HOMEBREW Digest #2773 Tue 21 July 1998

[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

  RE: Counter pressure filling (Robert Arguello)
  re: Fermenting in Cornies & counterpressure filling ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Cornish Ale Recipe ("Rob Compton")
  Re: grain bill percentages (Jeff Renner)
  % % % % % % % % % % % % ("LordPeter")
  Lemon Zest (Robert Johnson)
  Does Oxygen reduce lag time? ("LordPeter")
  First Timer! ("NFGS")
  Lemon Zest ("Mike & Lynn Key")
  Grist% (Tuula Pietila & Timo Jukka)
  Re: Arcadia Brewing's Whitsun (Jeff Renner)
  Recipe Formulation (Scott/Colleen Sutherland)
  extract % vs grist weight % (Rick Wood)
  First Wort Hopping (Brad Johnson)
  a second maple data point (Jon Macleod)
  Malt enzyme temp/pH optima (Fred Johnson)
  Who is Jethro? ("Dave Draper")
  Colorado visit (Charles Hudak)
  Condensate (fridge)
  Yeast aeration (George_De_Piro)
  High fermentation temperatures ("David M. Campbell")
  Dehumidifier water; kit comments; sorghum; aerobic respiration and lag time (Samuel Mize)
  15 Gallon Batch's (randy.pressley)
  Schmidling on Schmidling (Jack Schmidling)
  Lemon Zest ("Buchanan, Robert")
  Ideal Yeast Storage temp? ("Mark W. Wilson")

Have you entered a MCAB qualifier yet? NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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 hbd.org 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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:22:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com> Subject: RE: Counter pressure filling Alan in Fremont wrote about his frustration using a counter pressure filler: I have been using a "Fox" style filler for a number of years now. I have modified the design so that the bottle is held in the filler by a spring and frees up my hands, but that is the only design difference. My filler uses 3, 1/4 turn ball valves. I have experimented with many, many protocols and procedures and will attempt to describe the procedure that I have found to be most successful. I am able to fill 50 bottles of beer with a loss of less than 4 oz. The beer is also carbonated to the same degree that it was in the keg. It takes me approx 1.5 hours to bottle a 5 gallon batch. For the sake of clarity, let's "label" the valves... "A" will designate the BEER IN valve "B" will designate the GAS IN valve "C" will designate the PURGE valve. It DOES help if the beer, (keg) is chilled but there is no need to chill the filler or the bottles. Set the pressure at 20 psi. Have the keg at a lower level than the filler. 1. Install the bottle in the filler. Make sure ALL VALVES ARE CLOSED. Open "B" to pressurize the bottle, then open "C" a little bit to allow gas to flow thru bottle and purge oxygen for about 15 seconds. Close C and allow bottle to pressurize. This equalizes the pressure in the bottle and the keg. 2. Close B (bottle and keg are now at equal pressure) 3. Open A 4. Open C a crack. Open the valve slowly and just enough to allow the beer to start flowing into the bottle. If you see more than 1/8 inch of foam on the beer rising in the bottle you are filling to fast, if you see no foam at all, you are filling to slow. When the beer reaches the bottle neck, you should have 3/8 to 1/2 inch of foam on the beer. The eight inch of foam will become 3/8ths of an inch as the beer enters the smaller diameter of the bottle neck. 5. When the foam is just about to touch the bottom of the fillers' stopper, close C, followed immediately by closing A (SEE NOTE BELOW). Wait 15 seconds, and SLOWLY crack open C just enough to allow pressure to slowly vent. I use a clear hose to direct any foam or liquid in the purge valve to a bucket. Watch the little bit of foam that is traveling down that tube. You will see it slow a bit.....then... 6. Open valve C fully and immediately remove bottle and cap Note for step 5: Conventional wisdom and "FOX" instructions run counter to this. Fox says to close valve A first, then C. I have found this to be unsatisfactory. Closing valve C first, followed immediately by A works better for me. I believe that closing valve C first allows pressures to stabilize INTERNALLY and results in less foaming when re-opening valve C prior to removing bottle. Some random notes: When filling subsequent bottles, you will see the beer drop back towards the keg in the beer-in line when you open valve B in step 1. This is in part due to the weight of the beer in the line. This is why I have the keg LOWER than the filler. This allows you to judge the speed of the beer during filling. In time you will be able to gauge the correct filling speed by watching the beer climb the line into the valve. Filling too slowly often results in a bottle that doesn't stop foaming when the flow is stopped. I don't know why, but it is often worse than filling too fast. Cap your bottles immediately after filling. Unlike bottling primed beer, we do not need to allow the beer to sit uncapped for some period of time. We removed most of the oxygen during the purging process. Do NOT slam valves open or shut. Valves should be opened or closed gently. For some reason, sudden changes in valve position results in excess foaming and lack of control. In every batch of beer, there seems to be at least one bottle that won't go as planned. If you have a bottle that just seems to keep on foaming when you open the purge valve just close the valve, allow things to stabilize, open (slowly) the "A" valve. Then wait a minute or two until the beer in the bottle clears and GENTLY open the C valve until the beer level is near the bottom of the stopper. Close both valves again, WAIT a moment then slowly crack open the C valve again. At no point in the filling process should valves A and B be open simultaneously. Removing the bottle from the filler before all pressure is vented through valve C will result in a wet ceiling and a cold shower. Alan, you don't live that far away from me. If you are ever in the Sacramento/Davis area get in touch. I would be happy to demo my filling system for you. ******************************************************************** Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com> CORNY KEGS FOR SALE! $12.00 each http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/keg.htm ProMash Brewers' Software - http://www/calweb.com/~robertac/promash ******************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:48:04 From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net> Subject: re: Fermenting in Cornies & counterpressure filling Stephen posted: >For an airlock, you can use a small piece of tubing that you force over the hole where the gas poppet and tube would go. If you even think you may have some blow off, you may not want to use a corny, as the small hole may easily plug and create significant pressure . . . To increase the min. ID of the blow-off path a bit and hence reduce the chance of plugging: Remove the gas disconnect keg fitting and it's short dip tube and screw on a 3/8" NPT female x 1/2" female tubing copper adapter. It's not a tight fit (tapered adapter vs. straight keg threads) but a gasket cut from 1/16" red rubber between the adapter and keg makes it gas-tight enough for the (hopefully <g>) low pressure involved. - ------------------------------ Alan in Fremont posted re a problem with counterpressure bottling half-flat brew: >I tried to slightly overcarbonate the beer in the keg for a few days before bottling so that small CO2 losses wouldn't be a problem.... If you use a higher pressure (like 14 pounds) to fill the bottles, then there is less foam during the filling, but it is very tedious to depressurize the bottle for capping, without triggering a massive degassing (gushing). I over-force-carbonate (ales, 20-25 psig at 45 degF) then reduce the pressure to around 10 psig for filling. I fill a 12 oz. bottle in ~15 seconds and spend maybe 5 seconds bleeding the pressure from the bottle after it's been filled and the gas-out and beer-in valves have been shut (in that order). I do get a bit of foaming (maybe a Tbs or so) while bleeding the pressure, but, not enough for me to worry about. One thing that reduces the foaming problem is to place the keg at a lower elevation than the bottle you're filling. This reduces the static pressure at the bottle or, done another way, allows you to boost the keg pressure. c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/ Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 19:39:42 +0100 From: "Rob Compton" <Compton at btinternet.com> Subject: Cornish Ale Recipe Some time back, someone wanted a recipe for a Cornish ale. Here's one I found. It's not 100% accurate, but the result is a virtual copy of the real thing. Cornish Brewery - Churchill Amber Beer English bottled pale ale. Peppery hop aroma, and pear-drop fruitiness. Malt in the mouth, rich blackcurrant fruit finish with good hop note, so the description goes! OG 1050, 12.3 Plato For 25Litres : Pale malt - 3770gm Amber malt - 510gm Crystal malt - 470gm White sucrose - 540gm Start of boil : Challenger hops - 25gm Golding hops - 40gm Last 15 mins of boil : Irish Moss - 10gm Single infusion mash; top working yeast Mash for 90mins at 66deg C / 151F Boil for 90 mins Racking gravity 1008 / 1.9 Plato Alcohol content - 5.7% by volume / 4.5% by weight Bitterness - 32EBU Colour - 35 EBC Ferment at 18-22C, mature in cask for four weeks before bottling. No priming sugar necessary when bottling. Bottle condition for two weeks if sugar used, six weeks if not used. Regards. Rob Compton Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 15:27:40 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: grain bill percentages "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net> wrote in part, arguing for stating recipes as percent by extract: >Simple recipe for preprohibition pilsner: 80% 6 row, 20% corn. <big snip of lots of arithmetic to figure out how much grain would give this as 80/20 by extract> >This looks to me like 9 lbs 6 row and 2 lbs flaked corn. It is all a matter of decided upon convention, of course. Wahl and Henius' _American Handy Book_ (1902 Ed.) http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/Wahl/ gives recipes by grain bill percent, not extract. When I and other authors (Fix, Jankowski and others) who have flogged pre-pro lager (or Classic American Pilsner, as I prefer) have given recipes for this style, we have uniformly used this method. Your recipe would be 18% corn on this basis, which is a bit low for my taste. I myself have settled in on ~23% corn (10 lbs. 6-row, 3 lbs. corn grits for 7.75 gal.) I find that this gives good corn expression while leaving plenty of malt. This percentage is also more historically correct (see Wahl & Henius). Actually, 30% was not uncommon a century ago, and higher percentages became the rule later. For simplicity's sake, I will stick to percentages by grain bill weight, not extract. 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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:48:39 -0700 From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net> Subject: % % % % % % % % % % % % Since there is still a large disagreement on the percentage thing, I want to expound one more time on my argument: First, I don't know what J Busch means by: >Percentages of grist per malt variety in recipes are always specified in terms of percent of total weight, not extract. Go with the pros on this one and ignore the homebrewer oriented text(s). My post in 2771 outlines the way I was taught to formulate recipes by Christopher Bird, who is a faculty member of Siebel Institute. This was information given to me during my two week Intensive Brewing Course there. Now, I paid a buttload for this information, and so I will have to defend Chris' methods as proper, and I will also assert that he is a "pro." Even those of you who insist that "by weight" instead of "by extract" is the right way to interpret percentage specifications in a recipe must concede that at some point you have to look at a grain's contribution to extract. If you have a recipe that calls for 80% 2 row, 10% crystal, 5% carapils, and 5% wheat malt, you have to have a starting point. Say you want this to be a 5 gallon recipe, with a SG of 1.048. Ok, how many total pounds of grain do you need? If you use 30 pt/lb/gal ((and you will be expecting this extract value to be the same for all 4 grains (which will NOT be the case)), a SG of 1.048 (48) requires (48 / 30 = 1.6) 1.6 pounds per gallon, (1.6 x 5 = 8) or 8 pounds total. 2 Row: (.8 x 8 = 6.4) 6.4 pounds Crystal: (.1 x 8 = 0.8) 0.8 pounds, 12.8 ounces Carapils: (.05 x 8 = 0.4) 0.4 pounds, 6.4 ounces Wheat: (.05 x 8 = 0.4) 0.4 pounds, 6.4 ounces This method does not allow for a "Q" for BME (efficiency), which is very important in determining extract. (My systems "Q" is 83%, with a single infusion mash, using domestic malts.) Now I will examine some possible problems with the above calculations: Directly from the Briess website (www.briess.com) >Two Row Malt >Extract, f.g., d.b. 80.5% minimum >Extract, coarse/fine diff. 1.8% maximum But we want coarse grind, which more accurately reflects a typical brewer's grind: (80.5-((80.5 X .018)) = 79.051, >Crystal (80) >Extract, f.g., d.b. 72.0% minimum And gives no c/f diff, so I will assume it is also 1.8, so (72-((72 X .018)) = 70.704 >CaraPils >Extract, f.g., d.b. 72.0% minimum And gives no c/f diff, so I will assume it is also 1.8, so (72-((72 X .018)) = 70.704 >Wheat >Extract, f.g., d.b. 81% minimum >Extract, coarse/fine diff. 1.8% maximum But we want coarse grind, which more accurately reflects a typical brewer's grind: (81-(81 X .018)) = 79.542 Malt extract 2 row 79.051 Crystal 80 70.704 CaraPils 70.704 Wheat 79.542 With these greatly varying theoretical yields (100% efficiency) one should easily see how we cannot be accurate by assigning each grain an identical contribution. Here is what you would actually get with the former weights and the latter extractions: 2 R (6.4 lb X .79051) = 5.059264 lbs extract C 80 (0.8 X .70704) = 0.565632 lbs extract CP (0.4 X .70704) = 0.282816 lbs extract W (0.4 X .79542) = 0.318168 lbs extract Total extract = 6.22588 lbs extract. Figure 83% efficiency: 6.22588 X .83 = 5.1674804 lbs The Siebel Brew Computer (my handy little slide rule tool; $13 from Siebel, no profitable affiliation) says that for a SG of 1.048 we need 32.1 lbs per bbl (31 gallon). (32.1)(5/31) = 5.1774194 lbs. Wow, look how close that came!!!!! But now substitute De Wolf Cosyns Pale malt with 76.2 CG: Pale (6.4 lb X .762)= 4.8768 lbs extract C 80 (0.8 X .70704) = 0.565632 lbs extract CP (0.4 X .70704) = 0.282816 lbs extract W (0.4 X .79542) = 0.318168 lbs extract Total extract = 6.043416 lbs extract. Figure 83% efficiency: 6.043416 X .83 = 5.01603528 lbs or Pils with 75.4 CG Pale (6.4 lb X .754)= 4.8256 lbs extract C 80 (0.8 X .70704) = 0.565632 lbs extract CP (0.4 X .70704) = 0.282816 lbs extract W (0.4 X .79542) = 0.318168 lbs extract Total extract = 5.992216 lbs extract. Figure 83% efficiency: 5.992216 X .83 = 4.97353928 lbs So what have I shown you? I have demonstrated three DIFFERENT results that you will get using the same PERCENTAGES BY WEIGHT with three different base grains. Now I could do the same thing with the specialty malts, but I've got a life. Summary rounded to three digits: Target : 5.177 Test Brew with: Briess 2 Row DW/C Pale DW/C Pils 5.167 lbs extract 5.016 lbs extract 4.974 lbs extract Difference: 1 % 3% 4% Not huge differences, but we still have the problem of different BME for everyone's systems. If you use the percentage of extract, you will hit your target EVERY TIME! Cheers. Peter Gilbreth barleywine at prodigy.net www.barleywine.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 15:10:21 -0600 (MDT) From: Robert Johnson <robertcj at lamar.ColoState.EDU> Subject: Lemon Zest Sorry Tom. By reading your July 18th post, it seems you have wagered that the lemon zest is the pulpy part of the lemon, excluding the skin. Actually, the zest is the skin. In order to obtain the zest, you could use a lemon zester, which is a hand-held tool that has an edge with about 4-5 small holes parallel, and right next to, the edge. You rub this against the edge of the lemon, and the holes, which have sharp inner edges, cut into the skin, creating lemon zest shavings. The flavor is intense, much more intense than the juice. I used to work in a steakhouse here in Fort Collins Colorado that used to use a small amount (from two limes) of lime zest in 8 gallons of BBQ sauce. You could really ntoice the lime! So, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, unless I misunderstood, and you actually bet on the skin being the zest. Cheers. Bob Johnson Homebrewer/Graduate Student/Husband/Waiter/1st time poster Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 17:15:35 -0700 From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net> Subject: Does Oxygen reduce lag time? Scott wrote in 2771: From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: Short Lag Times >Where did this notion that oxygenating the wort will reduce lag times >get started? I've never read anything that would support this idea, >and in fact if I'm understanding things correctly, adding O2 will >increase* your lag times, if anything. Am I missing something here? >Where the heck is this notion of shorter lag times coming from? Oxygen is essential for the formation of sterols and unsaturated fatty acids (lipids.) We can relate to the importance of lipids thusly: consider that a lipid is a basic building block for a yeast's cell membrane. "Every time the yeast cell divides, the lipid material is shared between the mother and the daughter cells. If sufficient (in fact an excess) of lipid materials is not present (sic) in the mother cell, then cell division cannot occur, and growth will cease." (Siebel Notebook) The rate of fermentation will depend on the rate and extent of yeast growth. If there is not enough oxygen, the yeast will not have enough lipid material to form new cell membranes. The cell membrane is like the yeasts skin. Limiting the oxygen, therefore, limits the rate and extent of cell division. This is what may be responsible for long lag phases in underoxygenated wort. The fermentation stage will only begin when the yeast reach an approximate concentration of 50,000,000 cells per ml. The longer it takes to reach that point, then the longer it will be before fermentation begins. Give the yeast o2, they use it to convert squalene (a hydrocarbon), into progesterol, and ergosterol, which are the important lipids. Now that the yeast have an excess of lipid material, they can happily go about their business of Reproducing (atta' boy!) until they've got three generations of themselves. Now that the posse is in town, they can start the party! Cheers. Peter Gilbreth barleywine at prodigy.net www.barleywine.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 19:52:32 -0700 From: "NFGS" <fjrusso at coastalnet.com> Subject: First Timer! I am contemplating my first batch of home made beer. I have been making wine for the past past 2 years so I have a little experience at home brewing. Now I need for someone to point me in the right direction. How about where to find some simple first time instructions. I have been to a brewing supply store and just been overwhelmed. I also got a book from the library 'The new brew it yourself' by L.P. Beadle, but it lacks details. By the way I prefer dark beers over light. Anyone care to help? Also where is a good source on line for recipes? Frank Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:51:48 -0400 From: "Mike & Lynn Key" <flakeys at ibm.net> Subject: Lemon Zest Tom P. wants to know what part of the lemon constitutes the zest. Only the yellow part is considered the zest. The white pulpy stuff underneath the zest is bitter and, as far as I know, is never used by cooks (at least I've never seen Emeril use it on his TV show). - ---- Cordially, R. Michael Key "Extremism in the pursuit of prudence is no vice"--Greasy Fingers, Chicago Gangsters "I stink, therefore I offend"--Da Card, Greasy Fingers' little brother Kool Keys' Family Website http://www.homestead.com/chicagogangsters/Key.html Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 19:57:38 -0700 From: Tuula Pietila & Timo Jukka <tupietil at cc.helsinki.fi> Subject: Grist% Hello everybody! Firstly, let me say that my view on this subject was already expressed very well by Al Korzonas and Jim Busch. Still, there are a few comments I thought I'd make. The problem seems to be that some people confuse the commonly used terms "grain bill" and "malt bill" with something that might be termed "extract bill". Michael Rose wrote: "Do you calculate the grist by the weight of the malt or by the points of sugar that each malt contributes?" and in another post: "I orginally posted this question and shortly after posting found the answer in Ray Danials book DGB---It's by the extract, not the weight. Don't have the book in front of me so I can't quote it." I have the book in front of me so I'll quote. Page 125, under "Terminology": "Proportion tells you how much of the ingredient is used in those recipes that include it." and: "Proportion refers to the amount of a particular grain added to a recipe relative to the total quantity of grain used. If a recipe has 1 pound of crystal malt and 7 pounds of pale ale malt, the proportion of crystal malt is 1 pound divided by 8 pounds, or 12.5 percent." Daniels uses the term proportion in charts and tables, with titles as "Table 14.5 Kolsch Grain Bill in NHC Second Round Recipes". This is quite clear. By weight, not by extract. What is not clear in Daniels' book is the way he handles the subject in Chapter 5: "Calculating the Malt Bill". Firstly, on page 28 he writes:"...in an authentic Bavarian weizen, wheat makes up about two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the total malt bill; a pale or Pilsener malt makes up the remaining one-third." Then he goes on calculating the malt bill *by extract* and concludes on page 30: 7.39 pounds of wheat malt and 3.88 pounds of pale malt. The problem is the contradiction to the earlier 67% and 33% figures: 7.39 lbs and 3.88 lbs are 65.6 % and 34.4 % of the malt bill respectively. Also, this method contradicts with the way recipes are presented on pages 123-350, which is the majority of the book. Peter Gilbreth described his method of calculating the grain bill by extract: "...(unfortunately, Briess will not give the Coarse grind, so we must extrapolate from FG and FG:CG Diff)((78-(78*0.018)) = 76.6" You should calculate 78-1.8 = 76.2. If a malt's FG yield is 80.0% and CG yield is 79.0%, its FG:CG diff is 80%-79% = 1.0 %. "This means with 100% Brewing Materials Efficiency (BME), we can expect 76.6% of 6 row and 88% of flaked corn by weight to convert into wort solids." No it doesn't. What you forgot was the moisture. I don't know the moisture content of the malt, so I'll assume 4%. If you take 100 grams of malt, 4 grams of it is water. The dry basis/fine grind percentage of 78% you quoted is a percentage of the remaining 96 grams. So, to get the coarse grind/as is extract yield from the coarse grind/dry basis yield: 0.762 * 96 = 73.2 This means with 100% Brewing Materials efficiency (BME), we can expect 73.2% of 6 row by weight to convert into wort solids. "I feel this is the more accurate way of writing recipes, although it is slightly more involved." I don't think this is very accurate. With the above corrections I get 9.4 lbs 6 row compared with your 9 lbs. "For me, working these formulae is part of the intellectual process." This is why I posted -- though the method is redundent, your intellectual process is not. Here's food for your intellectual process: When calculating your hop bill I assume you, just to be consistent, calculate the various bittering hops by alpha-acids. But how do you calculate the finishing hops? By sesquiterpine or linalool content...? I hope nobody answers... Timo Jukka in Helsinki, Finland Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 16:44:29 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Arcadia Brewing's Whitsun "David Blaine" <i.brew2 at usa.net>asks about Arcadia Brewing's (Battle Creek, Michigan) Whitsun and asks for an extract recipe. Whitsun is a strong (>6%), spiced summer wheat beer. I had this two years ago on draft and found it quite nice with the coriander dominated the spice profile and blended nicely with the honey. The noticeable alcohol added to the overall impression. Refreshing, but not a summer swiller. More of a beer for a midsummer Bacchanalia, I would think. It is very popular at the local bar scenes, such as I've seen. I'm tasting a glass of the bottled version right now and find it less distinctively spiced and hoppier and maltier (Munich malt). Don't know the reason - freshness or different year? You could, of course, just phone the brewery and ask for guidelines as I did with Michigan's other great summer wheat ale, Kalamazoo's Solsun. But here is some info that should help and that other HBD readers may find interesting as well. In John Bice's Michigan Microbrewery and Brewpub Guide http://www.phd.msu.edu/bice/Beer/brew.html , John scores this a 10 out of 10 and writes "An excellent and unique wheat beer. It's a beautifully cloudy golden, with a noticeable smooth honey character and a strong orange presence. A complex yet refreshing wheat, excellent and very unique! Watch out though, at over 6% alcohol it packs a heavier punch than most wheat beers. Reviewed 7/5/97" The brewery's description: "Arcadia Whitsun is a modern interpretation of a mid-19th century English spring and summer festival ale. It is light golden copper in color with a rich creamy head, is full bodied and has a lightly toasted caramel flavor. The addition of orange blossom honey contributes a uniquely smooth drinkability to this unfiltered wheat ale." In an interview with John Bice at http://www.phd.msu.edu/bice/Beer/talkontap3.html, Arcadia head brewer Tim Suprise says it is "a modern interpretation of an English spring & summer festival ale. We tried to take what we think are some of the wonderful qualities of Belgian style white ales, which have that coriander and orange characteristic to it. We just took that basic parameter and applied it to English malted barley, English malted wheat, a small percentage (10%) of Belgian Munich malt as a way to compliment our interpretation of style by combining the coriander and orange peel and, of course, combined with the legendary Ringwood yeast and see what you come up with. The added bonus being the honey. We did a pilot system, we put a half barrel on in our tavern at 5 o'clock one night, and it was a fairly decent Friday evening bar business, that half barrel was gone before 7PM." There is the basic from the horse's mouth. I'd use maybe 6-7 lbs of a barley/wheat liquid extract with a mini-mash of perhaps 1-1/2 lbs Munich. Mahogany Coast's wheat is 60/40 wheat/barley, which is too much wheat, so if you used one 3.3 lb. can each of wheat and light, that would be about right. For simplicity you might just skip the Munich for more extract and rely on the caramelization of the concentration process for color and flavor (althought it won't be the same flavor). An extract version will probably end up dark anyway. Aim for 1.050 - 1.055 from the malt. Hop to about 30 IBU and use some noble finishing hops. Add 1/2 oz. Curacao orange peel 20 minutes before knockout and 1/4 oz. freshly ground coriander at knockout. When the wort has cooled to 170F, add enough orange blossom honey to get you to 1.060. This will pasteurize the honey but not drive off too much aroma. I'll leave the actual arithmetic to you. You could culture the yeast in the bottle since it's unfiltered, or use YeastLab A09, which is Ringwood. Be sure to aerate the cooled wort well as this yeast needs lots of O2. Have fun with this. 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: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 17:56:39 -0500 From: Scott/Colleen Sutherland <cssuther at swbell.net> Subject: Recipe Formulation If you have created a knock recipe for Blue Moon of Blue Moon breweing Company and would e-mail it to me please do. I would like to try and make a quality copy, but can not determine the taste components. Is that fruit or honney? Thanks Scott Sutherland cssuther at swbell.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:50:16 +1000 From: Rick Wood <thewoods at netpci.com> Subject: extract % vs grist weight % Hello All, I have been very interested in the recent thread regarding measuring based upon extract percent vs grist (weight) percent. I found "LordPeter's" post to be particularly interesting and germane and convincing. Also, I have been particularly surprised by some of the pros responses, for example: Jim Busch posts: > Percentages of grist per malt variety in recipes are always specified > in terms of percent of total weight, not extract. Go with the pros > on this one and ignore the homebrewer oriented text(s). It seems that the pros are often trying to recreate their own recipe, usually with well known and characterized ingredients. They are often seeking to be different form all other beers. Also, when a homebrewer is trying to rebrew his own recipe, using similar ingredients as the last brew, then grist weight percentage is all the information he needs. Indeed, even percentages are not needed if the same volume is to be brewed. Often homebrewers are trying to get a result similar to someone else's beer and is therefore trying to remove as many variables as possible. It seems clear (to me) that if one is trying to document a recipe for the masses, who are likely to have access to somewhat (or very) different ingredients and different extraction efficiencies, that weight % of grist is not adequate documentation and that recipes based upon extraction might be useful. Al K, in your post you commented that: > I *always* have meant percentage by weight and I'm willing to bet that > no poster to the HBD or author of a brewing book (except for perhaps Ray > and Lewis) has meant percentage by extract when talking about grists. I think we can all agree with that statement. Could you (or anyone else) comment on the additional value of recipe documentation based upon extract % rather than grist weight %. Do you think that the additional info is useful or is there so much variability for other reasons in reproducing beers that the additional precision is really not beneficial. And even if that is so, isn't removing, as much as possible, wort variability not useful? On a personal note, I have really enjoyed the HBD for the past couple of weeks. There seems to be much less B&M - bitching and moaning - than in the past. Refreshihng! Rick Wood Brewing on Guam Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 19:50:09 -0400 From: Brad Johnson <bjohnson at berkshire.net> Subject: First Wort Hopping A query to the collective (as opposed to the queer collective) - in May I made my first California Common. Particulars: 12 gal batch 11 lbs. US 2 row pale 7 lbs. Munich 1.5 lbs. Light German crystal 2 lbs. Belgian Cara-pils. Single infusion mash 152 dF 2.5 hr (Waiting for water to boil) OG 1.055 FG 1.020 Wyeat 2112 California lager, fermented at 66 dF N Brewer 3.85 oz at 6.9 AAU 60 min, FWH N Brewer 2 oz 10 min. Other than a higher than expected terminal gravity, the beer tasted OK on kegging - a little rough but that's what lagering is for, I thought. The conditioned, kegged beer sat at cellar temp for 5 weeks waiting for the lager fridge to open up. It's been lagering at 37 dF for 3 weeks now and the hop flavor is overwhelming, even cloying. It also has a pronounced bitterness, perhaps consistent with increased utilization with FWH. I taste tested it against the archetype. Anchor Steam tasted maltier and had the same flavor quality but much more restrained and balanced. I am interested in other's experiences with FWH - I have read of its use primarily with noble type hops, but have seen others refer to using all sorts of hop varieties. IMBR? Will extensive lagering tame the wild and wooly flavors I find? Brad Johnson Berkshire BroadArrow Brewery Bjohnson at berkshire.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 21:34:20 -0400 From: marli at bbs2.rmrc.net (Jon Macleod) Subject: a second maple data point I too have been intrigued, but unsatisfied, by the idea of a good maple beer. Any commercial varieties were much too sweet. Now, I'm happy. I made one this spring that (IMHO too) is great! 4 lbs pale 4 lbs wheat 2 lbs Munich 1/2 lb caravienna 1/2 lb crystal 1/8 lb chocolate It was a step mash (per Papazian) using maple sap from our trees (just Silvers, that's fine) instead of water. In the boil I added a quart of maple syrup and about 1/4 cup of maple sugar (from the same trees). Hops were; 1/2 oz Perle 60 mins 1/4 oz Cascade 30 mins 1/4 oz Cascade 15 mins 1/4 oz Hallertauer dry The yeast was Wyeast American Ale, finishing dry and clean. The maple was very much a "hmm, what's that?" effect, good not distinct, so I added a cap full of maple extract to the keg. That's it. Nice aroma, no overpowering sweatness. Yes, I'll repeat it next spring. Mike Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 22:41:53 -0400 From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Malt enzyme temp/pH optima How is it that the enzymes in barley malt that are important to the brewer have their optimal temperatures at levels far above what the plant normally encounters? Are these enzymes active at normal ambient temperatures in the plants? And what about these enzymes' pH optima? Are pH levels of 5.5 found in appropriate subcellular environments within germinating barley? If not, are these enzymes active at the ambient pH levels within the grain? And/or did God give these plants these enzymes so that man could enjoy beer (and brewing)? - -- Fred L. Johnson Apex, North Carolina Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 23:01:48 +4 From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Who is Jethro? Dear Friends, All I know is, Jethro Gump is a guy who knows who his mates are. Cheers, Dave in Dallas - --- *************************************************************************** David S. Draper, Dept. Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas ddraper at utdallas.edu http://hbd.org/~ddraper ...That's right, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway... Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 23:28:37 -0700 From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at home.com> Subject: Colorado visit Hey gang, Going out to Colorado next weekend. I'll be there 9 days. I'll be spending the weekend in Denver, the following week in Colorado Springs and then another weekend back in Denver. Looking for any "don't miss" spots in either place. Email me your A-lists. Thanks C- Charles Hudak cwhudak at home.com Living large on the left coast....... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 07:24:45 -0400 From: fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu Subject: Condensate Greetings folks, In HBD #2772, Steve Johnson asked about using the condensate from his dehumidifier to help soften his brewing water. It is true that the condensate from a dehumidifier is relatively pure water. I would caution against using it for brewing however. There is likely to be a large amount of bacterial contamination. This water has been removed from the air in a "dank, musty basement" where mold and other nasties are growing. It is common to find mold or algae growing in the condensate tank and on various other dehumidifier surfaces the water may contact. We used to call this stuff "frog snot" when I worked for a mega-supermarket chain. It would commonly clog up the refrigerated case drains. This is nasty stuff! Hope this helps! Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:26:30 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Yeast aeration Hi all, Mike responds to somebody's post about aerating starters after the sugars are depleted. It is a bad idea to aerate yeast after their food source is depleted. It will cause them to use up their glycogen reserves, leaving you with starved yeast that will perform poorly. I know that one of our friends down under has reported about a technique that violates this rule, but I believe he will agree that it is not something that the average homebrewer should attempt. Also, Mike implies that yeast will respire in wort. Some already readers know that this is not true. Check the archives for more detail, but suffice it to say that yeast use the oxygen for sterol synthesis, not respiration, in wort. That doesn't make aeration at pitching any less important, though. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:00:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "David M. Campbell" <campbell at dickinson.edu> Subject: High fermentation temperatures I just brewed a wheat ale on Saturday using Wyeast 3333 (German Wheat). When I woke up this morning to look at it, bubbles were rising through the airlock vigorously and the temperature of the liquid topped out at 80 degrees. Incidentally, when I first added the yeast, it was 74 degrees and has been slowly rising since. Is this temperature dangerously high? I have the fermenter in an air conditioned room, but this doesn't seem to be helping. Any advice would be welcomed! Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:08:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at mail.imagin.net> Subject: Dehumidifier water; kit comments; sorghum; aerobic respiration and lag time Steve Johnson asks: > Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else has used the > water from the dehumidifier to soften their mash water? >... I'm assuming that this water is the result of a condensation > process, with the final product being pretty similar to steam distilled > water? It's condensed from vapor that's drifted around Nashville, picking up who knows what (sounds like a country hit). Even if you keep your dehumidifier REALLY clean, I personally wouldn't trust it to be cleaner than tap water. - - - - - - - - - - Dave Costanza asks for comments on his kit's recipe and directions. It looks like a fairly good kit to me. The time for concern is with the one-can, nameless-yeast type kits -- and you can still brew good beer with them, you just need to read HBD for a while first :-) I found it interesting that they're saying to boil for only 25 minutes, as you will get less hops utilization -- but this is a very lightly hopped style. Dave asks about steeping Crystal malt: > is this done for flavor? Are you supposed > to squeeze the liquid out of the boiling bag when you remove it? You steep grains to get flavor and texture. Crystal adds sweetness, maltiness, and mouthfeel. You want to steep at about 150-170 for 30 minutes (like they said) to get the sugars out of the grain. You don't want to cook your grains hotter than 170, this can extract bad flavors. It's good to squeeze the bag, but do so carefully and close to the water, as you don't want to splash and get air mixed into your hot wort. This can combine with malt chemicals and create problems (search for HSA and Hot-Side Aeration in the archives). - - - - - - - - - - Vincent Voelz asks about sorghum beer. I believe you'll have to brew your own to try it. Directions, and more information about it, are in the HBD archives. Nothing in 1997 or 1998, check earlier. - - - - - - - - - - Michael O. Hanson notes that many books claim that yeast will use oxygen for "aerobic respiration, which is more efficient than anaerobic respiration." The trouble is that they are generally repeating the same claim from the same person, who wasn't a microbiologist. There have been long, interesting discussions on HBD in the past about this, and here's what they have convinced me of: - "Respiration" in this context refers to using oxygen to get energy. - With both oxygen and sugar available, beer yeast will ferment for energy, rather than respire. (Other yeasts behave differently.) - Beer yeast DO take up the oxygen, but they use it to make sterols, with which they build up membranes. - The improved cell membranes make for healthier yeast, and also let each cell divide more generations in the absence of more oxygen or sterols. - So, if you were underpitching, oxygen can reduce lag times by encouraging rapid colony growth. These are stated so loosely that I'm sure some of our better micro-bio posters will require treatment for migraine. However, it's a good enough working understanding to brew with. Historically, underpitching was causing long lags, and oxygenating helped reduce the problem. Pitching enough yeast eliminates the problem entirely. I certainly agree that anaerobic respiration would be inefficient. Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 8:25:50 -0500 From: randy.pressley at SLKP.COM Subject: 15 Gallon Batch's When I went to all grain it didn't take long to move from making 5 gallon batches to 10 gallon batches because of the increased time investment. I'm now considering going to a 15 gallon batch, but I'm unsure if my mash vessel can handle 30lbs of grain. I use a 15.5 gallon keg has my mash unit. Assuming this could handle the mash then I would sparge into another 15.5 gallon keg as well as a 10 gallon pot. I have two burners so I'm all set as far as the boil goes. I'm concerned about the mash because of the weight of the grain causing a stuck mash, or maybe having a low extraction percentage. Any thoughts? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:00:30 -0700 From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net> Subject: Schmidling on Schmidling Samuel Mize <smize at mail.imagin.net> The Holders ask: ""Who or what is Jack Schmidling and why does someone name Jack Schmidling post it? Something seems to have gotten lost in the translation from English here... "The guy's batty. There's even a movie about it. (He made it.) That WAS you, wasn't it Jack? Is it still available, maybe on video by now? Actually, I made two films on bats "BATS ARE BEAUTIFUL" and the most recent is available on video http://ays.net/jsp/videos.html and in many libraries. During my other life as a film producer I made a number of documentaries, the most popular being "BACKYARD SAFARI" which ended up front page in the National Inquirer as the "Wacky Weed Man". Moral of the story, don't ever talk to a reporter who will not name the actual publicaton that they work for. I got sucked in by the euphemism "free lance". js - -- Visit our WEB pages: Beer Stuff......... http://ays.net/jsp Astronomy....... http://user.mc.net/arf ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:05:28 -0400 From: "Buchanan, Robert" <RBuchanan at ChristianaCare.org> Subject: Lemon Zest Tom, I hope you don't have to put out a couple of sixers but the "zest" is the yellow part and not the white pulpy stuff underneath. Try NOT to use the pulpy stuff, it is VERY bitter and will not add the lemon "zest" you are trying to achieve. Bob Buchanan "Women and cats will do as they please and men > and dogs should relax and get used to the idea" > Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:08:56 -0700 From: "Mark W. Wilson" <mwilson at ichips.intel.com> Subject: Ideal Yeast Storage temp? I was wondering, what's the ideal temp for storing yeast on slants? I have a beer fridge and a food fridge, and ample space in both..... -Mark Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 07/21/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96