HOMEBREW Digest #2040 Sat 18 May 1996
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/up_level_button.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Lager temps, yeast, Longshot, and pints (HuskerRed)
Oregon Homebrew Competition Results (Mark Taratoot)
malt grind (Rob Lauriston)
Stripes & Plaid (Scott Abene)
Bad Score Sheets/Judges (Fred Hardy)
Mash pH (A. J. deLange)
Water Analysis (usbscrhc)
RIMS ("Michael T. Bell")
English Taste (Jim Busch)
immersion Chiller tube size (Mark Dimke)
Malting and Brewing Science (Bill Giffin)
yeast names (delbrueckii) ("Tracy Aquilla")
Skewed rollers, again.. (Jack Schmidling)
Wort Cooling ("Gregg Dolbec")
Schmidling (mikehu)
immersion wort chillers ("Bryan L. Gros")
Hunter airstat ("Bryan L. Gros")
Fridge thermostats (LaBorde, Ronald)
Variety (RMoline930)
Beer Glasses (Joseph Dargis)
First Grain Batch (Wayne McCorkle)
Where to go in Brussels? (Gary A. Meier)
Foamy bottling session (Dave Mercer)
Summary of 3 Tier First Running Return Question ("Kenneth D. Joseph")
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, 16 May 1996 22:40:27 -0400
From: HuskerRed at aol.com
Subject: Lager temps, yeast, Longshot, and pints
I've recently bought a deep freeze a t-stat set-up for lagering. The
freezer will hold five 'boys (pilsner all summer:). I've got the
temperature set at 50F. I want to use it for primary and secondary
fermentation. I've got two batches in it now. The first one took forever
to take off and the second one did great since I racked the first one off
and used the dregs for the second one. My question is, is this to cold
for primary, even if I use large starters? If it is to cold, what range
should I shoot for?
- -----
What's anyone got to say about #2278 Czech pils and #3333 German wheat?
- -----
Pete Brunelli writes
> I had "Longshot" Hazelnut Ale last night and i gotta say "WOW".
A friend (and future HBer) bought a 12 of Longshot. The first mouth full
was, well, very different. The nuttyness and the vanilla to smooths it
out. It was the only decent part of the beer (other than finishing it and
getting something else). After a couple more sips, the vanilla seems to
over power. After a couple of more, I was glad I hadn't bought the 12!
My friend, his wife, his bother, and I all gave it a thumbs down (sorry
Pete). I was wondering if anyone else has had this beer or the other
two? Could you please send an e-review.
- -----
Steve Gravel write
> I was told that a law was passed stating that pubs in London had to
> scrap their standard 20 oz. pint glasses and replace them with 22 oz.
> glasses.
I thought a pint was 16 oz. or are the *bloody Brit* different?
- -----
I've read enough about malt mills for a while.
- -----
Privet e-mail is probably more appropriate than burning up bandwidth.
Lager on,
Jason Henning
Big Red Alchemy and Brewing
Nothing makes you more tolerant of a neighbor's noisy party that being
there -- Franklin P. Jones
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 19:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Taratoot <taratoot at PEAK.ORG>
Subject: Oregon Homebrew Competition Results
Someone asked about the results of the Oregon Homebrew Competition.
Well, here they are...
Thanks to all who offered their time and expertise as a judge, entered
beer or mead in the competition, donated time or prizes for the
competition and raffle, or just came to enjoy the festive atmosphere.
Special thanks to the following for making this festival such a success:
Advanced Brewing Scientific, Aycock Cutlery, Avatar Brewing, Brewing
Techniques Magazine, Bridgeport Brewing, Chintimini (The Band!),
Deschutes Brewery, F.H. Steinbart, Fresh Hops, Full Sail Brewing, Grain
Millers, Hair of the Dog Brewing, Hart Brewing, Homebrew Heaven, The
Homebrew Shop, Home Fermenter Center, Nicols Garden Nursery, Old World
Deli, Oregon State University Food Science and Technology Department,
Oregon Trader Brewery, Oregon Trail Brewery, Portland Brewing, Red Hook,
Rogue Brewing, Shop and Go, Steelhead Brewery, Willamette Street
Homebrewing, Wyeast.
The results from the competition have been compiled. BEST OF SHOW was
taken by a Honey Basil Ale brewed by William and Patty Pettit of Eugene,
Oregon. Congratulations!
The top three entries in each category follow.
Barley Wine
1 Scott Sanders
2 Ron Hall
3 Stefen Webb & Kathleen Fritton
Belgian, French Ales (excluding white and lambic)
1 Bob McCracken
2 Thomas N. Thompson
2 Kenton Cruzan
3 Steve Dempsey
Belgian White, Lambic
1 Martin Wilde
2 Douglas Faynor
3 Matthew Lafoon
Brown Ale
1 Herky Gottfried
2 Ingmar Saul
2 Mel Greiser
3 Lee Smith
English Pale Ale
1 Ted Manahan
2 Nick Bruels
3 Steve Dempsey
American Ale, California Common
1 Curt Hausam
2 Guy Harrelson
3 Curt Hausam
Scottish Ale
1 Kenton Cruzan
2 John E. Rieks
3 Dean Bautz
Porter
1 Adan O'Conner
2 Steve Mueller
3 Mark Norbury
Strong Ale
1 Robert Wolff
2 Russ Kazmierczak
Stout
1 Pat Mahony
2 Walt Hammond
3 Pat Heveron
Helles, Traditional Bock
1 John Sterner
2 Ron Hall
3 Bob Allen
Dopplebock
1 Kevin R. Kane
2 Hoppers of the Holy Ale Club
3 Rob Radtke
Light and Dark Lager
1 John E. Rieks
2 Mark Norbury
3 Mark Norbury
Pilsener
1 Robert Wolff
2 Frank J. Berry
3 Ted Pilkons
Vianna/Oktoberfest/Marzen
1 Mark Norbury
2 Matthew Lafoon
3 Dan Ritter
German Ale
1 Mark Norbury
2 John Sterner
3 Lee Smith
Fruit Beer
1 Ron Thomas
2 Douglas Faynor
3 David Muhl and Jacqueline Boger
Herb Beer
1 William, Patty Pettit
2 Cliff Rice
3 Herky Gottfried
Specialty
1 Ken Cobb
2 Kenton Cruzan
3 Kenton Cruzan
Smoked Beer
1 Ron Hall
2 Steve Dempsey
3 Stefen Webb & Kathleen Fritton
German Wheat
1 Randy Reid
2 Rob Radtke
3 Frank J. Berry
Mead
1 Lonnie Dvorak
2 Bob Allen
3 Steve Dempsey
- --
Mark Taratoot "...though my problems are meaningless,
taratoot at peak.org that don't make them go away."
-Neil Young
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 20:53 PDT
From: robtrish at mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: malt grind
Caution: I like my Corona -- the mill, not the beer!
Last summer when Nir Navot asked about the meaning of malt analyses, I
posted a reply mentioning the fine/coarse difference. The current
discussion about malt mills seems an appropriate opportunity to follow-up on
something I was wondering concerning malt grind. I'm in the process of
re-assessing what I thought I knew about brewing because there must be
mutant factoids that need purging.
This is what I wrote about the F/C difference:
Coarse/Fine difference % 0.10 ??? Is this a typo? Perhaps 2.10?
The changes which take place during malting are collectively called
modification and include the breakdown of a protein matrix which contains
many of the materials we're after such as starch. This test is done by
comparing the extract of a mash conducted on a finely ground malt (5%
remaining above a #30 screen, if I recall) with the extract from a coarse
grind (75% above). If the malt has has been well modified, the matrix is
broken down enough that you get pretty much the same extract regardless of
how the malt is ground. OTOH, with less modified malt, the mechanical
breakdown of the malt has more impact on increasing extract. Values range
from around 1.5 - 1.7 for a well modified malt, up to 2.5 for a less
modified malt.
All the other tests are done on the fine grind sample, so your fine
extract is 80.1 If the difference is really 2.1, then the coarse grind
gave an extract of 78.0 That difference corresponds roughly to a difference
of 0.2'Plato in the respective worts, say 8.85'P and 8.65'P. Since a tenth
in the F/C results from a difference in gravity of 0.01'Plato or 0.00004 in
specific gravity, you can see that the difference in extract is quite small.
The moral is that the exact composition of your grind affects extract
efficiency primarily in how effectively you can lauter it. That's another
thread. You should see the hydrometer you use. The stem is about an eight
of an inch in diameter and quite delicate. Each hydrometer only covers a
range of one degree Plato on a six inch scale!
_______
It's that other thread I'd like to follow up now -- that the exact
composition of your grind affects extract efficiency primarily in how
effectively you can lauter it. Now the lab analysis is quite different from
normal brewing. After the mash sequence, the mash (50 g of malt with water)
is brought up to exactly 450 g and then is filtered through a paper filter,
and the gravity of the result is measured. Nevertheless, since the grinds
are very fine and very coarse, it seems that it should be a good indicator
of the importance of the grind on the amount of extract. Am I making a big
goof here?
So, the effectiveness of the lauter. The lucky ones out there will have
access to Charlie Scandrett's lautering FAQ, but I don't. The basics are
removing the liquid you mash with (first wort) and then rinsing out
remaining wort (sparging). My two cents worth are that I favour a very thin
mash so that the first wort is of a greater volume and lower gravity,
meaning that sparging is less demanding. I counteract the temperature
sensitivity by using a step mash with slowish boosts.
Isn't temperature and pH towards the end of sparging far more important for
grain astringency than malt grind?
I use a Corona mill, now motorized, and I am satisfied with its performance.
Perhaps I'm just one of the luck ones who know how to adjust it. I've also
used malt ground at the local brewery with a four roller mill, and I didn't
notice that this grind gave better results. Perhaps I'm just too thick to
notice the difference?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
BTW, when I read AI, I always think A.I., like artificial intelligence.
Artificial? Perhaps he is an adjunct professor?
Jack thought his mill got a bad review in a magazine because he didn't
advertise in it. Naw... but perhaps they use blow-off tubes.
Regarding Gambrinus Malt, familiarity breeds contempt and I live next door.
- -- Rob Lauriston in Vernon, B.C.
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:00:08 -0500
From: Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com>
Subject: Stripes & Plaid
I can't believe my luck....
I finished up brewing a most excellent American Pale Ale tonight and figured
I would sit down while the chilled wort settled for a moment before I added
the yeast and watch some fights.
I was also watching the Redwing/Blues game. Well the game went into overtime
and the Wings won (go ahead and gloat Babcock). So I switched the channel to
Letterman only to see some stupid skit where dave has escaped from prison
with that little evil garden Gnome Paul Shaeffer (sp?).
Well it turns out Shaeffer is wearing a kilt, plaid, pretending to be
Scottish and has a set of Bagpipes...
Please tell me that my beer is not ruined....
Scott "Damn that T.V." Abene
####################################################
# ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT #
# Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com> #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat #
# (Skotrats Official Homebrew "Beer Slut" Webpage) #
# OR #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat/Brew-Rat-Chat/ #
# (Skotrats Brew-Rat-Chat Homebrew Chat System) #
# "Get off your dead ass and brew" #
####################################################
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Bad Score Sheets/Judges
If anyone missed Al's comment on the work he put in on BOSS, let me add
that the effort expended on the Capitol District Open is somewhat
comparable. Getting 500+ score sheets sorted, certificates printed, judge
reports done, winners posted on various newsgroups, ribbons sorted,
envelopes stuffed and mailed is a rather large task. By Friday after the
Saturday competition I begin getting calls from entrants who haven't
received their score sheets.
If the judges are waiting for me to review and comment on their
score sheets, they have a very long wait. I also second Al's comment that
if entrants would only let us know when they are unhappy with their score
sheets, we certainly would at least pass it on to the judge(s). I rarely
hear from an entrant. Maybe they figure it's just beer.
BTW, to encourage feedback, this year my name, address and email are
printed at the bottom on every score sheet along with an invitation to
entrants to contact me if they have a problem with the scores received.
Someday, like the Maytag repair guy, I might get a call.
Cheers, Fred
==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will | <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it. |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net
==============================================================================
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:33:33 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Mash pH
I thought it was very interesting that Steve Zabarnick's reported RO mash
pH of 5.3 using "high kilned" grains was consistent with Fred Waltman's
data for all but the pale Gambrinus malts (5.4). I guess I'll revise my
thinking about the necessity for carbonate except where the really acid
stuff (patent) is used. Actually, I guess I'll continue to monitor mash pH
as I go!
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel at interramp.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 09:01:37 EDT
From: usbscrhc at ibmmail.com
Subject: Water Analysis
The following is my local water analysis. Can chemists/experts help decipher
it??? I'm an extract & specialty grain brewer...but any relevant all-grain
info would also be welcome. Thanks!All units are mg/L (ppm?) except when noted
Alkalinity 54
Bicarbonates 66 Total Organic Carbon 1.47
Chloride 28 Total Trihalomethanes 44 (micrograms/L)
Hardness, EDTA 91
pH 8
Silica 6.4
Sulfate 16
Calcium 23
Magnesium 6.8
Potassium 2.3
Sodium 9.9
Zinc .012
Howard - usbscrhc at ibmmail.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:33:57 -0500
From: "Michael T. Bell" <mikeb at flash.net>
Subject: RIMS
Howdy,
I'm sure this has been covered, but we all like to beat dead horses
here. I am looking for an affordable pump for a RIMS I am building
this summer. The one compatible one I found was in the
Grainger(sp?) catalog. It listed for ~$150, was rated for
only180F, and suggested that it only be used intermitedly. These
are 3 undesirable qualities as for as I'm concerned. I'm going to be
using 1 pump for recirc and transfering. Along with pump names, I
would love to know where to find this product in the yellow pages.
On another note, I am considering welding my SS female/female
ball valves directly into my kegs, replacing the need for 1 coupling
and 2 nipples per keg. Good or bad idea?
-mtb
beer is good food
Michael T. Bell
E- mail: mikeb at flash.net
Home: 817.468.8849
Fax: 817.468.7121
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:37:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: English Taste
Steve writes:
<On another topic, I've detected a distinctive flavor in several British ales
<I've tasted recently, namely Fullers Olde Winter Ale and Shepherd Neame's
<Bishop's Finger Kentish Ale.
Its most likely diacetyl. Diacetyl at or slightly above threshold
( ~.1 mg/L) is a beneficial component of many ales and ales of the
UK in particular. In small amounts it has a distinctive butter flavor/
aroma but in excessive levels becomes undesirable. Both Fullers and SN are
excellent examples of UK brewing and often have a distinctive diacetyl
component.
Rob writes about dry hopping:
<I think that the infection was probably there in primary, but that's just an
<intuitive reaction. You state that it still smelled good in primary, but by
<the time you went to secondary, your ph should have dropped enough to limit
<the beasties, and the ETOH levels should also be inhibitory.
<I certainly wouldn't point the finger at dry-hopping, although it is
<possible.
Bacteria and all kinds of "bugs" can and are present on raw hops. If
you culture some hops on different media you can get all kinds of
growth that one would not want in beer. Rob is perfectly correct
in pointing out that in green beer it is almost impossible to get
growth out of the bugs on the hops. It can happen but I agree completely
with Rob about suspecting the original culture first.
<Ken Joseph's recirc question on his 3 Tier>
<<Just pour it in gently.
This is what I do too. When I first built my brewery I made this sprinkler
device to shower the sparge water gently. All this did was add another
gadget to hook up and there was a large temp loss by using this. I
now just hang the hot water hose off my hot water heater and let it
gently splash on the grain bed, moving the position every 10 mins or
so during a 60-75 min lauter. I do vorlauf (recirc) for 10 -15 mins
before diverting clear wort to the kettle and during the vorlauf I
also gently pour the wort onto the grains. If your bed is deep enough
it should not disturb the grains too much.
Good brewing,
Jim Busch
Colesville, Md
Nothing left to do but ;-} ;-} ;-}
-R. Hunter
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 07:48:36 -0000
From: Mark Dimke <dimke at montana.campus.mci.net>
Subject: immersion Chiller tube size
IN HBD 2039 Greg Writes
>I am going to build an immersion chiller, and would like to get your =
ideas
>(or hard data if you have it) regarding the best size of copper tubing =
to
>use (apologies if this is a topic that has been beaten to death at an =
earlier
>time).
>The 3/8" O.D. and 1/2" O.D. tubing seem to be popular choices. I'm =
considering
>the narrower 1/4" O.D. tubing because the surface-to-volume ratio is =
greater
>for narrower tubing than it is for wider tubing (for a given volume of =
water).
>My thinking is that in the narrower tubing more of the water will come =
into
>contact with the hot copper surface, and more heat will be transferred =
to the
>water.
=20
My brewing partners and I have been using a 1/4 copper wort immersion =
chiller for about 10 or so batches now. It works OK but we want to =
build a bigger ID one. The reason being after you coil the tube the =
resistance to flow is so grate that keeping the in tube on is a pain. =
Several cable ties later we can keep it on but, we have to keep the flow =
turned way down. Works OK, and saves water ( In Montana who cares?) but =
a bigger ID tube would work better due to the ability to push more water =
threw. When we start the outflow water is so hot you could burn =
yourself, it would definitely be more efficient if I could shove more =
water threw. Approximately 190 degrees. =20
I would put a plug in for a small coil in the design of a immersion =
chiller. Ours is about 2.5 inches in diameter and looks like a wand. =
When we chill the wort we stir with the chiller, and I can tell you from =
experience this is important. When we first start as I stated you could =
burn yourself on the out flow, but only when stirring if you stop the =
out flow water will drop at least 40 degrees in seconds. You have to =
stay in contact with the hot wort. What I am trying to get at here is =
that for an immersion chiller it is much more efficient to stir using =
the chiller than to let the thing sit in the bottom and this is most =
easily accomplished using something that looks like a wand. We do 10 =
gallon batches and using this chiller, ( which remember I don't like due =
to its inefficiency relative to what it could be.) and placing the boil =
pot in a tub full of cold water with a hose running in it, ( we brew =
outside) we chill the wort in 7-12 minuets all the way down to 75 =
degrees. Back when we did 5 gallon batches I seem to remember we did it =
in 5-7 minutes. ( I must admit we get a helping hand from the city =
water 34-36 degrees in the winter and only about 40-45 in the dead of =
summer.)
Brew on
Mark
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:11:50 -0500
From: Bill Giffin <billg at maine.com>
Subject: Malting and Brewing Science
Top of the morning to ye all,
Jack S said:
>
>On the other side of this issue... let's keep in mind that M&BS is
>intended for and aimed at large commercial brewers. I can not say
>often enough or with enough emphasis that what works for large
>scale brewers does not necessarily apply to homebrew sized batches.
Brewing is brewing and knowledge will set you free. Perhaps we can not
afford the elaborate equipment that the large brewers can afford but with
the knowledge some times we can compensate for the lack of equipment. Many
folks are happy with the MaltMill and 28-30 pppg. I would much rather have
a yeild of 31-35 pppg. That last 10 per cent is where a lot of the flavor
resides. Aside from better flavor. I paid for the malt and I will get
everything I can out of it.
For doubting Tracy. That was the crush I got with my poor old beat up,
terrrible Corona. When I bought it, it was the only mill available in Maine
to the homebrewer. I purchased the best tool I could and learned how to
use it.
I broke out the Phil's Mill that I have had for a couple of years but hadn't
bothered to set up as I saw no real need to. Cranking the mill by hand
turned me off and I nearly junked it. But hooked up to a 1/2" drill turning
at 500 rpm +- the mill provided a very exceptable crush. I brewed two
batches of beer yesterday. One with Hugh Baird malt and the other with Durst
Pils. Yeild was slightly better then with the Corona. Laugtering was about
the same. We will have to wait to see if the beer is any better.
I have been impressed with the design of the Phil's Mill because of the
curved strick plate of the mill approximated the nip of a much larger roller
mill.
The only experience I have had with the JSP MaltMill was with a fixed and
early mill that allowed a number of whole corns to pass through the mill. I
was not impressed enough to give up the poor old Corona.
To Chuck Volle, your concrete mill is what this is about. I plan to try
something simular in the future. If you can't afford to buy it, build the
rascal. May even be better then what you could have purchased!
May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you are dead,
Bill Bill Giffin
61 Pleasant St.
Richmond, ME 04357
(207)-737-2015
All you need is a few good friends and plenty to drink because thirst is a
terrible thing!
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 11:52:51 CDT
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: yeast names (delbrueckii)
In Digest #2039:
Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> wrote:
>My search of the online ATCC catalog shows no S.Delbrueckii (or Delbruckii)
>strain. Only the enigmatic ...
> Saccharomyces cerevisiae
> ATCC 96505
> J.M. Birmingham HB-23. William's liquid brewers' yeast
> for Delbruckii wheat, San Leandro, CA.
>
>There were in excess of a dozen Lactobacillus delbrueckii strains, and
>in a private email Spencer Thomas notes ...
>
>>At least one yeast that was previously considered S. delbrueckii is now in
>>Torulaspora, according to the ATCC on-line catalog.
>
>I'd really like to be convinced that this was a reclassification and
>not an entirely different species that Hans put his name on.
>Confusing Torulaspora for an S.Cerevisiae sound odd to me.
It's unlikely too. Based on cellular morphology using light microscopy, the
Wyeast 3068 (Weihenstephan) strain appears to be a Saccharomyces species.
>In any case there's apparently no S.Delbrueckii anymore if there ever
>really was such a classification. Extinction at the stroke of a pen.
I imagine the colloquial use of scientific names has resulted in this
confusion. I doubt there ever really WAS a Saccharomyces delbrueckii
species, but perhaps S. cerevisiae (var. delbrueckii)? Such a designation
would probably be more accurate. While the Weihenstephan weizen strain is
obviously quite distinct (in terms of biochemistry and physiology) from
other more typical S. cerevisiae strains, I don't believe it was ever
'officially' considered to be a distinct species.
>Does anyone know of a reference to this species that didn't come from
>Wyeast literature?
I've never found one and I've been looking for quite a while now.
>I understand that S.uvarum or carlbergensis are also misnomers in light of
>modern classification, but that's another story.
Well that's another story I'd like to get into (rant mode on). One of the
problems with taxonomy is that by the time the 'current' or "modern"
classifications actually appear in print, they're usually already outdated.
There's also frequently heated debate between the 'lumpers' and the
'splitters'. Typically, taxonomists prefer to be able to identify a species
by morphological characteristics, so that it can be keyed and classified
simply by looking closely at a single specimen. However, in practice this
often becomes a problem, particularly with microflora like yeasts (viral
taxonomy is even worse). Historically, the lumpers have prevailed, in the
case of yeasts. I think this is mostly due to the fact that taxonomists are
classically trained in organismal and cellular morphology and they typically
use these gross characteristics to make conclusions about phylogenetic
relationships. However, biochemists and geneticists working with yeast (and
brewers) generally recognize the fact that such taxonomic schemes are
entirely inadequate, as many 'strains' are very clearly biochemically,
physiologically, or genetically distinct, even though they might all 'look'
the same. From a practical standpoint, those working with yeasts (as opposed
to just grouping and naming them) need a means of distinguishing between the
various physiologically distinct strains, hence brewers have tended to shun
the lumper-taxonomists who would call them all S. cerevisiae. That's
probably where the 'unofficial' name S. delbrueckii originated, with
brewers, not the taxonomists.
Recently (over the last several years) some scientists have challenged
several major taxa, claiming that basing phylogenetic relationships on
morphological characteristics can be quite inaccurate, particularly in cases
of convergent evolution. This new breed of taxonomist is now using molecular
data to determine evolutionary relationships, such as DNA, RNA, and protein
sequences. Based on molecular data it has recently been suggested that many
of the currently accepted taxa are inaccurate. For example, Dan Grauer et.
al. have found that rabbits are actually more closely related to kangaroos
and dolphins than they are to rats, and hence it is incorrect to lump
Lagomorpa into Rodentia. Presumably, once such molecular data are taken into
closer consideration, entirely new phylogenetic trees will be developed
which are quite different from current classifications based on
morphological characteristics. This applies to yeasts as well.
Although it's generally held that both S. cerevisiae and S. uvarum are
the same species, based on recent genetic evidence this does not appear to
be the case, and these two species appear to have diverged some time ago
(we're talking geological time scales here). In particular, analysis of the
DNA reassociation kinetics of 24 different wine and beer-associated
Saccharomyces strains confirms the presence of at least three distinct
species. Lager yeast (S. uvarum) contains two different genomes, one derived
from S. cerevisiae and the other similar to the genomes of S. bayanus and S.
monacensis. Furthermore, S. cerevisiae and S. bayanus strains have only 22%
of their genomes in common. Hence, it would appear that S. uvarum diverged
from S. cerevisiae very long ago, presumably by hybridizing with S. bayanus
or S. monacensis, and is approximately 50% divergent from S. cerevisiae at
the DNA level. Ain't taxonomy fun now!
Sorry about the long rant, but you know how to page down, right? Also, I'm
sorry I couldn't offer any help to you Steve, but I prefer to keep
lactobacilli out of my beer, so I won't offer any advice in regard to adding
it to your beer. Good luck.
Tracy (aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu)
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:05:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at maxx.mc.net>
Subject: Skewed rollers, again..
>From: merino at cynergy.com.au (Charlie Scandrett)
>Size *is* important, but diameter, not length!
You made a point for the advantage of a larger roller and MMII
has rollers 3" in diameter. However, to dismiss length as unimportant
is absurd. Just take it to any extreme and you will get half the point
and when you understand the "skewed rollers business" you will
get the other.
>There is no doubt that Jack Schmidling is a fine intuitive engineer and
brewer, but good humour and reason are *sometimes* missing from his
arguments?
It's always there. Just seems that some folks have a hard time finding
it when looking for something else. Turn up the gain on your
humor detector.
> I am interested in a scientific explanation of the non-parallel
roller "feature", crushing some grains more lightly than others makes little
sense to me?
Well, the key to the mystery lies in that obscure art of statistics.
What the sieve tests do is provide a measure of the statistical
distribution of particle size. It does not measure how hard an
individual grain is squeezed.
As long as all the grains are squeezed hard enough to break the
endosperm loose, the only effect of squeezing some of them harder
is to incrase the quantity of grist toward the finer end of the
distrubution.
So if we start with a mill that squeezes the grain well enough to
satisfy thousands of happy homebrewers, viz., the Pre-adjusted
MM, and then tighten up one end of the spacing to about the
same as the closest spacing on a multi-stage mill, guess what
happens?
The overall distrubution starts to look like it went through a
multi-stage roller mill. Run it through again or make the rollers
longer and it gets even closer.
BUT! Let me again point out that just because Megabrewers need
this sort of grist, there is no reason to assume that homebrewers do.
The many happy fixed MM users would indicate just the opposite.
>S, your provacative signature line suggests that you are looking for much
more than beer in the HBD?
If you held your tongue for 24 hrs, you would realize that the sig line is
only two lines and what you referred to was a one-time piece of...
guess what? HUMOR!!! :) :) :)
It showed up twice because my posting was so long
I had to send it in two pieces and the HUMOR didn't get edited
out of the second half.
>From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson at beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
>I do have one suggestion for Jack to incorporate into his mill if
he already hasn't. The roller assembly rests on a board that makes
the seal on the bucket referred to above. The hole cut in this board
is slightly smaller than the walls of the roller assembly. This
doesn't affect the crush. But afterwards when I clean the rollers with
a brush, this lip traps malt flour. I have to work it back and forth to
get it off. I probably don't get it as clean as I should. If it were
flush, the flour would fall out as I took it off the rollers. I don't
beleive this change would affect the operation or strength of the mill
in a material way.
You would be surprised how much extra strength that little extra
"meat" provides. Keep in mind a long slot going to within an inch of
the edge, with a mounting hole in that limited space and particle
board to boot. It's the weakest link in the chain and about the
only thing that ever gets broken on the MM but of course is cover by
the LIFETIME warranty.
>From: "Craig Rode" <craig.rode at sdrc.com>
>I make great beer, but it bugs me. I have noticed that when
I used 50% Schrier 2 row and 50% DWC, my yield goes closer
to 27. So..Could the Schrier be stale....
I think this is a good example of why I keep knock the use of
percent extract. The bottom line is the gravity/volume produced
from a given amount of malt and not someone's guess at the
amount of sugar in a particular malt.
I could never get my yields above 28 till I switched to DWC Pils
malt. "It's the malt.. stupid." Must I add a smiley? I refuse.
Now obvioiusly all these big time maltsters would go out of business
if they tried selling this stuff to the mega brewers so we can only
reach one conclusion. They pawn off the reject stuff on the
homebrew community.
I say that with more than a shot in the dark. Back when I was
debugging the MM, I had problems with the same malt I started
the design with. When I discussed it with the maltster he confessed
that this lot did not meet their spec for plumpness (too big) but they
didn't think homebrewers would care.
>From: RMoline930 at aol.com
>I'm not surprised that your sparge stuck, with all that cracked
corn! Your suggestion that you may have cracked the corn too
finely seems right on the money to me. If I dumped that much
'creamed corn' in a mash, I would expect the same result.
I missed the original article but it is my experience that corn
meal works as well as cracked corn if the rest of the process
is compatible. The nice thing about a web page is that I do not
have to bore uninterested folks with re-runs. There is an article
on corn beer in the Application Notes section of our web.
js
***********************
Visit our Web page for product flyers, applications info and other
totally unbiased opinions from the World's Greatest Brewer.
http://dezines.com/ at your.service/jsp/
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:52:15 EST5EDT
From: "Gregg Dolbec" <GREGG at UMS1.Lan.McGill.CA>
Subject: Wort Cooling
Brew Masters,
I 've brewed only a few batches of beer but now I have conflicting
advice on cooling the wort prior to pitching yeast. I don't have a
chiller yet. C. Papazian (Beginners guide to HB..) says beginners can
add the Hot wort to the cold water in primary, but John J. Palmer
(http:/realbeer.com/spencer/howtobrew1st.html/ ) says no way! John
says to cool the wort in your sink with ice surrounding the kettle.
So what is the best way for a beginner brewer to chill? Will Charlie's
easier method cause offtastes?
Thanks,
Gregg at ums1.lan.mcgill.ca
Montreal
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 10:02:53 PDT
From: mikehu at lmc.com
Subject: Schmidling
Jack, why don't you do us all a favor and take your childish
arguments, petty bullshit, and self-serving endorsements into
some other forum (like private e-mail). I for one am tired of
seeing this crap everyday, especially since it serves no purpose
except for you to banter on and on about your "by-products".
Your sensitivity to what others say about these "by-products"
indicates to me a lack of confidence on your part as to their
worth and/or usefulness.
> totally unbiased opinions from the World's Greatest Brewer.
mh
Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Subject: immersion wort chillers
Gregory King <GKING at ARSERRC.Gov> writes:
>The 3/8" O.D. and 1/2" O.D. tubing seem to be popular choices. I'm considering
>the narrower 1/4" O.D. tubing because the surface-to-volume ratio is greater
>for narrower tubing than it is for wider tubing (for a given volume of water).
>My thinking is that in the narrower tubing more of the water will come into
>contact with the hot copper surface, and more heat will be transferred to the
>water.
>
>Of course theory is one thing, and reality is sometimes another thing. How do
>your real-life experiences correspond with this idea?
>
The theory is right. Keep in mind that two other variables are involved: the
length of the chiller and the flow rate of the water. You could use the thinner
tubing and a slower flow rate and get the same water volume moving as in
the thicker tubing chiller.
FWIW, I used all 50 feet of 3/8" Cu and made an inner coil (by using a
champagne bottle to wrap around) and an outer coil (used a potted plant).
It works well, but I still need to get a motorized stirrer to use while
chilling
to be most efficient.
- Bryan
grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville, TN
Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Subject: Hunter airstat
Scott Kaczorowski <kacz at aisf.com> writes:
> I have a Hunter Airstat (sorry I dont have the model #) that I would
> like to use to control the temperature of my keg refrigerator so that
> I can do some lagering. The way that this thing works is [deleted]
> The question I have is whether or not the freezer section will remain
> at frozen temperatures or will the Airstat cause the compressor to cut
> out too frequently to keep it cold?
Use a thermometer and find out. Or use a cup of water.
On my fridge, the freezer stops freezing when you set the fridge for over
about 48 F. You can probably tweak the settings to get a bit higher; my
fridge is old. This is a bit of a drag when you try to use the freezer as
a second freezer, or even to store hops.
> Is there some way to have the
> Airstat control only the temperature of the refrigerator section?
Not that I know of.
I find this airstat does a great job (if you don't need the freezer). The
range is 40F to around 80. Below 40, you can use the fridge controls
to get the 32-38 range.
Unfortunately, it has been said that this model is discontinued.
- Bryan
grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville, TN
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 13:15:02 -0500
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Fridge thermostats
>From: Scott Kaczorowski <kacz at aisf.com>
>Subject: Affect of Hunter Airstat on freezer question
> The question I have is whether or not the freezer section will remain
> at frozen temperatures or will the Airstat cause the compressor to cut
> out too frequently to keep it cold? Is there some way to have the
> Airstat control only the temperature of the refrigerator section? I am
> relatively handy and am not afraid of doing some adaptation of the
> controller and/or refrigerator if its called for.
This brings to mind a thought about the whole concept of temperature control
in a refrigerator/freezer. I had always considered the external thermostat
compressor control as the standard homebrewer's method.
But as I read Scott's post it came to me, why not use an entirely different
system. Continue using the normal fridge control and thermostat. Here's the
big ASSumption: the temperature sensor is in the freezer section and the
refrigerator section is kept cool by colder air migrating in from the
freezer. I do think that is the way things work. Now why not use a method
where the air migration is regulated to the refrigerator section to control
the temperature. This would allow full use of the freezer as normal.
Some sort of mechanical vane could be used to regulate the air flow. This
could be done with a bimetal spiral as in a thermostat, or it could be done
electrically using some sort of solenoid actuator.
Some refrigerator compartments may not actually be able to get down to below
about 38 degrees F. or so. I guess it is part of the design (would not want
people freezing and breaking the mayonaise jars and suing now would we). So
maybee what is needed is a way to INCREASE the air migration into the
refrigerator section. This is really just an idea post. How about this, a
small 12 volt fan or two fans setup back to back to push or pull air
depending on the temperature wanted?
First time I get my hands on a spare fridge I hope to try this.
Ronald J. La Borde "If the only tool you have is a hammer,
Metairie, LA you tend to see every problem as a nail."
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:04:55 -0400
From: RMoline930 at aol.com
Subject: Variety
<Brewing Matilda>
Thank you! Boy, you guys sure know how to load up the old mailbox!
Ever mind ful of being cruel or just plain tacky, I had wanted to cancel
it, until I had run it by a few folks for comment. But what the hell, it
wouldn't have been the first time I did something stupid! I just hope
Jack takes it well, in the spirit in which it was intended, completely
lacking in spite. Just for FUN, you know! While I find him somewhat
amusing in his apparent self righteousness, I think the HBD would be
missing something without him. He certainly adds a spark and a passion
to the discussion, and in a world of ever increasing blandness, a character
like Jack is welcome. Truly, I have learned a bunch from him!
But, the point is I understand why some folks get turned off.
<Ron Thomson> asks about Rye.I use pre-gelatinized flakes from Briess in a
mash of 25 % DWC wheat, 12.5 % rye flakes, the rest Schreier 2row. It makes a
crisp clean pilsner like beer. I was really pleased with it.
<Matt Apple> asks about keg cleaning and sanitizing with iodophor. My
practice is to flush with 160 F caustic at 2 % causticity, drain, rinse with
h2o, bung with a iodophor soaked wooden bung, pressurize to 10psi co2, vent,
pressurize, vent, pressurize, then store in the cold room until time to fill,
via counterpressure. I used to do an Iodophor rinse, but was convinced this
was un-necessary by Steve Bradt of Free State Brewing. The theory is that not
much can grow in a high co2, cold environment, and to date there have been no
prob's.
<Paul Brian>on flour/ HSA./Boilng Grain. Yes, HSA can be induced during
recirc and sparge, but until you get a system like the excellent one enjoyed
by our friends at Victory Brewing, there ain't a hell of a lot you can do
about it. BTW, get a copy of the brewery info sheet from Victory, most
enlightening! Like they point out, long term stability is the benefit to HSA
elimination. You won't be able to tell the difference anyway, unless you just
go out of your way to induce it.RDWHAHB!
Every mill ever made produces some flour. RDWHAHB!
Try steeping your specialty grain at 145 F for an hour rather than boiling
it. You will taste the difference here.
<Chris G> on grain crush.This is currently being discussed online. Go back
through the past few copies and you will see excellent info!
<Rob Ray> asks about non metallic scrubbers on kegs. Go for it,or use a
stainless scourer. Just don't use any ferous metals to scrub with. Excellent
post recently from HBD's resident metallurgist John Palmer in Issue 2033.
<Steve Adams> on EKG FWH. I did it on one IPA, 1 Lb pellets, and boosted the
bejesus out of the rest of the hop bill. I loved the results, but without
doing it one variable at a time, I couldn't give you specific info. But I am
continuing to go that way.
<Paul Feine> on the aging process. I prefer to age my beers for at least 3
weeks at 38 F.I find that I'm a bit of a pariah amongst my fellow brewers in
this region, in that they want the beer out fast, as fresh as possible. I
just prefer what I perceive to be a 'softening' of the flavor. More rounded,
smoother. Just a personal preference. Hop notes seem softer.
Hail to Brewers!
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company
Manhattan, Kansas
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 15:21:52 -0500
From: Joseph Dargis <jddretlt at eclipse.net>
Subject: Beer Glasses
- -- [ From: Joseph Dargis * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
FWIW, I remember asking my dad what the difference was between styles of
beer glasses. His reply was: the glasses which look like ice cream cones
(inverted triangles) were for drinking Pilsner beer and the glasses which
looked like soda fountain Coca-Cola glasses were for drinking lagers. My
dad (rest his soul), being a coal miner from eastern PA, had many years
experiance drinking beer at the 2 dozen bars within four blocks in our old
home town - never bottled, always on tap or in a take-home galvanized pail -
so I can only assume he knew from lager and pilsner glasses. IMHO, a
frosted mug which perfectly fits a 12 0z homebrew is the perfect receptacle
for enjoying the fruits of our labors --- my wife purchased plastic double-
walled mugs with liquid inside which, when frozen, has the ability to keep
the last one ounce in the mug cold for about two hours! (NOTE: I never take
that long to drink a beer; that was only a test!)
By the way, since this is my first post, I would like to ask if there are
any brew clubs in the Plainfield New Jersey area.
Keep On Brewing...........Joe Dargis..........brewing for five months and
loving it!
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 13:58:09 -0600
From: wmccorkl at jefferson.NMSU.Edu (Wayne McCorkle)
Subject: First Grain Batch
This weekend I plan to do my first all grain batch. Many thanks to all who
offered help on removing labels from my buckets for the Zappap lauter tun.
I think I have the procedure down except for one thing. I understand that I
must always keep the water level above the grain in the latuer tun to avoid
a stuck sparge. But, I need to use a set amount of water to sprage, say
3 gallons, just for a good round number. Seems that when I get near the end of
the 3 gallons, the water level MUST drop below the level of the grain. Am I
missing something here?
Also, the recipe calls for a quantity of crystal malt. In extract brewing, the
crystal malt is typically steeped as the wort is brought to a boil. Do I do the
same here, or am I supposed to use the crystal malt in the mash as well.
Thanks for the help!
R. Wayne McCorkle Mechanical Engineering Department
New Mexico State University
Voice: 505-646-5733 Fax: 505-646-6111
rmccorkl at nmsu.edu http://essex.nmsu.edu/~rmccorkl/
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:27:22 -0500
From: gameier at fmc.com (Gary A. Meier)
Subject: Where to go in Brussels?
A fellow beer-nut is going to be spending a few days in Brussels, Belgium
later this month. He would like information on what must-see breweries
and/or beer bars are in the city or easily accessible by public
transportation. Please e-mail responses directly to me and I'll compile
them. If anyone else wants a copy of the results, let me know and I'll
e-mail you a copy.
Thanks. Gary
**************************************************************************
Gary Meier, Ph.D. Senior Research Computational Chemist
FMC Corporation
Agricultural Products Group phone: (609) 951-3448
Box 8 fax: (609) 951-3835
Princeton, NJ 08543 email: gameier at fmc.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:09:10 -0700
From: Dave Mercer <dmercer at path.org>
Subject: Foamy bottling session
The other day I bottled a five gallon batch of honey wheat beer and had a
problem I haven't faced before: foam. There was a lot of it. This beer sat
for almost two weeks in a primary and two weeks in a secondary (both glass).
There was no activity in the airlock, and the gravity had stopped dropping.
But it was foamy when I bottled it - not what I would call gushing, but
enough that, for the first case of bottles in particular, I couldn't fill
them all the way at first and had to go back later and top them off. I've
never had this happen before. Is this normal, or at least common, with wheat
beer? Nothing else is special about the beer (except that I made it for my
wife):
3 1/2 # Pale malt
3 1/2 # Wheat malt
A pound total of Belgian pils and 40L crystal
1 1/2 # honey
Hallertauer hops
2-step infusion
1056 yeast 500L starter
Fermented at 66F
O.G. 1.052
F.G. 1.014
The only things I can think might cause this are a) some effect of wheat on
carbonation or fermentation, or b) infection. It tasted fine at bottling,
if a little bland (but then, my pleasure zone starts at 60 IBUs. My wife, on
the other hand, is NOT a hop-head.)
So whaddayathink? Is my beer ruined? Should I throw it out? [joke]
Return to table of contents
Date: 17 May 96 17:58:31 EDT
From: "Kenneth D. Joseph" <74651.305 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Summary of 3 Tier First Running Return Question
Thank you everyone for the helpful responses to my question regarding gravity
breweries and the method to best recirculate first runnings. The consensus was
first to of course keep the liquor level at least 1" - 2" above the mash level,
then to use a vessel that can be floated atop the liquor to pour out slowly
avoiding HSA. By this token, the funnel idea was not such a good idea after all:
_____
HL | \ /
kettle | ___ \ / funnel
|_ |__ | | _
|____|====|_|========
| b.v. "T" sparge
______|
Hey this ascii art stuff is pretty fun!
Gravity system brewers seem to be highly critical of pumps and RIMS systems (no
lets not start the RIMS debate again). As for me, the brewery's still under
construction -- will be plumbed next week, and rack will be built. To those who
responded, I'd love to keep up the independent dialogue to improve all of our
designs.
Thanks again.
kj
"Ken Joseph" 74651.305 at compuserve.com
Return to table of contents