HOMEBREW Digest #2040 Sat 18 May 1996

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]


	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor


Contents:
  Lager temps, yeast, Longshot, and pints (HuskerRed)
  Oregon Homebrew Competition Results (Mark Taratoot)
  malt grind (Rob Lauriston)
  Stripes & Plaid (Scott Abene)
  Bad Score Sheets/Judges (Fred Hardy)
  Mash pH (A. J. deLange)
  Water Analysis (usbscrhc)
  RIMS ("Michael T. Bell")
  English Taste (Jim Busch)
  immersion Chiller tube size (Mark Dimke)
  Malting and Brewing Science (Bill Giffin)
  yeast names (delbrueckii) ("Tracy Aquilla")
  Skewed rollers, again.. (Jack Schmidling)
  Wort Cooling ("Gregg Dolbec")
  Schmidling (mikehu)
  immersion wort chillers ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Hunter airstat ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Fridge thermostats (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Variety (RMoline930)
  Beer Glasses (Joseph Dargis)
  First Grain Batch (Wayne McCorkle)
  Where to go in Brussels? (Gary A. Meier)
  Foamy bottling session (Dave Mercer)
  Summary of 3 Tier First Running Return Question ("Kenneth D. Joseph")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 22:40:27 -0400 From: HuskerRed at aol.com Subject: Lager temps, yeast, Longshot, and pints I've recently bought a deep freeze a t-stat set-up for lagering. The freezer will hold five 'boys (pilsner all summer:). I've got the temperature set at 50F. I want to use it for primary and secondary fermentation. I've got two batches in it now. The first one took forever to take off and the second one did great since I racked the first one off and used the dregs for the second one. My question is, is this to cold for primary, even if I use large starters? If it is to cold, what range should I shoot for? - ----- What's anyone got to say about #2278 Czech pils and #3333 German wheat? - ----- Pete Brunelli writes > I had "Longshot" Hazelnut Ale last night and i gotta say "WOW". A friend (and future HBer) bought a 12 of Longshot. The first mouth full was, well, very different. The nuttyness and the vanilla to smooths it out. It was the only decent part of the beer (other than finishing it and getting something else). After a couple more sips, the vanilla seems to over power. After a couple of more, I was glad I hadn't bought the 12! My friend, his wife, his bother, and I all gave it a thumbs down (sorry Pete). I was wondering if anyone else has had this beer or the other two? Could you please send an e-review. - ----- Steve Gravel write > I was told that a law was passed stating that pubs in London had to > scrap their standard 20 oz. pint glasses and replace them with 22 oz. > glasses. I thought a pint was 16 oz. or are the *bloody Brit* different? - ----- I've read enough about malt mills for a while. - ----- Privet e-mail is probably more appropriate than burning up bandwidth. Lager on, Jason Henning Big Red Alchemy and Brewing Nothing makes you more tolerant of a neighbor's noisy party that being there -- Franklin P. Jones Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 19:42:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Taratoot <taratoot at PEAK.ORG> Subject: Oregon Homebrew Competition Results Someone asked about the results of the Oregon Homebrew Competition. Well, here they are... Thanks to all who offered their time and expertise as a judge, entered beer or mead in the competition, donated time or prizes for the competition and raffle, or just came to enjoy the festive atmosphere. Special thanks to the following for making this festival such a success: Advanced Brewing Scientific, Aycock Cutlery, Avatar Brewing, Brewing Techniques Magazine, Bridgeport Brewing, Chintimini (The Band!), Deschutes Brewery, F.H. Steinbart, Fresh Hops, Full Sail Brewing, Grain Millers, Hair of the Dog Brewing, Hart Brewing, Homebrew Heaven, The Homebrew Shop, Home Fermenter Center, Nicols Garden Nursery, Old World Deli, Oregon State University Food Science and Technology Department, Oregon Trader Brewery, Oregon Trail Brewery, Portland Brewing, Red Hook, Rogue Brewing, Shop and Go, Steelhead Brewery, Willamette Street Homebrewing, Wyeast. The results from the competition have been compiled. BEST OF SHOW was taken by a Honey Basil Ale brewed by William and Patty Pettit of Eugene, Oregon. Congratulations! The top three entries in each category follow. Barley Wine 1 Scott Sanders 2 Ron Hall 3 Stefen Webb & Kathleen Fritton Belgian, French Ales (excluding white and lambic) 1 Bob McCracken 2 Thomas N. Thompson 2 Kenton Cruzan 3 Steve Dempsey Belgian White, Lambic 1 Martin Wilde 2 Douglas Faynor 3 Matthew Lafoon Brown Ale 1 Herky Gottfried 2 Ingmar Saul 2 Mel Greiser 3 Lee Smith English Pale Ale 1 Ted Manahan 2 Nick Bruels 3 Steve Dempsey American Ale, California Common 1 Curt Hausam 2 Guy Harrelson 3 Curt Hausam Scottish Ale 1 Kenton Cruzan 2 John E. Rieks 3 Dean Bautz Porter 1 Adan O'Conner 2 Steve Mueller 3 Mark Norbury Strong Ale 1 Robert Wolff 2 Russ Kazmierczak Stout 1 Pat Mahony 2 Walt Hammond 3 Pat Heveron Helles, Traditional Bock 1 John Sterner 2 Ron Hall 3 Bob Allen Dopplebock 1 Kevin R. Kane 2 Hoppers of the Holy Ale Club 3 Rob Radtke Light and Dark Lager 1 John E. Rieks 2 Mark Norbury 3 Mark Norbury Pilsener 1 Robert Wolff 2 Frank J. Berry 3 Ted Pilkons Vianna/Oktoberfest/Marzen 1 Mark Norbury 2 Matthew Lafoon 3 Dan Ritter German Ale 1 Mark Norbury 2 John Sterner 3 Lee Smith Fruit Beer 1 Ron Thomas 2 Douglas Faynor 3 David Muhl and Jacqueline Boger Herb Beer 1 William, Patty Pettit 2 Cliff Rice 3 Herky Gottfried Specialty 1 Ken Cobb 2 Kenton Cruzan 3 Kenton Cruzan Smoked Beer 1 Ron Hall 2 Steve Dempsey 3 Stefen Webb & Kathleen Fritton German Wheat 1 Randy Reid 2 Rob Radtke 3 Frank J. Berry Mead 1 Lonnie Dvorak 2 Bob Allen 3 Steve Dempsey - -- Mark Taratoot "...though my problems are meaningless, taratoot at peak.org that don't make them go away." -Neil Young Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 20:53 PDT From: robtrish at mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston) Subject: malt grind Caution: I like my Corona -- the mill, not the beer! Last summer when Nir Navot asked about the meaning of malt analyses, I posted a reply mentioning the fine/coarse difference. The current discussion about malt mills seems an appropriate opportunity to follow-up on something I was wondering concerning malt grind. I'm in the process of re-assessing what I thought I knew about brewing because there must be mutant factoids that need purging. This is what I wrote about the F/C difference: Coarse/Fine difference % 0.10 ??? Is this a typo? Perhaps 2.10? The changes which take place during malting are collectively called modification and include the breakdown of a protein matrix which contains many of the materials we're after such as starch. This test is done by comparing the extract of a mash conducted on a finely ground malt (5% remaining above a #30 screen, if I recall) with the extract from a coarse grind (75% above). If the malt has has been well modified, the matrix is broken down enough that you get pretty much the same extract regardless of how the malt is ground. OTOH, with less modified malt, the mechanical breakdown of the malt has more impact on increasing extract. Values range from around 1.5 - 1.7 for a well modified malt, up to 2.5 for a less modified malt. All the other tests are done on the fine grind sample, so your fine extract is 80.1 If the difference is really 2.1, then the coarse grind gave an extract of 78.0 That difference corresponds roughly to a difference of 0.2'Plato in the respective worts, say 8.85'P and 8.65'P. Since a tenth in the F/C results from a difference in gravity of 0.01'Plato or 0.00004 in specific gravity, you can see that the difference in extract is quite small. The moral is that the exact composition of your grind affects extract efficiency primarily in how effectively you can lauter it. That's another thread. You should see the hydrometer you use. The stem is about an eight of an inch in diameter and quite delicate. Each hydrometer only covers a range of one degree Plato on a six inch scale! _______ It's that other thread I'd like to follow up now -- that the exact composition of your grind affects extract efficiency primarily in how effectively you can lauter it. Now the lab analysis is quite different from normal brewing. After the mash sequence, the mash (50 g of malt with water) is brought up to exactly 450 g and then is filtered through a paper filter, and the gravity of the result is measured. Nevertheless, since the grinds are very fine and very coarse, it seems that it should be a good indicator of the importance of the grind on the amount of extract. Am I making a big goof here? So, the effectiveness of the lauter. The lucky ones out there will have access to Charlie Scandrett's lautering FAQ, but I don't. The basics are removing the liquid you mash with (first wort) and then rinsing out remaining wort (sparging). My two cents worth are that I favour a very thin mash so that the first wort is of a greater volume and lower gravity, meaning that sparging is less demanding. I counteract the temperature sensitivity by using a step mash with slowish boosts. Isn't temperature and pH towards the end of sparging far more important for grain astringency than malt grind? I use a Corona mill, now motorized, and I am satisfied with its performance. Perhaps I'm just one of the luck ones who know how to adjust it. I've also used malt ground at the local brewery with a four roller mill, and I didn't notice that this grind gave better results. Perhaps I'm just too thick to notice the difference? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- BTW, when I read AI, I always think A.I., like artificial intelligence. Artificial? Perhaps he is an adjunct professor? Jack thought his mill got a bad review in a magazine because he didn't advertise in it. Naw... but perhaps they use blow-off tubes. Regarding Gambrinus Malt, familiarity breeds contempt and I live next door. - -- Rob Lauriston in Vernon, B.C. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:00:08 -0500 From: Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com> Subject: Stripes & Plaid I can't believe my luck.... I finished up brewing a most excellent American Pale Ale tonight and figured I would sit down while the chilled wort settled for a moment before I added the yeast and watch some fights. I was also watching the Redwing/Blues game. Well the game went into overtime and the Wings won (go ahead and gloat Babcock). So I switched the channel to Letterman only to see some stupid skit where dave has escaped from prison with that little evil garden Gnome Paul Shaeffer (sp?). Well it turns out Shaeffer is wearing a kilt, plaid, pretending to be Scottish and has a set of Bagpipes... Please tell me that my beer is not ruined.... Scott "Damn that T.V." Abene #################################################### # ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT # # Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com> # # http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat # # (Skotrats Official Homebrew "Beer Slut" Webpage) # # OR # # http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat/Brew-Rat-Chat/ # # (Skotrats Brew-Rat-Chat Homebrew Chat System) # # "Get off your dead ass and brew" # #################################################### Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:16:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net> Subject: Bad Score Sheets/Judges If anyone missed Al's comment on the work he put in on BOSS, let me add that the effort expended on the Capitol District Open is somewhat comparable. Getting 500+ score sheets sorted, certificates printed, judge reports done, winners posted on various newsgroups, ribbons sorted, envelopes stuffed and mailed is a rather large task. By Friday after the Saturday competition I begin getting calls from entrants who haven't received their score sheets. If the judges are waiting for me to review and comment on their score sheets, they have a very long wait. I also second Al's comment that if entrants would only let us know when they are unhappy with their score sheets, we certainly would at least pass it on to the judge(s). I rarely hear from an entrant. Maybe they figure it's just beer. BTW, to encourage feedback, this year my name, address and email are printed at the bottom on every score sheet along with an invitation to entrants to contact me if they have a problem with the scores received. Someday, like the Maytag repair guy, I might get a call. Cheers, Fred ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | <Fred Hardy> happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net ============================================================================== Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:33:33 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Mash pH I thought it was very interesting that Steve Zabarnick's reported RO mash pH of 5.3 using "high kilned" grains was consistent with Fred Waltman's data for all but the pale Gambrinus malts (5.4). I guess I'll revise my thinking about the necessity for carbonate except where the really acid stuff (patent) is used. Actually, I guess I'll continue to monitor mash pH as I go! A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 09:01:37 EDT From: usbscrhc at ibmmail.com Subject: Water Analysis The following is my local water analysis. Can chemists/experts help decipher it??? I'm an extract & specialty grain brewer...but any relevant all-grain info would also be welcome. Thanks!All units are mg/L (ppm?) except when noted Alkalinity 54 Bicarbonates 66 Total Organic Carbon 1.47 Chloride 28 Total Trihalomethanes 44 (micrograms/L) Hardness, EDTA 91 pH 8 Silica 6.4 Sulfate 16 Calcium 23 Magnesium 6.8 Potassium 2.3 Sodium 9.9 Zinc .012 Howard - usbscrhc at ibmmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:33:57 -0500 From: "Michael T. Bell" <mikeb at flash.net> Subject: RIMS Howdy, I'm sure this has been covered, but we all like to beat dead horses here. I am looking for an affordable pump for a RIMS I am building this summer. The one compatible one I found was in the Grainger(sp?) catalog. It listed for ~$150, was rated for only180F, and suggested that it only be used intermitedly. These are 3 undesirable qualities as for as I'm concerned. I'm going to be using 1 pump for recirc and transfering. Along with pump names, I would love to know where to find this product in the yellow pages. On another note, I am considering welding my SS female/female ball valves directly into my kegs, replacing the need for 1 coupling and 2 nipples per keg. Good or bad idea? -mtb beer is good food Michael T. Bell E- mail: mikeb at flash.net Home: 817.468.8849 Fax: 817.468.7121 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:37:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: English Taste Steve writes: <On another topic, I've detected a distinctive flavor in several British ales <I've tasted recently, namely Fullers Olde Winter Ale and Shepherd Neame's <Bishop's Finger Kentish Ale. Its most likely diacetyl. Diacetyl at or slightly above threshold ( ~.1 mg/L) is a beneficial component of many ales and ales of the UK in particular. In small amounts it has a distinctive butter flavor/ aroma but in excessive levels becomes undesirable. Both Fullers and SN are excellent examples of UK brewing and often have a distinctive diacetyl component. Rob writes about dry hopping: <I think that the infection was probably there in primary, but that's just an <intuitive reaction. You state that it still smelled good in primary, but by <the time you went to secondary, your ph should have dropped enough to limit <the beasties, and the ETOH levels should also be inhibitory. <I certainly wouldn't point the finger at dry-hopping, although it is <possible. Bacteria and all kinds of "bugs" can and are present on raw hops. If you culture some hops on different media you can get all kinds of growth that one would not want in beer. Rob is perfectly correct in pointing out that in green beer it is almost impossible to get growth out of the bugs on the hops. It can happen but I agree completely with Rob about suspecting the original culture first. <Ken Joseph's recirc question on his 3 Tier> <<Just pour it in gently. This is what I do too. When I first built my brewery I made this sprinkler device to shower the sparge water gently. All this did was add another gadget to hook up and there was a large temp loss by using this. I now just hang the hot water hose off my hot water heater and let it gently splash on the grain bed, moving the position every 10 mins or so during a 60-75 min lauter. I do vorlauf (recirc) for 10 -15 mins before diverting clear wort to the kettle and during the vorlauf I also gently pour the wort onto the grains. If your bed is deep enough it should not disturb the grains too much. Good brewing, Jim Busch Colesville, Md Nothing left to do but ;-} ;-} ;-} -R. Hunter Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 07:48:36 -0000 From: Mark Dimke <dimke at montana.campus.mci.net> Subject: immersion Chiller tube size IN HBD 2039 Greg Writes >I am going to build an immersion chiller, and would like to get your = ideas >(or hard data if you have it) regarding the best size of copper tubing = to >use (apologies if this is a topic that has been beaten to death at an = earlier >time). >The 3/8" O.D. and 1/2" O.D. tubing seem to be popular choices. I'm = considering >the narrower 1/4" O.D. tubing because the surface-to-volume ratio is = greater >for narrower tubing than it is for wider tubing (for a given volume of = water). >My thinking is that in the narrower tubing more of the water will come = into >contact with the hot copper surface, and more heat will be transferred = to the >water. =20 My brewing partners and I have been using a 1/4 copper wort immersion = chiller for about 10 or so batches now. It works OK but we want to = build a bigger ID one. The reason being after you coil the tube the = resistance to flow is so grate that keeping the in tube on is a pain. = Several cable ties later we can keep it on but, we have to keep the flow = turned way down. Works OK, and saves water ( In Montana who cares?) but = a bigger ID tube would work better due to the ability to push more water = threw. When we start the outflow water is so hot you could burn = yourself, it would definitely be more efficient if I could shove more = water threw. Approximately 190 degrees. =20 I would put a plug in for a small coil in the design of a immersion = chiller. Ours is about 2.5 inches in diameter and looks like a wand. = When we chill the wort we stir with the chiller, and I can tell you from = experience this is important. When we first start as I stated you could = burn yourself on the out flow, but only when stirring if you stop the = out flow water will drop at least 40 degrees in seconds. You have to = stay in contact with the hot wort. What I am trying to get at here is = that for an immersion chiller it is much more efficient to stir using = the chiller than to let the thing sit in the bottom and this is most = easily accomplished using something that looks like a wand. We do 10 = gallon batches and using this chiller, ( which remember I don't like due = to its inefficiency relative to what it could be.) and placing the boil = pot in a tub full of cold water with a hose running in it, ( we brew = outside) we chill the wort in 7-12 minuets all the way down to 75 = degrees. Back when we did 5 gallon batches I seem to remember we did it = in 5-7 minutes. ( I must admit we get a helping hand from the city = water 34-36 degrees in the winter and only about 40-45 in the dead of = summer.) Brew on Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:11:50 -0500 From: Bill Giffin <billg at maine.com> Subject: Malting and Brewing Science Top of the morning to ye all, Jack S said: > >On the other side of this issue... let's keep in mind that M&BS is >intended for and aimed at large commercial brewers. I can not say >often enough or with enough emphasis that what works for large >scale brewers does not necessarily apply to homebrew sized batches. Brewing is brewing and knowledge will set you free. Perhaps we can not afford the elaborate equipment that the large brewers can afford but with the knowledge some times we can compensate for the lack of equipment. Many folks are happy with the MaltMill and 28-30 pppg. I would much rather have a yeild of 31-35 pppg. That last 10 per cent is where a lot of the flavor resides. Aside from better flavor. I paid for the malt and I will get everything I can out of it. For doubting Tracy. That was the crush I got with my poor old beat up, terrrible Corona. When I bought it, it was the only mill available in Maine to the homebrewer. I purchased the best tool I could and learned how to use it. I broke out the Phil's Mill that I have had for a couple of years but hadn't bothered to set up as I saw no real need to. Cranking the mill by hand turned me off and I nearly junked it. But hooked up to a 1/2" drill turning at 500 rpm +- the mill provided a very exceptable crush. I brewed two batches of beer yesterday. One with Hugh Baird malt and the other with Durst Pils. Yeild was slightly better then with the Corona. Laugtering was about the same. We will have to wait to see if the beer is any better. I have been impressed with the design of the Phil's Mill because of the curved strick plate of the mill approximated the nip of a much larger roller mill. The only experience I have had with the JSP MaltMill was with a fixed and early mill that allowed a number of whole corns to pass through the mill. I was not impressed enough to give up the poor old Corona. To Chuck Volle, your concrete mill is what this is about. I plan to try something simular in the future. If you can't afford to buy it, build the rascal. May even be better then what you could have purchased! May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you are dead, Bill Bill Giffin 61 Pleasant St. Richmond, ME 04357 (207)-737-2015 All you need is a few good friends and plenty to drink because thirst is a terrible thing! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 11:52:51 CDT From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu> Subject: yeast names (delbrueckii) In Digest #2039: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> wrote: >My search of the online ATCC catalog shows no S.Delbrueckii (or Delbruckii) >strain. Only the enigmatic ... > Saccharomyces cerevisiae > ATCC 96505 > J.M. Birmingham HB-23. William's liquid brewers' yeast > for Delbruckii wheat, San Leandro, CA. > >There were in excess of a dozen Lactobacillus delbrueckii strains, and >in a private email Spencer Thomas notes ... > >>At least one yeast that was previously considered S. delbrueckii is now in >>Torulaspora, according to the ATCC on-line catalog. > >I'd really like to be convinced that this was a reclassification and >not an entirely different species that Hans put his name on. >Confusing Torulaspora for an S.Cerevisiae sound odd to me. It's unlikely too. Based on cellular morphology using light microscopy, the Wyeast 3068 (Weihenstephan) strain appears to be a Saccharomyces species. >In any case there's apparently no S.Delbrueckii anymore if there ever >really was such a classification. Extinction at the stroke of a pen. I imagine the colloquial use of scientific names has resulted in this confusion. I doubt there ever really WAS a Saccharomyces delbrueckii species, but perhaps S. cerevisiae (var. delbrueckii)? Such a designation would probably be more accurate. While the Weihenstephan weizen strain is obviously quite distinct (in terms of biochemistry and physiology) from other more typical S. cerevisiae strains, I don't believe it was ever 'officially' considered to be a distinct species. >Does anyone know of a reference to this species that didn't come from >Wyeast literature? I've never found one and I've been looking for quite a while now. >I understand that S.uvarum or carlbergensis are also misnomers in light of >modern classification, but that's another story. Well that's another story I'd like to get into (rant mode on). One of the problems with taxonomy is that by the time the 'current' or "modern" classifications actually appear in print, they're usually already outdated. There's also frequently heated debate between the 'lumpers' and the 'splitters'. Typically, taxonomists prefer to be able to identify a species by morphological characteristics, so that it can be keyed and classified simply by looking closely at a single specimen. However, in practice this often becomes a problem, particularly with microflora like yeasts (viral taxonomy is even worse). Historically, the lumpers have prevailed, in the case of yeasts. I think this is mostly due to the fact that taxonomists are classically trained in organismal and cellular morphology and they typically use these gross characteristics to make conclusions about phylogenetic relationships. However, biochemists and geneticists working with yeast (and brewers) generally recognize the fact that such taxonomic schemes are entirely inadequate, as many 'strains' are very clearly biochemically, physiologically, or genetically distinct, even though they might all 'look' the same. From a practical standpoint, those working with yeasts (as opposed to just grouping and naming them) need a means of distinguishing between the various physiologically distinct strains, hence brewers have tended to shun the lumper-taxonomists who would call them all S. cerevisiae. That's probably where the 'unofficial' name S. delbrueckii originated, with brewers, not the taxonomists. Recently (over the last several years) some scientists have challenged several major taxa, claiming that basing phylogenetic relationships on morphological characteristics can be quite inaccurate, particularly in cases of convergent evolution. This new breed of taxonomist is now using molecular data to determine evolutionary relationships, such as DNA, RNA, and protein sequences. Based on molecular data it has recently been suggested that many of the currently accepted taxa are inaccurate. For example, Dan Grauer et. al. have found that rabbits are actually more closely related to kangaroos and dolphins than they are to rats, and hence it is incorrect to lump Lagomorpa into Rodentia. Presumably, once such molecular data are taken into closer consideration, entirely new phylogenetic trees will be developed which are quite different from current classifications based on morphological characteristics. This applies to yeasts as well. Although it's generally held that both S. cerevisiae and S. uvarum are the same species, based on recent genetic evidence this does not appear to be the case, and these two species appear to have diverged some time ago (we're talking geological time scales here). In particular, analysis of the DNA reassociation kinetics of 24 different wine and beer-associated Saccharomyces strains confirms the presence of at least three distinct species. Lager yeast (S. uvarum) contains two different genomes, one derived from S. cerevisiae and the other similar to the genomes of S. bayanus and S. monacensis. Furthermore, S. cerevisiae and S. bayanus strains have only 22% of their genomes in common. Hence, it would appear that S. uvarum diverged from S. cerevisiae very long ago, presumably by hybridizing with S. bayanus or S. monacensis, and is approximately 50% divergent from S. cerevisiae at the DNA level. Ain't taxonomy fun now! Sorry about the long rant, but you know how to page down, right? Also, I'm sorry I couldn't offer any help to you Steve, but I prefer to keep lactobacilli out of my beer, so I won't offer any advice in regard to adding it to your beer. Good luck. Tracy (aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:05:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Jack Schmidling <arf at maxx.mc.net> Subject: Skewed rollers, again.. >From: merino at cynergy.com.au (Charlie Scandrett) >Size *is* important, but diameter, not length! You made a point for the advantage of a larger roller and MMII has rollers 3" in diameter. However, to dismiss length as unimportant is absurd. Just take it to any extreme and you will get half the point and when you understand the "skewed rollers business" you will get the other. >There is no doubt that Jack Schmidling is a fine intuitive engineer and brewer, but good humour and reason are *sometimes* missing from his arguments? It's always there. Just seems that some folks have a hard time finding it when looking for something else. Turn up the gain on your humor detector. > I am interested in a scientific explanation of the non-parallel roller "feature", crushing some grains more lightly than others makes little sense to me? Well, the key to the mystery lies in that obscure art of statistics. What the sieve tests do is provide a measure of the statistical distribution of particle size. It does not measure how hard an individual grain is squeezed. As long as all the grains are squeezed hard enough to break the endosperm loose, the only effect of squeezing some of them harder is to incrase the quantity of grist toward the finer end of the distrubution. So if we start with a mill that squeezes the grain well enough to satisfy thousands of happy homebrewers, viz., the Pre-adjusted MM, and then tighten up one end of the spacing to about the same as the closest spacing on a multi-stage mill, guess what happens? The overall distrubution starts to look like it went through a multi-stage roller mill. Run it through again or make the rollers longer and it gets even closer. BUT! Let me again point out that just because Megabrewers need this sort of grist, there is no reason to assume that homebrewers do. The many happy fixed MM users would indicate just the opposite. >S, your provacative signature line suggests that you are looking for much more than beer in the HBD? If you held your tongue for 24 hrs, you would realize that the sig line is only two lines and what you referred to was a one-time piece of... guess what? HUMOR!!! :) :) :) It showed up twice because my posting was so long I had to send it in two pieces and the HUMOR didn't get edited out of the second half. >From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson at beta.tricity.wsu.edu> >I do have one suggestion for Jack to incorporate into his mill if he already hasn't. The roller assembly rests on a board that makes the seal on the bucket referred to above. The hole cut in this board is slightly smaller than the walls of the roller assembly. This doesn't affect the crush. But afterwards when I clean the rollers with a brush, this lip traps malt flour. I have to work it back and forth to get it off. I probably don't get it as clean as I should. If it were flush, the flour would fall out as I took it off the rollers. I don't beleive this change would affect the operation or strength of the mill in a material way. You would be surprised how much extra strength that little extra "meat" provides. Keep in mind a long slot going to within an inch of the edge, with a mounting hole in that limited space and particle board to boot. It's the weakest link in the chain and about the only thing that ever gets broken on the MM but of course is cover by the LIFETIME warranty. >From: "Craig Rode" <craig.rode at sdrc.com> >I make great beer, but it bugs me. I have noticed that when I used 50% Schrier 2 row and 50% DWC, my yield goes closer to 27. So..Could the Schrier be stale.... I think this is a good example of why I keep knock the use of percent extract. The bottom line is the gravity/volume produced from a given amount of malt and not someone's guess at the amount of sugar in a particular malt. I could never get my yields above 28 till I switched to DWC Pils malt. "It's the malt.. stupid." Must I add a smiley? I refuse. Now obvioiusly all these big time maltsters would go out of business if they tried selling this stuff to the mega brewers so we can only reach one conclusion. They pawn off the reject stuff on the homebrew community. I say that with more than a shot in the dark. Back when I was debugging the MM, I had problems with the same malt I started the design with. When I discussed it with the maltster he confessed that this lot did not meet their spec for plumpness (too big) but they didn't think homebrewers would care. >From: RMoline930 at aol.com >I'm not surprised that your sparge stuck, with all that cracked corn! Your suggestion that you may have cracked the corn too finely seems right on the money to me. If I dumped that much 'creamed corn' in a mash, I would expect the same result. I missed the original article but it is my experience that corn meal works as well as cracked corn if the rest of the process is compatible. The nice thing about a web page is that I do not have to bore uninterested folks with re-runs. There is an article on corn beer in the Application Notes section of our web. js *********************** Visit our Web page for product flyers, applications info and other totally unbiased opinions from the World's Greatest Brewer. http://dezines.com/ at your.service/jsp/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:52:15 EST5EDT From: "Gregg Dolbec" <GREGG at UMS1.Lan.McGill.CA> Subject: Wort Cooling Brew Masters, I 've brewed only a few batches of beer but now I have conflicting advice on cooling the wort prior to pitching yeast. I don't have a chiller yet. C. Papazian (Beginners guide to HB..) says beginners can add the Hot wort to the cold water in primary, but John J. Palmer (http:/realbeer.com/spencer/howtobrew1st.html/ ) says no way! John says to cool the wort in your sink with ice surrounding the kettle. So what is the best way for a beginner brewer to chill? Will Charlie's easier method cause offtastes? Thanks, Gregg at ums1.lan.mcgill.ca Montreal Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 10:02:53 PDT From: mikehu at lmc.com Subject: Schmidling Jack, why don't you do us all a favor and take your childish arguments, petty bullshit, and self-serving endorsements into some other forum (like private e-mail). I for one am tired of seeing this crap everyday, especially since it serves no purpose except for you to banter on and on about your "by-products". Your sensitivity to what others say about these "by-products" indicates to me a lack of confidence on your part as to their worth and/or usefulness. > totally unbiased opinions from the World's Greatest Brewer. mh Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu> Subject: immersion wort chillers Gregory King <GKING at ARSERRC.Gov> writes: >The 3/8" O.D. and 1/2" O.D. tubing seem to be popular choices. I'm considering >the narrower 1/4" O.D. tubing because the surface-to-volume ratio is greater >for narrower tubing than it is for wider tubing (for a given volume of water). >My thinking is that in the narrower tubing more of the water will come into >contact with the hot copper surface, and more heat will be transferred to the >water. > >Of course theory is one thing, and reality is sometimes another thing. How do >your real-life experiences correspond with this idea? > The theory is right. Keep in mind that two other variables are involved: the length of the chiller and the flow rate of the water. You could use the thinner tubing and a slower flow rate and get the same water volume moving as in the thicker tubing chiller. FWIW, I used all 50 feet of 3/8" Cu and made an inner coil (by using a champagne bottle to wrap around) and an outer coil (used a potted plant). It works well, but I still need to get a motorized stirrer to use while chilling to be most efficient. - Bryan grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, TN Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu> Subject: Hunter airstat Scott Kaczorowski <kacz at aisf.com> writes: > I have a Hunter Airstat (sorry I dont have the model #) that I would > like to use to control the temperature of my keg refrigerator so that > I can do some lagering. The way that this thing works is [deleted] > The question I have is whether or not the freezer section will remain > at frozen temperatures or will the Airstat cause the compressor to cut > out too frequently to keep it cold? Use a thermometer and find out. Or use a cup of water. On my fridge, the freezer stops freezing when you set the fridge for over about 48 F. You can probably tweak the settings to get a bit higher; my fridge is old. This is a bit of a drag when you try to use the freezer as a second freezer, or even to store hops. > Is there some way to have the > Airstat control only the temperature of the refrigerator section? Not that I know of. I find this airstat does a great job (if you don't need the freezer). The range is 40F to around 80. Below 40, you can use the fridge controls to get the 32-38 range. Unfortunately, it has been said that this model is discontinued. - Bryan grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, TN Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 13:15:02 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: Fridge thermostats >From: Scott Kaczorowski <kacz at aisf.com> >Subject: Affect of Hunter Airstat on freezer question > The question I have is whether or not the freezer section will remain > at frozen temperatures or will the Airstat cause the compressor to cut > out too frequently to keep it cold? Is there some way to have the > Airstat control only the temperature of the refrigerator section? I am > relatively handy and am not afraid of doing some adaptation of the > controller and/or refrigerator if its called for. This brings to mind a thought about the whole concept of temperature control in a refrigerator/freezer. I had always considered the external thermostat compressor control as the standard homebrewer's method. But as I read Scott's post it came to me, why not use an entirely different system. Continue using the normal fridge control and thermostat. Here's the big ASSumption: the temperature sensor is in the freezer section and the refrigerator section is kept cool by colder air migrating in from the freezer. I do think that is the way things work. Now why not use a method where the air migration is regulated to the refrigerator section to control the temperature. This would allow full use of the freezer as normal. Some sort of mechanical vane could be used to regulate the air flow. This could be done with a bimetal spiral as in a thermostat, or it could be done electrically using some sort of solenoid actuator. Some refrigerator compartments may not actually be able to get down to below about 38 degrees F. or so. I guess it is part of the design (would not want people freezing and breaking the mayonaise jars and suing now would we). So maybee what is needed is a way to INCREASE the air migration into the refrigerator section. This is really just an idea post. How about this, a small 12 volt fan or two fans setup back to back to push or pull air depending on the temperature wanted? First time I get my hands on a spare fridge I hope to try this. Ronald J. La Borde "If the only tool you have is a hammer, Metairie, LA you tend to see every problem as a nail." Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:04:55 -0400 From: RMoline930 at aol.com Subject: Variety <Brewing Matilda> Thank you! Boy, you guys sure know how to load up the old mailbox! Ever mind ful of being cruel or just plain tacky, I had wanted to cancel it, until I had run it by a few folks for comment. But what the hell, it wouldn't have been the first time I did something stupid! I just hope Jack takes it well, in the spirit in which it was intended, completely lacking in spite. Just for FUN, you know! While I find him somewhat amusing in his apparent self righteousness, I think the HBD would be missing something without him. He certainly adds a spark and a passion to the discussion, and in a world of ever increasing blandness, a character like Jack is welcome. Truly, I have learned a bunch from him! But, the point is I understand why some folks get turned off. <Ron Thomson> asks about Rye.I use pre-gelatinized flakes from Briess in a mash of 25 % DWC wheat, 12.5 % rye flakes, the rest Schreier 2row. It makes a crisp clean pilsner like beer. I was really pleased with it. <Matt Apple> asks about keg cleaning and sanitizing with iodophor. My practice is to flush with 160 F caustic at 2 % causticity, drain, rinse with h2o, bung with a iodophor soaked wooden bung, pressurize to 10psi co2, vent, pressurize, vent, pressurize, then store in the cold room until time to fill, via counterpressure. I used to do an Iodophor rinse, but was convinced this was un-necessary by Steve Bradt of Free State Brewing. The theory is that not much can grow in a high co2, cold environment, and to date there have been no prob's. <Paul Brian>on flour/ HSA./Boilng Grain. Yes, HSA can be induced during recirc and sparge, but until you get a system like the excellent one enjoyed by our friends at Victory Brewing, there ain't a hell of a lot you can do about it. BTW, get a copy of the brewery info sheet from Victory, most enlightening! Like they point out, long term stability is the benefit to HSA elimination. You won't be able to tell the difference anyway, unless you just go out of your way to induce it.RDWHAHB! Every mill ever made produces some flour. RDWHAHB! Try steeping your specialty grain at 145 F for an hour rather than boiling it. You will taste the difference here. <Chris G> on grain crush.This is currently being discussed online. Go back through the past few copies and you will see excellent info! <Rob Ray> asks about non metallic scrubbers on kegs. Go for it,or use a stainless scourer. Just don't use any ferous metals to scrub with. Excellent post recently from HBD's resident metallurgist John Palmer in Issue 2033. <Steve Adams> on EKG FWH. I did it on one IPA, 1 Lb pellets, and boosted the bejesus out of the rest of the hop bill. I loved the results, but without doing it one variable at a time, I couldn't give you specific info. But I am continuing to go that way. <Paul Feine> on the aging process. I prefer to age my beers for at least 3 weeks at 38 F.I find that I'm a bit of a pariah amongst my fellow brewers in this region, in that they want the beer out fast, as fresh as possible. I just prefer what I perceive to be a 'softening' of the flavor. More rounded, smoother. Just a personal preference. Hop notes seem softer. Hail to Brewers! Rob Moline Little Apple Brewing Company Manhattan, Kansas Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 15:21:52 -0500 From: Joseph Dargis <jddretlt at eclipse.net> Subject: Beer Glasses - -- [ From: Joseph Dargis * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- FWIW, I remember asking my dad what the difference was between styles of beer glasses. His reply was: the glasses which look like ice cream cones (inverted triangles) were for drinking Pilsner beer and the glasses which looked like soda fountain Coca-Cola glasses were for drinking lagers. My dad (rest his soul), being a coal miner from eastern PA, had many years experiance drinking beer at the 2 dozen bars within four blocks in our old home town - never bottled, always on tap or in a take-home galvanized pail - so I can only assume he knew from lager and pilsner glasses. IMHO, a frosted mug which perfectly fits a 12 0z homebrew is the perfect receptacle for enjoying the fruits of our labors --- my wife purchased plastic double- walled mugs with liquid inside which, when frozen, has the ability to keep the last one ounce in the mug cold for about two hours! (NOTE: I never take that long to drink a beer; that was only a test!) By the way, since this is my first post, I would like to ask if there are any brew clubs in the Plainfield New Jersey area. Keep On Brewing...........Joe Dargis..........brewing for five months and loving it! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 13:58:09 -0600 From: wmccorkl at jefferson.NMSU.Edu (Wayne McCorkle) Subject: First Grain Batch This weekend I plan to do my first all grain batch. Many thanks to all who offered help on removing labels from my buckets for the Zappap lauter tun. I think I have the procedure down except for one thing. I understand that I must always keep the water level above the grain in the latuer tun to avoid a stuck sparge. But, I need to use a set amount of water to sprage, say 3 gallons, just for a good round number. Seems that when I get near the end of the 3 gallons, the water level MUST drop below the level of the grain. Am I missing something here? Also, the recipe calls for a quantity of crystal malt. In extract brewing, the crystal malt is typically steeped as the wort is brought to a boil. Do I do the same here, or am I supposed to use the crystal malt in the mash as well. Thanks for the help! R. Wayne McCorkle Mechanical Engineering Department New Mexico State University Voice: 505-646-5733 Fax: 505-646-6111 rmccorkl at nmsu.edu http://essex.nmsu.edu/~rmccorkl/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:27:22 -0500 From: gameier at fmc.com (Gary A. Meier) Subject: Where to go in Brussels? A fellow beer-nut is going to be spending a few days in Brussels, Belgium later this month. He would like information on what must-see breweries and/or beer bars are in the city or easily accessible by public transportation. Please e-mail responses directly to me and I'll compile them. If anyone else wants a copy of the results, let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy. Thanks. Gary ************************************************************************** Gary Meier, Ph.D. Senior Research Computational Chemist FMC Corporation Agricultural Products Group phone: (609) 951-3448 Box 8 fax: (609) 951-3835 Princeton, NJ 08543 email: gameier at fmc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:09:10 -0700 From: Dave Mercer <dmercer at path.org> Subject: Foamy bottling session The other day I bottled a five gallon batch of honey wheat beer and had a problem I haven't faced before: foam. There was a lot of it. This beer sat for almost two weeks in a primary and two weeks in a secondary (both glass). There was no activity in the airlock, and the gravity had stopped dropping. But it was foamy when I bottled it - not what I would call gushing, but enough that, for the first case of bottles in particular, I couldn't fill them all the way at first and had to go back later and top them off. I've never had this happen before. Is this normal, or at least common, with wheat beer? Nothing else is special about the beer (except that I made it for my wife): 3 1/2 # Pale malt 3 1/2 # Wheat malt A pound total of Belgian pils and 40L crystal 1 1/2 # honey Hallertauer hops 2-step infusion 1056 yeast 500L starter Fermented at 66F O.G. 1.052 F.G. 1.014 The only things I can think might cause this are a) some effect of wheat on carbonation or fermentation, or b) infection. It tasted fine at bottling, if a little bland (but then, my pleasure zone starts at 60 IBUs. My wife, on the other hand, is NOT a hop-head.) So whaddayathink? Is my beer ruined? Should I throw it out? [joke] Return to table of contents
Date: 17 May 96 17:58:31 EDT From: "Kenneth D. Joseph" <74651.305 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Summary of 3 Tier First Running Return Question Thank you everyone for the helpful responses to my question regarding gravity breweries and the method to best recirculate first runnings. The consensus was first to of course keep the liquor level at least 1" - 2" above the mash level, then to use a vessel that can be floated atop the liquor to pour out slowly avoiding HSA. By this token, the funnel idea was not such a good idea after all: _____ HL | \ / kettle | ___ \ / funnel |_ |__ | | _ |____|====|_|======== | b.v. "T" sparge ______| Hey this ascii art stuff is pretty fun! Gravity system brewers seem to be highly critical of pumps and RIMS systems (no lets not start the RIMS debate again). As for me, the brewery's still under construction -- will be plumbed next week, and rack will be built. To those who responded, I'd love to keep up the independent dialogue to improve all of our designs. Thanks again. kj "Ken Joseph" 74651.305 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents

[Back] Back up a level. Converted, by HBD2HTML written by K.F.L.