Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4224
HOMEBREW Digest #4224 Sat 19 April 2003
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:
yeast infection (Jeff Renner); fermenting to 20% (George & Lola) (ensmingr)
Sterling Hops (Stephen Johnson)
RE: Sam Adams Vienna Style Lager (Jonathan Royce)
foxx beverage corp. ("jim williams")
RE: Sammy's Vienna ("Steve Jones")
fruit beer ("Steve B")
The Passing of a Friend ("Erich")
Bavarian Red Lager (darrell.leavitt)
Harvesting & Ranching Chimay Yeast? ("Charles Boyer")
Re: Sterling as a substitute for Saaz?? (Jeff Renner)
Bottom of the Barrel (Michael Hartsock)
RE: aeration ("Jason")
Re: Slow Fermentation ("-S")
Honey, I shrunk the wort ? ("-S")
(Nathan Kanous)
Re: bittering hops - all the same? (hollen)
Sterling hops ("Mark Kellums")
Fermenting in Cornys ("Michael O'Donnell")
Munich malt (Robert Sandefer)
Re: Sterling (NO Spam)
re: Growing Yeast ("Steve Alexander")
re: Can one over aerate wort? ("-S")
Attenuation Questions ("Dave Larsen")
Old Fashioned Hand Pumps ("Dave Larsen")
Frothy Malt Extract ("Tom & Dana Karnowski")
New Orleans Water Profile ("Byron Towles")
veterans of the stuck fermentations - need advice ("Mark Bayer")
*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:44:24 -0400
From: ensmingr@twcny.rr.com
Subject: yeast infection (Jeff Renner); fermenting to 20% (George & Lola)
Jeff Renner wrote ...
>It reminds me of the bad advice a nurse practitioner gave my
>sister about a yeast infection - that she shouldn't consume any
>yeast products - bread, beer, etc. (I related this here once
>before and mis-attributed the advice as coming from a physician
>rather than a NP).
I've also heard this ridiculous advice. FYI, vaginal yeast
infection is caused by Candidia albicans; ale and bread is made
with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and lager with S. pastorianus.
Thus, yeast must change genus and migrate from the digestive
tract to the vagina to cause vaginal yeast infection. If that's
possible, then I guess my own Tinea cruris may be caused by
drinking homebrew ... or by spilling it on my lap <G>.
- -----
George & Lola wrote ...
>I am interested in producing a little fuel alcohol for myself.
>Brewer's Yeast is only good up to around 10%. If I am to
>produce any fuel I want to be up around 20%. So my question
is; >If I took a package of wine yeast that would work to make 5
>gallon of 20% wine. How much water and sugar would I need to
>grow one package of yeast up to enough to ferment lets say 100
>gallon? Could someone give me a guideline on this. How much
>water, how much sugar, how often to aerate with pure O2 or how
>long it would take. Would it even be possible to grow 5 gallon
>worth of yeast up to 20 times and use it in 100 gallons of wash?
Crosby & Baker makes a "distiller's yeast" that is supposed to go
to 20% in a few days. Never tried it, but worth looking into.
See: <http://www.crosby-baker.com/>
Cheerio!
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY
http://hbd.org/ensmingr
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:21:15 -0500
From: Stephen Johnson <sjohnson3@comcast.net>
Subject: Sterling Hops
I'm sorry to have to point out that Bill Wibble needs to do a little
more research before trying to offer brewing advice to the HBD or his
customers:
I did a quick search on Hop Union's homepage that has a link to a
booklet of information on hop varieties
http://www.hopunion.com/hvcb/index.html
and found the following information regarding Sterling hops:
This variety was introduced in 1998.
General Trade Perception Appears to be something between a Saaz and a
Mt. Hood. Being looked at by some major breweries. Preliminary results
have been favorable.
Possible Substitutions Saaz, Polish Lublin
Beer Styles Lager, Ale, Pilsner
Other Information Very limited at this time. Should see increased
acreage.
I don't have my links here with me to some other websites (University of
Oregon Agriculture School, Ag. Extension service, etc.) that I've used
in the past that trace what lineage a particular hop came from. However,
I would be happy to help do that for Bill if he needs more information
to change his mind.
Steve Johnson,
Music City Brewers
Nashville, TN
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:34:13 -0700
From: Jonathan Royce <jonathan@woodburybrewingco.com>
Subject: RE: Sam Adams Vienna Style Lager
Dave Towson asks about SA Vienna lager and how lager
brewers/drinkers/judges rate this beer?
Well, I only qualify for the second category (drinker), but IMO this
beer is nothing more than boring. It is quite light (in color) for the
style, is lacking in maltiness and retains very little hop flavor. I
like some of the original SA offerings, like Boston Lager and Boston Ale,
but I really think this variety misses the mark. I would be hard pressed
to recommend this beer to anyone except those who are very adverse to
strong beer flavors and I will certainly never serve it at my house.
Maybe at some future point, I'll tell you how I really feel about it. ;-)
Happy brewing,
Jonathan
Woodbury Brewing Co.
www.woodburybrewingco.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 07:37:53 -0400
From: "jim williams" <jimswms@cox.net>
Subject: foxx beverage corp.
I'm just wondering if anybody knows if they have a website, or a phone #? I
can't find them on the web.
cheers,
jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:21:24 -0400
From: "Steve Jones" <stjones1@chartertn.net>
Subject: RE: Sammy's Vienna
Dave,
Our club does a 'commercial beer challenge' every month in
an attempt to broaden the palate of our members, and last
Monday we did it on Vienna Lagers. What we do is to present
a bottle of each brand we can find, with aluminum foil
wrapped around it in an attempt to make it somewhat blind.
Of course, some brews have rather distinctive bottle shapes,
so it isn't entirely scientific, but it works OK. Each beer
is numbered, and each person takes a very small sample (we
sometimes have as many as 25 trying it) of each. Then they
write the number of their favorite on a piece of paper to
vote.
We had 4 vienna lagers, of which I can only remember 3
(sorry, but I can find out if you want me to). Sammy's,
Great Lakes Elliot Ness, and Carolina Brewery Vienna were
the ones I remember, and I'll call the other one X. Here's
how it went: X got 1 vote; Carolina got 3 votes; Great
Lakes got 4 votes, and Sammy got 11 votes.
So there you have it. And even though I love Elliot Ness and
was the one who brought it, I unknowingly voted for Sammy.
It was the maltiest of the 4, yet very clean. It was quite
tasty.
Steve
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished
by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:26:58 -0400
From: "Steve B" <habenero92@hotmail.com>
Subject: fruit beer
I just made my first fruit beer (a blackberry wheat) and I used puree in the
secondary. After bottling and sampling I have noticed a fair amount of
puree residue in the bottles. It is not affecting the flavor but as a point
of prettiness how do I keep the puree out of the bottles. I did not bottle
the last 2 inches of sludge in the secondary, so that is not the source.
Any ideas on getting the puree "out of solution"?
Thanks
S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:36:28 -0400
From: "Erich" <Solidarity.One@verizon.net>
Subject: The Passing of a Friend
Dear Friends:
It is with a heavy heart and deep regret that I must report the passing =
of John Doble Jr. John died Wednesday, April 16th, from smoke =
inhalation at his Tampa home.
John was the owner, founder and brewmaster at Tampa Bay Brewing Company, =
in Tampa, FL. He was a pioneer in this state's craft brewing industry. =
He and his family also owned and operated the Brewshack, a local =
homebrew shop that gave John, and most homebrewers in this area, their =
start.
John was always willing to help out and offer guidance and suggestion to =
other brewers. He freely shared tips and recipe information and helped =
to diagnose problems. John was instrumental in introducing hundreds of =
people to homebrewing and craft-brewed beer.
Our state, and our local brewing community, have lost a valuable member =
and a dear friend.
Cheers, Johnny. You will be deeply missed.
Erich Henegar
St. Petersburg, FL
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:17:39 -0400
From: darrell.leavitt@plattsburgh.edu
Subject: Bavarian Red Lager
I bottled a "Bavarian Red Lager" yesterday that tasted very good, so I
thought that I'd share the recipe:
7.5 lb Pilsner Malt
1.5 lb CaraAmber
2 lb Maize (flaked)
1 lb Belgian Aromatic
.25 70L Crystal
2 rests (148, and 158F) for 45 min each, 90 minute boil with 26 IBU (1 oz
saaz at last 60, 1 oz fuggles at 30, .25 saaz at 15, .25 saaz at flame-out)
Yeast was 2nd use of WLP920 Old Bavarian Lager slurry.
It took off real well, was in primary for 25 days (got occupied with non-
brewing activities), in secondary (real cold) for about 20 days, and just
bottled yesterday.
It tastes like a Red Ale, without the fruitiness, and more crisp,..hard to
describe, but good to me..
Happy Brewing!
..Darrell
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:54:24 -0400
From: "Charles Boyer" <cboyer@ausoleil.org>
Subject: Harvesting & Ranching Chimay Yeast?
Hi Folks,
I'd like to recreate as authentically as possible Chimay and the some of
the other Belgian Ales. Since these beers are bottle-conditioned, it
would seem to follow that ranching the slurry at the bottom of the
bottles would yield good results, but it's been mentioned to me that the
monks filter their unique fermentation yeast at bottling time and
substitute in a more generic flavor-neutral one for bottling. Does
anyone have any experience with or knowledge of this?
Thanks as ever for your thoughts.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:09:48 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Sterling as a substitute for Saaz??
Bill, AKA NO Spam <nospam@brewbyyou.net> writes:
>Sterling as a substitute for Saaz? Wow, this is the
>FIRST time I ever heard this.
>
>Sterling is very, very British. <snip> It is NOT
>an appropriate substitute for Saaz, IMO.
Bill, I wonder if you are thinking of another hop.
According to Hop Union's web site
http://www.hopunion.com/hvcb/index.html, Sterling "appears to be
something of a cross between Saaz and a Mt. Hood." It recommends a
Saaz and Polish Lublin as possible substitutions, and says it is
recommended for "lagers, ales, pilsner."
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze@yahoo.com>
Subject: Bottom of the Barrel
Similiarly, someone once told me that natural light is
what happens when they hose out the bud fermenters and
the collect the rinse water. While it may taste like
that, its the opposite of the bock beer theory!!
mike
=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:31:01 -0500
From: "Jason" <jhayes75@cox.net>
Subject: RE: aeration
I use my daughters nebulizer to aerate my worth. She doesn't need it
anymore so I thought I put it to good use. I attached the hose into my
racking cane and let it blow air into my carboy. This works really well. I
believe there is even a filter in this machine that filters the air. Just
could not see this nebulizer sit on the shelf collecting dust.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:32:21 -0400
From: "-S" <-s@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Slow Fermentation
Marcie Greer asks ...
>I would be interested in hearing about slow fermentations from the other
>side of the coin. What if you *want* a very slow fermentation? When
>would you want it, what differences does it make and what can you do to
>slow things down?
>
>Often I am not in any hurry, I just want the best beer possible at the
>with work and so on and sometimes it would be nice to be able to be more
>leisurely with the beer schedule.
Pitching at a proper rate (which usually means with a lot more yeast than
typical HBers use) does result in a faster fermentation, but like Marcie I'm
only interesting in beer quality and wouldn't care if the fermentation took
an extra few weeks if I could make better beer.
Some things that slow a fermentation include:
Underpitching - results in more esters, lingering and even stuck
fermentations, poor final yeast viability, and a soft lack-luster flavor
profile and decidedly more yeast (by-product) flavor in the final beer.
Autolysis and it's yeasty, brothy, and bitter flavors are more likely to
appear as are fusels. By underpitching you have doomed the last several
generations of yeast needed to reach full attenuation to conditions of
insufficient oxygen product lipids(sterol and UFAs) and maybe other
nutriles. Extra oxygen at pitching time doesn't cure this defect since the
smaller amount of yeast cannot produce sufficient O2 product lipids for the
final generation. The extra yeast growth requirement can sometimes result
in a lack of sufficient amino acids and this results in higher fusels.
Underpitching will certainly cause lack of yeast growth late in the
fermentation process and so slow fermentation rates. It will also cause
yeast stress which is likely to trigger early flocculation & autolysis,
underattenuation.
Cooler fermentation temp - results in less esters and fusels and generally
'cleaner' (less yeast by-product) flavor, but *may* prevent sufficient
diacetyl conversion unless a warmer rest is permitted. Yeast pitched into
cooler wort have higher levels of UFA, which reduces fusel production, yeast
stress, and cold shock potential. Cooling the fermenter significantly
AFTER pitching does not confer these advantages, since yeast cannot produce
more UFAs without oxygen. [IOW pitching yeast into warmer-than-fermentation
temp wort is always a dumb idea]
Top pressure - keeping the fermenter under 0.5 to 1.atm of CO2 top pressure
reduces the fermentation rate, but also reduces the level of esters (and to
a lesser extent fusels). It is said to reduce levels of other yeast
by-products. This method has been used to allow warm fermentation with
lager yeast. Similar results have been reported ale yeast. Basically the
excess CO2 buildup impacts yeast intercellular pH and so the effectiveness
of one of the yeast enzymes involved with the energy chain.
There are other fermentation slowing methods, but they all boil down to
torturing your yeast then hoping they'll still ferment normally.
- ------
There are exceptions, but generally I feel that underpitching is a
significant flavor negative, and that cool fermenting is positive. This
of course depends on what you are trying to achieve; if your weizen isn't
estery enough then yes - modestly underpitch or bump up the fermenter
temperature. Top-pressure is reportedly flavor positive.
It would be nice to reduce the work level , but fermentation is a
make-or-break process step in beer making, which most newbie HBers
underestimate.
When I traveled a lot on business I often let finished ferments sit around
in a cool basement for 2+ weeks before racking and tho' there were few if
any disasters, but it does increase flavor defects. I *prefer* to pitch
big, rack a beer the next day. This is a good opportunity to remove cold
break, dead yeast and lipid rich trub and give the yeast a small shot of air
and then keg as soon as sufficient clarity and diacetyl reduction occur.
Circumstances usually conspire prevent this.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:01:38 -0400
From: "-S" <-s@adelphia.net>
Subject: Honey, I shrunk the wort ?
I was puzzling over the process of fermentation the other day, thanks to an
offline question and it seems something is wrong here. Maybe AJ deLange or
Dave Burley or some bright Pchemist can take a shot at this one.
The concept of real degree of fermentation is based on the idea that wort is
water with a certain amount of stuff in it. Let's call that extract.
The extract is partly fermentable and partly not, we have original
extract(OE) and final extract(FE) (which represents unfermentables) and the
real degree of fermentation is [RDF = OE - FE / OE ]. OE is just the
original Plate measure. FE isn't so simple. The final beer is water
with the fermentables converted into CO2 and a tiny bit of yeast mass (which
are both lost to the hydrometer) and also the residual fermentation
products - mostly ethanol (tho' a significant amount of glycerol too).
You can't obtain an FE reading by measuring the beer FG and converting since
the ethanol throws the measure way way off.
The ASBC lab method for determining FE, or so I have read, is to boil off
50% of a beer sample, then restore the original beer volume by adding water,
then you measure the Plato of this boiled beer. Basically we remove the
ethanol (and methanol and esters) from the beer by boiling and replace these
with the same volume of water. At that point we have *almost* gotten back
just water and the unfermentable extract in the boiled beer. It all
sounds good - very good - except for one thing. Fermentation shrinks the
beer by removing water and replacing fermentables with a slightly smaller
volume of ethanol. The unfermentables are more concentrated !
Without boring detail (or particularly high accuracy) , let's say we have 1
liter 12P wort with about 75% apparent attenuation. This wort has about
126gm of extract and about 76 gm of that are fermentable.
As a ballpark estimate the 76 grams of fermentables will be hydrolysed to
glucose and the hydrolysis will use up about 0.23 mol, over 4 grams (4+ml)
of water. A small amount of the glucose's carbons are used as a source for
yeast organic carbons, but the vast majority are converted to CO2 and
ethanol. The resulting ethanol in solution has a slightly smaller volume
than does the fermentable extract - al la Plato. It's a small difference,
but the fermentable extract in solution appears to occupy about 2.5ml more
volume than does the corresponding ethanol.
Well there you have it - you start with 1000ml of wort and you end up with
less than 994ml of beer ! About 2fl.oz of loss in a 5gal batch.
Now the ASBC method *should* correct for this. After all we want to know
what fraction of the extract from the original 1L of wort remains in the
corresponding amount of beer and a mere Plato measure of the boiled beer
doesn't correct for the shrinkage. The error isn't insignificant - it adds
up to an FE reading about 1.5P too high.
I admit I didn't run all the numbers and temp corrections with tremendous
accuracy & care, but the result seems unavoidable. The unfermentable
extract in beer is more concentrated than in wort. Did I miss something
here ?
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:22:38 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject:
Good Morning,
Bill at BrewByYou insists that Sterling is nothing more than an English hop
and can, in no way, be related to, or used as any sort of substitute for
Saaz hops.
Well, I'm surprised by his assertion because this hop is, by genetic
lineage, half Saaz. It's recommended as a Saaz substitute as well. Here's
the info from Yakima Chief Hop Company.
Hope this helps.
nathan in madison, wi
STERLING
Origin/History
Sterling is an aroma cultivar, a diploid seedling made in 1990 with a 21522
female plant and a 21361 male plant. Its parentage is 1/2 Saazer, 1/4
Cascade, 1/8 64035M (unknown German aroma X open pollination),1/16 Brewers
Gold, 1/32 Early Green, and 1/32 unknown.
Agronomics
Sterling is resistant or at least tolerant to the current race of Powdery
Mildew. No aphid or mite infestation was observed on Sterling test plots.
Maturity: Early
Yield: 1650-1860 kgs. per ha.
1400-1600 lbs. per acre
Brewing Quality
Used for its aromatic properties, similar to Saaz.
Alpha acids: 4.5-5.0%
Beta acids: 5.0-6.0%
Alpha:Beta Ratio: 0.8
Cohumulone (% of alpha acids): 21-23%
Total Oil (Mls. per 100 grams): 0.6-1.0
Caryophyllene (as % of total oils): 20-22%
Farnesene (as % of total oils): 13-15%
Humulene (as % of total oils): 6-8%
Myrcene (as % of total oils): 44-48%
Storability is fair to good.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: hollen@woodsprite.com
Subject: Re: bittering hops - all the same?
Just my $0.02 for what it is worth. Try the following experiment. Make a
beer with a grain bill of almost all pale malt, and hop it to about 60
IBUs for one batch with Galena. Make the exact same batch with the same
amount of IBUs, but use a low alpha acid hop, like Cascade (well, low in
comparison to Galena). What you will find is that the character of the
hop bitterness will be very sharp/pointy on your palate with the Galena,
while the bitterness of a lower AA hop will be more rounded.
"Bittering hops are all the same" is pure BS.
However, the flavor contributions of both, if purely added early in the
boil should no be much at all. Only in the flavor/aroma contribution, can
the statement be somewhat true.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen@woodsprite.com
Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com
Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:57:15 -0500
From: "Mark Kellums" <infidel@springnet1.com>
Subject: Sterling hops
Hello,
I've used Sterling before in a CAP. I liked it very much. I wish I could
come up with a better adjective but I thought it had a very nice intense
spiciness. The Hopunion site offers the best, IMO, description of it's
characteristics, herbal, spicy, floral and citrus. I plan on using it again.
The Yakima Chief site:
Origin/History:
Sterling is an aroma cultivar, a diploid seedling made in 1990 with a 21522
female plant and a 21361 male plant. Its parentage is 1/2 Saazer, 1/4
Cascade, 1/8 64035M (unknown German aroma X open pollination),1/16 Brewers
Gold, 1/32 Early Green, and 1/32 unknown.
Brewing Quality:
Used for its aromatic properties, similar to Saaz.
Back to me:
Taking a look at the pedigree gives you some clues of what to expect from
this variety. The 1/2 Saaz and 1/4 Cascade contributions speak for
themselves. Most brewers are very familiar with the characteristics of these
two varieties. From the USDA hop variety info page describes Early Green as
having, "pleasant continental aroma characteristics." Also from the same
USDA hop variety page, Brewers Gold was developed from a cross of a wild
Manitoban and some unknown English variety. Possibly this would account for
Bill's English take on it.
The Hopunion site:
Aroma Herbal, spicy, pleasant hint of floral and citrus
Appears to be something between a Saaz and a Mt. Hood. Being looked at by
some major breweries. Preliminary results have been favorable.
The Hopsteiner site:
A diploid seedling of the Czech Saaz variety
Mild, aromatic and noble aroma
Excellent noble hop aroma and smooth bitterness; has gained
major brewery acceptance.
Mark Kellums
Decatur Il.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:59:58 -0700
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo@stanford.edu>
Subject: Fermenting in Cornys
A question about fermenting in corny kegs.
Frequently, my kegs don't seal properly until I've added a bit of pressure
from my CO2 tank. When I rack wort in to ferment, I don't know the wisdom
of adding 10 psi of CO2 over the top of it. However, if the gasket doesn't
seal properly, I have no way of seeing if there is fermentation activity
since most of the gas leaks out the top rather than out the blowoff
tube. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:31:17 -0400
From: Robert Sandefer <melamor@vzavenue.net>
Subject: Munich malt
On-line and in The Homebrewer's Recipe Guide (Higgins,Kilgore,& Hertlein),
I have noticed several recipes
that are primarily extract-based but use .5-1 pound of crushed Munich malt
steeped in the brew water.
What is the purpose/goal of this practice?
Is achievement of this goal dependent upon the malt's enzymes or upon
diffusion of something already present (e.g., flavor compounds developed
during roasting) out of the grain?
Is this practice basically a (simple) partial-mash? Or, though it has some
enzymatic ability, will Munich malt contribute color and malt flavor when
steeped?
Couldn't this practice lead to starch haze in the finished beer (e.g., if
enzymatic starch conversion was incomplete or prevented)?
Thanks in advance. Robert Sandefer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:19:24 -0400
From: NO Spam <nospam@brewbyyou.net>
Subject: Re: Sterling
Sorry for the new address, I've been bombarded
with Junk mail lately. Over 100 garbage
messages in one weekend - and I can't have that.
Anyway, yes, I'm thinking of and talking
about Sterling - as in the old "British Sterling"
commercials. Think there's something to that
name? Its one of the "oddball" hops I pride
myself in carrying in my shop.
I have personally used this hop in English Pale
Ales quite a few times. I think it has a much
heavier character than Saaz, Mt. Hood, or any
of the Hallertauer sisters. I think it is
definitely British in character.
Maybe its lineage is Saaz, but I also don't
put alot of stock in that. How many hops
that are derived from other hops are totally
different from the hop they came from?
How many hops are derived from Northern Brewer,
for example - most? And how many of those
are the same or very similar? Not many, Northern
Brewer still has a pretty unique character that
has yet to really be passed on to any of its
relatives.
No, I don't think that just because a hop is
bred from another hop that means it is
automatically the same or a good substitute
for the hop it was bred from. This is certainly
the case here.
Just my 2 cents.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:29:24 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: Growing Yeast
George asks.,
>I am interested in producing a little fuel alcohol for myself.
Right - fuel ethanol - I believe that ;^)
Distillation of even fuel ethanol requires an ATF license in
the US.
> Brewer's Yeast is only good up to around 10%.
Old wives tale. Most HB yeast can tolerate high alc if handled
properly, but they are more finicky than some other yeasts.
>If I am to produce any fuel I want to be up around 20%. So
>my question is; If I took a package of wine yeast that would
>work to make 5 gallon of 20% wine.
S.bayanus, champagne yeast - is tolerant of hi alc. And yeasts
sold for distillation are a well.
>How much water and sugar would I need to grow one package
>of yeast up to enough to ferment lets say 100 gallon?
Consider stepping the size incrementally to 100gal by
adding water and extract (& sugar, nutrients, oxygen)
periodically. You should really look into using waste yeast from
a brewery or whatever in large quantity. I'd suggest starting w/
about 90gal @ 10P if you can get free brewery yeast. Then add
extract (and nutrients ...) as thick syrup periodically as you
approach finishing gravity. I expect many brewing yeast will
tolerate ~15% ABV using this simple incremental feeding
approach. You may need to repitch or use a sturdier yeast
anyway.
>Could someone give me a guideline on this. How
>much water, how much sugar, how often to aerate with pure O2
>or how long it would take. Would it even be possible to grow 5
>gallon worth of yeast up to 20 times and use it in 100 gallons
>of wash?
OK, a little under 50% of the fermented sugar weight will be
converted into alcohol weight and alcohol has an SG around 0.8.
1gal of pure ethanol would weigh abt 6.6lbs. 20gal of ethanol and
80 gal of water gives 100 gallons of 20% ethanol by volume. The
132lbs of ethanol require abt 270 lbs of sugar.
I'll warn you - you don't have even half the facts.
Yeast won't significantly ferment pure sugar at any reasonable rate.
They cannot ferment quickly (or grow) unless that have nutrients.
Periodic aeration of fermenting yeast is also necessary every time
the yeast mass increases by a factor of 5 to 10 roughly. Excessive
aeration reduces the alcohol production. pH impacts the efficiency.
High gravity solutions (your is ~30P) is less efficient than lower
gravity (~1.060-1.080, 15P-20P) which distilleries use. You must
kill off the yeast shortly after the major portion of the fermentation is
complete since yeast can oxidize as much as 5% of the ethanol
product during late fermentation at an economic loss. You'll need to
recover unfermented sugars to be commercially viable.
The price of sugar and the costs involved in fermentation, and distillation
show it's economically infeasible unless you have a cheap(free) source of
fermentable agricultural waste and do this in huge volumes. It might be
fun to experiment, but do get the license. If, as I suspect, your goal
is
potable ethanol note this is quite illegal in the US and that the crummy
stuff you can make from high gravity sugar solutions will be higher in
fusels,
inferior in quality and, with labor, more expensive than decent vodka
from a store. See the many NewZealand websites for info on turning
a kg of sugar into a liter of bad vodka.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:30:22 -0400
From: "-S" <-s@adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Can one over aerate wort?
Fred L Johnson asks, "Can one over aerate wort?"
>We understand head formation and retention to be significantly
>dependent upon the protein content of the beer, as the head itself
>consists in part of denatured proteins. Therefore, it stands to reason
>that the more foam produced during aeration of the wort at pitching
>[...] the less protein that will be available in the finished beer for
>head formation/retention.
I'm not quite certain what you mean by 'denatured protein', but yes,
it's entirely possible to bubble gas thru wort and remove much of the
foam potential of the beer by driving them down the drain as
foam-off. Krausen skimming has also been shown to reduce beer
head. Proteins are not greatly changed (nor denatured) by the
aeration process as far as I know, but there are several other factors
to consider.
1/Aeration oxidizes phenolics which will then bind with proteins and
probably reduce foam potential. 2/ Fermentation typically causes foaming
and some of this is accreted/dried on the ferment walls or else finds it's
way down the blow-off tube. 3/ Yeast release proteolytic enzymes which
impact foaming and the impact is dependent on the variety and environment
Of course the foaming potential is greatly influences by the grist bill.
There is also a suggested mash 'foam stand' rest around 71C which is said
to improve foam but the specifics of this rest are difficult to come by.
>So, if I'm not entirely wrong on this point--and I await your kindly
>correction if I am--one could actually do some harm to the beer by
>extending the aeration.
Well yes. I know I've posted it a dozen times, but if you saturate wort
with O2, ALL the O2 will disappear in a matter of hours - *even if no yeast
are present*. The excess O2 will be consumed in wort oxidation processes
in short order and none of these improve flavor or beer stability. You
should aerate as much as your yeast requires and no more. Determining that
with HB tools is nearly impossible.
I'd suggest that you follow your pattern of aerating several times without
creating excessive aeration blowoff. It's perfectly acceptable to aerate
the wort over a period of hours after pitching - until about the time the
bubbler starts bubbling. I know I've seen a lot of posts claiming that
fermenters started bubbling only a couple hours after pitching - that's
possible but very uncommon. Before gas is emitted first the CO2 in
solution must reach near saturation level and it's not a trivial amount of
fermentation needed to cause that. A 5gal batch must ferment something
like 75gm of sugars before the bubbler begins ticking and 75gm is about 5%
real attenuation for 5gal of a 12P ale wort.
I don't know if the proportion of proteins
denatured during aeration is significant or not, but I have had beers
with poor head retention and I tend to aerate for a good 30 minutes
or more at pitching. Often, I'll aerate for 10 minutes, turn off the
pump for a while to let the foam collapse, turn the pump on again, and
repeat this cycle for over an hour. (This is after pitching settled
yeast coming from a 1600 mL constantly, infusion-fed starter.)
I could imagine that one would ideally only aerate for a time
sufficient to approach saturation, and if one wished to provide
additional oxygen to the growing yeast, one would aerate to saturation
a few hours later, and perhaps even a third time. (I know you've heard
this approach being used by at least some commercial breweries.)
Does anyone have any data on oxygen content of wort versus aeration
time using an aquarium pump and stone? I know the data would be
significantly dependent upon one's equipment, but any data on this at
all would be helpful.
Flame away!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 22:54:37 +0000
From: "Dave Larsen" <hunahpumonkey@hotmail.com>
Subject: Attenuation Questions
I know that attenuation is defined as a yeast's ability to consume sugar and
convert it to alcohol. However, when reading a description of a yeast it
gives a number (e.g. - White Labs WLP300's attenuation is 72-76). What does
this actually mean? Is attenuation something I can measure in my homebrew
batches and compare to this number?
I have some vague idea that maybe it is a percentage and I could calculate
it from OG and FG, but that does not make much sense because this can vary
upon what temperature(s) you mash the grain and the ratio of fermentables to
non-fermentables?
Maybe it is just the percentage of fermentables a yeast consumes? However
then you could not really measure it to an exact result because you would
have to know how much of your FG is non-fermentables.
So now I'm just confused. I'm still pretty new to all-grain brewing. Maybe
I'm just making it more complicated than it really is.
Dave
Tucson, AZ
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:54:36 +0000
From: "Dave Larsen" <hunahpumonkey@hotmail.com>
Subject: Old Fashioned Hand Pumps
I was in England for the first time late last year. While there, I enjoyed
a lot of bitters in a lot of pubs. They were quite yummy. The thing I took
away most, however, was how cool the old hand pumps were for dispensing
beer. I'm in the market for a draft tower for my kegerator anyway. I'd
love to get my hands on one. Do companies make those new, or is this
something I should keep my eye on Ebay for, as an antique? Is there a name
for this kind of dispensing equipment that I could start my search with?
Does anybody have any experience with these? Are they hard to find, use, or
maintain? Can you even hook them up to corny kegs? Any information would
be helpful.
Thanks,
Dave
Tucson, AZ
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:48:22 -0400
From: "Tom & Dana Karnowski" <karnowsk@esper.com>
Subject: Frothy Malt Extract
I got 30+ lbs of Montmellick amber malt extract from a LHBS that was getting
rid of it on the cheap - not because it was old (I believe), but because the
big barrel it came in had broken and it was not easy to use anymore.
I stored it in a sanitized sealed food grade plastic bucket ( a duncan
donuts glaze bucket) with a layer of vodka on top.
I opened the thing up today to make a 7 gallon baatch of brew and lo! it was
frothy looking, kind of like brown mashmellow cream, on the surface. It
tastes fine, though, and overall the malt extract tastes pretty mild. I
haven't brewed with liquid malt extract in quite some time (and never
Montmellick) but this tasted much milder than I recall.
There was no fermentaion evident besides the froth. I went ahead & brewed
with it and the gravity has turned out where I expected (8.5 lbs in 7
gallons is about 1.046).
Jay Schrade, from our club, believes it is probably fermenting and suggested
refrigerating it. I have done that. I think he is right although there was
no bad aromas, no evidence of fermentation gasses, etc. besides the weird
foam.
Has anyone seen anything like this before and made beer with it? How did it
turn out?
I know the "malt extract twang" that we have from my early days of brewing
was believed to be due to old malt extract, but I"m hoping it wasn't from
"frothy" stuff.
Tom Karnowski
Knoxville TN
Come to the Cumberland Kegger 2003
http://www.knoxhomebrewers.com/kegger.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 22:56:44 -0500
From: "Byron Towles" <beer.man@cox.net>
Subject: New Orleans Water Profile
I know there is a vast amount of knowledge within the HBD. I'm looking
for a water profile for New Orleans. If anyone has this, I would very
much appreciate the information.
TIA
Byron Towles
Crescent City Homebrewers
http://hbd.org/crescent
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:06:24 -0500
From: "Mark Bayer" <the_bayers@mindspring.com>
Subject: veterans of the stuck fermentations - need advice
collective homebrew conscience_
hmmm, that intro typed itself.
here's the deal. i've got 2 batches of ale in carboys, and they have both
stuck at about 1.018; they should have come down to, at most, 1.015 or so. i
expected 1.012 for one of them.
i have done the following:
about a month ago, i got some new wyeast 1028, did a starter with about 700
ml of 1.030 wort, and let it ferment out. then i swirled it and pitched it
into the beers.
nothing happened. i realized later i probably should have pitched the
starter when it was in high krauzen.
so, i got some more wyeast, did a starter with about 700 ml of 1.030 wort,
let it ferment out, boiled/chilled/oxygenated about 700 ml more wort,
decanted the original starter liquid and put the new wort in on top of the
yeast, and about 10 hours later when it was really kicking, put half in one
carboy and the other half in the second one.
both carboys picked up and bubbled a bit for about 5 days and stopped.
i just got everything ready to keg one of the batches, and when i took the
gravity it was still 1.018.
i know some of you are going to say, "well, maybe they're *supposed* to
finish at 1.018"
both of these started with OG of 1.055 or less, and both of them still taste
"worty". i've had enough experience to know that these really need to come
down at least 3 more points each.
what next? should i try a huge starter or a ton of dry yeast? if i had
another brew planned, i would brew 6 gallons and put about a half gallon of
high krausen beer in each of the stuck beers, but i'm done brewing until the
fall.
i have never had a stuck fermentation in over 90 batches, and i hope these
are the last.
this is what happens when you go from brewing 100 gallons a year to a couple
of batches. the brew gods are angry.
brew hard,
mark bayer
stl mo
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4224, 04/19/03
*************************************
-------
