Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3359
HOMEBREW Digest #3359 Fri 23 June 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: priming after cold conditioning (Steve Lacey)
NSW Homebrewing Championships (Steve Lacey)
Forgive him Lord, he knows not what he asks (Steve Lacey)
re: bt back issues/SlowHio law/HSA ("Stephen Alexander")
Aylinger Y, Mauri 514, Aus slang ("Graham Sanders")
Aussie Strine mate (Brad McMahon)
Back End Of The Country ("Phil & Jill Yates")
near beer and Prohibition (Jim Adwell)
Bud's roots ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Re: priming after cold conditioning (Jeff Renner)
Raftman: distiller's malt (Vachom)
Feed / chit malt (Nathan Kanous)
Shampoo Tube Wyeast ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
Beer pH (AJ)
Re: Big Beer/Small Beer Parti-gyle brewing ("Dan Diana")
Bottling a 1+ year old lambic (Ted McIrvine)
Carbonation and pH (mmaceyka)
re: pH Heck ("Brian Lundeen")
re: lag times ("Brian Lundeen")
Sorbate in Beer ("Frank J. Russo")
6% beer (John Adsit)
* Don't miss the 2000 AHA NHC in Livonia, MI
* 6/22 through 6/24 http://hbd.org/miy2k
* WebCam coverage at http://hbd.org/eventcam
* 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: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:00:26 +1000
From: Steve Lacey <stevel@sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: Re: priming after cold conditioning
Dan Senne wrote:
"Now it's time to bottle, but as I've never cold conditioned beer, I don't
know if the yeast will have enough umph left to bottle carbonate with my
usual 6 or so, ounce corn sugar addition.
Is the addition of more yeast needed? how much? I don't have the equipment
needed to force carbonate."
This comes up periodically and is definitely a RDWHAHB situation. Mainly
because there really IS enough yeasties floating around to effect
carbonation (I'm speaking from experience - please don't ask me the
concentration in cells X10^6/mL!). If you want to be doubly sure, you don't
have to ADD extra yeast, just grab them from the bottom of the lagering
tank. Use a bottling bucket and bulk prime. But when you rack to the
bottling bucket, just momentarily put the business end of the siphon right
to the bottom of the lagering tank and suck up a little bit of yeast. Defeat
the purpose of lagering? I don't think so. Anyway, do you want your beer
carbonated or not?
Cheers,
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:00:49 +1000
From: Steve Lacey <stevel@sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: NSW Homebrewing Championships
Whilst I'm on the job, I might as well make a quick short note for NSW (Oz)
based brewers - the other 99.99% of you can page down now if you like.
On behalf of the organisers of the NSW Amateur Homebrewing Championships, I
just want to inform those who are wondering (both of you) that info packages
and entry kits are about to be mailed out. We hoped to have it done weeks
ago, but life (and Murphy) keeps getting in the way. Packages will be going
to all homebrew stores in the State and at least one in ACT too.
Also note that we are planning to run a bit of a homebrew promotion on
judging day following judging (Sat 7th October). This will be in the centre
of Sydney and will involve talks, tastings and vendor promotions. Comp
presentations will follow that as part of a social function involving
quality craft brewed beers on tap (ever tried Gil's Bock??). Any of you
local legends out there interested in helping by conducting a guided tasting
session or giving a short talk, I'd love to hear from you. That means you
Phil, and you too Mr Lamotte! You can run but you can't hide.
Any enquiries, please feel free to chase me up by private email. To the
other 99.99%, thanks for the bandwith.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:45:34 +1000
From: Steve Lacey <stevel@sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: Forgive him Lord, he knows not what he asks
Bill wrote: I'd like help from the collective with 2 things - brewery info
and Australian Lingo etc etc
Bill, I fear that the likes of Yates and Sanders will be only too happy to
rise to your request for Aussie (that's pronounced ozzee with a zee, not
ossie with an ess) info. Just don't believe everything they tell you because
it is a well-known Aussie trait to pull the leg of unsuspecting American
tourists. For example, they like to wax lyrical about the dangers of drop
bears when wandering in the outback. They convince the poor tourists that
these feisty little creatures will pounce on you from out of a tree and
start fornicating your ear hole. Now, this is absolute crap. We all know
that drop bears actually come at you from out of burrows - it's a deliberate
and ironical misnomer!
I really only want to pick up on a couple of points
1) Coopers is an ale, Victoria Bitter is a lager - and a shocker at that!
Tooheys (worse) XXXX (condoms in the US, we know that) as Graham has spoken
so eloquently of, and Swan Lager are a couple of other mass produced soma
products.
2) We don't really wish you would switch to the metric system. We are quite
pleased that some in the world are willing to keep alive a clumsy outdated
measurement system for the benefit of posterity. Think how much better off
we would all be if somebody had kept Latin alive! Gosh no, don't change, it
makes the world interesting and keeps us all metric/imperial bilingual and,
hence, culturally enriched.
3) The only other words I would like to give American homebrewers is, in all
seriousness, thanks for everything you guys give the homebrewing community.
The HBD, AHA, BJCP, books, hops, yeasts, etc etc. We are just small fry over
here and without the US "industry" we would all be still mucking about with
bread yeast and God knows what. So, even if we are a bit cheeky at times, we
do appreciate the US industry - imperial recipes and all. Now, having done
my PollyAnna bit for the day I think I'll go and have a Bex and a good lie
down.
Cheers, Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 04:13:12 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: bt back issues/SlowHio law/HSA
Scott Morgan writes ..
> However moral they feel, its a failed business, [...]
Exactly, Dave Lamotte and others have justification for
feeling a bit put-out, but a court has apparently relieved
New Wine Press, Inc of it's obligation to us and tort law,
not Mr.Mallery, will determine precedence for any
disbursements.
Haranging Mallery for not paying a debt he doesn't
owe is counterproductive. I think Dave and others
have confused a modern contract with a medieval code
of honor. IMO the moral obligation to repay is entirely
negated by the purchaser's obligation to understand tort
fundamentals regarding performance risk and that
the contract was with a corporate entity, not an individual.
I and others ignored or incorrectly evaluted performance
risk of resubscription. I was aware of the risk, resubscribed
anyway, and blame only myself for the misjudgement. I'd
do the same again. Others want to blame someone else for
their failure to accurately assess risk - that's a different
sort of moral flaw.
I think it's totally off-base, but if anyone believes fraud was
involved they should get together and have a local walk
it thru small claims court. Corporate identity will not protect
from fraud, just as complaining on HBD will not get blood
from a stone.
==
Dave Burley writes of Ohio beer law ...
>I think I remember on the labels it said "6%
> but not more than 7.2%", didn't it?
Excellent memory Dave. Actually Ohio is full of quaint Old-timey
laws regarding alcohol. It's laws are stuck in a prior century and
it's legislator's heads stuck somewhere else...
In Ohio the maximum level of alcohol legal *today* in a beer is 6%
ABW or about 7.2%ABV. This means no barleywines or trippels -
despite the fact that you can stroll down the aisle and buy 13% wines
day or night.
Recently the State of Ohio began enforcing an odd "open container"
law. The upshot is that Ohio HB clubs cannot legitimately bring untaxed
HB to meetings at locations which hold liquor licenses, such as Micros.
It's nice to know these busy-bodies have plenty of time to fix
non-problems and interfere with legitimate freedoms. Great Lakes
Beer News has more.
I have to thank one of my local club members for detail.
A letter from Paul Gatza made clear that AOB interest in
the matter would fall short of calling or writing anyone to
determine what was up. No one was expecting a legal challenge
from AOB, but it's sad that this org can't act as a clearing house
for info, or even assist in establishing communication with
groups that could help.
SlowHio - A great place to live - if you call this living.
===
Pannicke, Glen A.
> But how many are BREWING chemists? These are the people who I
> want to hear definative statements from.
They are there Glen but you are not looking. Get off your duff and get to
a good library. These brewing chemists and researchers publish regularly
on damaging effects from oxidation in journals and books. I've reported
on a few of these papers. Get a library card and read 'em yourself, since
you discount my reports.
That HSA (with other conditions) can result in off-flavors is not in serious
question in the lit. What is questionable and interesting, is 'does this
effect YOUR HB under YOUR conditions' and no paper will answer that.
An HB level experiment might help gauge it tho'.
>I would like someone with the proper education and experience IN THE
>FIELD OF BREWING SCIENCE to explain or disprove HSA.
You'll find several articles a year on the topic in JIB. Or you might look
to
a textbook like Kunze who declares ...(pp211) that "Oxidation during mashing
[...] is shown by /darker wort and beer, / a less refined beer flavor,/
decrease
in flavor stability." He then lists some obvious ways to reduce this.
M&BS,
written by some of the top brewing scientists in the English speaking world
says much the same.
When you consider that our HB tuns have perhaps a 5-10X greater
surface to volume ratio, you can see why the potential problem is worse
on the HB scale.
> I want answers and I'm
> sure someone already has them - or at least a good lead.
Send me a snail-mail address Glen and I'll CC you on a couple recent
papers. You will at least see that it isn't a snipe hunt.
After participating in judging events over the past few months I am
convinced that very basic improvements, such as control of carbonation,
attenuation and infection are much greater issues than HSA for the HBer.
That doesn't mean that I'll be ignoring HSA (or pitching rate or hops
handling or ...) in my beers.
====
Spencer W Thomas writes re Blanche de Chambly yeast
>If all the Unibroue beers are made with the same yeast,
Unibroue claims on their website that they use a different yeast for
each beer - seems unlikely. I too tried the Fin Du Monde yeast
(after tasting Spencer's). It is very clean but gives a certain
wine-like flavor (crisp adicity) in more neutral flavored beers.
It is a very good fermenter for hi-grav and the attenuation and
flocculation are average. I like it a lot.
later Spencer continues ... HSA and Bud
>My theory has two parts:
>1. HSA affects "dark grains" the most. There are no dark grains in
>Bud.
There is a multi-step process hypothesized and to an extent confirmed
in the lit. For trans-2-nonenal formation, linoleic, a fatty acid is
oxidized
in the mash or boil (and maybe the kiln). The FA oxidation is catalyzed
by lipo-oxygenase enzyme or metal ions (Fe, Cu at ppb conc) and has
a tendency to chain-react - creating increasingly oxidized FAs forming
hydroperoxides of FA. The hydroperoxides survive the fermentation w/o
being reduced. Later, in beer, heat and low pH act to increase the
spontaneous rate for conversion of the oxidized FA products into
trans-2-nonenal. Certain oxidation state carriers (like melanoidin &
Maillard products from dark malts) can reportedly catalyse this
last step - which agrees with Spencer's comment.
G.Fix has an offhand reference in one of his books and I have found
ASC Food series books containing papers to this effect. I think you'll
find the same in EBC 17, Mahri et al, it's mentioned in part in JIB v98,
'Flavor Control', pp217 and his reference may be 'The Chemistry of
Heterocyclic Compound in Flavours and Aromas', Vernin&Vernin, 1982.
Actually there are quite a number of books devoted to lipid reactions in
food and staling is a very big well studied issue.
It's not all nailed down, but it's far from a hunch.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:47:10 +1000
From: "Graham Sanders" <craftbrewer@cisnet.COM.AU>
Subject: Aylinger Y, Mauri 514, Aus slang
G'day all
Well I have to hand it to Phil, honest and cagey like a cockatoo. Honest
yes the yeast arrived. Cagey, well i better give you the drum. One wonders
why the Hilton had dopped in the star rating, now on tin beer. Could it be
the brewery just can't cut it. Well the yeast sample was going to be put
thru the ringers. I was going to put the yeast culture to the full barage
of tests when it arrived, just to see what he gets up to. So when at work
SWMBO rings and says we have mail from the Hilton. I know its from the
Hilton, First class postage, hand delivered, premium packaging with gold
trim and a wax seal. Most impressive.
"Now my chance to see what he gets up to" I think. Open it is the reply.
Now SWMBO did so carefully (the packaging is worth a bit), and then I hear "
Is there meant to be liquid sloshing about in here". Phils obviously been
using Wyeast packs too much. Now its a nice try to contaminate the yeast
before i get it so I can't determine whats in your rice lagers, but you
failed mate, there's enough in the vial for me to do the proper tests still.
Will keep the HBD posted on the results.
Questions were asked of Mauri Dried yeast and 514 yeast. Well firstly Mauri
makes 514 yeast. They also clain to make 497, a lager yeast. It was
actually made in a vain attempt to stop Nth Qld separating from the
Federation. Kit brewing companies were bombarded with complates from here
on how their yeast wouldn't perform in hot weather (I can remember still
remember some of the letters we received from coopers deneying it and one
threating legal action). It actually centred at our local Homebrew shop.
Try brewing without a fridge in the tropics. 32c at 8.00am, stays the same
til nightfall, slowly drops to 24c by 6.00am, then straight bavck up to 32c
when the sun gets up. Normal dry yeast wouldn't cut it.
Well approaches were made to dry yeast manufacturers on this issue, (coopers
wouldn't listen). I can remember when the first trial 514 came up specially
for us to trial. We were told it was formulated for the tropics. Our
opinion - Its probably the best hot weather yeast available on the market.
It produces the least fruity flavours at higher temps than any other yeast,
dry or liquid. It is now become the stock standard yeast for all kits in the
tropics. It will ferment 15c to 40c, and for rehydration purposes, it should
be done with water 37-40c. Although no yeast is ideal at these temps, this
is the best there is.
Aussie slang. Shit i could fill the HBD with it. Australia even has its
own dictionary (The Macquarie) that chuck full. The dictionary was actually
produced because there were too many words not covered by anyone else. Our
slang is a mixture of rhyming from old england (plates of meat), Words made
up by the uneducated convicts (Dinkum), local historical events (Buckleys)
the shortening of words so we could spend more time drinking (breakie,
footie) and just our dislike of the snobby upperclass (this results in us
makin' a mockery of th' pomps lingo). And like the USA, there are regional
differences. I wonder how many southerners know what a 'port' is. Or some
places call tar, bitch-a-min, while others bit -u- men.
And of course you have to get that nasal twang, or it just doesn't sound the
same. Then, just to make it confusing we have more than one meaning to a
word. Take the famous 'Mate'. a very veritile word. When drinking with
your friend you call him mate, -You see a stranger, hi mate,- you in a
fight, I'll 'ave you mate, SWMBO is my mate ------ infact in Aus everyone
is a mate in one way or another. Confusing you would think. Yet sit in a
crowded pub, and yell 'hey mate'. Only one person will respond.
The only sad thing is that The good 'ol USA is slowly standardising the
lingo arround the world. Its what you get with a global economy. Least in
Nth Qld, we keep the spirit alive, and scull it as well.
True right there Bill, you have in one with your terms. Commercial beers in
Aus, Well being a big drinking nation here in the North things like XXXX
(with all it sub style names like bitter ale, draught), Cairns Draft, NQ,
Powers, Swan(swan lager and Emu bitter), Tooheys, Tooths, CUB stable, That
SA Rubbish (West End , Southwark), Cascade, Boag. they are few just off the
top of my head.
Bugger, all this talk of commercial rubbish has made me sick, need a pony,
no a pot of the good stuff. off to MY bar I go. (i want to raise a Ph
question but that cant wait, my thirst cant)
Shout mate
Graham Sanders
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:22:00 +0930
From: Brad McMahon <brad@sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Aussie Strine mate
Bil Wible wrote:
>I'd like help from the collective with 2 things - brewery info and Australian
>Lingo.
Uh Oh. Now you've done it!
> What are some other Australian
> Lagers - I've heard of Cooper's, and Victoria's (which I think may be an
> ale). I'm sure I will probably recognize the names when somebody
> names more.
When you say "Coopers" most are talking about Coopers Sparkling Ale.
Coopers do 4 lagers: Draught, Light, DB (Diabetic) and Birrell
(Non-Alcoholic) but
these are nowhere as popular as their range of ales.
http://www.coopers.com.au for more info.
The other you mention is "Victoria Bitter" and is not an ale as you
might expect
but a lager.
Erm, others you could mention are Hahn, Crown Lager, XXXX, Tooheys, West
Southwark, Cascade, Emu, Swan, Resch's...
>Second, I'd like some good *real* Australian Lingo. I'm not sure how
>real Australians feel about the Outback Steakhouse.
Never heard of it. Then we have Texas Bar'n'Grill type restaurants
which are probably just as authentic. Yee-ha!
> but they list some
> supposed lingo on their menus, things like "Bonzer - Good" "Tucker -
> Food" "Top Drop - Good Beer". Are these real?
Yes, they are common. Top Drop is used with wine as well.
Strewth, have a squiz at
http://people.enternet.com.au/~goeldner/auslist.htm
A short but bonza list of strine for you seppos to suss out!
As with all slang, some are regional ones but it's a good start.
In all seriousness (which we Aussies rarely are) we would be happy
to translate your document for you!
>Lastly, what words would Australians like to give to the American
>heathens, er, Homebrewers, besides wishing they'd switch to the
>metric system? ;)
Oh that's easy: "By crikey, it's YOUR shout, mate!"
Braddo the Crow Eater.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:17:22 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates@acenet.com.au>
Subject: Back End Of The Country
I have to take umbrage over Graham Sander"s comments :
>And to inform the rest of the HBDers, we in North >Queensland long ago
>succeeded and separated from the rest of Australia. If it >wasn't for the
>fact that we are glued on to the ass-end of the country, we >would have
>relocated ages ago.
Graham, we thought long and hard about it, but in the end decided there
really was no better place to glue you on than at the "ass-end" as you put
it. Where else would you expect to find a Queenslander?
You will notice that Graham has taken Pat's advice and made no further
mention of footy.
But on a serious note, I am sorry that my shipment of Ayinger yeast has
leaked in it's package. And after all the trouble I went to.
The vials were supposed to be capable of holding liquid but apparently they
have not. "The Artist" sent my sample in a little vial with an "O" ring in
the lid (I have to hand it to the yanks for having something for every
purpose) but I could find no such container locally. I'll have to give this
matter a bit more thought.
And just a short note for Brian. My drifting back to making kit beers will
in no way dampen my enthusiasm for mashing. It's just something I want to
muck about with on the side. Sort of fills in a bit of time between brews. I
seem to remember there was someone in here that suggested we all would go
down this track (well he certainly said he would) if it resulted in making
fine beer. His name was Mr "S", alias Steve Alexander.
But don't worry Brian, I'm not about to give up my mashing.
The only thing I enjoy more,
Is poking fun at Queenslanders.
Cheers
Phil
(Oh I'm Always In Trouble)!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:23:00 -0400
From: Jim Adwell <jimala@apical.com>
Subject: near beer and Prohibition
>I seem to recall that my father once told me he could buy "near beer" in
>soda shops and ice cream parlors in the 1920s to 1930s, just like Coca-Cola
>with no age restriction. I have the impression that these were not LA beers
>but beer with about 2-3% alcohol. Any more reliable info on this?
>The Volstead Act of October 27, 1919, clarified prohibition enforcement and
>mandated 0.5% as the maximum legal alcohol content of any beverage - this
>was near beer's upper limit. This remained the maximum until the end of
>prohibition in 1933. (Source - _The History of beer and Brewing in Chicago,
>1833-1978_ by Bob Skilnik).
Some folks at the time were buying near beer and fermenting it at home to
produce a more alcohol-laden drink; my grandfather did this in Tennessee
in the 1920's. Also during prohibition the breweries were producing ( and
selling ) large quantities of malt extract, which was sold as a food
product. My grandmother told me that everyone knew that the major reason
it was bought was to make beer at home.
When I was growing up in Albuquerque in the fifties and sixties I remember
something called 'near beer' being sold in the corner store, which all us
kids were convinced could be fermented in the can ( or bottle, can't
remember how it was packaged) to produce beer. We never actually tried it,
though.
Cheers, Jim
Jim's Brewery Pages:
http://home.ptd.net/~jimala/brewery/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:26:27 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Bud's roots
Jeff brings up,>>They were explicit that that was one of the volatiles
>they were decreasing, and sulfur compounds in general.<<
That wasn't mentioned here in discussing the column. I *extrapolated
again :-) Whoa, a contradiction, lagers are *supposed to have
sulfur characters as compared to ales aren't they?
>>Bud traces its origins not to Munich, but to Budweis <<
(knew this would raise an eyebrow or two)
Well known, but what makes a pilsner, pale color or hop character?
Urquell, the first pale beerand that because of the soft water, could be
well hopped without going "over the top."
I think of the beers' current character then look at the current BJCP
style guidelines (reasonably accurate, thanks guys) ignoring the IBUs
consider the hop/malt balance, is it reasonably close to a pils?
It's just barely a helles.
This is my reasoning for calling it a dumbed-down helles.
>>As a matter of fact, virtually all mainstream US lagers of today
>are in the pilsner style, albeit much watered down by now<<
I just have a hard time agreeing that cuz they're pale they're
pilsners, maybe "once upon a time" 80 years ago. Heck, Tetley's Ale is
closer to a pils, all they'd have to do is change 1 thing; the yeast.
Bud would need to change their grist and add some hops.
Maybe even allow some DMS and diacetyl formation.
Not just picking on Bud, they were mentioned cuz of the aeration column.
Well maybe I am. They reinforced my homebrewing efforts when they
put out that radio add poking fun at homebrew. "Never mind, those lumps
that's just the yeast. It's s'posed to that color, hmm don't know what
*that is."
++++++++++
>>all those of you who thought I meant I walked around without my clothes,
hold up your hands).<<
I hadn't till you brought that up, an image I didn't need to start my
day :-/
>>the head twisted around about 180 degrees, so it
was backwards. <<
Now that's a better image to start the day!! HAR
Remembering when Michelob had serving temperature listed..
N.P. Lansing
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:34:26 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: priming after cold conditioning
"Dan Senne" <dsenne@intertek.net>, remembering to add that he is in
Collinsville IL, asks for a priming primer:
>I brewed a rice ale recently using German pils and rice, hoping to make
>something light that my father-in-law might like. The yeast was Wyeast
>Kolsch and after the usual 2 week secondary fermentation at around 65F, I
>put it in the refrigerator for 3 weeks at about 45F while I was on vacation.
>Now it's time to bottle, but as I've never cold conditioned beer, I don't
>know if the yeast will have enough umph left to bottle carbonate with my
>usual 6 or so, ounce corn sugar addition.
>Is the addition of more yeast needed? how much? I don't have the equipment
>needed to force carbonate.
I've lagered a bock for several months before bottling and carbonation went
fine. It wouldn't hear to make sure your racking want stirs up just a
little extra yeast off the bottom of the secondary as most of it will have
settled out, but you don't need much, and it will be in fine shape. Just a
little sleepy and hungry.
Hope your father-in-law likes it. Does he know any ladies who play
billiards? He might invite them over.
Jeff - off to Livonia in an hour or two.
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:28:24 -0500
From: Vachom <MVachow@newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: Raftman: distiller's malt
I ran across some of Unibroue's Raftman recently which further convinced me
that these guys have been visited by some higher power of brewing. The
blurb on the bottle claims the beer's made with whiskey malt. I've looked
at George De Piro's comments on distiller's malt from last January, but I
need a little more clarification. First, the smoke character of Raftman is
very subtle, a taste I find very pleasing as, in general, rauch beers do not
appeal to me. Is the peat-smoked malt one finds listed in homebrew supply
shops what single malt distillers use as 100% of their malt bills? Or is
this product something that maltsters have created for the craft/homebrewing
community? Last, does anyone have the skinny on the Raftman malt bill? The
website reveals little, actually less than the bottle blurb. I'd like to
culture up the Unibroue yeast and take a shot at this excellent beer.
Mike
New Orleans, LA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:30:11 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Feed / chit malt
Hi,
Glyn Crossno asked me about a project I'd proposed a couple of years
ago. Using a hot air popcorn popper to roast some barley. I've got plenty
of malt at home that I can roast, but no unmalted barley. If I go to a
feed store / grain elevator, is there anything I should look out for when
purchasing unmalted barley? Thanks a million. I may not be able to do
this for a few months, but I'll do it.
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:50:00 -0600
From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders@paddockwood.com>
Subject: Shampoo Tube Wyeast
Del (delbrew@compuserve.com) asks if anyone has tried the 'shampoo tube'
pitchable yeasts from Wyeast.
We just received two samples and I pitched a 1056 tube into 5 gals of
Koelsch style wort (I had it kicking around). My lag time was about what
I'd expect from an XL smackpak. They contain the same number of active cells
as a fully activated XL smack-pack at 40-60 billion. About 36 hours to
noticeable fermentation. I can't be more specific, because it wasn't
bubbling after 12 hours (I pitched into very cold wort), and I didn't check
on it for another 24, and then it was going great.
I haven't tried the beer yet.
I like the way the tubes work: they don't need sterilizing as the spout is
sealed and pre-sterilized. They are UV resistant, and it was very easy to
use. We are considering switching to them for our ReadyBrew kits. They are
ideal for us, since our ReadyBrew kits are stored at 2C, and the yeast is
too, we can pitch the Tube into the cold wort. With the XL packs, we had to
wait until the wort came to pitchable temp.
But, they have a shorter shelf-life and are bulkier to store, so some
retailers may not like carrying them as much. We will carry a selection
with our next order mid July. We expect to bring in 1968, 1084,1335, 1318,
1272, & 1275. We can bring in any of the varieties by special request.
I will report more data on performance and use as I try these more.
I hope this was somewhat useful.
Stephen Ross -- "Vitae sine cerevisiae sugant."
______________________________________________
Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK
orders@paddockwood.com www.paddockwood.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:48:00 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Beer pH
Dan Listermann asked about the effects of carbonic acid on beer pH at 20
psi. In #3344 I showed how to compute the pH of deionized water as a
function of the partial pressure of CO2 with which it is in equilibrium:
Deionized water in
equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at the lower bound of concentration (
0.03%) has a pH of 5.69 and at the upper limit (0.05%) 5.58. These
values are easily calculated by sticking =0.0338*B1*(10^A2)*(10^-6.38) +
(10^-14)*(10^+A2) - 10^-A2 into an Excel cell, setting B1 to the partial
pressure of CO2 (0.0003 - 0.0005) and then using the solver to zero the
cell by varying the pH which is in cell A2.
You can set up a spreadsheet and play with numbers to your heart's
content. Bear in mind, though, that beer is NOT deionized water. It
contains various organic and inorganic acids as a consequence of malt
composition, fermentation and brewing water content. These will have an
effect on beer pH which in most cases will overwhelm the carbonic acid
as some of them have pK's substantially less than carbonic acid's first
pH of 6.38. A calculation at 20 psig = 20/14.7 atmospheres shows that
the pH of distilled water would be 3.86. You will find the pH's of most
beers to be higher than this - in the low 4's with some ales and of
course Weissbier, lambic, guerze etc. lower. Proof that CO2 is not a
major determinant of beer pH is easily demonstrated by measuring pH as
the beer looses gas to the air over time. This is a little tricky as gas
bubbles form on the pH electrode and must be swished off for stable
readings.
I think the bottom line is that while there is a fair amount of CO2
dissolved in beer (~46 mmol/L at 20 psi) the fact that the pK of
carbonic acid is so high means that little of the H+ in the beer
actually comes from CO2 (about 0.4% of it is dissociated at pH 4). Put
in other words: beer is buffered to a pH usually in the low 4's. Even
the relatively large amounts of dissolved CO2 are not enough to overcome
beer's buffering capacity. Furthemore, beer dispensed at 20 psi is
going to foam and quickly loose a lot of the gas it contains.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:06:12 -0700
From: "Dan Diana" <dands@ftconnect.com>
Subject: Re: Big Beer/Small Beer Parti-gyle brewing
Mike requested some information on Parti-gyle brewing (see below). Randy
Mosher's The Brewer's Companion outlines how to get target gravities for
both a regular and small beer(s).
Randy's method calls out for collection of the first runnings and
boiling those as a separate beer. The process is then repeated for each
subsequent running. For homebrewer's ease in dealing with 5 gallon
multiples, he proposes using either two runnings (10 gallons of beer total)
or three runnings (15 gallons of beer total). In both cases, you will wind
up with at least two beers. However, he quotes a rule of thumb that says
that half the extract is contained in the first third of the runnings.
Hence, you can achieve a higher gravity using the 1/3-2/3 split.
To achieve the desired gravities for the subsequent beers, Randy
tabulated the required gravity for the total batch. I have excerpted some of
the data below. You can use a program like Excel to model this and establish
what you total batch gravity needs to be for your desired beers.
Original Gravity Estimation (Data from Mosher pp217-218)
total 1/3-2/3 split 1/2-1/2 split
batch 1/3 2/3 1/2 #1 1/2 #2
1050 10750 10375 10666 10333
1060 10900 10450 10800 10400
1070 11050 10525 10933 10467
1080 11200 10600 11067 10533
1090 11350 10675 11120 10600
1095 11425 10713 11267 10633
Good luck and hope this helps.
Dan
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:05:52 -0400
From: "FC1(SW) James Pensinger" <pensinger@deyo.navy.mil>
Subject: Big Beer/Small Beer
I want to try an Imperial Russian Stout as first runnings and a small beer
as a second runnings. Is there a way to figure out what the gravity will be
for the small beer? I can formulate a recipie for 5 gallons of the big beer
but I know that there will be sugars left in the mash and figure I should
use them :). Can i do it this way or should I make the grain bill larger
and stop at a certain gravity?
Mike Pensinger
beermaker@mad.scientist.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:12:02 -0700
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Bottling a 1+ year old lambic
I age lambics for a long time too, often upwards of two years. In
recent years, I simply batch prime a lambic (plain or flavored) the same
way that I do any other beer: I boil 3/4 cup of corn sugar in some
water, chill it, add it to the carboy and bottle.
Yes, it takes a while to carbonate this way, although I've never had a
problem. Some brewers use a fresh yeast strain at bottling. I don't do
this because I want to avoid flavor problems and attenuation problems
that might occur by introdcing a new yeast strain at bottling.
And yes, I publically proclaim that Jethro Gump is right and I was wrong
about dry yeast. (I recall tasting a fine beer made with Nottingham
yeast, and one cannot taste the difference between liquid and dry
yeast.)
Cheers
Ted in NYC
- --
Ted McIrvine McIrvine@IX.Netcom.Com
(College of Staten Island/CUNY)
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:49:43 EDT
> From: Lynhbrew@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Bottling a 1+ year old lambic
>
> OK, so I finally made a palatable lambic (kriek) beer and now it's time to
> bottle it. It is one year old, crystal clear, and has precious little yeast
> in solution. Can someone who does lambics give me some advice on the best
> priming and bottling techniques. And how long should it take to carbonate.
> Thanks, Lyn
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:13:09 -0400
From: mmaceyka <mmaceyka@jhmi.edu>
Subject: Carbonation and pH
Howdy,
Dan Listermann asks of people who know more chemistry than is good
for them what the effect of carbonation would be on beer pH. I am not
sure I still qualify, but here goes...
Excellent question. If you add CO2 to beer, then some of it reacts with
water to form H2CO3, or carbonic acid. The effect this has on pH
depends on a value known to chemistry geeks, though generally forgotten
by biology geeks, as "pKa." The pKa values are specific for each proton
of a given acid, so carbonic acid has two pKa's, and they tell you at what
pH the acid gives up 50% of its protons (actually, it's 25% for carbonic,
because it has two pKa's, but at beer pH we need only be concerned with
the first, and to fully explain pKa's I would need <SHUDDER> math).
The first pKa of carbonic acid is... AARRGHH, where is my CRC! Who
stole my CRC?! I'll bet it was the insidious, Airbus-flying Luddite, Darth
Phil, doing the bidding of the most-evil Emperor Pivo...
Anyway, I think carbonic acid's first pKa is 5.something, and finished
beer is around 4.something, at some temperature (Sorry Dr. Burley)...
The point is, as the pH of beer is at least one unit less than the first
pKa of carbonic acid, adding CO2 to beer by force carbonating should
have no direct effect on pH. Adding CO2 indirectly by priming might have
a slight effect due to acidification of the medium, er, I mean beer, by yeast
as they ferment the sugar, but my -guess- is that this effect would be minor.
Because there is no pH change, there would be no additional pH-dependent
effect on yeast health or infection protection due to carbonation.
How the excess CO2 might effect the chemical activities of the relevant
acids and bases in finished beer is still an open question, though I suspect
the effects would be minor, though perhaps detectable with a pH meter
accurate out to thousandths of a unit. Of course, I don't know this, and I
could have missed some other important factor, so feel free to ignore
everything I have just said. After all, I have no data, I'm just working on
the first principles I thought relevant. Dare I suggest an experiment?
Mike "Better living through chemistry" Maceyka
The Peoples Republic of Takoma Park, MD
And let me remind Ray Kruse that The Peoples Republic is indeed a
nuclear free zone, so you will have to leave your tactical nukes at at the
border when you visit...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:24:35 -0500
From: "Brian Lundeen" <blundeen@rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: re: pH Heck
Dave Burley gives me the stern tut-tut with:
> I think all
> authors who do not designate the TEMPERATURE of measurement
> of the mash pH
> DO deserve their own place in hell. And it would be crowded.
> Brian, that
> includes you as you didn't tell us what temperature you were
> when you began
> adding lactic acid to adjust your mash pH. Your 5.7 ( I
> assume measured at
> room temperature) mash was perfect for a Pilsner style as
> this range is
> what the malt comes to in a low salts soft water and where
> Pilsner Urquell
> is mashed. You should never have changed it.
>
And why weren't you in my kitchen on Sunday to tell me this? To start with,
Dave, your special place in hell will just have to wait for me, as I'm
already booked into several, including the one for "People over the age of
13 whose favorite band was Styx". Personally, I don't think this is a
particularly fair damnation, I mean, I was only in my 20's. Still, ya do the
crime, ya gotta do the time, I suppose. And I'm probably not helping myself
by cranking up the volume every time Christina Aguilera's Genie in a Bottle
comes on the radio.
Obviously this pH thing is a lot more complicated than Homebrewing for
Dummies makes it out to be. And while I don't have the book in front of me,
I'm pretty sure it was Noonan that really stressed the importance of getting
that pH down, albeit without all the fine print that you brought up. So,
just to give you a few more details.
I heat my mash water then mix in the grains, usually getting close to my
target. I let the mash rest for about 5 minutes after mixing before drawing
off a sample for pH testing. I will sploosh it back and forth for a while
between a couple of glasses to cool it off a bit, so it's still warmer than
RT but below mash temp. I've never measured the actual temp (yes, I know,
another millenia in your special place) but my pH meter is temperature
compensating (at least that's what the Chem instructor that I borrowed it
from tells me) so I've never worried about it. So those are the conditions
under which I got the 5.7 reading and began my lactic acid additions. And
no, I'm not calibrating my meter with buffer solutions before each use. I
used to do that religiously and just found it didn't make an appreciable
difference in the final results, so damn me for another millenia if you
must, but I'm content to be a sloppy chemist, and can live with the fact
that I won't be attempting to replicate congress mash results anytime in the
foreseeable future.
Anyway, your advice has made me feel a little less paranoid about pH levels.
Now, if the damn Russian tanks would just stop making such a racket in the
tunnels below my house, I might get a decent night's sleep. ;-)
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:37:11 -0500
From: "Brian Lundeen" <blundeen@rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: re: lag times
Ooops, forgot to respond to Del's query:
> I saw someone mention the 'shampoo tube' pitchable yeasts
> from Wyeast. Who out there has tried them? What have been
> your results? I have a lager-2124 and figured I'd step it up cuz
> that is my standard practice; but what kind of lag times have you
> seen if you've used them as a "direct pitch" yeast?
My statistically insignificant data point was about 12 hours for "signs of
life", which to me means a few bubbles and patches of yeast on the surface,
and a full frothy krausen when I checked again about the 20 hour mark.
However, that was with pitching into about 68F wort, which was then tossed
in the fridge to cool down to 50F at whatever rate my fridge can manage.
Oh, and before Dave books me into another warm room, the wort volume was 23
litres.
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:40:04 -0400
From: "Frank J. Russo" <FJRusso@coastalnet.com>
Subject: Sorbate in Beer
For reasons I do not want to spend time on I added a 1/2 tsp of Potassium
Sorbate to my fermented beer. It was in the secondary for 2 weeks at the
time. Now the question is I want to bottle it and need to know if I repitch
new yeast with corn sugar will it grow or will the Sorbate kill it also?
Frank
Havelock, NC
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:51:42 -0600
From: John Adsit <jadsit@jeffco.k12.co.us>
Subject: 6% beer
When I first moved to Colorado, more than a quarter century ago, I
toured the Coors brewery. Here's how they explained the difference
between 3.2% beer and 6% beer. (Warning: precise accuracy subject to
age and failing memory.)
According to Colorado law, beer sold in supermarkets and to anyone
between the ages of 18-21 was 3.2 beer, meaning it could not be above
3.2% alcohol. In actual practice, it was around 3.0-3.1%. "Regular"
beer could not, by law, be above 6%. For that reason, many people
referred to it as 6% beer. In actual practice, regular Coors (they only
made one beer then) was about 3.8%. There was thus not nearly as much
difference between the 3.2% beer and the 6% beer as people believed.
The problem was that because people frequently called normal beer by its
legal limit (6%), they thought that was what they were getting: 6%. (An
analogy would be driving on a road with a 65 mph speed limit and
assuming that you must therefore be driving 65 mph.)
I am guessing that it would have been an extremely rare beer in those
days to have been at 6% alcohol, even though that is what it was
frequently called.
- --
John Adsit
Boulder, Colorado
jadsit@jeffco.k12.co.us
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3359, 06/23/00
*************************************
-------
