HOMEBREW Digest #3050 Mon 07 June 1999

[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

  UBA / LMDA (Louis Bonham)
  Crystal Malt Extract Yield ("Phil and Jill Yates")
  re:Salvation for a Pilsner (Mark Tumarkin)
  Smacked Pack Longevity (Mark Tumarkin)
  juniper beer = turpentine ? (David Rueber)
  Re: New Brewery & Foam (Rod Schaffter)
  p-lambic formulations etc (jim williams)
  Variation in Carbonation Levels ("Peter J. Calinski")
  maltose not sucrose ("Christine and Marc Sedam")
  Yeasty pour, Dextrins, Art, Science and Religion (Dave Burley)
  hot wort aeration ( HWA) (Dave Burley)
  A further digression... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
  Lallemand Yeasts ("Rob Moline")
  just curious..?? (jim williams)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Boneyard Brew-Off 6/12/99 * (http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/contest5.html); Buzz-Off! * Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff) 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 hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 05:28:16 -0500 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at hypercon.com> Subject: UBA / LMDA In HBD #3049, Wayne asked: > Someone have a better growth media (available to homebrewers) for identifying > bad beer bugs? Yup. What you need is LMDA (Lee's Multi Differential Agar). *Much* better than UBA for IDing bacteria. (I did a fairly extensive write up on LMDA in my column in the May-June 1998 issue of BT.) You can get LMDA at very reasonable rates ($1/plate) from the fine folks at the Brewing Science Institute (no affiliation, just a very satisfied customer): http://www.brewingscience.com/ They now have photos on their website showing what various bugs look like after they've grown on LDMA. If you do a lot of yeast work, try some of their RDMA as well (one shot screen for petite mutants . . . easy to use) I'd strongly advise everyone to go to BSI's website (go to the "education" subpage) and download a copy of their Brewers' Laboratory Handbook, which I just learned that they are now giving away (they used to sell it, but they're now giving it away). Neat little publiction . . . Louis K. Bonham Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 21:25:45 +1000 From: "Phil and Jill Yates" <yates at flexgate.infoflex.com.au> Subject: Crystal Malt Extract Yield In HBD # 3048 Dave Burley wrote: "I can't find a comparative extract yield for crystal versus pale malt, but my recollection is that it is only a few percentage points different" The "laboratory" figures that I have from a British reference show crystal extract yield measured in kg/lt as 268, compared to pale malt at 296. I can't confirm the validity of these figures with any personal experiments, but they show an extract yield difference of nearly 10%. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 07:17:48 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: re:Salvation for a Pilsner Edward Seymour writes: For the second batch I brewed a pilsner. I had it in the primary for 5 days followed by 3 weeks in the secondary. The beer transferred into the bottling bucket exceptionally clear. I had some left over wort that I canned and plan on using instead of corn sugar for bottling (an idea I got from Charlie P's book). The wort that I canned was clear except for the some turb in the bottom of the jar. I thought that the fine mesh strainer in the funnel would remove this when I poured it into the bottling bucket. I now have 50 bottles of beer that has 1/2 inch of gunk in the bottom that quickly mixes with the beer when the bottle is slightly moved. My question: can I pour all of the beers back into the secondary, add some polyclar and let it settle for a couple of days and try to re bottle? Firstly, welcome to homebrewing and to the HBD. As to your question, you could try that but I would suggest just leaving it alone. If you pour the beer back into a fermenter or bottling bucket, add polyclar and then rebottle, you are risking both oxidation and infection. I know, you can be very careful and possibly get away with it (hopefully clearing your beer in the process), but I don't think it's worth the risk. I suggest that you just drink it yourself and brew up another batch to share with your friends. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 08:15:15 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Smacked Pack Longevity I know that the older a Wyeast smack pack is, the longer it takes to start up and swell once you smack it. I've got a question about the other end of the spectrum. I smacked a very fresh package, it swelled up very quickly --- and then it sat there (is still sitting there) for over a week and a half. I was sidetracked by other issues and never got around to pitching it to a starter. So my question is, how long will the yeast stay viable once they have used up the nutrients in the small amount of wort in the smack pack? Would there be any problems in just doing a starter from the pack at this late date? Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 21:47:14 -0500 From: David Rueber <isunfarm at netins.net> Subject: juniper beer = turpentine ? I made some juniper beer by mashing juniper berries with the grain and then running the hot liquid slowly (20 min)through a small bed of juniper branches. Having made turpentine spruce beer before I didn't want the branches in contact with the liquid for very long. But the young beer still taste like turpentine. So the following questions. 1. Does juniper beer always taste like turpentine? 2. Does the bad taste come from the berries or the branches? 3. Does the turpentine taste go away with age? Replies by private e-mail ok. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 22:32:23 -0400 From: Rod Schaffter <schaffte at delanet.com> Subject: Re: New Brewery & Foam Hi Gang, I first sent this off on the 28th, but it got lost in la-la land. Hope it is still slightly relevant. On Wed, 26 May 1999, Dan Listermann wrote: > Dave Radzanowski ( radzan1000 at aol.com) of Siebel is open to > suggestions regarding a verb to describe the collapsing of foam. > May I suggest "defobulation." My first "real" job was at a lubricant additives company. We evaluated foaming of lubricants formulated with our additves (most commonly with the sophisticated Waring Blender and precision stopwatch ;-)). The term that we used, and I believe the ASTM used, was the "breaking" of the foam. When it is used in that sense, it isn't a verb, even though the foam is breaking (verb!!)in the test. However, "defobulation" isn't a verb either. Cheers! Rod Schaffter Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 21:33:01 -0800 From: jim williams <jim&amy at macol.net> Subject: p-lambic formulations etc Hello, I'm getting ready to brew my first p-lambic. I'm interested in hearing others experiences, yeast strains, mash and yeast addition schedules. Anything, that could help me plan my first one. What about fermentors? Plastic vs. glass. Turbid mash? Infusion? Decoction? Malted vs. unmalted wheat? I may be moving in a few months. Possibly across country! What's gonna happen to it on this long move, possibly in hot weather? Should I wait till I know for sure if I'll be moving? To rack or not to rack? (single vs. 2 stage) Thanks, Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 08:03:53 -0400 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: Variation in Carbonation Levels I have found two different factors that have caused the level of carbonation to vary widely within a given batch. In one case, during the filling process, some of my bottles managed to "acquire" some hop particles. Just sloppy on my part. Well, the bottles with the hops in them became bombs. They were _much_ more highly carbonated than the others in the same batch. So much so that I would inspect the bottle for particles before opening to decide if I needed to open it over the sink or not. I assume this was the result of the hop particles helped the yeast much like the beechwood aging idea. Anybody have any other theories? In the other case (actually two cases) bottles that were normally carbonated and refrigerated were later heated. In one case the light switch in the refrigerator stuck on and it got very warm inside. In the other case the refrigerator door was left open on a warm day. In both instances the bottles that were in the refrigerator (and carbonated to a reasonable level) became gushers after being subjected to the higher temperatures. (I recooled them before opening of course.) The cooled-heated-cooled bottles were much more highly carbonated than the other bottles from the same batch that had never been cooled-heated. In particular, the bottles that were nearest the light seemed to be more highly carbonated than the ones on a lower shelf. I can't understand why this happened unless the yeast quit before consuming all the corn sugar I used for bottling. If so, the yeast is quitting in every batch I brew because my carbonation levels are consistent batch to batch except for these instances. Again, anybody have any other ideas? Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY 0 Degrees 30.21 Min North, 4 Degrees 05.11 Min. East of Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:37:10 -0400 From: "Christine and Marc Sedam" <sedam at bellsouth.net> Subject: maltose not sucrose I had a pretty obvious brain-cramp in the message I left on Saturday's digest. Beta-amylase produces maltose, not sucrose, when acting on starch. Sorry for the confusion and thanks to Domenic (of PrimeTab) for reminding me to post the correction. Cheers! Marc Sedam Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 13:11:36 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Yeasty pour, Dextrins, Art, Science and Religion Brewsters: Edward Seymour, new to brewing, bottled beer and has a thick yeast cake on the bottom of the bottle and asks what he should do. Do like we all used to do before kegging and like centuries of bottle drinkers before us, pour in one motion into a large glass or pitcher most of the contents of the bottle. Leave 1/2 inch or less of the beer in the bottle and you will have a clear beer. Don't bother rebottling as the likelihood is you will inject oxygen and spoil the beer. Yeast in the bottom of the bottle seems to provide some protection to oxidation. Some people actually insist that the yeast be poured along with the beer so that the B vitamins therein can be ingested. Weissbier typically has a yeasty pour on purpose as part of the character of the beer. - ---------------------------------------- Nathaniel Lansing says he believes Dextrins are what is left when enzymes have done their best to degrade starch. I agree that these beta limit dextrins ( due to the branching of the amylopectins) are a part of the dextrins, but also dextrins are controlled by mashing conditions and therefore some are subject to enzymatic degradation. Alpha limit dextrins can also exist.in the absence of beta amylase. Otherwise, we would not have control over the dextrin content of beer by controlling beta and alpha amylolysis with time and temperature. It doesn't surprise me that commercial brewers believe that the only purpose for crystal is flavor and color, since they always add crystal with the rest of the grist . I normally also do this, as I pointed out in a past note. However, if it is true as you postulate that crystal does have only 20% dextrins then it makes sense not to include crystal as a meaningful source of dextrins. What does this mean about the lower kilned crystals like Cara-Pils(r)? Where did you get this number of 20%? While it is true that dextrin(e)s are used as wallpaper paste, these are typically produced by acid hydrolysis of starch and have little to nothing to do with the use of the word "dextrin" which is a valid brewing term and not a shorthand for "malto-dextrins" as many texts will demonstrate. - ---------------------------------------------- Mike Maceyka talks about art, science and religion and how they interact. This is more than a one beer subject. Unlike Mike, I do not think any oppose the other. Historically, art has predated science and is often used as the beginning to the understanding ( in a scientific sense) of an industry. Art exists where there are too many parameters to grok. Science separates these parameters as best as it can and understands the influence of each as best as it can. Science is about reproducibility of results. Art is about maximizing quality, I believe. Science tries to understand how to maximize quality all the time. Religion is about the art of living and interacting with others and dying in a society and more. It represents an attempt to grasp a great many parameters and gives us empirical and intuitive rules to follow if we want to live happy lives. Science often supports religion, but sometimes does not realize it until more understanding evolves. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 14:09:49 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: hot wort aeration ( HWA) Brewsters: I was perusing DeClerk on another subject and came across this statement relevant to a recent topic - hot wort aeration. p312 vol1: "As a rule, the wort is not heated immediately after it is run into the copper [ kettle-DRB]. It is allowed to stand at a temperature of 70-75C [ 158- 167F - DRB] till all the spargings have been collected, in case any unconverted starch which may have been carried over by sparging the spent grains with too hot liquor, may be saccharified. This stand in the copper, however, exposes the wort to oxidation, and precautions must therefore be be taken to see that the wort is not unduly aerated and a close watch must be kept on the pH to see that it does not rise above 5.4-5.5. In these circumstances the danger of oxidation is reduced to a minimum." Several issues we HBers must note. 1) always have the drain from the sparger under the surface of the receiving vessel so it does not splash. 2) do not pour the receiver contents into the kettle. I submerge the receiver in the wort in the kettle and then remove it after inversion. 3) keep an eye on the pH, as the higher the pH, the more easily oxidisable wort is, since the anion of phenolic compounds is very easily oxidised. We are always more at risk compared to commercial sized brewers as has been pointed out, since we expose a higher percentage of our wort to air. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 16:33:40 -0400 (EDT) From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at welch.jhu.edu> Subject: A further digression... Howdy all, I have received several letters concerning my recent post on science vs. art in brewing. I feel that most of the letters are expressing the same sentiment as I was trying to express, but I think some confusion has arisen because of slight differences in terminology. Or maybe I missed (some of) the points. In most of the letters a dichotomy was made between art and science that I would define as being between science and technology. To my mind, art is a blending of experience, intuition, and creativity to achieve a goal. Science is an art. Let me digress a little further. I am a molecular biologist, a few months from a Ph.D. Every day I come to the lab and I think of all we don't know about the world, what we think we know but just doesn't add up, what would happen if I did this (i.e. what don't we know that we don't know)? I formulate experiments, based on facts, assumptions, guesses, intuition, and the tools on hand, and off I go. This is also the way I brew. The only difference being that I have much much less control over the variables in my brewing and that I am much less rigorous about the beer (it's a hobby not my job and the beer is usually drinkable enough to make me loose my train of thought). However, I still call both of these activities "science." The technician across the bench from mine comes in and merely inserts tab A into slot B. So is my job science or art? I think both, as science is an art, as I define art. I wanted to raise this point because I think many people confuse science as it is done at the cutting edge of knowledge with science as they learned it in high school (or even lower level college courses). High school science is what I would call technology, a retelling of what we already know. And the way science is taught on this level is usually so uninspiring and didactic that it is easy to understand why people have such unpleasant associations with the very word. Rote recitation of fact makes science seem dangerously like religion. It also makes science seem sterile and uncreative, as if facts just reveal themselves, as if scientists just go around measuring things. The exact opposite is true. Some of the most creative people I have met are scientists, their medium not being paint or stone but test tubes and beakers (for a good example check out the new biography of Seymour Benzer called "Time, Love, Memory: A Great Biologist and His Quest for the Origins of Behavior," by Jonathan Weiner). So is homebrewing science or art? Science is an art, so I say both. I said every homebrewer is a scientist. Perhaps I was generalizing or projecting. What I mean is that homebrewers who change or improve their product or technique (and why else would you read the HBD?) are doing the art of brewing science. They take information from the HBD, other brewers' beers and their own, etc., and combine it with their intuition and creativity to design, make, and then critique their product. Some wish to call this art, to me an equally applicable term is science, and the best term is brewing. Again, I think the real dichotomy is between scientist/artist and technician. It's like the difference between the head chef and the fry cook, between the head brewers at a megabrewery and the people under them who physically brew the beer. I may get some comments on the last one, but even with all of the advanced equipment at the disposal of the head brewer at a megabrewery, they still don't understand all of the variables they need to control in order to have the same tasting beer from batch to batch. Why else would there still be a journal like JIB if it had all been figured out? OK, so maybe the head-megabrewers are close enough to be called technicians by my definition. But what is the head brewer at Sierra Nevada to do with the oh so important yet ever changing oil profile of cascade hops? You may call this art, but I bet he is doing more than guessing. It's educated guessing, which is exactly what scientists do in the labs. Of course, he gets to drink his results, which is usually frowned on in my lab. Mike Maceyka Baltimore, MD Stopping, dropping, and rolling even more after posting to RFDB... Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:04:48 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: Lallemand Yeasts Lallemand Yeasts Jeff Kenton asks about Lallemand yeasts.... <"I'm interested in attenuation, esters thrown and at which temps, and <flocculation. " Firstly, I know that it is understood that attenuation numbers are merely that, numbers....and as such are only useful as a guideline.... Factors such as mash temps, grain selection, fermentation temps, and others are also influential in attenuations... and ester production, floccing, etc. Ultimately there are so many other possible influences that attenuation numbers are possibly only useful in your ProMash, or other software, or hand written calcs....to the extent that the brewer realizes that they are only a starting point. With that in mind, here are the expected attenuations and recommended temp ranges for the Lallemand yeasts...BTW, these numbers have served me well. Nottingham 80...57-70F Windsor 70...64-70F Manchester 75...64-70F London 75...64-70F Jeff also asks about esters thrown, and flocc'ing characteristics. For my money, any discussion of esters has to be tempered with the knowledge that discrimination of esters is a highly subjective area.....you might smell/taste licorice...I might smell/taste...*.* Looking over my Siebel notes, I am reminded that even fermenter geometry can be influential in ester production....you already know that temps are also inportant... So all I will say on esters is that the Nott is very neutral in esters, Windsor is described as fruity, Manchester as woody, and I have found the London to be very flowery. Sorry that I can't give you a more detailed response, but the truth is plain....there are too many variables.... Flocc'ing characteristics are easier to describe....my own observations are that Nott is a grand flocc'er, Windsor tends to be more powdery, London and Manchester tend to lie between the other 2. Hope this helps a wee bit... Rob Rob Moline Lallemand Web Site jethro at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 19:44:01 -0800 From: jim williams <jim&amy at macol.net> Subject: just curious..?? Just out of curiosity, if I was to try to make a malt whiskey, what type of "beer" would I need to make before distillation? -What type of gravity? -Neutral ale yeast? -Quick fermentation? -aging before distillation? -hops? (Didn't think so) -shoot for bland beer? -alcohol % thanks, just curious, jIm Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/07/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96