HOMEBREW Digest #1968 Sat 24 February 1996

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

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Stories of Fermentation ("Kelly C. Heflin")
  RIMS, Stirring, Clear Wort (Kirk Fleming)
  Kraeusening and Gyle (HuskerRed)
  'splainin' Protein (Charlie Scandrett)
  I dont know anything (likipiki)
  Writing, typing, and the HBD (S29033)
  calcium ion & head retention? (Dave Whitman)
  mixed gases....continued ("Rich Byrnes")
  Funky Bock (maxwell)
  SA Hops, Them !MALTY! Scotch Ales, Al! (KennyEddy)
  SUDS-Like Shareware for Mac? (TAyres)
  Re: Kegging 101 Now in Session (Jeff Benjamin)
  6 1/2 Gallon Carboys / The Results Are In! (Bill Rust)
  chill out! ("Tracy Aquilla")
  Re: Yeast sources (Jeff Frane)
  Lager vs. Ale malt (Rob Reed)
  Weight of coins (Roger Kohles)
  Wanted: A fast recipe for St. Pats Day (Kevin O'Connor)
  Help! Study guide for MAC (WALZENBREW)
  Pitching Yeast from Corney Keg Secondary (LNUSCHV1.LZ5HGR)
  Competition Announcement (Greg Holton)
  Re: Scottish Ale (Robert Bush)
  How not to suck. (long) (Russell Mast)

****************************************************************** * 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. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 22:11:24 -0500 From: "Kelly C. Heflin" <kheflin at monmouth.com> Subject: Stories of Fermentation - ---------- I've been reading a lot of people telling how there primary's had the lids blown off and clogged airlocks from intense fermentation. This never happens to me. Well it has happened where the regular airlock was useless and I had to go to a blowoff tube for a day or so, but I think I have brewed about 40 beers and that only happened twice. I allways use wyeast liquid yeast and I get a steady slow fermentation but usually end up with a higher finish gravity than I should have. I'm talking about a pilsner at 18 - 20. I usually do my ales at 65 deg. And Lagers start at the same and end up in the fridge at 35 deg. I'm sure I'll get a bunch of "Don't Worries", but I feel as this is the most important part about this whole thing. I never do yeast starters, I've allways heard with wyeast it didn't matter, but now I'm wondering. Do you really have to worry so much about contaminated yeast when you make starters and how long does it take. Thanks Kelly Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:19:15 +0000 From: flemingkr at market1.com (Kirk Fleming) Subject: RIMS, Stirring, Clear Wort In #1966 Dion said: > With a RIMS system, stirring of the mash should *never* be necessary > and if it is, indicates something wrong with the design and/or > implementation. I agree it shouldn't be *necessary*; I would argue that mechanical agitation (stirring, for example) will almost always produce a higher yield though, regardless of how good flow thru the bed is. Can't prove it in the general case, of course. > Stirring defeats one of the major features of a RIMS > system, that of the grain bed acting as its own filter and producing > crystal clear wort. This prompts a question I asked here before and got NO response to. I'll try it again. Why is clear wort important? Although I find it very pleasing to see lauter and sparge produce nice crystal clear runnings into the kettle, on many, many occassions when doing stovetop mashes the runnings into the kettle have been laden with micro-particles, and even macro-particles (grain). There's never been any detectable difference in the clarity of the final consumable, nor in the taste. What's the deal? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 01:20:12 -0500 From: HuskerRed at aol.com Subject: Kraeusening and Gyle I was reading though the appendix of Papazian's NCJOHB and came across the section of holding back a small amount of wort or gyle to prime with. He says that this is kraeusening, although kraesening seems to generally referred to when yeast is at it's most active stage. I don't really care about the usage of the word as much as this technique. I was think about doing it. I would use his formula to calculate the amount of gyle required, freeze it in a clean plastic container. I would then thaw it out in a pan and boil it. Allow it to cold. Then add it to the wort in my bottling bucket. CP says to save in a sterile jar in the refrigerator and then pitch. Is there any reason way freezing and reboiling wouldn't be better? Or is this whole process just a PITA and just not worth the trouble? Lager on, Jason Henning huskerred at aol.com Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy. --Henry Kissinger Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:31:37 +1100 From: merino at cynergy.com.au (Charlie Scandrett) Subject: 'splainin' Protein Algis Korzonas posted >Charlie (Scandrett) writes: >and 65C. It has a peak rate at about 58C to 60C, but it continues pretty >rapidly anyway. Overnight mashes will have much higher protein levels than a >mash of a few hours. It should be very noticible in the mouth feel. AK>Something has gone very much askew here. <snip> AK>Charlie's comment that "overnight mashes will have much higher protein AK>levels than a mash of a few hours" sounds completely backwards to both AK>everything I've read and all my brewing experience. <snip> There are primarily two AK>types of proteolytic enzymes: one that turns large and medium-sized proteins into AK>amino acids (really little "protein" bits) Love the terminology, very accessible! AK>and a second that chops large proteins into medium and small-sized proteins. The AK>first (peptidase) works at cooler temperatures and is denatured ("killed") quite AK>rapidly as temperatures rise too much above 122F (50C). The other (protease) is less AK>heat labile (can tolerate warmer temperatures) and will work well up to 140F (60C). AK>If you have a long protein rest at 122F (50C), you will cut up most of your large AK>and medium proteins into amino acids. Your yeast will be happy with AK>all the nutrients, but you'll have poor head retention and virtually no AK>mouth feel (thin, watery beer -- just what we need more of, right?). Yes, although your yeast will probably ferment funny with the over-rich diet. AK>If you use well-modified malt, or even fairly well-modified malt, you AK>should be able to get away without a protein rest at all, which is why AK>Dr. George Fix says to omit that 50C rest for the more modified malts. Actually G.Fix's 40-60-70 schedule contains a Proteinase rest at 60C to break down the High Molecular Weight Proteins which were hydrolysed at malting. AK>So, can you see now why Charlie's saying that a long mash would make AK>for more protein is contrary to what I think will happen? Not all the AK>enzymes will be killed and a long (overnight) mash will probably cut AK>most of the proteins down to amino acids, leaving a watery, thin beer. AK>I think you've got some 'splainin' to do Charlie... OK. There are two basic assumptions in my overnight mash comment. 1/ The masher is not nocturnal and therefore sleeps, leaving the mash set at one temperature. 2/ That temperature is above 60C, or at least has reached mashout and is still warm. The proteolytic enzymes will not survive in an overnight mash because they are *progressively* denatured at temperatures over 55C-57C. The higher the temperature, the shorter the survival time. While enzymes have an optimum temperature, they will work well below that point, but not for long above it as their structure literally falls apart, and for enzymes, structure determines function. Above 60C, 10-30 minutes is all they are going to last. Also enzymic modification of the protein profile is dominated by malting, simply because before kilning there are simply lots more proteolytic enzymes. A Kolbach index number tells you little about the molecular weight profile. The degree of modification figure (usually Kolbach's % of total soluble protein) is only a guide and a figure arrived at by set laboratory conditions. However protein dissolves in wort by enzymic and non-enzymic hydrolysing and the brewer controls this. One step mashers over 65C will get *less* protein dissolved than the Kolbach indicates because *enzymic* hydrolysing (I'll explain that concept in the FAQ) is restricted my rapid denaturing (<<20 minutes) of all proteolytic enzymes. Only about 10% of the amino acid ("(really little "protein" bits)"AK) content are produced in the mash using this method. The rest are produced in malting. Overnight mashers will get more total protein than the Kolbach figure for their malt, because they extend non-enzymic hydrolysing of proteins for a long time. Non-enzymic hydrolysing continues above about 30C to boiling. Although there is a practical limit set by malting, extended high temperature breaks down the proteinous gums releasing a little more soluble protein. Above proteolytic denaturing temperature, say 70C,(i.e. by non-enzymic hydrolysing), a 2 hour mash produces ~5% more dissolved nitrogen, a 3 hour mash, another ~4%, a 4 hour another ~3% and so on. This "little more", overnight, would probably represent a few degrees Kolbach, but in the higher molecular weight range. Unaffected by any proteolytic enzymes, this extra protein would contribute to mouthfeel and haze. The overnight lipid dissolving should just about kill the head? If they step mash before going to bed they could produce up to 50% of their final Amino Acid content in their mash, but after 55C, very few increased AA's. A limit of about 300mg/litre would be prudent. I'm trying a simple test for homebrewers. I hope this is clear? I've never tried this overnight caper. BTW, the bottle turned up! Charlie (Brisbane, Australia) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:04:22 +0100 From: likipiki <irazusta at lander.es> Subject: I dont know anything hello, I am from Basque country and my english is very poor, first sorry. I want to make beer but i dont find any information in my country.If someone can help me telling the first things i have to do,thank you. The level of the digest is very high, maybe i must go to other list.If you think that i have to go tell me and i unsuscribe. thank you, gracias, eskerrikasko. imanol Return to table of contents
Date: 23 Feb 1996 07:50:24 -0500 (EST) From: S29033%MOTHER at utrcgw.utc.com Subject: Writing, typing, and the HBD I am not one to pretend that I am the best at writing(typing) HBD articles. Everyone, from time to time, tends to ramble on - it is easy to do with computers and given the person is a good typist. A spelling error here or THEIR is understandable. I hope the following post excerpt is not indicative of where the HBD is going: >I was reading HBD and somebody, not sure who sorry, wrote that the ideal >grain bed depth was 6 inches. I have recieved different info. I went to >Chicago about a month ago and visted the brew-who-who school Sibeil Institute >of Tech. Da man there, who took me on the tour on the joint said puff away, >not, but any ways said that ideal grain depth is 18 inches. He showed me a >small, basically home brew set up, they have for there students. The >mash-tun was a tall rectagular box about 20 inches high, 10 inches depth and 5 >inches in width. > Now i would subscibe much more to the idea it has to do with >proportionality. A small batch doesn't need to be that tall because the grain >husks will and all the other particles will settle in a specific gradient >according to particle size. So if your batch is small the area on the bottom >which the grain husks will cover will be small and so on. With large batches >sthe area which will be cover by the grain husks will be large. > The thing that would be most important to consider would be depth of those >grain husk areas. If your small batch was spread out over a larger surface >area, the particle size distibution layers would all be thin. > So aside from this babbling i've just spewed out, Again, I understand that it is possible to blab away on the HBD but this is garbage. I am not the HBD police but, if there were such a thing, I think many sentences would be in order (or should I type scentances?). The author was right - he did spew something out. Next time he should be sober while posting or at least not drink so much as to cause him to SPEW! Lance Stronk Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 08:40:23 -0500 From: dwhitman at rohmhaas.com (Dave Whitman) Subject: calcium ion & head retention? (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing) I've been working on getting better head retention in my beers. About a month ago, I reported on a factorial design where I got the suprising result of seeing no effect on head retention upon adding 6% wheat malt to my grain bill. This weekend, I continued my experiments by looking at UNmalted wheat, and saw amazing head on the resulting wort. I was ready to say that unmalted wheat was the real trick for getting better head. However, an email discussion with Jeane-Pierre Boile (who sees a major effect with malted wheat) has me wondering about the effect of dissolved minerals. When we compared procedures, one of the things that jumped out was Jeane-Pierre's use of relatively untreated water from a well (presumably fairly hard), versus my use of reverse osmosis water (essentially mineral-free). I've been wanting to look at doctoring my water for some time, and it happens that I added some gypsum to my sparge water in this latest batch where I saw such good head. I can make a hand-wavy chemist's argument for divalent calcium ions complexing to proteins in solutions to form ionic crosslinks, raising the effective molecular weight of the proteins, and thus helping to support foam. The upshot is that I've got two possible contributors to the dramatic improvement in head in this latest batch - unmalted wheat and gypsum - plus the possiblity that the two interact to give an even bigger effect. I also need to consider the possibility that the reason I didn't see any effect with malted wheat was due to insufficient calcium. In HBD1625, Victor (vialeggio at ccmail.sunysb.edu) speculated that poor head retention in a bitter was caused by forgetting his normal addition of gypsum to his very soft water. Has anyone else noticed or read about an effect of dissolved ions on head retention? - -- dave whitman "The opinions expressed are those of the dwhitman at rohmhaas.com author, and not Rohm and Haas Company." They made me say that. Really. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:40:00 EST From: "Rich Byrnes" <rich.byrnes at e-mail.com> Subject: mixed gases....continued OK, there's been some good info on mixed gas usage being posted in the last week and thanks to all who have contributed to this thread! Now, from an economic and complexibility standpoint, would it make sense to force carbonate as usual and just dispense with the nitrogen mix? I have the spare tanks to do so, or would it make more sense to force carbonate as usual and push with pure nitrogen? I haven't bought the regulator yet, nor have I bought the valve for my "soon to be ex-fire-extinguisher" so I could go either way at this point. FWIW the welding supplier I mentioned yesterday will fill a 20lb tank with al-eh-gal (60/40) for $12, not bad considering I've heard other places charge upwards of $20 for a 5lb tank. Also, is 70/30 any better of a mix than 60/40? TIA Rich Byrnes Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen "I'm not a beer connoisseur. I am a beer enthusiast, and they are much nicer." Fred Eckhardt Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 08:41:43 cdt From: maxwell at prisminfo.com Subject: Funky Bock Hi All! I have a question that I *hope* someone will be able to help me with... I grabbed a can of a New Zealand Bock kit off the shelf of my favorite homebrew store. A 3lb bag of unhopped light DME later, and I was out the door. I brewed this up and threw in ~1oz of Chinook hops just for grins when I started the boil. I followed my normal procedures after that and pitched a packet of dry Nottingham Ale yeast. Nothing for a couple of days. On day 3, I got a seemingly normal ferment going, I racked to secondary after a week and there it sat for about a month. The thing was still fermenting as of Wed. nite but not too much. Maybe 2 bubbles a minute or so. "Screw it" I said, and racked to a corny keg and put it under about 30lbs of pressure and placed in the fridge. Last nite i took my first draw and the taste was well.... Bad. This may be my first undrinkable beer. It is extremely bitter, with some other tastes that I cannot describe. I sense that it may be a strong alcohol taste, but I'm not sure... Any ideas of what I did? Better yet, any ideas of what I can do now to improve it? Maybe some dry hops for aroma? It currently has very little nose. That still leaves me with a bad taste though. TIA, Maxwell McDaniel maxwell at prisminfo.com http://www.prisminfo.com/users/maxwell.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 10:09:48 -0500 From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: SA Hops, Them !MALTY! Scotch Ales, Al! Dave Hinkle wrote: > If you can wait a month ot two, just write to the Boston Beer Co. > (address for brewery on the label!) and ask them for some hops. > I did this, and a few weeks later, got a form letter asking for $12 > for a pound of their Hallertauer Mittelfrueh hops. With no further > action on my part, about a month later I got 400g of hops in a > mylar plastic pouch. I suppose if you actually send them the > money they MIGHT send them sooner! If you are really bent on > cloning SA Boston Lager, using THEIR hops would be the best > way to go. So send those letters! I made a aple ale last fall using copious amounts of this hop, and the flaovr/aroma said "SAM" all over it. The hops were given to me by my partner in crimes against brewing science Gerry, who paid for one pound, then had another pound show up in the mail a few weeks later. Must be a trend. Al K counters my Scotch Ale ranting with: > My initial impression that Scottish Ales and English Bitters > are far less different than the AHA and most books say is from personal > experience tasting my way from Edinburgh to London via the Lake District, > Burton-on-Trent, Wales, Southampton and Kent over the course of three > weeks, two summers ago. The part about the AHA guidelines being different than reality I WILL agree with. After tasting the liquid-hop bitters and IPAs that my club members were brewing "to style", I thought last summer that surely something must be wrong with those so-called "bitters" I tried in England. While I can't claim to have done as thorough a tour as Al, I still stand by these "generalizations". And while Al started in southern-ish Scotland and went south to England, we spent most of our two weeks north of Edinburgh. The further we got from the "big towns" the more the local brews fell into the stereotype. Ken Schwartz KennyEddy at aol.com "Rome wasn't burned in a day" -- Abe Hirschfield, NY businessman and would-be media tycoon Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 10:13:21 -0500 From: TAyres at aol.com Subject: SUDS-Like Shareware for Mac? I've recently had occasion to make a fair amount of use of a friend's SUDS 4.0 recipe formulator, downloaded from the 'Net (AOL, actually) as shareware. I really like SUDS, but primarily I run a Mac Quadra (the SUDS is on my work computer, a 486). Does anyone know of any SUDS-like shareware for the Mac. I'm aware of Darryl Richman's Crafty Fox software, but I'd like to try something in downloaded Mac-compatible shareware first, to see if it works. I'm an AOLer, so if anyone knows of anything that would do the trick in the AOL "beer" software library, let me know. Thanks! Tom Ayres TAyres at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 8:59:46 MST From: Jeff Benjamin <benji at hpfcbug.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: Kegging 101 Now in Session > Almost immediately I noticed that bringing beer to club meetings, giving > away bottles, and just letting brew sit long enough to age properly > became difficult/impossible. Sure, there's Frankenbrau and > counterpressure and all that but it seems bottling a dozen homebrews > from a keg is more hassle than bottling four dozen out of the secondary > ever was. For long term storage, I agree. However, for near-term consumption, like taking beer to club meetings or parties, it's easy! Just fill a thoroughly washed half-gallon or gallon juice jug right out of the tap. You don't even need to sanitize if (though you can if you're paranoid). As long as the beer will be drunk within a day or two, it will be fine. Several local breweries who don't bottle (O'Dells, Coopersmith's) sell their beer this way, and it works quite well if all you want is a gallon or so instead of an entire keg. - -- Jeff Benjamin benji at fc.hp.com Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado "Think! It ain't illegal yet." -- George Clinton Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:10:18 -0500 From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com> Subject: 6 1/2 Gallon Carboys / The Results Are In! Wow, did I get a lot of responses to my query about 6 1/2 gallon carboys! Regarding siphoning... -) about a 50/50 split between a turkey baster / vinyl hose arrangement and a wine thief. I may go with the wine thief, just because I also make the occasional wine / still mead. One said that he's been brewing so long, he just doesn't check any more. Mmmm, sounds a little familiar... Regarding HSA when transferring hot wort... -) All responders reminded me that shattering glass was a much worse danger than HSA!! (Doooooop!!) Otherwise, chill. Choose your favorite method. Regarding headspace and weizzen... -) Some said 'Don't worry'. More said 'I'll need a blow-off'. Best advice was essentially, 'Better safe than sorry'... - --------------------------------- Neal Christensen writes... >Just a clarification here: N2O (nitrous oxide) is laughing gas and is >generally not sold to the public (hence the raised eyebrow)... ** (snip) ** > ...I am not sure what N2O would do to beer, but it sounds interesting > - has anyone tried? Would you use a laughter-tun?? Sorry couldn't resist... ------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Rust | Kwa afya yako Kenya Master Brewer | Slainthe Gaelic Jack Pine Savage Brewery | Stin Ygai-sou Greece Shiloh, IL (NACE) | Cheers Great Britian ------------------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 11:27:13 CST From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu> Subject: chill out! In Digest # 1964: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) wrote: >> >>Tracy writes: >>The CF chiller should only produce more cold break if you chill the wort to >>a lower temperature than you did with your immersion chiller (which is often >>the case when using CF chillers; who wants to wait 45 minutes or more for >>their immersion chiller to do the job?). The final temperature reached is >>really what counts; the rate of cooling generally isn't significant. > >I would really need to do more experimentation with the settling rates of >the cold break as a function of speed of cooling, but very unscientifically, >I've found that I've gotten *more solid* cold break when chilling quickly. >Furthermore, I use an immersion chiller and with a small amount of agitation, >I get from 212F to 70F in 15 minutes with Chicago tapwater in the wintertime. >To say that immersion chillers take 45 minutes is incorrect and very unfair. >The speed of chilling is dependent on the temperature of the coolant and the >relative rates of flow of the wort and coolant. There is nothing inherently >faster about cooling with either an immersion or counterflow chiller if there >is a reasonable amount of circulation of wort around the immersion chiller. Sorry Al, but I think you may have missed my point here. First, the rate of precipitation and rate of sedimentation are two entirely different things, the kinetics of which depend on different parameters. Precipitation rates depend mostly on solubility coefficients, concentration of the solute, temperature/pressure, ionic strength, and pH (mostly for proteins), while the sedimentation rate of the precipitated materials depends on particle size, density, and geometry, and the density of the medium. To reiterate and to be more precise, formation of the cold break is not really dependent on the cooling rate so much as the temperature differential and time spent at the lower temperature, so actually, if you really want to get the most cold break possible, cool to near freezing and wait overnight (or even longer!). I'm quite familiar with these phenomena, since my daily work routine involves the precipitation and sedimentation of proteins and other macromolecules. Secondly, to quote Charlie Scandrett "Heat exchanging is a highly advanced industry that knows what it is doing, so why do we reinvent the wheel?" In other words, there's really no need to do more experiments (particularly more "unscientific" ones), since they've already been done. Briefly, the rate at which one can cool hot wort largely depends on the temperature of the chill water being used (assuming it's actually water), although certain chiller configurations are more thermodynamically efficient than others. Here in Vermont, we have a spring that provides me with VERY cold water during the winter (near freezing). Using an immersion chiller and stirring, it usually takes about 40 minutes or so to get my lager worts down below 50F, which is the temperature at which I prefer to pitch my lagers. I could accomplish this significantly faster with a more efficient device employing a counter-current mechanism. If counter-current heat exchange weren't more efficient, animals would never have evolved these mechanisms! For anyone interested in more details, I refer you to Charlie's Thermodynamics of Chilling FAQ (and/or Digests #1793 and 1794, July 1995) at the Brewery. It's quite technical, covers all the bases, and is very well written. Tracy Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 08:32:48 -0800 From: jfrane at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Yeast sources Tom Fitzpatrick wrote: > >Al K. writes: > >>Dave has a habit of concealing the sources of his yeast strains. >>Unless he has changed his ways, I would be very skeptical of what >>he says about the yeasts' origins. For example, if you ask directly >>if Wyeast #9993 is the "Pabst" yeast, he probably won't say no -- >>he'll say something like "there's a possibility that it is." > > >I did not ask directly, "Is Wyeast #1388 Duvel?" >I asked for the origin of Wyeast #1388. He replied "Duvel." >Similar one word responses were received for other strains. >I don't think Dave has any motivation to lie about the origin of >his yeast if the brewery of origin doesn't care. >Why don't you call him yourself and see if he gives the same answers >twice? Now that might be interesting and shed some light ... > I didn't respond to Al's original comment because, as a friend of Dave's, I felt a little uncomfortable with leaping in to his defense all the time. But I will note that Dave gave me exactly the same responses a month or two back on the sources. I thought Al's comment was totally uncalled for, frankly. Dave has *never* to my knowledge, deceived anyone about the source of a strain. If he says it's Duvel, then that's exactly what it is. If he says he's not sure, or he doesn't want to tell you, it's either because he doesn't know (a lot of yeasts arrive by very circuitous routes) or because he's protecting the source (sometimes those circuitous routes can get people into trouble). Then Al wrote: >Sandy writes: >>One of particular interest is Whiteshield yeast (Bass). A friend from >>Burton-on-Trent raves about it. > >Rumour has it that Wyeast #1028 London Ale is the Bass Whiteshield yeast. > Seems ironic to have Al criticize Dave Logsdon for not being more forthcoming while at the same time passing along "rumor". In this particular instance, I would suggest that rumor was wrong. Years ago, I provided Dave with a bottle of Worthington Whiteshield and he got a terrific culture from it. The problem was that the strain was clearly a lager strain for bottling, and not the primary fermentation strain. >From conversations with Dave, I would suggest that he doesn't offer the Bass strain at all, so add that to your rumor mill. I would agree with Al that the best thing to do with any yeast strain is to brew with it and see if you like it. There are a tremendous number of factors that influence final beer flavor and even yeast behavior, and only by working through all those variables can a brewer begin to learn the "true" character of any yeast strain. And simply because the yeast originated with Anheuser-Busch doesn't mean you're going to be making Bud with it. - --Jeff Frane No copyright implied, wanted, or thought tasteful. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:38:44 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Reed <rhreed at icdc.delcoelect.com> Subject: Lager vs. Ale malt Curt asks about malts: > What (if any) is the difference between pale malt and lager malt? > > Are we talking about different applications for the same grain, or is there a > difference between the malt used to make ales and the malt used to make > lagers? Pale Ale malt is more thoroughly modified, i.e. it has undergone a longer germination during malting. As such, more protein degradation has occurred, thus a protein rest during the mash is typically not necessary, nor recommended. As a result of the longer germination cycle, more carbohydrates are consumed which leaves us with less potential extract as compared to a less modified lager malt. After germination and subsequent lower temperature drying, Pale Ale malt is kilned at higher temperature: this develops more color and drives off the precursors of DMS (SMM, I believe). Lager malts are typically less modified, which says the germination phase is shorter. As a result, *less* protein modification occurs. For brewers, this means lager malt has a higher extract potential - due to less carbohydrate consumption by the developing embryo - and a protein rest should be employed for optimum results because the protein-gum matrix which encapsulates starch particles in the endosperm hasn't been degraded sufficiently (as compared to highly modified pale ale malt). After germination and subsequent drying, lager malt is kilned at lower temperatures. This develops less color and also tends to denature enzymes at a lower rate. As a result, lager malt has more enzymes. As far as I'm concerned, the domestic 2-row malts out there are more like lager malt, because of the typically higher enzyme levels and the noticeable if not prodigious amount of DMS production during brewing. Certainly, brewers' techniques will affect the level of DMS in the final product, but I'm firmly rooted in the camp that English Style ales should not have DMS levels above flavor threshold. As such I feel domestic malts are more suited for lagers, Belgian ales, Kolsch, and Alt. Cheers, Rob Reed Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 10:58:37 -0600 From: Roger Kohles <rkohles at ltec.net> Subject: Weight of coins In HBD #1967 Greg King <gking at arserrc.gov> writes: >Another option is to use a combination of coins. I weighed out an >assortment of coins (U.S. pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters) on a >fairly sensitive scale (accurate to 0.01 gram) and got the following >average masses (or weights, if you prefer): > > penny = 2.67 gram (average of 7 coins) > nickel = 5.01 gram (average of 7 coins) > dime = 2.28 gram (average of 4 coins) > quarter = 5.66 gram (average of 8 coins) > >Except for one badly-behaved penny with a mass of 3.08 gram, none of the >coins' masses varied from the corresponding average value by more than >0.07 gram. > In 1983 (or was it 1982), can't remember for sure, the US Mint changed the composition of the penny. Prior to the change it was solid copper and after the change it was (and is) made out of zinc with a copper coating. The weight changed - decreased. I don't remember the exact values, but the change is enough to mess up Greg's handy calculations. It definitely accounts for his "badly-behaved" penny. I asked the tour guide guy at the Denver mint on a visit last year about this. He confirmed the change was made and further stated that it took place in November of the year in question. So the year in question will have coins of mixed weight, before this year they are heavier and after this year they are lighter. If I remember to do it, I'll get a role or two of pennies and see if I can deduce the exact year and weights involved. rkohles at ltec.net Roger Kohles Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:43:07 -0800 From: koco at lsil.com (Kevin O'Connor) Subject: Wanted: A fast recipe for St. Pats Day Greetings fellow brewers, My wife indicated to me yesterday (Feb 22) that she'd like to have a St. Patricks day party at our place. What respectible O'Connor wouldn't ;^) Well here's the problem. She got the bright idea that I should whip up a batch of green Irish ale for the event. I don't think there is not enough time to create a batch of brew by then (March 16). So now for the question. Does anyone have a recipe that would be suitable for green Irish ale that could be very drinkable in just three weeks? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. thanx, Kevin Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:37:17 -0500 From: WALZENBREW at aol.com Subject: Help! Study guide for MAC I recently posted my BJCP Exam study guide on the TRASH home page. However, been getting a lot of comments from MAC users that they are having problems downloading/translating the WP 5.1 for PC format into one they can use. I don't have a MAC or know anybody who does. Anybody out there willing and able to translate the Guide into a zipped MAC word processor format? Send the file to me at WALZENBREW at aol.com and I'll make sure it gets on the TRASH home page. Thanks in advance.. Cheers, Greg Walz Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:57:09 -0500 From: LNUSCHV1.LZ5HGR at eds.com Subject: Pitching Yeast from Corney Keg Secondary I have a dark lager that has been in a corney key lagering at 40F for about 5 weeks. I used wyeast bavarian lager yeast and want to re-use it for a bock. This is my plan for re-pitching from the secondary. 1) Sanitize a picknic spigot, hose and connector for dispensing from the corney key using iodophor. 2) Connect dispenser and CO2 to the keg and pressurize to about 10 psi. 3) Dispense 12-16 ounces strait from the corney keg into my just cooled wort. The idea here is that yeast settled on the bottom of the keg will come out too. 4) Disconnect hoses and relieve pressure from the corney key and continue to lager. Has anyone tried a process like this? How well do you think it will work?. WIll I get sufficient quantity of yeast this way for good fast starts? I will be happy to summarize responses and report on how well this process works if I go ahead with it. TIA Dennis Cabell Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:58:54 -0500 (EST) From: greg at kgn.ibm.com (Greg Holton) Subject: Competition Announcement The Hudson Valley Homebrewers,inc will host their 6th Annual Homebrew Competition on Sat. March 30th at River Station Restaurant, 25 Main St. Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 This competition is participating in the New York State Homebrewer of the Year award For more information, visit our web site: http://alpha.rollanet.org/~hvhb Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 20:27:09 +0100 From: bush at shbf.se (Robert Bush) Subject: Re: Scottish Ale Hi, Al Korzonas, Fredrik Stahl and Ken (I can't find his posting) have been discussing Scottish Ale and I must support Fredrik's theory that the style has changed from a century ago. It's a lot easier to travel these days; borders fade and we all exchange ideas (just look at this forum!) that spread more easily today than just a few decades ago. However, I would like to quote Graham Wheeler (British brewer and beer writer that has co-written a couple of books with the aforementioned Roger Protz). In his book "Home Brewing - The CAMRA Guide" he writes about two Scottish Ale recipes: "Very lightly hopped, typical of Scottish beers." and "--still very lightly hopped in the Scottish tradition." Al Korzonas writes: >My initial impression that Scottish Ales and English Bitters >are far less different than the AHA and most books say is from personal >experience tasting my way from Edinburgh to London via the Lake District, >Burton-on-Trent, Wales, Southampton and Kent over the course of three >weeks, two summers ago. This makes me wonder if the hoppiness of Scottish Ales decreases the higher you go in Scotland; Edinburgh is not very high up! Perhaps if you went another 320 km north you'd find the "very lightly hopped" Scottish Ales. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% WASSAIL! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Robert Bush % % Eskilstuna,SWEDEN E-mail: bush at shbf.se % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:39:05 -0600 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: How not to suck. (long) This is just one way not to suck. > From: "Qr. Larry Allen" <quacsbrew at inland.net> > Subject: ...more than just a big SUCK? > Okay, Russ, I'll bite...What's your clever technique? I happen to think > siphoning is kinda neato, too I've been siphoning things since I was a young boy. (We used to live on a hill and siphoned the water off our protective winter pool cover every spring. We used a nasty ol' garden hose, and the water we were siphoning was filled with fallen leaves and other debris, and lay stagnant for months, and I ain't gonna suck on that.) Okay, the essence of it is to always maintain water pressure within your hose. Tricky, eh? This means always having it totally full of water (or whatever) from start to finish. I use a three-part siphon for everything. A hooked racking cane at one end, a solid length of plastic (about 18") at the other, and about 3' of flexible hose in the middle. (I used to have a spring-loaded type bottle-filler on the short, solid end. I took it off, I don't like it. I just fill straight from the hose now.) |\ | ~~~~~~~~| | | | | o Bad ASCII, eh? The "o" is a little orange thing. The ~ is the flexible hose. The rest is hard plastic tubing. If you're going to try to use my technique or any variant on it - you MUST have a hose clamp on that hose, and keep it clamped ALWAYS, except when it's obvious you can't. I usually have a little orange plastic thing on end of the curved racking cane. I'm not sure what it's called, but it's set up to allow liquid to flow in around it's top, rather than throught the bottom, so you can rest it in the yeast and trub at the bottom of a vessel without sucking it all in your hose. This is a pretty standard piece of equipment. (Side note - what the hell is this thing called?) I have a large pitcher, about half full or a little more, of sanitizing solution. I take the empty racking hose, and rest the end with the plastic doo-dah in the pitcher. (This pitcher is heavy enough that I don't have to hold it to keep the hose from tipping it over under it's own weight.) I set the pitcher on the counter next to the tub or sink. I open the hoseclamp. I put the other end of the hose-setup and put it under the spigot. Water flows into the pipe and, eventually, into the pitcher. If your water pressue is as low as mind, you have to force it into the hose by holding your hand around the spigot and hose, so it can't flow anywhere else. Blurble blurble, the air is forced out, and you have water flowing backwards into your pitcher. The pitcher should be at a higher altitude than the spigot, or at least near it. With the clamp still open, drop the end of the hose that you had in the spigot, and the water now flows out of the pitcher, into the sink. If you end up with some air in the hose or something, you may have to manually lift the pitcher up higher so it flows faster. When the level in the pitcher gets down a little below halfway, when you're sure that the hose is full of sanitizer, clamp the hose clamp. Before you clamp it - make sure that the straight end of your hose is VERTICAL, with the open end pointing downward. It's pretty easy to do that. When you clamp it (Jed), water will no longer flow. Take the straight end of the hose and put it into the pitcher next to the other end. Now, you might have a little bit of air in your hose. The less careful you are about keeping it vertical, the more time and shaking it takes to get the short end into the pitcher, the more air you'll have in the hose. If I have too much air in the hose (2" +- depending on my mood), I'll put the short end back in the sink, and let it flow again until the air is pushed out, reclamp, and put back in the pitcher. Again, my pitcher is heavy enough that at under half full, I can leave it sitting with both ends of the hose in it without the weight of the hose tipping it over. At this point, I might undo the clamp, but I'll be careful to reclamp it again. Now, your hose is full of sanitizer, except for any air you were lazy enough to let in. Great. Depending on what else I'm doing at the time, I'll let it sit there for 2-20 minutes, to sanitize. When I'm confident or lazy enough that it's sanitized (enough), it's time to rinse. To rinse, once again, clamp that hose. Now, I take both solid pieces in one hand, hold them together and vertical, and lift the hose out of the pitcher. Like magic, the liquid stays in the hose if you don't bang it around. (A little will leak, but you'll be able to maintain enough volume in there to maintain pressure enough to fill it from the pitcher again in a moment.) Holding the hose in one hand, I then thoroughly rinse the pitcher in the other. (Sometimes, one of these hands is a friend's hand.) Rinse the pitcher a few times, and then refill it with clean water. Now, put the long end (the curved end with the orange doodah) into the pitcher, and lower the other end into the sink or tub, so that it's mouth is at a lower altitude that the other. Open the hoseclamp. The clean water in the pitcher flows through the hose, rinsing it. Reclamp when enough water has flown through. (Do not empty the pitcher with the sihpon hose.) I repeat this rinse two or three times. At this point, your siphon is ready to roll, it's filled with clean water and sanitized. Keep the hose clamped until you're ready for flow. Keep the out end below the level of the in end. I just put the long end into a carboy on a chair or counter, lower the short end to a container on the floor (initially the pitcher), let the stuff flow until the water is in the pitcher and the hose is filled with beer. Then, clamp it, and put the short end into whatever I'm racking to, or into the next bottle when I'm filling, and unclamp. Piece of cake. Honestly - I don't understand how or why anyone does it differently, but then I often say that about other things, too, and people look at me the same way you're looking at this now. -R Return to table of contents