HOMEBREW Digest #1066 Fri 29 January 1993

Digest #1065 Digest #1067

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  brewpots (Michael Gildner)
  COPS again... (Mike Zentner)
  Nitrosamine Garbage (Kevin L. McBride)
  dough in correction (Jim Busch)
  instructions & gifs (Michael D. Galloway)
  re:blond doppelbock (Jim Busch)
  RE: doughing-in (James Dipalma)
  logic (Rob Bradley)
  San Francisco BrewPubs? (Curt Harpold-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer)
  WYeast #1084 (Guy McConnell)
  re-use slurry (Russ Gelinas)
  RE: EBC to Lovibond (James Dipalma)
  Isolating pure yeast ("Bob Jones")
  Pecheur ("Rad Equipment")
  help (SSA92FAJ14)
  Bluebonnet Brew-off (George J Fix)
  Repitching yeast. (Chris McDermott)
  Re: re-using yeast in fermenter (Jeff Benjamin)
  doughing in (donald oconnor)
  Judges Wanted (Roy Styan)
  yeast culture media - formulations by weight ("John L. Isenhour")
  HBU-IBU Table, Wort chillers (Bill Szymczak)
  propensity pilsner lagering (KLIGERMAN)
  My Shuttle Buddy ("Sadvary, Bill")
  Scientific American: Absinthe (Tom Rush)
  Florida Brewers (G.A.Cooper)
  nitrosamines in beer (Lance Encell)
  Mai Bock Strike Temp and Chillers  (K.W.) Golka" <golka at bnr.ca>
  cyser yeast (MARK TARATOOT)
  Nitrosamines, Dough-in (Jack Schmidling)
  Hop_aroma (Glenn Tinseth)

Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) **Please do not send me requests for back issues!** *********(They will be silenty discarded!)********* **For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 07:48:29 EST From: mmlai!lucy!gildner at uunet.UU.NET (Michael Gildner) Subject: brewpots After some thought I've decided to invest in all grain brewing. The problem seems to be that the start up costs for the equipment could be over $100. I can get access to a corona through my local homebrew club and the cost of converting my cooler for mashing is minimal. The main cost remains, a large 7-10 gallon brewpot. So does anyone have any ideas on where to find a good deal on a large pot? I've been eyeing one at the local "PACE" store recently. It is a 13 gallon oval shaped "Revere" copper boiler for $80. I was hoping to find something for under $50. Any ideas? Mike Gildner Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:20:45 -0500 From: zentner at ecn.purdue.edu (Mike Zentner) Subject: COPS again... In regard to the letter from Malcolm Barbour. While I agree that the show "shows it as it happens", I think the thing that most offends me is the big zoom-in at the end of the segment on TCJHB. That is NOT "as it happened", that is a shot done for emphasis to evoke an emotional response from the audience. It it was going to be done "as it happened", I would have expected a shot of the criminal being hauled off (if I was there, I know that's where I would have been looking). Anyhow..... Mike Zentner Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 9:14:48 EST From: klm at mscg.com (Kevin L. McBride) Subject: Nitrosamine Garbage Sigh... OK, folks, for the N-th time: We are all going to die some time. This fact cannot be avoided, though it appears that at least one regular contributor to this forum believes that he has found the key to eternal life through the beating of dead horses. If a glass of Smoked Porter is going to kill me then at least I will die a happy man. Next topic. Please. - -- Kevin Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 9:09:07 EST From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: dough in correction In the last digest I made the comment regarding dough in methods in many breweries based on adding malt to water. It occurred to me last night that many BIG breweries and small breweries with pretty high tech malt feed systems do indeed have a spray system where the malt entering the mash tun is showered with hot water mixing both as they enter the tun. This is indeed about the best way to dough in, but I still assert that for homebrewers this is a bit of overkill. But then, most of you probably were aware of this anyway. Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:11:27 -0500 From: mgx at ornl.gov (Michael D. Galloway) Subject: instructions & gifs Could someone point me towards the HBD issue numbers where the picnic cooler/mash tun/lauter tun with slotted copper tubing instructions are? Also, could the person making the gif and jpeg scans perhaps scan the zymurgy issue cover that has kathy ireland on it? I would be most gratefull! Michael D. Galloway mgx at ornl.gov Solid State Division voice -- (615) 574-5785 Oak Ridge National Lab fax -- (615) 574-4143 Living in the Wasteland (of Beer, that is) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 9:23:41 EST From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: re:blond doppelbock In the last digest hosehead at acs.bu.edu (Michael Reinhorn) asks about making Blond DoppelBock. HE also notes that the bock from the Chapter house was pretty good. This bock used to be produced by the now defunct Clement Brewing Co. It was indeed a fantastic blond doppel, weighing in at 9.5% alcohol by Vol!! For a try at the brew: Use 100% pale pils malt, possibly adding a bit of Munich, but this is not required. Push the OG up to around 1.090. Use quality imported german hallertaur hops. A double decoction mash would be good. Keep the IBUs in the 20 range. Ferment with a very clean lager strain, keeping the ferment temp at 48F. After primary for about 1 week, rack to secondary and slowely (2F per day) drop the temp to 31F. You may want to do a 2 day diacetyl rest at 39F. LAger at 31F for at least 6 weeks, 8 is better. Prime with fresh yeast and wort, or force carbonate. This is not a simple beer to make well, but can be very rewarding. Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:48:34 EST From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma) Subject: RE: doughing-in Hi All, In the last few digests, an interesting thread on dough-in. Al Korz writes: >>For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist >>(which is highly recommended) not vice versa. Adding the grist to >>the strike liquor will work, but will create much more balled starch >>than the opposite (see Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer"). Jim Busch answers: >This is indeed what Noonan preaches. I have always wondered about >the importance and significance of adding water to malt as opposed >to the converse. Ok, so one can get "balled starch", wont it then >hydrate and become "non balled"? Cant you just stir enough to >completely mix the mash? .... >This is one of the "Noonanisms" that I feel is rather un- >important to the overall beer quality. THere are so many other >places for brewers to make significant improvements to quality >in brewing like malt/hops/yeast choices and even water chemistry. I tend to agree with Jim. Quoting from the source in question: "More than 10 percent flour is undesirable because it balls or cakes readily. Balled flour results in unconverted starch that is inaccessible to enzymes; some would surely wash into the wort during sparging, causing an irreversible haze in the beer." So, Noonan says that the problem with balled starch is that it leads to incomplete converison, and to unconverted starch getting into the wort and causing a starch haze. While I believe this is true in general, I don't think dough-in procedure is the determining factor in creating balled starch. I say this because I always do it "backwards", fill the mash tun with water at ~130F, add 2-3 pounds of grist, stir thoroughly, repeat until all the grist has been added. The temperature settles in at ~118F-120F, just right for the protein rest. I don't have any problems with either complete conversion or starch hazes, my lagers come out brilliantly clear. IMHO, a too-fine crush of the malt is far more likely to cause the above mentioned problems, due to large amounts of flour and pulverized husks. Comments, please? Cheers, Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:58:42 -0500 From: bradley at adx.adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley) Subject: logic Al in HBD1064: ><For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist ><(which is highly recommended) not vice versa. Jim in HBD1065: >This is indeed what Noonan preaches. I have always wondered about >the importance and significance of adding water to malt as opposed >to the converse. Why stop there? Let's consider the inverse: adding non-water to malt. How about the contrapositive: adding non-malt to non-water. :-) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:56:03 EST From: curt at sundc.East.Sun.COM (Curt Harpold-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer) Subject: San Francisco BrewPubs? I'm leaving the relatively brewpub-dry east coast for a few weeks at headquarters. I'd like suggestions of good brewpubs to visit in the SF/Palo Alto/Berkeley area. To avoid getting flamed for wasting bandwidth, you may want to reply to me by email. Thanks, ......Curt Harpold curt.harpold at east.sun.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 9:14:29 CST From: gdmcconn at mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell) Subject: WYeast #1084 In Digest #1065, Joseph N. Hall asks: > Finally, on a slightly different topic, has anyone here tried using > 1084 (Irish) for purposes other than stouts and porters? I feel like > trying it in bitter and mild ... perhaps it might make a good alt > yeast, too? It works great everywhere I've used it. It is my "house yeast" and I have used it in the following: a blackberry ale 2 English milds an Irish Red Ale I have also used it in 6 different stouts and have the recipe for a 7th already formulated, waiting for time to brew it. I love its contribution to beer and all of these I mentioned have been well received by friends and club members as well. I say go for it! - -- Guy McConnell gdmcconn at mspe5.b11.ingr.com or b11!mspe5!gdmcconn "All I need is a pint a day" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:12:57 -0500 (EST) From: R_GELINAS at UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas) Subject: re-use slurry Re-using yeast slurry is easy, efficient, cost effective, and taste effective; I do it often. Some things to keep in mind: 1) Sanitation - especially wrt. the very first primary (meta-primary?) ferment. Anything "bad" you introduce here will be propagated through all the successive batches. Once you get to the point of using the slurry, sanitation is *not as* important, because there is such a relatively enormous amount of yeast being pitched for primary ferment that other organisms cannot get a foothold. 2) Pitch a large healthy yeast starter for the meta-primary ferment. 3) Use the slurry from the secondary. The primary has trub, hops, and dead yeast that can add off flavors. However, you may use the primary slurry if it fits your brewing style. If you are unsure of your sanitation in transferring from primary to secondary, you may be better off using the primary slurry. 4) Don't overdo it. All yeasts mutate; some more (and more quickly) than others. Often the mutation is to become more attenuative (making a dryer beer). I've found this to be true of Sierra Nevada/Wyeast 1056 yeast; after 3 batches the beer is too dry for my tastes. Whitbread ale yeast, otoh, had been reported to be able to be re-used many times (20+ ?) without much change in character. Try it, you'll like it. Oops, gotta go to work. RG Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:40:25 EST From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma) Subject: RE: EBC to Lovibond Hi All, In the last HBD, Al Korz writes: Murray writes: >I have just found a new supplier for my grain requirements who has data >sheets on the malt available. Specifically, it mentions a colour rating >expressed in degrees EBC as opposed to degrees LOVIBOND. What is the conversion>factor between the two units. > >Also the product specification mentions the following: > >SPECIFICATION PALE MALT WHEAT MALT > >Colour 2.7 degrees LOVIBOND 4.5 degrees LOVIBOND >Total protein eg 11.5% 14.5% >Soluble protein eg 5.0% 8.5% >Kolbach index eg 43 (no units) 61 (no units) >Diastatic power 70 degrees L 160 degrees L >Viscosity 1.65 cp 1.60 cp I don't have a conversion, but here are some L/EBC pairs from Siebel's -- perhaps you can figure out your own conversion factor: Lov EBC 3.21 8 7.83 15 25.7 55 7.87 15 21.65 45 77.5 155 221 500 22.5 55 497.5 1100 557.5 1400 601 1400 Fred Eckhardt's well-known book on beer styles contains an equation for converting EBC to Lovibond. EBC = Lovibond * 2.65, less 1.2 Implying that to convert from EBC to Lovibond, add 1.2, then divide by 2.65. Here's what I got when I ran the numbers Al provided: EBC = 8, L = 3.47 EBC = 15, L = 6.11 EBC = 55, L = 21.21 EBC = 15, L = 6.11 EBC = 45, L = 17.43 EBC = 155, L = 58.94 EBC = 500, L = 189.13 EBC = 55, L = 21.21 EBC = 1100, L = 415.55 EBC = 1400, L = 528.75 EBC = 1400, L = 528.75 Hmmm, a couple of interesting observations here. First, from looking at the pairs Al provided, it would seem that whatever the conversion formula is, it's not linear, so I'm not terribly surprised the equation from Eckhardt doesn't quite hold. Second, there are three pairs where the EBC rating is the same (15, 55 and 1400), yet the equivalent Lovibond ratings are different. What gives? I would be very interested in an accurate method of converting these units. If anyone knows how to convert the two, please jump right in. Cheers, Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:07:46 PST From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov> Subject: Isolating pure yeast Hardy M. Cook ask some questions about yeast culturing. There exists a agar called "WL nutrient agar" that is great for isolating pure yeast from wild yeast strains. This agar is green in color. The pure yeast take up the green color when grown up on Petri dishes and the wild yeast remain white. I personally have never used the stuff, but have know about it for years and was looking at some yeasts that were grown up of the media this last weekend at the Bay Area Brewoff. A friend of mine uses it to always check his yeast and grows up yeast taken from slants on the stuff. I like these type of eyeball sort of tests. Maybe some microbio type out there could post the availablity and cost of the media for those interested. Bob Jones Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:20:54 U From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU> Subject: Pecheur Subject: Pecheur Time:8:06 AM Date:1/28/93 >"Pecheur has previously experimented with a beer >containing malt whisky..." I think this is a mistake. They have brewed a beer using whisky malt called Adelscott which (according to Mr. Jackson) "imparts a very light smokiness." I have spoken with the US importer about this product in the past only to learn that they do not plan to introduce it here. Some problem with the labeling. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126 Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:41:35 -0500 (EST) From: SSA92FAJ14 at RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU Subject: help help Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:16:42 -0600 From: gjfix at utamat (George J Fix) Subject: Bluebonnet Brew-off I hope everyone caught Bryan's announcement in HBD#1064 of the Bluebonnet Brew-off which will be held on 5-6 March. The organizing committee has really worked hard on this one, and it looks like it is going to be a very interesting and fun conference. I hope to organize a tour during the conference. This will be carefully coordinated with the organizing committee so that it does not conflict with the exciting events they have planned. The conference will be held in the central part of the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex (better known here as the Arlington metroplex). This is within striking distance of two commercial breweries (Dallas Brewing & Miller/Ft. Worth), and I hope to include some interesting homebrewing setups as well. It would be great to have people on this network join us. Technical discussions tend to have a lot more meaning when they are done in the context of an actual brewing configeration. Anyone interested should contact me via private e-mail. George Fix gjfix at utamat.uta.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:56:16 -0500 From: Chris McDermott <mcdermott at draper.com> Subject: Repitching yeast. Repitching yeast. First off lets clear up the terminology here. Several post in last few digest have mentioned repitching "trub". In most cases I assume that this was simply a mistake and what the writer meant was "yeast". However in #1065 Randall Holt says: >Made a nice lager in my 50 degree basement, and decided to try >out the method of trub recycling. First I dumped the trub into >a sterile pot, and covered it, then washed and sterilized the fermenter >(I use plastic for the first stage, but only have one usable bucket). >Brewed up another batch, let cool, and pitched the wort. Okay so far. While I am sure that this will give him a good quantity of viable yeast, I'm also sure that it give him of bunch of crap (trub - yeast = crap) that I wouldn't want to pitch into my beer. So before anyone takes that advise to heart unadvisadly - the more accepted method, at least in my mind, is to repitch the sediment from the secondary which should be mostly yeast and should contain several orders of magnitude less crap. Also in #1065, Peter Maxwell asks: >1. If the secondary has been sitting a while (say a week or two) is the >sediment still viable yeast? At least some portion of the yeast should still be viable. >2. After I've racked off for bottling, how long could I safely leave the >remnants? I thought of just putting back the airlock and leaving it >untouched until the next brew. With no food left the yeast will begin to autolzye. This is not good. My method for saving yeast in this situation is to dilute the sediment in the carboy with some sterilized water and then dump that slurry into a steril jar that gets stored it in the refridgerator. The cool temperatures slows down the autolyzation and should keep the yeast good for a week or more. I use a pressure cooker to prepare "canned" jars of yeast starters. Using the same method I make up a few jars of "canned" water that serves to produce a sterilized jar for storage as well as sterilized water. >3. If I do 2 above, will it be necessary to "start" the yeast by adding a >small amount of sterile wort as per WYEAST starters? Most of the "old" yeast may have died, but again there should remain some portion of healthy yeast. By using a starter you can insure that you will get a large population of viable yeast for pitching. I usually assume that the portion of viable yeast is large enough that I can build up a large starter (1 - 1.5 qt) in a single step, but depending on how old the yeast is you may want to do it in stages. _ Christopher K. McDermott Internet: mcdermott at draper.com C.S. Draper Laboratory, Inc. Voice: (617) 258-2362 555 Technology Square FAX: (617) 258-1131 Cambridge, MA 02149 (USA) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:08:19 MST From: Jeff Benjamin <benji at hpfcbug.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: re-using yeast in fermenter > Ron Karwoski writes about his experiences in pouring new wort over existing > yeast in the fermenter. My questions relate to doing the same thing with > the secondary fermenter: > > 1. If the secondary has been sitting a while (say a week or two) is the > sediment still viable yeast? > > 2. After I've racked off for bottling, how long could I safely leave the > remnants? I thought of just putting back the airlock and leaving it > untouched until the next brew. The yeast should still be viable even after a long secondary. I believe that many of the yeast cells go dormant, rather than die (the more biologically inclined can correct me on this point if I'm wrong). I suppose you could leave the remnants in your fermenter, but once you remove the beer, you introduce a lot of air and accompanying microbeasts. My technique is to pour the sediment into a small sterilized (boiled) jar, cap it with an airlock, and put it into the fridge. The small CO2 output you'll get will quickly purge the smaller jar of air, and the colder temps inhibit any bacterial growth and slow down the yeast activity. I find that my yeast stored this way will last 2-3 weeks. > 3. If I do 2 above, will it be necessary to "start" the yeast by adding a > small amount of sterile wort as per WYEAST starters? I don't think so. If you have half a cup of thick yeast slurry like that, you already have more yeast than you would in a 1-qt starter. I simply let the yeast warm to room temperature until it shows signs of life again, and then dump it right into my wort. - -- Jeff Benjamin benji at hpfcla.fc.hp.com Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado "Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium." - T.S. Eliot Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 11:27:20 -0600 From: oconnor at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (donald oconnor) Subject: doughing in large breweries dough in by propelling a spray of grist into another spray of water. the water is typically about 5-8 degrees C warmer than the desired mash temperature. i'm not sure which approximation by homebrewers, i.e., either adding the malt to the water or vice versa is the better alternative. intuitively, i suspect adding the grist to the water slowly would result in less dough clumps. neither approach can mirror the uniform temperature and heat exposure of the entire grist as seen in the commercial brewery. for example, the grist initially added to the water sees a higher temperature than the grist added later on. it seems from the recent posts on this subject that both methods work pretty well. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:37:10 PST From: rstya at mda.ca (Roy Styan) Subject: Judges Wanted The Royal Canadian Malted Patrol is holding their annual "Wort You Brewin'?" competition in Vancouver B.C. on March 6, 1993. If any of you out there are interested in judging please let me know and I will send you the details. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:53:24 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov> Subject: yeast culture media - formulations by weight I've allways done my culturing using liquid media and I'd like to experiment with agar. I have found recipes that are formulated in units like 'tablespoons of' and, as my agar is not powdered and in several weird foamy shapes (strings, square tubes etc), I would like to request some agar recipes using english or metric measures. Thanks! John - The HopDevil john at hopduvel.UUCP isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:23:51 EST From: bszymcz%ulysses at relay.nswc.navy.mil (Bill Szymczak) Subject: HBU-IBU Table, Wort chillers In HBD 1063 Jim Grady asks about calculating IBU's from HBU's for comparing recipes. Although his question was probably answered directly, I've computed the following table using Rager's article in the Zymurgy Hops edition, and I hope other hbd'ers find it useful also. *** IBUs from 1 HBU *** (Rager) Gravity of Wort Time(min) 1.040 1.050 1.060 1.070 1.080 1.090 1.100 1.110 1.120 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 .746 .746 .711 .678 .649 .622 .597 .574 .553 10 .895 .895 .853 .814 .779 .746 .716 .689 .663 15 1.194 1.194 1.137 1.085 1.038 .995 .955 .918 .884 20 1.507 1.507 1.436 1.370 1.311 1.256 1.206 1.159 1.117 25 1.806 1.806 1.720 1.642 1.570 1.505 1.445 1.389 1.338 30 2.283 2.283 2.175 2.076 1.986 1.903 1.827 1.756 1.691 35 2.806 2.806 2.672 2.551 2.440 2.338 2.245 2.158 2.078 40 3.403 3.403 3.241 3.093 2.959 2.836 2.722 2.617 2.520 45 4.015 4.015 3.823 3.650 3.491 3.345 3.212 3.088 2.974 50 4.194 4.194 3.994 3.812 3.647 3.495 3.355 3.226 3.106 55 4.477 4.477 4.264 4.070 3.893 3.731 3.582 3.444 3.316 60 4.477 4.477 4.264 4.070 3.893 3.731 3.582 3.444 3.316 Gravity of Wort (Extract Brewer Range) Time(min) 1.130 1.140 1.150 1.160 1.170 1.180 1.190 1.200 1.210 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 .533 .515 .497 .481 .466 .452 .439 .426 .415 10 .640 .618 .597 .578 .560 .543 .527 .512 .497 15 .853 .823 .796 .770 .746 .724 .702 .682 .663 20 1.077 1.040 1.005 .972 .942 .914 .887 .861 .837 25 1.290 1.245 1.204 1.165 1.129 1.094 1.062 1.032 1.003 30 1.631 1.575 1.522 1.473 1.427 1.384 1.343 1.305 1.269 35 2.004 1.935 1.870 1.810 1.754 1.700 1.650 1.603 1.559 40 2.430 2.347 2.268 2.195 2.127 2.062 2.002 1.944 1.890 45 2.868 2.769 2.676 2.590 2.509 2.433 2.362 2.294 2.230 50 2.995 2.892 2.796 2.706 2.621 2.542 2.467 2.396 2.330 55 3.198 3.088 2.985 2.889 2.798 2.713 2.634 2.558 2.487 60 3.198 3.088 2.985 2.889 2.798 2.713 2.634 2.558 2.487 To use this table estimate (or measure) the gravity of the wort, and find the number corresponding to the time of boil. Multiply this number by the HBU's to get IBU's. For example to compare Jim's two recipe's for an extract pilsener, let's assume a full boil with a gravity of about 1.050 (and neglect the increase in gravity as the wort is concentrated). Then recipe 1 yields 5.75 HBU at 60 min = 5.75 * 4.477 = 25.7 IBU + 3.5 HBU at 15 min = 3.5 * 1.194 = 4.2 IBU - ------------------------------------------------- 29.9 IBU (from the boil). Recipe 2 calls for 10.0 HBU at 30 min = 10.0 * 2.283 = 22.8 IBU which is less than recipe 1. Of course if you are only doing a partial boil (heaven forbid) the gravity of the boil will be about 1.125 and the IBU counts will be reduced to 21.4 and 16.6 respectively. In Rager's article the utilization rates are based on a maximum of 30% at 60 minutes and these numbers should probably be reduced by about 20% for hop flowers. In HBD1064 Mike Zulauf asks about immersion in ice-water chillers: > I am curious if anyone else uses this type of chiller. If so, how >well does it work? How long does it take to chill 5 gallons of wort to >a reasonable temperature? How much ice is required? What length of >what diameter tubing was used? > Anything else I should know before leaping in and just making the >thing? Enquiring minds want to know! I made such a chiller out of 25 ft. of 3/8 od copper last summer because during the summer my tap water is 80 degrees F making the counterflow or immersion in kettle type less attractive. It works great, chilling 5 gallons of boiling wort down to 60-70 degrees F in 15 to 20 minutes. When you factor in the latent heat needed to melt the ice you will find that equal amounts of 10 deg F ice and 212 degree boiling water will come to equilibrium at about 52 degrees F. So as a rule of thumb you should use about the same amount of ice as the wort you're trying to cool. I also add about 1 or 2 gallons of cold water to the ice. You should constantly stir the ice water while the wort is passing through for the ice water and wort to more efficiently equilibriate the temperature. On the other hand since my tap water now is about 52 degrees F I have also made an immersion in kettle chiller which cools the wort to about 70 deg F in about 25 minutes. Since we don't have a water shortage in Maryland, I prefer this method because I don't have to save all that ice. Bill Szymczak Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Jan 1993 13:37:55 -0400 (EDT) From: KLIGERMAN at herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov Subject: propensity pilsner lagering Subject: Propensity Pilsner Lagering Questions >I am posting for a friend, but he made the following, and has a few questions: >Propensity Pilsner (from Papazian's NCJOHB) >Wyeast #2007 (I think it's a bavarian lager, but the # is definitely correct.) >OG: 1055 >Primary Ferment for one week at 52F. >Racked to secondary. >Secondary Ferment is currently on it's NINTH week at 40F. etc... >Still getting glugs every 60 seconds from normal 3-piece airlock. >Is this too long of a ferment? I have made this beer 3 or 4 times and it is excellent but the flavor depends on the source of honey. My advice to you is relax and have a homebrew. Your lagering is more than ample but you probably have a lot of dissolved CO2 which is slowly coming out of solution. I would raise the temp. 5 degrees/day until your beer is up to room temp. and let it either finish fermenting (doubtful) or degass a bit. Also it would be wise to take a gravity reading and/or measure the residual sugar to see if the gravity is low enough to bottle safely. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:58:03 est From: "Sadvary, Bill" <SADVARY at DICKINSON.EDU> Subject: My Shuttle Buddy My Shuttle buddy, Dan Vosel (some of you may know him) sent me a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon today for my birthday. I thought it was a rather unusual choice of brew and thus it got me wondering... The label states: This is the _ORIGINAL_ Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer. Nature's choicest products provide its prized flavor. Only the finest of hops and grains are used. Selected as America's Best Beer in 1893. A few questions: 1. Why would they specify Original? Did they have forgery problems at one time? 2. Nature's choicest products, is choicest a word? 3. Prized flavor, would anybody know the prizes awarded? ..besides a Blue Ribbon. 4. Only the finest of hops and grains. How would I attempt to duplicate such a beer? Rice would be one, right? 5. Selected as America's Best Beer. What other american beers were around available in 1893? If anyone can answer any of these I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! -Bill Skill sadvary at dickinson.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:31:59 -0500 (EST) From: Tom Rush <trush at mhc.mtholyoke.edu> Subject: Scientific American: Absinthe If anyone is interested and has access to the back issues of SA the June 1989 issue, pp 112-117, there is an article on the liqueur "Absinthe". I know this is not a forum for discussion of distillates but bear with me :-) ... it is well researched and proposes a chilling theory on the use (abuse) of various herbs particularly Artemisia absinthium the common herb, Wormwood and other herbs found in herbs gardens(mine)and many times in herbal outlets(herbalists?). I understand the herbs in absinthe are distilled *essences* but it is food for thought when someone discovers an old beer recipe some of the herbs it could require may contain some powerful compounds which invite the cautionary phrase "more is not always better". Other interesting sections touch on relationship of absinthe with Van Gogh, Degas, Manat, etc.-the "absinthe spoon" which I have seen but never knew why a spoon would have slots cut thru it. Also a sidelight on the invention of the alcoholmeter (works like a hydometer), and a 19th century still. Ironically in the bibliography of the author, Prof. Wilfred Niels Arnold specializes in yeast research but his avocation is 19th century medicine and art history. Please do not consider this as "breaking new ground" it is meant to be read and taken for face value, I am not a scientist or engineer (liberal arts and MBA). Now that I am admitted scientific layperson, would someone be kind enough to send me the method used to "wash" yeast? I would prefer a simple explanation where I don't have to put on a laboratory "white coat" :-) ... Thanks, Tom Rush Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:01:36 +0000 From: G.A.Cooper at qmw.ac.uk Subject: Florida Brewers Guy McConnell asks: > Do we have any brewers in Central Florida (Orlando, Kissimmee, St. Cloud, >Lake Buena Vista, etc.) who read the Homebrew Digest? If so, please contact >me via email. Thanks! Please talk to (email) me also. I shall be over in Florida with my family for 2 weeks at Easter - Yes, Orlando for Disney World then the Gulf coast. Otherwise advice on pubs, breweries etc. would be appreciated. Geoff PS. sorry to those who don't like these requests but the brewlist isn't ready yet. Or is it? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:35:41 CST From: lencell at unmc.edu (Lance Encell) Subject: nitrosamines in beer Just to add a little to the talk about nitrosamines, they are found in beer and wine, but as has been noted, they are found at very low levels. They are formed under acidic conditions in our stomachs by the nitrosation of ingested secondary amines by nitrite (generated from nitrate). It has been shown that vitamin C prevents nitrosation by competing with the amines for the nitrite. So everyone drink their O.J. so you get your C's. Finally, nitrosamines require metabolic activation to exert their toxic and carcinogenic effects. It just so happens that ethanol increases levels of the enzyme responsible for the activation of N-nitrosodimethylamine, the major nitrosamine found in beer. Whether increasing the metabolism by raising enzyme levels is good or bad regarding toxicity is currently being studied by a lot of people. This is great, we all need a little chemistry now and then. Enjoy. -Lance Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:18:00 +0000 From: "Kevin (K.W.) Golka" <golka at bnr.ca> Subject: Mai Bock Strike Temp and Chillers I have read a couple of recipes for Mai Bock that call for a mash temperature of 150F for 2 hours. This temperature seems too low. The Mai Bock which we made had a strike temperature closer to 156F and it turned out pretty much as expected. With a mash temperature of 150F how do you end up with the characteristic sweetness of a Bock? There was a pound or so of crystal malt in these recipes but I wouldn't have thought that this would be sufficient on its own for the style. I thought that a two hour mash at this temperature would give you Mai Dry :). Am I missing something here? On another note... I have an immersion wort chiller but a friend of mine is planning on building a counter flow chiller. Is there a FAQ with pipe diameter, length and so on? Has anyone built a counter flow chiller that looks like a coil in a big coffee can? Advantages/disadvantages over the garden hose method? Thanks for any info, Kevin Golka, 613-763-3474 These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of NT or BNR. Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:41:28 -0600 (MDT) From: MARK TARATOOT <SLNDW at CC.USU.EDU> Subject: cyser yeast Greetings. I am going to give my first cider a couple of months in the bottle and I am sure it will get better. It already seems to be improving and I am less disapointed than I was at first. In the meantime, I am in the process of starting a batch of cyser and am in need of a few comments. The basic recipie is: ~ half a gallon of snowberry honey (5-6 pounds) 4 + gallons fresh cider (mostly macintosh and delicious) 12 oz seneca granny smith apple juice concentrate (no preservatives) 3 tsp acid blend 3+ tsp yeast nutrient 10 campdon tablets O.G. = 1.082 I have several yeast varieties at my home, and I am wondering which I should use/start with/finish with/etc. I have: Pastuer Champagne (red star) Montrachet (red star) Epernay 2 (red star) Ale (williams) My last cider was made with Epernay 2 and it finished quite dry. I would like a sweeter beverage, but I don't know if the ale yeast will poop out too soon (I want to sparkle some of it). Also, I don't know if the ale yeast will ferment more vigorously and scrub some of the more subtle flavors from the must. If anyone has information on the characteristics of the first three yeasts above, I would like to hear it. When I rack this, should I increase the sugar (honey) if I go with one of the wine yeasts?? My first cider started around 1.050. What about lager yeast? What are the advantages/disadvantages in using one type of yeast and adding another at a later time (or starting with more than one type)? How about juicing some other type of apples and tossing that in at one of the rackings? I plan on pitching late tonight or more likely tomorrow morning after the majority of SO2 has been thrown off, so timely comments would be helpful. BTW... the Clinton Ale is Delicous!! Thanks for the help! -toot Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 12:25 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Nitrosamines, Dough-in >From: gjfix at utamat (George J Fix) >For the record, the highest NDMA level reported was in Bamberg Rauchbier. It contained 5-15 parts per billon, and not 5 ppm as reported in HBD. Just testing to see if you read my articles as carefully as I read yours :) > This also was the level reported in their malt. The NDMA levels of beer is typically 9-10 times lower than in the malt used. One would think that it would be many orders of magnitude lower than the malt resulting from the dilution by water. Would not the fact that this one is an exception point to the possibility that they are creating new NDMA (I bow to your term) in their brewing process? >I feel it is perfectly legitimate to raise the possibility that beer with higher than normal nitrosamine levels could be a health hazard. Nevertheless, there are many aspects of this issue I do not fully understand. For example, population data shows that Bamberg has one of the highest rates of beer consumption in Germany (no small feat!), yet its cancer and death rates are near (and in fact slightly below) the average in Germany... A dilemma indeed. (Potentially resolved by the suggestion today that, maybe it's the saurkraut) However, someone decided that NDMA is carcinogenic and without further evidence, I am not about to waive the condemnation based on one anecdotal experience. It's a bit like the CDC claiming that mosquitoes can't spread AIDS because a study done in a swampy town in Southern Florida showed no higer incidence than the population at large. >For the record, the Belgium base malts have very low NDMA levels, and in fact are lower than most US malts. Their literature claims that all their malts are indirectly kilned and the major US supplier (Bries) still uses direct fired kilns. No doubt this is what skews the data. Personally, I was delighted to find a source of indirect malt that didn't compromise overall quality and taste. The Belgian malts seem to be the best of all options. By using them I do not have to care who is right on the NDMA issue. >From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> >This is indeed what Noonan preaches. I have always wondered about the importance and significance of adding water to malt as opposed to the converse.... This is one of the "Noonanisms" that I feel is rather un- important to the overall beer quality. >Maybe I missed something somewhere.... I think what you missed was Rudebusch's reference to "doughing-in" with water at a tempeature on the order of 175 degs. Douging-in is the initial mixing of malt with water in such a way as to assure that it is thoroughly mixed BEFORE the water is raised to ANY strike temperature. It is done with a small quantity of water at or near room temperature and the result is what is described in the name, i.e. a dough or very thick paste. It is more easily accomplished by adding the water to the malt but the important point is to break up the starch balls before they are heated up as they can then form clumps that water will never penetrate. The value of all this can be debated ad nausiam but one point that should be clear is that it really can not be done with a single step infusion mash. The amount of water used to doughin, in addition to the grain itself, could never be brought to saccharification temp by adding the rest of the water, regardless of the temp. It is a concept that really only applies to kettle mashing on the stove. This also explains why brewpubs and micros do not do it. I would also caution that as micros are in a grey area economically, between large commercial brewers and home brewers, they are not necessarily the paragons of technology or quality a homebrewer wants to aspire to. They do lots of things for reasons of cost that we do not have to be concerned with. The majors can do things that seem costly but have a positive effect on the bottom line for other reasons. They also have the option of "adjusting" the bottom line by adding more water to the "beer concentrate". >From: KLIGERMAN at herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov >-nitrosodimethylamine), they are indeed potent carcinogens but their level in beer is relatively small (ave. 2 ppb) compared to such products as frankfurters (0 - 84 ppb), fish and fish products (4 - 26 ppb), cheeses (2 - 26 ppb), and various meat products (1 to 80 ppb). Interesting numbers but so are the ranges. They all have a low end below the FDA limit for beer. I don't know what the limits are for the other products but I think we all know that BIG Brother seems as interested in protecting the economy and big business as they are in protecting the consumer. Having said that, I guess I have to add, so what? Only a fool would intentionally choose to eat products with higher levels of carcinogins if given reasonable choices. In malt we have a choice. If we let the industry trample our health interests and defend them in doing it, whom have we served? If we insist on the safest product they can produce, we serve ourselves. js Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 17:57:54 PST From: tinsethg at ucs.orst.edu (Glenn Tinseth) Subject: Hop_aroma In a recent issue Darryl Richman laments: >If only there were a way to describe hop aroma with a number... Well, Darryl (choir music...) there is a way, and the good folks at O.S.U. Ag. Chem. (Gail Nickerson) and Blitz Weinhard Brewing (Earl Van Engel) have published a couple of papers on it in the Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists (Vol. 50, No. 3, 1992). The number you hoped for is called the hop aroma unit and is Rquantitatively measured as 1 nanoliter per gram of hops (1 ppm, v/w), of 22 hop oil compounds that have been reported to affect hop aroma.S The individual measurements of these 22 compounds make up the Hop Aroma Component Profile (HACP). The researchers hope that the hop aroma unit will end up being as useful as the alpha acid % is now. The 22 aroma-active compounds are divided into three groups, oxidation products of humulene and caryophyllene, floral-estery compounds, and citrus- piney compounds. The oil is obtained via steam distillation and taken apart with a gas chromatograph. What does this mean to the average homebrewer? Not a heck of a lot, unless youUve got some state of the art instrumentation hanging around the garage. I sell hops for a living and have had a *real* hard time getting anything but vague average values from the brokers. So for a specific lot of hops from a specific grower (which could be any of many), you are better off relying on your nose than making any assumptions based on the R1992S crop data. In the same issue Al (Korz) asks about his hop stats and whether anything useful can come of them. Here are some common assumptions for hop RnobilityS: AA % less than 7, alpha/(alpha+beta)=.4-.6, cohumulone <25%, myrcene content low, humulene/caryophyllene >3, farnesene may or may not be present. So you can get quite a bit from the numbers you have. I have a *lot* of other info on hops, hop analysis, Rhoppiness potentialS, yeah I went a little crazy with my copy card at the library, heck, no one else reads those beer journals but me. Give me a yell if you want more in depth hopitude. IUm on the net only on Tues and Thurs. Glenn Tinseth (The Hop Source) tinsethg at ucs.orst.edu 503-873-2879 Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1066, 01/29/93