HOMEBREW Digest #2779 Mon 27 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

  monthly competitiions (Mark Tumarkin)
  Malt enzyme temp/pH optima ("Steve Alexander")
  Cold Break - removal ("Steve Alexander")
  Starters pt 1 ("Steve Alexander")
  Starters pt 2 ("Steve Alexander")
  Phloating Phalse Bottom ("Bob Zamites")
  IPA Recipe ("Bob Zamites")
  Re: Chlorine v/s Stainless (jeff blake)
  Pyrex carboys/stainless vs. Chlorine/Grammar Police ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Re: Thoughts ... ("Steve Alexander")
  Spreading Slime (Jack Schmidling)
  Homebrewing at The Great British Beer Festival '98 (JDMcCrorie)
  Slurry from breweries (Fred Kingston)
  Re: Phil's Phloater ("Robert J. Waddell")
  "jet" propane burners/regulators (Dave Hopf)
  Crystal malt & mashing; Bermuda Triangle ("Hans E. Hansen")
  Strange Taste in Cider ("Richard Lehrl")
  Ommegang ("David Johnson")
  Re: dry yeast amounts (Scott Murman)
  Big Brewing 1 (Jim Liddil)

Sunday Digest courtesy of a 3-day queue... 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, 25 Jul 1998 07:35:35 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: monthly competitiions Jim wrote: >At the start of the new year our homebrew club is going to start a club comp. >for the club brewer of the year. We are going to score beer once a month and >at the end of the year name our brewer of the year. >My question for the group is: What beer styles are appropriate for each month >( January - December)? Some months are sort of easy: October - Octoberfest, >December - Strong Ales. But what about the other months. Before I moved to Gainesville, I was (I quess I still am) a member of MASH, the Miami Society of Homebrewers. MASH holds a monthly competition and the homebrewer of the year for this year may just turn out to be an HBD'r (hi, Swede!). For the most part, the monthly style is tied to the upcoming AHA club-only competition styles. The idea being that if the winner is deemed to be good enough, the club will pay to enter it in that competition. Other than that, the obvious seasonal tie-ins are used. I think that monthly comps are a great practice for clubs for a number of reasons. One thing is that it gets people brewing a variety of styles that they might not otherwise try. Also gives people a chance to ease into competition, and gives you some experience brewing to style. As the judges are chosen from the members who don't have a beer in competition, everyone gets a chance to experience that side of competitions as well. It encourages people to enter other competitions. Generally, it's a good thing and one I'm trying to get my new club, the Hogtowne Brewers, interested in. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:46:20 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Malt enzyme temp/pH optima Fred Johnson asks ... >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 And Alan Senear, among other provided the correct answer. Note tho' that as brewers we choose the highest possible mash temperatures - higher would destroy the enzymes too quickly. >And/or did God give these plants these enzymes so that man could enjoy >beer (and brewing)? Well here's a better one to puzzle over. Malting strains , but not all strains, of barley and wheat and a couple other grains contain *several hundred* times the amounts of enzymes necessary for normal growth. Without this little genetic miracle man would probably not have discovered mashing and beer so early (only in the 20th century did we start breaking down corn starches into high fructose/glucose corn sugar using artificial and bacterial enzyme sources). My explanations for this run more toward Darwin than deities, but I'm grateful for the result nonetheless. Steve Alexander p.s. >From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net> >Subject: Schmidling on Schmidling Archetypal Jack ! ;^) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 07:55:34 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Cold Break - removal Dean Fikar writes on Cold break removal >>Steve Alexander writes: >>Removing cold break is widely held to produce beers with cleaner >>flavor. I certainly agree with this. >Is this really true? I don't make any special effort to remove the cold break >other than using a SS pot scrubber in the bottom of by brew kettle to filter >the hops and some break while pumping the wort to my fermenter. In the >competitions I've entered I usually score better with the kind of beers you'd >think would be most affected by off flavors - i.e. pilsners, alts, etc. >I know that a fair amount of cold break gets into the primary. What gives? >Why don't the judges score my darker ales better than the lighter beers >mentioned above if cold break is interfering with the cleanness of my >beers? This doesn't match my experience, but of course our brewing methods and materials are different. You say you are pumping directly from the kettle to the fermentor - so I assume you are using an immersion chiller. Between the pot scrubber filter and the 'filter bed' formed by the hops residue you are actually removing the majority of the break material at least this is my experience when I used to use a slotted copper manifold, immersion chiller and whole hops. Together this was adequate (tho not ideal) for break removal (see below). The cold break that remains include proteins, which in their insoluble state have no impact on fermentation or beer (except that all trub improves fermentation performance by acting as CO2 nucleation sites), fatty acids sterols and other malt and hops lipids, which can have a major impact on yeast and beer, and a remarkably high fraction of the heavier metal ions (zinc, Cu, Mg etc) which really could have an impact on yeast growth. Adding small amounts of these metal ions back to the fermentor (like 0.2ppm zinc) can have a very positive effect on yeast growth. The break traps and removes nearly off of these from the wort - but it isn't clear to me that these ions are available in trubby wort. The lipids are (hope we all know this by now) used by the yeast as a substitute for synthesis of their own unsaturated fatty acids and sterols, which lowers their oxygen demand. This *MAY* cause the yeast cell membranes to have different permeability - maybe causing higher FAG or higher levels of byproducts - but this is speculative. If the yeast don't have enough unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs) in the wort, they'll use oxygen and saturated ones (SFAs) to make UFAs. If they run out of FAs all together they'll synthesize their own - but this requires energy. Yeasts tendency to use SFAs+O2 to form UFAs a very good thing since 0.5ppm of SFAs in beer will impact head formation. Fatty acids have a direct impact on the formation of esters in the fermentor ! This is because of changes in the use of acyl-CoA when yeast are consuming rather than synthesizing FAs. shorter FAs (C11 and below) actually inhibit the formation of esters- which would be a good thing in your pils. These short FAs are also slightly toxic to your yeast, but that's another story. But higher (longer chain) FAs are stimulatory to ester production. The trouble is that malt FAs cover a wide range but have a peak around C18. Excess trub is likely to cause the greater ester levels in your beer. Fatty acids are also another threat if carried over into final beer. Their oxidized products are the most despicable staling products imaginable. Now when making lagers I collect all wort in carboys and leave them in a chest freezer overnight. This creates a wonderful separation of the cold break in the near freezing wort. Then I aerate while transferring to another carboy and pitch. It is amazing to see the nearly trub free wort go into the freezer and an inch or even two of separated cold break come out. I believe that this has several minor but positive effects on the flavor of the final beer - even when oxidation isn't an issue. I think this method or any extensive break removal method is most applicable to lagers, first because there is an expectation of a particularly clean and low ester flavor profile, but also because the lower growth rates of the lager yeast make excess FAs more likely to carry over to the final beer. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:07:11 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Starters pt 1 Starters - wheh - there's a lot to cover here. - -- Alan Edwards writes re: a better starter method? Sorry Alan, a 0.8L extract only starter should produce a marginal sized yeast crop at best. You'd be better off with 1+L for ales, 2L for lagers and some yeast nutrient that includes amino acids or an ammonia source. You also didn't mention aerating/oxygenating the starter - this is critical to get adequate growth rates. Pitching the dregs from several bottles of SNPA is also a formula for more serious underpitching problems. Does it work ? Can you make good beer this way ? Yes, but you could undoubtedly make better beer with a greater yeast mass. - -- Mike Hanson - wrote a lot on yeast that is doubtful. Sam Mize/George de Piro responded and pretty much set the record straight. Just a note tho that Tracy Aquilla - (who sadly no longer posts here) pretty much dispelled the myths of yeast respiration on HBD about 2 years back. The concise and complete version is documented in his excellent yeast article in Brewing Techniques (where else?) in vol 5(2), March/April 1997. - -- Peter Gilbreth writes ...Does Oxygen reduce lag time? >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) Generally pretty good - but please note that Sterols and UFAs aren't the only yeast lipids, nor are UFAs only useful on cell membranes. >The rate of fermentation will depend on the rate and extent of yeast >growth. Hmmm - this isn't really right - it's the total viable yeast mass that is proportional to the fermentation rate. Certainly NOT the growth rate. >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. Yes. >This is what may be responsible for long lag phases in >underoxygenated wort. NO !. See below (next) >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. Nonsense. Do you really think the yeast wait around for a population increase before fermenting ?? Where is their census bureau located ? >Give the yeast o2, they use it to convert squalene (a hydrocarbon), into >progesterol, and ergosterol, which are the important lipids. Uhhh- not completely happy with this explanation. Yeast are more interested in zymosterol situsterol, and several other sterols rather than ergosterol(vitamin D) Also altho sterols are critical for growth, they form only a small fraction of total yeast lipids - which are all important, even critical. I disagree with the details - but the overall point is correct - oxygen is required for formation of yeast sterols, which are the normal primary growth limiting factor for yeast in all-grain wort. Also even in 'clean' wort, a small but significant fraction of the sterols, and especially the UFAs are from the malt & hops and not synthesized from oxygen. Peter's notes are pretty good, but there is some nomenclature that bears repeating. Lipids are any material that can be dissolved in non-polar solvents, fatty acids, phospholipids, sterols and a lot of others. It's a pretty generic term and doesn't represent much about the structure or function. There are a lot of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, and relatively smaller amounts of sterols in yeast. - -- Limiting Growth Factors- Oxygen and wort lipids are the primary limiting growth factor in all grain wort. In extract wort or in very well oxygenated environments the limiting growth factor is likely to be one of several critical amino acids, although other critical growth factors such as biotin, thiamin, riboflavin, pyroxidine, pantothenic acid, nicotinic acid, etc may be the limiting growth factor. Also yeast have a need for several inorganic material - like phosphate ions (which should be abundant) and small amounts of enzyme cofactor molecules (like zinc). Lag- (shock excretion/sterol+cell membrane synthesis energetics/amino acid uptake) The lag phase after pitching has little to do with yeast growth per se. When yeast cells, particularly mature yeast cells are introduced into an environment with large amounts of simple sugars, particularly glucose but also others, a phenomenon called *shock excretion* occurs. The yeast expel simple amino acids from their internal pools into the wort. They also the excrete simple nucleic acids. The excretion is non-selective. It is believed to be related to the changes in cell permeability as the cells become able to ingest the sugars. Young cells leak relatively less than mature cells, and also reabsorb amino acids faster (30 vs 72 hours in one experiment). Shock excretion is enhanced by high SG and high. Interestingly shock excretion can be somewhat inhibited by the presence of Ca2+ ions - tho' I don't know the relevant concentration. To avoid shock excretion pitch into cool wort, and have a lot of young cells and avoid high SG.. Avoid excess glucose in the wort (note that all grain wort probably contains enough glucose to cause a problem). (continued) sja Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:07:25 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Starters pt 2 (continued from pt 1) Lag - (continued) Sterol synthesis and synthesis of the phospholipids for cell membrane is also a major energy drain during the early high growth phase and yeast deplete their internal carbohydrate(glycogen, trehalose) energy reserves using the energy to create these lipids for strong cell walls and healthy offspring. If the yeast you pitch have low glycogen reserves then they must respire or ferment to gain energy in order to reproduce. This reportedly is related to lag. Also related - I've never seen a study but suspect that yeast, with sterol levels up near the 1% levels may be less susceptible to shock excretion and lag that 'thin' yeast with sterols ~0.1% of mass. This would seem sensible since the sterols are involve in the cell permeability mechanisms. I don't think oxygen is related to lag though it could easily be related to slow fermentation. Yeast grown in a low nitrogen environment also reportedly experience a growth delay or lag. The nitrogen is of course used for amino acids and nucleic acid synthesis. Pitching Rates - The recommended yeast growth rates are that ale yeast should grow by ~8-10X and Lager yeast by 4-5X. This would argue in favor starters for 5gal (20L) of 2L for ales and 4L(1gal) starters for lagers!! This is about double the recommended rates suggested by many HB books, and probably double again what many HBers practice. High pitching rates *may* cure lag, but primarily it should help reduce flavor byproducts due to excessive growth. Note that overpitching is reported to lead to autolysis - perhaps since the yeast multiply but use up all the sugars before replenishing their glycogen reserves. Perhaps this explains why autolysis is relatively rare in HB. One difficult to answer question is - how much slurry is adequate for pitching. G.Fix in AoBT pp 69 estimates that yeast sediment (as in the bottom of your secondary ) is about 25% viable yeast cells and this reduces to a pitching rate for 5gal of 11 fl.oz of sediment for lagers and 5.5 fl.oz for ale yeast sediment ! This is probably a lot more slurry than most HBers are used to pitching. - -- So what would we ideally like to pitch ? Young, high sterol (well oxygenated) yeast with good glycogen levels grown in a decent level of nitrogen/amino acids might be the ideal, but getting yeast to this state is a bit of a trick. After all if life is so good they're likely to divide using energy, splitting up the sterols and the amino acids unless there is some other limit to growth. At this point I'd like to suggest that *maybe* a final growth phase in a maltose, amino acid, oxygen rich media, which is also low in some other critical growth factor, perhaps biotin *might* do the trick - tho' I'm not sure that the solution isn't getting harder than the problem at this point. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 07:09:13 -0600 From: "Bob Zamites" <bamzam at trail.com> Subject: Phloating Phalse Bottom Hey Pholks!, I've been a lurker for several years, but being "on-line challenged", I had to resort to reading hard copies of HBD provided by a friend of mine....anyhow, I'm glad to have finally overcome my handicap and look forward to contributing my 2c worth. In HBD 2776, Kevin TenBrink asks about keeping his "phalse bottom" from "phloating"....I had this problem, too, but solved it easily by running a short length of 3/8" copper tubing between the phalse bottom's elbow and the run of tubing going out of my cooler. I used the standard plastic tubing that comes with the phalse bottom as a means of connecting the copper to either end. I found the weight of the copper easily prevented the phalse bottom from "phloating", but I still used foundation water before adding grains and mashing. BTW, I just started brewing again after a long (more than 1 yr.) hiatus, and boy, lemme tell ya, it was great! Sad thing is, I sold all my all-grain equipment and am starting over w/ extract....better than no brewing at all! Slainte, Bob Zamites ( First Fire Brewing Co.), Santa Fe, NM Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 07:29:43 -0600 From: "Bob Zamites" <bamzam at trail.com> Subject: IPA Recipe How's about this? Two Posts in one day! >From: "Mark Pratt" <mstepp at worldnet.att.net> >Subject: Need IPA recipe >Hey all, I'm new here and have been receiving daily updates. My buddy has >been brewing for a couple of years and is a member of a local club (in VA) >His questiion, since I have the computer. Does anybody have a recipe for >single infusion for an IPA??? Well, here was my recipe, which was my first all-grain batch that took a BOS at the Albq. Dukes of Ale Spring Thing (way back in 1995 !): # 11 - M&F 2-row pale ale malt #1 - 73 deg. xtal malt 1 1/2 oz. Cluster (7.8% aa) - 90 minute boil 1 1/2 oz. Cascades (6.4% aa) - 10 minute boil 1 ounce Cascades (6.4% aa) - dry hop after primary 1 tbsp gypsum ( added in mash) Wyeast #1056 - Strike water to dough-in and rest at 156 F x 90 min (I was paranoid, and wanted to ensure conversion :^) ) - Sparge to yield 6 gal. to brew pot - Boil, hop, cool & pitch - Dry hop after primary ferment, i.e. racked onto hops in 2ndary - Secondary ferment x 2 wks. - Bottle, age (I did mine for a month) and enjoy This was still ( even after my 50+ batches) my best beer IMHO. Of course, YMMV. Slainte, Bob Zamites (First Fire Brewing Co.) Santa Fe, NM Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:43:19 -0700 From: jeff blake <jblake11 at uniserve.com> Subject: Re: Chlorine v/s Stainless I work at a commercial winery.We sterilize with hot water (200+deg.) and sanitize with a chlorine based product(Diversol-no affiliation).We use this regimine on 3.5million imperial gallons of tankage and on all of our botteling equipment.If concentrations are kept under 300-400ppm.there are no problems. Long contact times should be avoided, as should the use of hot water with the chlorine.The product we use is formulated for use with cold water. Hope this helps! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 11:04:56 -0700 From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com> Subject: Pyrex carboys/stainless vs. Chlorine/Grammar Police Kris Jacobs asks about Pyrex carboys in HBD 2777: -snip- Does anyone know of a good source for these, the "holy grail" of carboy-dom? A local friend of mine has a couple, and it's AMAZING to see hot wort go straight from the boiling kettle into a glass vessel sitting in a tub full of ice water. Think of the implications this would have on sanitation -- boiling wort goes into a clean vessel that it sanitizes upon entrance, vessel can be air locked up and cooled at leisure without worry of infection, no coils of copper and/or garden hose to worry about, etc... First time I saw it I thought, "I gotta get me a couple of THOSE!" -snip- Boy, can I empathize with that lust for something new! We have a few of these we use in our soils lab. They are lovely but cost upward of $300 apiece for the 12 gallon (actually some metric rough equivalent) size. I think we got them from Cole-Parmer but check with any scientific/lab glassware supplier. If I was spending that kind of money, I'd go with stainless cylindroconicals. They might cost a bit more but will never break when dropped. I'd also think carefully about slow chilling in a closed vessel at least until the wort drops below SMM to DMS conversion temperature. Extract brews would probably be OK since SMM seems to be low in extract. Chlorine: We also found that chloride has a profound effect on stainless steel the first time we attempted to do a long term sediment test on oceanic sediment using a stainless bucket. Ate right through the bucket. Doh!! At low concentrations and/or for a short time it might be OK, but why take the risk? Iodophor isn't *that* expensive. Don't get me wrong, I use bleach for just about everything else, just *not* stainless. RE the Grammar Police: I never make tpyos or other misteaks myself... -Grant Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei Des Moines, Washington Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 18:36:38 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Thoughts ... Jim Liddil writes on numerous subjects .. Jim does have some great comments and notes on Megabrewery methods, but I'm not very happy about some of the notes and the implication that HB brewing should follow US Mega practice. >Al wrote: >>George also writes: >> The Kubessa process is a mashing technique where the husks are ... >In a big brewery with a six roller mill you can separate the various malt >fractions. Do they do this? Not at Miller, AB, Coors or Molsons. Coors is >the only one of this group using mash filters [...] >Using these methodologies they control polyphenols very well. I don't get the point. Megabrewers work from an entirely dissimilar grain bill than HBers or even most micros. They don't use the Kubessa process. They don't have problems with excess phenols when using high loads of potentially low phenolic and huskless adjunct. Is this a surprise ? >be only 1/2- 3/4. Also remember that in Europe the energy cost are much >higher. So it was suggested to me by more than one instructor that German >malts really are somewhat undermodifed as compared to the US versions. Paul >went on about how the German Brewing schools still teach malters to >undermodify to some extent. it's a matter of economics. This description of the economics of undermodified malt makes little sense. The *very* big energy cost in malting is in drying the green malt, not in allowing it to continue to modify. German pils malts are *maybe* a notch less well modified than US malts, but I think you'd really need to pick a particular maltster and malt to draw a conclusion here. German malts are certainly not nearly as undermodified as they were when M&BS was written. The big energy cost that is being saved is at the brewery when the well modified modern German malt can be infusion mashed instead of going through a 4 temperature decoction. >Now before someone starts in with >malt analysis numbers let me ask that you provide a complete malt analysis >for a specific lot. [...] >. And no I don't want a "typical" analysis since these >numbers represent what the maltster wants his malt to be. Yeah - before someone introduces some facts, let's 'diss' the source. The few specific malt sheets I have are reasonable close to the typicals published in the same year - tho I have none for German malts. Let's put the ball in your court Jim since you are the one making claims. If *YOU* can find a data sheet from a German major maltster showing a pils malt with a Kolbach index or PSN closer to 33 than to 40 I'll buy your premise regarding undermodification. Otherwise - no sale. You got any numbers to back up your claim ? >Steve Alexander wrote: >>The Irish Moss question - After using IM religiously for a few years I >The general view at Siebels is that IM is a bandaid. [...] >. He >viewed it as a band aid approach for poor brewhouse techniques. In his >experience of brewing millions of barrels of beer he saw no need what so >ever. Probably all the beer he's made is filtered - which makes IM rather irrelevant to his commercial style operations. >>From: "Chuck Bernard" <bernardch at mindspring.com> >>While browsing some of the maltsters web sites (Schreier, DWC & Weissheimer) >>I found "generic" malt specs that listed "conversion times" for various >generic is right. These are typical numbers, meaning what the maltster wants >his malt to look like not what it is. Meaningless. You seem to be painting with a broad brush here Jim, the Breiss and DWC 'lot' sheets I have are pretty close to the general sheets. Do you have a couple 'lot' sheets that show a wild difference to demonstrate your point ? I'm not saying that there isn't a good deal of lot-to-lot variation, but to say the 'typical' figures are meaningless seems a bit extreme unless you can back it up. In any case I'd like to hear what numbers you consider to be so far off as to be meaningless. >Steve Alexander wrote: >>Removing cold break is widely held to produce beers with cleaner >>flavor. [...] Removing excess fatty acids in the break, beyond the >>amount that your yeast can consume is a good thing in that it removes >Guess what the majority of the big brewers do not remove coldbreak. I asked >the people at Siebels from Miller, Molson and Amstel and they do not remove >it. >Niether does Coors. If these light lagers can get away with leaving the cold >break I really don't think it matters to us either. But do what you want. You >are better off removing the fatty acids on the front end. This means >getting a >brilliant wort run off from the lautertun. The big boys are brewing with 6 row, not 2-row and that rice adjunct has about 5X less fat than barley. I suspect that the big boys don't sparge as much (or need to) as HBers (most of the fat is in the late runnings). Also notice that most HBers don't have a 1meter+ grainbed to filter through. The bigboys have gone to nitrogen scrubbing of their wort and are designing low oxygen pickup methodologies into their brewing facilities - oxidation is a primary reason you don't want the fat in your beer. Altogether you are straining to draw a comparison between HB and Mega methods. It is interesting to hear how Coors/Miller/A-B brew, but the materials, methodologies and result (especially the results) are different, and not very comparable. Just because A-B doesn't remove cold break from a rice and 6-row wort filtered through a 1m grainbed doesn't mean very much to HBers. I think that looking to some of the European breweries methods might tell us a lot more about appropriate techniques since their source materials and beer styles are more similar to HB than is Megabeer - tho' they still have deep grainbeds and industrial equipment. BTW - Next time you get to ask about Coors methodology you might ask about a paper in ASBC 1982, pp 57 by some Coors experimenters., Ruocco and Mabee. They did some tests of trubby, whirlpooled and filtered worts, at various levels of oxygenation. In the tasting results - all were acceptable, but the filtered wort beer won out decisively over the high trub wort. The whirlpool separated wort nosed out the filtered beer - tho less clearly. Total trublessness might not be the ideal, but trub removal is most likely a plus. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 23:36:31 -0700 From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net> Subject: Spreading Slime "Andrew Avis" <Andrew.Avis.aavis at nt.com> Subject: Wyeast 1742 / You don't know Jack " On the "who is Jack Schmidling" thread... apparently someone by that name is a Net Legend. " To quote: "" Jack Schmidling is not just a Usenet kook and a suburban-Chicago lawn kook, ""he is an internationally famous amateur radio kook also. " There's more if you're interested. I don't know who you are or what your motive for spreading that rubbish but it is bad enough that hate mongering like that can take on a life of its own and sit on computer somewhere for ten years. I see little reason to drag it out among friends. The funny stuff is more or less true but the rest is absolute rubbish and I have tried for years to get it removed but it just will not go a way. I actually received death threats from the person responsible for that stuff but aparently, hate is forever on the internet. Thanks for the help, 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: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:28:02 -0400 From: JDMcCrorie at compuserve.com Subject: Homebrewing at The Great British Beer Festival '98 >< Craft Brewing Association at GBBF 98 Each year, several US homebrewers travel across the pond for the Great British Beer Festival, which has over 300 Real Ales on offer. GBBF 98 is held at London Olympia and is billed as 'The World's Biggest Pub'. It opens on Tuesday 4th Augustand runs until Saturday 8th August. The Craft Brewing Association, the UK home brewing organisation, will again have a stand, this year in the Main Hall on the righthand side after you enter via the main doors. It will be manned by CBA members who will be brewing each day and offering free samples of their brews to Festival visitors. All home brewers are particularly welcome to come and have a chat. We usually meet a number of US and other overseas homebrewers and last year some said that they would have welcomed prior knowledge of our presence, so here it is. We are pleased to offer our stand as a 'Contact Point' for US, and other overseas homebrewing visitors. Also, each year we have an informal 'get together' at the White Horse on Parson's Green on the Sunday before GBBF, this year on 2nd August. Several US homebrewers fall off the 'red-eye' about noon on that day and make their way to the White Horse. To find this, get to Earl, Court underground station, take a Wimbledon train, the 3rd stop is Parson's Green. Exit the station, turn right and the White Horse is 200 yards or so on the left corner - hope to see you there! James McCrorie, Central Co-ordinator, The Craft Brewing Association --Private Brewers dedicated to improving their Craft Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:54:12 -0400 From: Fred Kingston <Fred at KingstonCo.com> Subject: Slurry from breweries Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach at nctm.org> asks: Subject: Slurry from breweries OK folks, I keep hearing about lucky dogs who live near breweries and manage to get nice large batches of slurry to pitch into their homebrew. So what's the technique for getting to the point where you can do this. I know that if I walked into the brew-pub near me and asked how I might manage to sneak a pint or two of slurry, the people would look at me like I was nuts. What, do you slowly ingratiate yourself with the brewmaster? Are most (all) brewmasters so generous with their yeast, or is asking such a thing a great, huge favor? I'm asking all this because I wouldn't want to come off looking like a butthead by asking, yet I do live near a brewery and wonder if I'm missing out on a really good thing. Danny........... We have a local "Hops" restaurant/brew pub in our community. Our local club asked the brewmaster if we could hold a club meeting there..We got the obligatory tour and a few glasses of beer(they didn't have "pitchers") and we made him an honorary member. It didn't involve anything on our part, we just send him our monthly newsletter... I mentioned that I'd like to be there one afternoon when he brewed...He agreed. Being the good beer geek... I always have a cooler in my Jeep.....just in case of emergencies. On brew day, I put a qt. mason jar of Idophor in the cooler...just in case. Between mashing...while having a beer, I asked about his yeast processes... He mentioned that all the waitresses ask him for jars of yeast to wash their hair in....<G> I asked for a jar of yeast. No problem. When I brought the jar from Jeep, I also brought him a bottle of my latest Pale Ale, and a bottle of 2 year old sparkling mead... Needless to say.... I'd made a friend for life..... Show the brewer that you're interested in his beer... You are, aren't you???? Bring gifts... One of the nice things about beer-folks... They can't say, " no" when they're drinking your beer....:) Cheers... Fred Kingston Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:37:10 -0600 From: "Robert J. Waddell" <rjw at dimensional.com> Subject: Re: Phil's Phloater Kevin TenBrink <tenbrink at jps.net> wrote: > does anyone have a way to keep the bottom from phloating up in the water > before I add the malt? Kevin, I used to do the same with my Gott setup before I upgraded to the Pico System. I found that by putting the crushed grain into the mash tun, on top of the Phils Phloater before adding the water, then underletting the water through the drain valve prevented the screen from phloating, and I didn't have to stir quite as much to break up any dough balls. I also got into the habit of heating twice as much dough-in water as I needed so that I could fill the tun with water first to pre-heat it. I wouldn't lose more than a degree or two during the entire mash that way. After I drained the pre-heat water out, into a separate pan, it didn't take a lot of time to re-heat it to sparge temperature. It took several frustrating batches before I finally figured out this method, but it worked for several years. Give it a try. Robert I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it off the bed at night. Women... --Pat Babcock *** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! *** ******************************************************************** RJW at dimensional.com / Opinions expressed are usually my own but Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared. ICQ #7136012 Owner & Brewmaster: Barchenspeider Brew-Haus Longmont, Colorado ******************************************************************** (4,592 feet higher than Jeff Renner) Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:44:41 -0700 From: Dave Hopf <ibis at cnw.com> Subject: "jet" propane burners/regulators Steve Schultz wrote: > Therefore, I would appreciate recommendations for propane burners that don't > soot up the kettle. > > And-- are there any "secrets" which contribute to soot-free boiling? The reason normal propane regulators do not work well is because they are preset to a pressure that is inadequate for jet burner use. The jet type burners work fine when you remove the regulator and pipe the gas directly from the tank. (works for me) If you prefer not to live dangerously, you can get a high capacity propane regulator from a welding shop or propane supplier. The ideal regulator for a jet burner should be easily adjustable for a wide range of pressure. This allows you to control the temperature from "too hot" to "extremely too hot". Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 11:54:49 -0700 From: "Hans E. Hansen" <hansh at teleport.com> Subject: Crystal malt & mashing; Bermuda Triangle Hello all. Just back from Bermuda where I bent the ear of Stephen, a brewer at Triangle Brewing, for a couple of hours. A couple of weeks ago, there was a discussion here about mashing crystal malt. Stephen strongly suggested to not mash crystal malt; it would tend to lose some of the flavor that we want from it. He suggested adding it at the end of the mash, or even better, to the sparge water. Interestingly, Stephen makes beer all day at work, and then homebrews at night! Triangle Brewing makes some great beers. Their flagship products are their Silver Medal winning Kolsch-style (Spinnaker) and Altbier (Wilde Hogge). Kinda strange from a British brewery. My favorite was their Full Moon Pale Ale. These guys are hop heads, so the beers tended to be quite bitter. At the insistence of the owner, the beers are filtered. The brewer said he would prefer to dump the filter in the bay. They brew with rain water collected from the roof, which is slightly acidic from acid rain effects from east coast US industry. This doesn't hurt the brewer's feelings any. He says the mash ph comes out perfect. If you get a chance, be sure to visit Triangle. Brewery tours are at 4pm, with unlimited beer consumption. These are very bright, hard working people, and I am sure all of you would enjoy talking to them. If you can't go there, check them out at: http://www.trianglebeer.com Hans E. Hansen hansh at teleport.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 14:38:53 +0200 From: "Richard Lehrl" <r.lehrl at xpoint.at> Subject: Strange Taste in Cider I hade a strange experience with a homemade cider. The cider was made in autumn and stored in a demijohn till mai. Then I filled the 25 liters (5 gal.) into a 50 liter (10 gal) steel barrel for slow consumption. Due to the large free space in the barrel I pressed about 1 bar (15 psi) of CO2 from my 40 bar (500 psi) CO2-system into the barrel to prevent the cider from air contact. This worked good for about 2 weeks, the cider was smoth and fresh. But slowly the cider created a smoky aftertaste. And now the strange thing: This aftertaste disappeared if I left the cider for an our or two in an open glass. I could accelerate this process by pouring the cider a couple of times from glass to glass. So obviousely the aftertaste - like smoked ham - was a kind of gas that evaporated from the open cider. BTW the cider was clear in the glass and nearly free from yest cells when I filled it into the barrel. So I don't think it was an infection or yeast autolysis. Could it be that theese industrial CO2 steelbottles do not contain "clean" CO2? (The producer says he has only one kind of CO2 that he fills into bottles for what ever they are used, carbonating drinks included). Richard +++ Richard Lehrl, Vienna, Austria e-mail: r.lehrl at xpoint.at Meine Seite fuer Heimbrauer: http://www.user.xpoint.at/r.lehrl/ +++ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 09:53:01 -0500 From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj at inwave.com> Subject: Ommegang Brewers, I recently obtained a bottle of Ommegang, from Cooperstown, NY. It is bottle conditioned and I plan on trying to culture the yeast. I haven't tasted it yet, but would be interested in others tasting notes as well as any other info on their yeast and brewing process. I have visited their web site, but I plan on using this beer as a teaching tool for our brew club and would like as much info as possible. Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:55:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: dry yeast amounts Samuel Mize wrote: > > Dry yeast packages contain a LOT more yeast. Just rehydrate and pitch. Dry yeast does contain about 50 times the yeast in a Wyeast pack, but I still don't think it's enough for pitching directly. If you believe your dry yeast is 100% viable (is that a big or little if these days?), then 2 typical-sized packages (5g) would be about the minimum for a 5 gal. batch. If you don't trust that your yeast is 100% viable, then scale up from there. It's cheap and effective. SM Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 16:36:01 -0700 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: Big Brewing 1 Steve Alexander wrote: >Jim does have some great comments and notes on Megabrewery >methods, but I'm not very happy about some of the notes and the >implication that HB brewing should follow US Mega practice. > I may have implied this but as I also wrote "but the bottom line is does the beer you make by what ever process taste good to you?" As homebrewers we can choose what things we do and do not want to do. We are not slaves to what the customers want. This was pointed out again and again. Various brewers have done things to make "better" beer and the consumers said the beer had changed and quit buying it. Why do you think Corona does not use light stabilized hops or Heineken for example? Consumers want that "import flavor". > >I don't get the point. Megabrewers work from an entirely dissimilar grain >bill than HBers or even most micros. They don't use the Kubessa >process. They don't have problems with excess phenols when using high >loads of potentially low phenolic and huskless adjunct. Is this a surprise ? > What about those who make CAP? I know of more than one brewpub that makes a light training wheel beer with as much corn as they can get away with. I was trying to point out (which I failed to do) that with a six roller mill you can separate the husks from the flour via the various screens installed in the mill and the collection chutes. If a process like this was worth the extra time and effort the big brewers would be doing it. And the big guys do worry about polyphenol extraction. Besides the instructors, there were also people from Miller in my class who work in the brewhouse and a guy who is involved in sensory evaluation for all the Miller products from all the breweries. Even with a 30-40% adjunct product it's an issue due to the light flavor and possibilities of haze later on in production and in the bottle. Now wrt to the malt bill, Miller brews using high gravity techniques as do all the big brewers. The wort is 16P (~1065) that they make. This means that about 60% of the mash is malt or about 1040. So they still need to worry about pH, sparge temperature, etc. Miller High Life is made in Milwaukee using corn syrup so the mash is all malt, the syrup is added in the kettle. > >This description of the economics of undermodified malt makes little >sense. The *very* big energy cost in malting is in drying the green malt, >not in allowing it to continue to modify. Every hour the malt spends in the malt house is a cost. Air has to be cool and humidified and force through the malt. This all requires energy and ties up resources that could be used to make more malt. Germans are so concerned with energy costs that they have all kinds of energy recovery systems built into the breweries (Klaus Zastrow said this and it was confirmed by a person in the class from Warsteiner). Molson looked at doing this and decided it was not worth it do to the lower energy costs in Canada (as reported by a person in the class from Molsons). Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 07/27/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96