence of Trub on Fermentation and Flavor Development" by Lentini, Takis,
Hawthorne, and Kavanagh has some interesting results. They use "trub" to
mean both hot and cold break material:
1) The presence of trub led to better fermentation performance but had
detrimental effects on flavor, processing, and on the ability to get good
yeast for repitching.
2) Their work as well as literature review point to three main causes of
such effects -- the lipid content of the trub, the nucleation ability of
trub particles, and the impact on zinc availability (zinc gets bound up by
trub, especially the hot break material)
3) In test fermentations increasing the trub concentration caused decreases
in volatile esters while it caused an increase in the production of higher
("fusel") alcohols. The ester effect is also dependent on the types of lipid
present in the trub
4) The presence of trub and the lipid composition of the trub had big
effects on the lipid profiles of the yeast.
5) In their summary they conclude: "While trub has some benefits in
increasing fermentation activity, it does have a significant influence on
flavor (i.e. decreased esters and increased fusel alcohols) To achieve the
desired volatile ester profile of a specific beer type, it is necessary to
have the correct balance between the amount of trub present in the wort and
the level of wort oxygenation."
And one more research paper (thanks again Steve!): "Wort Trub Content and
its Effects on Fermentation and Beer Flavor" by Schisler, Ruocco, and Mabee.
This paper makes pretty much the same points as the previous one plus:
1) In flavor analysis there is a preference for beers made from clarified
wort. Though both beers were judged acceptable the less favored beer was
faulted for "spoiled fruit and caramel characteristics" - the caramel seemed
to be the deciding factor in the negative assessment.
2) Though there were differences in ester levels detectable by lab analyses
(GC), no differences in the fruitiness of the beers was noted by the tasters
so these differences were probably below threshold values.
3) While other sources seem concerned that the ability of trub to bind zinc
will lower the availability of this essential yeast nutrient these authors
propose that trub may actually act as a reserve depot for zinc that the
yeast may use later in the fermentation.
What's the take home message for us homebrewers? It looks like HOT BREAK
material is potentially troublesome and removal of most of this material is
probably a good idea although total removal may not be desirable. This is
probably moot anyway since we really can't remove all of this at home unless
you're using a kick-ass filtration system. I don't know for sure but it
seems that most breweries do take steps to remove the hot break (by
whirlpooling for example). Whether they do this for practical reasons like
easier product handling (such as filtration) or for quality reasons (or
both) I don't know. What about COLD BREAK? There are some conflicting
results here but again, it looks like it is probably a good idea to remove
most of the cold break material. This seems especially true if you are
planning on repitching your yeast. The fact that most American breweries
don't worry about cold break removal and the above research articles
indicating that while there are flavor effects they are relatively small
(though there are conflicting statements on this issue) seems to indicate
that removal of the cold break shouldn't be a /huge/ concern (again unless
you are planning on re-pitching the yeast). However, it seems to me that we
have to factor in the fact that there are often major differences between
what macro- and micro- breweries do and what we as homebrewers are capable
of doing. I could certainly envision break material having a negative impact
on my home brewed beer. We typically don't filter our beer and our bottling
practices may introduce significant amounts of oxygen thus the stability of
our beer may be compromised compared to a larger brewery. On the other hand,
if we underpitch and/or poorly oxygenate our worts then the trub could serve
as a supply of essential yeast lipids and sterols. Then there's the
nucleation effect which could be important especially in high gravity worts
so it is a bit complicated. My own comparisons using split batches with and
without trub led me to believe that lots of trub carry-over can have
negative impact on the taste and I suspect it was primarily oxidation of
trub lipids though this is just a hunch. Certainly there are plenty of
oxidizable ployphenols in the trub and these could also lead to bad flavors,
astringencies and hazes.
Overall, my practice is going to remain - remove most of both the hot and
cold break. Pitch high, aerate well and avoid oxygen pick up as much as
possible after fermentation gets going.
Hope this was helpful
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:45:42 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Rescuing Uncarbonated Barley Wine
>From: venesms@NU.COM
>1) pouring a dozen or so bottles into a corny keg
I would siphon it if at all possible to avoid agitation and oxygen pickup.
Then purge out the air.
>2) pumping up the CO2 real high (how high?)
35 PSIG, then rock for about 4 minutes, let it rest a few hours.
>3) chilling the corney keg pretty cold (how cold?)
34f
>4) then carefully transferring the beer into bottles
>with a racking wand; and 5) capping immediately.
This should work fine, that is the way I normally bottle except for the
first step.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
http://members.xoom.com/rlabor/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:16:55 -0800
From: "Peter Zien" <PZ.JDZINC@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: 7th Annual America's Finest City Homebrew Competition
Dear Homebrewers,
The Quality Ale & Fermentation Fraternity (QUAFF) is pleased to once again
sponsor the 7th Annual America's Finest City Homebrew Competition in San
Diego, California. The Competition will take place on Saturday, March 4,
2000. Entries will be accepted from February 14th through February 25th,
and the fee is $6.00 per entry.
Please register your entries on-line at www.softbrew.com/afchbc or contact
the organizer for a hard copy of the entry packet. Judges and stewards are
invited to register on-line as well. Please ship entries to:
AFCHBC
c/o AleSmith Brewing Company
9368 Cabot Drive
San Diego, CA 92126
* "Walk-in" entries will be accepted by San Diego County homebrew shops
during the February entry period.
The new 1999 BJCP & AHA Competition Style Guidelines will be used for
judging all beverage styles. In addition, we will judge a special category
of Ancient, Medieval, and Indigenous Beers. (See www.softbrew.com/afchbc
for more on the special category and the new style guidelines.)
Good luck!!!
Peter Zien, organizer
pz.jdzinc@worldnet.att.net
(858)459-4540
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:17:59 -0500
From: "Ken Schramm" <schramk@resa.net>
Subject: Getting un-personal, the MIY2K Conference
Thanks for the reality pats, Jim Liddil and Pat Babcock. I will stick to
brewing and beer-related subjects myself, and tone down the rhetoric
from now on.
And speaking of beer, and things to eat with beer, the initial smoking
session for the AHA Y2K confab has come off with great success. Several
large pieces of smoked Alaskan king and sockeye salmon are in the
deep freeze awaiting their demise at ClubNight and the Hospitality
suite. I even blended an old batch of porter and some Belgian Grand
Cru with a whacked-out spice blend in the water pan for a truly complex
smoked finish. For those seeking to out-do the AABG, I will also be
smoking pheasants, turkey breasts, cheese, and possibly some
venison. I may also be enticed into making a batch of jerky, depending
on time available.
I have heard from three more clubs regarding the hospitality suite, and
have even gotten a request for a specific shift from one club, which I will
honor. If other clubs would like shifts, or individiuals have beers they
would like to serve and need to be paired with clubs on a shift, please
let me know.
I would like to print up a guide to the paticularly interesting offerings at
club night. If your club is bringing something you are particularly proud
of, please let me know, and I'll work to provide some form of treasure
map, as it were, to the goods.
I am wondering if there is interest in a session on small batch bourbon
or single malt scotch tasting for the conference. There would be a small
charge (approx $15?) and some logistical hoops to jump through, but if
there is demand, it would be worth it. E-mail me if you are interested.
Yours brewly,
Ken Schramm
Troy Michigan
168 days until the last best homebrewed beer party of the old
millennium, or - the best homebrew party of the new millenium,
depending on your perspective.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 18:40:27 +0000
From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown@mteer.com>
Subject: Questions and Ramblings
Hello,
Does any body know the SG of some liquid malt extracts, ie John Bull
Light? I would also like to know something along the lines of 1/4 cup
dry malt extract mixed with 4 cups water increases the SG of the water
by ####. I am working on a web page to help people create starters with
SGs the same as the batch they are brewing to help the yeast in their
acclimatization period.
Now as for the ramblings part. Due to service provider issues my
email and web sites have been changed locations. Please update your
bookmark to my site if you had one.
Thanks for your time
Doug Brown
- --
J. Doug Brown - Fairmont, WV
Sr. Software Engineer
jbrown@mteer.com jbrown@ewa.com
www.labs.net/kbrown www.ewa.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:11:08 -0600
From: Robert S Wallace <rwallace@iastate.edu>
Subject: AOB/AHA Representation - For REAL??
On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 15:07:59 Paul Gatza <paulg@aob.org> wrote:
Subject: AOB Board Reorganization
< Mega-snip... >
> The new structure will allow each division to have
> decision making power for the future of the association
> and their respective divisions.
What level of decision making power?? Controlling, or merely
"advisory"??
> "The reorganization of the AOB Board to include direct
> representation of our members and expert professionals
> is a logical stage in the evolution of our 21 year old
> Association", says Charlie Papazian, the AOB president.
My main question:
Does that include dethroning CP for the benefit of the
group if it deems so?
> Each divisional board of advisors will continue to
> function as separate entities from the AOB Board
> of Directors. This decision has been embraced by
> both AHA and IBS members. "I feel that there is a
> commitment from Charlie and the staff to move all
> of the divisions of the AOB forward and to engage
> in meaningful action and representation.
What level of truly representative control will the 'new'
board have relative to the previous functional (total?)
control of the AHA by CP and cronies? It seems that
we have heard this song before several times, each
followed by some debacle, leaving the AHA leaders with
egg (trub, spent kraeusen, hop resins, etc.) on their
collective faces.
> The brewers are excited to have a say
A controlling or influencing 'say' or just a "say"...???
> in the issues and promotions affecting
> our industry", states Larry Bell, owner of
> Kalamazoo Brewing Company.
> Charlie Olchowski, the AHA Board of
> Advisors chair, adds "The homebrewing hobby
> remains viable and still serves as the proving
> ground for many future brewers."
The first statement in the post that most can agree to...
> This a monumental new relationship to have
> homebrewers sit by the side of the working
> professionals of the brewing community, and
> together forging ahead with the agenda of the AOB."
Sorry, Paul, but the track record of the AHA so far has
been so poor as to leave a significant level of skepticism
in the minds of many. Despite the 'enthusiasm' suggested
above, history tends to repeat itself. New subordinate
AHA/AOB leadership has seemingly not worked in the past.
Perhaps it's the Captain of the vessel that causes the ship
to repeatedly run aground. True representation with CONTROL
might remedy the situation ....... at least there is a step in the
right direction... (congratulations, Jethro!).
Perhaps this new leadership (albeit still subordinate to CP) will
be different ??
All eyes are upon you (again).
Rob Wallace
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:37:50 -0500
From: "Russ Hobaugh" <Russ_Hobaugh@erm.com>
Subject: Help needed on All Grain
I just racked my 2nd all grain batch into the secondary last night. And boy
do I have some questions. It is a Fullers ESB clone, and my grain bill was:
9 lb. Marris Otter
8 oz British Crystal (50-60)
11 oz flaked maize
1 oz British black patent.
Water treatment: distilled water with 1 tsp. of DME/gallon.
I mashed this at @153 for 90 minutes. Added 2 quarts boiling water for mashout,
waited 10 minutes, and then sparged with 170 degree water over a 1 hour span.
I used a zapap system to lauter. First runnings were about 1.080, I stopped at
about 1.004. Total was about 6.5 to 7 gallons. Boiled for 90 minutes.
SG was only 1.042.
And now the questions.
Why is my extraction so low? If I am figuring correctly, this was only about
55%, how
can I get that up. I was shooting for an ESB with a SG of 1.054, and ended up
with 1.042.
I had a similar experience with my first ag--an irish stout.
The zapap is uninsulated, could that contribute to the low efficiency?
What is an "average" extraction rate(if there is such a thing)?
Without buying a RIMS, how can I improve this, or should I be content with 55%,
and
count on that and increase the amount of grain I use to compensate?
This recipe came from Wheeler and Protz' book "Brew Your Own British Real Ale".
The hops called for were .8 0z of Challenger, .5 oz of Target for 90 minutes,
and .5 of
EKG for 15. I thought this was a lot of hops for an ESB, but followed the
directions. It
was VERY bitter, which has subsided only slightly. Anybody else think he calls
for
WAY to many hops in most of the recipes in this book or is it just me? This
tastes
much more like an English IPA than any ESB or Bitter, especially Fullers.
Russ Hobaugh
Goob' Dog Brewery
Birdsboro PA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:41:47 -0600
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Tannins
Well I asked for scientific evidence that oversparging leaches excess tannins
that negatively impact the final flavor of home brew. Louis Bonham was kind
enough to cite a reference that is supposed to prove just that (Lewis & Young,
Brewing,1996). Now lets look at the data and see exactly what we have.
On page 95 a chart summarizes lab data which depicts the relative levels of
wort gravity and polyphenols (and other things) during the sparge. An
excerpt is provided below:
Gravity Polyphenols
(Plato) (ppm)
20 315
10 260
5 200
3 150
1 110
Nothing surprising here, as you sparge the wort gravity drops and
so does the polyphenol concentration. Note however (as Louis
points out), that there is a rise in the polyphenol concentration
RELATIVE to the wort gravity.
>The relative levels of polyphenols and wort gravity
>remain fairly constant until wort gravity goes below about 6
>P (SG 1.024), at which point the relative polyphenol levels
>begin to rise dramatically. By the time you get to SG 1.010, the
>polyphenol levels (relative to wort gravity) are over *ten
>times* as high as they were at the beginning of the sparge
He goes on to say:
>Stated differently, if you took samples of first wort and
>oversparged wort from the same mash, diluted the first wort
>to the same gravity as the oversparged wort, and then
>measured the polyphenol levels, you'd find that the
>polyphenol levels in the oversparged wort was ten times that
>of the diluted first wort.
Sounds pretty dramatic doesnt it. Disastrous, some might claim.
TEN TIMES the polyphenol concentration! But remember we
are talking in "RELATIVE" terms here. Sure the "RELATIVE"
concentration of polyphenols goes up. However interesting this
may be, there is only one thing that truly matters: the final
concentration of polyphenols in the wort that is collected. This
is what will impact the flavor of your beer. It simply does not matter
what the relative concentration of tannins is doing with respect to
the wort gravity that you are collecting at any given moment. It may
be interesting, but at least in this context, it does not matter. The
total polyphenol concentration decreases with time; therefore, the
longer you sparge, the LESS polyphenol contributon you get in your wort.
>However, it is pretty well established that,
>relative to wort gravity levels, the harder you sparge, the
>more tannic materials (as well as fatty acids and mineral
>compounds) you'll get.
While this may be true, how much do the last runnings actually
contribute to the final polyphenol concentration in the collected
wort? The fact is, the more you sparge the LESS you are
contributing to the bottom line; the final polyphenol concentration
in the collected wort. This is because you are diluting a relatively
high initial concentration of polyphenols.
Lets look at it another way, that data shows that if you stop the
sparging at a gravity of 10 degrees P, the polyphenol concentration
in the collected wort will end up somewhere between 315 and 260
ppm. If you continue to add wort at lower polyphenol concentrations,
you will continue to dilute the polyphenol concentration in the
collected wort. Say you have 1 gallon of wort at 10 degrees P
with a polyphenol concentration of 300 ppm. If you add a second
gallon of wort at 5 degrees P and 200 ppm polyphenols you end up
with 2 gallons of wort at about 7.5 degrees P and a polyphenol
concentration of 250 ppm. If you add a third gallon of wort at 3
degrees P and 150 ppm polyphenol concentration, you end up
with a total of 3 gallons of wort at a gravity of 6 degrees P and a
polyphenol concentration of 233 ppm. Notice that (baring any
math errors that I have made which I am sure someone will find
and beat me about the head and shoulders for not checking my
numbers) the relative concentration of polyphenols relative to
wort density goes up from 30, to 40, to 50 ppm per degree P,
but at the same time the total polyphenol concentration in the
collected wort drops from 300 ppm to 233 ppm. Not a problem.
I am sure that some body will make the argument that if you keep
on sparging and collect say 50 gallons of wort and the last 25
gallons contribute no fermentable sugar at all but polyphenols were
still being contributed at a measurable rate, you will end up with a
higher concentration in the wort after you boil the 50 gallons
down to 5 gallons. Now even I would classify that as oversparging!
Paul Niebergall
Burns & McDonnell
pnieb@burnsmcd.com
"Illegitimis non carborundum"
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3217, 01/10/00
*************************************
-------
