HOMEBREW Digest #4076 Fri 25 October 2002

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  Re SNPA ("Grant")
  yeast blending results ("Spinelli, Mike")
  Spreadsheet for Lables ("Pete Calinski")
  Holes in SS/conical seal (jayspies)
  Conical Info ("Christian Rausch")
  RE: SECONDARY posting by Kevin (Graham Stone)
  Bottle Labels or Label Glue for Home Brew ("Romanowsky, Paul")
  re: discussion about pH and Astringency ("Steve Alexander")
  Subject: Re: yeast blending (G C)
  Virus Alert (and apology for the interruption) ("Dave Flotree")
  Re:  SNPA (Bill Frazier)
  Re: Subject: Re: yeast blending (Jeff Renner)

* * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 06:59:57 +1000 From: "Grant" <gstott at primus.com.au> Subject: Re SNPA G'day all, Many thanks to all who took the time to help with my SNPA request. SWMBO 's response was,"what have you been up to, to be getting so many e-mails. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 07:36:19 -0400 From: "Spinelli, Mike" <paa3983 at dscp.dla.mil> Subject: yeast blending results HBDers, Thanks to Jeff, Jim, Christian and Mark for weighing in on my question. Most agreed not to add the Nottingham yeast to the Victory Hopdevil slurry. After the slurry settled out, I had 1/3 pint (4 oz.) of pure yeast instead of the 8 oz. I thought I had. To me, it didn't seem enough for 20 gallons of a 1.060 IPA. So last night I cooked up a 1.5 gallon DME 1.060 starter and pitched in the 1/3 pint slurry. It was at high krausen this morning in a 6 gallon carboy. I plan on brewing 3 days from now, at which time most of the yeast will be settled out by then. Thanks again, Mike Cherry Hill NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:02:59 -0400 From: "Pete Calinski" <pjcalinski at adelphia.net> Subject: Spreadsheet for Lables The spreadsheet I use for labels is in the HBD Preserve at: http://hbd.org/pcalinsk/Labels.htm It does rectangular labels not round. I used to use Avery and other brand stick-on label material but it is too much of a pain to clean off the adhesive. Now I just use milk. Dip the label in milk and stick it on. Any kind of milk works, whole, 2%, skim. Washes off in seconds. Only disadvantage, if you ice the bottles, the labels will come off. Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY *********************************************************** *My goal: * Go through life and never drink the same beer twice. * (As long as it doesn't mean I have to skip a beer.) *********************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:04:00 +0000 From: jayspies at att.net Subject: Holes in SS/conical seal All - All I have to say is WOW! My original post about drilling holes in my TMS conical elicited a flood of responses....goes to show you what a wealth of knowledge exists out there and how willing people are to share it. Anyhoo, I was going to take Zymie's advice and buy a multi-step Unibit when local HBD'er Dave Towson offered up his 7/8" Greenlee punch. So, being opportunistic, I think I'll take that route. Thanks to all for the advice. As for the related thread of sealing the top of a TMS conical, I noticed that Beer Beer & More Beer (NA,YY) has silicone tubing on their site. This stuff, from what I had heard, stays flexible and pliable at both hot and cold temps, and might provide a better seal if slit and fitted around the conical lip than would a similar piece of vinyl tubing, which tends to harden up at colder temps. Any thoughts? BTW, Zymie, lemme know when you have the conical stand up for sale and I'll be first in line........ ;) Jay Spies Charm City Altobrewery Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:30:11 -0400 From: "Christian Rausch" <christian at rauschbiercompany.com> Subject: Conical Info Thanks to everyone showing interest in the conical project. I have gotten quite a few inquiries about product selection, suppliers, and contact information. I have gotten back to many of you but I think it will be easier to publish a report when I have finished. So, please hang in there until I can fininsh the project. I will publish all costs, suppliers, contact information and opinions about the quality of the service and products used. Enough information for you to come to your own conclusions. Thanks. Cheers! Christian Rausch Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:37:32 +0100 From: Graham Stone <gstone at dthomas.co.uk> Subject: RE: SECONDARY posting by Kevin The issue about secondary fermentation is very confusing and badly written in most homebrew books. In fact, it confused the hell out of me for some time! Here's how I understand the terminology - it's not precise! In a nut shell, primary fermentation is an expression that generally refers to the process of fermenting wort to a desired final or finishing gravity. At his point, you often have to do something to stop fermentation. Commercially, this is generally done by cooling the fermenting wort to about 12C over a period of about 30 hours or more. Sometimes the wort is racked into a clean container so that it is removed from the bulk of the yeast. The beer is then left to stand in a conditioning tank for between 2 days and 2 weeks or more (different breweries do things differently). During this time, because the yeast is not producing much CO2, it tends to sink to the bottom of the vessel. After this, the beer is racked into casks. What's important at this point is there there is an appropriate yeast count (ie cells per litre). Now, the expression Secondary Fermentation is what takes place in the cask. This results in the beer producing, ideally, about 1.5 volumes of CO2 giving the finished beer a slight sparkle on the tongue - it shouldn't be fizzy! This sparkle on the tongue is called Condition. Therefore, the purpose of Secondary Fermentation is only to produce Condition and not, per se, to drop the gravity of the beer any more than necessary (we allow about 0.5 degrees for Customs and Excise purposes). It is generally at the point of racking into casks that the beer is also fined with isinglass too (although secondary finings are sometimes added to the conditioning tank instead). In our brewery, this is how we do most beers: 1. Fermentation takes 2-3 days to get to the desired finishing gravity (say 1048 to 1012) 2. Rack into clean FV and chill to 12C over 48hrs 3. Rack into casks and store for at least 2 days, longer for stronger or darker beers 4. Transport to pub and stand in cellar at 12C for minimum of 2 days After that, it's ready to drink! So if we're desparate to try a new beer, we could be drinking it 7-9 days after making it. So Kevin's schedule of several weeks is, in my opinion, rather lengthy for many recipes. However, there are some aspects to storage of casked beer you need to consider: 1. Different yeasts produce differing quantities of acetaldehyde and other unwanted by-products. Acetaldehyde gives new beer a green apple taste (acidic, tart, etc) and hence the expression Green Beer. This abates in time and is part of the maturation process. 2. Bitterness abates slightly through time and hop/dark malt flavours change too. This in turn affects the malt/hop taste balance as well 3. The longer you store the casked beer, the more condition it will acquire (up to a point) So, the length you store it for ought to be regarded as much a part of the recipe as it is a part of the brewing process. That is, I would dream of serving a strong winter brew after only 9 days (this should probably have at least 4 weeks or more) whereas a 100% pale ale recipe with moderate hop levels would, with our yeast, drink beautifully!! Graham Stone www.portchesterbrewery.co.uk Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:55:14 -0400 From: "Romanowsky, Paul" <paul.romanowsky at siemens.com> Subject: Bottle Labels or Label Glue for Home Brew Has anyone found a real good source for label stock, that when used to create home printed labels for beer bottles, will come off easily when soaked?? Or has anyone found a good glue/adhesive that when used on home printed labels on plain paper will allow easy removal of labels. My problem is that I like to label my beer, especially when giving it to friends and family. I tried printing labels from a LaserJet printer, (ink won't run when wet like from an inkjet printer), and adhering them to the bottles with plain MILK. This works OK, but problems are that the milk glue smells as it spoils on the back of your label and beer that lasts awhile before drinking sometimes develops a mold on the label. Most commercially available labels have adhesive that IS TOO GOOD and hence makes it hard to remove the labels afterwards. So, I'm looking for a good solution. I'm sure someone out there has cracked this nut and I would like to know how. Thanks in advance. Paul Romanowsky Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:50:24 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: discussion about pH and Astringency Hans Aikema writes .. > [...] I found the next data: [...]>extract%: FW=16.3 S1=13.9 S2=5.3 S3=1.6 >Polyphenols (mg/liter) FW=171 S1=172 S2=184 S3=294 >Anthocyanogene FW=80 S1=78 S2=117 S3=222 [..] >Does this help Steve?? Thanks very much for the data Hans. The trends in this data completely contradict results that appear in M&BS (pp 294, 295, 273). This adds to the current confusion, but sometimes confusion is a good thing - it requires that we rethink the issue. The earlier study by Stone & Grey in 1948 show extract%: FW=20.5 S1=16.9 S2=8.9 S3=6.0 S4=5.0 tannin: FW=78 S1=49 S2=25 S3=24 S4=18 mg/L On pp 273 M&BS shows graphs from a continuous sparge that show total phenols, and anthocyanogens following about the same trend as the Grey&Stone study above. That is the concentrations in mg/L drop off dramatically late in the sparge tho' the extract drops off even faster. This by Woof & Pierce in 1966 JIB. I find the Stone and Grey brew with 4 sparges odd since the extract remains so high (5P) in the last sparge. The Woof & Peirce data on extract look more realistic to me. As does Hans' Narziss data. There is a huge difference in these data sources. Narziss' anthocyanogen numbers rise roughly by a factor of 3 at the factor of about 3 from the peak to the last runnings. None of this data really tells us if the pH increase late in the mash *causes* tannin release or if it just correlates, nor if lowering sparge pH would prevent much tannin extraction.. The M&BS p295 graph that shows the pH+tannin correlation best is from a 1936 German study by Schooled. As English sparges proceed the phenolic levels fall. In Germany as the sparge proceeds the phenolic levels rise. I hope to find a more satisfying explanation! -S Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:01:36 -0700 (PDT) From: G C <gsd4lyf at yahoo.com> Subject: Subject: Re: yeast blending Aren't there big differences between harvested/repitched brewery yeast cells and lab-raised yeast cells (i.e. lab-raised yeast is grown under aerobic conditions, which makes for healthier cell walls and thus, healthier cells). Lab-raised yeast is also purer. Doesn't this partially account for the differences seen in suggested pitching rates between repitched brewery yeast and lab-raised yeast? In the March-April BYO issue, Dave Logsdon of Wyeast suggested that healthy lab-raised yeast could be pitched at a rate that is 1/2 to 1/10 below the standard rate, which would seem to explain why one relatively small pitchable vial of healthy commercial yeast can successfully ferment a five gallon batch of wort. What does the current research/data indicate about differences between lab-raised v. harvested yeast and suggested yeast starter pitching rates? Guy Los Gatos, CA Mike Spinelli <paa3983 at dscp.dla.mil> writes from Cherry Hill NJ: >>I'm doing a 20 gallon all grain IPA batch with a 1.060 OG this weekend. I've got about 8 oz. of solid yeast slurry from Victory Brewing I plan on using. I'm concerned I might not have enough yeast, so I was thinking of throwing in 5 packets of dry Nottingham (re-hydrated) for insurance. Questions: Do I need the extra dry yeast? If so, what effect will the blending of the 2 yeast have on the batch?>> And Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at comcast.net> responds: >>I don't think you need the extra yeast. The rule of thumb is that ideal pitching rate is 1/2 fluid ounce (one tablespoon, or 15 cc) yeast solids (thick, like putty or peanut butter) per gallon for ales, one ounce per gallon for lagers. So you are just a little under ideal, but way above the usual pitching rates. Think about even the newer pitchable tubes - the can't contain more than a fluid ounce, yet they work pretty doggone well for five gallons. You could just boost your yeast by feeding it with some wort the day before. I'd suggest a pint or two in a carboy so you have lots of head space for available oxygen and foaming. But I'll bet it isn't necessary. As to question #2, I'm sure the yeast will get along OK (although there are some yeast with the killer gene). It will change your character some - Nottingham is quite attenuative and neutral in my experience. Since Victory's ales are fruity (more to my liking), I'd suggest sticking with their yeast. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943>> Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:11:10 -0700 From: "Dave Flotree" <dave at flotree.com> Subject: Virus Alert (and apology for the interruption) Hello, You might have received an email from me with a subject: "[name] you have an E-card from Dave". PLEASE DO NOT OPEN THE LINK. This spreads a benign virus that will email a similar message to all people in your Outlook address book if you have one. If you did end up loading the linked program, use "Add/Remove Programs" in your Control Panel to remove the "friend greetings" program. Sorry for any inconvenience. - Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:50:07 -0500 From: Bill Frazier <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: SNPA Scott - Here's a few pointers to help with your SNPA clone. The beer is a distinctive tasting ale...the main flavor impact is from the Cascade hops. You must dry hop the beer to come close to the real thing. The pilsner malt is fine but I use 50% pils and 35% vienna malt. A better flavor IMO. Instead of vienna about 10 to 15% munich would be good. Try 5% crystal 40L and I add about 5% malted wheat. Perle is fine to bitter with (that's what SN uses). However, I've used Cascade for all hop additions and the beer is excellent. Use about 5 HBU of bittering hops. This addition, plus the flavor & aroma hops, will get you about 39 IBUs. You must use Cascade for flavor and aroma (about 1/2 ounce each for a 5 gallon US batch). Be sure to dry hop with Cascade (1/2 ounce for 5 gallons US is nice). Use W1056 or White Labs WLP 001 yeast. And, be sure to use lots of yeast. Grow up a big starter. Adjust your grain bill to give an OG of about 1050. My recipe ferments down to 1012 usually. I like the beer a bit darker that SNPA so I add 1 ounce of finely crushed Caraffa malt to the mash tun just before I start the sparge. That addition gives a nice dark ale, a bit lighter in color than a Coke. I adjust the brewing water so the sulfate concentration is 150ppm. Good luck with your beer. Bill Frazier Olathe, Kansas USA Being in a Metric country I brew 23 Litre batches & weigh in grams & Kg. Questions. 1. What O.G should I aim for? 2. How dark (SRM) 3. How Bitter (IBU) Any other pointers? Thanks in advance for your help. Grant Stott [9906, 260] AR (statute miles) or [15942.2, 260] AR [K Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:15:40 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at comcast.net> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: yeast blending At 12:01 PM -0700 10/24/02, G C wrote: >Aren't there big differences between >harvested/repitched brewery yeast cells and lab-raised >yeast cells (i.e. lab-raised yeast is grown under >aerobic conditions, which makes for healthier cell >walls and thus, healthier cells). Lab-raised yeast is >also purer. Doesn't this partially account for the >differences seen in suggested pitching rates between >repitched brewery yeast and lab-raised yeast? I'm no expert, but you are certainly right that lab yeast is higher in glycogen reserves, for example, and potentially lower in petit mutants and dead cells. But I don't think that properly harvested yeast is by any means exhausted or depleted. On the other hand, it is well known among big commercial breweries, at least lager breweries, that the first batch of beer made with lab yeast is not up to the standards of subsequent batches, and must be blended with these later batches. I have repitched yeast and had quick, healthy starts. I especially like top cropping ale yeast that is harvested on the third or fourth day when fermentation is still somewhat active. This yeast seems very healthy and vigorous. There are traditional ale breweries that continue to repitch for years and maintain high quality. I think that Mike Spinelli's seven ounces of harvested yeast will work for his 20 gallons of wort, even though it may not in in as good condition as lab raised yeast. >In the March-April BYO issue, Dave Logsdon of Wyeast >suggested that healthy lab-raised yeast could be >pitched at a rate that is 1/2 to 1/10 below the >standard rate, which would seem to explain why one >relatively small pitchable vial of healthy commercial >yeast can successfully ferment a five gallon batch of >wort. Sounds like a good expert source of information. I am always amazed how a tube of White Labs yeast takes off. >What does the current research/data indicate about >differences between lab-raised v. harvested yeast and >suggested yeast starter pitching rates? I'll leave this up to the HBDers who follow research like Steve Alexander and Alan Meeker. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/25/02, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96