HOMEBREW Digest #2884 Wed 25 November 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

  BeerSpeak (Jeffrey_Tonole/CA/americancentury)
  Re:HBD2880--More on Co2 (homebru)
  Yeast propagation (Dave Russelllocalhost)
  Re: Aluminum open fermentors/I hate carboys ("Swintosky, Michael D.")
  Metallic flavors / Aluminum / Printing what others write ("George De Piro")
  Clear Beer (Nathan Kanous)
  Trub X Competition ("Bruce Daniels")
  reply to "Westmalle Triple Yeast" HBD#2883 (Herbert Bresler)
  aluminium pots (Andrew Stavrolakis)
  clear beer ("Spies, Jay")
  scorchmaster mixmasher ("Spies, Jay")
  CO2 toxicity to yeast (NEWTRADBC)
  Weizen question (NEWTRADBC)
  An idea I had for computerized recipe exchange ("Tim Dallmann")
  He lost...that weizen flavor... / yeast nutrient (Brian Pickerill)
  Yeast came back, Site Glass, Making ZIMA??, Runoff (Joe Rolfe)
  hBd or hbD (Jason.Gorman)
  Re: proununciations (Free State Brewing Co.)
  Re: pronounce . . . (Project One)
  Tap Room/Phenolic Lagers ("Tim Burkhart")
  Zymurgy "road tests" (Spencer W Thomas)
  Reprinted without permission... (pbabcock)
  hBd or Hbd (pbabcock)
  lactose (David Whitman)
  Copper oxide?? (Mark T A Nesdoly)
  priming with actively fermenting yeast (Al Korzonas)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event On Earth yet? Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org 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 COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen) Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from janitor@hbd.org. COPYRIGHT for the individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without first obtaining EXPRESS written permission from the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:22:32 -0800 From: Jeffrey_Tonole/CA/americancentury at americancentury.com Subject: BeerSpeak John A. MacLaughlin writes: >A recent visitor to the Pacific northwest tells me that the local >pronunciation of "Willamette" in that area is more like will-LAM-met >than the will-lam-ETTE I had expected. Can anyone verify this? Yes. Will-LAM-met is correct. I got my undergraduate degree from Willamette University (no, I didn't major in hops), so I've heard people (mis)pronounce it several different ways. Having a not-well-known and difficult-to- prounounce alma mater made for some great job interviews: POTENTIAL EMPLOYER: So you went to school at Will-uh-MET? ME: Yes, I went to Will-LAM-met. PE: Will-LAM-met. I've never heard of it. Is that a junior college? ME: No. Is that a hairpiece? Fred Johnson asks: >How about someone pronouncing "kraeusen" for me? (I misspelled >this word twice before I finished this post!) KROY-zen. The German spelling is "krausen" with an umlaut (two dots) over the "a." Here are a couple of other random brewing pronunciations: autolysis: aw-TAWL-uh-sis (not aw-toe-LIE-sis) Curacao (as in the orange peel for Wits): KYOOR-uh-soe jeff tonole SlothBrew Adrift in the universe but currently just a mile up the road from HBD chef Scott Murman Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 06:59:46 -0500 From: homebru <homebru at tir.com> Subject: Re:HBD2880--More on Co2 In HBD 2880, Roger Meridith wrote: > Also, there may be advantages to leasing instead of buying a cylinder. Inspection and hydrostat test at about $50 >or so every 5 years. If you buy, you're responsible for the test. If you lease, they take care of it. I know that prices may vary in different areas of the country for the same services but, I just got my 5 lb. CO2 bottle back from testing and the cost was $24, including a refill. Test alone is $14. I know when I originally bought my setup, leasing the CO2 was suggested to me, due to the fact the that if it should happen to fail the 5 yr. test, the bottle is not returned to you. But when I had this bottle tested, I asked about the failure rate and was told they don't see many failures. Granted, this is but one shop in my area, but my previous and ongoing experience with SCUBA tanks (which are subject to the same test) leads me to believe they last a LONG time. I have one SCUBA tank that was used when I got it back in 1963 and it still passes it's test. Just my $.02 worth. Terry Dornbos, Lansing Mi .... approx. 70 miles NW of Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 07:20:54 -0500 From: Dave Russelllocalhost <drussel3 at ford.com> Subject: Yeast propagation Sorry, I am a few weeks behind in reading my hbd's. I have some questions relating to the creating and storing of wort for yeast starters. The posts were concentrated around canning wort, and refridgerating it for later usage. First question I have, I have never canned anything. Any special equipment involved in the canning process. I know there are jars and lids/seals involved. How do you go about canning wort? Any help would be appreciated. There was no discussion on creating wort, and directly bottling it in sanitized bottles. My thoughts were to create a batch the size necessary to fully step up my starter, then bottle & fridge the wort. This wort wouldn't be around for more than the "week" needed to step up the culture for pitching. Why wouldn't this method work? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:36:42 -0500 From: "Swintosky, Michael D." <Swintosk at timken.com> Subject: Re: Aluminum open fermentors/I hate carboys Chad writes try this... take your clean aluminum pot and a piece of paper, fold the paper a couple times and rub vigorously on the inside of the pot for about 10 seconds, then look at the paper (an exaggeration, but this gray gunk is getting into your beer); White paper is highly abrasive due to the addition of "whiteners", typically titanium dioxide. The above test would produce grey or other gunk from virtually any metallic pot, including stainless. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 9:09 -0800 From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro at berlex.com> Subject: Metallic flavors / Aluminum / Printing what others write Hi all, Ed asks why his last batch of beer has a metallic flavor. He says that it fades away if the glass is allowed to sit a couple of minutes. He notes that the appearance of the off-flavor coincides with a change in his cleaning regimen. Metallic flavors are most often the result of oxidation, not exposure of the wort to metal. The First George (Fix, that is) has written a rather nice article about oxidation in the most recent issue of Brewing Techniques. This is complemented nicely by Scott Bickham's flavor-series article about oxidation flavors (earlier this year in BT). By the way, the picture of the brewer on the title page of my BT article this month is NOT me! My picture is at the end of the article in a little 1" square box. My brewery really is the 40 square foot kitchen that is pictured in the article, though. ------------------------------ Some people have been wondering if Aluminum can be used for brewery vessels. Yes, it can. The major reasons aluminum is not often used in commercial operations: 1. It is quickly corroded by most cleaning agents used in Clean In Place (CIP) systems. 2. It is softer and more easily damaged than stainless. 3. It is not a strong as stainless (structurally). Wolfgang Kunze, in his text, _Technology Malting and Brewing_, says that aluminum will impart no off-flavors to beer or wort. Eric Warner (Weihenstephen grad, writer, and all-around great brewer) won a gold medal at the AHA NHC a few years back with a Weizen that was fermented in an aluminum vessel. -------------------------------------- John Palmer mentioned that he will be reprinting a recent post of mine to his web site. I just wanted to mention that he did ask for my permission before doing this, and for this I was grateful. I occasionally get requests from people to reprint my writing in various places. I appreciate (and always say "yes") to such requests. I have noticed a bunch of web sites that have printed my writing without permission, though (including some commercial enterprises). You know who you are. The reason this upsets me is because what I write here is not always up to my usual standards of grammar and basic good writing. I don't like to be represented on some stranger's web site like that. If you ask permission, I can fix things like typos, etc. I also don't like the idea of my writing being used for commercial purposes without any kind of compensation (not even a "thank you"). I realize that there is little I can do about this in the modern age, but I will remind folks that a little courtesy goes a long way. Sorry for the minor rant, have fun! George de Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:15:32 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Clear Beer Met a friend this weekend that had some homemade "wine coolers". He said he used a litte extra light malt extract, a lot of corn syrup and maltodextrin...flavored with Kool-Aid. He said he got the recipe from Brew-Your-Own Mag (no affiliation). I'll get in touch with him later this week for a recipe...if somebody wants it. nathan in Madison, WI Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:13:32 -0500 From: "Bruce Daniels" <bdaniels at rbscorp.com> Subject: Trub X Competition Did anyone enter the TRUB X homebrew contest held Oct 31. And if so, have you received your score sheets back? Their competition web site has not been updates, and Emails sent to them have not been answered. Bruce Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:31:24 -0500 From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7 at osu.edu> Subject: reply to "Westmalle Triple Yeast" HBD#2883 B. Schneider wrote in HBD#2883: >I am wondering what yeast is in the bottle of this beer. Do they use the >same yeast in bottle conditioning from the fermentation, or is it another >used just for bottling? I was thinking of growing it up after reading about >the Chimay yeast propogation. - bas bas, I think I remember reading in the Belgian Ale style book that Westmalle uses the same yeast throughout their process (including bottle conditioning) and for all their beers. It seems that the Wyeast Trappist High Gravity strain is Westmalle yeast. I copied the stats below from the web page at http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy/wyeast.html Wyeast 3787 -- Trappist High Gravity Robust top cropping yeast with phenolic character. Alcohol tolerance to 12%, ideal for Biere de Garde, ferments dry with rich ester profile and malty palate. Temperature range: 64-78F Apparent attenuation: 75-80%. Flocculation: medium. Source: Westmalle I have a starter culture growing right now, but have not yet brewed with it. I found it to be a little slow to swell in the package, but a fast fermenter in the starter wort (O.G. 1.040). I don't think I'd go to the trouble to culture up from a bottle since I can get the same strain from Wyeast much easier (but perhaps not as much fun). I hope this helps. Good luck and good brewing, Herb Bexley (Columbus), Ohio Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:41:47 -0500 From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu> Subject: aluminium pots Chad Bohl writes in hbd #2883: "try this... take your clean aluminum pot and a piece of paper, fold the paper a couple times and rub vigorously on the inside of the pot for about 10 seconds, then look at the paper (an exaggeration, but this gray gunk is getting into your beer)" I don't think vigorously abrading the pot is a valid representation of what happens when you boil wort (or anything, for that matter), and I don't believe you can conclude the "grey gunk" (aluminium oxide?) is getting into your beer from this experiment. I've brewed in both aluminium and stainless steel, and have never detected any flavor defect attributable to the former. Just one man's observation... Cheers, Andrew 99 miles east of Hartford andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:52:02 -0500 From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us> Subject: clear beer All - Jeff McNally wrote: >>>Maybe brewing a light bodied, low hop, blonde/golden ale, filtering it through a tight carbon filter, adding lemon to taste, and then force carbonating it would produce something close to Zima. Adding more lemon would get close to 2-Dog Lemon Brew.<<< Substituting some cheap adjuncts for the lemon would get close to Budweiser. ;-) Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:11:43 -0500 From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us> Subject: scorchmaster mixmasher All - Badger chimes in thusly: >>>I use a jet style propane burner, its an outdoor cooker, but i have no idea of the BTU output. If scorching is a problem, how big a problem is this, and how does it affect the beer? Burner question: It has a small square plate that can be swung over the flame output. What is this supposed to be used for?<<< You got yo' self a King Kooker. It's plenty hot (I think around 130K BTU's??) but the flame control is nil. That plate thingy is swung in place to (I think) divert some of the heat off of the pinpoint-sized location where the flames normally go. If I were you, I'd go for the copper manifold because if you do step mashes, you'll be doing *plenty* of frenzied stirring, and I can just see you whacking the fragile easymasher into oblivion, and with 20 or so pounds of grist on top, digging it out is bound to be somewhat, uh, frustrating. Scorching is likely to be a factor, and it will darken the beer (not a big deal if it's a dark beer, but a big deal if you're doing a CAP or a German Pilsner) and denature some of the enzymes (not sure of the potential ramifications here), and worst on my list, provide you with considerable headache scrubbing out the burnt gunk. I'd either do single infusion or try to adjust the flame down as much as you can. Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:20:45 EST From: NEWTRADBC at aol.com Subject: CO2 toxicity to yeast About a year ago it seems, there was a thread on CO2 toxicity to yeast. I have a data point. I acknowledge up front this is not a rigorous scientific method experiment (wasn't experimenting, I was brewing!), but its probably pretty good as far as anecdotal evidence goes. Brewed a helles type lager, 11gal, split into two 6.7 gal carboys (as usual), same temp (low 50s), same yeast (American Lager by Wyeast), same amount of yeast (sludge from 1 gal starter into each carboy), same oxygenation routine (2 min pure O2 through stone). Difference: allowed wort to settle for a few hours, siphoning carefully from just below surface. First carboy was very bright, second was fine until I sucked in some trub and hop sludge, ending up with a turbid wort. I kept track of which was which because I was curious to see if there would be a flavor difference. After 10 days, I was planning to keg (my lagers always have finished 7-10 days), but, as always checked gravity before siphoning. Turbid carboy FG 1.014 (OG was 1.053 by the way), perfect. Bright carboy 1.030! with no real activity present (both carboys had clumps of foam that had been there for a couple of days). Now, first line of thinking is, 'so the trub allowed the yeast to synthesize sterols (I think that's right) and all you have is an underpitched/underoxygenated wort situation (systemic error).' BUT, I agitated the carboy to drive out the CO2, (also resuspending the yeast). NEXT DAY, SG down to 1.024, and no trub added, which lends support to the CO2 concentration affecting the yeast theory. So I've racked it to drive out more CO2 (taking most of the yeast along cause I still need it to finish). Almost racked onto the turbid carboy's dregs, but chickened out. Never had this problem before, but also never so carefully siphoned the wort. Used to just drop the tube in and both carboys got a load of trub and hops. In this unintentional experiment it seems that most variables have been eliminated (approximately equal situations-not lab quality data to demonstrate splits were equal), EXCEPT for rising CO2 concentration. So maybe that's something to keep in mind. Don't get your wort too bright, especially if making lagers where the cold temps will hold a higher CO2 concentration that may impede the progress of the yeast. Just for info. Tom Bergman Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:20:43 EST From: NEWTRADBC at aol.com Subject: Weizen question Someone asked about Weizen losing its banana clove note quickly. Yep, I seem to notice Weizen has a remarkably short shelf life with respect to these flavors, although I don't notice them vanishing for a couple months. I used to brew 10 gals at a time, but now only brew 5 gals of weizen since I really like the ester's, and they don't last . The last keg/case never as good. So your Weizen sounds normal (and I've brewed lots), just drink it quick. I do find keeping the yeast roused helps,which is why I tend to bottle weizen, getting good at the german inverted bottle pour into a weizen glass. Tom Bergman Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:41:07 -0700 From: "Tim Dallmann" <tdallmann at gr.com> Subject: An idea I had for computerized recipe exchange Hello Brewers, Being a home-brewer and computer programmer has led me to explore the various recipe calculators that are out there. While many of them do a good job formulating, printing, and saving recipes, none I have found enables true sharing of recipes between brewers. Sure, I can add a recipe to the Recipator at brewery.org, or submit it to Cats Meow, but then it's just a text recipe for others to use. No program out there, that I know of, allows you to pull a recipe from the web and work with it on your home PC without typing it in again. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) In other words, I want to get a recipe from the web, have it import directly into my homebrew software, and work with it for a new batch. I should then be able to upload the batch recipe back to the original web site. I've got an idea that I want to start batting around with any of you who like to use computers in your homebrew endevours. XML is quickly becoming the de-facto standard for organizing data that needs to be shared by multiple systems. I would like to develop an XML vocabulary for use in storing homebrew recipe data. Once the vocabulary is developed, I also want to develop a few reusable components to allow software developers to add the import/export functionality to their programs and web sites. And of course, I want it to be free! :) If any of you are interested in this, please let me know. I can set up a mailing list so we can discuss the topic outside this forum. Tim Dallmann Denver, CO (Actually, Westminster...but no one outside Colorado knows where that is!) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:48:21 -0500 From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) Subject: He lost...that weizen flavor... / yeast nutrient "...he had that weizen flavor, now it's gone, gone gone..." Several people have mentioned problems lately with Weizens losing their wonderful character after a few weeks. It happened to mine this year, too. But I don't think it has anything to do with the yeast settling out. I think it's not the flavor of the YEAST that is missing after time, it's that the beer chemistry is changing because the wheinstephen yeast keeps attenuating and changing the beer past the point of it's prime. I first read about this theory in HBD 2850 from Randy Ricchi in response to Alan Meeker. Basically, Alan talks about how his first weizen, with a 200ml turned out great and kept it's flavor for a _year_. He wonders if it was _because_ it was underpitched. Randy argues for a somewhat underpitched and minimally aerated weizen: >I wouldn't severely underpitch, but I do minimize aeration. A lot of yeasts, >when underpitched, will not attenuate as much as they should, but every >weizen yeast I have used (5 different strains) seems to keep chugging along >until it attenuates the hell out of the beer, compared to most other ale >and lager yeasts. This set off bells with me because my first weizen was great, and I had it for a month and a half and it lost no flavor. In fact, it was awesome at the end. OK, so it didn't last nearly a year, but the last weizen I made I pitched a huge starter and aerated a lot and it was fine at first but a major disapointment after only a week or two in the keg. I am definitely going to slightly underpitch/under aerate next time, too. No doubt about the vigor of the 3068 yeast strain--it's incredible. Incidentally, on that first weizen, I popped the 3068 smack pack at least a week before pitching it the night before in about a 20-32 oz starter! I had just made a venturi tube and used that for aeration. (not much aeration, I'd say.) There were a lot of other variables (first batch was extract+ bottled, later ones have been all grain + kegged) so my mind isn't completely made up, but I'm really curious about this. Does anybody else have any datapoints on this? Maybe my first weizen would have gone south too, if I had kept it more than 6-7 weeks, but I could live with 6-7 weeks, it's 1-2 that I have a problem with. - ------- Thanks to everyone who posted or emailed me about my yeast nutrient question. (IMYNR?) My first mead is chuging along, slowly. BTW, the nutrient turned out to be Fermax, rather than just diamonium phosphate. (DAP). So, I'm not sure if it breaks down over time or not. I would guess that it would to some extent. Art Cemelli wrote: >I would not take the chance in using old di-amonium phosphate. The best >yeast nutrient is "yeast hulls" you can get them by putting some yeast in >the boil. This will kill the yeast and only leave the Hulls ( poor little >yeast). My take on it was that the DAP itself would probably be pretty stable. I think it's the yeast that were in there that would have broken down over time. I definitely wanted to boil whatever it was, rather than add it straight. I used the old Fermax and I guess the mead is going alright. There is definitely fermentation going on, but it's more subdued than most beer fermentations. This is normal I suppose? - ------- Pete said: >You are probably familiar with the large stainless steel coffee dispensers >that most of us have in the break rooms where we work. I just noticed we >have some real nice large ones here where I work, with spigots on them, >sight glasses, they are stainless, and they plug in to heat up water and >maintain the temp. The ones here actually have thermostats on them. Seem >like they would make awesome HLT's to me. Or even a mash tun if you rig a >false bottom or something. Now you'are thinking like a homebrewer. Congrats, and welcome to the support group. - --Brian Pickerill, Muncie Malt Mashers, Muncie IN Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:29:10 -0500 From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com> Subject: Yeast came back, Site Glass, Making ZIMA??, Runoff Just a data point about long term storage of yeasts. I had obtained a nice bottom yeast in 1992 from Pierre Rajotte. I used it a few times and stored it away under 10% sterile sucrose solution. I started to reanimate it for a brew this past Saturday. I was getting worried Monday AM, no activity.... This morning - it was getting active (gas being produced). I looked at it under the scope to insure they were as I remembered. Sure enough they were looking pretty good (size, shape and health wise). Just a data point. My .02cents on a site glass: if it is glass make sure you have some protection (metal tube) for the glass. You may be better off using food grade plastic hose - at least it wont break in the middle of the brew. mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff) wrote >Someone posted here a while back about filtering a pale ale through >a sub-micron carbon filter and turning their pale ale into a Zima like >brew (ie. it stripped almost all of the color and flavor). Filtering with sub-micro pads/cartridges in one shot could make for a long day. Try clearing the beer of all particle matter first (gelatine, isinglass long cold storage, or other finings) then prefilter at least once down to 1u. Even them submicron - youll probably want a large filter area. Good luck... As for lauter rates, several of the professional brewing level texts have rates and data for runoff. A rough guide line is runoff completes in about 2 hrs, giving a total grain/water contact time of 3 to 4 hrs. IMHO best results are obtained with manifolds under a false bottom and not a manifold in the grain bed. Monitoring of the different aspects can be done by having two site glasses (see above tho) to monitor suction across the false bottom, and a variable speed runoff pump pulling the runoff to the kettle (via grant). But again what works for me wont work for everyone.... Good luck and great brewing Joe Rolfe Return to table of contents
Date: 24 Nov 1998 13:11:39 -0500 From: Jason.Gorman at steelcase.com Subject: hBd or hbD So is the correct pronunciation of the HBD, hBd or hbD? Inquiring minds want to know. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:43:45 +0400 From: fsb at freestatebrewing.com (Free State Brewing Co.) Subject: Re: proununciations >A recent visitor to the Pacific northwest tells me that the local >pronunciation of "Willamette" in that area is more like will-LAM-met >than the will-lam-ETTE I had expected. Can anyone verify this? Yes, That is how the natives pronounce it. Also, for anyone who is interested in further pronunciation guidelines, try the "Dictionary of Beer and Brewing" published by Brewers Publication. The latest edition is very thorough. Cheers S. Bradt Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:53:52 -0800 From: Project One <project1 at pond.net> Subject: Re: pronounce . . . That is exactly how we pronounce it here in ORYGUN... ----------------->Denny Conn I don't know where you are, but I'm here.... > >Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 09:09:26 -0500 >From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam at clark.net> >Subject: Re: . . . pronounce . . . > >A recent visitor to the Pacific northwest tells me that the local >pronunciation of "Willamette" in that area is more like will-LAM-met >than the will-lam-ETTE I had expected. Can anyone verify this? > > Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:08:26 -0500 From: "Tim Burkhart" <tburkhart at dridesign.com> Subject: Tap Room/Phenolic Lagers I Just had the opportunity to get out to NYC and happened by the Tap Room (18th between 5th/6th). I got a sampler of their Hefe, Marzen, Pils, and Helles (Dunkel and Bock were out). The Hefe was wonderful with nice bananna and clove aromas and flavors (clove a bit heavy for me), a little phenolic (band-aid I think) right up front but faded quickly. Pleasant and suprisingly hoppy aftertaste. The Marzen, Helles, and Pils were each good in their own right. Stylistic considerations aside, the phenolic flavor upfront carried through to each brew. Fine in a Hefe, but not so in a Pils. The Marzen, Pils and Helles also lacked that lager crispness and clean body/texture that I would expect. Any HBDr's been there recently? Did you taste the same thing? ... would it be attributed to extraction in the mash or sanitation? I'd like to hear some opinions. Tim Burkhart Kansas City Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:21:14 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Zymurgy "road tests" In my limited experience participating in a single "road test", and in viewing from afar a couple of others, it appears to me that one common flaw is the **EDITORIAL DEADLINE**. There is pressure on the "road testers" to just *finish the darn thing* so the article can be printed. This would especially be true of an article for a special issue. If a problem comes up (like the brews being agitated in transport for the yeast article) there is just not time to correct it. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:06:22 -0500 (EST) From: pbabcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com> Subject: Reprinted without permission... Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... George writes, in reference to having material reprinted without permission... "I realize that there is little I can do about this in the modern age," Au contraire, mon ami! The copyright belongs to you, and the date associated with your post when it appears on the Digest constitutes legal proof of said copyright - as long as no-one can *prove* they said it first in a copyrightable manner, you can, in fact, sue them. (Note that the commercial entity quoting George provided full attribution and didn't claim credit for it. Discourteous yes. Illegal: not at this point, I don't think. Read on...) Folks: this comes up now and again. DO NOT repost things found here without askng the originators opinion for any "cutting edge" information or even for some long-held information that was simply put more eloquently. The poster holds the copyright for their post and minimally deserves credit for their work through a request for the use of said post ant then the proper attribution for it when and where it is reposted. The Digest as a collection is Copyright by hbd.org. The individual posts are copyright by the individual contributors. Please contact the copyright holder to assure you are clear to repost. And posters: Please also be courteous and make sure they can reach you via e-mail. I am amazed at the number of AutoMagical response that bounce these days because of SPAM paranoia affecting your e-mail addresses... To George and others concerned with this, see the header of the next Digest... See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:23:49 -0500 (EST) From: pbabcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com> Subject: hBd or Hbd Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... it's HAITCH (or AITCH) BEE DEE as if it's three separate words... See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:01:38 -0500 From: David Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> Subject: lactose In HBD#2883 John Schnupp asks: >Does anyone know the gravity contribution of lactose? It's just a tad higher than for corn sugar. From CRC handbook of chemistry and physics: 10% glucose in water = SG 1.0393 10% lactose in water = SG 1.0409 Return to table of contents
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290 at mail.usask.ca> Subject: Copper oxide?? Hi all, A friend of mine and I have been discussing the question of copper somehow leaching into wort during the brewing process. Says he: >I have mostly SS in my RIM system but I still use a little copper here and >there. I have noticed that after having contact with hot wort the copper is >quite shiny. Previously it was mildly discoloured; a much darker brown. I >assume that the discolouration is copper oxide. So....... >if now it's gone it's gotta be in the wort.....no?? Anyone have any issues >with this and noticed the same? To which I replied: ********** I notice the same thing with the copper in my system (strainer tube that I fashioned and my immersion chiller), but I'm not sure if it's copper oxide or just gunk from the brewing process. I just thought of a way I could test this out: copper in solution is blue. I'll wipe/scrape off some of that gunk and mix it up with a little water and maybe a little lactic acid (maybe it will help it dissolve), and see what colour it turns. I'll get back to you when I do this. ********** And he replied: >Have you got any Chem-Eng friends you can ask. I am trying to look up one >from '89 who has his MSc. After 25 years of brewing I don't want to end up >poisoned. I also have to consider all the friends who drink the beer I >make. >I want to build a kettle with an electric immersion heater. Then I can >safely brew in doors with no fumes and risk of burning the house down with a >Cajun cooker. You can get water heaters elements for $20 Cdn. The problem >is the finish they are tin plated or something. They rust over time. I am >thinking of copper plating one. Copper platting is easy ; 6 Vdc, copper >sulfate, a sacrificial piece of copper and your away. My concern is how >pure the copper plating will be. Any impurities in the electrolyte may >possibly bond to the plating and finally get in the beer. Also there is >this oxide issue. >The easy answer is to get a S.S. element but the price....look out! Can anyone help us out? - -- Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:05:39 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: priming with actively fermenting yeast Sorry about this being so late... I was offline for a week and a half and now I'm still more than a week behind in my HBD reading. Dave writes: >Pete Gottfield has experienced a common problem with beer that has >been racked and stored too long before bottling. The yeast goes dormant >and cannot satisfactorily ferment the added priming sugar. The result? >Flat beer. This is especially a problem with high alcohol beers. His wife >accepts this flatness as a common occurrence for male brewers from >time to time. Paul disclaims any personal knowledge of this until now. Who is Paul? I thought Pete had the problem... >I suggest you review my method in the archives for bottling with a >"kraeusen starter" which uses a boiled and cooled starter consisting of a >tablespoon of malt extract, the priming sugar and to which is added >some of the yeast and beer from the bottom of the secondary. >In 12 hours you will see activity and can bottle. Your beer will >reliably come to condition quickly and to the same amount every time. >AlK has repeatedly criticized this technique ( never having tried it, >to my knowledge) because he believes it to be unreliable since the priming >sugar can be fermented. I do not doubt that at all if it is left too >long. In my experience I have been quite successful with waiting 12 >hours and then bottling. Frankly, the way you are doing it now, and >as Al suggests, produces the most unreliable level of carbonation of >all doesn't it? I do appreciate Dave's attempt at covering both his and my positions on this topic. It *almost* eliminated the need for me to post a rebuttal. Dave is right that my objection to his method is because some of the priming sugar can be consumed. I contend that some of the priming sugar *will* be consumed and you *will* get variations in carbonation even from something as simple as waiting 10 or 14 rather than 12 hours or by storing this "primer starter" a few degrees warmer or cooler than last time. I further contend that since Dave kegs most of his beer (by his own admission in HBD), variations in carbonation are unlikely to be noticed and would even-out when the been began to be served under external CO2 pressure. Dave claims that doing it the way I suggest produces an unreliable carbonation. This is incorrect. I have posted numerous times on the fact that high-gravity (and thus high-alcohol) beers are going to have some difficulty with carbonation. I even posted on some of my own experiences with this phenomenon with some *very* high OG beers (one was 1.120!). The *correct* way to prime with actively fermenting yeast is to begin not with a few tablespoons of DME and a measured amount of priming sugar, but rather make up a small batch of beer in which you know the OG and expected FG. You start this batch fermenting and then you measure its SG. You then calculate how many SG points remain in this mini batch and with that you can determine how many ounces of this fermenting beer you would need to add to the main batch to prime it properly. No guesswork... you are priming with actively fermenting beer and you are adding a measured and predictable amount of fermentable sugars for the purpose of priming. Incidentally... you may have heard of this technique. It's called *kraeusening*. All other definitions or differing descriptions of this technique are *not* kraeusening. I don't have the time at this moment to describe this technique in real numbers (i.e. how to calculate how much of the fermenting beer to add), but if there is interest (email me privately), I'll write something up and ***post*** it to the HBD when I have a bit more time. > I started this method when sucrose was the only sugar available >( way back in the dark days of home brewing) and I wanted the yeast's >external enzyme invertase to invert the sugar before using it to prime. >Having it concentrated improved the chance that it would work on the >sugar. It really works very well and gives reliable carbonation. See above. Its variability would be far more evident when bottling than when kegging as you typically do. >If you prime with corn sugar, then this combination of the suagr and >starter is not needed and you could undoubtedly re-energize the yeast >in a small sample from the bottom of the secondary with the tablespoon >of malt extract boiled and cooled in a small amount of water by itself >providing the FAN necessary to get some growth of this yeast in the beer. >You should then boil the priming sugar separately in water and let it >cool. Although I do not think it is necessary and have never tried it, >this latter method should remove AlK's objection to this technique. Oh, it's okay for you to suggest something you haven't tried personally, but I can't criticise something that I know from experience has flaws? Also, I've mentioned this before... there is no need (or desire) for yeast growth at bottling time. In fact, we would like to discourage yeast growth because it only means more sediment at the bottom of each bottle. It is a moot point however, because properly done, you would not be introducing much oxygen at priming time and *oxygen*, not FAN, would be the limiting factor for yeast growth at this point in the process. >To produce the equivalent of Viagra for your current brew I would start >some yeast in a little boiled and cooled malt extract solution and add is >to each bottle. 4 ounces of water with a tablespoon of malt extract >boiled and cooled. Pitch the yeast and allow it to become active. 1/2 >teaspoon of this in each of 50 bottles will do the trick I'll bet. But what if there is *considerable* unfermented (but fermentable) sugar remaining in the wort (not just the first primings, but some left over sugar from the main wort)? Then your teaspoon of active yeast will produce bottle bombs. What were the OG and FG? From this we can calculate apparent attenuation and determine if you have leftover sugar from the main ferment or not. To simply recommend more yeast without knowing the OG and FG is like diagnosing an illness without even getting the patient's temperature. As much as I razz Dave, I know he means well and I really mean it when I say I appreciate his trying to cover both his and my positions on this issue. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/25/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96