HOMEBREW Digest #2802 Wed 19 August 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: Spectrophotometric measurment of IBUs/Color (AJ)
  sources for Sankey kegs ("Cameron LiDestri")
  Funny Guy/Brew Pub Mash Schedule (EFOUCH)
  killer yeasts ("phil grossblatt")
  Some Pump Wiring Help? (Bradd Wheeler)
  AHA bashing/ bottling Imperial Stout ("Victor Farren")
  First Batch Questions (IAN FORBES)
  Cesky pivo/yeast storage ("Brad McMahon")
  Carbonation confusion (Steve Jackson)
  water analysis (JPullum127)
  Amber Ale (OGP-Tempe)" <vjm at ogpnet.com>
  Secondary fermentation / accidental high mash temp (George_De_Piro)
  kegging ("arne seeger")
  AOB/AHA (John Wilkinson)
  New Hop Variety: Santiam (Tim Burkhart)
  autoclaving bottles (Eric James Urquhart)
  water reports? (Badger Roullett)
  parti-gyle, Party Guy (Badger Roullett)
  weizenbock ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Yeast Growth (Jim Liddil)
  Beer Label of the Week ("Jay Krause")
  Women & beer ("Hans E. Hansen")
  Toronto weekend (Bill Watt)
  Yeast Data ("Mort O'Sullivan")

Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as every sentence deserves proper punctuation... 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: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:56:00 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Spectrophotometric measurment of IBUs/Color Fred Johnson had some questions about my post on measurement of BU's and suggested that the HBD might want to see them and my answers: > You recently posted to the HBD regarding measuring IBUs > spectrophotometrically. I have read the standard homebrewing texts and > publications regarding the measurement of IBUs and SRM > spectrophotometrically and in both cases the upper end of the range of > these values more bitter or dark beers (and not-so-dark beers) is well > above 2 absorbance units. Now I was always cautioned in my graduate and > post-graduate training (1980) that reading absorbance above about 1.2 was > unreliable. I've seen many similar comments and conclude that spectrophotometer technology has come along a bit in the last 15 years or so. As I mentioned in my post the very expensive (Varian/Cary) machines are advertized as being able to read absorbances as high as 7. The instument I use (Hach DR/4000) is probably more typical of what would be found in a small brewery's lab. It is spec'd as having a photometric range of 3.0 and a stray light level of 3.3. The noise floor is probably around 4.0. Linearity is, however, spec'ed only at 1.0 and it is clear that non-linearity increases as absorbtion increases. This is probably not so much from actual non linearity in the detector (which could be taken out by the microprocessor) but from noise. Noise at 4 would would cause a reading of 2.9 if the true absorbtion were 3. The first of the two procedures I describe below indicates that my instrument is definitely good to 2.0 but does show a noticeable decrease in linearity at 3.0. The stray light is well below 3.3 but may be a factor in the nonlinearity at 3. I tend to blame it mostly on noise because I see noise starting to creep in above 3 and become very noticeable at 4 which is the maximum the instrument displays. > Reassaying the sample was required and in some cases dilution > could be performed. > > I have been skeptical of the reported "non-linearity" or departure from > Beer's law that is typically encountered in measuring color in beer, > because the departure is on beers that have very high absorbance units by > the standard measurement techniques (not diluting the beer). I suspect > that the departure from linearity could be from the instruments > limitations, not a true departure from Beer's law. I have suspected the same. Certainly some of the things published on this subject reveal some naivite with respect to the workings of spectrophotometers. > Your post to the HBD > suggested to me the same phenomenon when measuring IBUs. That's possible too, which is why I put in the comment about it being incumbent on the analyst to know his instrument. > Could you provide some reference or tell me how one distinguishes > nonlinearity of the instrument versus a true departure from Beer's law? I think the best way to do this is to put a sample of dark beer into a cell whose thickness is such that the analyst is assured of a reading in the linear part of his instrument's response (say below 1.2 to be really conservative). Now dilute the beer 1:1 and place the dilution in a cell of twice the thickness and measure again. Repeat for other combinations of dilutions and cell thicknesses which should give the same absorbtion. If Beer's law is being obeyed, the readings will be the same. If they are not, it isn't. A quick practical check on the limits of linearity can be done by running an absorbtion scan from 400 to 700 nm on a darkish beer in cells of several thicknesses, converting each to the same pathlength and plotting the curves. As absorbtion at 430 nm is typically 25 times the absorbtion at 700 nm a wide range of absorbtions will be encountered. The curves, when adjusted to the same path, would overlie one another if the instrument were linear. With a real machine the adjusted curves for the thicker paths will show less absorbtion than the adjusted curves for thinner paths for values of absorbtion at which deviation from linearity becomes appreciable. Note that the adjustment to the common path uses the Lambert part of the Beer - Lambert law. I have never seen the Lambert part questioned though there are logical explanations as to why the Beer part may fail. These are consistent with many of the explanations given for failure of other laws of physical chemistry (interraction between charged particles) which are closely followed only by "ideally dilute solutions", a phrase which some wags take to mean slightly contaminated distilled water. As an alternative to the procedure just given a beer could be measured in a 1 mm cell, 2 mm cell, 5 mm cell, 1 cm cell, 1" cell etc and the results plotted vs path length. Departure from a straight line is a measure of the nonlinearity of the instrument at the absorbtion at which the deviation becomes noticeable defines the limit of the instrument's useful range. A better way still would involve the use of neutral density filters which had been calibrated on one of the super instruments or standard solutions of dichromate. Note: I have only checked Beer's law for the beer I am drinking as I write this. It is fairly light (14.5 SRM) and does obey Beer's law in a 2.54:1 dilution. Another Note: If doing any of the suggested measurements it is imperative that the beer be free of bubbles. Even a bubbles here and there can scatter light and make absorption appear to be substantially greater than it is. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:55:16 -0400 From: "Cameron LiDestri" <cameronl at wshu.org> Subject: sources for Sankey kegs I've been for awhile and have really gleaned alot from this list. Now I have a question. I've read alot about converting sankey kegs for brewpots etc, but no one has mentioned where they get them. Paying the deposit and keeping the keg ain't kosher. I read somewhere that metal scrap yards have them stacked like firewood and would be glad to sell 'em for about $10. None of the scrap yards around here (southern CT) have them. Nor the recycling centers. I called the local Bud distributor and he said they always send 'em back to the brewery, no matter what condition. So...how 'bout it? Where else do I look? -Cam Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Aug 1998 09:48:53 -0400 From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com Subject: Funny Guy/Brew Pub Mash Schedule HBD- Ok, due to the number of queries about my quip about our Electronic Janitor, Pat Babcock, allow me to elucidate: OF COURSE I was kidding! I thought the ludicrousness of someone being upset about such a trivial thing was hilarious! I guess I'm just not as funny as I thought I think I am. I'll keep my day job. Apologies to anybody I responded to privately regarding their perceived prudishness in not getting my joke. I take it all back- I'm sure all your dogs are not gay. On the discussion regarding brew pub mash schedules: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:39:52 -0700 From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at home.com> Subject: Simi-brew Scott writes: > Would it be fair to say that if >all of your beers are made with a single temperature infusion mash, >and 80% 2-row, and you use the same yeast strain for each, and the >same fermentation strategy, that you're going to end up with beers >that all pretty much taste the same? Nope, wouldn't be fair to say that at all. Unfortunately, most brewpubs offer very similar tasting beers because a) the brewer doesn't know what the hell they are doing or b) market appeal dictates that they offer the same (or similar) bland beer but in various colors (whatever seems to be the current trend) e.g. bland red, bland nut brown, bland porter, etc. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When I toured the Kalamazoo Brewing Co. last year (HBD 2453) the tour guide claimed that they do all their mashes as single temp RIMS: They heat the infusion water to 170F, and reheat the recirculations to 170F. I found that hard to believe given the quality and flavor of Kalamazoo Brewing Co. products. The only one of their beers I have not loved is their new "Home Grown Ale" Needs work. The one bottle I had was skunky and tasted of diacetyl. Others have reported similar experiences to me regarding that beer. Larry Bell definitely knows what he is doing, and has blazed the trail for Midwest brew pubs. Presumably with one yeast strain, and a single temp. mash profile. I would have thought these were two of the most restrictive parameters in making a distinctive quality product: ie. if you limit yourself to one yeast strain and one temp for infusion, you have shot yourself in the creative foot. Maybe a lot more talent and skill is involved, eh? Eric Fouch Minister of Apologetics Bent Dick YoctoBrewery Kentwood MI Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:10:50 -0600 From: "phil grossblatt" <philgro at swcp.com> Subject: killer yeasts Dave Burley doubts my calling him on his incorrect assertion that killer yeast are so named because they create large amounts of sulfite: > Phil Grossblatt doubts my comment about Lallemand's > Killer Yeast being due to sulfite production and then proposes > some unknown protein which is supposed to kill undesired yeast > ( but not bacteria?). > > Well, my information came from a discussion with a > Lallemand Yeast Salesman some years ago. It is possible > he was incorrect. Would you care to provide us with the "real" > information Lallemand has instead of postulating some unknown > protein? Kinda leaves us up in the air, particularly since you appear > to be speaking for Lallemand. sort of. The exact name of the protein is unknown by ME,but it is not an "unknown" protein.Yeasts can be screened for this protein ("killer factor"),and those that create it are then dubbed killer yeasts. The most common strain,K1,is just one of these types.Some yeast actually show resistance to the killer factor. My sources for this fact are Amerine+Ough's textbook on wine production,and a conversation with Scott Labs,which is a dealer for Lallemand's products.I'd quote the text with the page number and edition,but it's at work.I believe you were the one speaking for Lallemand-I merely suggested that I doubted they would be giving out misinformation,when the true situation is an established fact and has been known for over a decade. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Bradd Wheeler <braddw at rounder.com> Subject: Some Pump Wiring Help? I recently purchased a magnetic drive pump from Moving Brews. the specifications being 110v, 60Hz, 1 Phase, 80 Watts, 1.2 Amps. I have a very rudimentary understanding of electricity so let me explain my situation and perhaps someone can help. Coming from the pump I've got 3 wires Black, White and Green. I purchased an extension cord (Heavier gauge than the leads from the pump) which also has Black, White and Green wires. I know at least that Green is the ground and I am assuming Black is negative and white is positive. Now, If I were to cut off the female plug from the extension cord and then connect White to White, Green to Green, and Black to Black the pump would work properly once plugged in correct? My question comes about installing a switch between the pump and the wall plate. For this purpose I would like to use a simple household light switch in a watertight PVC housing. On the switch there are 3 connections, one for the ground, and 2 for the switch. As I understand it, with the switch in the off position, the connection between the latter two is broken and with the switch in the on position this connection is completed. Now my question. Can I simply wire the ground to the ground, the White to the White, and then Wire the Black wires one to each of the connections on the switch? Therefore interrupting the circuit when the switch is off and completing it when the switch is on? I apologize for my rudimentary explanation here, but if anyone can help out I would be much obliged. I'd hate to have to pay an electrician to do what I assume is pretty easy to do, but then again I don't want to burn out my pump, or for that matter, me! All this work, I'm gettin' real thirsty for that Best Bitter .. .. .. .. Thanks alot .. ... .... - Bradd Wheeler Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 09:20:50 -0400 From: "Victor Farren" <vfarren at smtp.cdie.org> Subject: AHA bashing/ bottling Imperial Stout I do not want to start another AHA bashing thread, please! It is just that I am fairly new to the digest and have noticed a definite anti-AHA current amongst certain members. I have to say that I am not a real big fan of their publication (Zymurgy) as I find they have a lot of fluff in it. I prefer the more technical articles found in Brewing Techniques, but that is just me. Anyone care to provide me a short history of why the AHA is despised? Someone posted something about the AHA trying to do something to the digest?? Private emails are fine, in fact encouraged. I posted a long question about a week ago and never got an answer so I'll post again. I am about to bottle an Imperial Stout (OG 1.090) and had read in a post that it is a good idea to include some fresh yeast in order to ensure proper carbonation. Can I add fresh starter from the dregs of the 2ndary and use the newly fermenting yeast when bottling or will the high alcohol in the IS have made them too loopy to do a good job? Will they be prone to giving off flavors? I know that it is not a good idea to ferment another batch with yeast that has fermented a BIG beer b/c the alcohol content mutates them, but I don't know if that would hold for bottling where there is a small addition of fermentable sugar and thus not a lot of new fermenting going on. Thanks in advance, Victor Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:30:19 -0400 From: IAN FORBES <IFORBES at BCBSCT.COM> Subject: First Batch Questions Hello to all, I just brewed my first batch of beer last Wednesday and I have several questions/concerns. I know that I will receive valuable information from the collective so I have decided to post the recipe and my notes here. First the recipe; 6.6 lbs John Bull Light Malt Extract 3/4 lb Honey Malt 1 oz Styrian Goldings Hops (plugs) 60 min 1/2 oz Styrian Goldings Hops (plug) 5 min 1 pkg EDME dry yeast boil volume 2.5 gal final volume 5 gal og 1.056 ok. I steeped the honey malt at 170 deg for 30 min, removed grain bag, added the extract, and brought the wort to a boil. I added my hops per schedule and completed the boil. Towards the end of the boil I rehydrated the yeast in 90 deg water. At the end of the boil I removed my hop bags and added the wort to 3 gal cooled sanitized water in the fermentation bucket. I tried to avoid splashing as much as possible. After I had combined the wort and water the mixture was still about 125 deg. I don't know why, but I thought it would be much cooler (in hindsight I guess I wasn't thinking very much). I cooled and aerated the wort to just under 80 deg and pitched the yeast. Now for my questions and concerns; 1) Even though I was trying to be careful not to splash hot wort, I know for a fact that several times when I took the spoon out I let drops fall back in (I need to work on cultivating a "brewer's mentality" my habits in the kitchen). How bad is this? 2) It took a looong time to cool the wort down to 80 deg from 125 (about 1.5 hours). During this time I had the fermentation bucket (plastic) in a cool water bath and I was constantly stirring the wort gently so as not to aerate the mixture. What is the likelihood that I have infected my batch due to leaving the wort exposed to my kitchen air for so long. What is the likelihood that the wort suffered by being to hot for to long and how likely is it that I caused HSA even though I was trying to be careful? 3) When I pitched the yeast into the wort I did not stir the yeast in, I just poured it into previously aerated wort. Should I have mixed or stirred the yeast in? 4) Is there any type of guide as to how tight or loose the weave on hop and grain bags should be? The ones I used seemed kind of loose and it seemed that quite a few particles were released into the wort. Is this normal? 5) I also need to learn patience, but I just couldn't help myself. Last night (Monday) I had to peek at my fermenting brew. I never really saw active fermentation (plastic for this batch, but never again!), but I knew something was going on, even though there was no bubbling in the air lock, because the next day the Fermomoter (sp?) showed a temp of 78 when the air temp was 70. My curiosity got the best of me so I opened it up and took a hydrometer reading. The gravity is at 1.020. I figured out that I should get down to between 1.016 - 1.019 based on the apparent attenuation listing for the yeast I used. So I am guessing it is nearly completed. Having never witnessed a batch of fermented/ing beer I have a few questions about appearance. This batch smelled like beer. The top was not clear which is what I expected. On the top there were clusters of bubbles that I would describe as bubbles that a spittle bug would produce (if you know what that looks like). There are also very small (half a pea) sized "globs' on the surface. Some of these stuck to my hydrometer when I pulled it out and I am guessing that it is some type of break material? One of the reasons that I wanted to see the beer is that I was having nightmares that I would take the top off and there would be such a bad infection that the beer would pull itself out of the bucket. I am thinking that this is probably not an infection because; 1 - it doesn't smell infected, and 2 - the fermentation must have occurred incredibly fast (started within 6-8 hrs and completed within 36 hours) so that it doesn't seem like there was a large window of time for infection to occur. What do you think. Should I let this sit for awhile longer, should I rack and bottle or what? Before I brew my next batch I plan on purchasing a glass carboy so I can make sure I am keeping the air out and so I can see what is going on when curiosity gets the best of me. I also plan on making an immersion chiller and I plan on buying some iodophor for the quick contact time requirements. Before I go I would like to thank all of you who contacted me after my first post with recommendations for starter kits. I would also like to thank Al K., and Al if I had followed all of your advice I would be writing this post! And a big thanks to HBD for an amazing amount of useful information. Keep up the good work everyone. Ian Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:03:04 +0930 From: "Brad McMahon" <brad at sa.apana.org.au> Subject: Cesky pivo/yeast storage >One thing I've noticed in many American clones, and even several >European lagers, is a lack of the acidic undertones that make a PU, >Lobkowicz, or Velke Popovice so great. Ahh, pivo primo od kozla! I don't perceive them as being acidic, rather than that taste being a product of bitterness and yeast. >I'm curious to hear what the more expert tasters have to say about >the sour undertones. For example, Sam Adams's Bohemian lager falls >flat on its face (IMHO), yet I recall (vaguely) that its >decoction-brewed and uses only the finest Saaz hops. Haven't tried SA Bohemian lager, but have tried their Golden Pilsner and that wasn't close, though Pete's Wicked Bohemian Pilsner was a credible version, that was reminiscent (to me) of Mestan or Radegast. Sour undertones? Only on old kegs. I had _terrible_ Velkopovicke Kozel at that American sports bar on Vodickova (I think, somewhere off Vaclavske nam. at any rate), couldn't finish the glass. >I've recently found an article Ed Basgall posted in HBD #2151, >regarding freezing yeast in a 15% DME solution. I thought this might >be a good idea for me, as I'm kind of clumsy and inexperienced in >handling slants. I can't decide which would be a better method, >slants or frozen wort. Storage in vials with distilled water should be OK, but I store in freezer with 25%yeast,and a 50/50 solution of distilled water and glycerine. > However, I've often read that weisen is usually brewed with > one strain, filtered, and bottled with yet another. > If this is so, how should I go about capturing and reproducing a > truly genuine weisen? That's usually the case, but the culturing strain page at http://www.nada.kth.se/~alun/Beer/Bottle-Yeasts/ shows that Schoefferhoffer doesn't do that. I can get this beer locally, but haven't tried culturing their hefeweizen since learning this, so I can't vouch for its validity. >Do they breed in captivity? At the risk of sounding glib, yes. I can't see the problem with trying the Wyeast/Yeastlabs/whoever strains. They have been cultured from Weihenstephan or Bavarian breweries anyway. Na Zdravi! Brad Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson at rocketmail.com> Subject: Carbonation confusion I was contemplating the issues of bottle carbonation last night (nothing better to do, I guess) and came across a paradox that I can't figure (or find) an explanation for. As I understand bottle conditioning, it typically takes the yeast a very short amount of time -- on the order of a day or two -- to ferment the sugar (I'm assuming the use of glucose here, since wort or DME would take longer). The remainder of the wait is for the evolved CO2 to dissolve into solution. Now, CO2 will more readily (and more quickly) dissolve into solution at lower temperatures. So, logic would dictate that after fermentation of the priming solution has been completed, carbonation would occur quicker if the bottle were dropped to a lower temperature. My experience runs completely counter to this. In the winter months, when the apartment is kept around 70 (and the beer closet probably around 65), it frequently takes a good three weeks for my beer to carbonate. In the summer months, when the apartment is about 78 (and the beer closet probably in the low 70s), I frequently have beers carbonate in a week. Given CO2's "reluctance" to dissolve at warmer temps, I would think that carbonation would take *longer* during the summer, at least in theory. Of course, I realize that there are many things that are supposed to take place in theory and operate completely differently in practice, and this may be one of them. I'm simply curious as to why theory and practice don't mesh in this case (or if I'm simply misunderstanding or misapplying the theory). -Steve in Indianapolis _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:55:06 EDT From: JPullum127 at aol.com Subject: water analysis beyond a doubt brewers are the nicest and most helpfull folks around. i got over 1/2 dozen offers to help me interperet my water analysis. thanks to all Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 98 08:55:00 EDT From: "Mitchell, Vincent (OGP-Tempe)" <vjm at ogpnet.com> Subject: Amber Ale Howdy all, First I would like to thank Al Korzonas for responding to my dirty dishwater question. Second I was wondering if anyone out there has a good recipe for either a Irish red type ale or an amber ale. I am an extract and specialty grain brewer, but have been known dive into an all-grain from time to time. Your replies will be greatly welcomed. Vince Mitchell vjm at ogpnet.com mitchells at inficad.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:37:05 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Secondary fermentation / accidental high mash temp Hi all, Dave H. relates a tale of woe about his fermentation being sluggish despite the fact that he pitched a high-volume starter. The ferment was going strong shortly after pitching, and after just 72 hours airlock activity at fallen off, so he racked the beer to the "secondary fermenter." The SG was 1.020. Several days later is it is only down to 1.017. Once again the term "secondary fermenter" has caused a fermentation problem. It really should be referred to as a "clearing tank" or somesuch. Dave removed the majority of the yeast from the beer before his fermentation was complete. No wonder it is sluggish now! Unless the young beer has been on the primary yeast for so long as to cause you concern about yeasty off-flavors (1-2 weeks depending on temperature and strain) leave it on the yeast until fermentation is done (or really close to it). The poorly named "secondary" is really a clearing tank where excess yeast can be allowed (or forced) to flocculate, and finings and such can be added. I often don't bother using a "secondary" at all for some styles of beer. If clarity isn't an issue (like with Hefeweizen) I prefer to minimize the number of transfers (each transfer brings the risk of oxidation and infection, not to mention extra work). Dave's beer will probably finish, but if he wants to speed things up he could give it a dose of Kraeusen wort. ------------------------------ Lou H. asks about the consequences of holding the mash at 160F (71.1C) for 20 minutes before cooling it down to his intended saccharification temperature. Beta amylase can only survive for 10 minutes at 158F (70C). Your wort will be very dextrin-rich and finish at a higher gravity than you had hoped. You probably achieved complete conversion (your clear lauter runoff indicates this, as well as the long time you spent at alpha amylase friendly temperatures. I have made sweet stouts without milk sugar by mashing at 71C and using almost no hops. Works pretty well, and your lactose intolerant and vegan friends will be able to drink it. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:04:37 -0600 From: "arne seeger" <seeger at pdrpip.com> Subject: kegging I am getting ready to purchase my first korny kegging system and I have a few questions. I like the idea of force carbonation so I don't have to wait so long to try my brew, what is the best way to force carbonate? When force carbonating does the carbonation stay indefinetly? Looking through many catalogs I noticed a lot of places sell carbonation stones. What are they, how do they work, and are they worth the $20? I live in a place where there are no homebrew shops or clubs so HBD has been a great source for info. I hate venturing into new territory blind so any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Arne Seeger seeger at pdrpip.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 98 12:13:17 CDT From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: AOB/AHA Jim Liddil wrote: >Remember what the AOB/AHA tried to do to this forum. I don't remember them trying to do anything to this forum. As I remember it they picked up HBD when the original janitor had to let it go and they tried to adapt it to a different mail server. They had problems and were flailed pretty well for every error. When they abandoned it after all the abuse Pat and Karl were good enough to pick it up. Granted they are much more competent and are doing a much better job but I don't think AOB/AHA tried to "do" anything to the forum. They didn't do the job of taking over HBD very well but I can't say I blame them for dropping it after all the hell they caught. We are quite lucky anyone will take this on and should keep in mind what it is costing us. Nothing. Thanks again Karl and Pat. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:53:46 -0500 From: Tim Burkhart <tburkhart at dridesign.com> Subject: New Hop Variety: Santiam I'm not a hop grower (yet) or a user of Tettnanger but thought this might be of interest to someone. The USDA-ARS is announcing their "Santiam" hop as a new naturally seedless variety of Tettnanger. They say that while Tettnanger is grown in the U.S., its yield is lower than Tettnager grown in Germany. Santiam supposedly yields twice as much as U.S. grown Tettnager. There is a very short article on the Science Update page of the August '98 Agriculture Research magazine. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/aug98/sci0898.htm ...scroll to the bottom of the page. Tim Burkhart Kansas City Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric James Urquhart <eurquhar at sfu.ca> Subject: autoclaving bottles In response to the use of an autoclave to "sanitize " bottles, just do it. I have done this many times with not 1 bottle ever breaking. A 20 minute run on dry cycle at 121 C will STERILIZE the bottles. Put a small aluminium foil cap over the top ( about 4 inches wide before forming over the opening) and run. Just make sure the bottles are free of deposits as they will harden and darken during sterilization. They will be sterile though. Eric Urquhart, Centre for Pest Management, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, CANADA V5A 1S6 lab (604) 291-3090 fax (604) 291-3496 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:29:02 -0700 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: water reports? is there a web page that is collecting the major cities water reports out there? i am from Seattle, and i know some has done it. if somewhere out there is a water report for my city, can someone point me in the right direction? badger *************************************************** Brander Roullett aka Badger Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:29:04 -0700 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: parti-gyle, Party Guy Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:49:26 -0700 From: "Riedel, Dave" <RiedelD at PAC.DFO-MPO.GC.CA> Subject: Parti-Gyle Brewing/Thanks Mark! >Badger brought up the parti-gyle concept of big/small beer >brewing in a single batch. I have a data-point to pass on. Thanks!! this is exactly what i was looking for. this and all the helpful mails i have recieved are making this learnign curve less steep, and more fun!! >Using about 12 lbs of malt, I made 3 gallons of 1.099 >Barleywine and 6 gallons of 1.048ish Brown Ale by using >the first runnings for the BW, then adding some chocolate >malt, recirc'ing a bit then sparging the grain bed to get the >brown ale. Both beers came out very well. i am guessing you added the choc malt to the grain not the BW... :) I would very much like to see your recipie, and amounts if you still have that information around. what size mash tun did you use for this. Of all the mails i have recieved. two methods seem the most likely to achieve two good beers. 1: above method. smaller first runnings, larger second. hydrometer readings to reach a set gravity control this method. 2: same size batches, but adding more grain to the mash tun for the second runnings to achieve a slightly less "small" small beer. the factoid posted (to me or to list i don't remember) about 2 equal sized runnings woudl result in 70% of sugars in first runnings, and %30 in second runnings are useful here. I am not sure which way i am going yet, but i have a weekend freeing up in two weeks, and i am going to try then. i will post results when i get it. badger *************************************************** Brander Roullett aka Badger Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:23:25 -0700 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: weizenbock For my holiday beer this year, I'd like to make a weizenbock. I had a great pint (okay, half litre) at Baltimore Brewing one day. My understanding of the style is basically that it is a "high gravity" bavarian wheat beer. I'm definately looking for the weizen esters and phenols. Questions. What OG should I shoot for. 1080? Does the Wyeast 3068 work well for this style? Any mashing or fermentation advice? Thanks. - Bryan Bryan Gros gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website: http://www.valhallabrewing.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:43:24 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: Yeast Growth Steve Alexander has mentioned how various sources indicate yeast multiplication amounts. so I thought I would post what I have found. Do these numbers matter to us as homebrewers is the question I will address later. This will be in the context of what I think matters adn what I do. Not what everyone else should think or do. As far a books go I personally feel one should have every brewing book ever written. Also a good basic chemistry text, organic chemistry text, an analytical chemistry text, a copy of Ionic Equilibrium by Q. Fernando, a P. chem text, and a biochem text. A few microbiolgy books are also good. And access to a good university library. And yes it certainly help to have a good grasp of all of the above when one goes to a brewing school. Jim Liddil Yeast Technology "Generally, there is a sixfold to eightfold yeast growth during a commercial brewery fermentation" M&BS vol. 2 pg 619 "Commercial fermentations generally result in between two and three doublings of the yeast population." >From Brewing Science J.R.Pollock For lager a maximum of 30-50 million cells/ml For Ale 60-100 million cells/ml The Practical Brewer Reproduction ratio of 4 for bottom yeasts Pitching rate (g/L) yeast collected (g/L) 0.54 3.01 1.10 3.56 1.60 4.08 2.32 4.7 4.62 6.91 Declerck Fourfold increase for lager Tenfold increase for ale Brewing by Lewis and Young "the brewer can expect to produce about five times the amount of yeast he or she uses" "Even on wort yeast must be cajoled into producing the maximum amount of alcohol and the minimum amount of growth by restricting the availability of oxygen and using lower fermentation temperatures (9-20 C) than those preferred by the organism (25-28 C)" The Biotechnology of malting and brewing j.s hough "such an inoculum therefore only multiplies 4-5 fold, equivalent to each cell dividing by budding 2-3 times" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:18:41 -0500 From: "Jay Krause" <krause at galis.com> Subject: Beer Label of the Week Sorry for the wrong address, it should be: http://members.tripod.com/~beerlable You just get in the habit of typing "www." Thanks, Jay Krause Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:19:54 -0700 From: "Hans E. Hansen" <hansh at teleport.com> Subject: Women & beer Monika sez: < Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:07:04 -0500 From: Monika Schultz <mschultz at spacehab.com> Subject: Women Brewers There has been some speculation lately about why so few women brew beer these days. One poster suggested lifting heavy carboys, etc may be one reason. As a female brewer, I think it's even more basic than that. Most women simply don't like beer. Certainly not ALL women (no gender slight intended), I know a few who love beer. > <snip> I know quite a few women who like the taste of at least some beers, but won't drink them because they complain that beer "makes me gassy." I thought that was, in part, the object of beer drinking. :^) Hans E. Hansen hansh at teleport.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:32:18 -0700 From: Bill Watt <wattbrew at buffnet.net> Subject: Toronto weekend I am going to Toronto this weekend and unfortunately will not have time to visit all the beer places I would like. So, I turn to you for help. If you could only visit 1 or 2 pubs or breweries, what would they be? I will go with the majority. TIA for the tips. Bill Watt - -- Brewing beer in Lancaster, NY Watt's Brewing Bill Watt - wattbrew at buffnet.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:20:42 +0100 From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com> Subject: Yeast Data A while back someone (I can't remember who) asked for for representative cell counts for a given weight or volume of sedimented yeast. The problem with this request is that the cell concentration in your yeast cake depends on the packing density of your yeast. This will in turn depend on a number of factors such as average cell size, flocculation characteristics and other cell surface phenomenon, and probably a half dozen other factors. Thus the concentration of cells in your cake will vary not only between different yeast strains, but also with the same strain if the average age and/or size of the cells is different from one batch to the next. You could minimize these differences somewhat by forcing tighter packing of the cells through centrifugation. This is what I do when pitching my experimental fermentations and as a rule of thumb, it generally works out that 0.35 g of yeast cells centrifuged at 4000g for 5 min and pitched into 100 ml of medium will give a cell concentration of 12 million cells/ml. The other day I happened to have 7 flasks of leftover yeast so I decided I would demonstrate how the concentration of yeast in the sediment varies between strains. I let the yeast settle naturally and stored it under fully fermented beer in the refrigerator for 72 h. I then decanted off the liquid and transferred a known weight of the yeast cake to a clean centrifuge tube and added distilled water to make approximately 10 ml (but I knew *exactly* how much in each particular case). I then counted the yeast and calculated the cells/unit weight in the original slurry. To test my own rule-of-thumb method, I then centrifuged each of these tubes at 4000g for 5 minutes, decanted off the liquid, and weighed the yeast so that I could calculate the cells/g. The data for 7 different yeast strains is shown below. I am only providing the data so that those who wish can use it as a rough guide for figuring out how much yeast to pitch. However, I make no claims that my results would be the same you would achieve, even using the same 7 strains. (I hope the rows don't wrap to multimple lines--they are all 75 or fewer characters): +++Cell Concentration of Yeast Cake (Gravity Sedimentation)+++ A B C D E F G ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Wt. of yeast (g) 0.55 0.9 1.88 2.06 1.2 1.31 2.32 Dilution (ml) 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.20 10.25 10.62 10.13 Conc. (cells/ml) 4.6E+8 2.3E+8 7.7E+8 5.6E+8 2.3E+8 3.6E+8 8.2E+8 Viability 85.1% 89.0% 96.4% 96.4% 93.5% 97.9% 100.0% Total Cells 4.6E+9 2.3E+9 7.7E+9 6.8E+9 2.4E+9 3.8E+9 8.3E+9 Cells/g of cake 8.4E+9 2.6E+9 4.1E+9 3.3E+9 2.0E+9 2.9E+9 3.6E+9 Wt. needed for 22.6 74.1 46.2 57.1 96.3 64.9 52.9 commercial pitch rate* (g) Approx. volume for 0.77 2.50 1.56 1.93 3.26 2.19 1.79 comm. pitch rate* (fl. oz.) *Commercial pitching rates generally vary from 10-20 million cells/ml, but will be assumed to be 10 million cells/ml for purposes of calculation. +++Cell Concentration of Centrifuged Yeast (4000g 5 min 4C)+++ A B C D E F G ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Wt. of yeast (g) 0.37 0.69 1.51 1.40 0.63 0.69 1.87 Vol. of yeast(ml) 0.4 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.7 1.9 Total Cells 4.6E+9 2.3E+9 7.7E+9 6.8E+9 2.4E+9 3.8E+9 8.3E+9 Viability 85.1% 89.0% 96.4% 96.4% 93.5% 97.9% 100.0% Total Cells 1.8E+9 1.6E+9 1.2E+10 1.0E+10 1.4E+9 2.7E+9 1.6E+10 Cell conc if 4.4E+7 1.2E+7 1.8E+7 1.7E+7 1.3E+7 1.9E+7 1.6E+7 0.35g pitched into 100ml wort I also noticed some very old Wyeast packs hiding in the corner of the refrigerator and thought it would be interesting to show the cell concentration that would be achieved by pitching into 5 gal. of wort by following the manufacturers instructions and then comparing this to the rate achieved when using dried yeast packets. (This has probably been shown before on the HBD, but at least this will provide some more data). For the preparationof the Wyeast, I broke the packs and allowed to incubate for 48 h. After this time one pack (1084) had completely expanded, while the other (2124) had only expanded to about 3/4-inch thick. I poures the contents of each pack into a graduated cylinder to measure the volume (50 ml in both cases) and then counted the yeast and calculated the pitching rate if the entire volume were pitched immediately into 5 gal. of wort. For the dried yeast, I rehydrated the packs in 100 ml of 40C water for 15 minutes before enumerating. +++Cell Concentrations in Wyeast Smack Packs+++ C H ------ ------ Conc. in Pack(cells/ml) 5.8E+7 8.0E+7 Viability 80.0% 97.8% Total Cells 2.9E+9 4.0E+9 Conc. in 5 gal (cell/ml) 1.5E+5 2.1E+5 % commercial pitch rate* 1.5% 2.1% Note: Strain C = Wyeast 1084 (Irish Ale), 21 months old; Strain H = Wyeast 2124 (Bohemian), 22 months old. +++Cell Concentrations in Dried Yeast Sachets+++ I J ------ ------ Net wt. (g) 12.17 4.63 Dilution (ml) 100 100 Conc. (cells/ml) 2.5E+9 1.5E+9 Viability 99.4% 99.3% Total Cells 2.5E+11 1.5E+11 Conc. in 5 gal (cell/ml) 1.3E+7 7.9E+6 % commercial pitch rate* 132.1% 79.3% Note: Strain I = EDME dried ale yeast; Strain J = Gervin Commonwealth Ale Yeast Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/19/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96