Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3482
HOMEBREW Digest #3482 Sat 18 November 2000
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
SWMBO (Mark J Bradakis)
Dry Hopping and Haze ("pksmith_morin")
wobbly keg kettle ("Bridges, Scott")
Lager temp variability ("S. SNYDER")
Logical Decisions In Brewing ("AYOTTE, ROGER C")
Reprimanding Graham but recognising his talents (off topic) ("Dr. Pivo")
re: dry-hopping a cause for haze? ("Stephen Alexander")
dry yeast question for Rob Moline (and others?) (Robin Griller)
off topic:but quite funny ("Jim Bermingham")
late hop additions; the deadly SWMBO (Frank Tutzauer)
Yeast rousing = clearer beer? (Demonick)
Hop Aroma Lost During Fermentation (Demonick)
Logical decisions/SWMBO? ("Stephen Alexander")
Low-Grav brews ("Jeffry D Luck")
Re: Some bad bottles of brew (LJ Vitt)
More Dry Hopping for the technically inclined (Chris Swersey)
Secondary in corny keg? (Kb9ve0)
*
* 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.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:14:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Mark J Bradakis <mjb@cs.utah.edu>
Subject: SWMBO
One is certainly free to invent various possible meanings for the acronym,
but I believe the origin of "swmbo" dates back to Queen Victoria. As the
monarch of the empire, it was she who must be obeyed. These days, though,
the popular use of the term refers to one's spouse or partner.
And as a side note to relate this to beer, last night was the first brewing
session we've had since spring. I got trounced in darts, but it was a good
night, I've missed brewing.
mjb.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 04:33:24 -0600
From: "pksmith_morin" <pksmith_morin@email.msn.com>
Subject: Dry Hopping and Haze
Hi Dan -
Yep, dry hopping is definitely a contributing factor in haze production. Dry
hopping will introduce a great many new polyphenols into your beer, which will
tend to haze, especially under post-fermentation conditions. Post
fermentation, dissolved oxygen is more easily introduced and sustained, and
this leads to oxidative polymerization of monomeric polyphenols. These
polymerized polyphenols will complex with certain classes of proteins in your
beer and voila, haze.
Your instincts are sound - crash cool and cold condition (truly cold -
depending on your beer strength, as low as 28F) as long as you can stand it,
then fine.
Cheers,
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:06:54 -0500
From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges@sc.slr.com>
Subject: wobbly keg kettle
Julio (ever been down by the schoolyard? Oh, nevermind) writes:
>I use a S.S. keg cut off at the top. (not just the top cut out). Works
>great. Had a valve welded to the side at the bottom. My problem is that
>the rim at the base of the keg is larger than the burner surface of my
>outdoor cooker. Hence the keg sits on the bowl (a bit unstable). Need to
>weld a wider surface to my cooker so the keg's rim sits on it. Got the
>keg for $10.00, a friend cut it for free; can't beat that!
I had the same problem with the keg bottom not fitting and leaving the keg
unstable on the cooker. You definitely don't want that with 10+ gallons of
boiling liquor. Here's my low-tech solution. I put a garden-variety
rectangular barbeque grill grate on top of the cooker rim. Then I set the
keg on the grill grate. Now the keg has a stable surface. No wobble.
Cheap solution.
HTH,
Scott
Brewing in SC.
One of these days I'm going to get my GPS out and figure exactly what my
rennerian coordinates are....
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:23:10 -0500
From: "S. SNYDER" <SSNYDER@LBGHQ.com>
Subject: Lager temp variability
Greetings to the brewing collective:
I have a question regarding lagering temperature variability. I like to use
as little nonrenewable energy as possible when making my brews. I brew ales
in the warm months (I can always find a place in my house between 68 and 72
then) and lagers in the cold months (my basement regularly gets to lagering
temps by late October/early November). These 200 year old houses in
Connecticut are great for winter lagering. My question is, how stable do
the temperatures have to stay during lagering so as to prevent off flavors
and a generally bad lager. I have no problem staying below 52F but I know
that in some rooms I could use the temperature may range from 42 to 48 from
night to day. Would a fluctuation like that have a negative effect on the
final product?
Thanks for over a year of great advice.
Scott Snyder
Rotten Rotti Brewery
Danbury, CT
ssnyder@lbghq.com
"Civilization exists by geologic consent - subject to change without notice"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:30:00 -0500
From: "AYOTTE, ROGER C" <RCAYOT@SOLUTIA.COM>
Subject: Logical Decisions In Brewing
John started a great discussion last Issue:
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:48:56 -0700 From:
John Adsit <jadsit@jeffco.k12.co.us>
Subject: Logical decisions in brewing
What I would like to add is that when trying to make decision about
what caused what in a particular brew, one has to think about how
consistent one's brewing is. What I mean is, first ask yourself
how many time you have brewed a particular style, recipe etc, and
then ask yourself how consistent that beer was. I know that I have
had very few brews that were made EXACTLY the same way with exactly
the same ingredients, with exactly the same yeast, starter time,
chill time, hop schedule/form/alpha acid the list goes on. When I
TRY to replicate something exactly because I was pleased with a
particular batch, it NEVER comes out exactly the same! Now I call
myself a pretty good brewer, but if I can't replicate a brew
exactly, then how can I say what particular steps in my process are
responsible? For those who would like to experiment, I would only
caution, brew the same beer over and over until you know what the
results are, and can achieve a consistent beer, then change one
thing at a time.
I do have some brewing friends that are fairly consistent in their
beers. I think that is because they brew with some pretty good
equipment, a tower type setup with separate gas burners for
strike/lauter water and kettle, use pumps for moving water/beer
around, and always use a single temp infusion and the same or
similar grain (pre-crushed briesse 2-row plus specialty grains). I
use a variety of grains and techniques because I like to fuss and
get creative, but while this type of brewing does not lend itself
to much experimentation with techniques, it DOES lead to a great
deal of EXPLORATION of styles, and ingredients.
Roger Ayotte
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:15:48 +0100
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se>
Subject: Reprimanding Graham but recognising his talents (off topic)
Graham wrote some pretty vitriolic stuff:
> I quote from 'Moral American for Beginners'
> Chapter one page 16
>
> quote
>
> "You must treat all things with the utmost seriousness, even if it
> doesn't warrant such action. Our dominance of the world and
> overall righteousness must be maintained right thru every facet of
> our daily lives, and as such no opportunity must be overlooked in
> establishing our moral righteousness in the world
Which was really unfair, but fortunately Steve put him RIGHT in his
place, with:
> You confuse...
and <snip>
> it's always an error...
You wouldn't think that a guy that has sat in front of an open oven door
in the Queensland heat, turning his brain into the consistancy of an
over ripe custard apple would still possess such predictive powers.
Dr. Pivo
Ignorant? Who says I'm ignorant? Hell, I'll have you know I've been
to College......Electoral College.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:55:30 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: dry-hopping a cause for haze?
Lyga, Daniel M asks ...
>Is cloudy beer a normal result from dry hopping a beer and a longer
>clarifying time necessary? [...] . Should I just wait this one out...?
>Attempt cold crashing the solids out...? Finings...?
Yes Dan, dry hopping often makes a clear beer cloudy.
Protein+Phenolic haze is a pretty difficult topic but basically the tannoids
are capable of 'gluing' together small proteins to form masses around the
size of a wavelength of visible light. Get enough of these particles and
they scatter the light and appear as haze. Tannoids can also glue
together proteins to the extent that they will no longer stay in solution
or suspension and drop out, but that takes more time & tannoids.
Hops release gallotannins which are the closest phenolic compound to
true tannins and have a great tendency to form cross links between
protein molecules. These gallotannins are also the first tannoids lost in
the break material so they are not a big factor in beer unless you dry
hop.
So the very odd fact is that low levels of tannoid may produce a clear beer,
higher levels a cloudy beer, and higher levels yet a clear beer. Adding
additional tannoids may clear the beer, but it is a balancing act and can
also damage flavor. [ If you'd like to experiment with this (and are
prepared to lose the beer) you *may* find that the dark soft papery
very bitter material you find in some nuts (e.g. walnuts, chestnuts) is
a very concentrated source of true tannins. A proper addition should
clear your beer and leave no bitter flavor.]
How to deal with dry-hop haze ? This, like almost all forms of haze will
eventually drop but it may take several months. Cold will reduce the
sedimentation time by improving P&P binding so can help a bit.
The only solution once this haze has formed is to wait, filter or add
tannoids. Like most haze problems, it is better prevented than cured.
PVPP, PolyClarAT and gelatin are protein analogs and the first two
selectively bind to phenolics that are likely to cause haze. So
*BEFORE* haze has formed add one of these and then chill the
beer. Chilling improves the binding of phenolic to protein analog.
You can add these agents to the cloudy beer, but they will only
be marginally effective if the haze has already formed (not IMO
worthwhile).
Dryhopping early, during late fermentation, may reduce the haze
problem as some tannoids are trapped in the yeast+trub cake.
Unfortunately you can't effectively add PVPP etc until the yeast
are separated.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:14:53 -0500
From: Robin Griller <rgriller@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: dry yeast question for Rob Moline (and others?)
Hi all,
Perhaps Jethro can answer a question that has confused me. I usually use
liquid yeasts, but on occasion use dry. I find that dry yeasts are much
more susceptible to low temperature than liquid, especially at the start
of fermentation. Here's what I do and what happens when I use dried yeasts
(primarily lallemand, but I've also had this happen with Cooper's):
-rehydrate for 15 minutes;
-pitch into wort between 68-72F;
-put in basement: ambient temp 64-68;
results:
-yeast pancake forms on top of wort after a number of hours and then just
sits there for ages; Often I have to rouse the yeast to get it going after
that;
Now, my basement is cool, *but*
(1) it is within the temperature range given for these yeasts (i.e. I have
a bitter fermenting with the Lallemand Manchester right now; basement
tempt is 64--the range for Manchester given is 64-70. It did the pancake
and sit there thing, while (split batch) the part fermenting on yeast
recovered from a bottle of Coniston Bluebird started up nicely at same
temp);
(2) I've only ever once had this happen with a liquid yeast (White Labs'
Burton, which has a high bottom end temp IIRC) and seems to be associated
with temps (if I move to slightly warmer spot they go. Do beers fermented
with dried yeasts need to be started off in 'too' warm locations?
thanks for any help or suggestions,
Robin
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:17:22 -0600
From: "Jim Bermingham" <bermingham@antennaproducts.com>
Subject: off topic:but quite funny
Sean, Must be hard living in and being a citizen of the "ARM PIT" of the
world. Been there, didn't like it, don't need it. Don't have good beer down
there and the citizens don't even know it. WELCOME TO TEXAS.... Now go home.
I recon this could apply for the rest of the US of A, don't know... been
there, don't need it either. DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS.
Jim Bermingham
Millsap, TEXAS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:56:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Frank Tutzauer <comfrank@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: late hop additions; the deadly SWMBO
As promised, here's a typical hop schedule for good hop flavor in an
APA. 1 oz. Perle for 60 minutes, and then a half ounce Cascades at
each of 30, 20, and 15 minutes with a full ounce at 5 and then again
at 1 minute to go. I've used this or variations of this schedule many
times on both all-grain and extract/specialty batches. Sometimes I
add an addition at 10 minutes, and the early Cascades additions are
timed to hit IBU levels. Target an OG in the low 1.050's and an IBU
level in the low 40s. No dry hops; no hop back.
And as to what a SWMBO is, Graham's definition in HBD 3384 is best:
From: "Graham Sanders" <craftbrewer@cisnet.COM.AU>
"...there are many dangerous creatures here in North Queensland. From
genital sucking frogs, trained taipans, deadly tourist seeking
stingers and 'saltie' with certain people names engrained into their
skin, not to mention the Yates-Pivo dive boats tours, but perhaps the
worst of all that is feared is SWMBO. This creature is feared by all
mankind. It has been known to make the "Mike Tysons" of the world
tremble in fear or just straight out freeze. In fact old Iron Mike
was heard to say 'No way, I'm not that mad." What worse these
creatures are found even in the bliss of the surburbs. Its there
unpredictability thats makes them soooo dangerous. Quite and even cute
one minute, they will bite your head off given half a chance. Even
their tongue is venomous. The only sight worst, is when these animals
form packs. Guaranteed to make the strongest man cry in fear."
The only thing that I would add is that the SWMBO ranges broadly, and can
be found not only in North Queensland, but in virtually all parts of
the inhabited world.
Be afraid,
--frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:20:53 -0800
From: Demonick <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Yeast rousing = clearer beer?
I routinely rouse my yeast. Starting just after the kraeusen falls I
vigorously swirl up all the yeast and trub from the bottom of the
fermenter twice a day, morning and evening. I do this by tipping
the fermenter and swirling it around. It is done without disturbing
the airlock. The fermenter remains sealed, full of CO2, and
there is no danger of oxidation.
Although it is anti-intuitive, it appears to me that this helps clarify the
green beer. Has anyone else noticed this? My beers tend to have almost no
haze. I use irish moss in the boil for 30 minutes, but no other finings.
At first rousing the gunk is fine-grained and friable. Swirling it up
greatly lightens the color of the beer in the fermenter. (My current ESB
looked like chocolate milk while it was fermenting. When the kraeusen fell
it darkened to a cola color). At each subsequent rousing the gunks gets
coarser and as a result the color change is less. Last night, the gunk
chunks were so large that it looked like pieces of milk chocolate swirling
around in a cola. Now, of course one may expect the brew to naturally
darken as more yeast floculates, and one may expect the gunk chunks to
coarsen as the yeast cake compacts.
Could the rousing be "scrubbing" the yeast and gunk out of suspension?
Is it just my imagination? It's been a long time since I didn't rouse
a batch so I have no recent comparison with a non-roused brew.
Cheers,
Domenick Venezia
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:34:06 -0800
From: Demonick <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Hop Aroma Lost During Fermentation
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
>I even tried putting a balloon over the air lock but it didn't seem to
>help.
I don't think that a balloon would help. Once the hop aroma has
left the beer, having it in the ballon won't get it back into the
brew. You'll just lose it when you remove the ballon. I don't know
any way to prevent hop aroma from being scrubbed out, and the only
remedy that I can imagine is to replace it by a dry-hop or a hop-tea.
As regards hop teas, does anyone have any idea of the optimal water
treatment for a hop-tea? I use carbon filtered, boiled, cooled,
Seattle municipal water which is nearly distilled (hardness as CaCO3
is 12.3 mg/L, sulfate is 1.2 mg/L). Do any of the hop aroma components
extract better at high or low pH?
Cheers!
Domenick Venezia
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:26:48 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Logical decisions/SWMBO?
John Adsit states ...
> number of recent posts have been of the variety that goes something
>like this: "I did (whatever) and got (these results). Therefore, doing
>whatever) causes (these results)."
>
> just want to remind people that this is not a logically valid
>conclusion. ("Post hoc ergo propter hoc," to be technical.)
Causality as a concept has fundamental problems - this isn't
the place tho'.
>Brewing is
>a simple process, but it involves uncountable variations and
>possibilities.
John is completely correct but his note should be seen as
caution against injudicious reading or extravagant claims in
posts. It should NOT prevent anyone from posting interesting
observations, speculations, kitchen experiments or even
guesses.
If someone posts that "doing 'X' makes my beers better" you
can be sure that in time others will try to confirm or deny the
causal relationship under other brewing conditions. It may turn
out the original post has limited applicability or incorrectly
interpreted cause, but such a post should be read as a call for
confirmation of a questionable hypothesis and not as fact.
BTW - most pro-experiments test a hypothesis where the
author suspects a particular and interesting result. It's the
nature of any research that effort is expended where
suspicions and limited observations occur, and we should
thank, not punish, the good folks who bring these limited
observations and guesses to our attention. If nothing else
they make us think.
Take every posted factoid with a grain of Burton salts.
==
Dennis Collins asks
>SWMBO?
"She who must be obeyed", orig 'Rumpole of the Bailey', BBC
TV series circa 1983. Meaning functionally identical with 'SO'
except that it require 2.5X the bandwidth. This minor difference
explains the extensive use by Australians in their recent
efforts to develop content-free posts [*].
[*] search for "Phil Yates" in HBD Archive 1999-2000 for masterful
examples of this artform.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:21:15 -0700
From: "Jeffry D Luck" <Jeffry.D.Luck@aexp.com>
Subject: Low-Grav brews
Catching up on HBD so I hope this still has interest.
I've been an extract brewer for about 3 years now, and the low-grav beer
question seems fairly obvious. First, my basic recipe for beer includes:
(1) specialty grains for flavor, body, style-type, (2) sugar (LME, DME,
honey, whatever) for alcohol content, (3,...) hops, water, irish moss, etc.
For a standard batch, I would use 6lb sugar, plus or minus depending on
what I'm after. For a low-grav batch (and I haven't done this, just thinking
out loud here...) use 2 or 3 lbs. You get some flavor and body from malt
extract, so increase the specialty grains by maybe 50% to make up for
what you've lost.
The simplified version of mashing is to replace sugar in my above
process with converted sugars from the grain. So for a low-grav batch,
cut your main grain bill (2-row, 6-row, etc) in half, and increase the
specialty grains to make up for the lost flavor and body. Maybe add a
lb of Cara Vienna just to be sure.
Too simple? I realize my lack of mash experience makes my idea
suspect, but this just feels right. I await enlightenment.
Jeff Luck
Salt Lake City, UT USA
Having a wonderful wine. Wish you were beer.
> Meteorologists and climatologists have documented a consistent
> and persistent column of hot air rising from North Queensland,
> Australia, the cause of which is unknown.
He was *supposed* to alert the weather service before roasting
any more grain!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:51:58 -0800 (PST)
From: LJ Vitt <lvitt4@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Some bad bottles of brew
Tom Daniels <daniels@cerias.purdue.edu> asked:
>Well, the 12 oz bottles were good (most of which have been drank),
>but some of the 22oz'ers are really bad. Odor and taste of phenols,
>I think. The off taste is somewhere between really smoky and
>medicine. So, I'm guessing bad bottle sanitization???
>The off taste seems to be kind of hit and miss between bottles.
>The only weird thing that I did was clean with bleach (as normal), but
>instead of running them through the dishwasher, I rinsed with Iodophor
>solution.
Chlorophenals can develop if chlorine is left in the bottles.
Without tasting your brew, noone can tell if this is the case with your
bottles.
The medicine taste is the reason I suggest this as one potential.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!
http://calendar.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:03:54 -0700
From: Chris Swersey <cswersey@salmoninternet.com>
Subject: More Dry Hopping for the technically inclined
Great question, and a terrific answer from Demonick to John Peed. Lots
of experience in this verbiage, and I thought I would add to it. Please
try to see this through; it's a little technical, but will add to your
understanding of fermentation and hops.
Demonick says: "I've even heard of people stuffing a hop cone into each
bottle, then filling and sealing. If anyone reading this has tried it,
please post your results. You can also dry hop in a keg. My experience
with dry hopping has NOT been particularly successful.
In my last batch, this past weekend, a Fuller's ESB clone attempt, I
used a hopback for the first time. Someone posted a URL for building a
hopback from a mason jar, and I used that as a guide. Whoever that was
- Thank you. It worked VERY well. DO NOT forget the copper scrubby to
protect the outflow from the hopback. I found that an ounce of hops in
a 1 quart jar
is too much. Try 1/2-3/4 ounce.
In my system the hot wort from the kettle is picked up by a gooseneck
stainless pickup tube, routed through the hopback, then onto the
counter-flow chiller and into the fermenter. The aroma from the East
Kent Goldings was apparent. Cooling the wort in the CFC "locks in" the
aroma extracted in the hopback. My only concern is that some of this
aroma is scrubbed out by the fermentation. Obviously, the hopback
results are not in yet. I'll offer a followup in a few weeks."
As a professional brewer of 9 years and a Natural Products Chemist by
training, I made a study of literature devoted to hop flavor and aroma.
One influential body of work done on hop aroma origin is by Deinzer and
Yang at Univ. of Oregon. The origin of many of the actual flavor
components most associated with dry hopped beer has been elucidated, and
is now established to be the reduction of sesquiterpene hydrocarbons and
their epoxides ("terpene epoxides" from here on) to alcohols
during fermentation.....Hang in there.
This is important, so don't let your eyes glaze over quite yet. Terpenes
and terpene epoxides are highly volatile oils. After vigorous boiling
and even simple exposure to temps. at 200 F and above for as little as
15 minutes, these oils are gone. They either vaporize, or they isomerize
into goo that stays in the kettle trub, or else remain unavailable for
yeast metabolism.
What this means is, that if you want these terpene alcohols to be
produced by yeast during fermentation, you have to make sure their
precursors (terpenes and terpene epoxides) are in the chilled wort in
the first place. Two of the best ways to do this are using a hopback
followed by immediate chilling, or, by dry hopping in the primary
fermenter.
Dry hopping during secondary ageing will no doubt produce beautiful
beers with significant hop aroma. However, the loss of a bit of aroma
quantity during primary is more than made up for the unique qualities
one picks up by allowing vigorous fermentation activity of yeast upon
the terpene epoxides. You only get that during primary fermentation to
an extent that allows humans to detect these unique flavors and aromas.
This is why Demonick's hop back will work so nicely; his final ravings
will probably make you want to have more than one.... He reckons
correctly that his hop back followed by immediate chilling locks in the
oils needed for hop aroma. A deeper understanding of the process
includes the idea that he is providing in his wory yet another class of
compounds on which the yeast can and does act during primary
fermentation, resulting in unique aromas that were not there before
fermentation.
I personally do things more simply still. I have a sack with a very fine
mesh that I use to dry hop with pellets during primary fermentation
(Call Mark Caspary at O & S Bag Co., Idaho Falls, ID 208-524-1324). I
use a couple of stainless steel fender
washers from Home Depot in there to keep the sack from floating, along
with 1/3 to 3/4 ounce of hop pellets. I can certainly smell the hops
during primary; I can also assure you that I have big, huge, wonderful
hop aroma in the finished beer. The
scrubbing can be overcome by the quantity of hops used. I also make sure
I have fast primary, and get the beer off the hops in less than 5 or 6
days to avoid a vegetal quality.
This also explains why dry hopping in the keg or bottle, or by using
teas, pellets, cones or extracts or oils during secondary conditioning
or in the cellar yield different quality aromas, and not altogether
"authentic" tasting/smelling. There is no appreciable level of reduction
of epoxides to alcohols; the beer will taste like beer with hops added,
not like something altogether different.
Best of luck,
Chris Swersey
JCS Consulting
Brewlab N. America
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:31:02 EST
From: Kb9ve0@aol.com
Subject: Secondary in corny keg?
I was thinking of using one of my corny kegs as a secondary. Does anyone
know of any reason not to do this? also any suggestions on attaching an
airlock to the keg. My idea was to take the poppet out of the gas side and
find a length of hose that will fit snugly over the fitting (ball lock) and
putting the other end in a jar blowoff style. Any better ideas?
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3482, 11/18/00
*************************************
-------
