HOMEBREW Digest #2463 Wed 16 July 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Threedogs Lemonade ("Mark Ellis")
  Alcoholic soda drinks. (Tony Vasile)
  St. Louis Brewpubs and bars (Matthew Prahlow)
  FW: Can I save this batch??? ("Bessette, Bob")
  Lemonade, berry beer ("David R. Burley")
  Re:EKG (Paul Niebergall)
  rice hulls again (Mike Uchima)
  Carbonation/Nucleation/Flocculation (Steve Alexander)
  RE:  Sulphur dissipating when lagering (George De Piro)
  Send in the Clones.... (TheTHP)
  hangover cure (Kit Anderson)
  Concentrated Boils (Jeffrey_Tonole)
  Gravity Prediction for Multiple Runnings Beers ("Mark Prior")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 17:08:24 +1000 From: "Mark Ellis" <mellis at gribbles.com.au> Subject: Threedogs Lemonade Just a quick note. Sunday night I made up the published recipe, pitched three strains of yeast. One packet of Coopers Ale, One packet of Unnamed Ale Yeast left over from a kit, and about 100mls of Yeast Lab London Ale A03 yeast starter. By the time I had returned home from work on Monday the lid had actually blown off the top of my brew bucket and was in high kraeusen and going harder than I have ever had a wort working. I have added yeast nutrient so I shall see if this will extend fermentation. Seeya Mark Ellis mellis at gribbles.com.au Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 97 17:48:46 EST From: tonyv at syd.csa.com.au (Tony Vasile) Subject: Alcoholic soda drinks. I know this is a little of topic, however when my wife and I did the brewery tour at the Hakwes Bay Brewing Company (a part of the hugh Lion Nathan Group) in Hastings, NZ, the guide told us how these drinks are made. Basically the soda is made by diluting pure ethanol , add flavouring, carbonate and sell at ridiculous prices in bars & nightclubs. By the way the tour was most enjoyable. For $NZ 2 the guide shows you around the brewery. Don't ask him too many specific brewing questions as his knowledge only appears to be superficial. At the end of the tour you have a few quiet ones in the brewery staff recreation area. If I didn't have to dry I would have spent the afternoon driking Speight's Old Dark. A brew originally from the South Island but now made in the North Island as it doesn't travel very well. As an aside what causes a beer to not travel well? Enquiring minds would like to know. Tony Vasile Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:31:00 +0000 From: prahloma at mail.milwaukee.k12.wi.us (Matthew Prahlow) Subject: St. Louis Brewpubs and bars I am going to St. Louis in a few weeks and would like to know of any brewpubs to visit. Also, any good bars to go to for meals and good beers? Please respond to my email address. Matt Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 97 04:48:00 PDT From: "Bessette, Bob" <bob.bessette at lamrc.com> Subject: FW: Can I save this batch??? Fellow HBDers, With the onset of summer and constant yardwork I have been neglecting my homebrewing hobby. In fact, I did something that I never thought I would do. I think I left a batch for too long without bottling it. The reason I say this is that I noticed a whitish mold floating on top of my beer in my secondary. I thought that I could leave this indefinitely down my cellar and bottle when the time came. I assumed that the alcohol level would be high enough to kill anything. It only appears to be on the top of the beer and not within the beer itself. The beer was first brewed probably 2 months ago. I would have to check my records. Anyway, has anyone else out there had a similar circumstance and saved their batch. I am pretty embarrassed about this because I usually bottle within 2 weeks of the beer being in the secondary. I guess the only bright spot is that my yard looks great... Please email me at bob.bessette at lamrc.com with any suggestions/comments... It will never happen again.... Bob Bessette Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:33:42 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Lemonade, berry beer Brewsters: Eric Fouch says: >It's been about a week since I added the 5 cans lemonade concentrate, = If you are trying to ferment straight lemonade concentrate in the absence= of malt wort, I suspect you are in the same pickle as the meadsters whos= e pH falls so low during the fermentation that it finishes slowly, if ever.= = By adjusting the pH up or adding pH control buffers they are able to get= a fermentation to finish quickly. Problem is there are not enough buffers = in honey ( like there are in malt wort) to hold the pH within the region whe= re the yeast enzymes are active. Same problem should occur in a straight lemonade fermentation. If you are making a lemon flavored beer, try addin= g some malt extract to a small portion of the brew to see if the increase i= n the pH to around 4.5 and improved nutrient level give a better fermentation. = Adjusting the pH may not be a possibility with just lemonade as it is supposed to be sour. You may be making a brew you can drink on the 4th o= f July 2000! = - -------------------------------------------------------- As far as making blackberry wine ( or blackberry beer) goes, I have had lots of ultra-sweet country wine made from blackberries with too much sug= ar added and/or fermented with natural yeast which could only ferment to abo= ut 5% alcohol or so - but it can be enjoyable. However, it isn't necessary = to make this style only. = First rule is to get some wine yeast from the HB store and second unbreakable rule is to get some potassium (or sodium) metabisulfite. Add= 1/8 - 1/4 tsp of "meta" to each 5 gallons of crushed berries to prevent oxidation and prevent getting a soured/spoiled tastes to your wine. Do no= t let anti-sulfite freaks convince you not to add it. Sulfite in various forms has been added to good wines for thousands of years without trouble= and disappears during fermentation. Add whatever amount of sugar *dissolved in some of the juice* you wish to get the OG you desire. (1.1 = is a good starting point. If you want high alcohol ( >14%), sweet wine add sugar syrup incrementally until it stops fermenting) Add the *starter* o= f yeast to the crushed berries. I have used a starter made from frozen ( n= o preservatives) fruit juices, including apple. Place in a wide open container ( like a plastic wastebasket) and cover with a plastic sheet an= d rubber bands. Fermentation locks/carboys will NOT be suitable. Stir and press the berries into the must several times daily. The longer you ferme= nt on the berries, the more alcohol-soluble color and tannin you will extrac= t. As the ferment slows in about a week or so - but is still active - filt= er and press off the wine into a carboy under lock and allow it to finish. Rack several times ( every month or so), each time adding 1/8 tsp of metabisulfite/5 gallons. If you want to make a blackberry ( or any other kind of berry) beer, I recommend that the berries be fermented separately from the wort without additional sugar using the *beer* yeast of choice. After the major organic detritius has been removed from the berry ferment, add this to yo= ur beer in the secondary to get the desired berriness. This is superior to recommendations I have read and seen here where the berries are added directly to the fermenting wort. A separate fermentation makes the physical handling of the berry bits *MUCH* easier and the higher alcohol = in the berry fermentation extracts more of the berriness. Blending of the be= er and berry ferment allows you to exactly get the taste you want. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com = Voice e-mail OK = Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:50:38 -0500 From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Re:EKG Sorry, I had to check it out: According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, EKG came from the Greek word elektrokardiogramm - hence the abbreviation EKG. This only thing that suprises me is that it isn't a Latin root word. Paul Niebergall Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:30:33 -0500 From: Mike Uchima <uchima at mcs.net> Subject: rice hulls again PickleMan said: > > > Subject: Using Rice hulls as a filter when sparging. > > Has anyone used this technique and how effective is it. ie is it > > worth it? effective? > I haven't figured out if these work or not. Everytime I add > rice hulls to my mash(thrown in before the strike water and with the > grrain on top of them) they end up floating to the top as soon as I > stir the mash. I thought about presoaking them, but the whole hour of > presoaking before a mash did nothing. How do people incorporate these > hulls into the mash? I rinsed them with hot tap water, then mixed 'em in at mash-out. Didn't seem to have any problems with them separating out and floating. But then, it was a pretty thick mash... I'm sure that was a factor. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:42:21 +0000 From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Carbonation/Nucleation/Flocculation After fighting the 8k limit and some time restrictions ... Andy Walsh writes ... >Steve Alexander joins the fray- >>From some graphs in M&BS pH may drop from 5.7 to 4.4 for lagers and 5.2 >>to 4.0 for ales in the course of fermentation. Might be enough. Who >>knows ... >Except for the fact that an increased CO2 pressure during fermentation >(near 2ATM and above) causes an *increase* in the final beer pH (as I >mentioned before) ... I don't disagree at all Andy. You've taken my comment out of context. I was just noting that the pH drop in normal fermentation might be enough to cause charged yeast to floc. Among other floc associations I've read of recently there are several identified flocculation characterist genes in S.cerevisea. Excess lithium may cause early flocculation, an inositol addition may reduce flocculation and may be useful in some 'stuck' fermentations. >>I personally doubt that any wort which hasn't >>passed thru a ~micron filter has so few nucleation sites as to build up >>such a hugely excessive supersaturation of CO2. > >This all sounds pretty subjective, Steve. Why do such doubts exist? Regarding Gary Knull's problem fermentation in which his wort minus cold break, some heavily pitched, start out fine (modest blowoff) then take an extremely long time to ferment out (4 to 6 weeks typical). - For Knull's problem my doubts are these. I've seen my wort as well as my well clarified unfiltered beer under a microscope. The amount of plant cells, yeast cells and bits of 'stuff' floating around even in very clear unfiltered beer is amazing (read nucleation sites). This, for me, casts great doubts on the "Knull hypothesis" (lack of CO2 nucleation sites). Do his beers also fail to fizz when poured into a clean glass due to lack of nucleation sites - I don't think so. Actually Gary Knull and I had an email exchange a while back since he and I both filter after boil with whole hop remains and I have regularly gone to the extent of chilling lager wort overnight to ~0C in order to remove all signs of cold break. I don't have problem fermentations yet Gary does. Also note that M&BS has a graph of cold break formation vs temperature (pp 524) that indicates that Gary must have left substantial break in his wort. The same section of M&BS describes some commercial practice of kieselguhr filtration, centrifugation and cold separation that must certainly exceed Gary's and my efforts to remove cold break. I don't doubt that Gary was having problem fermentations, but I think that something major is missing from the explanation. Gary claims that the problem is cured by either regularly agitating the fermenter or by leaving cold break in the fermenter. One possibility is that Gary's yeast, perhaps due to water chemistry or other factors, have nutritional problems which cause early flocculation. Flocculation seems related to the yeast cells aging and lack of certain amino acids involved in cell wall formation from recent reading. There are undoubtedly other explanations. I find the 'lethal CO2 level due to lack of nucleation sites' argument unconvincing. >There is little doubt from the published data (must I cite them again?) >that increasing the rate of CO2 nucleation speeds fermentation (eg. trub >content, particulate content, fermenter size, fermenter geometry). You are extrapolating wildly. There is a lot more going on in all these examples than adding nucleation cites. We all know that trub contents contain important yeast metabolites. Fermenter shape introduces substantial circulation and hydrostatic pressure effects independent of CO2 content which can impact yeast metabolism. In 'The Yeasts', Rose & Harrison, Academic Press, 1970, vol 3 pp 29 state ... "The inhibitory effects of carbon dioxide on yeast or fermentation is very small at atmospheric pressure. Ough and Amerine (1966b, 1967a) report that removal of the major part of carbon dioxide with nitrogen or air did not speed up the rate of fermentation. The slow fermentation of clarified musts [must = fruit juice for wine fermentation] has been attributed to the slower rate of removal of carbon dioxide owing to lack of surfaces on which to collect and escape. More likely, the slow fermentation is due to a diminished concentration of nutrients in clarified musts." Sorry - I didn't copy the ref page for Ough&Amerine mea culpa. The text continues "However at greater than atmospheric pressure, the inhibitory effects of carbon dioxide is striking. Schmitthenner (1950) reported that yeast growth [not fermentation] ceases at 7.3 atm. pressure. All yeast species tested showed this effect. This is the basis of the Bohi process of preserving grape juice at 8 atm. [...] Although yeast multiplication is partly inhibited at a few atmospheres, and completely inhibited at about 7 atm. of carbon dioxide [...] fermentation does not cease until some higher pressure is reached (Kunkee&Ough 1966)." Andy writes ... >Where CO2 pressures approach 2ATM [Corrected to 3 ATM] and beyond, the high >resultant CO2 concs *do* retard yeast growth, and ultimately [correction below] Andy later posts correction ... >- *fermentation* does not cease (or even slow) at 4ATM. I cannot even read >my own references! I do not know an upperbound for CO2 pressure ceasing >fermentation. > - cell division does cease at 2.5 - 3.0 ATM. There is a disagreement in our sources regarding the pressure at which growth ceases but it also isn't clear whether all the effects are due to hydrostatic pressure or to CO2 concentrations per se. Since Gary's fermentation starts out OK, yeast growth is almost certainly not the issue; fermentation inhibition is. This means that he'd have to achieve more than 4 atm of CO2 and perhaps as high as 8atm of CO2 to get the serious degradation in fermentation you are proposing. Seems pretty far fetched to me. I'll check, and am thankful for the JIB references Andy. It'll be a few weeks tho. In the meantine consider the following back-of-the-envelope thought experiment. You start with a 1.045 SG wort. Assuming a 0.55 real attentuation (typical value) then a liter of wort will produce about 16 volumes of CO2 throughout fermentation. Since Gary's wort fements out in ~5 weeks and ends up with 1vol of CO2 left in solution (equilibruim w/ 1atm.). This means his beer would have to expel 1 vol of CO2 per 56 hours. We all know that an open can of Coke will lose most of it's excess carbonation, (perhaps 3 vol) overnight and it appears to have almost no visible nucleation sites. Why does gas evolve an order of magnitude faster from a can of Coke than from Gary's fermenter ??? In an earlier post Andy states ... >My money goes on more CO2 bubbles causing better mixing, rather than CO2 >"toxicity" as such, at least on homebrew scales. Yeah - at this point I'd buy almost any alternative explanation except perhaps tidal forces in the fermentor. - -- Second issue is the lowfill/hi carbonation vs highfill/low carbonation bottle paradox. I think that understandng whether the effects cited above are due to hydrostatic pressure or CO2 levels would be helpful. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:28:37 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: RE: Sulphur dissipating when lagering Hi all, Al responded to my post about lagering in a carboy vs. a keg. I postulated that by leaving the beer in a carboy, with an airlock, the sulphurous aroma can dissipate. If you put the beer in a sealed container, it will be trapped. Al responded that yeast will reduce the levels of smelly sulphur compounds. This may be true, I don't know. Al also said that he has bottled a sulphury lager and in 4 MONTH's time the smell was gone. In my system (lager in carboy), it takes 3-4 WEEKS for the sulphur to dissipate. Lagers take long enough; I don't want to wait months just for the sulphur to be reduced. Also, I know from Al's writings that he lagers at higher temperatures than I do. I keep my lagers as close to freezing as I can. The yeast activity is therefore different in the two systems. This is illustrated by the fact that Al successfully bottle conditions his lagers, whereas people that lager very cold usually cannot. I'm just pointing out that the differences in our systems affect the final product, and the techniques needed to get to it. As always, use your own experience as a guide. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:20:59 -0400 (EDT) From: TheTHP at aol.com Subject: Send in the Clones.... Greetings all, I missed you on vacation. But I did find a Cajun Cooker at a scratch and dent sale (Home Depot). Talked them down from the red tag sale of 68 to 40$! Only to return home to discover that FINALLY Lowe's got thiers in With a cast iron kettle 2.5 g for only $58. Much Better deal if you have to pay full price ;<). Anyway this has spurred me on (I suppose getting to help brew on a 7bbl Pugsly system helped also) to brew the brew that got me spitting feathers the last time I was in Traverse City--Gordie Howe's Hockey Bar had what I was told was Pete's Wicked ale, Id never had it on tap, and it had been awhile...HOLY HOPHEAD BATMAN!! I took a big quaf for starters and nearly choked on all the hops. I felt I was spitting cascade!!! Major dry hopping here! Was this really petes wicked? Some of the recipes Ive seen arn't formulated at all close to how I would wing it. Others in my research said they'd repost but didn't. I promise Ill repost a summary of alll the reponses with Pete's Wicked Ale in the header for easy searchnig... Send in the clones...Send in the clones...Phil. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:32:07 -0400 From: Kit Anderson <kitridge at bigfoot.com> Subject: hangover cure >OK, here it goes- after imbibing, I >got hungry and made a quickie pizza ( bread, cheese, spaghetti sauce, >toaster oven, blend accordingly). I decided to add a healthy dose >(oxymoron?) of horseradish to the combo. The next morning, I felt >amazingly good. Over time, this was repeated for science's sake, and the >same result occurred. Of course, the usual disclaimers apply, YMMV, I'm >no doctor (and I don't even play one on TV), and moderation (beer that >is) is the true hang-over cure. While I'm not a doctor, I did play one in 3rd grade. I believe the effect is related to endorphin release and gustatory sweat removing toxins. Chiles do the same thing. Mo hotta, mo betta. - --- Kit Anderson Bath, Maine <kitridge at bigfoot.com> I suppose that it's theoretically possible for a Yankee to make decent barbecue. But it sure ain't a pretty thought! -Smokey Pitts Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:03:44 -0700 From: Jeffrey_Tonole at americancentury.com Subject: Concentrated Boils Have any of you in the collective tried a concentrated all-grain boil? Living in a small apartment, I am constrained by brewpot size and stove capacity limitations that prevent me from doing full-volume boils for a 5-gallon batch. Instead, I've either brewed smaller batches of all-grain or made 5-gallon partial mash + extract batches. But recently I tried doing a 5-gallon, all-grain batch with a concentrated boil. This past Sunday, I mashed enough grain for a 5-gallon batch of brown ale, but I only sparged with enough water to get about 3.5 gallons in the brewpot. Evaporation during the boil brought the volume down to around 3 gallons when it went into the fermenter. After topping off with 2 more gallons of water and mixing thoroughly, I ended up with an OG of 1.046 (exactly what I was shooting for). It's a little bit like no-sparge brewing, except that I'm topping off with water in the fermenter (like in my extract brewing days) instead of in the brewpot. Any ideas as to how well this works (if at all)? And are there any pitfalls (hop utilization, etc.) I should be aware of? Thanks in advance. jeff tonole SlothBrew Menlo Park, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 00:35:31 UT From: "Mark Prior" <priorm at msn.com> Subject: Gravity Prediction for Multiple Runnings Beers Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca> writes: >>1. If I want to collect 3.5 gallons of wort at SG 1.099 using 12 lbs of >>pale ale malt, what can I expect to get from the second runnings? Note: >>the mash water could provide the entire 3.5 gallons of wort w/o sparging >>(4 gal less grain absorption). That is, approximately what gravity and >>volume can I get? 4 gallons of 1.035?" I've brewed a number of first and second running batches recently and have collected a fair number of gravity readings while sparging. From these readings, I have been able arrive at the following equations which may be used to predict gravity readings of split batches. They seem to work fairly well for my system. Get ready for a long one. Here we go: 1) Using your usual method, predict the expected (average) OG of the total batch. For instance, if I was making a total of 10 gallons of beer with 25 lbs. of grain, I would expect a total combined average OG of about 1.070. 2) Convert your predicted OG to gravity points per gallon ((OG - 1.000) * 1000). In my example this would be: (1.070 - 1.000) * 1000) = 70 points. 3) Multiply the gravity points per gallon by the total number of gallons of wort that you are going to collect to calculate the total potential points. In my example that would be: 70 points * 10 gallons = 700 potential points. 4) Calculate what percentage of the sparge runnings relative to the total runnings is going to be collected for each of the split runnings. If I was making a barley wine with the first half of the runnings and a bitter with the second half of the running, each would be 0.5 (50%). 5) Use the following equations to calculate what percentage of the potential points to expect: GravityPct1! = (-0.7843 * (StartingPct! ^ 2)) + (1.7947 * StartingPct!) GravityPct2! = (-0.7843 * (EndingPct! ^ 2)) + (1.7947 * EndingPct!) GravityChangePct! = GravityPct2! - GravityPct1! Where: StartingPct!: Starting % for the sparge volume for this particular running. EndingPct!: Ending % for the sparge volume for this particular running. GravityPct1!: The projected percentage of gravity points collected at StartingPct! GravityPct2!: The projected percentage of gravity points collected at EndingPct! GravityChangePct!: Projected % of potential points collected. For example, for the 1st runnings barley wine: StartingPct!: = 0 EndingPct!: 0.5 GravityPct1!: = 0 GravityPct2!: = 0.701275 GravityChangePct! = 0.701275 and for the second runnings bitter: StartingPct!: = 0.5 EndingPct!: 1.0 GravityPct1!: = 0.701275 GravityPct2!: = 1.0104 GravityChangePct! = 0.309125 6) Project your gravity for each running by multiplying the projected % of potential points (GravityChangePct!) collected by the potential points and then dividing by the final individual split volumes. Projected OG = GravityChangePct! * Potential Points / Runnings Final Wort Volume For example for the barley wine: Projected OG = (0.701275 * 700) / 5 gallons = 98.1785 points or about 1.098 and for the bitter: Projected OG = (0..309125 * 700) / 5 gallons = 43.2775 points or about 1.043 A number of factors that I have found that can impact these equations are: 1) The water to grain ratio. 2) Knifing the grains during the sparge. 3) Your individual brewing methods and system. Good luck. You may have to fine tune these equations for your use, but this is a starting point. Mark Prior Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 07/16/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96