HOMEBREW Digest #1067 Mon 01 February 1993

Digest #1066 Digest #1068

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  malt mixing (Chicago) <cjk at denver.ssds.COM>
  Dough in, yeast, all Munich brew, barley wine (Ulick Stafford)
  Old Porter Brewed using Salvaged Yeast (Steven Tollefsrud)
  hops (Michael T. Lobo)
  Aluminum brain death? (jason)
  re: reusing yeast & open fermenters (Jim Busch)
  EBC -> Lovibond conversion (Greg Jesus Wolodkin)
  re: EBC to Lovibond (Darryl Richman)
  Lagering in the Fridge (David Pike)
  Re: Isolating pure yeast (Drew Lawson)
  Doughing-in (korz)
  Spraying the grist (korz)
  Wyeast #1084 (Arthur Evans)
  Weird beer flavor (Mark Lundquist)
  Yeast Re-Use and Attenuation (Jeff Frane)
  keeping properties of yeast slurry (Peter Maxwell)
  Alternative yeast re-use method (MEHTA01)
  World's Worst Brewer (McHarry)
  Growth Media,Dough-in (Jack Schmidling)
  Keg problems (Carlo Fusco)

Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) **Please do not send me requests for back issues!** *********(They will be silenty discarded!)********* **For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 02:38:20 MST From: Chris Kunath (Chicago) <cjk at denver.ssds.COM> Subject: malt mixing Dear Hopheads, I've followd this reflector group for several months, and am finally motivated enough to try my first batch of homebrew. Whilst doing my homework, though, I've stumbled across a few contradictions. After I figured out the difference between a single-stage and two-stage fermentation (thanks to "Better Beer & How to Brew It") after about ten books, I have only one conceptual block (so far): mixing the malt. Mr. Beadle ("Brew it Yourself*"), and at least two other British 1960s-type books abhor boiling: "Do not bring the water to a boil. You will remember from the section on commercial procedures that the malt was kept at a temperature of 153 degrees Farenheit to allow the diastase enzyme to convert starches to sugar for correct fermentation of the malt. If you allow the water temerature to approach the boiling point, you will upset this sugar conversion and cause it to refix at a stage that will not allow the yeast to convert all the malt sugar to alcohol and and carbon dioxide. The temperature of the mixing water must not exceed 153 degrees F. Every other book on home-brewing has incorrectly given instructions to boil the malt in the water to dissolve it. This will only guarantee that some of the malt sugar will not be converted. This single bit of misinformation from those who should know better has caused many beginners to become unnecessarily discouraged in their attempts at brewing." Tenth-grade chemistry was many moons ago. Every book I've stumbled across published since then (c1971) recommends boiling, even up to an hour for porters and stouts. Since that is what I'd like to brew, I have a few questions: 1. Has brewing chemistry advanced since then, proving this guy and my library of 1950-70 homebrewing books wrong? 2. Am I treading on rwar territory? If so, don't waste bandwidth, flame me direct at cjk at denver.ssds.com. Perhaps I should not "Don't Worry," and instead "Don't Panic!" :-) * Beadle, Leigh P. Brew it yourself, Doubleday Canada Ltd., Toronto. 1971 Library of Congress catalog card number 79-164535 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 10:18:08 EST From: Ulick Stafford <ulick at bernini.helios.nd.edu> Subject: Dough in, yeast, all Munich brew, barley wine I have haqd some trouble with the mailer. My last 2 postings bounced after several days... Congrats to js for finally giving an accurate description of dough in, i.e. adding the minimum COLD water to form a dough. This is not just to prevent dough balls, but to allow enzymes to leach into tha water before the rests. It assumes s poorly converted malt. Normally the temp is raised to ACID rest with an infusion of boiling water, but who does an acid rest anyway? I will dough in for my barley wine this weekend, mostly because I don't know how thin my mash can be (24 lb in a 7ga cooler), and because I'll be using Pilsener malt. I often reuse yeast and have had few problems, except that occasionally fermentation will start so quickly, I won't have a chance to rack off the trub before it gets dispersed. I will reuse the yeast from the primary of a stout made with yeast cultured from a Guinness bottle for my barley wine. I made a beer with all munich and 1 lb of Ireks-Arkady crystal. My suppliers has been having trouble getting anlyses, so I was shooting in the dark. Rather than a dunkel, the beer is a Vienna. Now I am wondering what the supposed Vienna I made with 3lb Munich and 6lb lager will be- a Muenchener Helles - my attempt at the latter became an award winning Helles Bock (maybe I'll brew what I intend to sometime!). Someone asked about agar - 1.5% is normal for slants i.e. 15g/liter. Convert from these units to those you like perhaps 1/2 oz per quart would be close. Ulick Stafford Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 11:24:25 +0100 From: steve_T at fleurie.compass.fr (Steven Tollefsrud) Subject: Old Porter Brewed using Salvaged Yeast In response to someone's not so recent interest in this story, I dug around in my dusty archives and found a copy of an article which I clipped out of the Int'l Herald Tribune (Nov. 29, 1991). The story is written by Steven Prokesch of the New York Times Service. It is about the successful efforts of a microbiologist, Dr. Keith Thomas, to cultivate yeasts taken from two bottles of Porter recovered from a ship that sank in the English Channel in 1825. He is now brewing Porter from this yeast with a Porter recipe from the same era taken from the archives of Whitbread. The significance of this beer is that it is an example of what true Porter was like in the early 19th century and how, over time, yeasts have changed through genetic mutation and brew recipes have changed in response to consumer mutation. The name of this brew is Flag Porter and Bottle Green. At the time of the article, only about 4000 gallons per year were being produced. Flag Porter and Bottle Green were being wholesaled by Vinceremos Wines Ltd. and most of it was being sold through restaurants, specialty liquor stores, health food shops, and pubs in the UK, though, according to the article, they were hoping to start exporting to the U.S. in 1992. This is a very interesting story for this forum, and I have not done it justice with the scant details I have included here, but I don't know whether it is legal to transcribe it without permission from the publication or the author. Can anybody advise me on this? I hope that this info has been useful for the person who was asking about it. Steve Tollefsrud Valbonne, France e-mail: steve_T at fleurie.compass.fr Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 08:33:23 EST From: mlobo at sentry.foxboro.com (Michael T. Lobo) Subject: hops Greetings: Can anyone tell me where I can buy hop seeds/plants/whatever you need to grow hops? A mail order place would be great. Thanks - please just email me directly- Michael Michael T. Lobo 508 549 2487 Foxboro Co. mlobo at foxboro.com "I Love beer, beer loves me; when I drink too much, my beer speaks for me" -Monty Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 09:28:11 -0800 From: jason at beamlab.ps.uci.edu Subject: Aluminum brain death? Is there anything wrong with using an Aluminum brew pot. I don't know if this is related, but it seems that everytime I try to make a beer with any spices or special ingredients it turns out horrible. All the simple ale's with only malt, sugar, and hops turn out great, but with the addition of even just cinnamon it turns into icky beer. Some of the bad spiced brews seem to have the presence of another form of alcohol or solvent, that the non-spiced ones lack. The procedures are the same for both spiced and non-spiced. The only thing that could be different (besides the presence of spices) is maybe I boil longer when I add spices. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Am I making Alzheimer brew? J Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 11:14:59 EST From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: re: reusing yeast & open fermenters Since the yeast reuse thread has popped up again, I thought I'd add my two cents worth. I am most likely in the minority of homebrewers in that I am currently utilizing open fermentation techniques. I ferment in a SS vessal with a heavy lid that in no way could be construed as a closed system. One of the great advantages of open fermentation is the ability to skim a lot of trub junk off the fermenter during the first 8-24 hours of fermentation. The resulting krausen head can be quite strikingly clean and white. Since I brew mostly ales, my yeast tends to rise to the top of the fermenter around day 4 or 5. I skim this yeast off and since I usually have more yeast available to me than I can ever use, I throw it away, or give it to fellow brewers. Top cropping ale yeast is a more effective and viable technique to reuse yeast than waiting to harvest off the secondary. Yeast allowed to sit in the secondary will invariably be less healthy than fresh top cropped yeast. This is due to autolysis and alcohol effects on the yeast cell. I have generally been quite pleased with the ease of open fermentation with respect to skimming and harvesting of the yeast. If you are a careful clean brewer, using quality yeast, open fermentation is great. Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 09:50:04 PST From: greg at bandit.Berkeley.EDU (Greg Jesus Wolodkin) Subject: EBC -> Lovibond conversion Sorry if I've lost track of who said what in this thread.. I think it went like this: Murray writes: >>> I have just found a new supplier for my grain requirements who has data >>> sheets on the malt available. Specifically, it mentions a colour rating >>> expressed in degrees EBC as opposed to degrees LOVIBOND. What is the >>> conversion factor between the two units. Al Korz adds: >> I don't have a conversion, but here are some L/EBC pairs from Siebel's -- >> perhaps you can figure out your own conversion factor: >> Lov EBC >> 3.21 8 >> 7.83 15 >> 7.87 15 >> 21.65 45 >> 22.5 55 >> 25.7 55 >> 77.5 155 >> 221 500 >> 497.5 1100 >> 557.5 1400 >> 601 1400 Jim Dipalma says: > Hmmm, a couple of interesting observations here. First, from looking > at the pairs Al provided, it would seem that whatever the conversion > formula is, it's not linear [...] Second, there are three pairs where > the EBC rating is the same (15, 55 and 1400), yet the equivalent > Lovibond ratings are different. What gives? Looks to me like the EBC has just been rounded off to the nearest convenient number -- for all intents and purposes, though, 557L and 601L are identical, no? > I would be very interested in an accurate method of converting these > units. If anyone knows how to convert the two, please jump right in. Take a look at the data on a log-log scale.. the relationship p Lovibond = M * EBC with M = 0.5 and p = 0.98 works well, even in the range of pale malts. I don't know if this is an "exact" conversion, but it does a good job on the data given. /* In case the notation is confusing.. */ double Lovibond (double EBC) { double M = 4.9950570e-01; double p = 9.8024579e-01; return (M * pow(EBC, p)); } /* */ Happy brewing, Greg Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 07:13:28 PST From: Darryl Richman <darrylri at microsoft.com> Subject: re: EBC to Lovibond Yesterday, James Dipalma expanded on Al Korzonas' observation that the conversion between EBC color units and Lovibond (SRM) is not linear. This is indeed true. Both would like to find some kind of relationship between the two. Unfortunately, there is no real conversion between the two. The problem is that they represent two different ways of measuring color in beer, and they react differently to different coloring agents. The widely quoted conversion of 2.65 + 1.2 does work passably for pale beers where there isn't a lot of coloring material. Even if you could work up a curve fit for readings against one set of beers, other beers might not lie on that line because their coloring comes about from different materials. The problem stems from the fact that the EBC has specified measurements at one light frequency while the ASBC has opted for a different one, with a fudge in it to try to approximate Lovibond. Although two beers might appear to be the same color to our eyes, these differing measurement techniques might come up with strongly different numbers. To use a rough analogy, it's like watching a B&W TV; although red and green are being transmitted, to the observer they are both gray. --Darryl Richman Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 8:15:41 PST From: davep at cirrus.com (David Pike) Subject: Lagering in the Fridge This comment is in response to the lagering question where the beer had been in the fridge for 9 weeks and still 'glugs' slowly.... Refrigerators inject cool/cold air INTO its interior while cooling. This means that the ability of CO2 to be released into the air from the beer will be less than if the beer is outside the fridge (ie. the air pressure inside the fridge is a *bit* higher than the outside air pressure. Now you open the door, and the air pressure drops, but slowly. If you stand and look at your beer, perhap a minute or two, one or two glugs may appear, so...(to repeat what we already know) the best way to tell if fermentation is done is to take an SG. Get some beer, let it stabilize re. temperature, and perhaps even release some CO2, then take the SG. Dave Pike Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 10:41:15 PST From: lawson at acuson.com (Drew Lawson) Subject: Re: Isolating pure yeast > There exists a agar called "WL nutrient agar" that is great for isolating > pure yeast from wild yeast strains. This agar is green in color. The pure > yeast take up the green color when grown up on Petri dishes and the wild > yeast remain white. > Bob Jones This may not be exactly a question for the Digest, but here goes. This stuff sounds interesting and useful, but it also sounds strange. What is the difference in "pure" and "wild" yeast that determines whether they will pick up the color? I mean, at some point they were _all_ wild yeast. Drew Lawson If you're not part of the solution, lawson at acuson.com you're part of the precipitate Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 12:58 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Doughing-in Jim writes: >In the last digest Al Korz wrote: ><For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist ><(which is highly recommended) not vice versa. Adding the grist to ><the strike liquor will work, but will create much more balled starch ><than the opposite (see Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer"). > >This is indeed what Noonan preaches. I have always wondered about >the importance and significance of adding water to malt as opposed >to the converse. Ok, so one can get "balled starch", wont it then >hydrate and become "non balled"? Cant you just stir enough to >completely mix the mash? Since I do an upward step mash, the >protein rest provides a 30 minute hydration period for the grains. >Wont this hydrolyze the grains and liquify the starches? Also, who >has ever seen a professional brewery doing this?? All of the breweries >I can recall visiting do what most homebrewers do, raise a volume >of water to a given temp, and add the crushed grains onto the >water. This is one of the "Noonanisms" that I feel is rather un- >important to the overall beer quality. THere are so many other >places for brewers to make significant improvements to quality >in brewing like malt/hops/yeast choices and even water chemistry. Russ writes: >>From Al: > >>For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist >>(which is highly recommended) not vice versa. Adding the grist to >>the strike liquor will work, but will create much more balled starch >>than the opposite (see Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer"). > >Curious. I add the grist to the liquor, and get what seems to be a fine >dough-in. It seems to allow for better mixing -> no dry spots. How does >Noonan determine that it creates more "balled starch"? Just what is >"balled starch"? Obviously I don't have the book..... Noonan's book is the first place I've seen this "add the liquid to the dry" procedure recommended regarding brewing, but I believe that most food cookbooks recommend adding the liquid to the dry so you can work out the clumps. Theoretically, I believe the problem is in that little "pockets" of the dry material can become encapsulated (like lumpy gravy). This is probably less of an issue with the relatively stiff mashes that we use in our infusion mashes, than with the much "watery-er" mashes that Noonan uses in his decoction mashes. I don't agree that it is overkill -- I don't think it's that hard to add 3/4 of your water at first, smush-out (a very good technical term... see DeKlerk ;^) the clumps and then add the balance of the water. I feel that the biggest problem may not be the loss of extract rather the possiblity of these clumps un-clumping during the mashout and releasing starch into your runnings (say goodbye to any hope of crystal-clear beer). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 13:17 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Spraying the grist Both Jim and Donald mentioned the spraying of water on the grist as it enters the mash tun. I suspect that this has the addional benefit of reducing grain dust which is explosive. Yes, both methods (liquor-to-grist and grist-to-liquor) will work, but I, personally am always looking for ways to improve my methods -- I get a great deal of new ideas from the HBD and other digests and this is what keeps my brews constantly improving. Thanks to all! Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 14:02:02 -0800 From: arthur at chiba.esd.sgi.com (Arthur Evans) Subject: Wyeast #1084 In Digest #1065, Joseph N. Hall asks: > Finally, on a slightly different topic, has anyone here tried using > 1084 (Irish) for purposes other than stouts and porters? I feel like > trying it in bitter and mild ... perhaps it might make a good alt > yeast, too? I used the "Irish ale yeast" in an ESB--strong, farily light in color, and aggressively hopped--pretty un-stout like. It was really tasty, and probably my favorite of all the batches I've brewed (it was rated pretty highly by a random sampling of friends too, who said things like "your best yet," and "can I have another?"). I can certainly recommend it for bitters--and it seems like it would be good for beers calling for some residual sweetness, like milds and Scottish ales. Go for it. OK -arthur Return to table of contents
Date: 29 Jan 93 12:49:57 GMT From: mark at verdix.com (Mark Lundquist) Subject: Weird beer flavor I have some extract ale that is ready to go into bottles, but it tastes wrong. I'd like some help in identifying what the wrong flavor is, and how to eliminate it! The best way I can describe it is: have you ever tasted malt extract syrup right out of the can? There's a molasses-like malty sweetness up front, followed on by an unpleasant aftertaste (at least, I find it to be unpleasant). Well, the weird flavor component in this batch of ale is very much like that aftertaste in malt syrup. Here's the specifics: Two cans (8 lbs) Alexander's Pale malt extract syrup 13 AAU (1 oz.) Chinook hops (boil) 1 oz. Cascade hops (finish) W. #1098 (British), recultured from dregs of a homebrew (1st generation) O.G. 1.058 F.G. 1.017 Does this taste description ring any bells? Is it something that will go away with time? (Please don't bother with "Well you're using all this malt extract, so of course your beer is going to taste like malt extract, why don't you switch to all-grain, blah blah blah". I'm sure I'll switch to all-grain someday soon, OK? But I have never had this problem with an extract batch before, and I want to find out if anyone has had any specific experiences with it). Thanks for any help, - --mark Return to table of contents
Date: 29 Jan 93 17:22:59 EST From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067 at compuserve.com> Subject: Yeast Re-Use and Attenuation Russ Gelinas makes an interesting observation: > Subject: re-use slurry > > Re-using yeast slurry is easy, efficient, cost effective, and taste > effective; I do it often. Some things to keep in mind: > > 4) Don't overdo it. All yeasts mutate; some more (and more quickly) > than others. Often the mutation is to become more attenuative (making > a dryer beer). I've found this to be true of Sierra Nevada/Wyeast 1056 > yeast; after 3 batches the beer is too dry for my tastes. Whitbread > ale yeast, otoh, had been reported to be able to be re-used many times > (20+ ?) without much change in character. > This datapoint on WYeast 1056 is very appropriate for me right now. I've been repitching the same yeast for several batches and used some stored 1056 to ferment out the extract beer I made in my Beginning Homebrew class. When I measured the specific gravity the other night, the hydrometer dropped right through like it was in water -- and the beer doesn't taste too good. :-( (Don't worry, I've got plenty of other good stuff in kegs so I won't die of thirst.) I was surprised by this, as the yeast strain I used to use regularly never performed this way; Russ' observation answers my concern. On 'tother hand, Ballantine Brewery supposedly used this yeast strain over and over, repitching hundreds of times without any problems. So I'm still scratching my head over this one. One thing the yeast was _very_ good for was the barleywine I brewed on the 10th. As I mentioned previously, I ran the wort in on top of a deliberately created yeast pack (after racking out a "starter" ale); the specific gravity dropped from 1.095 to 1.030 in 15 days, which is pretty damn good. So, by the way, is the barleywine. James Dipalma asks: > Subject: RE: EBC to Lovibond > > Hmmm, a couple of interesting observations here. First, from looking > at the pairs Al provided, it would seem that whatever the conversion > formula is, it's not linear, so I'm not terribly surprised the equation > from Eckhardt doesn't quite hold. Second, there are three pairs where the > EBC rating is the same (15, 55 and 1400), yet the equivalent Lovibond > ratings are different. What gives? > I would be very interested in an accurate method of converting these > units. If anyone knows how to convert the two, please jump right in. > I can only reiterate what I was told by the lab folk at Great Western Malting: There is NO conversion formula, and I've told this to Fred, too. According to the lab folk, who should know, the only way to get an accurate Lovibond figure is to test the sample on equipment calibrated in Lovibond. A few years back they ran some tests for me on British malts and the figures didn't come out anywhere near where they would have using Fred's calculations. Fred's calculations, by the way, as much as I love the man, are not always, um, completely reliable. - --Jeff Frane Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 16:00:00 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Maxwell <peterm at aoraki.dtc.hp.com> Subject: keeping properties of yeast slurry There have been a few replies to my earlier questions regarding reusing the slurry from the secondary fermenter. Comments like "it should keep for a few days" or "a week or two" appeared as did something to the effect of leaving it longer would result in autolysis, which is bad. Given that several people have indicated that they leave their brew in the secondary for months sometimes, why don't they suffer from autolysis also? What's the difference between leaving it in the secondary for months and leaving it in a separate bottle for months? In particular I was thinking of filling a beer bottle with the slurry, capping it (because fermentation is finished) and putting it in the refrigerator. Then all I'd have to do is warm this up to wort temperature and pitch, then wait for the fireworks. Does this sound viable? Peter Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 18:18:59 -0600 (CST) From: MEHTA01 at SWMED.EDU Subject: Alternative yeast re-use method i sp spoke to a fffriend here at UTSouthwestern Medical Centre where we are students about culturing yeast, as she is doing her Ph.D. on yeast genetics and is always culturing all kinds of yeast (nasty mutated ones though). i had previously done the re-use slurry trick successfully and told her about it, asking her why it can be re-used only a few times... One main reason, she said, is that alcohol kills yeast or at least causes severe damage to the poor beasties. Thus, resuing the yeasties that have been exposed to alcohol for a long time (in the secondary) is not a good idea. The ones that are left are the ones that are more tolerant of alcohol (hence the fact that the Sierra Nevada culturer noticed severe attenuation after 3 life-times... in theprevious HBD # 1066 Jan 29). So, the solution is to take off some yeast during the aerobic fermentation period and store them in a cold (0 to 5 C) fridge in whatever kind of wort they are in. They should stay well for quite a long time (settling into their cyst mode due to thte cold) and every time you make a starter, you can just store alittle bit before you pitch, for next time. i would recommend carryinmg out the std sanitary procs with these yeast viz. flaming the mout of the containers, and all other things that touch the yeasties... Good luck. If you have any more qs, pls email me, i have a real informed source who can help me answer these qs.... :-) (for the price of a good HB, she says)! Ciao Shreefal Mehta mehta01 at utsw.swmed.utexas.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 16:35:28 EST From: mcharry at freedom.otra.com (McHarry) Subject: World's Worst Brewer Sorry, Jack, this isn't a flame :) I have a friend, who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty, who claims to be the World's Worst Brewer. I think it might be amusing to outline his process: He is, of course, an extract brewer. He doesn't have a big enough pot to boil the whole brew, so he squirts the extract into his carboy with some of the water. Some of the rest of the water goes into his kettle with the hops, which are boiled for an hour or so. This water is then dumped into the carboy, bringing the level up to something less than full. The (dry, of course) yeast is pitched and a lock fitted. When the krausen falls, he tops up the carboy with more water, thus avoiding the need for a blow off tube and such. When fermentation is finished, he syphons the beer into plastic soda bottles primed with sucrose. The result is not too bad. One side effect of this process is that there is no coagulation and precipitation of protein, so the brew never clears. He has two solutions to this: The first is to brew mainly dark beers so he can't tell. The second is to refer to the stuff as "high protein sports drink." I don't think the brewing supplies shop keeper likes him hanging around talking to the other customers. He claims his next project is to use only a small amount of dark extract for color and to make up the rest of the fermentables with table sugar. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 21:50 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Growth Media,Dough-in >From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov> >The pure yeast take up the green color when grown up on Petri dishes and the wild yeast remain white... I like these type of eyeball sort of tests. Me too but this one sounds like a wet dream. > Maybe some microbio type out there could post the availablity and cost of the media for those interested. Maybe some microbio type could tell us how it works. ............. One more pass at dough-in. Two batches back I doughed-in a batch before going to bed and mashed in the morning just to see if it made any difference. I thought it might improve the conversion by solubilizing the starch better but did not know what effect it might have on the taste. The conversion was at the high end of typical for me (31 pts/gal/lb) but it might be more helpful on poorly crushed malt than on properly crushed. It is now in the keg and I have been drinking it for about a week and completely forgot about the experiment till this dough-in thread joged my memory. I can't find the slightest clue that the taste was affected and I passed around a liter at a recent CBS meeting and at the last report, no one has died from it. js Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 09:57 EST From: Carlo Fusco <G1400023 at NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA> Subject: Keg problems Hello, I have made the leap into kegging but I can't get the thing to work properly. Every time I try to pour a beer there is nothing but foam. I have tried some of the ideas mentioned last week in the digest and none work. I have chilled the beer before taping, tried a long [6ft] and short [10in] liquid out hose, bleeding off the excess pressure in the keg before pouring, let it sit for a week after force carbonating. What I have noticed is that the beer is not losing CO2 in the liquid out hose, it remaines a liquid until it gets to the cobra tap and all I get is foam comming out of the tap. I have a few ideas what the problem is but I could use some input from the ever knowing HBD crowd. I think I might be over carbonating the beer or the beer comes out to fast and foams up when it hits the glass.....any suggestions at fixing these things or other insights to what the problem may be. Thanks for the help Carlo Fusco g1400023 at nickel.laurentian.ca Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1067, 02/01/93