Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4417
HOMEBREW Digest #4417 Thu 04 December 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:
sensory: play-doh and grass (matt hardesty)
Re: tackling oxygen [and more] ("-S")
re: digital thermometers ("Michael O'Donnell")
re: Protein rest ("-S")
re: Too Much Foam From Keg ("Rogers, Mike")
Rye Nutrients (Grant Family)
thermistors, thermocouples, RTDs ("Todd M. Snyder")
Non-beer related posts (David Harsh)
Re: What's on tap? ("Mark Kellums")
Re: WLP830 German Lager Yeast (Jeff Renner)
Re: Upgrading All-Grain System (Kevin Wagner)
RE: Cleaning SS fermenters, Corny storage (Bill Tobler)
Re: White Labs WLP 830 German lager yeast (Paul Shick)
Re: protein rests (Paul Shick)
RE: Turbo Scrubber ("Mary Meredith")
Pump Tubing ("Berggren, Stefan")
Re: Cleaning SS fermenters (David Towson)
RE: Too Much Foam From Keg (Ronald La Borde)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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. Note that the Digest now
automagically protects your address, so spam-proofing is a waste of
your time, anyway :^)
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.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:24:58 -0800 (PST)
From: matt hardesty <mlhardesty at yahoo.com>
Subject: sensory: play-doh and grass
o.k. sensory experts out there:
first question: what would explain a distinct
play-doh aroma in a stout? would this be diacetyl? i
experienced this aroma in a brewpub one evening after
opening and sniffing a fresh can of my 2-year-old's
play-doh that afternoon. honestly, i enjoyed the
stout and the play-doh.
second question: i have apparently turned a
ready-to-drink-after-secondary-fermentation
barley-wine (a la ray daniels) into a
hope-for-the-best,
the-only-bad-beer-is-an-old-bad-beer barley-wine by
dry-hopping with 1oz. of styrian golding pellets into
6 gallons (this occurred within 1 day, not 3 days or
greater as mentioned in recent digests). is the
grassy flavor i am experiencing associated with
oxidation of pelletized hops or is this just the
flavor of styrian golding...i'll hope for some age
producing a barley wine that i can pass off as
"herbal" somewhere down the line.
matt
"do or do not. there is no try."--jedi master yoda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:54:18 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: tackling oxygen [and more]
Fredrik writes ...
> I have assumed that this connection as a first approximation to be one of
> simple ATP power generation utilizing glycogen and trehalose and the main
> reason why old yeast have so long lag times
I used to think the same thing, but it's easy to poke some holes in the
argument.
Trehalose has clear value as a functional carbohydrate, but trehalose
does not produce ATP in it's dissimilation ! Trehalose levels rise in
response to all sorts of cell stress, and it's presence appears to
stabilize yeast and reduce stress during storage. Glycogen is
certainly an energy store, but it seems to have a role in sterol
production too. Glycogen is mobilized (degraded) in the presence of
oxygen.
Yeast which are kept anaerobically can have high glycogen & squalene
stores, but exposure to minor amounts of O2, even without nutrients,
will cause these to convert to sterol. Fermentation of glycogen will
create CO2 !
"Lag time" is the time from pitching to the first CO2 release (after the
wort approaches 1 atm of CO2. Long lag times imply poor fermentation
progress, and in very healthy yeast at proper pitching levels the
fermentation
of glycogen stores alone are sufficient to saturate wort with CO2 - give or
take a little.
If there is excessive lag time it's *probably* due to underpitching(common)
low viability (so underpitching) or from pitching yeast in such poor health
that glycogen is insufficient and also it takes excessive amounts of time
before glucose permease is developed and wort glucose is fermented.
> I short I'll attempt to model
> this by assuming that the early utilization of external sugars are
somewhat
> proportional to the proper sterol levels, [...]
That's probably a very good place to start. It matches the fact that yeast
initially ignore wort sugars while producing sterols from squalene,
glycogen & oxygen.
> I think there has to be some other means of
> energy supply if internals are out, otherwise one would have a stuck
ferment
> while still in the lag phase, which I doubt will happen, or?
I think this could occur, but glucose induction is passive and glucose
metabolism is probably always "on", even in storage. It probably doesn't
take much for yeast to revive in a glucose solution.
> > [...] oxygen during
> > late fermentation causes a clear reduction of esters in beer [...]
>
> Do you have any ideas for a mechanism? Is this
> reductiion a "reduction of production", or reduction of previously
produced
> esters external to the cell by reabsorption?
There are some mysteries and open questions wrt esters. Esters could be
produced via several routes but reaction of alcohols (ethanol and fusels)
and a fatty acid acyl-CoA is the leading contender in brewing yeast. This
reaction requires energy and several yeast enzymes are involved. The
acetylCoA in this synthesis seems to be a controlling factor so esters are
produced in abundance when the acetylCoA pool is high (IOW can't be used
for other purposes).
AcetylCoA is consumed in lipid and other synthesis involved in yeast growth.
When growth and lipid synthesis is stalled (but energy is available) the
actylCoA level rises and esters are produced. When acetylCoA levels are
low - as during growth - the ester production is low. For example the rate
of ester production more than doubles in mid-fermentation - the same time at
which lipid synthesis ceases. Most yeast esters are produced late in the
fermentation. All sorts of factors that enhance or enable yeast growth also
reduce ester levels (FAN is an interesting exception).
Adding oxygen presumably enhances growth and so reduces acetylCoA pools and
ester levels.
I posted a more detailed message on ester production two years ago ...
http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/3729.html
Also see Andy Walsh's excellent note at:
http://hbd.org/brewery/library/EstFormAW0696.html
Yeast expend energy to produce esters *perhaps* to balance the acetylCoA and
CoASH (which results from ester production). There is some evidence to
support this.
-Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:39:28 -0800
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo at stanford.edu>
Subject: re: digital thermometers
>I haven't taken one apart, but I am pretty sure they are not
>thermocouples... on mine at least, the probe has a simple stereo jack to
>plug into the main unit, which would give a couple of weird junctions...
>more likely they are thermistors. Still, a good point: it might be easy
>to take the probe apart and rebuild it in a more sturdy fashion.
mike
Monterey, CA
>It's clear that these digital oven thermometers have a lot of nice features,
>but the probes stink. Has anyone examined how the probes are made ? If
>it's a simple thermocouple and the type could be determined ...
>
> -Steve
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:47:58 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Protein rest
Gordon Strong points a loaded question in my direction,
>... what are
> current opinions on protein rests in the 122F range?
First you should accept the fact that no temperature rest is particularly
selective in terms of enzyme activity. Yes - the overall activity at 50C vs
60C may shift somewhat but it doesn't turn the whole operation from on to
off. Also consider that malt has at least 3 dozen proteinases and
peptidases with "optimal" temps all over the map.
The "50-55C is for peptidase, 55-60C for proteinase" [Malting&Brewing
Science, pp281] rule just a crude generalization that doesn't help
quantitatively. The question of whether you need more FAN or more
proteolysis is an empirical question. The degree of proteolysis created be
the maltster must be considered.
Mega- and micro- breweries rarely perform any sort of temperature step, they
live with single infusion, and don't seem to suffer yeast nutrient problems
indicative of low FAN(free-amino nitrogen) nor any heading problems due to
insufficient PSN. They filter for haze. The malting industry has
increasingly - even in Germany - catered to the intention of breweries to
brew with low-energy cost single infusions, by malting the grist to the
appropriate stage. The US Micro industry is largely outfitted with
hardware that will not support step mashes. The maltsters must make up the
difference.
Wolfgang Kunze ['Technology Brewing and Malting', 1999, pp 209..] suggests
that 45-50C is an appropriate range for a protein, b-glucan rest. He
specifically warns "The protein in malt is often highly modified. If such
malt is given a long rest at 50C(122F) there is a risk that too much HMW
protein will be degraded. The beer then tastes empty and insipid and the
foam stability is poor. If the malt is well modified cytologically the rest
at 45-50C(113-122F) can be restricted or omitted and mash-in temperatures of
58 to 62C(136-143F) selected. Ludwig Narziss in a Brauwelt article
suggests that the 50-55C range is dangerous for modern malts and raises
concerns about spending too much time stepping through this range.
The obvious malt spec that we should examine is malt protein modification -
the fraction of malt protein which is made soluble in mashing - usually
represented as the soluble to total ratio (TSN% or Kolbach%). Only a few
maltsters publish specific FAN figures.
British PA malt has traditionally been made with relatively low protein
barley and then malted extensively for single infusion use. German
traditional malts were made from barley with intermediate protein levels
and had a very limited modification. These traditional German/Continental
malts required multi-step mashes and decoction in order to create high
quality wort.
Few understand how vastly undermodified traditional German malts were.
Before the advent of pneumatically and chemically accelerated malting,
British PA malt was chitted for 17-20 days. By comparison German
traditional decoction malt was chitted for only 6 or 7 days !!! About
3/4ths of the protein modification and enzyme development occurs in the
first week of chitting, so the difference in these malts is significant but
not proportional to time. A Doctor Delbruck of Berlin was impaneled to
investigated the matter in 1893 Germany and concluded that there were
advantages to increasing the malting period above 7 days for German malts
for increased diastatic power and soluble protein [["Industrial Alcohol:
It's Manufacture and Uses", J.Brachvogel, 1907]].
So what were the characteristics of traditional malt ??? Brachvogel cites a
contemporary German source [Hayduck circa 1900] with "best" and "medium"
quality German malts at 33%-32% TSN. I have no similarly ancient figures
for British malt. Briggs, et al, in M&BS writing in 1971 state that (pp260)
in Britain that malts with TSN% between 30-33% are undermodified and from
37-40% are overmodified; implying that an TSN% from 34% to 36% is the ideal
range for British pale malts of that era. Elsewhere M&BS cites TSN of
31%-41% as normal overall range for circa 1978 pale ale *and* lager malts
(pp137). From this and other figures in M&BS it's clear that German malts
had increased in TSN% or modification by the 1960-1970s.
So what are modern (2003 era) malts like ?
Greg Noonan suggests (http://www.brewingtechniques.com/bmg/noonan.html) that
36-42% TSN is good for pale-ale malts, and then uses the range of 34-36%
(which M&BS intended for British ale malts in 1971) but applied this range
to lager malts of 1999 ! W.Kunze (VLB Berlin text developed circa
1990-1999, pp131) suggests 35-40% TSN for lager malts. From various
maltster/distributor websites we have current data ..
== Ale malt TSN% ===
Briess PA 44.0%
Fawcett(Aus) PA 38-42%
IMC(Aus) PA 41.7%
MFB(Fra) ale 38-45%
Munton PA 37-42%
Beeston PA 40-45%
DWC Pale Ale 44-48.6% (Dingemans/Cargill)
Pauls PA 45%
=== Lager malt TSN% ===
Briess Pils 37.0%
CBA Lager 40-45%
JoeWhite(Aus) Pilsner 41%
Hoepfner(Aus) Pils 38-44%
Munton Lager 35-44%
MFB(Fra) lager 38-45%
Muessdoerffer pils 42.0%
Durst Pils 44-47%
Weisshiemer Lager 40-48%
Moravian Lager 38.33%
It's absolutely clear that the PA malts are even more modified than in the
1970s - rising from M&BS's suggested 34-36% to a typical modern range around
38-45%. Lager and Pils malts, once 32-33% in the early 1900s, recently
had a suggested range by Noonan of 34-36% ... the actual figures for lager
malt today run typically from 38-45% - the same as modern ale malts or
possibly a bit higher.
>My personal opinion is that it's unnecessary with modern malts, but
>hat it may be useful when adding starchy adjuncts (although I tend to
>prefer 131F for 10-15 min).
One critical factor in a protein rest is creating sufficient FAN to
feed the yeast. This is a problem when significant amounts
of unmalted grain are used. In that case a peptidase rest is critical
to a successful fermentation.
> only add a protein rest if a starch haze
>results?
A *protein* haze requires a protein rest certainly.
>Certainly malts have changed over the last decade or so.
Delbruck promoted higher modification in Germany 100+ years ago. Euro
energy costs have hastened a change there since WW2 I *think*. Continental
malting barleys, derivatives of 'Trumf', are said to modify extremely
rapidly. There were a few rare exceptionally highly modified malts a decade
ago (see G.Fix on DWC malt), but today the majority of malts have a TSN%
above 40% !! Many factors over many decades conspired to change malt.
>I'm just wondering if there are
>any generalizations that can be drawn.
/Today's malts have very much greater modification than traditional ones -
especially lager malts. Today's lager malts have comparable modification to
modern UK ale malts.
/ I find *NO* examples of modern commercial malt which are even close to
traditional decoction malt at 32-33% TSN.
/ I find no commercial ale malts which fall into the M&BS 1971 ideal range
of 34-36% TSN, though a few are close.
/ The mashing process must be adapted to the malt which is available.
Traditional extensive mashing programs developed for lesser-modified malts,
when applied to modern highly modified ones, is a recipe for poor quality
wort. Kunze offers practical advise on modified lager mashing (decoction,
step and infusion) when using modern Continental malts. The difficulty in
mashing modern pale ale malts appears lesser, since these malts were
traditionally fairly well modified and single infusion was commonly applied.
-Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:13:36 -0500
From: "Rogers, Mike" <mike.rogers at eds.com>
Subject: re: Too Much Foam From Keg
Donald,
Nice thing about kegs is that you can remove any excess CO2. Just turn off
the gas supply and lift the relief valve to purge all head space. Wait a
few hours and purge again, etc. The CO2 will lift out of the brew and into
the head space. I've done this a couple of times as I accidentally left the
priming pressure on the kegs for too long. If you are in a big hurry, you
can take the kegs out of the fridge and shake the CO2 out, much like you can
if you are in a hurry to prime and shake the CO2 in...
My standard process is to pump the pressure to about 25 psi to seal and
leave it there for about 1.5 - 2 days at 40+F, then drop to serving
pressure - usually around 6 lbs for my ales. I should also mention that my
brew is cooled at fridge temp prior to kegging, as I almost always cold
condition after fermentation.
I then check the carbonation and make my corrections, which usually isn't
much...
The attached link is a good reference for force carbonation, but is also a
push for foam free tubing, which I can't see ever needing...
http://www.northernbrewer.com/instructions/co2.htm
Kegging is great. Never an over carbonated, or under carbonated brew!
Mike Rogers
Cass River Homebrewers
Frankenmuth, Mi.
http://hbd.org/cassriverhomebrewers/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:22:35 +1100
From: Grant Family <grants at netspace.net.au>
Subject: Rye Nutrients
G'day
Having just come off a stuck fermentation in a wheat beer, I'm wary about
nutrients in my upcoming rye-based beer.
Does anyone have any data points on the nutrient contribution of rye malt,
flaked rye and roasted rye (all of which I will be using). I'll be assuming
that rye is similarly lower in nutrients to wheat unless I'm advised
otherwise...
Thanks
Stuart Grant
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
ps. I'm using ~30% Thomas Fawcett pale rye malt in the beer; has anyone
tried doing a glucanase rest with this malt, or does anyone know of the
glucanase enzyme potential of this/other malts?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:03:16 -0500
From: "Todd M. Snyder" <tmsnyder at buffalo.edu>
Subject: thermistors, thermocouples, RTDs
Hi Steve,
<
It's clear that these digital oven thermometers have a lot of nice features,
but the probes stink. Has anyone examined how the probes are made ? If
it's a simple thermocouple and the type could be determined ...
-Steve>
They're not thermocouples, they're just cheapo thermistors, resistors that
change resistance as a function of temperature. Seems like the last one I
played with had a room temperature resistance of tens of kOhm.
As far as accuracy of thermocouples, I'm looking at a Omega book on every
imaginable thermocouple and it has the following:
Type Range (Celcius) Error (+/-)
T 0-350 1C or 0.75% whichever is greater
J 0-750 2.2C or 0.75%
E 0-900 1.7C or 0.5%
K 0-1250 2.2C or 0.75%
and there's a lot more types, but these are typical. For brewing, type T is
most appropriate because it has the narrowest range, but it's still +/- 1 C,
which is almost 2 degrees F. Not very good when you're trying to hit a mash
temperature.
Thermistors are better, Omega has one that has a range of 0-100C, 3200 to
6250 Ohm resistance. +/- 0.15C accuracy, or about +/- 0.3 degrees F.
However, thermistors can change resistance over time.
Platinum RTD's are +/- 1 degree F at brewing temperatures, but are designed
to be extremely repeatable, interchangable and stable over time compared to
thermistors.
RTD's are the way to go for brewing in my book.
Todd Snyder
Buffalo, NY
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:22:11 -0500
From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net>
Subject: Non-beer related posts
Randy Ricchi <rricchi at houghton.k12.mi.us> clogs the digest with the
following:
> ORIGIN OF .... <snip>
This is the Homebrew Digest, Randy. Keep politics out.
PLEASE!
Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing League
Cincinnati, OH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:21:34 -0600
From: "Mark Kellums" <infidel at springnet1.com>
Subject: Re: What's on tap?
On tap:
1. California Common
2. Vienna
3. Schwarzbier
Bubbling:
Barleywine
Mark Kellums
Decatur Il.
P.s. What is on tap or bubbling in peoples basements this winter?
|
| On tap in my cellar
| 1.) English Porter
| 2.) English Mild/Brown
| 3.) English IPA
| 4.) Olde Fashion
| Root-beer
|
| Stefan Berggren - Madison, WI
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:37:17 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: WLP830 German Lager Yeast
Susan Woodall <woodsusa at moscow.com> writes, presumably from Idaho
and not Russia:
>can anyone give me any advice or their perspective on WLP830 German
>Lager Yeast. What are this yeasts flavor characteristic and profile?
This is reputedly the widely used Weihenstephan 34/70. It is a good,
general purpose lager yeast. While WhiteLabs' description says it is
very malty, I have found that it is pretty balanced between malt and
hops, and produces a clean, well balanced lager without the need for
a diacetyl rest. When I can't get my favorite Ayinger yeast (German
Bock WLP833), it is my choice for most styles of German lager and
Classic American Pilsner. You can't go wrong with it for most lagers.
From http://www.whitelabs.com description:
"This yeast is one of the most widely used lager yeasts in the world.
Very malty and clean, great for all German lagers, pilsner,
oktoberfest, and marzen. Attenuation: 74-79; Flocculation: Medium;
Optimum Ferm. Temp: 50-55"
W 34/70 was (still is?) the preferred lager yeast of German born and
trained brewmaster Fred Scheeer, now at Bosco's in Nashville
http://www.boscosbeer.com/, when he was at Frankenmuth Brewery in
Michigan. Fred has a Master Diplom from the famous Doemens Academy
http://www.doemens.org/ in Munich, which means he really is a
brewmaster, or master brewer, not just someone who calls himself one.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 07:46:50 -0800
From: Kevin Wagner <kevin.wagner at watchmark.com>
Subject: Re: Upgrading All-Grain System
> "Weaver Joseph T MAJ CENTAF-AUAB CAOC\\SG" wrote:
> Presently, I boil in a 7.5 gallon SS bargain brand kettle
> without a valve which means using an immersion chiller and a sanitized Pyrex
> measuring cup and funnel to transfer to the carboy...time consuming and
> labor intensive.
Sounds like you get good aeration! :)
Why don't you siphon? I have a 7.5 gal SS kettle too. I made a racking
cane from 3/8"ID soft copper which I clamp to the side of the kettle
while on the stove. My CFC sits on the counter between the stove and
sink with the carboy on the floor. There is more than enough of a drop
for gravity to do all the work. No pump required.
> Should I go with barbed outlets and use silicone hose between the kettle,
> hop back, and chiller, or should I use quick disconnects?
I don't use barbs or quick-connects. A 3/8" hose fits snugly over 3/8"ID
copper tube without any mechanical connectors.
-K
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:57:35 -0600
From: Bill Tobler <wctobler at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Cleaning SS fermenters, Corny storage
Gary asked some good questions on cleaning SS fermenters and storing your
kegs. Well, I can tell you how I do it, and I'm sure you'll get other input
too.
Like you, I moved to a SS fermenter instead of glass. I didn't buy a
conical though. I already had a 15 gallon SS pot with spigot, and I use it.
I don't clean my equipment with PBW every session. Maybe 2 or 3 times a
year, depending on how much I have been brewing. For after every session
cleaning, I use barkeepers friend, a SS cleanser you can get in the grocery
store or Wal-Mart, or Alconox, a lab glass cleaner, I scrub with a stiff
brush and a Scotchbrite pad for the tough stuff. I use a small round brush
for valves and tubing. I store the clean pot with the lid on till next brew
session.
The pot is easy to sanitize. I also use StarSan, and keep a 5 gallon bucket
of the stuff in the brewery. I bought a small 1 quart hand sprayer and keep
it full of StarSan all the time. Just wet down the CLEAN surface of the
fermenter and let sit for 5 minutes, and it's ready. For valves and tubing,
spray till you get liquid out the other side, or just soak it if it comes
apart easy. The spray bottle also works good for looking for CO2 leaks on
the cornies and your lawnmower tires. StarSan is a great leak detector.
This same cleaning and sanitizing procedure would work for a conical too.
The racking port may need to be taken apart every session, but I'm not sure.
I'm sure you'll hear from someone on that. As an aside, I keep a bottle of
Purell hand sanitizer handy for my hands when I'm handling sanitized
equipment.
I also have a bunch of Cornies. Four 10 gallon, seven or eight 5 gallon,
two 2.5 gallon and one 3 gallon. I usually store these just clean and under
pressure. On the day I need to use one, or the day before, I get the air
out and sanitize the keg. What I mean by "Getting the air out" is a modified
procedure I got from Dave Burley. I fill the clean keg with tap water to
the very top and then push out the water with CO2. The keg never gets opened
after that. I keep a three gallon keg full of StarSan all the time. When I
need to Sanitize the keg, I push some StarSan into the keg (About a quart)
and slosh it around and let it sit for 5 or 10 minutes. I then push it back
out and return it into the three gallon keg. Now the keg is ready to rack
into from the fermenter. I rack the beer into the keg through the beer out
fitting. You can either open the pressure relief valve during racking or
just plug a gas in fitting on and let the pressure go out that way.
Sometimes if I have three or four kegs to clean, I'll get the air out of all
of them at the same time to save water, and mark them clean and no air. The
small amount of StarSan is not a problem for your beers. At least, I have
never run into one or heard of one. Probably one of the most difficult
things for new users of StarSan to do is not to rinse. My only advice is
have faith and look at it as saving a step. I hope that helped a little.
Bill Tobler
Lake Jackson, TX
(1129.7, 219.9) Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:03:59 -0500
From: Paul Shick <shick at jcu.edu>
Subject: Re: White Labs WLP 830 German lager yeast
Hi all,
Susan Woodall asks about the flavor profile for White Labs WLP 830
German lager yeast. Susan, this is about as neutral a lager yeast as you
can find. It's reputed to be the Weinstephan 34/70 strain, the most widely
used lager yeast in Germany. It ferments very cleanly, in my experience,
although it does produce some sulphur during fermentation that takes some
time to get down to nice levels. It seems to emphasize the hop character of
the beer a bit more than its malt, although I've used it even in helles
and bock
batches without any trouble. Overall, a nice workhorse lager yeast,
especially
suitable for a German pils.
Paul Shick
Cleveland Hts, Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:23:17 -0500
From: Paul Shick <shick at jcu.edu>
Subject: Re: protein rests
Hi all,
Gordon Strong asks about (non-anecdotal) information on protein
rests for modern malts. Gordon, I certainly agree with your assertion
that most information on malts and mashing is outdated. The most
recent book I'm aware of that has a lot of information on malts and
mashing is George and Laurie Fix's An Analysis of Brewing Techniques
(from 1997). They strongly advise against any extended time in the
usual (122F) proteolysis range, citing the detrimental effects to body and
head that you mention, with lots of test brews to back up their claims.
Having said that, all of the Cleveland-area brewpubs and micros are
still using protein rests (or were when I last asked, which is within
the last
year or so for basically all of them). The pros seem to be very concerned
with getting beer to clear quickly, to avoid tying up storage tanks for
extended periods. The protein rest, combined with filtration, allows them
to get product out much more quickly than homebrewers ever dream of.
One highly regarded brewpub was serving a nice ale only two weeks after
brewing, recently, with no one the wiser.
Okay, to lapse into anecdote for a second, I've skipped protein rests
entirely for most batches over the last few years, except when dealing with
lots of wheat, etc. Most beers have cleared nicely in a reasonable amount
of time, but there have been several grains that have been a bit
problematic.
Your suggestion of a short rest in the low 130sF seems like the right
solution
for these few malts.
Paul Shick
Cleveland Hts, Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:56:56 -0500
From: "Mary Meredith" <mmeredith at carboyscrubber.com>
Subject: RE: Turbo Scrubber
Hi Nils,
Not only have we tried the Turbo Scrubber but we manufacture it. To answer
your question, it was originally made for glass carboys. The material
extends beyond the end of the rod by a half inch for cleaning the bottom of
the carboy, keg, etc., and so that the metal doesn't touch the glass.
The inventor came up with the idea when he grew tired of using a
bottlebrush. The scrubber works much faster and better than the brushes and
it lasts longer -- especially since the material is replaceable.
I hope someone else responds to your inquiry, but if they don't, we stand
behind our products. You can have any store that doesn't already carry it
order one from their distributor, or you can purchase it directly from our
website (www.turboscrub.com). If you are not satisfied with any of our
products, we will refund your money.
Cheers!
Mary Meredith
A&M Manufacturing Co.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:05:26 -0600
From: "Berggren, Stefan" <Stefan_Berggren at trekbikes.com>
Subject: Pump Tubing
I am looking into getting a pump and would like to know
What everyone is using with regards to pump hose.
Braided? Norprene what should I use and what should
I stay away from? I was looking at using some 1/2" ID
Braided poly tubing sold by a brew site, but I am worried
About the tube collapsing when hot wort flows through.
Any help would be much appreciated...
Stefan
I like beer. On occasion, I will even drink beer
to celebrate a major event such as the fall of
communism or the fact that the refrigerator
is still working.--Dave Barry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:36:40 -0500
From: David Towson <dtowson at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Cleaning SS fermenters
In HBD 4416, Gary Smith asks about cleaning his fermenter.
IMO, using PBW to clean things that can be easily cleaned with "elbow
grease" is a waste of both money and time. PBW is a very expensive
compound compared with other cleaners such as washing soda and trisodium
phosphate, and I think its principal value is for cleaning things where
scrubbing is not possible due to lack of access. A counterflow chiller is
a good example of an item where getting inside to scrub is not
practical. But the kind of fermenter with which Gary is concerned is very
easy to scrub, and that will remove fermentation residue a whole lot faster
than soaking. To clean my 12-gallon cylindro-conical, I use a long-handled
plastic device intended for cleaning toilets. It has a sponge in the
center of a pad having a rough plastic scrubbing exterior. For "problem
spots", I use a piece of ScrotchBrite held in my hand. I can get the whole
job done in less than ten minutes, and that includes flushing with plain
water to remove the cleaning compound, which in my case is trisodium
phosphate (TSP). I run the TSP solution through the bottom dump valve to
get it out of the fermenter, and while I'm doing this, I operate the valve
open and shut several times to allow the solution to get at anything that
may be caught in a recess behind the ball (it's a ball valve). I also
allow some of the cleaning solution to exit through the rotating racking
arm and valve, and I operate that open and closed as with the bottom dump
valve. After cleaning the fermenter, I remove the racking arm assembly to
clean out yeast that gets trapped in the "clover clamp" assembly by which
it is attached. When I'm ready for a new fermentation, I sanitize the
assembled fermenter using iodophor solution, which is effective and cheap,
and I again use the toilet cleaning device to swab the sanitizing solution
over the entire interior surface of the fermenter. The stuff works very
quickly, and prolonged submersion is just not necessary. The same would be
true if one used Star San or any other popular sanitizer.
Dave in Bel Air, MD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:47:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Ronald La Borde <pivoron at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Too Much Foam From Keg
>From: "Miller, Donald
>
>Folks,
>I have a had a problem with a little too much foam
>from my kegs
Several things need to be in good order:
* Serving hose should be 3/16 inch I.D. about 5 foot
long.
* Serving valve should be opened fully to serve,
then shut off quickly to stop the flow.
* The colder the beer, the less foam from serving.
If you fermented at room temperature, what is the
serving temp.
* This one is sneaky - the serving hose also needs
to be cold. If the line is exposed outside the fridge,
then the first pint will be foamy until the line cools
off.
* After forced carbonation, or after a disturbance,
the beer needs to rest a bit, or you will get foam. I
don't know why this is - but it's true.
Ron
=====
Ron
Ronald J. La Borde -- Metairie, LA
New Orleans is the suburb of Metairie, LA
www.hbd.org/rlaborde
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4417, 12/04/03
*************************************
-------
