HOMEBREW Digest #2521 Fri 03 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

  Throwing down the gauntlet (Spencer W Thomas)
  Lauter Tun Design (korz)
  Re: Middle-weight Dextrins (brian_dixon)
  Clarity (korz)
  Re: Holiday Ale Recipe (DanRabin)
  Lauter Tun Manifold (Mike Hughes)
  Re: pumpkin (Mike Uchima)
  freezing yeast (Edward J. Basgall)
  Humor (Mike Hughes)
  IMBR (John_E_Schnupp)
  SALUTATIONS (i.brew2)
  Source of large, drilled rubber stoppers for Mason jars (brian_dixon)
  Kegging carbonation (Steve Haines)
  Bottle Conditioning with honey (Steve Haines)
  more barleywine yeast questions (scotty)
  Vienna water ("Dave Draper")
  legal stuff/HBD/MCAB (Louis Bonham)
  Disappearing Pumpkin ("C&S Peterson")
  Simple questions to the "scientists" ("Kevin J. O'Donnell")
  Re: EBC to SRM conversion (Fredrik Staahl)
  Belgian Yeast (Greg Young)
  Millenium Ales (David S Draper)
  Scientific content/A question of style (Doug Moyer)
  last shot then back to passive mode... (Joe Rolfe)
  Bohemian Pils Yeast for Cal. Common? ("LARSONC%DOM13.DOPO7")
  Roasting barley (Kevin Kane)

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: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:20:47 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Throwing down the gauntlet In a message in HBD 2520, Jeff Sturman claimed that "95% of the digest's content is totally useless to 95% of home brewers." The question then is whether the digest's readership is typical of home brewers. I think not, but it's up to all of us to prove me right or wrong. I've taken the "statistics" Jeff quoted in his message and built a simple survey form from them. Please answer each of the questions by clicking on the Yes or No button, then click on the Submit button. The survey is at http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/hbdsurvey.html Let's see who reads the HBD! =Spencer Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:34:47 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: Lauter Tun Design Mike writes: >Brewing Techniques has an excellent article on lauter tun design in >their latest issue. However, the author recommends turning the slots in >the copper pipe manifold design to face UPWARDS. He says that this will >prevent channeling along the floor of the lauter tun. My question is >this - how many of you use this method? I've always faced my slots down, >thinking that this would provide the best filtering. It would be nice to >see how many of you have the slots facing up, and how well this has >worked for you. (do you get better efficency with them facing up? Have >you noticed more stuck sparges with them facing up vs. down? Any >problems getting the wort to run clear?) The more I think about it, the >more sense it seems to make to face them up. (If you get channeling >along the floor of the tun, the wort will tend to enter into the >manifold in greater quantities at one or more points, instead of equally >across the entire manifold.) I'm a little concerned that the clarity of >my run-off will suffer with the slots facing up. (I usually get clear >run-off after recirculating around a quart of wort, with the slots >facing down) So, what do you all think about this? The clarity should not suffer because it is not the manifold (nor the screen, nor the false bottom) that actually does the filtering of the wort. It is the grain bed itself that filters the wort during recirculation and during subsequent sparging. The purpose for the manifold (screen, false bottom, etc.) is simply to hold the large husk particles from going out the drain. These husk particles form a lattice that holds back smaller and smaller particles till it forms a filter. Now as for efficiency, whether you actually get channeling or not is questionable and frankly, what's to keep the wort from channeling along the bottom till it gets to an *upward*-facing slotted manifold and then traveling up the 1/4" it takes to enter the manifold? I personally believe that the difference in efficiency regarding upward- or downward- facing slots is so incredibly small, that you couldn't measure it with even a precision hydrometer. The argument, in the past, for downward-facing slots was that it presumably reduced the chance of clogging the slots from the weight of the grist. Sounds good, in theory, but I doubt it makes any difference. Remember, when the mash or dry grist goes into the tun, a particle will either fit through the slit or it won't. If it fits, it's part of the cloudy first runnings (unless it was a starch particle and was converted later during the mash). If it doesn't fit, then it becomes part of the filter bed (unless, again, it was starch and was later converted). I suppose some small pieces could get lodged into the slits, but that's a statistical issue and I'm not even sure if the statistical probability of this would be lower or the same for downward-facing slits. As for whether you will leave a lot of wort in the bottom of your tun with upward-facing slits, yes, it's true that *if* your manifold is *lower* than the hole through which the wort flow exits the tun (i.e. you rely on a siphon to get the last bit out of the tun) you will break the siphon earlier and subsequently leave more wort in the bottom of the tun, but let's consider how much this might be. Assuming you have 1/2" tubing and your slits go 1/2-way through, you have a 1/4" difference in height... it would be slightly more if you used 3/4" tubing and/or the slits went more than 1/2-way through (although this is not recommended because it compromises the strength of the manifold and makes it possible for you to accidentally widen the slits when stirring a bit too aggressively). But let's say it's 1/2" for argument's sake. I'm not about to do the math formally, but suppose it's a 30cm diameter tun and you had no grain it it. My back-of-the envelope scribbling leads me to believe that there would be just shy of 1 liter *more* wort left when the siphon broke if you had a 3/4" manifold, cut 3/4-way through, facing *upwards*, than if you had it facing *downwards*. *BUT*, in a read lauter tun, you don't have *only* wort, but you also have grain. Therefore the grain would displace a goodly portion of that space and you probably would have a difference of only 250 or 300ml. I had wondered about the differences between various lauter tun designs, which is why I volunteered to do the "Lauter Tun Experiment" and wrote it up in the Great Grains Issue of Zymurgy. The experiment showed that extraction efficiency differences are smaller than your typical measurement error. The bottom line: what works (and looks really bad) in theory isn't always what works in practice. My opinion is that with a sufficiently slow runoff (45min to 1 hr for 5 gallons) the difference is *immeasurable*. If channeling is your concern, think about making the bottom and *sides* of the tun rough rather than smooth. Again... in theory this would make a difference... in reality, your time would be better spent brewing another batch of beer. 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: Wed, 1 Oct 97 10:42:10 -0700 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: Middle-weight Dextrins >Brian Dixon, in hbd 2515, talks about short vs long saccarification rests ><snip>... you want because the middle-weight dextrins and simple starches >mentioned above are soluble ... <snip> >This is beginning to sound like the thread regarding longer mash times at >higher temps we had going about a year ago. But this thing called >"middle-weight" dextrins is new. Never heard of this before. Are there high, >middle, low-weight dextrin molecules as well as proteins? If so, what >happens to each of these at what temperatures over what time frames? >Charley My apologies for not being more specific in the original post. I did not have my copy of George Fix's "Principles of Brewing Science" with me at the time (but do NOW!). On pp. 28-29 of the aforementioned text, George has diagrams of Group I through Group IV dextrins (7, 13, 19, and 25 glucose units each, respectively). He goes on to say, in the first paragraph on p. 29, "Dextrins in groups I, II, and III generally will not color with iodine. Those in group IV will produce a redish hue when combined with iodine. More complicated starch molecules will color a dark blue with iodine." Neither are these group I-III dextrins fermentable. Therefore, a mash rest that only goes long enough to convert starches to these types of dextrins will _pass_ the iodine conversion test, but will still not be fully converted. Part of this depends on whether or not you are trying to maximize the fermentability of your wort. If you are, the iodine test is probably not adequate for you. If you're not, e.g. you desire unfermentable dextrins to be in your wort, then maybe the iodine test is good enough for you. Your sacc-rest temperature is probably a good indicator of which group you are in: 149F? Don't depend on the iodine test, 156F? The iodine test is probably good enough. Somewhere between? You call it! My advice is to pick your temperature according to the sugar profile you want, then give it an hour and call it good. Use the iodine test as a verfication tool, if you desire to, to ensure you that your mash is progressing as expected (but not necessarily as an "it's done converting" tool). ADDITIONALLY, and this was not mentioned in my first post, George mentions on p. 31 that "some of the undegraded beta-glucans can react with iodine. This means that an iodine test might show a color reaction even when a satisfactory degradation of malt sugars has been achieved. This effect can be minimized by straining out grain kernels before adding iodine drops to the sample." Well, that's it I guess. Comments? As far as I know, these are the only reasons that some brewers choose to only use the iodine test with a grain of salt (yuck yuck, he he he). Later, Brian ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:04:48 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: Clarity Dave has problems with clarity whether he uses Canada Malting 2-row or Hugh Baird Pale Ale. He suspects his lack of protein rest. You must remember that proteins are not the only source of haze. Firstly, is it permanent or is it chill haze. If it's permanent, it could be iron or tin in your water, wild yeast, or oxidized polyphenols. The solutions to these problems would be filter the metals out of your water, better sanitation, and reduce the amount of polyphenols and/or reduce oxidation, respectively. If it's chill haze, you have several options. Recall that chill haze is caused by a protein-polyphenol complex that is soluble in warm beer, but becomes noticeable when in colder beer. You have five ways to combat chill haze: 1. reduce the amount of HMW proteins that make it out of the kettle, 2. reduce the amount of polyphenols (aka tannins) that make it out of the kettle, 3. reduce the amount of polyphenols after fermentation, 4. reduce the amount of proteins after fermentation, or 5. force your chill haze to form and settle in the secondary. You could write 100 pages about all this stuff, so I'll be terse and leave it to you to look the details up in books. Addressing each way (breifly): 1. Make sure you have a good rolling boil, don't boil too long (no more than 2 hours), chill quickly to get a good cold break, watch your boil pH (keep it above 4.8 at the beginning), try Irish Moss or Bentonite in the boil, and yes, try a protein rest. 2. Watch mash pH, sparch pH, sparge temperature, don't overcrush your grains, try Bentonite in the boil. 3. Try PVPP or Sparkolloid after fermentation. 4. Try Silica Gel, Colloidal Silicon Dioxide, Kieselsol, or Silica Sol after fermentation. 5. Try lagering. That should give you some things to work on. I've posted before what I do regarding protein rests: if the malt creates a *lot* of hot and cold break, I add a protein rest. As for these other things, other than the Bentonite, I do all of 1 and 2 always, 3 or 5 sometimes, and have yet to try 4, but after 1 and 2, I've yet to need to do 3, 4, or 5. 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: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:18:28 -0400 (EDT) From: DanRabin at aol.com Subject: Re: Holiday Ale Recipe Greetings and Happy GABF Week to all Digest-ables! I'm writing in response to Art M's questions regarding brewing a holiday ale. I've been brewing a very spicy holiday beer for a number of years. In 1994, it took a gold medal in the AHA nationals. If you're interested, the recipe is in the 1994 Zymurgy Special Issue. Art, in answer to your questions, 1) I don't think your recipe has too many spices. As with hops, the goal is to achieve a good spice/malt balance. Rather than boiling the spices, which drives off some of the nice aromatics, I recommend making a spice tea and adding it to your boiled wort before chilling. Bring a few quarts of water to a boil, turn off the heat, add the spices and honey, cover and steep while you boil the wort. By the way, your kitchen will smell great! 2) During my first attempt at making a spice beer, I added the spices to the fermenter. Overnight, my airlock got clogged and blew off, staining my ceiling. Moral: strain out the spices. 3) For orange zest, use a coarse grater. I've found that the aroma from oranges is nice when the beer is young, but it dissipates quickly. It will likely be undetectable in a well-aged beer. 4) I like to age beers in a refrigerator, but there's no reason why you shouldn't do it at room temperature. I hope this helps. In good taste, Dan Rabin Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:19:51 -0700 From: Mike Hughes <mikehu at synopsys.com> Subject: Lauter Tun Manifold Greetings - Here's an update on the question of pointing the slots on a copper lauter tun manifold up or down: I've heard from three people that use a copper manifold in a cooler for a lauter tun, and none of them sparge with the slots facing upward. I'm going to venture into the great unknown and do my next batch with the slots facing up. If I make it back, I'll post my observations on this technique... Mike H. Double Barrel Brew-Pub Portland, Or Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 13:25:15 -0500 From: Mike Uchima <uchima at mcs.net> Subject: Re: pumpkin Eric Fouch asks: > 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? > > 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? Yes. I used 1 large (33 oz) can of pumpkin in a *3* gallon batch of ale about a year ago (so assuming you did a 5 gallon batch, the ratio of pumpkin to beer in my case was more than 3x what you had). Very little of the pumpkin flavor remained in the beer by the end of fermentation. IMO, it was still a pretty nice spiced ale, but unless you knew ahead of time that the pumpkin was there, it was pretty easy to miss. Next time I brew something like this, I'm going to double the amount of pumpkin. I'm also going to add some rice hulls to prevent lautering problems. (The previously mentioned batch had the "sparge from hell" -- got stuck 3 times.) The idea of mashing the pumpkin separately and adding it to the secondary is interesting; I may have to give it a try myself. This would also have the advantage of sidestepping the sparging problems; presumably you could just rack the beer off of the pumpkin "sediment" after a week or so. Oh yeah, and a question for anyone else who's done pumpkin beer: Did your fermentation really reek? I got some really awful smells during fermentation of my pumpkin ale... sort of like a mixture of rotten eggs and dirty diapers. And this was with a yeast (1056) that normally doesn't seem to produce a lot of bad smells while it's working. I was sure it was infected; but by the time fermentation was done, there was no trace of the bad odor, and aside from the lack of pumpkin flavor, the beer tasted pretty good. Maybe yeast convert whatever gives pumpkin its flavor into other substances -- like maybe H2S? - -- == Mike Uchima == uchima at mcs.net == Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:42:08 -0500 From: ejb11 at psu.edu (Edward J. Basgall) Subject: freezing yeast ************************************ >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. >Randy Shreve Salisbury, NC ****************************************** Hi Randy, I have been freezing yeast for several years now and use either a 10% sugar solution or 15% DME to store yeast in the freezer. The glycerol and/or sugars provide some measure of protection against ice crystal damage. You don't get 100% viability after thawing, it's more like 40-50% but there are certainly enough cells to get a good starter going. It's best if you have a deep freeze that does not cycle through a "frost-free" mode. More recently I've read an article in one of the trade mags (Zymurgy?) about a guy at a commercial cell culturing lab who stores his used yeast under sterile distilled water at room temperature. He claims the yeast is good stored this way for years. I also am using this technique. If you are interested I can look up the reference and get back to you. cheers ed basgall SCUM State College Underground Maltsters. State College, PA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:42:09 -0700 From: Mike Hughes <mikehu at synopsys.com> Subject: Humor In the name of science, I would like to post the following guide to beer troubleshooting. Note that this is only a guide - your observations may vary. (Brewing is not an exact science, after-all) SYMPTOM: Beer unusually pale and tasteless. FAULT: Glass empty. ACTION: Get someone to buy you another beer. SYMPTOM: Beer tasteless, front of your shirt is wet. FAULT: Mouth not open, or glass applied to wrong part of face. ACTION: Retire to ladies room, practice in mirror. SYMPTOM: Feet cold and wet. FAULT: Glass being held at incorrect angle. ACTION: Rotate glass so that open end points toward ceiling. SYMPTOM: Feet warm and wet. FAULT: Improper bladder control. ACTION: Stand next to nearest dog, complain about its house training. SYMPTOM: Floor blurred. FAULT: You are looking through bottom of empty glass. ACTION: Get someone to buy you another beer. SYMPTOM: Floor moving. FAULT: You are being carried out. ACTION: Find out if you are being taken to another bar. SYMPTOM: Opposite wall covered with fluorescent lights. FAULT: You have fallen over backward. ACTION: Have yourself lashed to bar. SYMPTOM: Mouth contains cigarette butts. FAULT: You have fallen forward. ACTION: See above. SYMPTOM: Room seems unusually dark. FAULT: Bar has closed. ACTION: Confirm home address with bartender. SYMPTOM: Taxi suddenly takes on colorful aspect and textures. FAULT: Beer consumption has exceeded personal limitations. ACTION: Cover mouth. - -- Cheers! Mike H. Owner/Proprietor Double-Barrel Brewing Labs. Portland, Or Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:23:03 -0700 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: IMBR I remember reading a spoof IMBR post sometime ago. I got a good laugh from it and I never thought that something like that would happen to me, little did I know that it would happen today. This morning/afternoon I brewed a spiced beer for the holidays. This was the 3rd batch that I made using a copper loop around the perimeter of my brew kettle, AND this is the 3rd batch that I have had difficulty in getting into the fermenter. I'm about ready to give up on this idea and head back to the Chore Boy pad/filter method, but the engineer in me says that I can beat this thing. My brew pot is a 15 gallon aluminium, flat bottom pot that my wife got me for my birthday last year. I've brew several batches with it but the last 3 I couldn't get racked into the primary. My copper loop fits along the outside perimeter of the pot. I drilled enough holes (3/32") so that the sum of the area of the holes is equal to the area of a 3/8" copper tube. Do I simply need additional holes? Why did the Chore Boy on the end of a piece of copper tube seem to work better? Today I got NO drainage of the brewpot. I had to dunk my hand in the pot, disconnect the copper loop from the inside, and swish all the hops and break material away from the drain several times. I really don't care if I ruined the beer, I just want to know how I can get better drainage. This is important to me. I'm making a RIMS and I don't want to stick the grain bed because I didn't know better. TIA, John Schnupp, N3CNL Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:38:30 -0400 From: i.brew2 at juno.com Subject: SALUTATIONS Greetings, I am a new homebrewer of the non-technical persuasion. I have only 20 years experience; 18 as a failure producing cidery flat swill, and 2 years learning and growing and producing quality beer. The difference? In the early 70's I had books from the early 60's printed in England giving such profound advice as "all sugars are the same in brewing, just use table sugar and your beer will turn out fine." As of late I have people like Papazian and Miller, and publications such as Brew Your Own and Brewing Techniques to thanks, and people like you who have posted help all over the internet. I am either stupid or dedicated to stick in there that long trying this and that, but I get high praise for my latest efforts. I am always trying to learn from others as mistakes and experience can be costly to come by, and malt is a terrible thing to waste! I have been making recipes that either use extract and specialty grains, or partial mashes. I usualy pour the wort into a fermentor with 3 gallons of ice water (pre-chilled in the freezer). This gets a tremendous amount of cold break in only a few minutes, and I rack results off into another fermentor right away. The fellow who has chunks floating might try this to reduce the trub in his primary. I would like to know if anyone has ever had any problems doing this, or if there is an even better way to go. This is of course before pitching the yeast. I have been thinking of using a botteling bucket as the first fermentor so that as I drew off the clear wort (no siphon needed) I could run it through one of those aerating tips sold by Siphon Tap. Any ideas, suggestions, citiques are welcome. I will come calling again. Dave Blaine I.Brew2 at Juno.Com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 14:22:12 -0700 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Source of large, drilled rubber stoppers for Mason jars An easy way to make a 2-cup starter is to can 2 cups of starter in a 1-quart Mason jar, then to pitch the smack-pack yeast into the Mason jar. The hard thing is that large rubber stoppers (sanitizable) are hard to find. So you end up transferring starter wort to another container (bottle or flask) prior to pitching the yeast. This is an extra step that introduces more opportunity for infection at a critical point in your brewing process. It's easier to just leave the starter in the Mason jar and to attach an airlock via a large rubber stopper right on the Mason jar itself. Trouble is, LOTS of areas in this country just don't seem to have large rubber stoppers available. Thanks to an earlier HBD (or r.c.b?) post, I found a source of stoppers that are suitable (white rubber, drilled for airlocks): Country Food & Liquours 19454 W. Rt. 45 Mokena, IL 60448 (708)479-2900 They ship UPS to anywhere. Cost for a drilled #13 stopper is $2.00. A #13 stopper fits a standard (70mm, 2 3/4") Mason jar opening just right. They do not have, and cannot get, #14 or #15 stoppers. Either the #14 or #15 would work with a wide-mouth Mason jar, but neither one is really the right size. It's easier to use a standard-mouth Mason jar and the #13 stopper. Brian ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:21:26 -0400 From: Steve Haines <shaines at VERSATILITY.com> Subject: Kegging carbonation Is there any reference for how much pressure and for how long should I leave a key to properly carbonate a 5 gal batch? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:22:01 -0400 From: Steve Haines <shaines at VERSATILITY.com> Subject: Bottle Conditioning with honey I would like to bottle condition using honey instead of corn sugar. How much should I use for 5 gal.? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:45:02 +0000 From: scotty at enaila.nidlink.com Subject: more barleywine yeast questions First off, thanks for stopping me from attempting a yeast culture from the dregs of a bottle of barleywine. I recieved a couple of responses stating that the Rogue 'pacman' yeast may be commercially available. Somebody said it could possibly be Wyeast 1272 (American Ale II). Can anyone validate this? I am looking into which yeast or combination of yeasts I should use for my barleywine project. I want an OG of 1.10 or so. I have done a little research and have come up with the following alternatives: 1) Wyeast 1056 (primary), Champagne yeast (secondary) 2) Wyeast 1272 (primary), Champagne yeast (secondary) 3) Wyeast 1056 (primary), repitch 1056 (secondary) 4) same as #3 using 1272 5) Wyeast 1728 (primary and secondary) they say the Scottish is good for high gravity ales I haven't ever made this big of a beer before. I am looking for a little yeastly help here. If I use champagne yeast on this thing, how will that effect the flavor of the finished product? Is the Wyeast Scottish really suitable for a gravity this high? What is the alcohol tolerence of the above yeasts? When I go to bottle this thing, should I repitch again to have enough viable yeast to carbonate? Should I cut back on the amount of priming sugar as this thing will be aging for a long time? Your help is appreciated. Thank you, Scott Rohlf scotty at nidlink.com as always, private email is ok. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:30:13 +4 From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Vienna water Dear Friends, I'm looking for a more achievable water composition for Vienna water than the one from Papazian that is listed on my web page. In formulating a recipe for an upcoming batch of Vienna lager, I was trying to come up with a suitable water profile, using the one given by Papazian for Vienna and Ken Schwartz's Brewater program. I am using filtered, RO water purchased from the local grocery store where they have a big ol' machine for the process, so I am assuming essentially ion-free starting water. The Papazian Vienna profile says (all in ppm) 200 Ca, 125 SO4, 60 Mg, 8 Na, and 12 Cl, and the "(carb)" value in Brewater says 120, presumably as CaCO3 as recently explained (again) by fellow egghead beergeek A. J. deLange. The salts I have to work with are gypsum (CaSO4), epsom salts (MgSO4), calcium chloride (CaCl), chalk (CaCO3), baking soda (NaHCO3), and uniodized salt (NaCl). I am finding it very difficult to achieve the Papazian profile by any additions of these things to ion-free water. I always end up with a big mismatch (like 100 ppm) in something important, such as Ca, SO4, or carb as CaCO3. I would really like to hit the target more closely than that, so I am wondering if anyone has some ideas about other water compositions that would be good to use for a Vienna. This profile seems very "salty" for the purpose, to my untrained eye. For example, could I get away with less Ca than 200 ppm? Is the 60 Mg high enough to produce potential off flavors down the line, so that I could get by with less of that? Given that hop character is not supposed to be extreme in a Vienna, do I really need 125 ppm sulfate? If one of our European contributors could provide an actual analysis of water from the region that would be outstanding, of course. Many thanks for any input, Dave in Dallas ddraper at utdallas.edu http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html "...when you think about it, everything makes sense." - --Ginger Wotring Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 05:49:33 -0500 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: legal stuff/HBD/MCAB Chris Schmidt notes: > Along this line. I have a friend who owns an apple orchard. He claims > that he can produce "Hard" cider and sell it without a license etc.. Claims > some kind of "Grandfather" law that allows for this as this goes back to > the beginning of the United States etc. > > I question whether the ATF feels the same way. Cider, although included in the legal definition of "wine," is indeed exempt from federal tax, although its sale is subject to federal labeling restrictions. >From the U.S. Code, Title 26: Section 5042. Exemption from tax (a) Tax-free production (1) Cider Subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the noneffervescent product of the normal alcoholic fermentation of apple juice only, which is produced at a place other than a bonded wine cellar and without the use of preservative methods or materials, and which is sold or offered for sale as cider and not as wine or as a substitute for wine, shall not be subject to tax as wine nor to the provisions of subchapter F. Of course, state law may tax, regulate, or even ban cider production. Lest there be any misunderstandings -- this exemption is extremely narrow and applies only to cider. It *cannot* be used in any fashion to justify the sale of homebrewed beer. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On the current discussions on whether technical discussions in the HBD are worthwhile, I'll just quote from the HBD's Steering Committee's guidelines: HBD readers *are* the HBD. They and the marketplace of ideas -- not any person or committee -- are the ultimate arbitrators of what beer and brewing related posts are worthwhile and appropriate for the HBD. Thus, as Pat has noted, if people are interested in a beer-related topic, it's proper fodder for the HBD. If not, the thread will die off eventually because people will simply tire of it and use the ever- ready page-down key. My personal $0.02 -- keep the technical discussions coming! - ------------------------------------------------------------ Lastly, I'm off to Colorado for the GABF and a few days off. When I get back, I'll have updates on the MCAB, assuming I'm not shot on sight when I hit Denver. (Just kidding -- I look forward to meeting Jim, Brian, and their staff at the GABF and various post-parties.) So for those of you who don't get prompt replies to your MCAB-related e-mail, I apologize in advance and promise that I will get back to you around October 11. Louis K. Bonham lkbonham at phoenix.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 10:39:15 UT From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at classic.msn.com> Subject: Disappearing Pumpkin HBDers - Eric Fouch recently posted an experience of his pumkin flavor and aroma disappearing. I too have had a similar disappointing experience. For my pumpkin beer, the wort tasted great coming out of the fermenter, then spiraled to a bland, slightly spicy non-descript ale by racking time. In an effort to save the beer, I dumped 1# of pie filling straight into the secondary -- just like you would do with fruit. This added a little pumpkin flavor back into the beer, which seemed to make it into the bottling bucket. I added a bit more spice at bottling time to boost the aroma, and a sample of the beer leftover from bottling tasted pretty good a few days later (I stored it in the frig). Now, several months later, I opened a bottle in preparation for Halloween and other fall celebrations, and again, the pumkin and most of the spice was gone. My only guess is that breweries halt fermentation before all the pumpkin is gone, or use some sort of extract. I'd like to try to save this batch, even if it means empting the bottles into a corney and forcing. Perhaps there is an extract out there that I can add to the bottles via a dropper? Chas Peterson Laytonsville, Md Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:39:36 -0700 From: "Kevin J. O'Donnell" <kjo at penn.com> Subject: Simple questions to the "scientists" Can any of you "scientists" help a new extract homebrewer for a moment. I have two simple (I think)questions. 1. Can you prepare a bulk priming solution - say 1 gallon - that can be used at bottlng rather than boil 3/4 cups of sugar in water at each bottling session? I understand that the proportions would have to be accurate for 1 gallon and that 1 pint or so would be used for each 5 gallon batch that is being bottled. It could be kept in a sanitized gallon jug. 2. On the subject of finings (bentonite, gelatin, polycar,etc...) Does anyone have suggestions on when to use or if it ever hurts to use them. I recently brewed a batch of IPA and it was as cloudy as muddy water in the secondary after 2 weeks. I added gelatin per directions -- no help. I was then advised to add some grape tannin to assist the gelatin - no help. Finally I tried some bentonite (wonderful stuff....ugh) and it seemed to help somewhat. However, I just don't feel right about having all this junk in my brew and it still does have a pretty good haze. Any thoughts ???????? Thanks for your advice. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:04:29 +0100 From: Fredrik.Stahl at math.umu.se (Fredrik Staahl) Subject: Re: EBC to SRM conversion >Hi Brewers, > >I am trying out this Brewers Workshop software. >To work out the colour of my beer, the program use the malt colour in >SRM. The malt I use is specified only in EBC and Lovibond. > >How can I convert EBC to SRM ? >Are there a formula for this ? > >I would prefer to convert EBC to SRM because I understand that >Lovibond is not described by a simple mathematical formula. >Can EBC be described by a simple formula ? I have the same problem. Ray Daniels has the following conversion formula in an article series in BT ("Beer Color Demystified", Brewing Techniques 3 no. 4-6, 1995): EBC = 1.97 SRM This formula should be OK provided that your data is reasonably new (the EBC method for measuring colour was changed sometime before 1987). It should be alright to use the Lovibond figure however, since the malt colour values are probably measured in SRM and just written as Lovibond. All references I have say that SRM and Lovibond are pretty close, but recently this has been disputed here on HBD and I have no hard data. Also, there is no idea in high accuracy here since colour prediction of the finished beer is rather uncertain (I don't know how Brewers Workshop does it but I cannot imagine that it has a way of accounting for all the variables affecting colour). /Fredrik - -------------------------------------------------------------- Fredrik St{\aa}hl Tel: int + 46 90 786 6027 Math. Dept. Fax: int + 46 90 786 5222 University of Ume{\aa} E-mail: Fredrik.Stahl at math.umu.se S-90187 Ume{\aa}, SWEDEN WWW: http://www.math.umu.se/~fredriks On tap: Hedgehog Bitter *** Nemo saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit *** - -------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:18:57 -0400 From: Greg_Young at saunderscollege.com (Greg Young) Subject: Belgian Yeast Howdy, all. I just returned from Oktoberfest over in Munich, and let me just say that if you ever get the chance to get over there, do it--you won't regret it. Anyway, on to the question. In my quest to experiment with as many different yeast strains as possible, I'm thinking of using WYeast 3942, Belgian Wheat, for this year's holiday brew. Does anyone have any experience with this strain? The WYeast description says it imparts apple/plum overtones, but I'm wondering if it also gives the spicy/clove-like notes as in the Belgian Wit. Also, are there specific style guidelines for a Belgian Wheat? Is there a difference between a Belgian Wit and a Belgian Wheat? Any recipe guidelines for a Belgain Wheat would be great, since I can't seem to find anything on the style. Thanks in advance.... Prost! Greg Young Greg_Young at saunderscollege.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:32:12 -0500 (CDT) From: David S Draper <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Millenium Ales Dear Friends, People need to beware of these marketing gimmicks about Millenium Ales. The truth, known to only a few so far, is that the gravity of any beer that is in the bottle or keg when the year changes from 1999 to 2000 will immediately go to 1.000. Yes, that's right, Zero Gravity Millenium Ale. The only way to prevent this calamity is simply to make sure there *is* no beer in bottles or kegs on that fateful day. If this is a problem for anyone, I hereby volunteer to relieve you of that burden-- just send the beer to me and I will see to it that it is treated properly. You have been warned! Cheers, Dave in Dallas - -- David S. Draper ddraper at utdallas.edu Fax: 214-883-2829 Dept. Geosciences WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper Electron Probe Lab: Univ. Texas at Dallas 972-883-2407 ...That's right, you're not from Texas... but Texas wants you anyway... Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:52:04 -0400 From: Doug Moyer <moyer-de at salem.ge.com> Subject: Scientific content/A question of style Dearest collective, I'd hate to defend a position that seems so negatively vehement, but... I believe that our Mr. Sepanski had a point. I _think_ that he meant that scientific topics are okay IF they are discussed in a scientific manner. In previous centuries, "scientific" method meant delving into historical writings and extrapolating those opinions into your current situations by applying "wisdom" and "sensibility". Some of the posts have taken this methodology into brewing. In this century, we understand that a single experiment is _always_ insufficient to support a hypothesis. On the other hand, this is a _discussion_ forum, not a scientific journal. The greatest difficulty (especially for the newbie) in utilizing the information and opinions expressed in this digest is understanding which posts represent valid, tested information and which are merely postulates. On the third hand ;-) it is simple enough for the home brewer to do his/her own experiments, and if a particluar idea seems worthwhile, or even amusing, what the hell? Try it. Everyone chooses his/her own depth of participation in this hobby. - ---------------------------- The sub heading of Alan Moen's column in the 9/97 Brewing Techniques states, "Style guidelines define the playing field of creativity. Brewers, like all artists, must recognize that innovation is meaningless outside the bounds of tradition." He starts off bitching about a particular beer that is far outside of the labelled style, and then begins a rant along the lines of the above quote. Whoa! I believe that following the style guidelines is fairly important in labelling and competition, but saying that innovation and creativity must be restrained by tradition? Hell, we never would've seen lagers/IPAs/stouts/... in the first place if brewers followed this for the past century or so! We never would've had hops in our beer! He briefly touches on this by saying that, "...many of the classic styles ... were actually born into classes of their own making." Can this happen no more? He ends saying, "Variations on a theme will always be welcome as long as the tune is recognizable in the first place." Are we not allowed to write new tunes? Is every new beer to be considered either a valid or invalid variation on an existing style? I think that half the fun of brewing is saying, "Let's see what happens if...." What do the rest of you think? Is it a cardinal sin to brew beers that don't fit into a particular style? (I'm already consigned to hell for other reasons, why not a new one?) As I read the column, I initially thought I was missing his point, but he kept hammering at it... Cheers! Doug Moyer Big Lick Brewing Collective "Big Lick--where science meets tradition, and says, 'Screw em both!' " Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:21:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net> Subject: last shot then back to passive mode... just to clearify...i am not against "science" in brewing, dont get me wrong on that. i am just saying that with all the variables in the average homebrewers environment (even in the microbrewers), it is very diffcult to control even a few of these...sure you can buy temp controllers, agitators, water meters, the nice and expensive sachrometers, digital ph meters,DO meters, nice water conditioning systems, state of the art fermentation gear (any one want to go halves and buy and immobilized yeast reactor - that is what i want). one thing that constant bug the crap out of me was all the talk about what the yeast is doing after adding to wort...resipring - not respiring using this path way or that path way. for most people, this does not matter you learn to treat the yeast properly (and they are as tempermental as it gets) they do the job, you taste the beer and go from there. learning how to deal with a particular yeast takes time, it has a personality, it likes to be treated a certain way. keeping good records is the key - use science here if you think you have to "explain" what is going on. the main point is: what is meaningfull to one brewer is probably not applicable to another. science is good to know info, but usually (especially at homebrew and smaller commercial levels) not very practical for day to day use. anyway soapbox off - back to passive mode.... good luck and great brewing to all...however you do it... Joe Rolfe onbc at shore.net jrolfe at mc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:23:16 -0400 From: "LARSONC%DOM13.DOPO7" <Erik.Larson at MS01.DO.treas.sprint.com> Subject: Bohemian Pils Yeast for Cal. Common? Date: 10/02/1997 10:16 am (Thursday) From: C. Erik LARSON To: EX.MAIL."homebrew at hbd.org" Subject: Bohemian Pils Yeast for Cal. Common? Cheers. I have 3 packets of aging Wyeast Bohemian Pils Yeast that I've started and plan on using in a California common (I have all the ingredients for the latter already). I plan on fermenting at about 67 degrees in my basement. This yeast tends to prodce quite a few esters even at normal lager temps, so I'm wondering what people think will be the result at ale temps? Thanks, Erik Dr. Erik Larson, Taxman/Brewer US Treasury, Washington DC. erik.larson at treas.sprint.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:22:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Kevin Kane <kkane at uidaho.edu> Subject: Roasting barley Has anyone had success roasting their own raw barley for making stouts? Any references out there? Thanks... Kevin M. Kane, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83844 Lab:208-885-7277 Fax:208-885-6173 Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/03/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96