Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3294
HOMEBREW Digest #3294 Sat 08 April 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:
Charles Sprigg and hops in primary (OSULLS)
Attenuation ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
rice and sweetness 1 of 2 ("Darrell Leavitt")
attenuation, NA,date (Jim Liddil)
rice and sweetness 2 of 2 ("Darrell Leavitt")
yeast attenuation ("Alan Meeker")
re: Restarting stuck wine ("Parker, Mike")
Boiling and wort oxidation (Dave Burley)
Re: Hops in my primary (Jeff Renner)
Re: Secondary Fermentation (Jeff Renner)
primary & secondary durations ("Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell")
overnight mash & carbonating stones (Dalefogg503)
Hey Mabel... (Lou.Heavner)
Subject: cleaning scorched stainless steel ("scott")
RE: Secondary Fermentation (Chris Cooper)
Mash Hopping Utilization ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
Complete Homebrew Setup For Sale ("Grow, Roger H")
Ale Yeast Attenuation (Crossno)
Kegging (stevewo)
"Steam"-style yeasts ("Dittmar, Robert D")
Everything you know is wrong (Rick Magnan)
Re: FWH demystification, Mash Hops ("Hubert Hanghofer")
Slam, Bam, Thank You Mam! ("Penn, John")
Dave Sapsis please contact me (Jeff Renner)
Soldering RIMS heater connections ("Tom & Dee McConnell")
AHA 1st Round - MidAtlantic (David Houseman)
Re: Slam, Bam, Thank You Ma'am! ("Doug Moyer")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* 18th Annual Oregon Homebrew Festival - entry deadline May 15th
* More info at: http://www.hotv.org/fest2000
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 Apr 2000 11:28:34 +0100
From: OSULLS@uk.ibm.com
Subject: Charles Sprigg and hops in primary
Charles, as for the hops in your primary I suggest you take a pinch of
Charlie Pap's advice and relax again. It may not turn out as well as if you
had managed to remove all the hops, but the lesson you will have learnt
will be a valuable one, that is you need to do things differently next
time.
As for next time I noticed you said ' pour wort into the primary through a
funnel'. This is something I think many US HB'rs seem to be doing, and I
cannot think they are missing a big opportunity to profit from the basic
law of gravity.
One of the functions of the boil has to achieve the 'hot break' . This is
the coagulation of small protein bits into larger lumps which can be seen
floating and settling out in the liquor when the boiling heat source is
switched off. If left for 15 mins the hops will sink rapidly to the bottom
of the boiling vessel , soon followed by the coagulated 'hot break'
material.
If you can put a metal boil proof tap (spigot) low down on the side of your
boiling vessel, when the liquor has rested/settled/cooled for 15 mins,
simply open the tap and let it drain into the primary vessel through the
natural filter bed of hops, all of the hot break proteins will be left
resting gracefully like fresh fallen snow on the top of the hop bed.
Viola, no hops or hot break materials in the primary, and near crystal
clear trubless liquor.
PS. you can prop( I use an old offcut of wood under one side) the vessel up
towards the end of the runnoff period (safety first, dont do it when you
have 5G of hot liquid!!) so that the tap is lower most you will retreive
almost all of the liqour, if you are worried about leaving the 1-2 pints
that remain in the bottom you can gently hop sparge with some hot water
from your kitchen kettle.
Sean O'Sullivan
UK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 08:29:20 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Attenuation
Doug asks >>
Assuming you had identical wort composition, why would 1056 attenuate
differently from 1728?<<
In basic terms-yeast have a genetically determined trigger point at
which, when fermentables concentration
drops to that level, they begin cell wall changes that cause flocculation.
This set point varies from strain to strain. Also the strength of the
flocculation will vary due also to genetic reasons. The strength of
flocculation will also affect how much extract is reduced after the trigger
point is reached and flocculation starts. A "dusty" yeast will flocculate
only slightly lingering in the wort a much longer time to continue
fermentation. A "break" yeast flocculates strongly and quickly dropping out
of the wort stopping the fermentation immediately.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 08:27:06 -0400
From: "Darrell Leavitt" <Darrell_Leavitt@esc.edu>
Subject: rice and sweetness 1 of 2
As I stated in a post a couple of weeks ago, I have been experimenting with
rice (roasted brown rice flakes) in an effort to make some lighter brews
for visitors this summer. I have just started to be able to test taste a
few of these, and notice that they are not as dry as I'd like; that is,
they taste a bit too sweet for me. This is not, in itself, a problem in
that all people have different tastes, and some are likely to think that
this sweetness is ok, but for me I'd like to make some drier. I will
describe the ingredients, as well as the processes so that if any more
experienced brewers know what gives, they may have the info to offer
suggestions...
Irish American Ale
1 lb Torrified Barley Flakes
2 lb Roasted Brown Rice Flakes
4 lb Franco-Belgian Pilsner
a rest at 104 F for 30
another rest at 148 F for 65
1 oz Cascade in the boil (5.2%)
1 oz fuggles @ 30
first runnings were 1.095 (in a 20 qt kettle)
used slurry from a previous batch : WhiteLabs Irish Ale Yeast
added about 1 gallon of water to fermenter to bring OG to 1.05
pitched yeast on 2/27
secondary on 3/14 (tried to keep temp between 65-68F)
bottled on 3/23
FG was 1.103
this one still tasted sweet to me....have I done something wrong...or does
the Munich posess too many unfermentables?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 06:08:51 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@VMS.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: attenuation, NA,date
>
> All you librarians out there: what does the literature say about variations
> between COMMON strains of yeasts and their ability to process various
> sugars? (Let's not discuss the weird yeasts at this point.) Most of the
> variation that I've seen discussed on the hbd refers only to lager yeasts'
> ability to ferment mannose (or perhaps another dextrin), which ale yeasts
> are not able to process. This is NOT relevant to my original question which
> referred only to ale yeasts, but probably doesn't make an appreciable
> difference anyway.
>
Check the NCYC http://www.ifrn.bbsrc.ac.uk/NCYC/ for info about
attenuation etc. and see what you can conclude. My view is that there
really is not any differecne in "normal" brewing strains, ALL other things
being EQUAL.
NA beer could also be made using s. ludwigii. Search the archives for the
discussion.
Lynne asks about the Zymurgy data which I think is an appropriate
question. In the same spirit is there any chance we can see your raw
data. I'd even consider a private discussion.
I think dr. pivo has it right in that we don't need to worrya bout 6 year
shelf life in our beer. Make what you enjoy. We all have choices about
what we can worry about and what is important. Do we really want every
one to walk lock step and brew exactly the same? Talk to anyone from
the former ussr or china about the wonders of forcing everyone to be
the same. Next thing you know
Qiagen is going to sell brewing kits. (the science impaired may miss this
one).
Jim Liddil
North Haven, CT
Jesus died for someones sins but not mine. -patti smith
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 09:05:17 -0400
From: "Darrell Leavitt" <Darrell_Leavitt@esc.edu>
Subject: rice and sweetness 2 of 2
Ok, here is the second recipe that turned out (for me) too sweet:
British American Ale
2.5 lb Roasted Brown Rice Flakes
8 lb Optic 2 row
first rest @ 104 F for 30
second rest @ 125 F for 15
third rest @ 148 F for 60
first runnings were 1.094
OG was 1.054
FG was 1.02
I do a partial boil (20 qt) and add (usually) about 1 gallon of water to
the fermenter, depending upon the gravity of the situation.
I used wlp005 British Ale yeast for this one...pitching directly from the
vial.
Now, since this one seemed to floc out early (first time I went to
secondary the gravity was 1.04) so I pitched some dry EDME yeast ontop this
and did the primary again...but it none-the-less came out too high for me..
Some of the sweetness in this can be due to the higher finishing
gravity...but all of it? I ask in that the previous batch had a lower
finish gravity and still tasted sweet...
Is this in the nature of rice to taste sweet....OR is there something in
my process that can be alterred to make a drier brew?
..Darrell Leavitt
<Terminally Intermediate Home-brewer>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 09:25:12 -0400
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: yeast attenuation
Doug Moyer presses for more info on the different attenuation figures
between various ale yeasts. My previous post simply pointed out that there
were reasonable explanations as to how different yeasts could attenuate to
different levels based on their patterns of sugar utilization. I haven't
actually seen any data on this.
I'd still like to know exactly what the original source is for the published
attenuation ranges, for example those printed next to the Wyeast strains in
virtually every mail order catalog. How were these tests conducted? Ideally
they would have been determined under carefully controlled conditions.
However, if this was the case then these published ranges may become even
further blurred due to the varied and relatively uncontrolled conditions
that they will find themselves in within the homebrew setting. Add to this
the fact that most of the printed ranges overlap significantly and it makes
one wonder how much weight we, as homebrewers should give them.
-Alan Meeker
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 08:24:28 -0500
From: "Parker, Mike" <mparker@CaseServices.com>
Subject: re: Restarting stuck wine
>...The alcohol is why the repeated steps, slowly allowing
>the yeast to adapt to the high alcohol already in the wine.
>Just adding a fresh yeast will not produce rapid results, it
>will be stunned by the alcohol.
OTOH, it wouldn't hurt to just toss a packet of K1V in and see
if it fixes the problem before he launches off on a crusade.
I had a Belgian Strong Pale (with 3 lbs honey) that had gone
from 1.83 to 1.008 over two months and was still sloooowly (but
visibly) fermenting. I tossed in an unrehydrated 2-yr-old packet
of Red Star Champagne yeast, and two days later it dropped clear
at 1.002.
May not work every time, but it's only a buck or two to try.
Michael Parker
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 09:44:54 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Boiling and wort oxidation
Brewsters:
When I was growing my mother told me that when somene had to use strong
language they were covering up for a lack of anything to say with
confidence.
Phil Wilcox clearly demonstrated that.
Did he ever try the experiment I suggested? Nope. Just tried to "protect"
all you silent lurkers.
Well, Phil, others in the past have tried to take the position of Saviour
on the HBD. Sorry, but it just doesn't fit you nor the fact that many
silent lurkers out there have advanced technical degrees and can think for
themselves.
Try the experiment I suggested and then report back. I know the answer
because I did it.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 09:38:45 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Hops in my primary
"Charles Sprigg" <csprigg@hotmail.com> wrote:
>When I went to pour the wort into the primary through a funnel (with a
>screen) it clogged the screen almost immediately, <snip>
> So, I just dumped the wort into
>the primary and went on with the process.<snip>
First off, whill HSA may be greatly overrated, I think that pouring *hot*
wort through a funnel is asking for oxidation troubles, so if that's what
you did, you might avoid it in the future. There are several ways to avoid
this. Immersion and counterflow chillers involve equipment that you may
not want to invest in. The low tech method is to put the kettle in a water
bath. The bath tub works fine, or a laundry tub. Be sure to change the
water whenever it gets warm. By stirring the wort in a circle you
accomplish two things - you hasten chilling and you whirlpool the hops and
other trub, especially if you used hop pellets. I suspect from your
description that you didn't use pellets, though. You might want to the
next time. Or use a hop bag again. Whole hops will settle out pretty
well, however, allowing you to pour off most of the wort. You can always
rinse the hops with boiled water.
After the wort is down to below 90 you can pour it with less risk of
oxidation. If you are boiling less than the full brew volume, you can get
the wort down to yeast pitching temperature quickly from this point by
using chilled water. Fill a couple or three clean and sanitized gallon
milk jugs with water (pre-boiled if you're worried about the cleanliness or
chlorine level of your water) and put them in the fridge overnight. Then
use this to fill your fermenter to the five gallon mark or whatever you aim
for.
>Right now my primary is fermenting away vigorusly, but there is/was a lot of
>suspended hops in the liquid. Is this okay? Will it affect the quality or
>flavor of the brew? Is there anything I can do to fix this?
You may need to siphon carefully if you used whole hops rather than
pellets. Pellets should settle out fine. You might be able to skim hops
off the top during fermentation. Otherwise when you siphon put a metal pot
scrubber on the end of your siphon tube.
>I'm hoping it will settle out and when I rack to my secondary I'll have nice
>clear beer. What are the chances of that?
Very good if you used pellets. Whole hops are probably going to be a bit
more trouble. It will still be beer, you may just get a little less than
you planned on. Now you know from experience what not to do.
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 Apr 2000 09:46:57 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Secondary Fermentation
John Leggett <leggettjr@home.com> asks:
>Ok all you hard core all grain brewers, give the new guy a break and
>tell me about secondary fermentation. I am brewing extract kit ales in
>a primary for about 7 days. How long do I rack these brews to a
>secondary? I'm just looking for some guidelines and general advice.
Secondary fermentation is a chance to let the beer continue in the slow
later stages of fermentation away from the sediment (trub) that is made up
of coagulated protein from the boil and chilling (hot and cold break),
hops, dead yeast, stray cats, etc. It means you don't have to deal with
nearly as much sediment later when racking to kegs or priming vessels. It
also means you can leave the beer on this sediment longer since it is less
likely to cause problems from prolonged contact. Of course since the beer
isn't producing much CO2 you should have as little head space as possible
if you're going to leave it in the secondary very long. OTOH, some brewers
never use a secondary and just rack straight from the primary when it's
done.
As a general guideline (which is what you asked for), if you leave your
beer in the secondary a week it should be pretty well done and well settled
out. If there's little headspace and you can wait it won't hurt the beer
to settle longer and you'll probably get less yeast in the bottles.
Gelatin fining can help this if you're impatient. Ideally you could have
no more yeast in the bottle than the thickness of a coat of paint. This
allows you to easily pour clear beer, which looks nice.
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, 07 Apr 2000 09:22:46 -0700
From: "Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell" <defalcos@insync.net>
Subject: primary & secondary durations
John Legget was inquiring about recommended durations in primary and
secondary fermenters.
"Ok all you hard core all grain brewers, give the new guy a break and
tell me about secondary fermentation. I am brewing extract kit ales in
a primary for about 7 days. How long do I rack these brews to a
secondary? I'm just looking for some guidelines and general advice.
You posts are entertaining and valuable , but a little over my head
(currently). thanks for the advice."
My inclination is to point out that at typical room temperature
fermentations, a week in the primary is a bit long. Try cutting it back
to three or four days, when the fermentation initially slows to a
crawl. This way, there will still be some fermentation activity going
on when you rack into the secondary. You'll want that protective layer
of carbon dioxide to guard against spoilage microbes. As for the
secondary, my rule of thumb is generally a minimum of a week and a
maximum of three weeks for most regular strength, room temperature
brews. Mind you, this is largely temperature dependent. Cooler
temperatures may stretch out those primary and secondary periods. On
the Gulf Coast, we are generally fighting the heat, so this isn't a
problem, unfortunately. That's my two cents worth, anyway.
Scott Birdwell
DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies
Houston, Texas (0 degrees by 0 degrees Bonham-iam)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:59:10 EDT
From: Dalefogg503@cs.com
Subject: overnight mash & carbonating stones
Dear Fellow Brewers,
I have two new questions for you to ponder. I have done several overnight
mashes in a Gott 10 gallon converted mash tun, then I cover it with a
sleeping bag. I let it rest for about 12 hours then lauter. Normally i only
lose about 2-4 degrees F. This really cuts down in the amount of time to
brew a 10 gallon all grain batch. I usually start at 7 or 8 pm and mash in
then put water in my kettle for the following days brew and go to bed. Then
when I start the following day while my sparge water heats up I read the
paper and get ready to brew. My first question is do you see any thing wrong
with this extended mash? What and why. My next question is about carbonating
stones. Do you use them how, are they really beneficial. They look like
they would carbonate very well. Any and all info would be helpfull. Thanks.
Dale Fogg
Pittsburgh, PA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:14:29 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: Hey Mabel...
When I was just a tyke (the Ike & JFK days) my grandfather drank
Carlings Black Label. We will be celebrating my grandmother's 90th
B'day this summer and I'd like to make a batch in honor of the
occasion. I'm thinking a CAP, but if anybody has a clue as to what
yeast and hopping schedule I might use to get that old Black Label
taste, I'd appreciate the input as I never had one, myself. I plan to
use about 20% corn by weight and no rice. I'm thinking of using
Zatarain's Fish Fry (w/o lemon!) for the corn, any opinions on whether
it would require a separate cereal mash? And while I'm on the
subject, any opinions as to whether or not popcorn could be used?
Would you try to crush the kernals or dry (air) pop it and add to the
mash? Wish I could brew as many 'spurments as our beloved doc pivo.
TIA...
Cheers!
Lou Heavner
Barefoot Brewing
Austin, TX
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:40:28 -0700
From: "scott" <Cuckold@cornerpub.com>
Subject: Subject: cleaning scorched stainless steel
This happened to me once, and one of my beautiful Sanke keg bottoms. Tried
all kinds of different chemicals and agents.
What worked best? Choir boy wool scrubby, Elbow grease and a good movie.
It comes off eventually, if you work at it, and you will be damned sure it
never happens again, believe me!
Scott
Richland, Wa.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chris Cooper <ccooper@a2607cc.msr.hp.com>
Subject: RE: Secondary Fermentation
In HBD #3293 John asks about the use of secondary fermenters:
First off, John don't let the high level stuff confuse
you, most of the HBD readers are just trying to make
beer with a minimum of complications.
The use of a secondary ferment is one of those issues
that many brewers swear by or swear at. I have brewed
around 80 batches and have used a secondary on about half
of them. Usually I let the primary run for 5-10 days
depending on the activity of the yeast. Once the bubbling
has slowed down to a glug every 20sec or so I rack to a
secondary if I am going to use it.
Here are my thoughts on when a secondary is effective:
A. There is a lot of trub in the bottom of the primary
and the batch needs extra time to clear a bit before
bottling.
B. The ferment has stalled and the gravity is still a bit
too high. Racking to a secondary sometimes seems to rouse
the yeast into finisihing their job. (for a somewhat
related topic search the HBD archives for discussion of
"dropping")
C. I need to wait a bit before kegging or bottling (due to
my work schedule) and I want the beer off the trub and
expired yeast.
On the other hand if a beer ferments out quickly and has
dropped clear (the yeast is highly attenuative and floc's
out well) I usually skip the secondary and keg/bottle
directly from the primary. (Wyeast British and Irish both
fall into this profile of behavior).
One word of caution, anytime you move a completed or mostly
completed beer be careful how you handle the beer. Avoid
splashing the beer during the racking and if possible rack
into a secondary that has been purged of air (with CO2) to
avoid oxidation. The recent thread on HSA is up for
discussion but I feel safe in stating that most homebrewers
would agree (what a concept) that oxidation of a finished
beer during transfer is a real concern.
I hope this helps!
Keep it simple and Brew often!
Chris Cooper, Pine Haven Brewing (aka. Debbi's Kitchen)
Commerce, Michigan Member, Ann Arbor Brewer's Guild
(Approximately 25 miles from 0.0 Renerian)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:07:03 -0600
From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders@paddockwood.com>
Subject: Mash Hopping Utilization
Dana Edgell <EdgeAle@cs.com> asks about mash hopping:
"Are any hop oils left behind in the grain bed absorbed by husks, grain etc.
when
mash hopping so that the efficiency is lower and should be compensated for?"
In our experience, about a 10% utilization is about right for mash hopping
with pellets. Mash hopping is used to replace an aroma hop addition. It's
not quite the same as FWH, which we think provides a higher utilization than
regular hop additions, we calculate a 10% increase in utilization over
regular hop additions.
hope this helps,
Steve & Stephen
______________________________________________
Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK
orders@paddockwood.com www.paddockwood.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:34:34 -0600
From: "Grow, Roger H" <GrowRH@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM>
Subject: Complete Homebrew Setup For Sale
Includes Five-5 gallon SS kegs complete with picnic taps and CO2 fittings,
Four-6.5 gallon carboys (with styrofoam crates), 5 gallon carboy, CO2
regulator, 5lb CO2 tank, 20lb CO2 tank (aluminum), 35,000 BTU propane burner
with regulator, Brewing Kettle, immersion chiller, Racking Canes and bottle
fillers, Hydrometer and flask, Upright and hand bottle cappers, screened
funnel and more.
See it at http://www.geocities.com/sv650sy/Brew.html
Also for sale:
Coors Light Neon Sign http://www.geocities.com/sv650sy/Neon.html
Grolsch Bottles (brown) http://www.geocities.com/sv650sy/Grolsch.html
For the Web impaired, email RooJahMon@Brew-Meister.Com for more details.
Thanks,
RHG
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:40:26 -0500
From: Crossno <Crossno@tnns.net>
Subject: Ale Yeast Attenuation
QUOTE:
Date: 14 Sep 1998 11:50:43 -0400
From: EFOUCH@steelcase.com
I thought I would share some results from a pseudo yeast experiment
recently
performed by me.
Here's what I did- Brewed an ESB type base wort:
5# pale ale malt
2# Munich malt
11oz Crystal Malt
Mashed at 154F with 10 qts. water at 170F.
FWH with 1oz Northern Brewer
Bittered with 1 oz Northern brewer (60min)
I collected the sweet wort in my 5 gallon fermenter (dropped for
aeration) for
mixing, then siphoned into 5 - 1 gallon jugs (more dropping).
Into each 5 gallon jug I inoculated a different Yeast strain:
O.G. F.G. Apparent
Attenuation
1.050
(published)
Belgian Trappist (Wyeast 3787) 1.015
75-80%
Belgian Strong Ale (Wyeast 1388) 1.015
73-77%
Belgian Wheat (Wyeast 3942) 1.015
72-76%
Widmere Hefeweizen (WLP320, per Scott Murman) 1.015
Bells Amber Ale yeast (?) 1.020* ?
UNQUOTE
My experience has been that different ale yeasts attenuate the same wort
to the same degree.
Glyn (I have my billiard table on order) Crossno
Estill Springs, TN
- --
There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few
who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric
fence for themselves.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:46:07 -0600
From: stevewo@us.ibm.com
Subject: Kegging
I saw in Post 3293 from Jeff Renner how he goes about kegging right from
the primary (thanks Jeff). I have yet to do this since I still invoke the
use a secondary before kegging. Want I'm thinking about doing on my next
batch is racking from primary to my keg. What my question is, how much C02
do I use to fill the air space? I'm thinking my procedure would be:
Rack to keg from primary
Fill air space with C02 (again how much here? 25-30 psi like force
carbonation?)
Purge (to eliminate any trapped oxygen)
Fill air space again with C02 (same question as above here)
Let keg sit for 10 days to 2 weeks (I'm making a pale ale)
Tap and drink
Am I on track here?
Thanks,
Steve
Corona, AZ.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:56:24 -0500
From: "Dittmar, Robert D" <Robert.D.Dittmar@stls.frb.org>
Subject: "Steam"-style yeasts
I currently don't have the refrigeration equipment that I would need to brew
lagers, so I have never used any of the Wyeast lager yeasts. I wondered
though if anyone has had success using any of these yeasts at ale
fermentation temperatures. I know the Anchor yeast, 2112, can be used at
higher temperatures and I'm thinking of giving that one a try, but has
anyone had any luck using any of the others at ale temperatures? I'd be
fermenting at my usual cellar temperatures - around 60-65 degrees F for
primary and secondary.
I'm not really interested in cloning Anchor steam or brewing "California
Common's". I only wanted to try something new, and was wondering if any of
the lager strains were well-behaved enough to use like an ale yeast.
Rob Dittmar
St. Louis, MO
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rick Magnan <magnan@jimmy.harvard.edu>
Subject: Everything you know is wrong
Phil, Jim and Eric have reported how they were led astray by
know-it-alls in books and people and that so much of it was
complete and utter BS after some experience had been gained.
Being admittedly slow on the uptake, this insight of experience
has yet to reveal itself to me. Perhaps its that I've only been at
it 8 years and 70 batches. Perhaps I'm just overlooking the obvious.
Does this simply mean that you have discovered you can ferment in
an open container OR a closed system? That you can use a blow off
tube OR not? That your secondary does not reek of autolysis "rubber"
stench in a week's time?
Please, share with us these many published and widely held falsehoods
that have, and continue to mislead so many of us so that we too, may
be freed from the shackles of unrighteous brewing advice!
Rick Magnan
Wellesley, MA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 21:39:06 +0200
From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hhanghof@netbeer.co.at>
Subject: Re: FWH demystification, Mash Hops
Hi all,
Dana Edgell <EdgeAle@cs.com> wrote in HBD #3293
> Subject: Mash Hops
>
> Jeff Renner posts Hubert Hanghofer citing Ludwig Narziss
>
> to state that FWH works because the hop oils are oxidized into soluble
> forms without the guarding vapor blanket and vapor stripping.
>
> Can we assume from this that when adding hops to the mash we don't actually
> get any stabilization until the sparge stage when the already extracted hop
> oils are exposed to oxygen in the kettle.
>
> Is the standard stiring of the mash enough to oxidize the hop oils?
Due to their chemical nature hop oils are oxidized very easily. The
primary question regarding "hop-oil stabilization" is therefore:
Are the hop oils stripped by vapor *before* they can get oxidized?
In other words: The ratio between stripping and oxidation determines the
degree of "flavor stabilization".
So this should be high for FWH and also for mash hopping. Though in my
experience **HSA is a big concern** for light beers, optimizing your
techniques and avoiding HSA doesn't mean that you don't get oxygen in your
mash!! There will at least be enough to react with the hop oils. It could
even be that hop oils act as anti-oxidant, but that's pure speculation.
Finally I've found an English text in EBC-Literature that I want to
forward for your own evaluation:
"It has been claimed that the hop character of beer is due to oxygenated
terpenes, in particular oxygen heterocyclics and volatiles derived from
oxidative degradation of hop constituents. Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons are
very susceptible to auto-oxidation, whereby mainly epoxides are formed,
such as caryophyllene-4,5-epoxide and humulene-1,2-epoxide. Humulene
diepoxides have also been found in hops and beer. The reactivity of the
epoxides induces the formation of a variety of oxidised derivatives.
Reactions of humulene-1,2-epoxide in boiling wort conditions lead to a
complex mixture, including the flavour-active humuladienone."
Literally quoted from page 47 of:
European Brewery Convention: Hops and Hop Products, Manual of Good
Practice, (c) 1997. ISBN 3-418-00758-9
(I assume the length of this quote doesn't violate the copyright ...if so,
don't betray me!)
CHEERS &
sehr zum Wohle!
Hubert, brewing in Salzburg, Austria
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:55:13 -0400
From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn@jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Slam, Bam, Thank You Mam!
Wow, I must have arrived in the HBD world to be slammed so by Doug
Moyers....
He writes...
>"Penn, John" <John.Penn@jhuapl.edu> takes Alan Meeker's comments and
>combines them with a single irrelevant data point and comes to a completely
>illogical conclusion. (Sorry to be so blunt, John, but them's the apples.)
>Without knowing the composition of John's wort (sold as a health
>supplement?) no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn about his yeast's
>performance. None. Period. (Also, just because the gravity is over 1.000
>doesn't mean that fermentable sugars remain.)
Well, I think Doug missed my point. It seemed that a recent HBD post
implied that yeast would eventually carbonate all the remaining sugars while
in the bottle and lead to possible explosions. This was along the lines of
all yeasts eventually attenuate the same... My one data point was an
example of a batch with a lot of sugars remaining, FG of 1.035. Yet the
yeast which were healthy enough to carbonate the batch did not continue to
eat sugars until there were bottle bombs. After 2 years there was no change
in carbonation levels. This was meant to be an example, not a proof! Jeez,
Doug, relax have a homebrew or something. I also have brewed numerous
batches with the same ingredients using different yeasts that were reported
to have differing attenuation rates. Sure enough, the resulting batches
generally followed the differing attenuations that were advertised. So are
all yeasts equal in attenuation? I would think not based on my experiences.
Yes, different malts, temperatures of fermentation, temperatures of mashing,
etc. also have an affect on attenuation even with the same yeast.
Also, I appreciate Alan Meeker's comments on yeast. He seems to be very
knowledgeable and is willing to share his expertise with the rest of us on
the HBD.
John Penn
PS No wonder so many previous major contributors to the HBD seem to have
left. The attitude lately has not always been helpful, and you know who you
are. It's one thing to be wrong, it's another to be arrogant and slam
someone. RDWHAHB
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 16:01:25 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Dave Sapsis please contact me
Your mail to <DAVE_SAPSIS@fire.ca.gov> has been bouncing.
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 Apr 2000 21:10:29 +0100
From: "Tom & Dee McConnell" <tdmc@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Soldering RIMS heater connections
in a word don't. Heavy current carrying wires can heat up. If they
heat up to much, the solder may melt and run or fracture and
create a bad joint which will heat even more. If it runs and ends up
on some portion of the metal frame and you touch it - crispy critter.
So..... even if you think crimp or screw connectors are a pain, for
heavy current wire, they are what you should be using.
Tom & Dee McConnell (tdmc@bigfoot.com)
Littleport, Ely, Cambs (UK)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 19:57:15 -0400
From: David Houseman <dhousema@cccbi.org>
Subject: AHA 1st Round - MidAtlantic
Just a reminder to all the judges who would like to judge in the AHA
National Homebrew Competition, May 6 and 7 in Philadelphia, PA. Judging
will start at 9:00am on Saturday and 10:00am on Sunday at Drexel
University's Department of Restaurant and Institutional Management. For
further details contact George or Nancy at Home Sweet Homebrew
(215-569-9469) or David Houseman at dhousema@cccbi.org or 610-458-0743.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 16:51:14 -0400
From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Slam, Bam, Thank You Ma'am!
John Penn comments (on my comments)
> Wow, I must have arrived in the HBD world to be slammed so by
> Doug Moyers....
Well John, you have to wait until you are slammed by one of the major
contributors to actually consider yourself having arrived. I'm just a bit
player with too much caffeine....
> Well, I think Doug missed my point. It seemed that a recent HBD post
> implied that yeast would eventually carbonate all the remaining sugars
while
> in the bottle and lead to possible explosions. This was along the lines
of
> all yeasts eventually attenuate the same... My one data point was an
> example of a batch with a lot of sugars remaining, FG of 1.035. Yet the
> yeast which were healthy enough to carbonate the batch did not continue to
> eat sugars until there were bottle bombs.
Ah, but still you miss my point. Just because your gravity is 1.035 does not
mean you have any remaining sugars. A faulty premise invalidates your
conclusion.
And yes, if the yeast is still strong enough to carbonate, it will consume
all the remaining sugars. If you weren't at TG (terminal gravity--no sugars
remaining) when you bottled, and did not account for the remaining sugars
when you primed, you have a very good risk of a bottle bomb or two. Once
again, the 1.035 FG indicates a plethora of molecular chains, which are not
necessarily "sugars".
My question still remains: by what mechanism will different strains of yeast
consume differing amounts of sugars? (Not dextrins or other weighty material
in suspension.)
My suspicion is that other factors attribute to the reported variation in
apparent attenuation (AA) of homebrew. I have a difficult time believing
homebrewing experience in support of the supposed differences. For example:
take a 1.050 beer finishing at 1.014 (AA = 72%). If the hydrometer is read
incorrectly by +/- 0.001 at FG, a variation in AA of +/- 2% will show up. Of
course, the potential for error is higher for stronger beers.
Also, how many of us can truly hold their mash temperature constant and,
more importantly for this type of experiment, repeatable? A one degree
variation in the mash from batch to batch is more likely than the strain of
yeast to affect your AA. And most homebrewers have a huge temperature
variation WITHIN a single mash. There are too many variables to draw
meaningful conclusions. Even split batch experiments are suspect.
I still bet that AA's given by the yeast supplier are hogwash. (Hell, are
the differences as reported by the yeast suppliers statistically
significant? Has anyone seen actual data?)
I, too, appreciate Alan Meeker's comments. But, on this subject, his
comments were of the "I imagine it to be so" nature--not what I expect from
such an infamous "librarian". Certainly not the conclusive answer I would
like to see.
(BTW, you'll be pleased to know that I am not plural.)
Brew on!
Doug Moyer
Salem, VA
Star City Brewers Guild: http://hbd.org/starcity
"There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.'"
~ Dave Barry
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3294, 04/08/00
*************************************
-------
