HOMEBREW Digest #2577 Mon 08 December 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

  Sparklers - UK head preferences (hugh)
  Clinitest part 2 (Al Korzonas)
  AHH, AHH, AHH ("David R. Burley")
  Moldy Beer ("Jim Tiefenthal")
  Re: intellectual property (Sheena McGrath)
  AFCHBC Call for Judges (hollen)
  Warming your yeast, metallic beers (Chasman)
  Re: Bottled Water to Top Off? (Steve Jackson)
  Digi-Dial Thermometer (Tom_Williams)
  Blending (schwab_bryan)
  Re: On Shocking Yeast (Jeff Renner)
  Bottled Water Topoff/Decanting Starters (AJ)
  Pipeline chiller ("Jim Busch")
  Boil them grain experts! ("Pat Babcock")
  Sexist Kitchen Rant (Lorne P. Franklin)
  Can't beleive it happened ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Malt Sugar Profiles (Andrew Stavrolakis)
  Kettle shape, dead white men, bottled water, liquid yeast (Samuel Mize)
  ascorbic acid in beer (Charles Epp)

===================================================================== Have you hugged your mash tun today? 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: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 15:55:41 -0700 From: hugh at see.sig.net Subject: Sparklers - UK head preferences Al K writes: (#2573) > I'd like to comment on the "authenticity" issue regarding sparklers. > A foamy pint is a "northern" (England) concept and one that is generally > frowned-upon by CAMRA. The argument against them is that they knock > virtually all the CO2 out of solution while creating that marvelous head. A foamy pint is not really a good description of a northern beer. A well poured northern beer has a very 'tight' or 'close' head (i.e., small bubbles that last through the drinking life of the beer and form lace-like patterns on the glass as the beer is drunk). This type of head is frowned on by the south-England oriented parts of CAMRA but is highly prized in the North. It is certainly _not_ frowned on by CAMRA members in the North. The lack of such a head, however, is despised! There are no right answers in the world of beer... A head comparable to the N2/CO2 'smooth-pour' or Guinness head can be achieved by a skillful pub landlord by the skillful use of a beer engine and sparklers. The sparkler is often adjusted during the pour. Unfortunately this level of skill is rare and is becoming rarer and the smooth-pour system is taking over in many pubs as a way of serving a good head on a non-real ale beer. Having lived in several areas of both parts of England (the divisions are of course more subtle than N vs S) and, having drunk real ales there since I was 17^H8, my preference changed from the fizzier, low head, southern ales to the creamier headed, less carbonated Northern ales. The additional mouth feel and aroma provided by the head and the carbonation release during the pour adds to the percieved quality of the beer, IMNSHO. The lack of these features may make southern beers seem watery in comparison. Bear in mind that UK ales are of relatively low OG, 1.035-1.045 for an ordinary bitter, and are served at low carbonation levels and at cellar temperatures partly to enable the consumption of sufficient volume to compensate for the lowish OG. Damn, now I'm thirsty. Hugh - -- hugh at lamar dot colostate then dot then edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:08:17 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Clinitest part 2 Beginning of part 2. >All of the sucrose (possibly from the addition by the brewer >or extract manufacturer or the approx 3-5% from malt) >has been converted by the yeast's extracellular enzyme >'invertase' and the sugar concentration is within the range >of the test. These inverted sucrose sugars, if any are left, will be >detected by the Clinitest. The hydrometer is nearly useless >in this region since its broad reading gives indistinguishable >results for nearly the same sugar content in the 0-2% range, >especially if it is interfered with by any of the many above variables. What you are missing (although I posted it in my second or third post on the Clinitest, over a year ago) is the fact that yeast eat the sugars in order of complexity. I'm not sure if they release the invertase before or after eating the maltotriose, but they will certainly have eaten all the glucose, fructose, and maltose long before you should be even considering to determine whether or not the fermentation is complete. If, however, yeast eats maltotriose *before* it releases the invertase, then we could have sucrose in the wort at a time when the yeast is slowing down (an eager brewers might be thinking about calling it done and therefore starting to measure the sugar content with the Clinitest), *BUT* still have sucrose in the wort which is very fermentable *AND* does *NOT* react with the Clinitest. >> This is what I've *thought* all along yet >>had no proof, so I posted simply that I was "skeptical" of its usefulness. >You only had to read my past posts both public and >private to *clearly* understand this. No... I wasn't sure if there were unfermentable sugars that react with the Clinitest. That was my biggest question... we still don't know if sucrose is eaten before or after maltotriose and the other bigger fermentables. >>If you always brew the same recipes and always use the Clinitest, you >>can get a feel for what level of sugar (as reported by the test) is >>expected for each recipe. However, I've only brewed the same recipe >>perhaps 6 times. The other 150+ beers were in 30+ styles from 150+ >>recipes. Given this kind of variation in dextrins from batch to batch, >>I don't think it's practical to try to use Clinitest for predicting >>anything, *expecially* how much fermentable sugar remains in a partially >>fermented batch (i.e. adjusting down priming rates to account for >>unfermented, but fermentable sugar). >Whoa!!. You've got that backwards. It's the hydrometer that >is totally useless in the above scenario. Clinitest always >lets you know when the batch is fermented out *regardless* >of the FG. This is the real strength of this method. No guesswork. >I repeat again, in my years of experience with using Clinitest, >I have never had a Clinitest reading of greater than 1/4% sugar >at the end of a fermentation. ( Actually I don't remember one this high). No, I have it right... I'm not using the hydrometer to determine the end of fermentation (except, as I said before, to see that my 1.100 OG Barleywine should have attenuated better than an FG of 1.040 or that my 1.070 Tripel isn't ready to bottle at 1.035!). Read again the last sentence that I wrote... I still contend that the varibility in the Clinitest due dextrin content is enough to make using it to *adjust priming rates* foolish. >For special cases like lagering under pressure, I routinely test the beer >and put it in the Cornelius keg when its sugar content is >below 1%, but it is not completely finished fermenting. Using this >method of testing to adjust priming sugar is fine, but as I have >commented elsewhere you get a lot more yeast in the bottle, >since the beer has not been to the secondary for settling. I have >done this only a few times under time pressure, but successfully. In a keg, you can have a little overcarbonation and you can fix it (over a week of releasing pressure, perhaps). In bottles, it can go from flat to a gusher with a very small difference in sugar. >If the brewer added lactose before fermentation ( why?) then >this will have to be taken into account. Were this the case, it >would represent the same problem for the hydrometer method >in finishing "high". In either case, successive readings would >show that there was no change and the Clinitest method is no >worse that the hydrometer in this highly unusual and concocted >case. The Clinitest still uses only a small sample and is easier to >use without all that cleaning up. When did I say that one should take successive readings? Never. I've never advocated that method. Others have suggested this in books, so you presume I'm using this (useless, to me) method? Oh, and regarding adding lactose pre-fermentation... this *is* what I recommend because if you have some bacteria or wild yeast in your ferment and you add the lactose (which these nasties *can* eat) at bottling time, I guarantee gushers and would put money on exploding bottles. >For all those struggling all grainers who have been taking >100 ml or larger samples at the end of your sparge, cooling >them while continuing the sparge, measuring the specific gravity >to find a value less than 1.010,and finding you are reading a result >that does not reflect current results of the sparge stream, try the >Clinitest as an *indication* of the sugar content at the end of the >sparge. It's not as perfect (bearing in mind the above comments) It may be useful in this capacity, but I don't even use a hydrometer to determine the end of the sparge. I stop sparging when I've taken enough runnings (usually 17 gallons, if I'm not doing parti-gyle). >Al, I respect nearly all of your opinions and read them carefully, >and I cannot believe you have never tried Clinitest, yet you have >all these dark, unfounded suspicions about it. I read your posts and emails carefully and value your opinions also, but I must comment when I feel there is information that can lead people into trouble. You'll note that I simply mentioned that I was skeptical when you initially brought it up. I didn't make a big fuss like this post until you started saying that you can reliably *adjust priming sugar for partially fermented beers* using the Clinitest. I feel this method can get a brewer in the exact same trouble as your suggestion to prime with a randomly partially-fermented kraeusen wort. I think of you as a sort of absent-minded professor. I'm like that too. I think you have a lot of good ideas and you certainly know a large portion of the science behind it all, but sometimes you leave out a few little pieces (which I'm sure you consider trivial) which I believe are important. There are a handful of things you continue to post that I disagree with (like the infection problems from blowoff tubes or or your seat-of-the-pants kraeusening technique) and I'll keep posting rebuttals. >I suggest the only way you will be satisfied is to actually >go out, buy one and try it in parallel to your current method >and draw your own conclusions instead of writing about >something of which you admit to knowing nothing. As I've noted above... even if the Clinitest was 100% reliable, I would not use it because I rely on yeast sedimentation and not SG drop or sugar content to decide when to bottle/keg. Even if it was possible to use it reliably to reduce priming sugar (and it may be... I don't have the time to do the research), what would this buy us? We could bottle/keg three days sooner, but we would have to condition it three days longer till the green beer flavours were removed by the yeast. You can't rush the yeast. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:00:45 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: AHH, AHH, AHH Brewsters: So we could continue this in sequence, AlK was good enough to provide me with his comments at time of submission. - ----------------- Even though he has been admonished on more than one occasion for trying to personalize an argument in which he is losing ground, AlK characterizes me as : >I think of you as a sort of absent-minded professor. = Exactly why is that relevant? > I'm like that too. Never considered it. Certainly not important to me. >I think you have a lot of good ideas and you certainly know a large >portion of the science behind it all, but sometimes you leave out a few >little pieces (which I'm sure you consider trivial) which I believe >are important. Like..... > There are a handful of things you continue to post >that I disagree with = But you never support with facts, just your opinion. So far, if I understand your objection to Clinitest it's Because you haven't tried it? Don't understand it? Don't need to know when your fermentation is over because you just wait until your beer clears? Didn't read it in Miller's or Papazian's book? There might be some critical problem that will mislead newbies that I haven't recognized in a few decades of using the test? None of these hold much water, unfortunately. Other than getting into the details of the actual chemical reaction of Fehling's reaction, I don't know what else I could do to show you that this test is on solid grounds and is useful to the brewer. Lots of us like to have a real understanding of what is going on in our fermentation and control events, rather than just hang around and wonder if its all going OK.. Clinitest is just one more arrow in our quiver. Try it, please. You CAN be saved yet!, brother. {8^) 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: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:38:33 -0500 From: "Jim Tiefenthal" <jimtiefenthal at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Moldy Beer Hello, I am experiencing a problem with recent batch of oatmeal stout, I hope someone out there can help identify what went wrong or if it is salvageable: Brewed all grain oatmeal stout, O.G. 1.052, fermented Primary for 9 days with Wyeast 1968, transferred to glass secondary - gravity 1.028, after 1 week in the secondary a thin skin and what appears to be a white mold has developed on the surface of the beer. I have been all grain brewing 13 gal batches for over 8 years and have never experienced this before. Any ideas that can help me identify and eliminate the problem would be welcome. Thanks...Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 19:07:30 -0800 From: Sheena McGrath <sheena at gte.net> Subject: Re: intellectual property On the question of whether or not you own your recipe when you are an employee, the law seems to say no. Therefore, if you want to own your recipes, get yourself an ironclad contract. I speak as an author, and the only reason we get the deal we do is because we insist. Don't give away your copyrights, or if you do sell them dear. In the case of brewery employees, it may be more acceptable to have an agreement stating that you should be compensated for having no copyright, since I doubt that brewery owners are suddenly going to reverse their usual practice. Don't let your enthusiasm about being hired get in the way of protecting yourself. If necessary, get a lawyer to do it for you. They get paid lots of money to do things that make people despise them, that's their raison d'etre. Sorry for the rant, but copyright and protecting your work are important to me. Sheena Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 97 07:49:01 PST From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: AFCHBC Call for Judges Fifth Annual America's Finest City Home Brew Competition Dear Beer Evaluator: The 1998 contest season will soon be upon us, and the AFC contest will be a good opportunity to score some points and warm-up your palette for the year of judging. We expect about 300 beers to judge this year. Your presence at the contest will be greatly appreciated. This year's contest is both AHA and BJCP registered and BJCP points will be awarded for your participation. Following are this year's vital facts: Date: Saturday March 8th, 1998 Place: AleSmith Brewing Co. 9368 Cabot Dr. (Miramar area) San Diego, CA 92126 (619)549-9888 Time: 9:30 am AleSmith is a fully functioning microbrewery, producing an English style ESB. AleSmith ESB and lunch will be served, as well as soft drinks and water. Also, coffee and bagels will be available as you arrive. We expect this to be a fun and well run event for all who participate, and we look forward to seeing you at AleSmith. If you have participated in the past, we would appreciate your input as to how we can improve this competition for you. Registration forms may be requested by Email, USMail, phone or online. Please fill out the registration form and return it A.S.A.P after receipt. The online registration form is available on our webpage at: http://www.brewsoft.com/afchbc/judge.html Cheers. Dion Hollenbeck, Judge Coordinator 516 Forward Street La Jolla, CA 92037 (619)597-7080*164 wk, 459-8724 hm Email: hollen at vigra.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 00:11:16 -0800 From: Chasman <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com> Subject: Warming your yeast, metallic beers Michael asks about shocking yeast: >Someone posted a few weeks back a comment/question about shocking yeast. He >or she had a memory of reading somewhere that yeast are not shocked by a >sudden introduction from refrigerator temps to pitching temps - i.e., not >from cold to warm. It's the sudden shift from warm to cold that will shock, >this person was suggesting. > >I haven't seen any reference to this comment in subsequent HBDs, but have >been looking for one. I've always been careful and gentle with yeast, >allowing them to warm slowly to room temp before pitching. I notice that >George de Piro repeats the commonly held wisdom ("but be sure to warm it >slowly") in HBD # 2572. I posted a comment several months back about this issue. I don't *warm* my yeast before pitching. I pitch yeast right out of the fridge into the fermentor and then immediately begin my heat exchange. I'd heard about the idea of "warming" your yeast from refrigerator temp before pitching and had done that for awhile. I then read, in some article or text, that warming is not necessary. Yeast don't respond negatively to rapid warming, only rapid cooling. I've browsed through my mulitude of texts to see if I could find the reference to this but I have not yet come across it (for all I know it could be an old issue of Zymurgy, Brewing Techniques or The New Brewer, not one of my brewing books). In any event, I've never had a problem with my current technique and didn't see any difference between warming the yeast or pitching cold yeast. I look at it this way. If I was freezing my ass off in a snowstorm (feeling lethargic and unmotivated) and someone rescued me and plopped me down in front of a fireplace or stuck me in a warm bath, I'd be happy as hell. If, on the other hand, someone removed me from my nice warm bath and tossed me out in the snow, I'd be mad as hell. I kinda think that the yeast would react similarly, thus explaining my observations? In regards to the diatribe on Noche Buena (the real name, *not* Bueno Noche or any of the other variations) I've not noticed a "metallic" taste with this particular beer but I have with *many* others. Usually, the taste is pronounced when I drink from the bottle but not when it is poured into a glass (the opposite of what the original poster described). I believe this is due to bad caps which leave a "rusty" residue on the rim of the bottle which comes across as a metallic taste when beer passes over it ( the rusty rim). Comments? C-- Charles Hudak in San Diego, California (Living large in Ocean Beach!!) cwhudak at adnc.com ICQ# 4253902 "If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs." - --David Daye Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:49:22 -0800 (PST) From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson at rocketmail.com> Subject: Re: Bottled Water to Top Off? In HBD #2574 Steve (Steph10344 at aol.com) wrote: >>>>> Our recent cooperative brewin with 10 of our club members created different opinions as to using spring water from the jug to top off a batch, without boiling. Does anyone have any specifics as to the contents of the spring water? and its suitability for use in this manner? Steve <<<<< It's basically impossible to provide specifics as to the contents of bottled spring water, since different companies use different springs in different parts of the country (or world). Just as tap water's contents varies in different parts of the country, such is the case with spring water. The "manufacturer" of whatever water you use can provide you with a mineral analysis. Now, more to your question: Is topping off with unboiled bottled spring water safe? ABSOLUTELY NOT. By definition, spring water is water that comes from a spring. According to my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Third Edition (1992), a spring is "a small stream of water flowing naturally from the earth." Frequently, this water is not treated in any way, meaning it carries with it all sorts of stuff, including bacteria, wild yeast and other things you don't want in your beer. Only water that actually comes from a spring can be labeled "spring water" for commercial sale. Other bottled waters can come from any source. Many of them are actually nothing more than municipal tap water that is bottled for sale (which is why most bottled water is a big scam, IMO). This, too, can include all sorts of microbiological crap you don't want in your beer. To provide one datapoint, one of my first batches received a infection (likely wild yeast, since fermentation also behaved funny by continuing much longer than it should have) that eventually made the beer undrinkable due to an increasingly strong band-aid phenolic aroma and flavor. This batch was brewed using a concentrated boil, topped off by unboiled bottled water (I don't remember if it was spring water, but I believe it was). Since everything else in my brewing procedure seemed to be up to par in terms of sanitation, I believe the probability is that this infection came from the 3 gallons or so of unboiled water in the beer. In short, don't introduce any water that hasn't been boiled into your beer, regardless of its source (including distilled water). Water is simply too ideal an environment for all sorts of microflora and microfauna that you don't want in your beer for you to go dumping it in without first killing off the little creatures. -Steve in Indy _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:00:45 -0500 From: Tom_Williams at cabot-corp.com Subject: Digi-Dial Thermometer Help! I have a Digi-Dial thermometer, which has a probe about 6 inches long, with a small LCD display and tiny "ON" button. I have long since disposed of the package and instructions. I used this device to check the Thanksgiving turkey, and someone among the hoard managed to get the thing into a deg Celcius display mode!! My twenty years of engineering practice using English units makes it impossible for me to use such a device. Does anyone know how to switch the darn thing back to deg F? Tom Williams Dunwoody, Georgia Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 97 07:03:40 -0600 From: schwab_bryan at ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil Subject: Blending We were wondering if anybody out within the Collective has ever tried sucessfully any "Blending Techniques" in order to save their once "Thin and lack of body carbonated brews?? We have read the archives, we have verbally inquired with those we thought might have knowledge here, but to be quite honest, we are abit leary of really screwing up big time. Any information would be appreciated. Basically we have several "Ales" which are just to "thin, watery, and lack body or mouthfeel". We thought of brewing a Blending Brew consisting of your basic 2-Row, with some light crystal. A 5 gallon batch, of maybe a 70-30 mix with a low hop rate. Fermented out and then added to these Ales after purging roughly 1 gallon or two and replacing with the fuller body Blend. Any thoughts???? Bryan E. Schwab Panama City FL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:33:16 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: On Shocking Yeast "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu> asked for an authorative source for the idea that cold to warm will not shock yeast, but warm to cold will. Dave Miller wrote that this was the case in BT a couple of years ago. He said that he always pitched cold yeast at his brewery. Now Dave has offered some questionable theory (delayed solubility of bottle conditioned CO2 comes to mind), but this is based on his experience. I've definitely had bad results going warm to cold too quickly, although there could have been other causes, but cold to warm has given me no trouble. Nonetheless, I generally try to warm yeast slowly, just to be safe. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 10:19:03 -0500 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Bottled Water Topoff/Decanting Starters Steve asked about topping off a batch with unboiled bottled spring water. I'm sure the discussions among the club members covered the pros and cons. Obviously bottled spring water is subject to testing similar to that to which any other potable source is subject. This means that the majority of 100 mL samples tested must contain zero coliforms. This does not mean that the water actually contains zero coliforms - just that it contains few enough that the methods used to test for coliforms read 0 more often than not. Now while it is true that we don't want coliforms in our beer there are lots of other things that can be in the water that, while they are not pathogenic, we also do not want in our beer. These are not tested for and may or may not be present in a coliform-free sample. For example, my well water is coliform free but contains lots of other gram-negative rods in a fascinating array of shapes and sizes. My well passes the coliform test but flunks on other bugs. I don't know which, if any, of these bugs are beer or wort spoilers because I always boil the stuff before adding it to beer. Now if I, or a water bottling plant, filtered the water from this well with a fine enough filter or treated the water with ultraviolet radiation not only would it pass the coliforms test but the other bugs would be removed as well and it would be safe to add to fermenting beer to top up. The point is that you don't know what the supplier did, if anything, to pass the coliforms test. You can perform a simple test with the bottled water in question. Thoroughly sterilize a few small flasks and put about 100 mL of boiled wort in each. Plug with sterilized cotton balls or cover with sterilized aluminum foil. After the wort has cooled, add about 10 mL of the bottled water to half the flasks and leave the other half as controls. Put in a warm place and check every day for a few days. If the controls are biologically active your sanitation was inadequate and the test is invalid. If the controls are free of biological activity and the flasks with the water are active then it is obvious that something in the water innoculated the wort. Note that eventually the controls will probably become active unless you pressure sterilized everything and worked under a laminar flow hood. What you are looking for is activity in the test flasks appreciably before activity in the controls. The good news is that even if there are a few beer pathenogens in the bottled water the activity of the yeast in the beer may be enough to suppress them (competition for nutrients, reduction in pH) and you may get away with introducing a few organisms without detriment to the beer. On the other hand it is little trouble to boil top up water for 15 minutes and then cool it down (though you must be aware that refridgerators are havens for bacteria and take precautions to prevent infection during cooling). You know you are safe if you do this. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom Clark wants to know if heavy aeration of starters produces acetate and whether he should decant after each step. The answer to both questions is easily obtained by decanting the broth from a heavily aerated starter and tasting it. Measurement of the pH with an appropriate device is also instructive. (For the impatient: the answers are "Yes" and "Yes".) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:49:44 +0000 From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com> Subject: Pipeline chiller <-From: "Myers, John" <JMyers at polkaudio.com> <Subject: Brewery Design Considerations <Thanks to those who made suggestions for moving wort from the patio <to the utility room. Copper is preferred over CPVC. Indeed, and if this room can get very cold in the winter consider a means to remove/drain the water from any exterior/exposed pipes. Ive had pipes freeze and break in my outdoor brewery/shed and this has happened when it was not well drained. Plastic is OK for cold water feeds but use copper or SS for wort lines. A hot water heater is real nice for the brewery too (propane or NG). < To those who <were confused by my original post, I wanted to move wort from an <outside ground level patio to an inside subterranean utility room. Excellent idea, one that I put in my brewery years ago. I move 1 BBL of cast out wort from my backyard brewery to my basement fermentation cellar. I use a 1/2" copper soft refrige line inside of 3/4" garden hose to fabricate a couterflow chiller/pipeline. Works great. < I do not fancy moving 5-10 gallons of wort by hand due to the <chance of hurting my beer or myself. Water is approximately 8 <pounds to the gallon, and tends to slosh around. I had considered <an in-line chiller, but was correctly reminded of hot side aeration, <so only cooled wort will travel the pipe line. Now I'm trying to <come up with a clever name for the pipe line... I dont follow you on the HSA issue. Either the wort is chilled using an immersion chiller in kettle and transferred cold, or a closed loop counterflow chiller is used whereby no HSA can occur. Be sure to consider hop straining and hot trub catch in the design. I like to use a SS perf sheet false bottom in my boiler and only whole hops. This makes a nice filter bed to catch hot break before the chiller. I then use the every popular SS scrubby as a inline catch to my chiller. A hop back could be used to great success as well. With your brewlength at 5-10 gals, you wont need 1/2" pipe but the concept is excellent. Regarding metallic beer flavors- Ive detected this mostly in Belgian ales and found that when the beer warms this diminishes. Also sometimes I detect this with Tettnang hops. Regarding unitank design, I agree with Joe Rolfe, spend the money on triclovers and SS fittings. You might as well get a CIP ball valve too and a racking arm/port on the cone (one that is turnable is a plus so it can be directed up or down). My sample port is on the side of my tank, just above the cone. I use a loop chiller inside the manway that works fairly well for ales but I need to get a good glycol chiller for lagers and alt-type biers. Speaking of CIP of uni's, I have to chime in on the wonders of PBW. My tank never shined as bright as it did after one CIP with PBW. I still like good ol NaOH but PBW has its places and is fantastic for soaking soiled lauter tun screens ( I left mine soaking for 4 weeks while beer hunting in Europe and was amazed at the results, clean and no buildup). Prost! Jim Busch about 1,000 miles East-SE of Jeff Renner and 120 miles south of lovely Downingtown, Pa. (home of the HopDevil) ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:20:35 -0500 From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Boil them grain experts! Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... To all those (and there were many! Ah! The wealth of the HBD!) who responded to my quandary regarding decoctions vs steeping: a hearty thanks! The prevailing answer provided is quite correct, and the first occurrence of it in my mailbox resulted in a resounding forehead slap: Of course! The pH of the water is key! The first response received get's the award for the best explanation as Mr. Murphy and PINE would have it, that response was the one that got deleted as I attempted to "make due" from Norfolk. I think it was John Varady, but I've been known to have been wrong in the past. Paraphrasing from memory: The grain in a decoction mash adjusts the pH to our typical ~5.0. The water in a steep would be much closer to 7.0. Tannin extraction is most allied to pH (*BIG* forehead slap there. What have I been reading for the last several years right here in the ol 'Gest???). Therefor, tannins would be more readily extracted by the steep than the decoct. Bravo! Elegant in its simplicity. As for the final decoct, Al Korzonas reminds us that we pull the THINNEST portion of the mash for mash out. Ideally, this will have no grain and, therefor, there will be no extraction of tannins, nor starches. Finally, Ken Schwartz and some one else struck by Mr. Murphy and PINE (I really should be more careful with the dagnabbit "d" key...) suggest that the longish lagering time to which most decocted lagers are subjected may play a role in reducing the tannins. Several gave a "Hmmm: never thought of the 'water as a solvent' angle before" nod to my "thoughts," but guys: I'm all wet (no pun intended) on that one. Too much stress, not enough brewing.... Thanks again! You've set me back on my track, and the engine's running fine once again! See ya! Pat Babcock pbabcock at oeonline.com Decode the location clue: I shot an arrow into the air, where it came down, I do not care - but I'll bet my grain bill it hit a car trapped in a backup due to the at #$% road construction on Michigan Avenue... Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:25:40 -0400 From: lachina at mindspring.com (Lorne P. Franklin) Subject: Sexist Kitchen Rant Peeve Time. I find the repeated references to "her kitchen" to be offensive BS. I generally cook MORE than my wife and usually better. I know that there are tons of other men and women that read the HBD who have crossover brewing/culinary interests and talents. If some of you men don't cook and that job falls on your wife's shoulders, realize that you are not the rule. Join the modern world and can the "her kitchen" crap. Lorne You can't close the door when the walls cave in! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:36:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com> Subject: Can't beleive it happened A few weeks ago I brewed up a batch of dark beer, I had a little more than my 5 gal carboy would hold, so I used a 1/2 gal apple juice glass jar. I ended up with about 20 oz in this jar that I added some of the yeast that was pitched into the 5 gal carboy. For an airlock I used a piece of plastic food wrap and a rubber band to hold in place. After a week it was done (the 5gal is still going) I then decanted the beer off and drank it flat (pretty good too), I placed the jar with yeast at the bottom with the plactic wrap/rubber band in the back of the refrigerater unlabled for future use. My mother-in-law was over yesterday baby sitting my 3 year old daughter. My daughter asked Grandma for some apple juice, yup, she grabbed the yeast and started pouring a glass for her to drink, but said that the apply juice was rather "lumpy and must of been old", so she threw it out :-O. When my mother-in-law was telling me and my wife about the "apple juice", we kinda looked at each other and said "there wasn't any apple juice in the fridge!", then it struck us both "That was the yeast!". So the morale of the story is to lable all containers in the fridge. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:30:31 -0500 From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu> Subject: Malt Sugar Profiles Mark Mallet asks about sugar profiles of extract: >On the web site of a malt extract producer was the sugar profile >for one of their products as listed below: >Fructose 2% >Glucose 11% >Sucrose 1.5% >Maltose 48% >Maltotriose 13% >higher sugars 25% >Does anyone know what the profile of other extracts are? >Also how do mashed grain runnings compare to this? Concerning the former, I have no info. But concerning the latter question of sugar profiles of mashed grain wort, it brings to mind a private email discussion I had with an individual at Lallemand Ltd. (a Canadian yeast co.) regarding fermentability of wort. A number of factors influence the fermentable/nonfermentable sugar composition of wort including mash temperature and mash thickness, as follows: Temp. in degrees Celcius % of wort solids 60 66 68 Monosaccharides 10.1 9.5 10.2 Disaccharides 51.7 48.1 42.0 Trisaccharides 14.3 13.6 12.7 Maltodextrins 0.1 4.1 9.7 %Extract 76.2 75.3 74.6 %Fermentables 76.1 71.2 65.1 Effect of mash thickness on Saccharification at 66 C. % of wort solids Mash thickness 67Kg/Hl 39Kg/Hl 29Kg/Hl Monosaccharides 11.9 9.5 8.1 Disaccharides 42.9 48.1 46.6 Trisaccharides 12.6 13.6 15.0 Maltodextrins 11.9 9.5 8.1 %Extracts 73.4 75.3 74.2 %Fermentables 67.4 71.2 69.7 I have found this info to very helpful in tailoring single temperature infusion mashes to particular beer styles using highly modified British pale malt. I hope this is helpful to others. Andrew Stavrolakis Boston, Ma. Andrew_Stavrolakis at harvard.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:54:49 -0600 (CST) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: Kettle shape, dead white men, bottled water, liquid yeast Greetings to all, and especially to: > HOMEBREW Digest #2574 Thu 04 December 1997 > From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) > Subject: New Brew Kettle > I think that the larger the bottom, the more > wort/kettle interface occurs at high heat, giving better carmelization and > better melanoidin creating environment (no science, just a calculated > guess). I see tall fermenters but short wide kettles and mash tuns in every > brewhouse I visit. A taller cylinder has less area per volume, so it's easier to keep the fermenter's temperature stabilized. Also, it takes up less floor space. (There's been some mention of tall fermenters having problems as well.) A wider brewpot has more bottom to apply heat to, which lets you dump in more heat without overheating the bottom layer of wort -- a better boil with less risk of scorching. Also, less risk of caramelization -- we on HBD seem to AVOID this, except for a very few specific styles (Scotch Ale, I think). Also, a wider brewpot provides more surface area to boil off water and volatiles (like DMS). > From: Paul Niebergall <NOSPAMpnieb at burnsmcd.com> > Subject: Bubblegum, Cleaning carboys, etc. > Sorry if I ofended anyone with the use of the term Nazi ... I appreciate your consideration of my feelings on the matter. > I guess if this forum is to remain > totally PC, I (and many others) should stop using the term anal as well, > as it may offend some of our alternative lifestyle brewers. I suppose if *I* were to be totally PC, I wouldn't consider Nazism evil, just an equally valid lifestyle for the humanity-challenged. Oh wait -- they were white males, so I guess it's OK to keep hating them. :-) > From: Steph10344 at aol.com > Subject: Bottled Water to Top Off ? > Our recent cooperative brewin with 10 of our club members created different > opinions as to using spring water from the jug to top off a batch, without > boiling. Does anyone have any specifics as to the contents of the spring > water? and its suitability for use in this manner? Nobody has any specifics about the content of bottled water except the manufacturer of THAT BRAND of bottled water, and some of them will lie to you about it. Some of them are from crystal springs high in the mountains, and some of them are literally tap water. Depending on the spring involved, you may be better off with the tap water. It's unlikely to be a major source of infection, especially if you're just topping off and then pitching a lot of yeast. On the other hand, if you're feeling sphincter-relaxation challenged about sanitation, it wouldn't hurt to boil it for a few minutes. Probably no big deal. > From: Bob and Susie Stovall <urbanart at netropolis.net> > Subject: yeast question > ... are they different in some way > _because_ they are in a liquid carrier? Or is it because the dry yeast > is not as pure? Or what? Why is yeast in liquid form better? The usual claim is that liquid yeast gives you better purity, while dry yeast gives you a whompin' lotta yeast. There are also only a few strains of yeast that dry well, so liquid provides a better selection. You're getting better results with liquid because you're getting JUST the right yeast, and no others. > What if one rehydrated the dry yeast and then built up a starter... > would it still make a beer tasting different from the beer made from > liquid? Yes, the starter would taste different from the beer. No, wait. Yes, the result would still be different -- you aren't getting as finely-tuned a breed of yeastie. On the other hand, making a starter from the dry may give you a chance to see if there's an infection in the dry yeast. To do this, I suppose you'd have to let the starter work for 12 hours or so, to let the infection take hold, then ditch it if it smells/tastes bad. This may also give the main strain of yeast a chance to overwhelm any variants that got packed along with it. Does anyone here do that? I generally let dry yeast work in a starter, but only for 1-2 hours. Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:19:03 -0600 From: Charles Epp <chuckepp at ukans.edu> Subject: ascorbic acid in beer I'm curious if anybody can report experiences using ascorbic acid in beer to reduce oxidation-related problems. I can offer one data-point. I often like to keep some bottles from each batch longer than 7 months (doing so expands the diversity of beers in my beer cellar), but after that point they begin showing signs of oxidation. In a batch I did about 10 months ago (light, hoppy summer ale), I added a teaspoon of ascorbic acid. Now, 10 months later, there still are none of the usual signs of oxidation (and the beer is pale enough and light enough that ordinarily oxidation would stand out clearly). So far I'm very pleased, and will start adding ascorbic acid regularly. Any other experiences? - --Chuck in Lawrence, Kansas Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/08/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96