HOMEBREW Digest #2504 Thu 11 September 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

  hop util/fruit/businesses/Belgian degrees/airstones/dirty head/crystal (korz)
  Addresses with spaces... (Homebrew Digest)
  Irradiation; Fermentap (Samuel Mize)
  Corny Kegging Questions ("Ernst, Joseph G.")
  122F again?/Oud Bruin/crystal vs. caramel/re-corking/lidless (korz)
  Help!!: right wort, wrong yeast (Jacques Bourdouxhe)
  yeast mix/mediciny/protein & hops/why protein rest?/slurry/Utah/SS bottoms/Weizen/Entire/cleaning (korz)
  RE:  Medicine flavors, Kraeusening, and acid washing (George De Piro)
  Home Made Malt Mill (mark.terry1)
  Re: Brewpubs/Micros Dumbing Down Beer (silva)
  RE: Water & Carboys ("Capt. Marc Battreall")
  sour beer ("Bryan L. Gros")
  yeast starters ("Bryan L. Gros")
  5th annual Peach State reminder (egross)
  Homebrew Digest (RangerBill)

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 brewery at realbeer.com 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, 9 Sep 1997 11:38:10 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: hop util/fruit/businesses/Belgian degrees/airstones/dirty head/crystal A few more old topics... Dave writes: >Nathan in Frankenmuth comments about the non-linearity of hop extraction = >as >a function of added hops, and not being able to locate this being taken >care of in formulas estimating the extraction. > >To my knowledge, although hop extraction is dependent on time and OG of t= >he >wort, it is not dependent on the amount of hops within even abnormal >amounts being added, unless some kind of mechanical blockage occurs to >prevent the free movement of hops during the boil. Just as any solute, iso-alpha acids have a solubility limit for a given solvent (at a given temperature, etc.). As we all know, nothing in nature is a step function... I'm quite certain that as the hops approach their solubility limit, the utilization approaches an asymptote. Also, there are incredible losses during fermentation (I've proven that the losses are bigger with blowoff, but there are very big losses even for non-blowoff -- this is from a talk by Bob Foster (Coors Brewing) at The Siebel Institute) so actual utilization is considerably lower than the solubility limit. I'm still not done with the experiments, but my suspicion is that we cannot get more than about 80 or 90 IBUs in finished beer unless we add iso-alpha acids post-fermentation as extract. Stay tuned... *** Andy asks about fruit in beer... Basically, you can forget about sterilization. Sterilization is only achievable via pressure-cooking (which will set the pectins and give you permanently cloudy beer) or irradation (which none of us can afford, right?). "Sanitation" is acheivable, but also difficult. I've had variable success with blanching (freezing the fruit and then dipping it for a few seconds in boiling water with a sieve to sanitize the outsides... use only unblemished fruit). What has worked more consistently for me is pasteurization. I mushed the fruit into a paste, put it into a kettle and heated it to between 140 and 150F for 10 minutes. Then I purged the secondaries with CO2 and dumped the fruit into the sanitized, purged carboys. Finished beer was racked onto the fruit and left for 2-3 months. These beers came out very good and out of about a dozen batches only one or two showed a little overcarbonation after nearly 6 months in the bottle. One of the beers had a slightly musty aroma and perhaps a little more sourness than it had 5 months ago, but I suspect transfer technique and not the fruit on that one. A final option is to use metabisulphites, but the fruit must be acid enough, you *must* mush up the fruit or press juice (try not to aerate), you may be allergic to the sulphites (some people just are), and the metabisulphites will not kill everything... they will kill some and stun the rest so you cultured yeast can get a jump on them. I recommend pasteurization. I just remembered... don't try that blanching technique on berries like raspberries and blackberries... the juice will come gushing out into your boiling water and probably set all your pectins. Go with pasteurization for berries. Blanching works reasonably well with whole cherries. Have fun! P.S. Don't try to make a fruit beer that tastes like fruit wine... don't overpower the beer flavour with fruit. There should be a balance between fruit and beer. If you want to make fruit wine, then don't bother with the barley and hops. Oh yes... almost forgot... hop very low and use a significant amount of light crystal for some sweetness... bitterness and fruit just don't go well together. *** Gordon and/or Cindy write: >You hit on the reason early on in >your post, they are a buisness. >Which its sole purpose in life is >not to serve us or make our lives >better but turn a profit. <snip> Excuse me... some of us have businesses whose purposes *are* to serve and make peoples' lives better. Turning a profit is necessary to keep the business going, but not everyone is in it only for the money. Some examples: Dan Listerman (Phil's products), Dan McConnell (The Yeast Culture Kit Co.), Kinney Baughman (BrewCo), Jack Schmidling (JSP MaltMills/EasyMasher). I know these people personally... I'm quite sure they could make quite a bit more money if they put the same amount of effort into any number of other fields, but they have stuck with it. I once calculated how much profit I made with my HB supply store: $5.00/hour. I could have done better flipping burgers. *** Scott writes: >Now that everyone has several ways of computing degrees Plato, does >someone have a conversion to Belgian legal degrees? My co-worker >is from Belgium and we don't speak the same gravity. Roughly, lop off the "1" from the OG and move the decimal point two places to the right. 1.062 becomes approximately 6.2 Belgian degrees. *** Several posters have sung the praises of "The Stone" and how they can easily carbonate their beer overnight without shaking. I contend that your carbonation has come out more consistent simply because you are now paying more attention to it. Secondly, it is virtually impossible to sanitize an airstone with a sanitizer because you cannot be sure that there are no pores that have been clogged by yeast, hop bits, or trub. I have a stainless steel airstone I use for oxygenation and I've replaced the PE tubing with silicone (McMaster-Carr or US Plastics) so I can boil the whole assembly to sanitize it. Sure, it will work with a sanitizer for a few batches, but eventually, I'm willing to bet that you'll get an infection. *** Keith writes: >However, I am using the advice of others using this >(semi-) open fermenting method that it is safe and even advisable to >skim the dirty yeast that is scrubbed to the surface using a >sanitised slotted spoon. Thus I am briefly opening the lid anyway. >Reportedly, this "dirty" yeast contains a lot of hop resins and other >things that, when they settle back into the beer, can create a >slightly harsh bitter taste. I don't know how much truth there is >to this, but I don't think it hurts either. There is no truth to this. Sorry. See my article in Brewing Techniques ("When Fermentation Raises it's Dirty Head"). The only perceptible difference (by skilled BJCP judges) was bitterness and tests done by the Siebel Institute found that they were right: 13 to 18% less bitterness. Protein, higher alcohol, and ester differences were negligible. *** Ken writes: >Can anyone explain the difference (if any) between the Belgian caramel malts >(CaraVienne, CaraMunich, etc) and say British crystal malt of similar color? >I assume that different base malts are used, but are different processes >used, or are they pretty much the same animal? For example, if I made two >ales using identical base malt, but in one I used 60L crystal and in the >other I used CaraMunich, what differences between the finished beers might I >expect? There are many differences and they are all in the flavour and aroma. I cannot generalize because there are similar differences between crystal malts from two different English maltsters or two different German maltsters. Every maltsters' crystal malts taste slightly different. Some are biscuity, some have apricot aroma/flavour, some have milk chocolate aromas, others have raisiny aroma/flavour. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:44:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Homebrew Digest <hbd at brew.oeonline.com> Subject: Addresses with spaces... Greetings! We have recently noticed that people are subscribing using addresses containing spaces. These are bouncing as the server interprets the first word to be a local address, and the second part as a full address. The first part (obviously) bounces and the second sends the digest to some strange individual or bounces as well. If your ISP has allowed you to have a space in your address, we (at least at present) cannot serve you the digest. Check with your ISP to see if the underscore (_) can be used in place of the space, and, if so, resubscribe after incorporating the underscored address as your "Reply To:" Cheers! The Home Brew Digest Janitorial Staff Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:41:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: Irradiation; Fermentap Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:03:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: Irradiation; Greetings to all, and especially to: >From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> >Nuclear Beer? > Has anybody got any info on the use of irradiation for the pasteurization >of beer? Seems like the ideal way to go for my money, except of course for >bottle conditioning. > Has it been done before? (Not at home, of course.) But does anyone have >any info on this? With the radon levels in some homes, it probably has been done. (I'd put a smiley, but on second thought I'm not sure that's funny.) You'll hear a lot of paranoia and FUD about using radiation. As you probably already know, Rob, (1) radiation doesn't stay in food -- except as heat; (2) the chemical changes due to irradiation are largely the same as those from the heat of cooking. OTOH, it takes a heap of radiation to sterilize things. This means you have to have a ton of shielding and control systems, and that means money. For a product like beer, that can be pasteurized by normal means, it's probably quite uneconomical. Irradiation is best for things like meat or veggies, that CAN'T be heat pasteurized and retain any apparent freshness. And I believe you WILL get some chemical changes, just as you would from heat pasteurization. You're still adding energy to the food. You'd need to find a nearby commercial food irradiator, and I don't know if there are any in the midwest. I'd call the county extension, and/or the nuclear science program at K-State. I'm not sure what the program's exact name is, but I know it's there, they have some kind of small reactor on-campus. Check with the physics department. (Maybe the on-campus reactor is strong enough to irradiate some beer as an experiment, so you can find out what it does. Sounds like an experiment that most physicists would be interested in.) Here are links to some data about food irradiation from the USDA. The first link is to an annotated bibliography. The second is to a database of about 11,000 pages of research from the 1950s and 1960s. Linkname: Food Irradiation 2 Wholesomeness Database Demo URL: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/ffp.pl/fnic/foodirrad.html Linkname: Food Irradiation Overviews: A Selected Annotated Bibliography URL: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/ffp.pl/fnic/pubs/bibs/gen/ foodirrad.html - ------------------------------ >From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman at reefnet.com> >Subject: Fermentap ??'s >According to the instruction sheet that came with it, it recommends >racking from primary to secondary ... I thought that simply straining the trub and crud out >of the primary fermenter by using the Fermentap, would in essence be the >same as racking to a secondary vessel. According to several posts I read in Deja news, an inverted carboy's shoulder is not steep enough -- some trub and yeast will rest on it. However, with an inverted fermenter, you don't have to siphon -- just drain out and pitch the ugly trubby bottom, then drain the good wort into another carboy. Apparently the stuff settled onto the carboy shoulder will stay put if you drain it without turbulence. Or, maybe they're not draining it all the way down, I didn't find that detail. Best to all, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada (personal net account) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:31:35 -0500 From: "Ernst, Joseph G." <ernstjg at Maritz.com> Subject: Corny Kegging Questions Fellow Brewers, I have acquired kegging equipment (happy birthday to me) and will be kegging a raspberry wheat (extract) in a few days. I am looking for pointers on: 1. Best products/methods for keg cleaning/sanitizing (I have already replaced all the rings and gotten any obvious gunk out of the keg) 2. Tips on using the keg as the secondary to avoid double racking 3. Kegging procedures - e.g. do keggers generally fill the keg with CO2 via the liquid out tube to force O2 out of the keg before racking or is this not worth the trouble? Any other racking tips? 4. Pressurization - am I better off force carbonating or priming this first keg attempt? If force carbonating, what are appropriate pressures for carbonation and later, dispensing? 5. I have heard that keeping the CO2 tank in the fridge is a bad idea, as it may liquify and/or throw off the pressure in the keg - what's your consensus? Many thanks! Joe (1997 first round draft contender) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:36:11 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: 122F again?/Oud Bruin/crystal vs. caramel/re-corking/lidless More old stuff... (Charley b(me)) says: >I went over to the local brewpub yesterday and had lunch with a friend >and spent a good 15 minutes discussing this issue with the brewer. Bill >makes excellent beers, has the state and national ribbons to prove it in >addition to a thriving brewpub. I went at the question a roundabout way >and asked him about chill haze. He said that for both his "Big, But >Blonde" and "Sloughouse Pale Ale" (both Cal State Fair winners) employ >at 120F rest for 15-20 minutes before boosting to sacharification temps. >He uses 100% domestic malts in these two beers, keeping the grain bills >very simple. They are both light in body, but have plenty to hold up the >hops and alcohol. Have him try 15-20 minutes at 135F. If I'm right, he will get the same haze reduction, more body, and more head retention. "100% domestic" is not the complete story: US malts often do have more protein than Continental or British malts (which will give you not only haze problems but also increased hot and cold break), but 6-row has quite a bit more protein than 2-row. There's more than one way to get rid of the big (high molecular weight, haze-producing, break-producing) proteins: you can cut them into amino acids and peptides (113-122F) or you can cut them into medium-sized (head-retaining and body-building) proteins (122-140F). At 122F you get both and just like with low-temp (say, 150F) saccharification, you get more of the little stuff (e.g. maltose) and less of the big stuff (dextrins). Is it's wonderful how nature works? *** John writes: >I'm thinking of trying to make an oud bruin style Belgian, sort of as a bri= >dge >on the path to brewing a faux lambic=2E Has anyone tried to brew one of >these beers, or have any recipes they would care to share=2E I'm >particularly interested in: (1) success (or necessity) of using any oak >cask, (2) suitable microflora, and (3) blending=2E I tried and failed miserably, but will tell you what I learned so you don't have to make the same mistakes. 1. brew an underhopped, sweetish Vienna (use 93% German or Belgian Vienna malt and 7% CaraVienne crystal malt). 2. get the proper cultures either from The Yeast Culture Kit Co. or from Head Start (difficult to get a hold of lately) or make up a starter from the dregs of one of the De Dolle Brouwers beers. 3. Ferment that in a *European* oak cask. Taste weekly and rack when it gets oaky enough. If you can't get a *European* oak cask and can only get an American oak cask, taste it *DAILY* and be ready to rack after less than a week! This is where I goofed... I tasted it after only two weeks and the beer was liquid wood. *** David writes: > In reading Jim Busch's and Ken Schwartz' posts I am inspired to >quote from someone I also admire. I have trouble understanding parts of >this section of Noonan's "New Brewing Lager Beer" : > "Crystal and Caramel malts are similar products, but they should >not be considered interchangeable. Caramel malts have a higher moisture >content, are not completely saccharified, and are not kilned to the point >that the endosperm is entirely glassy." he goes on to describe the >processing of both types. Does this mean that there is at least >some starch in caramel malts and that they should be mashed? He then >discusses CaraPils processing before going on :"'crystal' versions of the >malt are completely saccharified during kilning. they both increase the >sweetness, fullness, foam retention, and storage stability of beers >without appreciably increasing the color." Historically, that's true. Currently, all malts called "caramel" or "crystal" (except for a few *very pale* ones like Briess Dextrine) are completely saccarified. All but the very pale ones can be used in brewing *without* mashing. *** John writes: >Does anyone know whether it's possible to recork large Belgian bottles >with homebrew=2E I'd like to reuse' em if possible=2E They're nice and th= >ick >for those high gravity brews=2E Yes. I've done it. Get some #9 x 1 3/4" or #10 x 1 3/4" corks and don't push them in all the way. My double-handled corker allows to adjust the depth of the "push." I simply set it to leave 3/8" out of the bottle. I "sanitized" the corks by soaking them in boiling water (also helps soften them). Of course they are not even really sanitized because they are pourous. *** David writes: >I was surprised when I read, first in "Brew Chem 101" (sorry, don't have >the author's name), and then in Dave Miller's "The Complete Handbook of >Homebrewing" suggestions that the lid of the brewpot not be left completely >off. The explanation given in "Brew Chem 101" was that while you do want >to drive off the volitile DMS compound, you don't want to lose the volitile >oils of the hops before they become isomerized. The suggestion was made to >leave the lid partially on. I personally have not brewed enough batches >with the lid cracked to be able to tell a difference, but perhaps some >adventerous brewer could do side-by-side batches and let us know. I'm afraid the authors have confused hop oils with hop resins. The majority of the hop oils will be driven off during the boil but they contribute aroma and flavour. It is the alpha acids (humulone, cohumulone and adhumulone, primarily) which are in the soft resins, that are isomerized and which impart most of the bitterness. Worts boiled with the lid completely on will taste/smell strongly of DMS (cooked corn) and this will carry through to the beer. Many brewers confuse hop oils and hop resins... book authors should not. No, the three reasons to keep the lid *partially* on are: 1. burners too weak to keep a rolling boil going, 2. losing too much water during the boil, and 3. brewing outdoors when leaves (or those darned hickory nuts!) are falling. *** Chris writes: >So does anyone have any experience w/ adding Malto-Dextrin to their >beer at bottling to boost the flavor/perception of fruit? I just want to make Well, adding sweetness will add to the *overall* perception of fruit, but only because we associate fruit flavours with sweetness. Also, when the beer carbonates the CO2 that is released will help bring the fruits' esters out and the beer will indeed have more fruit flavour. We are used to fruits being sweet and when we taste very dry fruit beers, we feel the fruit flavour is weak. You should not add it at bottling time unless you back off on the priming sugar. There are many different types of sugars made from corn and they all have a different dextrose equivalent (DE) number. If you tell me the DE number, I can tell you what percentage of it will be fermentbale. I didn't track down the DE number for the malto-dextrin I used, but it turns out that it was 16% fermentable. This was verified by fermenting it with a little yeast energizer. Started at 1.0400, finished at 1.0336 (high-precision hydrometer - McMaster-Carr). >Also, I've received a few responses about using Lactose instead. I'm not >familier w/ lactose. Can anyone provide me w/ the points/gal/lb, and what >would be the recommended amount to add. If memory serves, it's 45 pts/lb/gal. 1/2 pound will give you a little sweetness in 5 gallons... 1 pound a moderate sweetness. Note that many bacteria will cut lactose into fermentable sugars so you could get bottle bombs if you are not extra careful with sanitation. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:37:06 -0400 From: bourdouj at ERE.UMontreal.CA (Jacques Bourdouxhe) Subject: Help!!: right wort, wrong yeast Hi Braumeisters, 2 weeks ago, I brewed a pilsner for a competition with the following recipe: quantity : 5 gallons pale malt Harrington : 95 % carastan malt( 20L) : 5% Hallertau 4% alpha : 15 gr ( 0.5 oz ) First wort hopping 60 gr ( 2 oz ) 60 minutes boil 15 gr ( 0.5 oz ) 10 minutes boil O.G. 1.048 So far so good, but instead of pitching with the wyeast czech pils I picked the wrong starter and pitched with the wyeast London Ale starter. Of course the beer will turn tasty but will not fit the guideline for a pale ale, and I already have a better Pale Ale to enter in that category. Question: In what category or style other than Pale Ale should I enter this beer? I was thinking to enter it as a Kolsh. Does it make any sense? Any suggestion from the collective wisdom is welcome. Thank's in advance Jacques in Montreal ************************************************* * Oh beer! O Hodgson, Guinness, Allsop, Bass! * * Names that should be on every infant's tongue * * ( Charles Stuart Calverley ) * ************************************************* Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:19:04 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: yeast mix/mediciny/protein & hops/why protein rest?/slurry/Utah/SS bottoms/Weizen/Entire/cleaning Jacques writes: >Is a beer/wine batch more resistant to infection if >there are two or more different kinds of beer/wine >yeasts competing for the sugar ? Not really... if you pitch a big starter of one healthy yeast, it will be less prone to infection than if you pitched a small amount of two or more yeasts. One type of yeast that is less prone to infection are the so-called "Killer Yeast" strains. They will actually kill competing strains. Unfortunately, all the ones I know of are wine yeasts, so I don't know if they will make reasonable-tasting beer (could be very sulphury, could take years to mellow, etc). THey have a "K" in their name, e.g. "K1." *** Gerardo writes: >I have been brewing only for 3 months and all my beers get this >"very light" medicin flavor...it is not THAT bad and if I really cool >the bottles it is hardly noticed.....is my beer getting infected all the >time?? >I clean everything like a hospital before I start and I am using "BOTTLED" >water so I won't get any chlorine........Can anyone suggest something, >I am beginning to get frustrated and very angry. Hmmm... three months... August, July, June... all summer months, all months where there's a lot of wild yeasts in the air! I had a mild "medicine" or "clovey" or "bandaid" aroma in my summer beers till I started transfering my wort gently into the fermenter (without aeration) and then using either oxygen or filtered air for aeration. It has been mentioned before that you may be leaving some chlorine on your fermenter/equipment. This can be a source of the problem too. It wasn't in my case (I was using Iodophor and One-Step). You can get wild yeast on your equipment via your rinse water too... if so, you can use commercial beer to rinse off the sanitizer [Fix & Fix, Vienna]. *** Dave writes: >Is it possible to do a hopped wort (maybe hop >extract??) in which certain longer chain proteins >will be precipitated as the hop/protein complex >and certain complexes also help in the >head formation as is known to occur? My understanding is that hop extract does not contain the necessary polyphenols to complex with the proteins. I don't recall which professional text I read it in, but I recall that the text recommended that no more than something like 50% of the bitterness be added via extract, the balance being made up of whole hops. The formation of protein-polyphenol complexes was the reason given. *** Paul writes: >I think I understand the disputed benefits of a rest at 122 degrees F (to >eliminate cloudy beer) for some malts, and I am not quite sure of the >benefits of resting at 135 degrees F. Either way I am still confused. >Recent discussion seems to be oriented toward the question of what >these rests may do to your beer. I would like to approach the problem >from the other side and find out what possible adverse effects my beer >may suffer by not doing these rests. In other words - what is the worst Haze, beer loss to hot and cold break, faster staling. *Any* protein rest will reduce the larger proteins (which are responsible for these problems)... the question is: "what do you want to make out of these proteins?" If you want to make amino acids and peptides (at the expense of head retention and body) then use a 113 to 122F rest. If you want to make them into body-building and head-retaining medium-sized proteins, then stay away from 113-122F and do a protein rest around 135-140F. If you look at the HBD archives, I believe I was the first to suggest this around 1991 or 1992. *** Ian writes: >I have never pitched more than 200-300 ml of white yeast slurry from the >bottom of the flask. I would like to know how these guys manage to grow up >a quart of slurry! They go to their local brewpub or micro and draw a quart off one of the fermenters. Alternately, you can take the dregs from an entire 5-gallon batch (that's what I do for Doppelbocks and Barleywines). *** Jethro writes: > Louis Amoroco, who started the Beer Across America Club, traveled >voluntarily from Chicago to Utah to face the charges, basically involving >the shipment of beer to Utah, principally a tax issue, and found himself >charged with racketeering, tax evasion, unlawful transportation, and sale. Another reason to stay out of Utah. For more, see the Sherlock Holmes Adventure, "A Study in Scarlet." *** Bob (from Precision Brewing Systems) writes: ></italic>Yes a 9" will prevent the probllem of the flase bottom >colapsing. But, it will also give a lower extraction rate than a full >false bottom unless, the wort is runoff proportianetly slower. (see BT >article Summer 95). I did look at that article and the diagrams look exactly like the ones in my 26 October 1992 post to HBD. The problem with both the article and my post is that it is all *theoretical*. In practice, the differences are very small [see my article in the Great Grains Special Issue of Zymurgy]. >A better design is an adequately heavy, full size SS plate that is >properly suppported Hmmm... like the one made by PBS? *** Rick writes: >I am interested in brewing a hefe-wiezen very similar to Paulaner Hefe-We >izen Dunkel. It is an excellent brew, very malty! It is also bottle conditi >oned. So my question is this, How does one go about making a starter using >yeast from a commercially bottled beer? Or is the yeast sediment a bottling >strain and therefore different than Paulaners fermenting yeast? Yes. Paulaner is bottled with a lager yeast, not the fermentation yeast. Schneider Weisse is a great Hefe-Weizen and is one of the few bottled with the fermentation yeast. Personally, I would just use the Wyeast #3068 which is the Weihenstephan #68 yeast... used by many, many German Weizen brewers. *** There were a number of posts on the origin of "Entire Butt." I'd like to clarify one point since there was a bit of contradiction. "Entire" or "Entire Butt" or (later) "Porter" was an ale that came from a *single* cask yet had the qualities of a drink that was popular around 1722 (the year that Entire/Porter allegedly was born) but was a blend of two, three, or even more ales. "Two Threads" was the name given to the blend of two ales, "Three Threads" was the name given to the blend of three ales, etc. The publican blended the beers in the glass, which was quite time-consuming. Part of Entire's/Porter's popularity was due to the fact that it was easy to serve (came from one cask). *** Kevin asks about cleaning carboys and: >I thought about it for a minute, >and boiled the needed water, cooled it with an ice bath, and used it. >Right now, I plan to do the same tomorrow with the honey wheat. Is this >the right thing to do? I know boiling the water will drive the air out >of the water, requiring extra airation of the wort when putting it in >the carboy, but wouldn't not boiling the water add lots of germs? RIGHT! It will not only kill germs and wild yeast, but also drive off chlorine. I, personally, feel you did the right thing. As for cleaning carboys, I fill them with water and add a few tablespoons of bleach. I've soaked these for months with no problems. PBW and other cleaners that contain carbonates should *not* be used for long soaks. The carbonates will leave a film on your carboy/bottles/etc. if you allow them to soak for more than a few hours. PBW took a few days to show a noticeable film, but Washing Soda (Sodium Carbonate) took only 12 hours with *my* water. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:30:34 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: RE: Medicine flavors, Kraeusening, and acid washing Hi all, Dave B's posts in HBD 2502 need a reply. I don't mean to be picking on Dave, but he said a lot of questionable stuff. He says, regarding medicinal flavors: "Try two (sic) things: 1) Ferment below 70F 2) Do not pour hot wort through the air Cool it first. 3) Ferment in the dark" Back to me now: It is contrary to my experience that any of the things Dave lists cause medicinal flavors in beer. 1. High temperature ferments are prone to cause the production of fusel alcohols, which are harsh tasting and may be perceived as medicinal by some people, but most people taste them as solventy. High temperature ferments can also cause a soapy taste in beer. Something to do with fatty acids; the details elude me at the moment... 2. Aeration of hot wort can cause paper-like tastes in beer, and perhaps even some sherry notes, but not a medicinal taste. 3. Light causing medicinal beer?! If your beer is skunked, you should be concerned about light. Skunk is a pretty obvious sensation. It is not medicinal. Light will not make beer taste medicinal. As has been said, the leading causes of medicinal flavors in beer are wild yeast contamination and sanitizers/chlorine in the water. The fixes are easy: dechlorinate your brewing water (something many newbies overlook) and be very careful about sanitation. Be just as careful to avoid getting sanitizer in your beer. Dave tries to defend his method of Kraeusening, in which he allows fermentation to proceed to high Kraeusen before adding the Kraeusen mixture to the beer. I must agree with Al K. that Dave's method is likely to cause inconsistent carbonation from batch to batch. There are just too many variables involved to be able to estimate how much sugar is consumed prior to adding the mixture to the flat beer (yeast strain, wort fermentability, temperature, yeast health, the list goes on and on). It is completely logical that by allowing the yeast to begin fermentation you will not know how much sugar is consumed before adding the mixture to the beer. You could compensate by taking a gravity reading just before adding the Kraeusen mixture, and then adjusting the amount of Kraesen wort you add based on it's gravity and expected final gravity, which is how the pros do it. You cannot expect consistent results without that gravity reading, though. Eric Warner explains Kraeusening quite simply and well in his great book, _German Style Wheat Beers_. Dave also extols the virtues of acid washing yeast, saying that professional brewers do it regularly. What's good for the big boys isn't always what is good at home, though! I would not try to decontaminate a batch of yeast at home by acid washing! Firstly, it won't kill many bugs, including the ever popular wild yeasts and lacto- and acetobacters. You also run the risk of killing your brewing yeast; a doubtful utility! Acid-washed yeast don't perform normally immediately after the stressful procedure, either. If a strain was particularly precious, I might try acid-washing it, but I'd be more inclined to try single cell culturing or using selective growth media. In most cases, you are not going to gain anything by acid washing your yeast at home. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 19:47:06 -0700 From: mark.terry1 at virgin.net Subject: Home Made Malt Mill I would be grateful for any advice/diagrams etc. on constructing a home made malt mill. Private e-mail is fine. Mark Terry mark.terry1 at virgin.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:15:16 -0700 From: silva <silva at realbeer.com> Subject: Re: Brewpubs/Micros Dumbing Down Beer Just wanted to respond to a couple of postings last week about micros and brewpubs possibly "dumbing down" beer to appeal to mass audiences. I've recently concluded a two-year tour of the states that included publishing the Real Beer Page from the road while we visited over 500 brewpubs and breweries to "apple-seed" our business and get closer to our subject. There are parts of the country which will remain nameless here for the purpose of allowing for growth where it would be easy to make these kind of generalizations. In general, both coasts and some warm spots in between are creating the most charactered and innovative beers. That being said, Wisconsin brewpubs and breweries won more medals per capita than any other state last year at the GABF and more than the east coast combined. One of the best Barley Wines I've ever had came out of Manhattan, Kansas (about 45 minutes from Salina for folks from the Midwest; just left of Kansas City, MO for those unfamiliar with the area). The brewer was none other than the oft-posted hbder, jethro gump/Rob Moline who said, "I don't care if I was on Mt. Everest, I'd still brew great beer" when I mentioned that folks would be surprised about having a beer like this from the heart land. His point was well taken, and we found great brewers in Topeka and Kansas City (Golden Tiger had a killer Russian Imperial and Boulevard has earned 10% of the market there with great beer). However, many more brewers in the area said that the market was simply not developed enough to appreciate craft beer, so they made beers that would sell. I guess my point is that in many cases, the consumer base can and will dictate the kind of beer they will receive. Not necessarily by criticizing the beers, but perhaps by encouraging the brewer to make a batch that matters. Michael Jackson likes to tell a story about Japanese brewers at a large brewery who brewed a beautiful stout. MJ inquired about expectations for future distribution of the product and the brewers said that it may never be available commercially. They brewed it for themselves. They said it reminded them about why they brew. Many brewers I know can brew interesting beers and find their hands tied with having to brew "drinkable" house beers. When possible, we let the owners and general managers know what other trends we saw coming from around the U.S. and supported the brewer. I'd also recommend rewarding the owners and general managers by spending some money in their place and offering to host an event there should they brew a beer you want. One of my favorite poets, Charles Bukowski (http://www.realbeer.com/buk/), said in one poem about a boxer unwilling to finish an opponent, "you have no idea how many can but don't." Same goes with brewers and brewery management. The best Hefe-Weizen and IPA's I've had this year came from a brewer you would never believe brewed it if I told you who it was. And I doubt you will ever be able to taste this beer commercially. Until we give the money guys a reason to believe. In the meantime, support the brewer. And consider that taste profile may have a lot to do with marketing and some bean-counter's often misguided read of the marketplace. Cheers! Mark Silva Publisher P.S. - Tip one to finding an incredbile beer experience -- call for tours in advance. Tip two -- if they have difficulty or interesting landmarks describing directions (it's the second mail box when you come up the rise past the 82 mile marker) you've got a winner. Publishers of: Real Beer Inc. The Real Beer Page 2339 Third Street, Suite 23 http://www.realbeer.com S.F., CA 94107 The ProBrewer Page 415.522.1516 - voice http://www.probrewer.com 415.522.1535 - fax BEERWeek realbeer at realbeer.com http://www.beerweek.com Internet Publishers & RBPMail Consultants rbpmail-request@ realbeer.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 18:18:43 -0400 From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman at reefnet.com> Subject: RE: Water & Carboys Kevin Martin wrote: I am new to homebrewing and the Homebrew Digest. I just made my first homebrew this week, and dumped it down the drain tonignt. It was a Nut Brown Ale kit. It looked really good, but I had someone helping me brew, because it was getting late and I had to go to work the next morning. I asked them to mix the sanitizing solution and help me sanitize my equipment. I didn't realize until later that they had used the wrong stuff.....used corn sugar instead of sanitizer. WOW, talk about giving all of those nasty little beasties a boost. Oh well, I'm going to try again with a honey wheat tomorrow. Also, the first batch left a nasty mess in the carboy. I imagine that some of you who have been brewing for a long time have had nasty messes in the carboy. Any tips on cleaning nasty messes from carboys? Kevin, What I do is put about a half cup of bleach in the carboy and fill it with water and let it soak overnight. The next day I scrub it out with one of those fancy wancy carbot bottle brushes (curved to swipe the shoulders on the inside) and voila, ready for storage or whatever. I do, however, sanitize again with the proper dissolution of bleach prior to fermenting any brews in it. Hope this helps. P.S. Got a real chuckle about the corn sugar...Thanks! Marc - --------------------------------- Capt. Marc D. Battreall batman at reefnet.com \\|// (o o) =========oOO==(_)==OOo=========== Beer is proof that there is a God Ben Franklin Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 13:50:52 -0700 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: sour beer Mike Uchima asks: >My current plan is to make a starter, but innoculate it with a small >amount of yogurt, instead of yeast. This culture would then be added to >the beer at racking time. I'm assuming that a pretty long secondary -- >i.e. months -- might be necessary. >... > - Assuming that I decide to give this a try, is it risky to use the same >equipment (racking canes/hoses, bottling bucket, bottle filler) that I >use for my other beers? *Intentionally* exposing my equipment to lactic >bacteria makes me a little bit uneasy... should I get a second set of >hoses (and a second bottling bucket) to use for this experiment? I can't say if this is a good method to introduce a lactic character to your beer, but it shouldn't be that risky, especially with this method of innoculating a separate starter and aging it. You can then boil this starter to kill the bacteria before blending the beer and drinking it. That way, no risk to your bottling equipment is introduced. Hopefully our microbiology experts will say if the yoghurt bacteria is appropriate. - Bryan gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 15:22:34 -0700 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: yeast starters I've got a question about building up yeast starters. It echos a question posed a few days ago about how to get a "quart of slurry" when starting with a wyeast package. Is the volume of yeast a function of the amount of food (sugar) you give it, or the volume of food you give? I put my wyeast packet in a 0.5L ehrlenmeyer flask (sp?) with about a cup of 1.030 starter. It starts well and when I let it settle and stop fermenting, I get a small layer of "stuff" at the bottom and clear "beer" on the top. I pour off the liquid and add another 8 or 10 oz. of wort and let it go. After three "feedings", I have what looks like about a quarter inch of "stuff" on the bottom of the flask. Mostly yeast, with a little bit of cold break from the starters, I hope. If I keep feeding this yeast 8 to 10 oz. of starter wort, will the yeast cells keep multiplying? Or do I need to step up the volume of wort I add? I mean, does the amount of yeast I get depend on the total volume of wort, or the volume of wort added at one time? It is easy enough to replace the fermented beer with new starter wort every few days until I have time to brew. - Bryan gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 18:29:20 -0400 (EDT) From: egross at emory.edu Subject: 5th annual Peach State reminder The 5th annual peach State brewoff is coming up on Saturday September 20th at john Harvard's Brewhouse in Atlanta, Georgia.We are awaiting entries and judge registration forms.Feel free to email me with any questions. lee Gross, organizer Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:26:30 -0400 (EDT) From: RangerBill at aol.com Subject: Homebrew Digest I am having a hard time getting away from bottleing. There are no clear choices out on the market that say's "Take me home!". Like most brewers, I would love to have the Fridge with the cornie setup. It is not only the big investment, but the space. Ranch home, no basement, North Carolina weather woud beat down any fridge in the garage. I have looked into the Party Pig. Seems to be a good system. Relatively low in cost, except for the high cost of the pressure pouch -3.00 plus shipping a pop; the mini kegs seem nice, the pressure barrels are wild and you need a huge fridge dedicated for it. I am looking for the middle ground. Bottle, save money for the cornie setup? Mini kegs are great, forget the beer meister... Party Pigs are hip! What some has used all of these items.Let me know what you think. My brew shop sells mini kegs. Is that the answer? Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/11/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96