HOMEBREW Digest #1595 Sat 03 December 1994

Digest #1594 Digest #1596

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Fermentor Geometry Again ("Manning Martin MP")
  Re:  Liquid Yeast ("Charles S. Jackson")
  airlock methodology (John DeCarlo              )
  Microscope question (John T Faulks)
  Overcarbonation of Fruit Beers (John DeCarlo              )
  Siphoning blowoff tubes, airlock filling,secondary aeration ("nancy e. renner")
  Aeriation/HSA temps/beer tasting (Jim Busch)
  Re: Yeast starters (Jim Blue)
  Re: Liquid Yeast & Starters (Mark E. Thompson)
  Belgian Tickle (ESMPD)" <gcunning at Census.GOV>
  Re: Labeling of Brews (Spencer.W.Thomas)
  Grant's Imperial Stout (Steve Armbrust)
  Less common hop varieties / beer travel (uswlsrap)
  Re: Labeling of Brews, spiced beers (Jeff Benjamin)
  re: campagne bottles ("Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616")
  Re: Shearing Proteins ("Shane Allen Snyder")
  Summary: Capping Champagne Bottles (Stephen Tinsley)
  Re: Roller Mills - again (Dion Hollenbeck)
  Czech Pils yeast (Wyeast #2278) for Bocks and Oktoberfests? (Joe McCarthy)
  Limited Water Analysis 7 Mash pH (Young, Douglas )
  fermentor geometry/brown malt?/wort aeration (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Bottling with champagne bottles (Ian Kirk Quigley)
  1st Brew - Problems and comments ("Patrick E. Humphrey 708-937-3295")

****************************************************************** * NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** 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. FAQs, archives and other files 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: 1 Dec 1994 09:23:03 U From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp at mcst.ae.ge.com> Subject: Fermentor Geometry Again More on the subject of fermentor geometry... >From Hough, Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing, p. 129: "With very tall vessels, strong circulatory currents develop during fermentation. Evolution of a bubble of carbon dioxide at the base of the vessel where hydrostatic pressure is high is followed by a rapid rise of as much as 20 m to the surface. This encourages the upward flow of fermenting wort except near the vessel perimeter where the flow tends to be downwards, helped by the action of the cooling jackets. The strong circulatory currents speed up fermentation and therefore ale fermentations are usually completed in 3 days or less, and lager fermentations in 3-6 days, depending on the temperature". So, here we have a case where the behavior is opposite to that described by G. Fix, who noted a more than two-fold increase in fermentation time. Note that this is a very tall tank Hough is describing (65 feet!), which is driven to a desired internal temperature by a cooling jacket. The primary influence on the yeast behavior is the strong stirring action, rather than the physical proportions or depth of the vessel. I suspect a lower peak fermentation temperature for the soda keg in Fix's quarter-barrel Vs soda keg experiment is the reason for the effects observed. If the soda keg cooled more rapidly after pitching, the longer lag could be explained as well. George? Maybe highly flocculent yeast would do better in tall vessels due to the rousing effects? Maybe, given that most of us can only set ambient temperatures, a soda keg's internal temperature could be more closely controlled than that of a carboy or beer keg? Hmm... MPM Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 8:51:54 CST From: "Charles S. Jackson" <sjackson at ftmcclln-amedd.army.mil> Subject: Re: Liquid Yeast on Wed, 30 Nov 1994 Martin Snow <SNOW at lyrae.colorado.edu> wrote: - ------------snip snip snip------- >My own (anecdotal) evidence indicates that a 2 quart starter for a 5 gallon >batch makes a huge improvement in flavor. OK call me a creton, but after reading all the recent discussion about starter volumes I am still confused. I thought if I just kept reading it would become apparent, but it hasn't and so I must be a creton. The question: When someone says, '...a 2 qt starter...', are they referring to the total volume of the starter or the volume of the dregs that are harvested/collected and pitched. The first all grain batch here at the Outlaw Picobrewery is scheduled for next weekend and it will employ our first use of liquid yeast, so needless to say, the staff here is very excited. If you believe me to be the only creton here then e-mail is best, but if you suspect that others are equally confused then I can bare the shame of seeing the easy answers to my silly questions posted publicly. Steve - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brewing beer is far more exiting when it is both a hobby AND a felony. The Alabama Outlaw Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:22:04 EST From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo at homebrew.mitre.org> Subject: airlock methodology dweller at GVSU.EDU (RONALD DWELLE) wrote: John DeCarlo wrote: "Also, if you correctly fill an S-shaped airlock, you will have *zero* worries about liquid going in or out." So. How do you correctly fill an S-shaped airlock? They tend to have three spherical sections on two of the vertical sections (the one opening to the top and the middle one). Each of those should be filled so that the liquid comes up about halfway on the middle spherical section. Less is OK, too. Too much more and vigorous bubbling of air from outside could push liquid into the fermenter. I am ASCII-graphics impaired, so I hope this description is adequate. BTW, when I prepare a starter, I put the airlock on while the starter wort is still boiling. If you put this in cool air or even cool water, the speed and violence of the air inflow is amazing. Don't do this with those weird airlocks. John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:22:03 -0500 From: faulks at bng.ge.com (John T Faulks) Subject: Microscope question I have seen numerous references to using a microscope to look at yeast cells. These toys come in all sizes and budgets. What do you really need? 400X, 600X, 1000X? Light polarizer? Staining dye? Other things I am to dumb to ask about? Bottom line is - would a cheapo kids microscope in a science kit from the local toy & hobby store or better still a yard sale work? John Faulks Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 10:30:43 -0500 From: RLANCASTER at ntia.doc.gov Subject: Stouts A friend of mine, commenting on my sign-off content, came up with this idea. Did you ever stop to consider that a good stout doesn't look (and some people would say taste) a whole lot different than used motor oil? Maybe there is some connection there that the Brits don't want us to know about. ??? |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||Randy Lancaster | Tel:202-482-4487 || ||National Telecommunications | Fax:202-482-4396 || ||and Information Administration| rlancaster at ntia.doc.gov || ||Department of Commerce, USA | 1967 MGB # 128,471 || |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| || Heaven: home brew in Maryland, while remembering...its || || not an oil leak, its British flow through lubrication! || |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:34:14 EST From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo at homebrew.mitre.org> Subject: Overcarbonation of Fruit Beers >Also, fruit beers will often come out over carbonated. It has been theorized >that the complex sugars in the fruit take longer to be eaten by the >yeast. This results in excess carbonation in bottles that age more than >a few weeks. (Anyone else notice this?) I haven't noticed it. Perhaps there is a common thread of how it might happen? (Too little time in the secondary; fresh, unwashed fruit added to the secondary or primary; something else?). My fruit beers lately have been by adding freshly frozen fruit to the secondary. They have been consumed within six months with no signs of extra carbonation. My first raspberry beer (in Cat's Meow) lasted over three years with no signs of extra carbonation and great raspberry flavor and aroma--that was made by pitching freshly frozen raspberries into the brewpot, cooling in a sink of cold water, fermenting in the primary a week or two, then aging in the secondary about a month. My hunch is that people forget that the sugars in the fruit will be fermented by the yeast. I would always let fruit beers age about a month in the secondary, just to be safe. Then you shouldn't have to worry about overcarbonation later. No guarantees, though. John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:37:43 -0500 (EST) From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Siphoning blowoff tubes, airlock filling,secondary aeration (From *Jeff* Renner) Victor Daveikis says you should start out with a blowoff even if you're going to use a airlock, because *it* won't siphon all the way back to your carboy. Sorry to be contrary, but I'm here to tell you it can and will, if there is enough negative pressure. This happened to me once with a small diameter blowoff (connected to a rubber stopper in a Sankey, which is why I didn't use a 1" dia. tube). I caught it just in time. The other time *was* with a 1" tube. I saw that the bleach water was more than half way up the tube, so I pulled the end out of the bucket. Big mistake. I should have removed the other end from the carboy, because a bubble rose up thru the tube, pushing a bit of bleach water ahead of it, into the wort! I titrated out the concentration of the bleach water, guessed at the amount that went into the wort, and estimated the concentration there to be a few 10's ppb. No matter. The beer was undrinkable from chlorophenols. So my advise is the opposite of Victor's. Start with an airlock, then switch when you have positive pressure, but before blowoff begins. I also try to cool my beer to the ambient temperature to minimize negative pressure. *** So, Ron Dwelle wants to know how should you fill a one piece air lock. Halfway, Ron. (And to the person who wondered where Ron's "GVSU" address is, that's Grand Valley State University near Grand Rapids). *** Bryan Gros understands that air (and oxygen) is his beer's enemy in the primary after fermentation, but is unclear whether it is a problem in the secondary, such as during racking. You betcha, Bryan. After the initial aeration, do all you can to avoid it. CO2 blanketing is a good idea. Jeff in Ann Arbor, Mich c/o nerenner at umich.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:47:01 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: Aeriation/HSA temps/beer tasting I read with interest Dr. Raines methods of pitching and aeriating wort. It is quite similar to what I have been doing. A few points are different, though. An important point involved the difference between a air bubbler and pure O2, certainly bubble times will differ between a 20% O2 and ~100% O2. Since I use a tank, I begin to aeriate as soon as some chilled wort is in my fermenter. I usually run this for the complete duration of the filling of the fermenter, which in my brewery takes about 40 minutes (if the head space in the fermenter allows, this goes on for about 60-70 minutes, while I clean up). I pitch thick slurry about 10-20 minutes into the filling of the fermenter. This allows the yeast to respire the additional O2 during the remainder of the filling time. Works great. Al wrote: <Also, regarding HSA, the commonly accepted temperature above which it <is not recommended to introduce air/oxygen is 80F, not 140F. While this may be true, it is important to remember this is a upward curve, as the temp increases to boiling, the effects of HSA are increased. So, splashing at 80F has little effect as compared to splashing above 140. As for a beer tasting, a lot depends on your location since this will affect your options, but, here's something I think would work. 1. Celis White, good palate cleanser 2. Old Dominion Ale, or another balanced pale ale, hold off on the aggressive stuff at first! 3. Tabernash Wheat or Baltimore Brewing Weizen or Paulaner HefeWeizen 4. Pilsner Urquell or a quality Pils. 5. Fullers ESB, or Youngs London Special, or Sam Smiths Pale Ale 6. Duvel, Orval, Saison Dupont or even Chimay Rouge 7. Sierra Nevada Porter 8. Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale or Anchor Liberty or Dominion Hop Pocket 9. Paulaner Salvator or Spatan Optimator or Dominion Dominator or Baltimore Brewing Doppelbock. 10.Rogue Old Crustacean or Sierra Nevada Bigfoot or Dominion Millennium For those still standing upright in their chair, a 1.5 litre magnum of Brugge Trippel! Have fun, Jim Busch Colesville, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:45:24 -0500 From: blue at cam.nist.gov (Jim Blue) Subject: Re: Yeast starters People have been giving a lot of useful anecdotal information about using yeast starters recently, but it's less useful than it might be. A "one quart starter" doesn't tell all: What was the OG of the starter? To first approximation, a 1.020 starter allows half as much total yeast growth as a 1.040 starter. Is a one-quart 1.040 starter equivalent to a two-quart 1.020 starter? Was an airlock used on the starter? Aerobic and anaerobic growth of starters give different results. (Brewers Resource suggests aerobic growth with their yeast starter kit, with only a sheet of aluminum foil over the top of the flask. Others have suggested anaerobic growth.) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 10:48:52 EST From: ustcclj3 at ibmmail.com Subject: IN HBD 1593 Steve Tinsley asked about Party Pigs, What I have read about them so far is that some people really love them and others hate them. I don't have any experience either way so I can't help you there. What I do know is that The Home Brewery in Kentucky( I'm not sure if the other Home Brewery stores in the chain are doing it) has just started a Beer of the month club. What they do is sell you a party pig and 2 kits, a Pilsner and Stout I think, for either $59 or $69 bucks. These kits are designed to be fermented and stored in the Pig and are 2 1/2 gallons I believe. Then every month or whatever time frame you would like, they send you another kit. I believe the prices for the kits are $12.95 for regular kits and I think $15.95 for a Barlywine kit. The initial kit comes with all of the attachments etc. and looks pretty good. I don't remember the phone number right off hand, but it was listed in the 1 800 list a couple of weeks ago. As for The Home Brewery itself, they have always been good to me with orders, and the UPS usually gets to me (Kentucky --> Georgia) in 2-4 days. They also have an extract called Yellow Dog extract that I think is incredible. BTW, they also list all of the ingredients on all of their store made extracts(which I have never seen anywhere else) and their extracts come in a bag in the box(like soft drink syrups) which IMHO doesn't waste as much extract at brew time. I hope this helps, and if you can't find the phone number somewhere, email me back and I will send it to you. Richard Getteau USTCCLJ3 at IBMMAIL.COM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Message From : GETTEAU, RICHARD * * Location : US-ATLANTA(OFACSERV) * * KOMAIL ID : A09967 (OFACSERV) * * Date and Time: 12/01/94 10:27:04 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 7:55:59 PST From: Mark E. Thompson <markt at hptal04.cup.hp.com> Subject: Re: Liquid Yeast & Starters Full-Name: Mark E. Thompson Martin Snow writes: >So the old saying that liquid yeasts will improve your brew is only true if >you make a starter. If you don't make a starter culture, you might as well >use a dry yeast. I'm getting back in to brewing after some 10 years. What i remember from my experience back then, when it was harder to find good liquid yeast, is that just using a starter improved the quality of my beer. I was using redstar ale yeast in a starter and getting very good results. So it may be more a function of the starter than of the liquid v. dry. - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Mark E. Thompson |Internet: markt at cup.hp.com | | Hewlett-Packard Company |FAX: 408/447-4729 | | Distributed Computing Program |Tel: 408/447-5185 | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:19:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Cunningham (ESMPD)" <gcunning at Census.GOV> Subject: Belgian Tickle Hello everybody, I recently made an extract Belgian Ale, based on the "Belgian Tickle" recipe in THBC (except I added more malt/hops to make it a "double-tickle" ;*). This is the first time I've used the Wyeast Belgian Ale yeast, and also probably my strongest brew to date, so I had a few questions for you mighty brew-gods on the hbd. 1. Is the Wyeast 1214 the same as the Wyeast Belgian that is in the yeast FAQ? (in the faq it has a different number). 2. Upon racking to the secondary, it tasted majorly banana-ee with a hint of the bubble-gum flavor mentioned in the FAQ. Do these flavors change over time? How much time? I also detected (I think) some clove taste in there (very faint). Does this change with time? 3. When bottling/kegging, do I need to add fresh yeast? Would dry yeast be O.K. at this stage? (oh yeah - OG was 1075, at racking it was 1015. That puts it around 8%, right?) Thanks, Jerry Cunningham Annapolis, MD PS I HATE the %$# at &ing vi editor. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 11:29:53 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Re: Labeling of Brews Gary McCarthy wrote about Labeling of Brews: > label goes in the trash with the used cap. You do mean "in the recycling" don't you? That's where all my caps go. =S Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 08:49:11 PST From: Steve Armbrust <Steve_Armbrust at ccm.co.intel.com> Subject: Grant's Imperial Stout Text item: Text_1 A couple of days ago, I posted a recipe for a Grant's Imperial Stout clone: > *Two 3.3 lb cans Edme SFX dark unhopped extract > *Two 4 lb cans Alexanders unhopped extract > 3 lbs M&F dark dry extract > 1 lb clover honey > 1/2 lb chocolate malt > 1/2 lb roasted barley > 5 oz cascade hops (in boil for 60 minutes) > 1 oz bullion hops (dry hopped for 3-4 days) > Wyeast 1084 Irish ale yeast I just copied the recipe from my 1989 brewers log without looking too closely. As several have pointed out, there seems to be way too much malt. Funny thing, that's the way I remember brewing it, because it was so expensive. Obviously, my gravity figures were off. It would have a much higher OG than 1.075. Of course, I could have been drinking too much home brew and imagined the entire thing. But I didn't intend the post as a joke. Anyway, for your own peace of mind, try a lighter version and use one can of Edme and Alexanders instead of two. Steve Armbrust in Portland, OR Steve_Armbrust at ccm.hf.intel.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 11:54:56 EST From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: Less common hop varieties / beer travel - -------------------- Mail Item Text Follows ------------------ To: I1010141--IBMMAIL From: Bob Paolino Research Analyst Subject: Less common hop varieties / beer travel At our weekly meeting last night, someone was getting a club hop order together. There were a few varieties that I ordered out of curiosity. Any details on characteristics and, where applicable, your experiences in using them, would be appreciated (by me and probably also other readers) Northdown (Ireland), Lublin (Poland), Streisspissel (I'm sure I've spelled that wrong) (France) Thanks, hopheads! - - - - - - - NOW FOR ANOTHER TOPIC: I'd like to toss in a suggestion for a Beer Travel Digest. I think it's perfectly legitimate for HBDers to post requests for information on possible beer adventures in city x, and then ask for private email. I also know that some people do and some people don't like to read beer travelogues following someone's trip. Why not have a separate digest for that very purpose? (No, I'm not volunteering. First, although I may be gigabytes ahead of my computerphobic more senior colleagues, my computer competency is really only about average for people of my age and education. Second, I don't have access to facilities that would enable me to do it even if I were so inclined.) People could still post travel information requests to HBD if they wanted, but those who want to share their beer-o-logues and those who want to read them would have a forum devoted to it. Probably you would want to have separate North American, European, et cetera digests. I don't travel very much, regardless of what some people in our club might think (but when I do, I seek out beer opportunities when feasible and share the liquid fruits of my adventures, and that might be how people get their impressions of my travel habits), so I would probably want to stick to the North American stuff. (Not that I would mind travelling farther afield, but it's too expensive.) Similarly, someone in New Zealand or the UK might not really care to have to page down through tales of places in North America they aren't likely to visit except at great expense. If you wanted to read about other continents, you could subscribe to all the travel digests. Don't suggest that USENET groups like alt.beer, et cetera could serve that function, because a lot of people with email do _not_ have posting access to USENET and some may not even have read access. So whaddya think? I look forward to reading the discussion. (To the HBD brew_ing_ purists: think of the bandwidth spent on this discussion as a long term investment in moving some of the beer-but-not-brewing discussion elsewhere.) Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace /uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 9:57:57 MST From: Jeff Benjamin <benji at hpfcbug.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: Labeling of Brews, spiced beers > some self-adhesive circles from the stationery store(I hate those mobile > stores!) bottle the brew, and number the circles and stick it to the bottle > cap. I can open a case and see the numbers of the batch. Then I know that > 14 is a Brown Beer, and 15 is a Stout. Why not save a step and a few dollars and a few trees and just write directly on the bottle cap? I use a Sharpie permanent laundry marker to scribble directly on the cap. I write one to three letters or numbers, identifying the beer by type or recipe rather than by number, e.g. P for porter, B2 for brown ale #2, IPA for India Pale Ale. Makes it easier to remember what's what without having to refer to your brewing log. I then put one sticker on the bottle case with the full name and bottling date, so the info is handy when I pull one out to drink. > Spiced holiday beers A note about spiced beers. If you put whole spices (cinnamon stick, cloves) into your fermenter along with the beer, like I do, don't leave them there too long. This year's holiday ales were left in the primary with the whole spices for about 2 weeks, which is over a week longer than I have left them in the past. Both batches came out with some unpleasant astringency, possibly due to tannins and other undesirable compounds leaching out of the wood or woody parts once the alcohol content rose. For folks who haven't yet made a spiced ale but would like to try, my typical method is to brew a spice "tea" by simmering the whole spices in a quart of water for 30min, then adding the tea and spices to the primary fermenter. If you rack to a secondary soon (after ~5 days), this works wonderfully. If you don't rack, you should probably increase the amount of spices slightly and add the tea only (some folks add the tea immediately before bottling or kegging rather than in the fermenter). This should still give you good results, and avoid the harshness I experienced. - -- Jeff Benjamin benji at 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: Thu, 1 Dec 94 13:03:24 EST From: "Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616" <wagnecz at PICA.ARMY.MIL> Subject: re: campagne bottles Steve- Repost of a msg I sent to the HBD last week. This should help. Stephen Tinsley writes: >Subject: Capping champaigne bottles >I've got another question... I read in Papazian's book that you can cap Champaigne bottles. My question is ... how? Will standard sized bottle caps work, or do they make some bigger caps that will fit the bigger neck size of the champaigne bottle? I would like to be able to bottle in .750 L bottles like that, but I would like to be able to recycle used bottles. If I get enough responses I'll post a summary. TIA. "Sluggers" can be had at any recycle center (check the green bin). Like a returnable, they can be capped by any lever capper and most of the arbor style cappers with the standard caps. There are a few brands that have a slightly larger diameter and can't be used, so take along a cap to test the one's you suspect. These are some of the brands I have found to work: 25 OZ: - Korbel Brut - Martenelli Sparkling Cider - Ballatori Grand Spumanti - Maison Duetz Brut Rose - Great Western New York Champagne - Andre Dry Champagne - Eden Roc Brut - Andre Cold Duck - Totts Blanc De Noir - Espirit Sparkling Red Grape Juice - Chateau St. Jean I personally prefer the Korbel Brut and the Martinelli Cider bottles, they are nice and dark and robust. Just don't bonk anybody with one! A myriad of 22 oz beer bottles are also out there, amonst them Sam Adams Tripple Bock, Rogue Red Ale, Oasis Red Ale, etc. Again, go to your nearest recycle center, especially around the holidays. I have been told that the green glass doesn't even have any recycle value for these centers; its just cheaper to dispose when separated from the main waste stream. It's also handy to bring a "pick stick", which is a ten foot pole (1 inch pine bannister), with a piece of 1/8 to 1/4" rod bent in a hook taped to it to snag those hard to get (middle of the dumpster) bottles. Glen Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 14:53:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Shane Allen Snyder" <snyders2 at student.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Shearing Proteins > When I was working on my PhD thesis in polymer science, we used to prepare > solutions of polystyrene in toluene. When we mixed up the solutions, we > before and after stirring. There was no noticable effect. > > Since we were stirring for a long time, since our molecules were longer > than the proteins found in beer (I'm just guessing here, but the PS > we used had a molecular weight of 390,000), and since our concentrations > of PS were much greater than proteins in beer, I'd have to say that I don't > think you get much appreciable protein 'breaking' from shaking your keg. > > The main chain bond in polystyrene is a C-H bond, same as a protein, > right? So I don't think protein molecules are inherently 'weaker' than > polystyrene molecules... > Well, the bonds that break in a protein are peptide bonds (C-N) not C-C and are weaker than the forementioned polymer bonds. So I would not believe the polymer analogy... Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 14:27:27 CST From: a207613 at sun278.dseg.ti.com (Stephen Tinsley) Subject: Summary: Capping Champagne Bottles First of all, thanks very much to everyone who replied to my questions about capping champagne bottles. I got about a million responses, all friendly, and all helpful (ain't the hbd great?) The general consensus is that champagne bottles (I spelled it wrong yesterday) are an excellent way to bottle beer, and that American bottles work and foreign bottles don't. One of the US army's finest, Glen Wagnecz, X6616, included a list of brands he has found to work... "Sluggers" can be had at any recycle center (check the green bin). Like a returnable, they can be capped by any lever capper and most of the arbor style cappers with the standard caps. There are a few brands that have a slightly larger diameter and can't be used, so take along a cap to test the one's you suspect. These are some of the brands I have found to work: 25 OZ: - Korbel Brut - Martenelli Sparkling Cider - Ballatori Grand Spumanti - Maison Duetz Brut Rose - Great Western New York Champagne - Andre Dry Champagne - Eden Roc Brut - Andre Cold Duck - Totts Blanc De Noir - Espirit Sparkling Red Grape Juice - Chateau St. Jean I personally prefer the Korbel Brut and the Martinelli Cider bottles, they are nice and dark and robust. Just don't bonk anybody with one! A myriad of 22 oz beer bottles are also out there, amonst them Sam Adams Tripple Bock, Rogue Red Ale, Oasis Red Ale, etc. Again, go to your nearest recycle center, especially around the holidays. I have been told that the green glass doesn't even have any recycle value for these centers; its just cheaper to dispose when separated from the main waste stream. It's also handy to bring a "pick stick", which is a ten foot pole (1 inch pine bannister), with a piece of 1/8 to 1/4" rod bent in a hook taped to it to snag those hard to get (middle of the dumpster) bottles. Glen Thanks to Glen for some great info. I'm going to the recycle center this afternoon. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 12:20:15 PST From: hollen at megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) Subject: Re: Roller Mills - again >>>>> "Steve" == STROUD <STROUD%GAIA at cliffy.polaroid.com> writes: Steve> In HBD #1592, JS again tells us how lousy the plastic gears Steve> on the Glatt mill are. Steve> Greg Glatt must have been listening, because according to a Steve> local homebrew supply store (the Modern Brewer) he is now Steve> shipping his mills with metal gears. Having read this, I immediately called Glatt to upgrade. I was told that there are no metal gears. The latest gears are toughened nylon with something embedded in it to add strength. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:38:13 -0500 From: Joe McCarthy <jmccarth at stimpy.cs.umass.edu> Subject: Czech Pils yeast (Wyeast #2278) for Bocks and Oktoberfests? I just reread Roger Bergen's article on "Oktoberfest Alternatives" in the second issue of Brewing Techniques (July/August 1993), where he quotes David Logsdon of Wyeast Laboratories as recommending the Wyeast #2278 strain (Czech Pils) for Oktoberfests (Marzen) and Bocks. My basement temperature fell below 55 degrees last week, signalling the beginning of "lager season". My brewing partner and I brew about once a month, so I figure we can fit in four or maybe five lagers this winter. We were planning to brew a Czech-style Pilsner, a Dunkel, a Doppelbock and an Oktoberfest, and now it appears that we can use the same yeast for all four! I find it hard to believe that a yeast that works well in a Czech-style Pilsner would also be good for Bocks and Oktoberfests. However, we did brew a Maibock last March with the Bavarian Lager yeast (Wyeast #2206), and it does have a pronounced fruitiness; I had attributed this to a high final gravity (1.026, from an OG of 1.066), but perhaps this corroborates David Logsdon's assertion that this yeast strain develops "too much fruitiness in high gravity beers." I would welcome any feedback from brewers who have used this yeast (or the 2206 strain, of which I still have 3 cultures) in brewing any of these styles of beer, especially if they have experience with other strains of yeast in these styles. Thanks. Joe. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu Dec 1 16:10:46 1994 From: <DYOUNG at fcc.gov> (Young, Douglas ) Subject: Limited Water Analysis 7 Mash pH I have brewed three all-grain batches after 2-3 years of extract brewing. The end products have ranged from fair to good, IMHO. In all three the mash pH was around 5.8 at saccharification temperatures. Books that I have read suggest that for proper extraction, a pH of 5.4 (or perhaps lower) is desirable. The first two batches had extraction rates of 26 & 30pts*gal/lb. I am not really complaining about this, but in endeavoring to improve the third batch (a dunkel weizen, brew date 11/26/94), I added 3 tsp of gypsum and was able to lower the pH to 5.6. Not knowing how much gypsum I could add without drastically affecting flavor, that is where I stopped. The grain bill for 5 gal was: 5 lb wheat malt 3 lb 10L Munich malt 1.5 lb Klages pale malt 1.25 lb 64L crystal malt Since I wasn't using any dark roasted grain, I wasn't expecting help in lowering pH that way. Background water info: I use well water with a conditioning system that includes a filter and softener. Per HBD advice from Jeff Renner, I bypass the softener to eliminate sodium. I don't have the luxury of asking a local water authority for a free analysis. I called some private labs and they would charge $25-$50 per ion or other test. I then decided to see what I could find out from the company that sold me the conditioning system. They could do some tests, but I couldn't really expect much technical help since the guy doing the testing was a sales weeny that knew less about water chemistry than I did. Anyway, the numbers that they were able to give me were: Hardness - 103 ppm Total Alkalinity - 130 ppm Total Dissolved Solids - 220 ppm pH - 7.0 Iron - 0 ppm I also did some testing with a home aquarium kit. These tests were for general hardness (GH) and carbonate hardness (KH). Results: GH - 1 degree dH (don't know this unit) KH - 5 degrees dH By the way, when I boil water I don't notice any precipitate that forms, so I don't think that I have a lot of bicarbonates. Questions: 1) Can anybody interpret these limited results in a meaningful way and suggest ways to improve my brewing water? 2) How much gypsum or CaCl2 can one use without ruining the desired taste profile of the beer? Sorry for the long post, but an inquiring mind wants to know. TIA. Doug Young Annapolis, MD dyoung at fcc.gov Return to table of contents
Date: 30 Nov 94 22:23:00 GMT From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: fermentor geometry/brown malt?/wort aeration Martin writes: >Bill Szymczak <wszymcz%ulysses at relay.nswc.navy.mil> wrote: >A few issues ago Al Korzonas commented on my experiment with blow-off use. >>I'm afraid that this was not an ideal experiment. You see, the two >>sub-batches have varying fermentor geometries -- the partially full carboy >>being similar to a short, squat fermentor. George Fix has reported that the >>effect of fermentor geometry can be a significant factor for some yeast as >>has de Clerck. >I would say that this experiment was a good and practical one for Bill and >for most of us, as I don't think we have any real choice of fermentor >geometry. In this case, you either fill the carboy up enough to cause a >blow-off or you don't. That aside, I would even go so far as to conjecture >that the minor difference of a few inches in the depth of the fermenting beer >is insignificant. If you will recall the original post, Bill said: >ago in the HBD, supports your line of thought. I pitched my yeast starter >into a 6 1/2 gallon batch of SG 1.041 Special Bitter, then racked into two >5 gallon carboys, filling one to about 3 inches from the top. One 5-gallon fermenter, filled within 3 inches of the top leaves about 1 3/8 gallons in the other fermenter. This is not an insignificant difference in fermenter geometry. My contention was not simply one regarding the validity of the flavour differences (which may be rather minor, depending on the hop rate and other variables), but on the other data that Bill presented, namely fermentation time and finishing gravity: >After 10 days (66F) the non-blowoff batch was finished >with a SG of 1.011, while the blowoff batch was still at 1.020. I bottled the >non-blowoff batch and reracked the blowoff batch and let it sit in secondary >for another 10 days, then bottled with a FG=1.013. Martin continues: >Even considering the use of soda kegs and quarter-barrels, which span the >likely height and height/diameter's of vessels used by amateurs, it's hard to >believe that there could be much effect. Admittedly, the convection currents >produced within the various tanks will differ somewhat, and possibly increase >or decrease stirring action during the ferment. You are simply guessing. My post was based upon DeKlerck's published research and personal communications with George Fix which I am not at liberty to quote without permission since the research was funded and thus the data proprietary (to the best of my knowledge). George may be able to provide more information, but I cannot. >More important, in my >opinion, is that the distance that the flocculating yeast must fall (i.e., >time it is in suspension) is not much different; these are all very shallow >(by commercial standards) vessels. I'm not familiar with the information Al >cites from Fix (enlighten me, somebody), but the references to extreme >fermentor geometries in the professional texts are usually concerned with >very tall (>20 ft high) vertically-oriented cylindrical tanks as compared to >shorter (~10 ft?) cylindrical tanks, cylindrical tanks laid on their sides, >and the rather shallow open fermentors used in Europe or like those at >Anchor. The vessels used by us amateurs are never any deeper than the >shallowest of these. The geometry differences do not have to be so great. How do you explain the difference in FG in Bill's experiment? All from blowoff? I would not be so sure without having done the same experiment with similar-geometry fermentors. ************* Maribeth writes: >I am looking for a commercial source of brown malt. I know this was >discussed about a year ago. and I'm looking for some to brew an >original british porter. How about DeWolf-Cosyns Aromatic? It's got enough enzymes to convert itself and is about 25 Lovibond. Note that DWC Biscuit does NOT have enough enzymes left to convert itself and is actually a toasted malt like Briess's Victory, but is 2-row based. Maribeth continues: >There are several things which suggest at least to me, to aerate after >pitching. First is that the *maximum* amount of oxygen that can be >dissolved in cooled wort is 8 ppm. George Fix was the first to bring >this point up and has very convincing data. I have done my own >experiments with similar results. If you look at the textbooks, most >yeast require 8-12 ppm and some lager yeast require 20 ppm of oxygen. >This raises an interesting question. How do you supply more oxygen >than you can dissolve? Well I personally believe the answer is to 8 ppm is the maximum amount of O2 that can be dissolved in cooled wort when using *air*. When using oxygen, you can dissolve quite a bit more than that and, I if I recall correctly, excessive amounts of dissolved oxygen ( >30ppm comes to mind, but I cannot find the reference) can even be detremental to yeast. I do agree, however, that aeration with air during the first part of respiration will lead to healthier yeast ("tougher skins" so to speak, as Domenick wrote) and subsequently healthier ferments. Aeration "too late" would most likely result in elevated diacetyl and aldehyde levels, but I don't know how late is "too late." Incidentally, there was some talk on HBD a few years ago regarding the yeast's use of cold break in place of oxygen for sterol synthesis. Perhaps leaving the cold break during respiration can compensate for dissolved oxygen deficiencies in high-gravity ferments? My gut feeling, after having just typed this, is no, but it might be worth a few experiments. Personally, I brew only ales and my aeration is limited to the pouring of the cooled wort into the fermenter via a big funnel, but my ferments (in "normal" OG worts) are healthy. Two very high-gravity brews (1120 and 1100 OG) did have sluggish finishes, which were probably related to underaeration. I do plan to build an aquarium pump-based aeration system for some upcoming high-gravity experiments, however. On a related note, I believe that yeast propagators have either oxygen or air continuously injected. This is from a personal communication with Mike Sharp from a couple of years ago, so don't recall all the details. Mike? Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:28:55 -0600 (CST) From: Ian Kirk Quigley <ianq at owlnet.rice.edu> Subject: Bottling with champagne bottles Just wanted to mention to be sure you've got one of those knife- swtich style bottle cappers for the champagne bottles. I had an unfortunate incident with the scissors-style where the the round metal semicircles on the outside, normally made for clenching the top of a typical beer bottle, cinched up quickly on the wider bottleneck and snapped off the top, spraying glass everywhere. Pretty messy, especially if you're barefoot in the bathroom like I usually am when I bottle -- so you might want to test it out with an empty bottle first (You need two people to finish one of those off cold anyway). Ian Quigley Baker 151, Rice University Houston, Texas 77005-1891 ianq at owlnet.rice.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 15:56:00 -0600 (CST) From: "Patrick E. Humphrey 708-937-3295" <HUMPHREY.PATRICK at igate.abbott.com> Subject: 1st Brew - Problems and comments My thanks to all who replied to my question about which type of fermenter to buy and if I needed to use a blowoff. The overwhelming response to the fermenter question is to go with plastic for the first few brews until I have a few under my belt. I brewed my first beer last weekend and I made some mistakes and I would like any comments about them. I brewed an All Malt Amber supplied with the Beginner kit I purchased. Here is the recipie (I don't have the exact list in front of me so some things may be a little off). 6.6 lbs. Amber malt extract 1 lb dry malt extract 4 oz.(?) caramel malt Irish moss at 30 min Fuggles at 1st boil and again at 30 min.(pellets) Hallertau (sp.) hops at 55 min. (pellets) (I think that's it) I couldn't find a 6 or 7 gallon pot so I used a 4 gallon pot for the boil (3 gal.) and boiled 2.5 gal. of water separately. Well, I started to boil the water and steeped the caramel at 160 deg. for 15 minutes. At one point the temp rose to about 170 for a minute or so. The instructions said I should add it to the boiling water after the steep so I waited until the water boiled. It took another 15 minutes to boil so the grains were in the hot water for about a half hour, although, I stirred to cool it down. I didn't know how crucial it was to add it to boiling water. I cooled the pan of water after a 30 minute boil and added it to a 7 gal. fermenter after cooling to about 80 deg. Once the extract boil was complete I cooled it in the sink with ice water surrounding the pot. I was able to get it down to about 100 deg within a half hour. Forgetting about the problem of hot side aeration, I poured the hot wort into the fermenter through a strainer into the cooler water. I figured that would aerate the wort enough to get the yeast started and the cooler water would bring the hot wort to the correct temperature for pitching. The yeast (dry and started in yeast nutrient 5 hours earlier) was pitced and within 2 hours was bubbling nicely. By six hours it was about 2-3 bubbles per minute. Questions: Is my first batch going to taste like wet cardboard? I remembered about HSA only AFTER I added the 100 deg. wort to the fermenter. I took a hydrometer reading before pitching and it was 1.080! It was supposed to be 1.040-1.045. The wort had alot of very small flocculent material floating throughout. Could this have caused such a high hydrometer reading? It has been 5 days since pitching and the bubbles have slowed to about one per five minutes. I haven't taken a hydrometer reading yet. With such a high hydrometer reading I don't know what reading I should ferment to. (should be approx. 1.010) Sorry for the length of the post but attribute it to a (I hate this word) "Newbie" Thanks for any help. :-) Pat Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1595, 12/03/94