HOMEBREW Digest #2582 Sat 13 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 (Al Korzonas)
  Re: Noche Buena (John Adams)
  RE: Lagering in a Capped Bottle (Mike Hughes)
  RE: a few questions ... (Don Ogaard)
  Sparklers or not. (Sean Franklin)
  Predicting FG Using a 60/70 Mash Schedule (Kyle Druey)
  Clintest vs. Dextrins ("Brian Wurst")
  Low pH Beer ("Pitchford, Andrew")
  Vicky Rowe's non-fermenting cider (Vicky Rowe)
  Metallic flavors ("P. Edwards")
  Re:  re:White Labs Pitchable ("P. Edwards")
  Extra Large Grain Hopper (Rust1d)
  George Fix, Yeast dying,Noonan,Mill decision, Just wannabe (in) your Bud ("David R. Burley")
  Mills, Dry Yeast/Spousal Participation/Kegging vs Bottling (KennyEddy)
  RE: yeast dying slowly ("O'Brien, Douglas")
  Filtering (Ralph Link)
  Re:  Iodine test sample pretreatment (George De Piro)
  RE: Return of the RollerMill Thread! ("Kensler, Paul")
  venting corny kegs while fermenting ("Bret A. Schuhmacher")
  Recipe Adjustment ("Ellery.Samuels")

===================================================================== Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as every sentence requires proper punctuation! 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... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:52:20 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Sparklers Hugh writes: >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. I don't see how mouth feel can be added by the head or by the *release* of carbonation... I would say just the opposite is true. Also, as others have posted, the sparkler does indeed cause much of the aromatics in the beer (especially hop aromatics) to come out suddenly and all at the beginning of the pint. By the time the pint is half-consumed, most of the hop aroma can be long gone. I've had literally hundreds of beers from both the north and south and certainly would not characterise either as being generally "watery." There are individual examples of watery beers from every corner of the England/Scotland/Wales, but most are not. The low carbonation levels and cellar temperatures are traditional. Low OG is a result of the tax laws. I drink for flavour and not the alcohol, so in a way, I'm happy, because the brewers there have learned to make flavourful beers from such low gravities. 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: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:05:55 -0700 (MST) From: John Adams <jadams at pipeline.cnd.hp.com> Subject: Re: Noche Buena Scott Perfect Writes: > I recall a couple of years back a gleeful post from George that > Buena Noche was coming available after a long absence. A few days > later he posted that, to his disappointment, the product bore little > resemblance to the beer he had written about in his and Laurie's book. I agree that the Noche Buena from the last few year's is not nearly the product of the early and mid 1980's. I used to drink this beer religuously every Christmas season and would comb the city looking for the last available cases and six packs for the remainder of the year. Noche Buena used to be my favorite beer but no more. The newer version is watery and lacking the rich malt characters. I also find a phenolic/metalic flavor in this season's offering as have others which makes the beer even worse than the last year's versions. On a scale of 1-5 I would rate this Maerzen/Vienna-style beer as 1.5. It no longer is within the style parameters and has very noticable flaws. I do not believe that the brewers at Cerveceria Cuautemoc are interested in making Noche Buena their finest offering of the year and are purely market driven. On the six pack it states: 'Noche Buena ("Christmas Eve" in Spanish).' Not true, Noche Buena translates into "Good Night." Maybe that says it all. BTW: Scott--the beer is Noche Buena (not Buena Noche) - -- John 'Brews Traveler' Adams Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 16:52:53 -0800 From: Mike Hughes <mikehu at synopsys.com> Subject: RE: Lagering in a Capped Bottle Lorne P. Franklin Asks: Will lagering after bottling mellow and smooth the beer as well as secondary bulk lagering? Or does it do no good since the beer can not vent gasses and such? It depends - is the freezer located in "her kitchen" or "your garage"? If the freezer is located in her kitchen, I doubt it will lager as well since it will become confused by you spending more time in the kitchen than your wife (cross-cooking?). If it's located in your garage, you will probably have problems as well, because the beer will not have a male role-model to relate to. (you're in the kitchen cooking all the time) Beer lagered in this environment has been known to take on the characteristics of completly opposite styles. Of course, in your "modern world" of political correctness, this may not be an issue, but think of the beer. What kind of life will it have, growing up in such a restricted, confused world that is always worried about saying the wrong thing? Mike H. Portland, OR Double-Barrel Brewing Co. Currently on tap - "Date-Rape Dark" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:25:33 -0700 From: Don Ogaard <dogaard at trib.com> Subject: RE: a few questions ... Kevin TenBrink asks, >2)Is there an adjunct that can be used to make a "sweet stout" if one = is >lactose maldigestive? When I posted the oatmeal/espresso/milk stout recipe I should have = included the standard disclaimer about not serving it to the = lactose-intolerant ... oops. But I don't know of anything that will = give that same residual sweetness as lactose. The malto-dextrin = contributes more in the way of mouthfeel and maybe a perception of = sweetness; and you could use a higher saccharification temp to promote = dextrin formation ... but, gee, it just won't be the same. I almost = hate to even suggest it, but, ... maybe aspartame? >3) Speaking of adjuncts, does malto-dextrin powder actually aid in head >retention? Not that I know of. The brews I've made with malto-dex have average = head retention. BTW, Kevin, I'm originally from the SLC area myself. How's the traffic = on I-15 these days? :^) Don, Worland, WY Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 17:24:20 +0000 From: Sean Franklin <roosters at roosters.demon.co.uk> Subject: Sparklers or not. Sparklers or not. Sparklers are the devices on the end of the serving spout that creates tiny gas bubbles that form the creamy head on a pint in served in the North of England and increasingly in the South of England. There are two main types. The old ones which had two half moon shaped holed which had a gap that could be varied and the Angram design which is a spray nozzle with between 12 and 14 graded holes. The first sort was used on the autovac type handpump (now quite rare) the second is used on swan neck fonts because the sparkler end must be placed against the bottom of the glass to give just the right amount of head rather than a glass full of foam. All beers change when served through a sparkler. Firstly they loose some dissolved CO2 - the pressure drop across the sparkler causes this. As a taste consequence the beer is softer because the CO2 has an acidifying effect and the sweet/ acid balance of the beer is changed in favour of the sweet. Some beers (Northern) are brewed more bitter to take account of this (Bitterness is accented by dissolved CO2) when the final beer is before the customer the beer should be in balance. One final point is that the removal of dissolved CO2 means that being not so gassy, the beer is easier to drink. It was common for people to drink 12 pints a night. Today beer drinkers are more moderate. The second thing that happens is that the beers aroma is sort of smudged. You loose some of the finer flavour points but gain more impact. I must admit I dont know why this is but it is the main reason people love or hate sparklers. I have enjoyed great pints of beer served either way. Our own beers are made for drinking through a sparkler but also taste great, but different, without. What matters above all is what the customer wants. The drinking customers preference should be left unchallenged whatever the preference of the publican. Nitrogenated beers (smoothflow) are in vogue at the present. This system 'smudges' the beer flavour more than the 'sparkler'. Its main aim is to make the customer wait (like the Guinness marketing ploy) while the pint settles after service. - -- Sean Franklin. Rooster's Brewery. North Yorkshire. Tel/Fax: (from UK) 01423 561861 http//www.breworld.com/roosterindex.html Beer & Brewing Award 1997. British Beer Writers Guild Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:14:10 -0800 From: Kyle Druey <kdldmd at lightspeed.net> Subject: Predicting FG Using a 60/70 Mash Schedule HBD Collective, In HBD 2579 Al K. explains the difficulty in predicting FG: >You simply cannot predict the FG accurately enough in most systems and >most homebrewers rarely make the same recipe enough times. Heck, FG can >vary with starter size, aeration/oxygnation levels, and fermentation >temperature! Even the RIMS brewers may not have enough control over >these variables. The pros can do it, but most (all?) of them still use >special valves that restrict the CO2 pressure in the conditioning tanks. I agree with Al that this is very difficult, and I have been collecting some date over the last year to try and make predicting FG possible. Consider the following all grain brews: 140 F PERCENT REST PERCENT STEWED APPARENT (MINUTES) SUGAR MALT ATTENUATION 38 0.0% 0.0% 77.6% 41 0.0% 3.5% 78.7% 31 7.5% 10.0% 72.9% 21 0.0% 8.0% 70.6% 30 0.0% 7.0% 72.9% 20 0.0% 0.0% 70.4% 60 10.0% 1.1% 79.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% 62.1% -all percentages are based on total extract -sugar is sucrose, glucose, etc. added to the kettle -stewed malt is cyrstal, caramel etc. -apparent attenuation = (OG-FG)/OG If a multiple linear regression is peformed using the time spent at 140 F as the dependent variable the R squared for the MLR model is 0.97. This means that the 3 variables listed above are very good predictors for determining the FG. In particular, the amount of time the mash is rested at 140 F (for the pointy-headed math types the t-stat was 11.5 for this variable) can be used to *estimate* the apparent attenuation and thus predict the FG. The above analysis could also be easily done for single infusion mashing, but since I use the 60/70 mashing schedule I don't have this data available. Here is the equation to determine the amount of time at 140 F to achieve a particular apparent attenuation: Time at 140 F = -162.3 + (259.8*AA) + (115.5*SU) + (0*ST) AA = desired apparent attenuation SU = percent of extract as sugar ST = percent of extract as stewed malt The variable for stewed malt was omited from the MLR equation because it was determined insignificant (t-stat was < 1.0) and eliminating it diminished curve-fitting effects. Example: I am brewing a Tripel and desire an AA of 77%, and am adding candi sugar at the rate of 10% of the total extract, how long do I rest at 140 F? Time at 140 F = -162.3 + (259.8 * 0.77) + (115.5 * 0.10) = 50 minutes Here are the particulars for my brewing: -I use RIMS -mash thickness is 0.9 qts/lb -10 to 15 minutes is needed to raise the temp from 140 to 158 -the time at 158 F is determined by subtracting 90 from the amount of time spent at 140F -500 ml liquid yeast starters -yeast is araeted from the boiler to the fermentor via a venturi tube -fermentation is deemed complete when the yeast begins to drop (usually after 2 or 3 weeks) -lagers fermented at 48-55 F, ales fermented at 62-68 F This anlaysis needs much more data before it is reliable, but it has been useful to me thus far. The MLR equation could be used by a brewer who wants to obtain a particular alcohol content for the finished beer (which is a function of the OG and the apparent attenuation) in order to be within standardized style guidelines. Of course, the standard disclaimer applies, YMMV. Kyle Druey brewing in Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:03:02 -0600 From: "Brian Wurst" <brian at catamaran.netwave.net> Subject: Clintest vs. Dextrins Al K, in a fit of lucent thinking (get the pun?) in HBD #2577 writes: - ------quote----------- 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. - ------end quote------------ I think you answered your own question , Al. If order of complexity is the rule for fermentation (i.e. simple sugars then disaccharides then trisaccharides) then sucrose, a disaccharide, is getting fermented before[or with a preference over] maltotriose. By inference, that answers the question of when the invertase is being released...it sure isn't waiting until all the simple sugars are exhausted. The evolutionary advantage of beginning to release invertase as early as possible is also quite clear...the yeast ensure that they are receiving a continuous supply of simple sugars. (FWIW, maltose is a disaccharide also.) Look at it another way... simple sugars need no bonds to be broken so they get eaten; disaccharides have one bond to be broken to become simple sugars and get eaten; trisaccharides have two bonds to be broken to become simple sugars and get eaten. When fermentation is tailing off, it is because all the simple sugars are nearing depletion, which means the available di- and tri- saccharides have been depleted also. Al also writes in HBD #2578: - -----quote------------------------- P.S. Sorry about the long, dragged-out Clinitest debate. I've presented my position and I'm sticking with it. - ------end quote------------------------ I'm saddened to read you see it as a debate, with all of its attendant rhetoric. I'd sure like it to be a discussion. (Oh, the irony of *me* saying _that_!) You once admonished me to pull my head out of the books and experiment, much to my own edification. Here is a situation where you would be well served by following your own advice. It would seem to me that the experiences of someone who has messed with this procedure and is now reporting his results should deserve a little more effort on your part to back up the skepticism you profess. Dizzy from the moral heights, Brian Wurst (brian at netwave.net) Lombard, Illinois "Nature has formed you, desire has trained you, fortune has preserved you for this insanity." -Cicero Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:28:25 +0200 From: "Pitchford, Andrew" <Andrew.Pitchford at hulamin.co.za> Subject: Low pH Beer I recently attempted my first all grain brew, a pale ale. I got 40 litres of extract with no problem but had to put this into two 25 litre fermenters because I do not have a suitable size container as yet. I cleaned and sanitised both fermenters identically and pitched the yeast (obtained from a micro brewery and producing good beer) at the same time and temperature. This was on the high side at 21=B0C due to the high ambient temperature. I think one difference came in here in that one fermenter got slightly more yeast than the other. Fermentation was evident in about 10 hours in both fermenters but one (the one with more yeast) produced CO2 more rapidly - I'd guess at 25% faster. After 48 hours the slower one had almost stopped producing CO2 but the other was still as rapid as when it started. The gravity of both was down from 1045 to 1015.=20 I left both for the full week and racked to secondary fermenters and after another week bottled. Gravity of both at this stage was 1011. After 2 weeks in the bottles the slower, shorter fermenting beer tasted quite good but the other is slightly acidic. pH as measured on indicator strips are 5 and 3. These are not precise but reflect the difference in taste. Can anyone offer an explanation? Could this be due to more rapid fermentaio and if so how? I don't think I got an infection in the beer as I was very careful and can see no visible signs of bacteria. Thanks in advance, Andrew Pitchford =20 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:53:21 -0500 From: Vicky Rowe <vrowe at us.ibm.com> Subject: Vicky Rowe's non-fermenting cider RE: From: mallem60 at wales.bbc.co.uk (Mallett,Mark) >Subject: Vicky Rowe's Non-fermenting Cyser >Maybe the apple juice was not only pasteurised, but also >contained a preservative, thus inhibiting fermentation. Actually, it was. I examined the labels, and lo and behold, in teeny tiny print, at the bottom of the label, on the side of the label, practically off the label, it says 'potassium sorbate added for freshness'. Ptui! So, I racked it back into the jugs, cleaned my pail, and went out and bought *non* sorbated cider. The sorbated stuff got used up. Some went for hot spiced cider at work, some for basting the Thanksgiving turkey, and some is still in the fridge (about a gallon). I'll prolly spice and heat it this weekend..... BTW, here's the recipe. It turned out great, and it's quick, too! Only about 6 weeks from pitch to drink! Yule Cyser 5 gal pasteurized unsorbated cider 2 lbs Tupelo honey 1 lb brown sugar 1/2 c bottling sugar 10 cinnamon sticks, broken, palmful allspice, palmful cardamom, crushed 3 tsp ea orange and lemon peel 2 pkg Pasteur champagne yeast Heat 1 gallon cider to 160 F. Added honey, brown sugar, 5 cinnamon sticks and rest of spices. Stir and simmer for 15 minutes at 160, covering often. Put 3 gallons cider in fermenter, cold. Pitched must into this. Pitch yeast with 3.5 tsp nutrient at 80 F. Ferment in primary for 2 weeks. Add remaining gallon to secondary and rack primary onto this. Ferment another 2 weeks. Boil 2 c water with 5 cinnamon sticks and more of other spices (same proportions). Cool and add corn sugar. Mix this into must and bottle. Let condition for at least 2 weeks to carbonate. O.G. 1.080 F.G. 1.00 Note: When I bottled, I bottled half as above, and to the rest I sorbated it to stop the ferment, then added 2 c water boiled for 15 min with cider spices above to which was added about 1 lb honey. I added this to the rest of the must and bottled it. First taste: the first is dry and tart, the second a little sweet and spicier, and not carbonated. Other Note: Took a bottle of the carbonated dry down to American Brewmasters, and with great ceremony (cracking the bottle, it went *whhoooshh* very nicely) we opened and drank it. It was quite good, a little young, but with good legs, and a nice cinnamon aroma and finish. It packed a pretty good kick, too! All in all, a success, I think! Vicky Rowe Notes Administrator, Merrill Lynch Server Farm "No good deed ever goes unpunished" --Unknown Email: IBM: vrowe at us.ibm.com Home: rcci at mindspring.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 97 09:34:05 -0500 From: "P. Edwards" <pedwards at iquest.net> Subject: Metallic flavors Dr. Fix posted: >Pat Babcock and Mark Weaver ask about a metallic taste in Noche Bueno. >It is my belief that it is an oxidative effect, and it is particulary bad >this year. Friends who tasted the beer in Mexico City right after it was >released report as Kenny Schwartz did, i.e., metallic tones were not present. I've noticed a metallic taste (my wife calls it "tinny") in several imported beers, most notably some Bocks/Dopplebocks from Germany. My suspicion is that a distributor, exporter or importer may have cleared out old, inadequately stored stocks in advance of release of current-year product. Anyway, I believe it was BJCP guru Scott Bichkam who pointed out to me a while back back that he, too, thinks that oxidative effects are one source of the metallic taste problem. - --Paul Edwards Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 97 09:34:09 -0500 From: "P. Edwards" <pedwards at iquest.net> Subject: Re: re:White Labs Pitchable Sean posted to HBD 2578: >A while back, there was some discussion to the effect that White Labs yeast >did not provide a product that was truly "pitchable" directly into a 5 >gallon batch. While the amount of yeast provided may not be quite the >amount that breweries use per volume of wort, I'd like to provide a >datapoint on their yeast that offers an alternative view. >I've been using the stuff since early last summer, and have brewed with >their East Coast, California, Irish, Wit, and English strains. All have >turned out excellent; that is, I pitched them within a month of >manufacture, with adequate aeration (aquarium pump/stone), within >temperature tolerances, and had results as described in the White Labs >literature. Lag time was usually under 10 hours, and never exceeded 16-18 >hours. If, for instance, I was to pitch a Wyeast of similar strain type >direct from the pouch, I can typically expect 24-30 hours lag time, often >accompanied by high fruitiness or other undesirable flavors (sometimes >including slight bacterial contamination). This is not to say that Wyeast >is a bad product, on the contrary, it is EXCELLENT; but it must be properly >propagated to a pint starter to roughly equal the White Labs yeast count. >Of course, one can additionally bump up either to a quart or gallon starter >for better results. My point is, most of my customers don't bother to do >this, so it is easier for me to recommend White Labs for quality results >without further preparation. Ah, That's the rub. Many of us consider a 10-18 hour lag time to unacceptable, just as we would never consider the typical 24-36 hour lag time from the 50 ml Wyeast packaging to be acceptable, either. Working with a local HB shop to instruct customers on the value of pitching suitable quantities of yeast, and provding info on the easy process of making starters, I've found that most of the liquid yeast cutomers _are_ making starters around here. Why? We've educated them on the benefits of doing so. At least then if they choose not to, they know what to expect. An what of viability? I have no way of knowing whether the slurry in the "tube yeasts" is even still good unless I make a starter to "proof" it, so I might as well work it up to the 3-4 qt starter necessary to get the amount of yeast I find gives an acceptable pitching rate and acceptable (to me) lag time of 2-4 hours. The smack packs give me at least a gross indication that the yeast inside is still viable. Granted, using tubes of slurry may save me one step-up (from 50 to 500 ml) over the 50 ml smack-packs, but at what cost? I may save a day, assuming I've gotten fresh, well-cared-for product, but I'll spend 50 percent more for the privilege, too. BTW, Wyeast has new 175 ml "XL" smack packs, ready to go in 6-12 hours after smacking, and are only a little more expensive than the 50 ml guys, but cheaper than what tubes of slurry go for. The XL packs will save me one step as well. I don't believe the XL packs are directly pitchable, as Wyeast claims. I am planning on trying it out this weekend with the 1056 by splitting a 10 gallon batch of Amer. Pale Ale - pitching one XL pack directly and working one up in a 3-qt starter. We'll see. Usual disclaimers - Not affiliated with any commercial yeast vendors, living or otherwise. - -- Paul Edwards, beating the drum for more yeast in Central Indiana somewhat southwest of Jeff Renner (but also with roots in Cincinnati. First word I learned to read was "Hudepohl") Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:33:24 -0500 (EST) From: Rust1d <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: Extra Large Grain Hopper Capt Mark is shopping for a grain mill and wants a large hopper. An easy solution to this is to get a 5 gallon plastic carboy, cut out the bottom, and use it as a funnel to feed to your mill. I hang one off a hook just above the grain mill, load it up, and let it rip. It will hold almost 25 lbs of grain and will feed the mill as it crushes. BTW, the Malt Mill does not require an adapter to run from a 3/4" drill. The crank comes off and you tighten the chuck on the shaft. John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program Glenside, PA rust1d at usa.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:20:05 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: George Fix, Yeast dying,Noonan,Mill decision, Just wannabe (in) your Bud Brewsters: George Fix says: >In a past issue of HBD I remarked that I observed a definite increase in= >gravity during a low temperature rest at 40C. Someone whose name escapes= >me 'Twas I. > asserted that >the increase in density was due to beta-glucans. You were talking about a jump in the refractive index not a change in density ( although they are related for non-colored substances and visible light). I did not say the change in refractive index you observed was due to the beta-glucans themselves dissolving, so your point about their concentration in the wort being below 1% is not relevant. I said I believed this was due to the action of beta-glucancase on the beta glucans to produce glucose and was most definitely *not* due to your assertion that the gelatinization temperature of the starch had been changed by highly modifying the malt. Since my post, Andy Walsh provided some great information which confirms that modification does not change the gelatinization temperature. To remake my point and re-interpret your observation in conventional terms, at 40C these beta-glucanases are active and beta-glucanolysis at 40C will produce glucose. This change in refractive index at this temperature is due to the released = glucose from the beta glucans and is what you observed at this temperature. Because they are less modified, Pilsner malts have a higher beta-glucan content than pale ale malts and this may explain what appears to you to be an unexpected result if you normally do this experiment with pale ale malts. I even suggested that you may have backed into a good way to quantitatively determine the degree of modification as those lesser modified malts ( e.g. Pilsner) would exhibit a larger change in the refractive index when held at this temperature than the more highly modified malts (e.g. British Pale Ale) . - ------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce Taber says: > I have been using Wyeast #1098 (British Ale) for a couple of >years. I buy a pack and step it up to make 4 cups of starter which I >split into 4 and store in the fridge so that my next 4 batches will all >use second generation yeast. The last two batches of ale (OG 1.052) >started and fermented great (<6hr. lag) but stopped at 1.024. First question is did you re-energize the yeast by re-starting it in an oxygenated starter before pitching it? You should do this. Secondly, if you want to store yeast for a long period do it in sterile water and not a fermented out beer. This will minimize the possibilities of infection and the dormant yeast will last longer. I suggest in the future you collect the yeast from a fermentation, wash it and store this large quantity under sterile water in a capped beer bottle in the fridge. = Also, always be sure to oxygenate well, as not oxygenating the wort will cause yeast to lose their ability to attenuate the the wort on repeated pitching. = - ------------------------------------------------------------ AlK and Spencer Thomas say: Spencer writes: >I was reading Noonan's New Brewing Lager Beers the other day, and >found the statement (paraphrased slightly) that "fermentation is >finished when the reducing sugar content is 2% or less." So a >reducing sugar content of 1%, as indicated by the Clinitest kit, >probably indicates complete fermentation. I think this statement of Noonan's is open for mis-interpretation, if not incorrect. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he means it is time to transfer it to a secondary fermenter. Fermentation = continues to 1/4% or less as I read it by Clinitest. AlK says about Noonan: >. One fine example is his >statement that oxygen dissolves more easily in hot wort than cold! I say ( with my tongue partially in my cheek): Another classic example of how Noonan can be misinterpreted. Maybe he means the *rate* at which it dissolves. This Perhaps is faster than at low temperatures, but oxygen is definitely not more soluble ( an equilibrium and not a rate thing) at a higher temperature. I agree it is at best confusing ( as are many of his statements) and may be wrong. AlK says: >Presuming that Dave is right about Clinitest reading 1/4% sugar >in most of his beers when they are finished, then 1% as Noonan >suggests is very likely to cause gushers. Only if he adds sugar or kraeusens with green beer. If he put it into a secondary under pressure at around 1% it would come to about the right carbonation. - ---------------------------------------------------------- Capt. Marc Beatrall is wondering what kind of a mill Santa = should bring him. Go for the adjustable mill, it will give you more flexibility with other grains and you can do the double crush which I recommend. - ----------------------------------------------------------- Ray Estrella says about his recent use of Clinitest: > Wow, I checked it out and he's right. The F.G. of my urine shows >way to much unfermented sugars. Now, should I re-pitch, or rouse? Call Budweiser and apply for a job. - ------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 10 Dec 1997 10:43:00 EST From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy at aol.com> Subject: Mills, Dry Yeast/Spousal Participation/Kegging vs Bottling The Cap'n asks about mills. Just a datapoint from personal experience: I've been thrilled to death with my new MaltMill (non-adjustable), and seen my efficiency go from 73% (HB shop adjustable MaltMill) to 83%. I've since helped the HB store adjust the mill to a better crush. In any case, I built a hopper (which I've named Dennis) out of a plastic 5-gal carboy and a small piece of plywood. Cut the bottom out of the carboy (cut a circle smaller than the actual bottom diameter; the leftover edge will lend mechanical strength). Drill a hole (use a holesaw) in the plywood to accept the carboy's mouth. Put the carboy bottoms-up into the plywood and set on top of the mill and -voila'!- instant hopper. Will hold at least 20 to 25 lb grain, but I'd mill this much in separate batches to prevent it from tipping. ***** Here's an anecdote that covers the dry yeast, spousal approval/disapproval, as well as bottling versus kegging threads: My wife suggested a few weeks ago that I brew a "gift beer" for the holidays. I thought that sounded swell (we did it last year, to all our friends' joy) so I whipped up a batch of an amber ale I've made before that I really liked. This time, figuring I had a bit more latitude to experiment, I used Danstar Nottingham dry yeast instead of the Wyeast ESB liquid in the original (I've used it before in spiced and pumpkin brews, but never in a "normal" beer). I found it to provide a nice transparency that really allowed the malt and hops to shine separately but equally; the contribution from the ESB yeast was apparently muddying up the flavor profile. Very clean, excellent performance. I suspect something like a 1056 would do the same, but the point is that this particular brand of dry yeast is every bit as good IMHO as liquid yeast, and much easier to use. Continuing...last weekend was bottling day, but what I did differently this year was to keg/force-carbonate and counterpressure-bottle the whole batch (see my web page or the Spring '97 Zymurgy for plans for a cheap-ass home-made bottler that really works nicely). Last year's beer was bottle conditioned. Most of our target audience likes "premium" beer, but sediment in the bottles is still a turnoff for the general public. This was the first time I ever considered CP'ing the whole batch. I found that with my wife's help (I fill, she caps), I knocked out the bottling in *LESS* time than I normally used to spend on priming/bottling! My wife has always been "skeptical" about kegging; she prefers the portability and give-ability of bottles, while I think grabbing a 6-ounce pour after work is a nice alternative to having to open a 12-ounce bottle (never mind being sure that there are bottles in the fridge in the first place!), especially as I try to limit my alcohol intake. Now I think I'll consider doing this more often, especially with "specialty beers", while leaving my "house beers" on tap. Best of both worlds? All y'all wanting to brew for parties or weddings, but unsure about wither sediment in bottles or lugging kegs and tanks, should consider this option. Tuesday I racked at 65F to the keg, hit it with about 40 psi, did the shake, rattle, and roll thing for about five minutes, then put it in the fridge (at about 40F). Next morning it had settled at about 18 psi, putting me in the high-two's of CO2 volumes. My experience has been that CP-bottled beer will lose a bit of CO2 in the process, so I aimed high for that reason. The day of the show (Saturday) I bled the pressure, then put normal serving pressure on it and bottled away. A sample bottle opened a couple days later was a tad fizzy for a "traditional" draft ale but right on target for typical commercial bottled stuff. Nothing new here but thought I'd share for the benefit of those still not sure about going to liquid yeast, and for those wondering "which is better -- bottles or kegs?". And also to brag on my wonderful wife Delia, without whose support and encouragement (as well as tasting feedback) I wouldn't be enjoying this hobby nearly as well. ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:55:26 -0500 From: "O'Brien, Douglas" <Douglas.O'Brien at geocan.nrcan.gc.ca> Subject: RE: yeast dying slowly > Bruce Taber wrote: > > > I have been using Wyeast #1098 (British Ale) for a couple of > >years. I buy a pack and step it up to make 4 cups of starter which I > >split into 4 and store in the fridge so that my next 4 batches will > all > >use second generation yeast. The last two batches of ale (OG 1.052) > >started and fermented great (<6hr. lag) but stopped at 1.024. The > first > >two batches from the same Wyeast pack worked fine. The yeast for > batch > >#3 was in my fridge for 3 months, for batch #4 it was 4 months. I > have > >previously kept yeast this way in the fridge for up to 8 months with > no > >problems. > > I ended up pitching a dry yeast to restart the ferment and it > >finished fine and tasted fine (no infection). It was as if the yeast > >was slowly dying of old age. Has anyone seen this before? The > strange > >thing is I made a starter so there should have been lots of healthy > 3rd > >generation yeast to do the work. My procedures such as sanitation > and > >oxidation were the same as always. I've got lots of batches under my > >belt (figuratively and literally) and I've never seen this before. > > Yes, I've seen something similar to this. I used to harvest yeast > from my secondary, wash it as per the yeast FAQ and store in the > fridge for 4-6 weeks before reusing. After doing this for a while > I did a little number crunching on my batches and found that the > batches I made with 1st generation yeasts finished pretty much as > expected, but batches made with 2nd or higher generations finished > about 4 points high. The grouping was very evident. And yes, in > all cases I stepped up to a 4 cup starter etc. > > The advice that I received at the time (as a result of my HBD > posting)was that the yeast was probably glycogyn deprived and that > I should try feeding it every 2 weeks. I must admit that I haven't > tried this so I can't report on any results. > > Cheers, > > Doug > > Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:12:07 -0600 From: Ralph Link <rlink at minet.gov.mb.ca> Subject: Filtering I plan to filter and keg two batches this week end. I will be using a whole house filter with a 5 micron polypropylene filter, or that is my intentions. We will force the brew through the filter with co2 from corny keg to corny keg. Does anyone have any comments or recommendations to make as to the process of the filter unit we plan to use. Private e-mail is most welcome. I would also like to express my appreciation of this forum and the wealth of learning and information that it has provided. Hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable Christmas Ralph Link Ralph Link "Some people dream of success------while others wake up and work at it. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:19:21 -0800 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: Re: Iodine test sample pretreatment Hi all, Dave Burley once again says that you should boil your mash sample before conducting an iodine test. He claims: >2) in an infusion mash not all of the starch may be available >immediately to the solution since it may be physically trapped >and why I boil to release it. That is exactly why you should NOT boil the sample!!! You said it yourself, Dave: "NOT ALL OF THE STARCH MAY BE AVAILABLE" If all of the starch isn't available to enzymatic conversion at mash conditions, then you will ALWAYS get a POSITIVE iodine test (black = starch is present) when you boil the sample because you will release the trapped starch. No chemical reaction is 100% efficient. There will ALWAYS be some starch left in the mash. Most of this unconverted (heathen) starch will be found within the confines of poorly crushed grain pieces. In less modified malts some may be found bound up in the protein matrix of the malt. These trapped starch particles will only be made available to the solution upon heating above normal mash temperatures. That used to be the whole point of decoction mashing (increased conversion efficiency), and one reason it is bad to use overly hot water for sparging (release of heathen starch into the wort). If you follow Dave's advice, you will NEVER get a negative iodine test, no matter how long you mash. I would really hate to read about somebody getting turned off of all-grain brewing because they mashed for 10 hours trying to achieve 100% conversion efficiency using Dave's iodine test method. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:31:48 -0700 From: "Kensler, Paul" <PKensler at itcmedia.com> Subject: RE: Return of the RollerMill Thread! Marc Battreal asked for opinions on the Valley Mill vs. the Schmidling MaltMill... Marc, I recently went through the same dilemma. For what its worth, I had decided on the Valley Mill, due to its easy adjustability (pre-set gap spacings on a hand-turned dial), large hopper, and lower cost for an adjustable mill (important for me, since I like to use raw wheat). However, I was lucky enough to find a local HB Club member that was selling his old JS MaltMill ("old" being the operative term here) for $30. It is one of the original models, and has the adjustable spacing. I have used it for several all-grain batches, and my only complaints are pretty minor: 1) The second roller is not gear driven, but driven by friction generated by a rubber ring (kind of like a smooth rubber gear, if you will). Unless the adjustable model is spaced "just right", the second roller won't turn at all. I do not know offhand how the Valley Mill turns its second roller, but it might be a consideration for you. NOTE: Anyone in the HBD collective have any advice on providing better traction on the second roller when milling hard, small grains? (eg, raw wheat) 2) The MaltMill's tiny hopper. I don't have a permanent brew setup, so I can't really mount the mill anywhere or have a big hopper, so it really almost becomes a two person job (one to crank, the other to pour the malt into the hopper). Overall, the MaltMill churns through malt so fast (10 lbs. In 2-3 minutes) I haven't bothered to use my electric drill on it. I probably won't unless I am doing a 10 gallon batch. I usually run the grain through twice, and it provides a really nice crush. If I had to buy a new mill again, I would probably still go with the Valley Mill for the same reasons above, but I am very satisfied with the JS MaltMill. Hope this helps! Paul Kensler Manually MaltMilling(tm) in Plano, TX (and envious of Jeff Renner's proximity to Michigan Stadium - Go Blue!) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:52:06 -0700 From: "Bret A. Schuhmacher" <bas at healthcare.com> Subject: venting corny kegs while fermenting > (Toler, Duffy L.) Subject: Affixing airlocks to cornys: Solution > Take off the gas in fitting, stick a #2 rubber stopper over the > treaded nipple, then stick your airlock into the stopper. Seems to > seal pretty well. or You could always close up the corny & remember > to use the relief valve to vent occasionally. Duffy, I use a quick disconnect on either side, a short piece of hose (my keg transfer hose) with swivel adapters, and a Norgren adjustable pressure relief valve ($3.99). Contact me if you're interested in the valve and I'll find some contact info for you. I got the idea from someone else on the web... Rgds, Bret Schuhmacher Bad Dog Brewery Montrose, CO - -- You're not an alcoholic unless you go to the meetings. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Bec 97 12:26:55 EDT From: "Ellery.Samuels" <esamuel at mvsb.nycenet.edu> Subject: Recipe Adjustment A Question to the Collective Because of the limited size of my hombrewery (aka kitchen) I am unable to utilize a large brewpot to boil my wort if I were to attempt an all-grain homebrew. Someone suggested that I make an 3 gal. homebrew instead. Questions: How do I adjust the recipe to 3 Gal. size. May I assume, and I hate to assume, that 3/5 of the recipe might work. - If I do make a 3 gal. batch there will be considerable head space in my fermenting carboy, does this effect the beer in anyway? I remember being told that you should limit the amount of airspace in the carboy. Would appreciate private e-mail if possible as I don't alway have access the ability to access HBD. Thanx, Ellery Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/13/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96