HOMEBREW Digest #1209 Mon 23 August 1993
Digest #1208
Digest #1210
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Strike Temperature / Withholding grains (npyle)
Water treatments (Domenick Venezia)
WORT AERATION (Jack Schmidling)
"Not much of a beer drinker", "Evolution" of Beer (ulrich)
Brewpots (Oh Noo- Mr.Bill)
RIMS (Greg Demkowicz)
Yeast Culturing Temperature(s) (Richard Childers)
Summer Blues - contamination (Michel Vandenplas)
Re: Strike temperature ("Andy Phillips, Long Ashton, Bristol, UK")
re: Barley Water (darrylri)
wort aeration comment (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)
re: Wort Aeration ("William A Kitch")
Topping off secondary (Domenick Venezia)
Hydrogen Peroxide (Richard Childers)
Mash Out ("CANNON_TOM")
Re: Aeration (Jeff Benjamin)
Aeration (J. Michael Burgeson)
[SNYDERC at decus.org: RE: Irvine Brewpubs] (Jim Sims)
Need Keg Supplies. (Gene Zimmerman)
To blow-off or not to blow-off? (Domenick Venezia)
Yeast FAQ Notice, CaCl2 info. (WEIX)
BRFWare Needed (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
Keg Conditioning ("Mark S. Nelson")
yeast cultural hysteria (Todd Gierman)
Canadian Amateur Brewers Association (CABA) (Michael Ligas)
a fantastic bock (Jim Graham)
More questions (LIFE'S TOO SHORT TO DRINK CHEAP BEER)
Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 9:35:02 MDT
From: npyle at n33.stortek.com
Subject: Strike Temperature / Withholding grains
Andy Phillips asks about specific heat capacity, strike temperature, etc. I
have made the very same evolution in my brewery (Bruheat -> insulated
mash/lauter tun w/ slotted pipe manifold) and am quite happy with it, Andy.
The strike temperature problem is not much of a problem really. I add 1 qt. of
168F strike water for every pound of grain to hit around 152F initial mash
temperature. For you, I'd recommend 1 litre of 75C strike water for every
pound of grain to aim for around 67C initial mash temperature. If this is too
high for you just lower the strike water temperature a degree or two. A lot of
this depends on air temp, how much heat your mash tun absorbs, etc.
I've read that the enzymes in the grains are not too sensitive to short
duration temperature extremes. The thing to do is measure your mash
temperature after you have doughed in the grain, and adjust with cold or hot
water accordingly. A few times doing this and you'll know what the strike
temperature for your system should be.
Mike Zulauf uses a similar setup and wants to know about holding off specialty
grains until after conversion. I recommend this with crystal, chocolate,
black, and any other specialty grains. Crystal malt has already supposedly
already undergone conversion at high temperatures so as to produce the
unfermentable sugars. Another conversion is not necessary and could very well
have the effect of further reduction of these sugars. Dark grains which are
added for the color and flavor (not for the sugars) should never be added until
mashout time, IMHO. The absolute worst brew I've ever made (the only one I've
ever poured out more than I drank) was made with the dark grains in the mash.
For some reason, conversion on that doomed brewed took almost 3 hours and I'm
sure that had a combined effect with the dark grains, but the bottom line was
this brew had a harsh astringency which tasted like chewing on chocolate malt.
Needless to say, I will never add dark grains until mashout again.
Cheers,
norm
- --
Norm Pyle, Staff Engineer Storage Technology Corporation
npyle at n33.stortek.com 2270 South 88th Street
"Youth is of course, the problem, as any Louisville, CO 80028-0211
mature man knows." -- Michael Jackson (303) 673-8884
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 11:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com>
Subject: Water treatments
Since Fuller's ESB is the best ale in the world (flame on dissenters),
I have spent some time exploring the Burton-upon-Trent water. I went
so far as to contact the Public Water District for Burton and the
British National Rivers Authority. The PWD sent a comprehensive
analysis of the Burton municipal water supply. The NRA sent me a slick
pamphlet, and said that the famous brewing water neither originates
from the Burton municipal water nor from the river Trent, but from
shallow wells in the surrounding area. So I wrote to a number of
brewers in the area asking for their water analysis and/or treatments.
No responses expected for a few weeks.
Just to cover my butt, let me say that I realize Fuller's brewery is
in Chiswick, London and not Burton-upon-Trent, but they do "burtonize"
their water.
So in response to Geoff in #1206, and Bill Flowers in #1205, for whatever
it is worth I submit the following information.
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Molecular and Formula Weights
-----------------------------
Ca++ 40.08 g Calcium
Mg++ 24.31 g Magnesium
SO4-- 96.06 g Sulfate
Na+ 22.99 g Sodium
Cl- 35.45 g Chloride
CO3-- 60.01 g Carbonate
H2O 18.02 g Water
CaSO4.2H2O 172.18 g Gypsum (hydrated)
MgSO4.7H2O 246.51 g Epsom salt
CaCl2 110.98 g Calcium chloride (anhydrous)
CaCl2.2H2O 147.02 g Calcium chloride dihydrate
NaCl 58.44 g Table salt
Na2SO4 142.02 g Sodium sulfate (anhydrous)
Na2SO4.10H2O 322.22 g Glauber's salt
MgCl2.6H2O 203.33 g Magnesium chloride hexahydrate
1 Gallon H2O 3785.40 g = 3.7854 liters
Ion Weight Ratios by Compound
------------------------------
1g/gal
Compound Ions Wt. Ratio adds ppm
---------- ----- --------- --------
CaSO4.2H2O Ca++ 0.233 61.6
SO4-- 0.558 147.4
H2O 0.209
MgSO4.7H20 Mg++ 0.099 26.2
SO4-- 0.390 103.0
H2O 0.512
CaCl2 Ca++ 0.361 95.4
Cl- 0.639 168.8
CaCl2.2H2O Ca++ 0.273 72.1
Cl- 0.482 127.3
H2O 0.245
NaCl Na+ 0.393 103.8
Cl- 0.607 160.4
Na2SO4 Na+ 0.324 85.6
SO4-- 0.676 178.6
Na2SO4.10H2O Na+ 0.143 37.8
SO4-- 0.298 78.7
MgCl2.6H2O Mg++ 0.120 31.7
Cl- 0.349 92.2
1g/gal ppm = wt_ratio*1000 / 3.7854 = mg/L
- -------------------------------------------------------
Burton-upon-Trent Water Recipes
-------------------------------
Target Ranges
-------------------
Ca++ 260-352 (306) ppm
SO4-- 630-820 (725) ppm
Mg++ 24-60 (42) ppm
Na+ 54 (54) ppm
Cl- 16-36 (26) ppm
Target Recipe for 5 Gallons
--------------- ---------------------
Ca++ 260 ppm 0.81 g NaCl
SO4-- 740 ppm 5.70 g MgSO4.7H2O
Mg++ 30 ppm 21.10 g CaSO4.2H2O
Na+ 17 ppm
Cl- 26 ppm
Ca++ 275 ppm 1.00 g CaCl2.2H2O
SO4-- 740 ppm 5.70 g MgSO4.7H2O
Mg++ 30 ppm 21.10 g CaSO4.2H2O
Cl- 26 ppm
Ca++ 295 ppm 1.25 g CaCl2.2H2O
SO4-- 787 ppm 6.00 g MgSO4.7H2O
Mg++ 31 ppm 22.50 g CaSO4.2H2O
Cl- 32 ppm
Common Names
------------
NaCl Table Salt
MgSO4.7H2O Epsom Salt
CaCl2.2H2O Calcium chloride dihydrate
- --------------------------------------------------------
Until I hear back from a brewery or two and get a definitive answer,
please note that the Burton target ranges are from Papazian.
Any errors are my own though I of course take no responsibility for their
consequences.
If anyone is interested in what the municipal water of Burton-upon-Trent
is like I can email a copy.
Domenick
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 15:49 CDT
From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: WORT AERATION
>From: Tom.Weicht at arrc.ncsu.edu
>Subject: C. cerevisiae taxonomy?
Respond to: deb_neher at ncsu.edu
> I would like to start by saying that I appreciate the feed
back from my original posting, and I like debate as a way to refine
>Keith MacNeal
Digital Equipment Corp.
Hudson, MA
I would like to start by saying that this has been a fascinating discussion
and I am in awe that that such experts condescend to participate in this
humble forum.
The only problem I have is following who said what or even if there are two
different people in there. I am also delighted to know there is someone else
out there with pet slime molds but can't figure out who it is. Mine died and
I am in need of a slimevet.
js
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 14:43:07 -0800
From: ulrich at sfu.ca
Subject: "Not much of a beer drinker", "Evolution" of Beer
The other day, someone gave an overview of BC microbreweries and said not
to even bother with Granville Island. Yesterday's Vancouver Courier (local
free newspaper) contained an article that I found illuminating. I quote the
second and third paragraphs.
"Granville Island Brewing Co. president Ian Tostenson says consumers will
soon be able to buy GI draft suds in cans. To date, Granville Island
products have only been available on tap and in bottles."
"'Sixty per cent of the beer consumed in B.C. is canned,' Tostenson says.
'I'm not much of a beer drinker, but when I do drink it, I want it in a
can. It's the convenience factor.'"
Would you buy beer from this man?
On a lighter note, I recently saw a cartoon (Catman by Peter Perry in
Terminal City, 8/11-24/93) hypothesizing about "the 'evolution' of beer".
Extrapolating from Dry Beer ("developed after conventional marketing ideas
dried up") and the current fad Ice Beer, he predicts Dry Ice Beer ("Beer
vapors are inhaled. This is for those who are too cool to swallow or afraid
of spilling regular beer in their trendy 4x4s."), followed by Ice T Beer
("After being opened, some cans start rapping and tell you you've won a
pair of rap shorts.") and Mice Beer ("due to the increasing amount of mouse
parts found in big brewery beer"), and eventually Dry Mouse Beer.
Charles Ulrich
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 15:04:40 PDT
From: Oh Noo- Mr.Bill <coxc at dpdmai.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Brewpots
GA writes about welding stainless steel, which brings
up my question. I have been using a 20 cup brew pot
which does not allow me all wort brewing, not to mention
the mess.
I inquired about a buying a new brew pot from Brewers
Warehouse in Seattle, WA. The following was quoted:
10 gal. stainless steel brew pot - $149.00
brass/copper ball valve,nipple,fitting - $ 86.00
cut to fit bottom screen to filter wort - $ 60.00
-------
$295.00
Given this is heavy gauge "restaurant gauge" stainless
and they claim the pot is fabricated in house, is
this worth the price or is this like "killing a fly
with a shotgun"?
The only other pots that I have seen are these thin
cheesy Taiwanese $49.00 20 qt. pots in the local brew shop.
I don't plan to do batches with a outdoor burner
so this rules out a converted keg system. Good deal
or bad? Alternatives?
Mr. Bill
Return to table of contents
Date: 19 Aug 93 19:38:59 EDT
From: Greg Demkowicz <71470.171 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: RIMS
I've read what ever posts I could get on RIMS, however I haven't seen
comments about the Rodney Morris system. Has anyone actually built his
system, or tried adapting his design to 7.5 or 15.5 gal Keg? I'm sure grain
compaction will be a problem with the keg geometry, but to what extent ( I
think Alan Gerhard? used a screen cylinder in the center, to reduce this
affect)? Also, for minimal HSE, how should the warmed wort exiting the pump
be directed, through a manifold over the mash, or directly into it? Thanks
in advance for any assistance.
Greg Demkowicz
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 21:20:16 -0700
From: pascal at netcom.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Yeast Culturing Temperature(s)
"Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:38 CDT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: yeast FAQ comments/Zymurgy Bashing/more yeast comments
">a. Place the starter jars in a location where 68F (18C can be held) ...
"Yes, but I've read that although fermentation may be done at lower temps,
80F is a better temperature for starters."
I've been culturing sourdough yeast recently, and the instructions indicate
that the best temperature for culturing *this* yeast is 85 F.
They definitely indicate that 95 F would kill the yeast.
In general, I've found bread yeasts to be pretty closely parallel to ale
yeasts in their operating parameters.
One would hypothesize that, much as there are complementary niches in the
'beer' and 'bread' environments for relatively warm temperatures, there
must also be bread yeasts which complement the colder lager yeasts, which,
apparently, have not yet been discovered ( although Alaskan sourdough yeast
might violate this presumption :-).
They also pointed towards the ( unlit ) oven as a good, unchanging warm
place for yeast-culturing, and I've found this to be true. Mine climbs a
little above 85 F over a day or so, and falls down to around 80 F if I
leave the door open, so it's good to check it out, first, over a few days.
Any microbiologists ( or microbotanists, microzoologists, microflorists :-)
in the crowd whom might care to comment on whether there is a general range
of maximum temperatures over which all known yeasts die, and another general
range of temperatures under which all yeasts become dormant [ excluding 0
Kelvin :-] ?
Didn't someone just post a four-part yeast-culturing FAQ ? Is it in there ?
- -- richard
| |
| "A cloak is no longer a cloak if it does not keep one warm." |
| |
| richard childers pascal at netcom.com |
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 07:59 GMT+200
From: Michel Vandenplas <mvdp at maties.sun.ac.za>
Subject: Summer Blues - contamination
Two members of our newly formed brewclub were describing a recurrent
infection that they get during the summer months. The only advice that we
could come up with was for them to throw it out and try again.
How do they prevent this from happening again? Apparently the infection
shows up a few days after fermentation has started and appears as a white
filmy layer on top of the fermenting wort. It feels oily and the beer is
undrinkable, sorry no flavour descri
Any advice would be appreciated - or is this strictly a local problem?.
Regards
Michel
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 8:08 BST
From: "Andy Phillips, Long Ashton, Bristol, UK" <phillipsa at afrc.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Strike temperature
Many thanks to all those who responded, by E-mail and through HBD,
to my request for info about strike temperature; particularly to
Kelly Jones, whose definitive submission in yesterday's HBD was
exactly what I was after.
Cheers,
Andy Phillips
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri Aug 20 06:30:36 1993
From: darrylri at microsoft.com
Subject: re: Barley Water
Bill Ridgley writes:
> The author went on to mention that there was no longer a barley water
> tradition in the English-speaking world, but that a popular version called
> "horchata" was still enjoyed in Spain and parts of Latin America.
I realize that Bill didn't say this but was quoting someone else. However,
horchata (pronounced without the leading h sound) is a common drink from
Mexico and is made from ground rice and cinnamon, and is pretty sweet.
In the LA area you can generally get this instead of, say, a soft drink
at a restaurant. It doesn't sound like it's got very much in common
with barley water, however, in either ingredients or intended use.
--Darryl Richman
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 09:33:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)
Subject: wort aeration comment
Thanks to Kinney for his postings from Malting & Brewing Science. The
literature establishes beyond doubt that wort aeration is an important
factor in final beer quality and flavor. I wonder whether the usual
homebrew rack and siphon to the carboy adds sufficient oxygen to
the wort? It seems that the splash tube gadget is a step in the right
direction. I have used an aquarium pump wort aerator since last
Fall, and feel that this has contributed to shorter lag times
and more vigorous fermentations. I also feel that aeration is especially
important for stronger beers (SG above 1050 or so). Admittedly,
I didn't do split test and control batches, but I leave that to
Malting and Brewing Science. If I have a clean acid carboy available,
because of its greater headspace, I'll rack the just-cooled hopped wort
into it and start the aerator. Sometimes, the beer head foams up, in
which case I'll leave the aerator on for 5 minutes and swirl the carboy.
Every half-hour or so, I'll repeat the process. At other times, the
foam head doesn't go all the way to the top, in which case I'll
leave the aerator on for 3 to 6 hours. It seems to me that aerating
the wort in this fashion is one of those things one can do -- like
using a wort chiller or racking to secondary -- to try to make better
beer.
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 10:07:42 CST
From: "William A Kitch" <kitchwa at bongo.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: re: Wort Aeration
Thanks to Kenny Baughman for some good data. (I wish Dover would reprint
_Malting and Brewing Science_ (MBS) in paperback for $35). I will attempt
to summarize I've learned on this areation thread. Y'all let me know
if this makes sense.
1) Having enough dissolved oxygen (DO) in the wort is extremely
important for a proper fermentation. Inadequate DO can lead to
a) Long lag times w/increased risk of infection
b) Long or stuck fermentation
c) Increased production of esters and acetaldehyde leading to
off flavors.
2) A DO level of 20% of oxygen saturation seems to be adequate (MBS
via Kenny B.)
3) 100% air saturation is about 20% oxygen saturation. (Lucky for
us--or maybe it's not luck! Could it be Devine intervention?)
4) Observations of the lag time by several home brewers (Jack S,
myself, et al) indicate that techniques such as shaking the
fermenter, splashing wort on side of fermenter, syphoning
through an aerating tube, indicate that these techniques
provide adequate aeration. HOWEVER, no home brewer has
measured DO, nor have any tests for unwanted byproducts
(e.g. esters) been done either qualitative (tasting) or
quantititative.
5) Clearly with the air pump method one can achieve 100% air
saturation, just keep pumping.
My Conclusion: For 5 gallon sized batches with OG around 1.045
splashing, shaking, or siphoning through areation tube will provide
adequate oxygen in the wort.
Sante' WAK
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com>
Subject: Topping off secondary
On Wednesday (took the day off to brew my first all grain batch), a great
mash, a nightmare sparge (suddenly, I was standing barefoot in 1/2 gallon
of hot wort), and a vigorous boil, I ended up with about 4.5 gal of 1.054
wort. I should have topped off the primary, but somehow it slipped my
mind. Can I top off the secondary with impunity? I have a week long dry
hop coming up and I figure to just top off at that time. Any downside
besides the dilution?
Thanks in advance. Use private email unless its of general interest.
Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
venezia at zgi.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 09:09:10 -0700
From: pascal at netcom.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Hydrogen Peroxide
"Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 17:39:59 PDT
From: Victor Stevko (Human Genome Center, LBL) <stevko at genome.lbl.gov>
Subject: hydrogen peroxide
"DO NOT DRINK Hydrogen Peroxide! ... Honest- I did a thesis on a related
matter."
I won't dispute this, in general, but I'd like to note that hydrogen
peroxide can also be used to increase the oxygen content of water one
uses on house plants.
"Data point: Viruses don't respire aerobically or otherwise. An anaerobic
virus is a meaningless term."
I freely admit that this is outside my realm of expertise.
"Data point: Warts come and go, often spontaneously."
I can only report what I have experienced.
"In beer, hydrogen peroxide will kill your yeast. Remember, it's supposed
to stop infections?"
I'd guess this depends on the concentration. It seems possible to me that
as the hydrogen peroxide dissolved into solution, it would become too weak
to kill yeasts en masse, but still sufficient to oxygenate the solution,
at which time it might influence yeast production to surpass that growth
curve represented by the yeast population, had it not had hydrogen peroxide
added.
"Data point: There is a POISON label on that bottle oof peroxide. Why
might it be there? "
It's not. "Topical solution USP 3%". It's not data if you don't check.
"But do the reseearch before the experimentation with your health and life."
A reasonable request, but sometimes experimentation involves risk.
Others have pointed out the danger associated with free radicals, which are
the latest culprits in the search for the cause of ageing, and have pointed
me to some appropriate magazine articles. ( And I thank them. )
If it's any comfort, I donate blood about once a week, and they'd be the
first to let me know if there was anything wrong with my health. As it so
happens, I seem to have a very healthy cell count and blood chemistry ...
- -- richard
| |
| "A cloak is no longer a cloak if it does not keep one warm." |
| |
| richard childers pascal at netcom.com |
Return to table of contents
Date: 20 Aug 93 03:57:01 EST
From: "CANNON_TOM" <CANNON_TOM at hq.navsea.navy.mil>
Subject: Mash Out
Message Creation Date was at 20-AUG-1993 08:10:00
I've been a faithful HBD reader for about six months now
and, though this must be a FAQ, I've seen nothing addressing
the Mash Out Phase of all grain brewing. We've done about
20 all grain brews, and we always do the Mash Out either in
the Mash Tun or by Sparging in the Lauter Tun with 170 deg
water. I know what the Mash Out does for the grain (stop
enzyme activity) but what does it do for the resultant beer?
Is there a difference between mashing out in the mash tun
and lautering with 170 deg water? Bottom line: What is
being gained (or lost if we don't mash out)? TIA.
Tom Cannon
DH Brewery
Fairfax/Annandale VA
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 10:44:17 MDT
From: Jeff Benjamin <benji at hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Aeration
JS> The experiment seems to confirm the author's previous
JS> experience and points to the conclusion that the method of
JS> aeration used has no correlation with or effect on the time
JS> to onset of fermentation.
KB> ...I'll briefly point out that underaerated wort can have definite
KB> deleterious effects on the flavor of the beer (increased ester
KB> production, for one) and adverse effects on the speed of fermentation
KB> (read increased lag times and the resultant risk of contamination,
KB> prolonged fermentation times...
Information I have heard indicates that you're *both* right. The
scientific literature, with experiments presumably conducted much more
rigorously than Jack's, says aeration is important. Jack's experiment,
and anecdotal evidence from some homebrewers, indicates otherwise (at
least as far as lag times are concerned).
According to Jeff Lebesch, the owner of New Belgium Brewing, he uses a
stainless-steel airstone with pure O2 because he says you just can't get
the amount of oxygen you need from air. That, coupled with the fact
that an aquarium pump/airstone is probably not a very efficient way to
transfer O2 to the wort, indicates that *homebrewers, without special
equipment*, may not be able to get enough oxygen into the wort to make a
difference.
So I submit that the question is not whether O2 is important for yeast,
but whether homebrewers can oxygenate their wort sufficiently without
resorting to difficult or expensive methods. I'm ignorant of any data
that may prove or disprove this -- does anyone know the volume of air
pushed by an aquarium pump, what the efficiency of gas transfer might be
with an aquarium airstone, O2 vs other gases in air, etc.?
Personally, I've given up on aerating with an aquarium pump, as it
seemed to make no difference in my beer and, since I had no in-line
filter, I was worried about introducing airborne contaminants. YMMV.
- --
Jeff Benjamin benji at hpfcla.fc.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
"Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium."
- T.S. Eliot
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 11:16:12 -0700
From: Michael.Burgeson at Eng.Sun.COM (J. Michael Burgeson)
Subject: Aeration
Thanks Kinney for siting some good sources on the topic of wort
aeration! After reading Jack's article on his aquarium pump/lag time
experiment (HBD #1206, "WORT AERATION"), I meant to respond, but have
been too busy at work to gather information. So, I'm just going to
post without my sources at hand.
I think its important that we remember, as Kinney pointed out, that
poor lag time is not the only symptom of poor aeration. "Malting and
Brewing Science" referred to higher ester production. An article by
Dr. Fix in "Brewing Techniques" about diacetyl cited poor areation as a
possible cause of excess diacetyl production. I have also seen
references to increased fusel alcohols, and other undesirable
fermentation byproducts resulting from poor areation.
The ideal level of dissolved oxygen in wort at pitching time is 8
mg/l. Coincidentally, this is approximately the maximum dissolved
oxygen level you can obtain using air. This is why I have not started
using oxygen to areate my wort; by simply saturatiing my wort with air,
I am acheiving nearly the ideal dissolved oxygen level, without an
expensive dissolved oxygen meter.
As far as Jack's experimental results, I think it would have been
enlightening to measure the dissolved oxygen levels in his samples.
Due to the small size of his samples, there is proportionally much more
surface area exposed to the air during transfer than in a 5 gallon
sample. I feel that the dissolved oxygen levels in his samples may
have been closer to the same level than if 5 gallon samples were used.
Also, how did they taste Jack?
One last point: 50ml of starter ("working kraeusen" in Jack's words),
for a 500ml batch is an _adequate_ amount of yeast. Most homebrewers
under-pitch, since it is not practical to build up to a 2000ml starter
for a 5 gallon batch. Personally, I usually pitch from a 500-1000ml
starter. I know from working in a homebrew supply store tha many
people pitch far less; ie. the 50ml straight from a Wyeast packet.
The effects of improper aeration are multiplied when under-pitching.
I do not mean to slam Jack's experiment. It was a good controlled
experiment, but I think it is incomplete without knowing the dissolved
oxygen levels in the samples, and what the differences in the flavors
were.
- --mik
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 14:25:53 EDT
From: sims at pdesds1.scra.org (Jim Sims)
Subject: [SNYDERC at decus.org: RE: Irvine Brewpubs]
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 19:04:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Curtis P. Snyder 714-752-4760" <SNYDERC at decus.org>
Irvine has no brewpubs itself. However, Dana Point (about 15 miles South)
has Heritage Brewery, which is near the wharf area. I haven't been there,
but I have tried some of their beers bottled and they are pretty good.
Best recommendation however, is Goat Hill Tavern, in Costa Mesa. THey have
about 110 beers on tap, mostly microbrewery types, with a few big shops
(Coors, Bud) thrown in for the huddled masses. If you have time, Manhattan
Beach Brewery, on Manhattan Beach Blvd in Manhattan Beach, is really good,
with pizza that is perfect. They are about 30-45 minutes north of Irvine
on the 405 fwy (Dana Point is also on the 405, just south).
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 14:03:41 CDT
From: Gene Zimmerman <ezimmerm at hp.uwsuper.edu>
Subject: Need Keg Supplies.
Salutations!
I'm going to cornealius (sp?) keg my beer from now on and am in need
of some hardware. I would like anyone who thinks they have a good supplier
that mails please e-mail me with their address. I have a Pepsi type
keg and I think this is the "ball" lock type. Am I correct? Anyway,
I'm a student so this will have to be a relitavly cheap adventure.
Thanks in advance!
Gene in Laramie (formerly Duluth)
ezimmerm at hp.uwsuper.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 12:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com>
Subject: To blow-off or not to blow-off?
I have noted a number of beginning brewers and all-grain neophytes
(like myself) in the HBD lately, and I have a question that may be
of general interest to this group.
What is the feelings out there on whether to employ a blow-off
fermentaion or not? Just using a 7 gal carboy and not worrying
about boiling off enough to fit in a 5 gal carboy seems like a
lot less stress, but I've always used a blow-off in my extract brews.
And besides, all that brown tar just worries me.
Let's see public responses to this because I think it's of general
interest.
Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
venezia at zgi.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 16:17:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: WEIX at swmed.edu
Subject: Yeast FAQ Notice, CaCl2 info.
Hi HBD,
First off I would like to thank everyone for pointing out the
errors/oversights in my Yeast FAQ. Most of the points were valid, and I
appreciated the input from those with more experience than myself. I should
be posting the corrected version to the archives in about a week. If anyone
else has found errors or suspected errors, either with the technical info
or the yeast "flavor" data, please e-mail me.
To the gent looking for food-grade CaCl2: I doubt that you will find any.
The bottle at our lab reads, "Warning: Causes Irritation." This is not to
warn you off using it if you need to correct your water chemistry. I think
that the amounts used to alter the concentrations of Ca and Cl in water
to be used for brewing
will not irritate you (are you using Miller's section on water ions for
guidance?). Luckily, most lab grade products are more pure than food grade,
and you can get an analysis of any contaminant levels shipped with your
purchase. A good general source for chemicals is SIGMA.
Ordering is (800) 325-3010
Customer Service is (800) 325-8070
Technical Service is (800) 325-5832.
I don't know what their policies are about shipping to the public, but the
numbers are toll-free. I don't own any stocks, let alone stock in SIGMA,
etc. etc. Please check the contaminant levels, and buy the best grade you
need.
Here is my info for those who want to reach me about the Yeast FAQ.
Or anything else.
at at at at
(o o)
|----------------------ooO---(__)---Ooo----------------------|
| |
| Patrick Weix weix at swmed.edu |
| UT Southwestern Medical Center tel: (214) 648-5050 |
| 5323 Harry Hines Blvd fax: (214) 648-5453 |
| Dallas, TX 75235 |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|| ||
(__) (__)
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 17:59:51 -0500
From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
Subject: BRFWare Needed
Could I please get some kind soul to put the latest version (V1.1) of
_Brewer's Recipe Formulator_ on an ftp server somewhere??? The version on
the famous mthvax.cs.miami.edu is V1.0, and the author says numerous
improvements have been made...
thanks
t
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 22:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark S. Nelson" <mnelson at eis.calstate.edu>
Subject: Keg Conditioning
I would like to start keg conditioning my brews and was wondering if
someone could give me some information.
I need to know when I should rack my beer from the primary to the keg for
optimum carbonation. Is there a formula? I assume it would be based on
specific gravity readings.
Any help is appreciated.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.
Mark S. Nelson nelsonm at axe.humboldt.edu mnelson at eis.calstate.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 15:15:59 -0500
From: tmgierma at raphael.acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman)
Subject: yeast cultural hysteria
Well, well, well. After scanning through the ENCYCLOPEDIA MYCOLOGIA in HBD
#1207, what can one say but: "well, well, well." Yes, it was excessive and
uncalled for - more of an attempt to intimidate than educate, really.
There's no point in attempting to unshroud Mr. Weicht's thesis from its
thicket of scientific jargon and double-speak; for our purposes
(homebrewing, remember?) the point is really moot. For anyone really
interested in pursuing further information concerning yeast biochemistry,
genetics and (yes) taxonomy, I suggest that you start with a wonderful
little primer put together by one of this century's more noteworthy yeast
experts, namely: The Life of Yeasts by H.J. Phaff, M.W. Miller and E.M.
Mrak, 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1978. This
is a marvelously thorough, yet simple overview of yeasts, including:
historical aspects, morphology and vegitative reproduction, sporulation and
life cycles, genetics, metabolic activities, industrial uses (well, you get
the idea). Its straight forward approach makes it a pleasure to read for
both scientist and non-scientist alike, I'm sure. Check your large, local
university or public library.
On a more philosophical note, allow me to quote Phaff et al.,
Many controversies exist in viewpoints concerning
biological taxonomy. Some investigators are "splitters,"
those inclined to establish many species on the
basis of relatively minor differences, and others are
"lumpers," wishing to reduce the number of species.
I propose for the purposes of this forum, that we consider ourselves
"lumpers." It really does't matter what we call them, as long as everyone
understands what is being talked about. It becomes increasingly
meaningless in this forum to say it's this genus or that genus, etc, though
for lambics (Brettanomyces/Dekkera) we must make an exception. The point is
whether it has been used in brewing and what were the consequences. To this
end, I propose dispensing with scientific names as much as possible and
sticking with the common names, the ones that everyone understands and sees
displayed in the local homebrew store. Let's go even further: instead of
saying Wyeast #3056 or MeV 320 or whatever, why not, as has been previously
requested, refer to them as Wyeast Munich or Bavarian, or Bohemian (use the
number in parentheses) and eliminate cryptic references to its putative
source (these may be inaccurate). I think this would be far more useful to
those less familiar with the available cultures.
I have a second proposal that merges two suggestions brought up in the last
couple of issues: sharing yeast cultures via the network and Weihenstephan
68. In the realm of scientific research, as many of you are aware, it is
customary and considered "good form" to make all reagents available that
have been communicated through publication. Within reason, these are
freely made available gratis to any colleague who requests them. I think
that there are many individuals out there who would be quite eager to
obtain a culutre of Weihenstephan 68, myself included. This network offers
a wonderful means by which to distribute the culture, rather than wait
until who knows when for its release. Certainly, someone out there has an
agar slant full of this stuff. Therefore, I am proposing a Weihenstephan
68 chain letter, of a sort. It works like this: an individual with a
reliable culture announces it in the HBD; all others interested in
receiving a sample respond via private e-mail; each person responding
denotes themselves as a culturer (one who has the ability to make agar
slants and propagate the yeast) or a non-culturer (self-explanatory); the
first individual (a culturer himself) selects two non-culturers and one
culturer to receive the yeast on slants via first class mail; once the
designated culturer (recipient) recieves his slant, the information is
posted in the HBD and the process begins anew. Of course, non-culturers
have no further obligation other than to notify and thank the sender. Once
three cultures are shipped, the culturer is relieved of any further
obligation, unless colonies do not appear on the slant - then a new attempt
should be made. Slants should be streaked with more than one colony pick,
in case more than one strain is actually involved, and sent immediately
even before the colonies appear, they may ship better this way. This
process may take a while before eveyone who wants the culture actually
recieves it, but, because it spreads the burden of culturing and shipping,
it should be fairly painless. So, is there anyone out there who will come
forward with Weihenstephan 68? Put me down as a culturer.
Oh, yes, if you must flame me, flame me in the forum. Please don't waste
my time with private e-mail flames. Thank you.
Todd Gierman
Dept. of Microbiology
Duke University Medical Center
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 23:34:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Ligas <ligas at mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Subject: Canadian Amateur Brewers Association (CABA)
If anyone is interested in receiving information about that Canadian
Amateur Brewers Association (CABA) please send me private e-mail and I'll
gladly accomodate you. Take care.
Michael Ligas
Director, CABA
ligas at mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 20:22:14 -0600 (CDT)
From: jim at n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham)
Subject: a fantastic bock
Hey, this is a first...I actually have something other than a beginner's
question to post here!
A few weeks ago, I set out to brew what would be my first true departure
from kits and simple batches with a single tin of malt extract, dried malt
extract or corn sugar, hops, and yeast. And to make it really worth the
effort <grin>, I decided to (more or less) brew one of the recipes from
TNCJoHB, that being Papazian's Dr. Bock (p. 203).
Now, I couldn't get the exact quantities that he suggested, but I wasn't
particularly worried about that (I'm *NOT* one who follows recipes like
they're cast in stone). I did have to decide between using lager yeast,
and living with fermenting/aging at around 75 deg F, or just using ale
yeast and not worrying about it. I chose the ale yeast (after a lot of
debating the subject), based mainly on a comment in the book that said
``Don't be afraid to substitute ale yeast for lager yeast and vice-versa''
(p. 174).
Anyways, here's what it amounted to (for 5 gallons):
9 lb 6 oz (3 tins) of Superbrau amber malt extract syrup (*)
1/2 lb chocolate malt
2 oz Hallertauer hop pellets (boiling)
1/2 oz Hallertauer hop pellets (flavor)
2 pkgs ale yeast (**)
approx. 3/4 cup corn sugar (for bottling)
(*) Papazian calls for 8 lbs malt extract syrup
(**) Papazian calls for 1--2 pkgs lager yeast
Anyways, it's been in bottles now for just under 15 days, and even though
just about everyone I talk to says to expect a bock to take a *LONG* time
to age, it's already *WONDERFUL*!!! It's already the smoothest beer I've
ever brewed, and I've done what I consider to be some really good beer.
Scratch that...it's the smoothest beer/ale/whatever that I've ever tasted,
period. I can't wait to see what this batch is like after a couple of
months....what little of it is left, that is! :-)
The flavor is very smooth (creamy actually comes to mind as a better word),
with a lot of malt flavor, and just a hint of a chocolate flavor from the
chocolate malt. It has virtually no bitterness from the hops (other than
to offset the sweetness of the malt...which, if I read things right, means
I did something right! :-) ). It pours very nicely, with about a 2 cm
head, which holds up very nicely.
It does, however, pack a bit of a punch....much more so than any batch
I've brewed to date. :-) It's certainly a batch to be enjoyed in
moderation (which helps it to last longer, too!).
Oh well, just thought I'd pass this success story along. Later,
--jim
- --
#include <std_disclaimer.h> 73 DE N5IAL (/4)
- --------------------------< Running Linux 0.99 PL9 >--------------------------
INTERNET: jim at n5ial.mythical.com | j.graham at ieee.org ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
AMATEUR RADIO: (packet station temporarily offline) AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs).
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 93 03:00:43 PDT
From: LIFE'S TOO SHORT TO DRINK CHEAP BEER <UNDERWOOD at INTEL7.intel.com>
Subject: More questions
I brewed my second all grain the other day and differed my procedure just
a little. Now the questions. Usually I boil, siphon the wort into a plastic
primary and let sit overnight to settle/cool. The next morning this gets
racked into the carboy, yeast added, etc.
This batch I used an immersion chiller to cool and then straight into the
carboy it went. The first method usually leaves about an inch of trub in
the bottom of the bucket. With the chiller, I left a lot of stuff in
suspension. Which is the better method?
Also with that previous batch I saved some of the slurry in a mason jar.
Unfortunately the garage fridge got unplugged, now the lid is bowed.
Is this yeast bad? I will have more slurry here in a day or two.
Whats the proper method for saving this stuff?
Thanks for the help, Chuck
Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1209, 08/23/93