HOMEBREW Digest #2519 Wed 01 October 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

  Brewboy's Closing Statement (Brewboy1)
  Cell walls (korz)
  Koelsch / Boennsch (HBD #2514) (Volker R. Quante)
  Rogue yeast culturing (Randy Ricchi)
  Re: AHA Stuff (Jim Parker)
  More on the MCAB . . . ("Louis K. Bonham")
  Re: Science in Brewing ("Mark S. Johnston")
  Brewing Techniques (Tim.Watkins)
  British Beer Books (MCer1235)
  Drilling holes in refrigerator (Ian Smith)
  Freezer Problems (John B Yust)
  GABF Bound ("Brian M. Rezac")
  Freezing Yeast ("Randy A. Shreve")
  Re: Subject: Holiday Ale Recipe ("Charles L. Ehlers")
  RO Water Acidity (A. J. deLange)
  Re: Science in Brewing (Spencer W Thomas)
  Visit to LA area (Spencer W Thomas)
  Blinded me with science (David S Draper)
  Hot/cold break from siphon tube ("Kerr, David")
  Re: Weizen; Starch? Help?; RO water & PH (Mike Uchima)
  Ipswich Ale yeast ("Peter Touborg")
  re:malt confusion (Charley Burns)
  Hazy Beers, Infusion Confusion, Malt modification, Part 1 ("David R. Burley")
  Part 2 ("David R. Burley")
  RO H2O/Up or Down/Where'd it go? (EFOUCH)
  Boil tun manifolds (HH)

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: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:03:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Brewboy1 at aol.com Subject: Brewboy's Closing Statement Ladies and Gentlemen of the HBD I have sat patiently and listened to the conversation which has ensued from my initial post. While everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, I will go to my grave with the conviction that a great man has been wronged. These are the facts which I will always carry with me: FACT# 1. On September 8th Brett Kimbrough made a post to the homebrewing recipe boards on AOL in which he released the Gold Medal winning recipe for the Little Apple Barleywine. He stated " Since the recipe was that of the former head brewer, I don't plan to ever make this beer again, so I thought I would share the recipe with you." As I read Mr. Kimbrough's post(more than once) it became apparent that Mr. Kimbrough believed the "recipe was that of the former head brewer..." Taking this statement in context, I emailed Mr. Kimbrough to express my belief that the posting of a recipe, specifically one belonging to " the former head brewer..." was not only unethical but not widely regarded as a move beneficial to a brewer's career. Fact # 2 At the end of his post, Mr. Kimbrough reiterates the recipe does not belong to him when he says: " Again, this is not my recipe..." These quotes are THE evidence which support my claim this recipe is the intellectual property of Rob Moline, the former head brewer to whom Mr. Kimbrough refers to. Fact #3 On September 11, I made a post to the HBD which included the following line: " I think his wife gets mail at this address as well so you might want to send her your condolences or love whichever you feel is most appropriate!" While I offered some sarcasm to color the post, I now know that I errored in a BIG way. My attempt at alerting the bandwith to Mrs. Kimbrough's presence at the address was surely missed. I had hoped most would understand and see my opinion that Mr. Kimbrough had sealed his fate in the brewing community with such an empty post. Obviously, I failed. Fact #4 On September 16, Mr. Kimbrough attempted to contact the owners of the Solana Beach Brewery where I am employed. I believe this action was a strongarm tactic used to ellicit an apology specifically for the comment about his wife. And, while I do not believe I violated her privacy with my post, at this time, I would like to retract the words about Mrs. Kimbrough. As this is my closing statement, I would like to state at this time that I did not appreciate the phone call to my employer who had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this conversation. And, I have been asked to state for the record that " the opinions expressed in this forum are those of the author(Tomme Arthur) and they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners, management or staff of the Solana Beach Brewery." Fact #5 According to the voice mail from Brett Kimbrough, head brewer at Little Apple Brewing Company, he recieved over 40 emails on this topic from my initial post. Opinion: I don't know who you are or where you are but I think Mr. Kimbrough got the message loud and clear from the 40 plus messages. Fact #5 Rob Moline will always be a great brewer no matter who the employer may be!!! Fact #6 Brewers need to stick together and as more homebrewers go pro, I offer the following words- Good Luck, Please take the time to learn "THE CODE." I have borrowed enough bandwith for now, this is the last post on this subject that will flow from my computer. At this time, the Plaintiff rests! Hey Dave, I heard Tulsa is nice this time of year, it's a shame we'll never find out! Thanks for listening, Tomme Arthur " it puts eloquence in an orator, it will make the philsopher talk profoundly... it is a great friend to the truth... it will put courage in a coward... it is the seal to a bargain... it is the nourisher of mankind." John Taylor on Ale Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:05:28 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: Cell walls Charley writes: >Anyway, the gist of this theory is that when we are stepping up >starters, its common practice to take them to high krausen and >immediately feed them more wort, generating almost instant growth. This >can go on for several cycles. This person's (name unknown) theory is >that when we do this, we are 1)"training" the yeast to go for the the >simplest sugars and ignore the more difficult to metabolize, and 2) we >aren't giving they yeast any time to build strength in the cell walls. >The results could be yeast that a) can't handle the more complex sugars >and b) that die young resulting in "stuck" fermentation. > >This guy's recommendation is to let the yeast fully ferment the starter >including the yeast going to dormancy. Its on the way to dormancy that >the yeast rebuild their strength in their cell walls which just makes >them that much stronger when reawakened and re-oxygenated later. It also >lets them work on the tougher sugars so they don't get too lazy. I'm very skeptical. Every other source I've read indicates that the yeast synthesize the sterols they need for building strong cell *membranes* (not walls... big difference... I'm told by experts that it's the membranes that mediate water, alcohol, and other flows into and out of the cells.. when the membranes get weak, the alcohol "leaks" back into the cells and kills them). Sterol synthesis requires oxygen. Feeding with un-oxygenated wort will, indeed, stretch the available sterols and decrease alcohol tolerance. Feeding with well-oxygenated wort should (to the best of my knowledge) provide the yeast with the oxygen needed to synthesize the sterols they need for healthy membranes. Possibly you misheard David or David misheard his friend at UCDavis or maybe the research was still incomplete and the hypothesis being tested doesn't hold water. I've built-up starters both ways, feeding at high kraeusen and feeding after sedimentation and have never had a stuck ferment (except for that underoxygenated 1.120 Imperial Stout and the Tripel fermented at too cold a temperature, but the Tripel restarted when I warmed and roused the yeast). Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:32:46 +0100 From: V.R.Quante at t-online.de (Volker R. Quante) Subject: Koelsch / Boennsch (HBD #2514) in HBD #2514 dblewis at ix.netcom.com wrote: >(...) Koelsch is an appellation. Only beers >brewed in Koeln (Cologne) can be called Koelsch. Beers brewed in Bonn >are colloquially called Boennsch (...) My dear fellow dblewis, you've made a small mistake: Indeed Koelsch is an appellation, but in a slightly different way. All breweries, which have signed the so called Koelsch convention some twenty years ago are allowed to call their beer Koelsch. And the brewery of Kurfuersten Maximilian Koelsch has done that! (As well as some other breweries in Leverkusen, Wiehl and other towns not too far away from Koeln.) Boennsch is a beer brewed - of course - in Bonn by a micro brewery, which didn't exist at the time the Koelsch convention was signed. So they are not allowed to call their beer Koelsch, and decided to call it Boennsch. I'm living in a small town between Bonn and Koeln, and I'm not able to decide which style I should prefer. Boennsch would give quite a good Koelsch, on the other hand there are a lot of worse Koelsch beers. But, hey, you know a lot of our special Koelsch beers and describe their taste much better than I could - have you often been here in Koeln? (I'm asking especially, because Paeffgen is not sold outside their brewpub!) All the best, Volker Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:12:42 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: Rogue yeast culturing In HBD #2517, Scott Rohlf asked about culturing the yeast from a bottle of Rogue Old Crustacean to use for his own barley wine. I wouldn't recommend it. Any yeast that has spent a year in a strong alcohol environment is probably not going to be as vigorous as it should be for a barley wine fermentation. This is especially so if it's the same yeast used for primary fermentation, although I don't know if that's the case with Rogues. You'd be better off culturing up a large starter of fresh Wyeast 1056 or some other yeast noted for high alcohol tolerance, and then aerate the H--- out of it when you pitch it. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:03:04 -0600 From: Jim Parker <jim at aob.org> Subject: Re: AHA Stuff RANDY ERICKSON writes: > > Like others here, I was pleased to see Brian Rezac's quick response to > the style guidelines concerns expressed recently. Certainly some at > AHA care and are working to make things better. That's good. > Thanks, Randy. We're trying. > > Brian however echoes a theme that Jim Parker has expressed over the > last few months, one that drives me nuts, namely, "Take it easy on us, > we're the new guys, the old guys were the evil ones, we're nothing like > they were". > One small quibble here. Neither I, nor any of "the new guys" have ever said the "old guys" were "evil." Those guys -- and gals -- are our friends and we very much respect and appreciate all they did. And, believe me, they did plenty to help grow this organization and the hobby. All we're saying is don't ask us to explain why things were done the way they were in the past. We don't know. We weren't here. I assure you, we will make plenty of our own mistakes for you to call us on. And when we do, we don't want you to "take it easy on us." We're big kids, we'll take our licks and, hopefully, learn from the mistakes and improve as we go. > > I, for one, am going to reserve judgement a while longer. > Good call. Like I say, we simply want to be judged by OUR performance -- good and bad. And we want to hear what you think. That goes for everyone in the brewing community. > > Actions really do speak louder than words, and I will be watching for > action to see just how much improvement gets made. > Please do. And please let us know what actions and improvements you'd like to see. We are right now entering our planning and budgeting sessions for the next year. What kinds of programs and benefits would you, the brewers, like to see? > >I will watch with > particular interest the development of the Masters Championship of > Amateur Brewing. This seems to be a great idea that truly has the > potential to advance the art of homebrewing. It will be interesting to see > if the AHA can keep their hands out of this worthwhile, albeit competing > effort. > Two points: One, I don't consider the MCAB to be a "competing" event. Any event that advances homebrewing and gets more people to brew is one we support -- even if it isn't "ours." Two, I have told Louis Bonham that he can expect as much -- or as little -- support as he desires from us. In other words, if the MCAB steering committee asks us to donate prizes, no problem. If they ask if we can sponsor a speaker for their conference -- as we are doing for this year's Dixie Cup -- you bet we can. Other than that, our only involvement will be that Brian, Amahl and I will be brewing our butts off, trying to qualify for the competition and maybe winning a medal or two -- since we're ineligible to compete in our National Homebrew Competition :). >I have high hopes, but I remain a little skeptical.> Thanks, let us know how we're doing. Cheers, Jim - -- Jim Parker Director American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 122 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 -- FAX PO Box 1679 jim at aob.org -- E-MAIL Boulder, CO 80306-1679 infor at aob.org -- AOB INFO U.S.A. http://www.beertown.org -- WEB Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:27:07 -0500 From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: More on the MCAB . . . Wow, have we hit a nerve! Thanks to all of you that have been filling my mailbox with expressions of support and offers to help with the MCAB. It's definitely off to a fast start!! I am pleased to announce that the Steering Committee for the MCAB consists at present of: Louis Bonham Foam Rangers [host club] representative Steve Mallery Brewing Techniques representative Dee Robertson HWBTA representative Pat Babcock HBD representative George Fix At large Jim Liddil At large Scott Birdwell At large Byron Burch At large We'll probably be adding about 3 other members of the Steering Committee soon. The organizational meeting will be in Denver this Thursday evening. *** Be sure to e-mail me if you plan to attend.*** (We may have to move the meeting.) I hope to have more news to report next week, and my personal goal is to have the Steering Committee decide which competitions will be the QE's for the initial MCAB by October 24 so that it can be announced at the Dixie Cup. Again, we're still in the early planning stages, so now's the time to make your thoughts known. We're all ears . . . . Louis K. Bonham lkbonham at phoenix.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:03:21 -0400 From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net> Subject: Re: Science in Brewing >I rarely read this journal anymore. I have seen so many people just screw >up science and scientific method. Those people that are interested in >spitting out terms because they have a vague idea about what they mean >make homebrewing unenjoyable for others. >I guess my main point here is how much science is necessary? SNIP >Those that have the gift of a scientific mind shouldn't ruin a great thing >for others that have gifts in other areas. While I agree that there may be a bit of erroneous info occasionally posted on HBD, I feel that your reaction (i.e.- Not discussing science at all) is a bit extreme. I tend to scroll through any postings that do not interest me, including some of the techno-babble about malo-lactic reactions, et al. However, as with any hobby, people approach it differently. In the case of homebrewing, many people never progress beyond a canned kit and a dry yeast pack. Others may progress to all-grain. A few may actually find all of the scientific stuff fascinating, and wish to persue that area of expertise. I think there is plenty of room on HBD for all of these POV's as they allow others to advance to the level at which they feel comfortable, and they let others know that there are many areas of the hobby to persue. That, in itself, is the purpose of HBD. >I invite your personal slander via email. No slander. Just another POV. - -- "If a man is not a liberal at eighteen, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is thirty, he has no mind." - Winston Churchill Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97 19:04:40 EDT From: Tim.Watkins at analog.com Subject: Brewing Techniques Hey all, I was just browsing the Brewing Techniques web site, and ran across an article about building a temperature probe. Does anyone out there have a March/April 1994 issue of Brewing Techniques. I'm trying to get a copy of the article about the "BruProbe". If you have a copy, let me know, and we can try and arrange some way of getting it to me. On a brewing note. About a month ago, I brewed Jeff Renners Classic American Pilser, "Your Fathers Mustache". As my first attempt at a lager, I'm a bit concerned (not worried, just concerned). My brewshop didn't have WYeast 2007 available, nor did he have 2035 nor.... you can see where I'm going with this. I ended up using 2112, which, I realized after pitching it, is the California Common beer yeast. Anyhoo, I raised the temp in the fridge to 58F, which from what I understand, is the lower temp range of this yeast, and it's fermented out just fine. A couple of questions: How should I lager this? Will the yeast crash out if I lower the temp to the lager range (<40F)? How will the flavor have been affected? This was my first attempt at a lager, so bear with me. Many thanks, Tim (Lowell, MA) Thanks much, Tim Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:53:02 -0400 (EDT) From: MCer1235 at aol.com Subject: British Beer Books Hi! Could anyone tell me where I can find "Old British Beers and How to Brew Them" (recently mentioned by Alk) and "How to Brew Real Ale at Home" (or something like that)? I tried Amazon and could not get them. Also, could anyone out there review/critique them? Would you recommend them for someone that is very interested in brewing British ales? Any others recommended? Private email if fine, I will post a summary. Thanks, Rene' Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:43:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs at netcom.com> Subject: Drilling holes in refrigerator Has anyone tried drilling holes through a modern 21 cu ft (Amana) refrigerator - the condenser is located in the base of the machine and is fan cooled. Where is the evaporator ? I suspect it runs through the back and sides of the refrig. is this true ? I remember someone saying recently that the walls had a bazzilion tubes in them. If I drill willy-nillie through the back or walls IMRR (is my refrig ruined). Cheers Ian Smith isrs at rela.uucp.netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:13:35 EDT From: jyust at juno.com (John B Yust) Subject: Freezer Problems Greeting Homebrewers I've had the same experience with a chest freezer that Eric has just had. I can't be too optimistic about the chances of a simple fix. In my case the gradually diminishing frosty spot and increasing temperature in the freezer meant that the freon had gotten out of the system. According to the refrigeration repair shops I spoke to, this is a pretty typical failure in a freezer once it reaches about 15 years. The freon probably escaped through a hole caused by corrosion, and it is probably in a place where it would be almost impossible to fix, if you could ever find it. Sorry Eric, but I think its time to start shopping for another freezer. John Yust Jyust at juno.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 02:02:40 -0600 From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian at aob.org> Subject: GABF Bound HBDers, I too, like George Fix, am heading to the GABF. Please don't interpret my unresponsiveness to any AHA questions as lack of interest. I'm just too busy with the beer at hand! I wish all who'll be attending the GABF will take Jim and I up on our offer to provide the first round at the HBD gatherings at Falling Rock each night of the GABF sessions. We have arranged a couple of kegs of Tabernash Weisse (and possibly another) for your drinking enjoyment. Keep Brewin'! - Brian Brian Rezac Administrator American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 brian at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:19:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Randy A. Shreve" <rashreve at interpath.com> Subject: Freezing Yeast Dear BrewGurus: I noticed recently in one of Papazian's books, that he talks about freezing yeast for long term storage by adding Glycerol. Does this really work? I don't brew often enough to keep yeast in the 'frig, and freezing would be a great option for me if it really does work well. It tears the heart to dump all that perfectly good yeast from the secondary down the drain! Anybody out there doing this? I would appreciate any detailed info you would care to pass on. Thanks, Randy Shreve Salisbury, NC Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:39:05 -0500 From: "Charles L. Ehlers" <clehlers at flinthills.com> Subject: Re: Subject: Holiday Ale Recipe On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:49:52 -0400 (EDT) "Art McGregor (703)695-0552" <mcgregap at acq.osd.mil> wrote: <<Hi Everyone! I'm going to brew up a Holiday Ale this weekend for the upcoming office party, and have a few questions. My proposed recipe (attached ) is mostly from Philip Gravel's "Merry Christmas! Ale" from the Cats Meow 3. I'll be kegging the batch after fermentation (1 week primary, 3-4 weeks secondary -- all at room temp.). 1.) Are there too many spices, correct boil times? 2.) Should the spices be left in the fermenter or strained out? 3.) What is the best way to get the zest from the oranges, a vegetable/potatoe peeler, or a grater? 4.) Should I store the keg in the refrigerator while the spices mellow, or is room temperature ok?>> Art, Not too many spices, but use whole, not ground clove and allspice. Speaking from experience, if you use ground, and use the amount the recipe calls for, you'll overpower it w/ clove. Boil times will work. Strain the spices out, don't leave them in the fermenter. I've made beers similar to this quite a few times and have never used a peeler or grater. Cut the oranges into quarters, peel them, and run the peels through a food processor. I also cut the ginger root into app. one inch pieces and put them through the food processor. I've never tried storing (conditioning) the finished product in the fridge, but it's not a bad idea. Have fun. Charles Ehlers Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:00:02 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: RO Water Acidity Matt Gadow asked "Is it usual for RO water to become acidic???" That's a good question but not one you should concern yourself with as you should just be hanging in there, relaxing and enjoying yourself. To answewr this question might require someone to think and as we all know artisanal brewers don't think - they just create in accordance with the current humor of the muse! At the risk of offending the Luddites I'll answer the question by throwing around some multi-syllabic words I found in a book. I don't really know what they mean but I hope they'll make me look smarter than I really am and just impress the hell out of the newbies. RO water is quite pure when it leaves the RO unit (I hope it's purer than 100 ppm - 10 ppm woud be more like it) and as a consequence it will dissolve carbon dioxide from the air forming carbonic acid until the partial pressure of CO2 in the water equals the partial pressure of CO2 in the air (0.00025 - 0.0005 atmospheres). Pure water has minimal buffering capacity (alkalinity 2.5 mg/L as CaCO3) so that even the mimute amount of carbonic acid formed is enough to lower the pH, typically into the middle 5's as you at first observed. Another note: It is unlikely that the water would get below 5 and your reported mash pH's also seem low for RO water and Pilsner malt unless you had a fair amount of caramel in there as well. Are you sure of your test strips? A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. - --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:20:00 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Science in Brewing On the other hand, Aaron, there are many of us who *are* interested. Sure we get it wrong sometimes, but you can't learn without making mistakes. I'm not much interested in most of the "how do I clone beer xxy" discussions. But it doesn't mean I don't read and participate in the HBD, it just means that I don't read those notes. Think of the HBD as a huge, continuous brew club meeting. There will be groups of people scattered about the "room", each having a different discussion. There's no reason we can't include all of them (except for the folks in the corner talking about football. :-) =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:27:46 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Visit to LA area I'll be in Long Beach, Oct 5-7. Getting together with other HBDers would be a plus. My brother is working Sunday eve, so it's (at the moment) open. We will probably do a "brewpub crawl" on Mon or Tue eve. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:49:52 -0500 (CDT) From: David S Draper <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Blinded me with science Dear Friends, Just a short note in response to the recent comments that we should lighten up on how seriously we take our hobby, and presumably the way in which that seriousness spills over into these pages. It is true, the HBD is frequently heavy on gory details for which having a degree is helpful for full understanding. There is no question that I fall into the category in question here; I am what my friend Andy Walsh likes to call "pointy-headed." I love to use what I have learned during my science career to help me understand what is happening in my brewing, and I really enjoy interacting with others who share that, of whom there are many here in the land of the HBD. I would urge anyone who has no use for this kind of information to do what all of us do when we come across a post that does not interest us: Use that ever-so-handy Page Down key. It's safe and effective (use only as directed). As a counter-example, there are lots of posts here about RIMS systems, and many of the most science-oriented HBDers often participate in those discussions. Me, I have zero interest in RIMS, so I hit page down every time, but I would not dream of asking for less RIMS content in the digest. Things ebb and flow; sometimes a lot of posts on particular subjects appear, then give way to other things. It's like the weather in many parts of the world: if you don't care for it, wait a day. As has been noted by many here over the years, the digest is an uncommon marriage of the relatively inexperienced and some of the most knowledgeable experts out there. It is, to me, a pretty wonderful thing that both groups can get what they seek here. I don't chide people for asking a frequently-asked question on the digest; why should the reverse be true? And I think it is fair to say that many of us Geek-brewers are quite willing to help out when less experienced brewers ask for it, and do not look down our nose when that happens. If we *did*, then the arguments against being so detailed would have more weight. But the fact that brewers of all experience and interest levels can get solid, useful info here is something to be praised. Sure, there is lots of puffery every so often, but where in life is that *not* the case? Proud to be an internet beer geek and jealous as hell of those going to the GABF, Dave in Dallas Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:56:30 -0400 From: "Kerr, David" <David.Kerr at ummc.ummed.edu> Subject: Hot/cold break from siphon tube Drew Avis asked about using a copper siphon ring with kerfs sawed around the base. Funny - I made the same thing from an MJ Beerhunter homepage tip and used it for the first time this past weekend - I had pretty good results as well. 1/4" of trub on the bottom of the fermenter is not necessarily a bad thing - the proteins, etc. provide some good yeast nutrients. You didn't mention what kind of hops you used. I used whole Cascade cones, which serve as a good filtering medium. Whirlpooling the wort before siphoning also helps. Dave Kerr "Be good and you will be lonely" - Mark Twain Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:12:54 -0500 From: Mike Uchima <uchima at mcs.net> Subject: Re: Weizen; Starch? Help?; RO water & PH Rick Gontarek asks about brewing a Weizen using yeast from a bottle of "Thurn und Taxis"... Schneider apparently bottles with their fermentation yeast (I've used Schneider bottle cultures successfully), but as you note, a lot of other Weizen brewers use a different bottling strain. I don't know whether "Thurn und Taxis" uses a bottling yeast; I've never heard of this brand. If the beer was -- as your friend claims -- "rather clean and not bitter", I think you might be better off just using a clean ale yeast, and forgetting about the bottle yeast he saved for you. John Penn asks whether he should have mashed his Cara-pils, and IMBR... I think the source of the confusion is that there are at least two different types of malt, *both* called Cara-pils. I seem to recall hearing that the US domestic one should be mashed, but the Belgian one (from DWC) does not. (I might have that reversed.) I doubt that the batch is ruined, but it may have some starch haze. Does the beer appear to have a permanent haze (even when warm), or is it still too early to tell? and Matt Gadow says: > Is it usual for RO water to become acidic??? I believe the answer is "yes". Small amounts of atmospheric CO2 will dissolve in the water, driving the pH down (water + CO2 = carbonic acid). As an experiment, try boiling it; if the pH after boiling is close to 7.0, then drops back down over time, then dissolved CO2 is definitely the cause. I don't think this effect is worth worrying about, because a weak carbonic acid solution has little (or no?) buffering ability. Pretty much anything else you add to the water is going to have no trouble pushing the pH up (or down). - -- == Mike Uchima == uchima at mcs.net == Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 97 18:40:48 UT From: "Peter Touborg" <vanfunk at classic.msn.com> Subject: Ipswich Ale yeast Neal from Boston- Ipswich Ale yeast can indeed be cultured with great success and used in homebrew. In fact, I credit their yeast with one of the best batches I have ever brewed, and it is obviously an essential factor in cloning the line of Ipswich Ales. Try as best you can to buy a fresh sample, decant the beer off the sediment and introduce a quart of wort, all with aseptic technique, of course. I usually see activity within 24 hours. Older samples may take as long as 4 days to get going, in my experience. It seems to benefit from *thorough* aeration, ala Wyeast 1968, and produces a similar flavor profile, but appears not to share 1968's tendency to flocculate with a vengeance. Good luck! Peter Touborg Rackin' Frackin' Fork and Firkin Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:11:42 -0700 From: Charley Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us> Subject: re:malt confusion Tim (in hbd 2516) asks for clarification about malts and rests. In the last two issues of Brewing Technicques, Jim Busch has done an excellent job of laying out the temperature issues regarding modern malts and the enzymes/proteins/starches in them. I for one will be sorry to see Jim's regular column disappear from the magazine. The bottom line (for me) is to forget any rest below 135F in today's malts unless you're doing a high percentage of unmalted wheat or rye (those things require all sorts of additional attention). For pale ALE malt, forget any protein rest at all. All that you'll get from a protein rest (anything below 140F) with pale ALE malt is less body. All necessary protein rests have already been accomplished in the malting process of pale ALE malt. When using Lager, Pilsner, 2-Row or Pale malts (anything other than Pale ALE) its ok to do a protein rest from 130-140F. Staying on the high side of that range will give you more Medium Molecular Weight Proteins that contribute to body and head retention. Resting at the low end of that range will give you more Low Molecular Weight Proteins that are great for yeast nutrition, but you'll give up body/head and the yeast don't seem to do any better with the extra protein anyway (difficult to measure). These opinions may be biased towards my equipment. I do not have the capability to apply heat directly to my mash tun and must rely on additions of boiling water and a little luck to hit temperature changes. Its not easy so it adds to my reluctance to even attempt additional temperature rests. I also keep a 1 gallon jug of ice handy to stuff into the mash when I overshoot and it gets too hot. Munich and Vienna malt I'm not sure of. Probably worth an experiment and I hope we get some comments from others on this. I've never used these as a base malt, only as specialty malts. The one batch I did with half Pilsner and half munich, I rested the pilsner malt at 135F but added the munich only after raising the temp to 155F. Came out nice but I don't know what it would have been if I had rested the munich malt also. Good luck in your search for the truth. The 2 articles by Jim Busch were really excellent and I highly recommend reading them. They are based on currently available (modern) malts, not some theory about malts available 50 years ago. Charley (finally feeling comfortable about proteins and enzymes) in N.Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:24:44 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Hazy Beers, Infusion Confusion, Malt modification, Part 1 Brewsters: Been busy with my annual crush for winemaking this past weekend and the preparation leading up to it, so Parts 1 and 2 are a collection of severa= l HBD responses. - --------------------------------------- Dave Riedel doesn't want to get involved in the 122F mash discussion, but= has haze problems using the 40/60/70 mash sequence with pale malts and single infusions with Pale Ale malts. = I can only suggest you try my recommendations and see what you get. Mash = in at 122F, hold for 20 minutes, change the temperature by 2 deg/minute to 135F hold for 30 minutes and then infuse with boiling water to 155 to 158= F( depending on the kind of beer you want), hold within 2 deg F for 90 minutes, mash out at 167F, etc. The SHORT hold at 122F is necessary in m= y experience to get really clear unfilered beers. It is my opinion that it = is necessary to clean up gums and miscellaneous proteins from the germinatio= n which lead to cloudiness in the beer. It may be unnecessary, but I use this procedure with all malts and my bee= rs are unfiltered and very, clear after being in the Cornelius keg stored in= the fridge for a couple of weeks or so. And the head is terrific, thick = , compact and leaves a ladder down the glass as a reminder of each sip. - ------------------------------------------ Tim Martin is confused about modification of malts. So am I and so is mos= t of the professional industry as far as I know - since "modification" has been discussed for the last century and is still a point of discussion in= modern professional literature even today. = Tim says: > I often see the terms "modern malts" or "well modified" >used here but never a reference to which one are modern or modified >except Pale Ale. In all my reading I have yet to find these malts listed= in >this manner. > Sometimes I feel like everyone knows except me. Well, Tim, that makes at least two of us. >In George Fix's recent post he states "we used some well modified >(what else is there these days!) Pilsner malt in the following mash:" I have publically and/or privately asked George Fix and AlK and SteveA an= d anyone else who says all Lager and Pilsner malts are well modified (like Jim Busch and his Weihanstephan trained brewers) - and I hold all of thes= e guys with the highest esteem - to support this contention with actual professionally written articles which clearly define what is meant by "modification" and how today's malts are different from historical malts.= = I assume for something which seems to be "so well known" - as George and other individuals contend - there must be definitive proof. I am still waiting for an answer. To be as clear as I can be, I believe that the average modification of *Pale* German malts used in the Hochkurzmaishen and other infusion relate= d mash schedules can (and maybe must) have a higher modification than *Pilsner* and *Lager* malts of yesteryear used in Germany. I do believe that the grain bill of modern German Pilsner Beers could have changed fro= m yesteryear. I do believe that the logical direction for that change woul= d have been to more highly modified malts. I would just like to see some proof and a recommendation of what I should do with it. What I fail to get proof of is HOW has the modification of the malts changed or even how one knows that. As far as I know there is no magic te= st which indicates the degree of modification. Does this statement that "modern" Pilsner and Lager malts are "well modified" mean we can treat all Lager and Pilsner malts like Pale Ale malts and use a single infusion= mash as one might conclude from George's and others' statements? In my experience - the answer is "no". In my experience there is a clear difference in malts labeled Pilsner and= Lager versus Pale Ale. If I bite the malt grain, the Lager and Pilsner malts are much harder, indicating to me less modification. British and Belgian Pale *Ale* malts literally explode in my mouth into flour indicating a highly modified malt. It is only with malts labelled "Pale" that confusion arises. Some are har= d and some are powdery. I suspect that this is due to a labelling problem = in which British (and perhaps Belgian) Pale Ale malts are mis-labelled "Pale= " as they are called in Britain, but are really highly modified pale *ale* malts and should be so labelled in the US to avoid confusion with North American and most Continental *Pale* malts. Confusion along these lines i= s rife in brewing hobbyist literature. = Perhaps this labelling problem is at the center of confusion. = Tim says further: >the malt puzzle that confuses me is, can I single infuse >all modern well modified malts or just Pale Ale malts? = Tim, I think we all deserve a clear, professionally supported answer to that from those who contend that things have changed greatly in the modification of "modern" malts. 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, 30 Sep 1997 12:24:47 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Part 2 Brewsters: Mark Lubben says about my suggestion to investigate degree of modification by holding at 40C and measuring the change in the refractive= index for various malts: >What are you assuming is causing the change in refractive index? >I know that glucan remnants, various soluble peptides, enzymes, = >and starch all cause SG increases like sugars. But how do they refract?= >The refractometer is calibrated to read equivalent SG for a = >measured rotation of polarized light for a particlar sugar = >(the main one in grape juice but maltose is close). Mark is confusing *rotation* of polarized light by molecularly assymetric= al natural sugars and other molecules with the change in the *refractive* index of a solution which has something dissolved in it versus water. Th= e change in the refractive index ( related to the speed of light in a solution and measured by how much the light is bent), within limits, is related to the amount of substance (optically active or not) dissolved in= the solvent versus the pure solvent. The advantage of the refractive index is that it works for lots of things= , needs only a drop of solution and is easy to use. The disadvantage is th= at it doesn't tell us *what* substance is causing the change in refractive index. As the glucans are solubilized by the glucanases active at 40C ( and most= other enzymes are active to a much lesser degree) the change in the refractive index will be a measure of the increasing concentration of the= solubilized glucan products. Since the glucans are largely responsible f= or the difference in the hardness of malts of different modifications, as I beleive, I proposed this might be a way to qualitatively or quantitativel= y evaluate modification of malts. - ---------------------------------------- Mark Gadow's experience with the use of RO water without salts addition f= or lager production parallels mine in that I produce excellent lager with no= added salts. In my experience, the mash comes to the correct pH a little = on the high side (about 5.6 like Pilsen). The salts and other substances in the malt alone bring it to the correct pH region for mashing. For those who use well water neutralized with limestone (as I do), it see= ms logical that CO2 passes through the RO membrane in the non-ionized state.= = I notice bubbles on walls of the bottles of water I store between brews a= nd while it could be just air, CO2 seems likely also. This CO2 could affect= the pH of the mash. 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, 30 Sep 1997 14:47:14 -0400 From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com Subject: RO H2O/Up or Down/Where'd it go? Date: Tuesday, 30 September 1997 2:40pm ET To: Sendout From: Eric.Fouch at STC001 Subject: RO H2O/Up or Down/Where'd it go? In-Reply-To: The letter of Monday, 29 September 1997 0:40am ET HBD- Just thought I'd weigh in on the RO issue. The comments about RO water systems being expensive and the water being aggressive run counter to everything the local Rainsoft RO water system sales guy told me..(how do these guys keep getting in my house?) To be fair to him, Rainsoft's patented system uses an ion exchange system to remove all the "nasties" from the water. Apparently this system is more efficient (in terms of regenerating the resin bed) than RO membranes. I still didn't buy into the $3,300 to install a household unit. Most of those "nasties" are good for you (minerals), and I gotta believe RO water going through my pipes is going to leach all the stuff precipitated out over the last 10 years of city water running through. A comment on whether the slots should be up or down- If you batch sparge, it don't matter, since channeling is not an issue. A question about my Pumpkin Ale- I had high hopes after filling the fermenter: The wort tasted like a slice of pumpkin pie] Yummy pumpkin aroma, nice spices, good malty flavor. I canned (don't ask) a quart or two of the wort for starters. After a few weeks in the bottle, the beer tastes very good, a nice spice ale, but NO PUMPKIN FLAVOR (FLAVOUR) or aroma] "Oh well", I thought, until I used the canned wort for a starter and got a reminder how pumpkiny the original wort was] Where did my nice pumpkin aroma/flavor go? It survived the boil (It was an all grain brew with 16 ozs of pumpkin pie stuff), so why would the rigors of primary fermentation scrub the aromas out? The only other thing I can think of is that I did "dry spice" with some more spices cold extracted with vodka in the secondary, but I don't think that should have covered up the pumpkin flavors. What if I mashed the pumpkin stuff with some amylase enzyme separately and added the resulting wort to the secondary (after boiling, of course)? Anybody else had problems losing the pumpkin aroma/flavor? Thanks in advance for what I'm sure will be numerous responses. Eric Fouch Bent Dick YoctoBrewery efouch at steelcase.com "Where's my Thing?" - Rush Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:33:36 -0700 From: HH <hhouck at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Boil tun manifolds Combine the slotted copper coil in the bottom 'corner' of your boil kettle with careful whirlpool stirring for less particulates in your fermenter. Hot break and hop fragments will move to the middle. Remember to start with more volume to make up for the dished bottom if you have one. -HH Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/01/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96