Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3234
HOMEBREW Digest #3234 Fri 28 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:
Re: Practical Brewer download & quality ("Peter J. Calinski")
Re: Color; Overnight Mashing (LaBorde, Ronald)
Invert Sugar/Honey/Lovibond ("St. Patrick's")
Re: Efficiency vs. Yield (MaltHound)
keg conversion parts ("Dan Michael")
Non-Alcoholic Ginger Beer Recipes ("Steven J. Owens")
hop storage ("Stephen and Carolyn Ross")
Overnight mashing ("Paul Niebergall")
raw wheat in witbier ("mike o,neill")
Filter Components made of plastic ("Dan Schultz")
Quoting Efficiency vs yield (Steve Lacey)
Rodenbach's demise (Mark Tumarkin)
Misc replies ("Houseman, David L")
Color ("A. J. deLange")
Noonan (William Frazier)
Re: How to raise mash pH? (Jeremy Bergsman)
Re: Trappist Light (Dan Cole)
repitching yeast, other newbie questions (Nina Cohen)
Bottles in South Africa ("Evan James")
Re: How to raise mash pH? (Carmen Salvatore)
Pressure relief valve for pin lock (Coke) keg ("Steve Blanchard")
Glasses ("A. J. deLange")
re: Efficiency vs.Yield ("Jack Schmidling")
Sparge Temperature Variations ("Peter J. Calinski")
Stuck sparge with EM...Hmm... (Midwest Brewer)
RE: Yet ANOTHER Sparging Question (LaBorde, Ronald)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00
* See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information
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: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:23:27 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Practical Brewer download & quality
Doug Moyer wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
Brewers,
I've started the arduously slow process of downloading the Practical
Brewer (see http://www.mbaa.com/membonly/publication/pdf.html ) I am
guessing that many of you are doing the same, since the best I can get is
just over 1 Kbyte/s. (I have a lightly loaded 112k ISDN at the office, so I
suspect the bottleneck is at the mbaa site.)
Can someone with good bandwidth post the pdf's on their site and let
the
rest of us know? (Would that be illegal?)
Also, the image quality is terrible! Has anyone converted this to
formatted text? (Would that be illegal?) Any tricks for printing the files
as is to get a decent output?
____________________________________________________________________________
____
Well, I tried.
I downloaded the TOC, Index and first three chapters. What a pain, I was
going to propose that as a group, we split up the chapters between us and
run them through an OCR program to convert to text. That should reduce the
volume of data by a factor of 3-5 and also allow searches. (Just load up a
chapter in Acrobat and search for the word "beer". It won't find it
because the files are all images.)
I did a trial run on my idea but wasn't successful. Acrobat won't save or
export so I did cut and paste into a graphics program. I then saved it as
a GIF file and loaded it into my OCR program. Unfortunately my OCR program
requires at least 150 DPI resolution and it says the image that resulted
from all my gyrations was of lower resolution.
Anyone have a better OCR program?
Also, it would be nice to get it back onto PDF files. This would require
an Acrobat generation program. I don't have one nor access to one.
I'm not up on copyright issues but if we did it as a group and made the new
version available to the MBAA, they might like the idea.
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:43:35 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Re: Color; Overnight Mashing
From: "G. M. Remec" <gremec@gsbalum.uchicago.edu>
>Thanks to those who responded to my request for help in developing a recipe
>color swatch in my Excel brewing program. The consensus was that it cannot
>be done accurately.
I am constantly amazed at how difficult, contorted, and convoluted the
computer industry and it's architects have made the entire color display
systems we all try to use.
Coming from the television industry, I can appreciate how splendidly the
engineers have crafted the concept of color display and color vision, having
researched and optimized the NTSC system in an intelligent manner. Not to
say that the NTSC system as a whole is without flaws, but the concept of
RED, GREEN, and BLUE as the primary colors, with the ability to adjust both
the contrast and brightness of all three colors individually was the
successful decision.
The constipated thinking computer industry has missed the whole concept of
black level, white level, and we end users have reaped the hideous
consequences. The best one can hope for is a display card that allows
adjustment of white level or contrast, but no provision for adjusting black
level. This is such a basic and simple concept, that one simply shudders
that these people (I certainly would not call them designers) were allowed
to run amuck.
Knowing the failures of the computer systems in use, you still have a chance
to approach your goal by compensating in your software to attempt forcing
the display to give a reasonable color value. What you need is a color
reference, like a card or photograph that is distributed with your program.
Then, built into your software is a set of standard values to look at on
your monitor. Since you now have a reference card with the colors as THEY
SHOULD LOOK ON THE MONITOR, you then do what the architects should have
done, and adjust the monitor gains, and brightness levels to make the
monitor look as much like the card as you can.
Now if the architects had not completely missed the concept, you would be
able to adjust the gamma of each color (RED, GREEN, BLUE), at your operating
system, or your hardware system, but alas, no such luck. You can program
into your software the facility to do this with a lot of effort. Then each
user would be able to make the monitor and the reference agree as close as
possible, and then the values would be true for all your color output.
Take a look at Photoshop and check out the monitor setup section to see one
clumsy but somewhat successful attempt of working around the many problems.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:27:59 -0500
From: "St. Patrick's" <stpats@bga.com>
Subject: Invert Sugar/Honey/Lovibond
As was mentioned by others, beer lovibond indicates absorption of blue
light (430 nm). Honey 'color' scale is called the RED Lovibond scale and
indicates absorption of 560 nm light (green-yellow). The standard method
today is known as Pfund but the common method involves comparing the honey
to an amber colored wedge. For example, the clover I have now is 25 mm while
california orange blossom is 35 mm lovibond.
As Matthew Comstock noted, invert sugar is the principle sugars of honey
(dextrose=glucose=corn sugar, and fructose=levulose=fruit sugar) Honey is
in fact made from sucrose (floral nectar is primarily a sucrose solution)
by the action of the enzyme invertase (in the bees). Yeast have invertase
as well.
In addition the the National Honey Board website, you might find the pbs
site about the nova show about bees of interest.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bees/buzz.html
Lynne O'Connor
St. Patrick's of Texas http://www.stpats.com
Brewers Supply 512-989-9727
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:02:17 EST
From: MaltHound@aol.com
Subject: Re: Efficiency vs. Yield
In a message dated 1/26/2000 3:46:30 AM Central Standard Time,
John_E_Schnupp@amat.com writes:
Fred sed,
>I hereby propose that for homebrewing purposes (and HBD communication) we
>institute a standard of quoting yield in a points per pound format instead.
"That being said, what is "typical" to be considered "good"?"
Like most things, it depends. I guess you could make a broad statement that
you should expect somewhere from 28 to 32 pts/Lb of final yield (ie wort in
the fermentor), depending on your set-up. That would be for standard OG
worts using "traditional" lautering schemes, etc. Also, as someone recently
noted in another message thread, there are losses that occur in the kettle
due to wort trapped in the trub.
Higher OG worts are likely to have a lower yield because of the difficulty in
rinsing out all of the sugar during lautering. That is unless you sparge
longer than normal and then boil down to the desired high gravity.
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:02:38 -0800
From: "Dan Michael" <dmichael@avuhsd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: keg conversion parts
I am going to convert
my 15.5 gallon brew pot and another
keg into a mash/lauter tun and
kettle with valves welded into the
bottom. I am not very handy I need
a list of parts and the reccommended
sizes that I should use.
I need a list of everything I
would need so my father-in-law
can do the welding and cutting.
thanks Dan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:31:19 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Non-Alcoholic Ginger Beer Recipes
Folks,
Lyn Howard (Lynhbrew@aol.com) writes:
> Harry, I have had some success with Ginger Beers. It depends on what
> you are trying to get for a flavor profile. Does your mother
> remember anything more about the beer like color, lingering
> sweetness, aroma, alcohol level, carbonation. What made her really
> like the beer. If you know this you can probably formulte a recipe
> to come close.
I often bring a keg of homebrew to my friends' poetry readings or
art openings. The kids and various teetotalling adults get kind of
left out, so I've been thinking about brewing up some batches of
ginger beer (one of my favorite soft drinks - I prefer Stewart's
ginger beer to the sweeter Jamaican Ginger beer), cream soda, and/or
root beer. Can anybody suggest some good recipes for these?
What is in the "tonic water" used with italian soda syrups? I've
had thoughts of just force-carbonatic a keg of water and bringing the
keg and a couple bottle bottles of Torani syrup.
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:00:22 -0600
From: "Stephen and Carolyn Ross" <rosses@sprint.ca>
Subject: hop storage
J Daoust <thedaousts@ixpres.com> asks if it's possible to store leftover
hops in freezer in a Ziploc.
Of course it is! Ideally, you'd use an oxygen barrier bag, and either vacuum
seal it (this is what we do at Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies- where we
sometimes nip into larger bags to package smaller quantities) or pack it in
nitrogen.
Hop pellets, leaf hops, and plugs will store differently, pellets and plugs
will fare best in the short term.
For home use, suck as much air out of the bag as you can, just before
sealing it. Temperature is the largest factor in hop alpha acid stability.,
so popping them in your freezer is a great way to save those leftover hops
for another batch. I'd use them within 6 months to be sure of freshness. And
don't forget to label them, including alpha acid. I had one batch that I
accidentally used Yakima Magnum (14% aa)... but that's another story....
For more info you may wish to check out www.paddockwood.com/storage.htm
cheers,
Stephen Ross, brewing in Saskatoon, SK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:58:53 -0600
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Overnight mashing
Overnight mashing has worked well for me on a number of occasions.
I have not experienced any problems with mash souring because
the high temperature of the infusion water pretty much pasteurizes
the mash tun and it's contents. Before anyone starts in with the
"I read in a book that you need to reach 180 degrees to
pasteurize........." line of B.S., please remember that pasteurization
can take place at much lower temperatures IF the contact time is
increased. I cant give exact number but 5 hours at 150+ degrees
is plenty good enough for me. The temperature generally drops to
the mid 130's over night. Tho, I do try to minimize the temperature
drop by infusing late at night and then getting up early the next morning
to brew.
The only potential problem that I see is sparging at a lower than
ideal temperature. But this really has not proved to be a problem.
I sparge a 130 degree mash bed with 170 degree water and still
get better extraction than with a traditional 90 minute mash and
warm grain bed sparge. My data shows that a low temperature
grain bed at mashout is not a problem, despite the books that
say a higher temperature is optimum for extraction. (wort viscosity,
dissolution of sugar molecules, blah, blah, blah.). Missing the
optimum for one variable (like temp.) does not always result in
disaster, especially when overcompensating in other areas
(like extremely long mash times causing better and more
complete conversion).
That said, what I have found to be even better than just overnight
mashing is mashing AND sparging in one evening followed by brewing
the next day. To me this is the best way to brew. I start the
mash on a Friday night after dinner, give it a nice long conversion
period (2 to 3 hours) while doing house stuff, and then mashout a
still hot grain bed around 10 or 11 p.m. I then collect the wort
in a five gallon bucket and place the bucket in the fridge over
night to cool. When I get up the next morning,
the perfectly crystal clear wort is carefully siphoned off of the gunk
(starch mostly) that has collected at the bottom of the bucket. This
method also provides flexibility because I can leave the cold, unboiled
wort in the fridge until Sunday if I need to.
Somebody wrote:
>I hereby propose that for homebrewing purposes (and HBD communication) we
>institute a standard of quoting yield in a points per pound format instead.
>Certainly everyone knows that you will get different pts/lb for different
>ingredients, but it really is a simpler and more effective way of comparing
>yield results.
I am all for that. Let's compare apples to apples (points to points) instead
of "relative" efficiencies.
Nathaniel writes:
>Some anectdotal evidence, I was making tea and inadvertently
>spooned in some malto-dextrine instead of corn sugar.
>That cup of tea certainly had quite a bit of mouthfeel
>compaired to a "normal" cup.
Forget the dextrines. Did you percieve any tannoids
in your cup of tea??
Paul Niebergall
Burns & McDonnell
pnieb@burnsmcd.com
"Illegitimis non carborundum"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:47:47 -0600
From: "mike o,neill" <mikeo2624@uswest.net>
Subject: raw wheat in witbier
This is my first posting all though I have been lurking in
the shadows for some time,finally got the courge to try the
deep end. I am planning my first attempt at witbier and I
have gotten some conflicting information regarding the best
form of wheat to use. Martin Lodahl in a artical says to
use raw winter wheat Briess says to use flaked and others
say just to use malted wheat but I have read that this ends
up more like an American wheat beer. I am planning on doing
a triple decoction mash so the wheat protein should not be a
problem, I hope. Thank you Mike O'Neill(the dead horse
brewery)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:16:27 -0000
From: "Dan Schultz" <dschultz@primenet.com>
Subject: Filter Components made of plastic
Dave H. noted his concern of getting plastics that handle hot water when
designing a filtration unit. Unfortunatley, he is incorrect as their are
many plastics that will handle these temps and higher. He probably would
have been more correct to note that since the Sear's Filters were designed
to be commercially feasible (read profitable), they did not design the
products with hot water in mind.
Burp,
-Dan
>From: "Dave Hinrichs" <dhinrichs@quannon.com>
>Subject: Filter answer and question
>As one of the designers of the Sears models the reason that are only for
>cold water is the materials used cannot take the high water temps and still
>perform to specifications. Since all filter housings that I am aware are
>made of plastics I do not think you can get a hot water rated filter
>housing. <snip>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:19:40 +1100
From: Steve Lacey <stevel@sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: Quoting Efficiency vs yield
Fred Wills asks us all to start quoting extraction in terms of pts/lb
instead of % efficiencies. Whilst I sympathise with Fred's objectives, to
achieve some sort of standardisation, I can't agree. Most of the recent %
quotes have been to do with mash performance. If we just quote yield in
pts/lb (is there a working metric alternative to this unit?) we then need to
consider the entire grain bill to decide whether Bloggs' system has
performed spiffingly or is just a bunch of crap. I for one don't want to do
that and am happy to accept that Smith got 65% with one method and 85% when
he cranked up the Whimmer-Jammit. Please tell me if I am way off the mark or
missing the point, because it has been known to happen before.
Fred has a point that there is rarely any qualification as to what we
precisely mean when quoting a "percent efficiency". Perhaps one of the more
learned Brewsters could post a short treatise on the different, potentially
confusing, ways that percent efficiency can be calculated. Future posters
citing extraction efficiency might then be better able to qualify the number
they are citing. I am hoping that extraction efficiency means the pts/lb
yield compared to the theoretical yield based on the ratings of all the
ingredients - 'cos that's what it means to me.
Cheers,
Steve Lacey
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:55:32 -0500
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Rodenbach's demise
Todd Crane writes about the possible demise of Rodenbach Alexander (and
possibly others later). You may recall a spoof story going around
sometime back about a merger between Rodenbach and Orval. The spoof was
supposedly about new marketing of combined products under the name of
... Orval Rodenbacher. Just a funny joke at the time, but maybe it would
have been a good thing had it been real. It would be a shame to lose
such unique beers.
Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, Fl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:34:13 -0500
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: Misc replies
Saflaer Yeast - I just used this for the first time and fermented at about
47oF. This fermented very clean. Given the option of brewing at the last
minute, it affords great flexibilty for lager brewing much as Lallamand has
done with ale yeasts.
Re-using yeast - you can certainly re-use yeast many times. Eventually it
may mutate. At some point one may need to wash the yeast and get rid of the
dead cells. Most advanced texts provide the details that Darrell is
seeking.
Wyeast Kolsch 2565 - I've used this yeast numerous times for both Kolsch
and Alts. It has always performed well for me, fermenting cleanly. Primary
fermentation however was relatively cool for an ale, in the mid 50's.
Hop Storage - I've stored hops for considerable time. Best to do so in
sealed containers flooded with CO2 and stored in the freezer. All
perishables will eventually degrade but I've used pellets stored for a
couple years as noted without apparent problems.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 06:43:29 +0000
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Color
Greg seems determined to go ahead with the color color from SRM
experiment Spencer's and my caveats aside (and I'm not against that by
any means - just appreciate the caveats). There are probably dozens of
ways to do this but the following will give you a color that is very
close to a real beer color - in fact it will give you something like the
average color for a beer with a particular SRM based on the sample of
about 65 beers I measured. Remember that SRM is a fair predictor of beer
lightness/darkness but not a good predictor of beer color. I'll give the
formulas and then in brackets, [...], the values for a beer of SRM 10.
1. Calculate luminance, Y
Y = 94.6914*exp(-0.131272*S) where S is the SRM value [25.48]
2. Calculate chroma, x
x = 0.73978 - 0.25442*exp(-0.037865*S) - 0.017511*exp(-0.24307*S)
[.5640]
3. Calculate chroma, y
y = 0.197785 + 0.260472*exp( - ((x-0.491021)/.214194)^2 )
[.4297]
4. Calculate chroma, z
z = 1 - x - y [.0063]
4. Calculate the ratio W
W = Y/y [59.30]
5. Calculate X
X = W*x [33.44]
6. Calculate Z
Z = W*z [0.374]
7. Calculate R
R = 1.910*X - 0.533*Y - 0.288*Z [50.18]
8. Calculate G
G = -0.985*X + 2.000*Y - 0.0280*Z [18.01]
9. Calculate B
B = 0.058*X -0.118*Y + 0.896*Z [-0.73]
The RGB values are for the primaries as defined by the FCC for
broadcasting in the US (surely you didn't think there was only 1 set of
RGB primaries). Set these into the RGB model in the computer. Obviously,
the negative value should be set to zero. It's a function of modeling
error, roundoff etc. It's just telling you that beer isn't blue!
If you set the example RGB values into your computer you'll see a very
dark reddish patch that you won't think looks at all like beer. If you
are sitting in a dark bar, you also get the impression that the beer is
very dark so you hold it up to the light so that you can see the color
or, in extreme examples, use a penlight or some other source. You can
effectively do the same thing on your computer by scaling R, G and B so
that R is at 100. For the example above R=100, G = 36 B = 0 will give
you the same color as 50/18 but it will be brighter and you may think of
it as being more beer like. If you do this scaling, however, you
destroy relative luminance information. A beer as light as 10 SRM
removes 75% of the light passing through it (Y = 25 really roughly means
25% of the light is coming through). If you try to maintain luminance,
you quickly run out of dynamic range on your monitor. Your eye and the
real world have tons more dynamic range than your computer monitor. Film
is a little better and that's what lets the Davison Guide work (though
the colors are, in the case of some patches) not beer colors.
Note: I'm a little suspicious of the Z coefficient for green but I'm
overseas and can't check it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 06:36:33 +0000
From: William Frazier <billfrazier@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Noonan
Kurt Kiewel wrote "In fact, I've had the proper equipment for lagering and
all-grain brewing for quite some time but after reading Noonan's book, "New
Brewing Lager Beer" I thought that all-grain brewing would be more
complicated than Quantum Mechanics. As I recall,Noonan outlines the
procedure for and expounds on the virtues of triple decoction mashing. A
process entirely too complicated for a first time all-grainer."
It does seem a bit daunting doesn't it. However, if you read Nonnan's Seven
Barrel Brewery Brewers' Handbook you will find "When brewing for malt
character, how many decoctions are made is less important than that a
(single) decoction is boiled for at least 20 minutes, and for up to 45
minutes, to develop flavor."
I've brewed some very malty beers with one decoction. Start the mash at a
suitable saccharification temperature and after about 15 minutes pull the
very thickest 1/3 to 1/2 of the mash. Apply heat, stir constantly and boil
this as suggested by Mr. Noonan. Then cool this with a little RT water so
it is at or above the temperature of the main mash. Return the decoction
and rest for about 30 minutes. Sparge and boil.
Regards,
Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:49:13 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: How to raise mash pH?
"Troy Hager" <thager@hcsd.k12.ca.us> writes:
> BTW, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area (specifically in San Mateo on the
> Peninsula).
[snip]
> I have a very acidic mash!
>
> Now I started adding chalk (CaCO3) to the mash in increments of 4g. I know
> this is way overboard but I just wanted to see the effects. I added
> the chalk because that is the only thing that I know that brewers use to
> raised the pH of
> the mash. After stirring, taking a sample, and cooling, I tested it with
> both papers. My readings barely moved.
The Peninsula down through parts of Mountain View, including my home, but
not including Palo Alto, is on the Hetch Hetchy water system. This water
is, as you note, quite soft, and produces an overly acidic mash. All of
your observations jibe (it's not jive is it?) with mine. I believe that
your problem is that CaCO3 takes a long to raise the mash pH. I suppose its
insolubility is correlated with a slow rate of dissolution, so even if there
are sufficient protons available to sop up any CO3-- produced this is still
a slow process. I use about 1 t of baking soda (NaHCO3) in my 10 gal system
to bring up the pH. As for why the mash pH is too low to begin with I've
been stumpted by that for a while. One would assume that the low pH from
the tap is carbonic acid resulting from CO2 pick up and I would assume that
this wouldn't prevent the malt buffers from correcting the pH. Possibly my
proximity to both the water and lab equipment and AJ's knowledge could work
it out.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 05:50:09 -0500
From: Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: Trappist Light
>I recently brewed a "Trappist Light". I was interested in the Trappist
>ale
>flavor, but wanted to make it lighter in alcohol than many (and another I
>just bottled @ 8.9 % ABW!). I was surprised that the resultant brew
>tasted
>much like a Hefe....and wonder if this is common?
<snip>
>chilled and pitched a vile of WhiteLabs WLP500 Trappist Ale Yeast
<snip>
>Anybody know why this tastes like a "half-a-hefe"?
I have just had a similar experience. I brewed a triple with the same
yeast. Everything was fine with it and I was very happy with the flavor. I
put 3 bottles in the 'fridge for a about a month to prepare for a meeting
of my local homebrew club, and upon tasting at the club meeting I was
surprised that this was a belgian; it tasted exactly like a HEFE (cloves
and all). All the Belgian funkiness had faded leaving a very alcoholic HEFE
behind.
I suspect the yeast, but don't know anything certain.
Just another data point.
Dan Cole
Star City Brewers Guild
www.hbd.org/starcity/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 06:36:10 -0500
From: Nina Cohen <nina@swva.net>
Subject: repitching yeast, other newbie questions
What a great discussion group!
I just joined this list, and also just started brewing with a friend of
mine. We've just graduated from boiling up the can of hopped malt extract
and throwing in the dry yeast packet (shudder) to experimenting with hops,
specialty grains, and liquid yeast cultures. The excellent discussions
I've been reading here for the last couple of weeks have given me much
useful information and food for thought. I do have a few questions
concerning the effects of various ingredients and procedures on the flavor
of the finished beer.
A little background: our first batch turned out, in my opinion,
way funky. My friend liked it fine, but I thought it was harsh, bitter,
totally lacking in body, and tainted with an odd off-flavor that I can only
describe as reminiscent of beef boullion. Pretty bizarre, eh? Batch one
was your basic hopped syrup kit with an extra half-can of unhopped syrup
thrown in. We stuck the wort outside to cool, and it took nearly an hour.
We used the dry packet that came with the kit and just pitched it straight
into the bucket. The beer took almost two days to start fermenting, and
didn't do any intense foaming up as far as I could tell. The second batch
was a hopped brown ale kit, again with an extra half-can of unhopped syrup
thrown in. We added half an ounce of Kent Goldings hop pellets in a little
muslin bag for the last 5 minutes. This time we stuck the bucket of wort
in a trash can full of cold water, and it cooled in just 20 minutes. We
pitched in a vial of White Labs English Ale yeast. We actually measured
the O.G. this time - great technological advance. It was 1.043. The batch
took less than 12 hours to start bubbling through the fermentation lock.
It was down to 1.014 when we bottled it 12 days later. This batch tasted
considerably better to me. It had more flavor and body, though a bit
cloying. Not much hop flavor or bitterness. However, it still had a funky
kind of bitter aftertaste and some of that off flavor, though both were a
lot less noticeable than the first batch.
The third batch, however, was a different story. We brewed it on
the same day we bottled batch 2, and we repitched the yeast out of batch
2's fermenter. Here's how we handled the yeast: we boiled a quart mason
jar and lid for 15 min, then dumped a bunch of the thick, pasty yeast stuff
straight from the bottom of the bucket into the jar. We put the lid on
without tightening the ring down, and stuck the jar in the fridge until
about an hour before pitching, when we took it out to let it warm up again.
Batch 3 was made with 6 pounds of dry amber extract, an ounce of Cascade
whole hops stuck in for the entire 45-min boil, and half an ounce of Kent
Goldings pellets for the last 10 min. Batch 3 was bottled 15 days late. I
just tried a bottle after only 6 days of conditioning, and I can't believe
the results. It actually tastes very good, clean, with a decent balance of
malt and hop flavor, some hop aroma, and no harshness or weird off-flavors.
So one question: why did we get such different results?
Here's what happened differently in batch 3: a.) we used a glass
carboy instead of a plastic bucket; b.) the beer foamed up within 12
hours, and got so vigorous that it blew all sorts of junk out the airlock
and dribbled all down the carboy (we didn't even consider a blow-off tube,
since our first two batches never foamed up that way. We replaced it with
a clean airlock when the major foaming died down); c.) we used iodophor
for the first time, instead of One-Step; d.) we rinsed the bottles and
most of the equipment after sanitizing; e.) when pouring the hot wort (1
1/2 gal) onto the cold water in the fermenter, this time the wort ran down
the sides of the carboy instead of just falling right onto the water.
Though this had the unfortunate effect of putting hairline cracks in the
carboy, I wonder whether it also did a better job of aerating the wort. We
didn't do much agitating of the wort once it was in the fermenter for any
of our batches.
Of all these factors, which do you guys imagine could have had the
most significant impact on the flavor of the beer? I know there's no way
of really knowing, but I'm trying to learn what things are most important
to pay attention to. Aeration, yeast handling, vigorous fermentation,
sanitizer use. . .so many things to consider. And we haven't even begun to
consider the quality of our well water, the use of any clarifying agents,
adding minerals, refining our siphoning techniques, racking into a
secondary fermenter, etc.
A last question involves repitching yeast. Glen Pannicke and Jeff
Renner had very useful things to say on the subject. What I wonder is:
what's the best way to store yeast sludge taken from the bottom? Is a week
about the longest one can reasonably expect it to stay good in the fridge?
I love how much complexity is involved in this pastime. If I
really got into it, I could learn stuff about chemistry, biology, physics,
even a little practical engineering, all through brewing. I'll just
concentrate on getting consistent results with extract brewing first,
though, before taking the plunge into a whole new level with mashing and
all that scary stuff.
Salut,
Nina Cohen
Floyd, VA
nina@swva.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:07:22 +0200
From: "Evan James" <evan@telemessage.co.za>
Subject: Bottles in South Africa
Hi all,
This is to all the South African brewers on the list (if any). I am sick of
cleaning out bottles so I phoned Consol Glass, and they are willing to sell
a single lot of 750ml beer bottles to me.
A lot consists of 784 bottles. This will cost R980.00, or R1.25 per bottle.
Not only can't I afford this, I don't need so many!
Anyone want to contribute towards a lot?
Regards,
Evan Dembskey
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:46:10 -0500
From: Carmen Salvatore <carmen.salvatore@lmco.com>
Subject: Re: How to raise mash pH?
In HBD #3233 Troy Hager asks how the raise his mash pH:
This is exactly the same situation I have. Did the same experiment as
Troy and had the same results. I have a Hanna Checker II pH meter and
have used it for the last couple of batches (they were last year as I
haven't brewed in a while) and my mash pH was ALWAYS under the
recommened range. Recalibrated/checked the meter - resampled the mash -
same result - mash pH at or below 5.0. Even with a grist of all pale
malt and 1/2 pound of light crystal. Unfortunatly I am unable to offer
any suggestions/remedies. As such, I too would be very interested in
others input/suggestions on this. I would include the water boards
report here but it very similar to Troys/Pilsen - very soft. BTW I live
in central NY, Utica to be specific.
Carm Salvatore
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 06:44:33 PST
From: "Steve Blanchard" <steve_blanchard@hotmail.com>
Subject: Pressure relief valve for pin lock (Coke) keg
I am making the transition from bottling to kegging and, after acquiring all
the necessary equipment, decided to do a dry run and carbonate water in my
Coke pin lock keg. I could not get a seal around the pressure relief valve
in the lid. The keg was under pressure when I bought it so know that it did
hold pressure. The pressure reilef valve on this keg is a screw-in plastic
valve but don't know where I might be able to find a replacement valve. It
is also possible that the leaking is coming from the silicone seal around
the valve but I cleaned it off to no avail. Any thoughts from the
collective??
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:45:27 +0000
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Glasses
RE Dave Sapsis's comments on the typical competition cups' suitability
for judging color: the "we" I referred (the phrase was "the cups we
use") was the majority of us when we judge. I'm not the most experienced
judge but I have done it a few times in a couple of states and have
always been given those same little cups whose main virtue, as I
understand it, is that they are odorless. I don't particularly advocate
them for use in judging color or for any other aspect of judging.
I went back and found the data I had taken on the Davison guide. I had
bought two, cut one up and put the pieces into a spectrophotometer which
had been spiffied up with software (after I did all the beer work by
transferring spectra to my laptop) to measure and calculate tristimulus
color automatically. Push the button, sit back and a couple of minutes
later you have X, Y, Z or x, y, z. From the beer measurements I knew the
relationship between SRM, Y and the path so that I was able to
calculate SRM values from the measured Y values assuming 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
and 10 cm paths. I had heard or read that the guide was supposed to
simulate 5 cm worth of beer to match this cup we're discussing but I did
not really know whether this was true. The idea was that when the SRM
data calculated from the measurements assuming various paths is fit with
a straight line (plotting the calculated SRM vs. the Guide patch labels)
the fit with the slope closest to 1 should correspond to the path which
is the path for which the Guide was designed to work. That path turned
out to be 10 cm, not 5 - I didn't remember this right in my previous
posts. Actually, at this point I'm not sure whether the cups aren't 10
cm. Sorry for any confusion.
When a 10 cm path (4") is assumed, the maximum error is about 2 SRM for
the guide based on the beer set from which my SRM vs Y model is derived
etc. This is instrumentally measured. As Dave points out, when
compounded with errors due to the observer, the light source, the
background, the shorfalls in SRM etc. the Guide is questionable as a
source of precise data but it was never intended to be a source of
precise data and if we recognize this I think it's OK to use it to get a
general idea. I take the one I didn't cut up to contests all the time.
If I thought a beer was too light or too dark for style I might compare
it to the guide but I would never write on the score sheet the value I
determined using it.
Dave comments on the basic suitability of SRM for describing the color
of beer. I think he has a point. SRM is a laboratory mesurement which
can really only be carried out with laboratory equipment to a reasonable
degree of accuracy. It is important to commercial brewers who are
looking for consistency more than anything else. I happen to enjoy
analyzing my beers as much as I enjoy brewing them so I like to have SRM
to a decimal place or two and I like to have values for other
parameters too but I guess I don't see a practial way to incorporate
measurement of any of these into the typical homebrew contest
environment.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:51:09 -0600
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: re: Efficiency vs.Yield
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Fred sed,
>>I hereby propose that for homebrewing purposes (and HBD communication) we
>>institute a standard of quoting yield in a points per pound format instead.
>That being said, what is "typical" to be considered "good"?
21 is a nice number.
Seems like 10 years since I started making the same proposal. I have actually
been known to get rude to people who ask me questions about efficiency based on
%. It is a totally flawed method of understanding what we are doing as
homebrewers. It is based on published values for malt characters, most of which
are taken out of old books and are nearly meaningless to relate to the bag of
malt we happen to be using. Unless the brewer has the real analysis of the malt
in hand and the ability to work that into his measurements or a lab capable of
determining the values for the malt, it is nonsense to use this method. It's
like basing the luck of a fishing trip on the oxygen content of the lake water.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and in this case gravity per pound
per gallon says it all.
js
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:30:17 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: Sparge Temperature Variations
Andrew Nix asked:
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The other question is, has anyone ever
measured the temp of the 2-3" water column above the grain bed to see what
type of temp drops are associated with heat transfer from the water in
going from the hot sparge water tank, through the sparge arm and convection
while falling through the air to the water above the grain bed?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This doesn't quite qualify as a direct answer to your question but I did
make some measurements during the sparge this past Monday. I used a 7
Gallon plastic bucket with about 10.5 lb. of grain After the second step
it was at 158F. Then, I had to let it sit while I ran to the store to
replace the hydrometer I broke that morning. When I returned the grain bed
was at 145F.
I started to sparge with 170F water. I keep it within +/-2F with an
electric heater in the HLT. I had a temperature probe at the bottom of the
grain bed. I kept 1-2 inches of liquid above the grain bed. It took about
an hour for the SG to drop to 1.000 uncorrected for temperature. This
would correct to > 1.010 assuming the runoff temperature is above 118 or
so.
I started the sparge with a grain bed temp of 145F
After I collected 2.5 Gal. the grain bed was at 150F
After I collected 3.5 Gal. the grain bed was at 156F
I didn't take any more readings but this says 170F water probably never
reached the lower grains.
The result was 5 Gal. of SG 1.051 (temperature corrected). I think this
gives 24.3 ppg or 69%(??).
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:14:48 -0600
From: Midwest Brewer <mgeorge@bridge.com>
Subject: Stuck sparge with EM...Hmm...
Jack S sez:
> "If you experienced a sudden slow down after pouring the 2 gallons
back, I would
suspect the way you poured it might have disturbed the filter bed. It
is rarely
necessary to draw more than a pint off to clarify the wort. By taking
two
gallons you not only waste a lot of time but significantly drop the
temperature
of the mash by putting it back in."
Huh? I routinely recirculate a gallon for my 5 gallon batches. The
first 3 quarts I run full bore, and the last a bit slower. The first 3
almost always are murky, the last one only begins to clear somewhat
toward the end. Temp drop? I'd like to see data points on this.
> "Stirring and scraping only causes stuck sparges and is never a cure."
Hmm...I almost always gently rake / stir the grain bed in one form or
another during the sparge, and I've never really had one get stuck, even
with 20-25% flaked grain in the mash. Doing this breaks up the top
layer of coagulated material that can lead to channelling in the grain
bed, which in turn leads to poor efficiency. Stuck sparges are usually
from compaction and air space between the grain bed and the filter. Not
from stirring IMO - I thought that was a way to get things flowing
again.
> "There is absolutely no point in trying to get crystal clear wort as
subsequent
process steps will clarify the beer."
Geez...all this time I've been recirculating for nothing I guess...but
you are the brewer of the WGB, so it must be gospel.
You want to know the single most important thing I've learned to help
the flow from the lauter tun? Mashout. Since I've done that I've
improved my beers significantly.
MWB
Glen Carbon, IL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:33:28 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Yet ANOTHER Sparging Question
From: Andrew Nix <anix@vt.edu>
>Do other folks do this, keep some of the sparge water heating to maintain
>temp, rather than putting all of the water in the hot water tank and
>risking losing some temp???
I have never used a insulated storage vessel to hold the sparge liquor, but
your picnic cooler sounds good. You might like to try using an electric
heating element in the HLT to maintain the temperature. In my system, I use
240 volts at 4500 watts because it is the only source for heating and
maintaining the HLT temperature. If you have some other method for
attaining the initial HLT temperature, and just need to hold it to a set
temperature, you could easily use a 120 volt element. Check out hot water
heating elements at the hardware store.
>the other question is, has anyone ever
>measured the temp of the 2-3" water column above the grain bed to see what
>type of temp drops are associated with heat transfer from the water in
>going from the hot sparge water tank, through the sparge arm and convection
>while falling through the air to the water above the grain bed??? If so,
>please share your results. I may do a test this weekend to see what temp
>drops there are and I may heat my sparge water to a little higher temp to
>account for losses in going from the hot water tank to the grain bed.
No, I have not measured the temp. but I suspect it is much lower than the
temperature in the HLT. I normally run the HLT temperature up to 175F or so,
and this seems to give me a mashout of 165f.
>OK, one more....those floating thermometers (Brewer's Best I think), anyone
>else have a problem with the rubber handle coming off if you put them in
>water that is getting close to boiling (the glue fails). I had BOTH of
>mine come off this past brew session, one was brand new, the other I've had
>for years!!!
I tossed mine, it seemed like the quintessential mark of a beginning
homebrewer. :^)
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3234, 01/28/00
*************************************
-------
