---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Mike Donald, Digest Janitor-in-training
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  2267-high Ca, high FG (th22 at cornell.edu)
  PLEASE FIX THE HBD/ESB body+solventy aroma/diacetyl (korz at xnet.com)
  My first beer batch (Jorge Blasig - IQ)
  Post results ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
  Mash Efficiency Question/Problem (Tim Martin)
  Beer Filters (Marty Tippin)
  portable brew/CO2 blanket (Eugene Sonn)
  porter lager ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Frozen yeast died (Tim Martin)
  AHA competitions ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Using weight for priming sugar (Dan Morley)
  fittings, fittings, fittings (homebrew at ix.netcom.com)
  Lightstruck Taste discussed ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
  Re: Al's Gas Experiment (Kelly Jones)
  Re: Dropped posts, HBD subscriptions (Dave Greenlee)
  mashout/fill experiment (korz at xnet.com)
  how long to sparge?/O2 cap sanitation/air dispense (korz at xnet.com)
  Oak Barrel Exp. (Thomas Flanagan)
  Multiple responses (u-brew-it)
  Hazelnut brown (u-brew-it)
  Dry hopping And disintegrating air stones (Richard Walto)

For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
  homebrew at aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org
  and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.

Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
  a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
  then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor,
homebrew-digest-owner at aob.org.

OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
  http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
  http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
  info at aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.

ARCHIVES:
  At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp.  Also
  http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.

COPYRIGHT:
  As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
  original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
  Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
  collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
  may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
  posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: th22 at cornell.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:36:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 2267-high Ca, high FG

Dave Whitman wrote: 
 
>However, I'm still trying to understand how my efficiency can be 
>invarient, but >my attenuation change dramatically upon changing [Ca]. 
 
Several people have responded that this may be a result of effects on the 
diastatic enzymes, particularly alpha amylase.  What Dave observed was that 
after he began adding calcium to his RO water the final gravity (FG) of his 
brews went up. 
 
To me this doesn't suggest an effect on alpha amylase (in which case I 
think he would see lower FG due to production by alpha amylase of more 
substrate for beta amylase and therefore more fermentability) but rather 
suggests an effect on the yeast.  I just know I have a reference on the 
effect of calcium on yeast floculation, and I've been looking for it for a 
week while this thread has been running but I can't come up with it. 
Anyway, I believe that increasing calcium improves yeast floc formation, 
and that this would explain Dave's higher FG in the prescence of increased 
calcium; esentially the yeast is dropping out a bit sooner and leaving more 
fermentables behind. 
 
If this is the case, then Dave should be able to get the FG back down by 
rousing the yeast.  Does anyone else recall hearing that Ca++ increases 
floculation? 
 
Tom Herlache 
th22 at cornell.edu 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:46:43 -0600 (CST)
Subject: PLEASE FIX THE HBD/ESB body+solventy aroma/diacetyl

I find it very irritating that I have to check to make sure that posts 
actually make it into the HBD.  A response from aob.org is no guarantee 
that the post actually will make it.  Furthermore, you will see a post in 
#2274 that refers to "my previous post on diacetyl."  Well, that previous 
post was probably a victim of the "[none]" bug or something.  I've fixed 
up this post so you don't have to refer back to my correction in #2274. 
 
*** 
 
George writes: 
     The things that caught my eye were the complaints of thin body and 
     solvent flavor.  Thin body can come from too long a protein rest at 
     too low a temperature.  You need medium molecular weight proteins to 
     give body to a beer, so you don't want to degrade them too much with a 
     protein rest between 113-122F. 
 
     Solvent flavors can come from too high a fermentation temperature. 
     Excessive esters can also come from this. 
 
 
Actually, I believe that excessive amino acids can result in more higher 
alcohol production, so the two may be related.  A long rest between 113 
and 122F will cut a lot of proteins down to amino acids.  Losing these 
proteins will affect body and head retention and I believe that excess 
amino acids will increase higher alcohol production.  Comments? 
 
George also asked about how to increase diacetyl, that buttery aroma. 
While I don't think that neither Fuller's ESB nor Young's Special London 
Ale are as buttery as some other British ales (like Samuel Smith's or 
Bateman's), use a highly flocculent yeast (like Wyeast #1968 London ESB) 
and then aerate during fermentation.  Yes, that's right, aerate during 
the first part of the fermentation.  This will increase diacetyl production. 
I suggest not waiting too long into the fermentation because you risk 
oxidizing your alcohols.  When your beer just reaches high kraeusen 
aerate once.  You can do this with an airstone or by racking the fermenting 
beer into a secondary, but contrary to the usual advice of running the 
siphon hose all the way into the bottom of the receiving container, you 
let the beer splash in there, aerating the beer.  The highly flocculent 
yeast will drop out before reducing all the diacetyl it made and voila! 
Butterscotch beer! 
 
Al. 
 
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL 
korzonas at lucent.com 
korz at xnet.com 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Jorge Blasig - IQ <gisalb at elmer.fing.edu.uy>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:27:17 -0300 (UY)
Subject: My first beer batch

 
 
> Dear friends, 
> 
> I am ready to brew my first beer this weekend. I have a certain unhopped 
> extract which is used for baking (the only one I can get here in Uruguay), 
> 50%-55% maltose, 20% dextrins and 5-6% proteins. I hope it will ferment fine.
> I have a recipe David Burley suggested me to use. I will change it a little 
> though. I will use ale yeasts from MauriBrew, Australia (Burley suggested me 
> lager yeasts) considering that the weather is hot here (higher than 20 
> degrees C). OG will be around 1.06; I want a somehow high alcohol 
> content (around 5.5-6% in volume). 
> I will also use Cascade and Northern Brewers hops in the proportions that 
> Burley suggested. Hopefully it will work. I made a spreadsheet to explain my 
> calculations and want to publish it for you all. Any suggestion will be 
> welcomed. 
> 
> 
> MALT EXTRACT 
> ------------ 
> DENSITY 80 BRIX <> 1.47 g/mL 
> MALTOSE 50-55% 
> DEXTRINS 20% 
> PROTEINS 6% 
> 
> FERMENTATION YIELD  95% (I suppose this value though I do not know 
> whether it would be correct or not) Is there any estimation? 
> 180g glucose ----> 92 X 0.5 X 0.95 = 43.7g alcohol 
> wort density = 1.47 X + 1.00 (1-X), where X = extract fraction in volume 
> alcohol density: 0.7893 
> dextrin density: 1.0384 
>           
> wort    extract    extract  extr/  alc/    alc      alc      dextrin  beer 
> dens. % in vol. % weight batch batch % weight % vol. % weight density        
> g/mL    mL/100 mL  g/100mL  kg/20L kg/20L  g/100mL  mL/100mL g/100mL  g/mL 
>           
> 1.05    10.6       15.58    3.11   0.75    3.77     4.78      3.11    0.993 
> 1.06    12.8       18.81    3.76   0.91    4.56     5.78      3.76    0.992 
> 1.07    14.9       21.90    4.38   1.06    5.32     6.74      4.38    0.990 
> 1.08    17.0       24.99    5.00   1.21    6.07     7.69      5.00    0.989 
> 1.09    19.1       28.08    5.61   1.36    6.81     8.63      5.61    0.988 
> 1.10    21.3       31.31    6.26   1.52    7.60     9.63      6.26    0.986 
> 1.11    23.4       34.40    6.88   1.67    8.35    10.58      6.88    0.985 
> 1.12    25.5       37.48    7.50   1.82    9.10    11.53      7.50    0.984 
>           
> beer density calculation for a wort with OG 1.06 
 
> FG4=0.0456 + 0.0376 + 0.05 + 1/100(100-5.78-3.76/1.0384- 5/1.06)=0.992 
 
> This value is just an approximation and will not be the real value. 
> I considered that there would be 5% (in weight, 5g/100mL)) of unfermented 
> extract and 20% unfermented dextrins and applied the above formula. FG would 
> be higher but I do not have any other equation to help me calculate it. 
> I hope you find it clear. I will be happy to receive comments, suggestions 
> and corrections. I would appreciate any information concerning the way to 
> calculate attenuation and alcohol content from a certain OG wort. 
> Thanks 
> 
> Jorge Blasig 
> 
> 

Return to table of contents


From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:30:10 -0600
Subject: Post results

I posed a question in HBD 2272 about the issue of glycerin and/or glycerol 
in freezing/long term storage of yeast. 
 
The results are in: 
 
in 100% of the cases, Glycerol was said to be the same animal as glycerin, 
and available from your local drugstore. 
 
Thanks to all that answered my question, it is much appreciated. 
 
Jeff 
 
Jeffrey M. Kenton                      finger for PGP public key 
ElEd/SecEd 301 Teaching Assistant 
N013 Lagomarcino Hall                  "Information comes, knowledge lingers" 
jkenton at iastate.edu                                    - Alfred Lord Tennyson 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Tim Martin <TimM at southwest.cc.nc.us>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:33:50 -0500
Subject: Mash Efficiency Question/Problem

Hey Neighbors, 
With only four all grains batches under me I decided to down load one of 
those recipe formulation programs yesterday and run two of my recipes 
through it to see how I was doing on my mash efficiency and I.B.U. hop 
calculations.  To my chagrin I was considerably under the programs 
default mash efficiency of 70%.  One recipe was 42% and the other 
was 51%.  Trying to analyze why I am getting low efficiency I can only 
guess that 1) my hydrometer is off 2) I'm a piss poor masher 3) you tell 
me, please. 
I mash in a Gott cooler, single infusion around 155 degreesF, Klages as 
base malt, sparge with home made rotating Phil's arm, take hydrometer 
reading after boiling and chilling to 65-70 degrees. 
Is a 70% efficiency too much to expect after only four batches?  I really 
don't understand this efficiency stuff that well but I do like the beer I 
made but if I can do better I would like to learn how.  What of the big 
picture I'm I missing here?  If someone would like to take me to the 
sidelines and couch me on this I would sure appreciate it. 
TIA 
Tim Martin 
Cullowhee, NC. 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Marty Tippin <MartyT at geoaccess.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:12:54 -0600
Subject: Beer Filters

Ian Smith asks about filtering his beer. 
 
Assuming you keg the stuff right now, you're in luck.  Otherwise, I 
can't help you. 
 
I've got a partly-completed web page that should have enough information 
that you can figure out how to build your own filter.  Basically, it 
involves one of those whole-house filter units (maybe $15 at builders 
supply houses) with a 0.5 micron pleated polypropylene filter cartridge 
available from The Filter Store Plus (see ads in homebrew mags, $45 or 
so) and some other places.  You should be able to save a few dollars 
over buying the ready-made filter (and you'll have the satisfaction of 
having done it yourself...) 
 
Regarding the reusable vs. disposable filters - the one sold by The 
Filter Store Plus is a reusable one that you backflush after each use; 
I've done a dozen or so batches on it with no problem.  I tried the 
single-use disposable filters from Crystal Clear Products (also 
advertises in most mags, around $6 each) and was disappointed in the 
results (too much foaming and not enough filtering) so I tossed them out 
and went back to my permanent filter.  They may work for some people, 
but I wasn't one of them. 
 
Anyway, the filtering web page and all kinds of other homebrew gadgets 
are at 
 http://www.wwi.net/martyt 
 
- -Marty 
 martyt at wwgv.com 

Return to table of contents


From: Eugene Sonn <eugene at dreamscape.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:11:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: portable brew/CO2 blanket

Regarding using CO2 as a protective blanket between air and your kegged 
beer........ 
 I have had good success using this technique with mini-kegs.  I 
have a combination tap which allows me to use either a CO2 charge or a 
hand air pump to dispense from the same keg.  I've frequently been able to 
use CO2 at first (creating a blanket of it above the beer) and then switch 
to the hand air pump.  Though the CO2 and air may mix, this usually hasn't 
been a problem over the course of one week.  I would assume you could have 
similar results with corny kegs.  Your mileage may vary.....and how 
couldn't it with all this snow? 
 
Eugene 
on the shore of Lake Ontario 
eugene at dreamscape.com 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:48:17 -0600 (CST)
Subject: porter lager

Al K writes: 
>>The concern Tim had was whether it's okay to make a Porter with lager 
>>yeast at 60 degrees.  The answer is... it depends on the yeast. ... 
>> 60F seems like a fine temperature for Wyeast California 
>>Lager (#2112) which is reportedly the yeast used by Anchor for their Steam 
>>and *Porter*. 
> 
According to the brewery tour guide about a year ago, Anchor used to 
use the lager yeast for their Steam and Porter beers, but now they use their 
ale yeast for their porter. 
 
          - Bryan 
            grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu 
            Nashville, TN 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Tim Martin <TimM at southwest.cc.nc.us>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:27:01 -0500
Subject: Frozen yeast died

Hey Neighbors, 
This week end I couldn't take the suspense any longer so I thawed out 
one of my jars of frozen yeast that I put in the deep freezer from last 
brew season.  I opened an old can of extract and boiled it in 2.5 gallons 
of water, cooled and pitched.  Nothing!!! Dead, Still, Quiet after two days. 
This was my first attempt at freezing yeast.  I used London Ale slurry 
with 25% glycerine. 
Maybe I should have waited a few more days but I didn't so I tossed 
some dry yeast on it just to save the batch.  Maybe I should have step up 
the slurry but I didn't.  My whole reason for freezing yeast was for the 
convenience,  just thaw, decant the glycerine and pitch.  I really had 
great hopes for this process and I was really disappointed that it didn't 
work for me.  I have one jar left to experiment with so do any of you 
arctic yeast ranchers have any idea how I might proceed next time? 
 
Frozen but not dead, 
Tim Martin 
Cullowhee, NC. 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:52:51 -0600 (CST)
Subject: AHA competitions

Does anyone have a list of the 97 AHA club only competitions and dates? 
 
Since Shawn left, the internet stuff for the AHA is very outdated. 
 
          - Bryan 
            grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu 
            Nashville, TN 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Dan Morley <morleyd at cadvision.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:35:11 -0700
Subject: Using weight for priming sugar

Hello all, 
 
I have been reading Dave Draper's and Mark  Hibberd's papers on using 
weight for the amount of priming sugar to add at bottling. This makes 
allot of sense to me. 
 
However, when I compare the figures that each give for calculating 
the amount of sugar to add, I come up with 2 different figures. 
 
Mark states: 
 
4 grams/l of sucrose will ferment to give 1 volume CO2 and that it takes 
15% more dextrose/glucose (ie 4.6 grams/l) to give 1 volume of CO2 
 
Dave states: 
 
3.7 grams/l of dextrose/glucose will ferment to give 1 volume CO2, and 
(working backwards from his formula) 5.822% less sucrose (ie 3.5 grams/l) 
 
 
I only use dextrose at bottling, so I'll use that in the following example. 
 
Beer - ESB, temp = 18 C, (64.5 F), desired volume CO2 = 2.0 
Batch size = 23 l 
 
Marks method works out to  (2 - .93)*4.6*23 = 113.206 grams 
Daves method works out to  (2 - .93)/.27027*23 = 91.05 grams 
 
To me this is a fairly significant difference of 22 grams or about 24% 
I would like to know which amount is more accurate in producing the desired 
volume of CO2 
 
Can anyone clarify this for me? 
 
Can anyone with experience using either of these methods tell me what kind 
of results they have had and which method they use? 
 
Thanks 
 
Dan Morley 
morleyd at cadvision.com 
 

Return to table of contents


From: homebrew at ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:33:26 -0800
Subject: fittings, fittings, fittings

So we have had extensive conversation regarding copper and beer wort.  Would 
anyone care to comment on the reactivity of brass fittings with beer wort. 
Does the wort leach anything bad from brass???? (i.e. hose barbs, ball 
valves, bulkhead fittings, etc.) 
 
Kevin 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:04:31 -0600
Subject: Lightstruck Taste discussed

Hello, All. 
 
I was doing research in Iowa State University's Library Tiers and came 
across an article that may have some relevance to this forum.  It is 
entitled "The Action of Sunlight on Beer" and was written by P. Gray, 
I.Stone, and H. Rothchild of Wallerstein Laboratories, New York.  The 
article was reprinted from Wallerstein Laboratories Communications, Vol IV 
April, 1941. 
 
In general, these fellows found that the presence of free oxygen in beer 
which has been exposed to direct sunlight leads to increased "sunlight 
flavors."  Sunlight is a catalyst for the oxidation reactions. 
 
Interesting also is the fact that a weak iodine solution added to exposed 
beer completely neutralizes the skunky odor.  A 2 ppm copper solution also 
has this effect, but makes the beer so oxidized as to be undrinkable. 
 
The production of the sulphury compounds in the beer was found to be from 
the introduction of yeast into wort.  Yeast produce sulphury compounds in 
the process of fermentation.  Un-fermented exposed wort did not produce 
skunky beer when later fermented.  Read this as:  when unfermented wort is 
exposed to direct sunlight, it is not ruined.  Correctly handling the wort 
after the yeast is pitched is the main concern. 
 
Bottle glass color was also described.  Clear glass was worst, followed by 
green, and brown.  These researchers found that ORANGE or RED glass is the 
best for preventing UV light from entering the beer.   (Anybody ever seen 
an orange or red beer bottle? ) Brown is the best available alternative. 
 
In summary, do not incorporate oxygen into fermented beer.  Don't worry 
about exposing your WORT to sunlight.  The effects of skunking occur after 
the yeast have been pitched. 
Do not bottle your fermented beer in clear glass.  Orange and red glass are 
the best for storing beer, but amber is the best available alternative. 
Though a weak iodine solution can eliminate the skunky smell from exposed 
beer, do not try it.  (Iodine is toxic)  Same goes for copper in strengths 
greater than 2 ppm. 
 
I hope this blast from the past helps someone, or prevents them from 
tossing out an otherwise fine batch of beer 
 
Jeff 
 
Jeffrey M. Kenton                      finger for PGP public key 
ElEd/SecEd 301 Teaching Assistant 
N013 Lagomarcino Hall                  "Information comes, knowledge lingers" 
jkenton at iastate.edu                                    - Alfred Lord Tennyson 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:47:24 -0800
Subject: Re: Al's Gas Experiment

Jeff writes: 
 
> For one, I've noted repeatedly that severely under-filled bottles (the 
> last one being filled, because I'm too cheap to pour out the last cup 
> of beer) DO have noticeably excessive carbonation, 
 
Although it's true that 'one experiment does not a study make', at least 
Al's single experiment had the advantage of being 'blind'.  This makes it 
*ONE* data point.  Unless the repeated experiments you related above were 
also done blind, I would suggest that they constitute something less than 
one valid data point, ie, *ZERO*.  Really, you can't measure carbonation via 
a non-blind tasting and report it as valid data. 
 
(BTW, Al, that's a pretty clever trick - getting your wife to serve you 
homebrew: "Honey, could you get me a beer? What? Why can't I get it myself? 
Ummm... its an EXPERIMENT! Yeah!) 
 
To add a theoretical (as opposed to experimental) slant to the argument, I 
can state that, if we consider simple liquid-gas equilibrium in a closed 
space, there is no reason why an underfilled bottle should exhibit higher 
carbonation. There should only be a minor effect on carbonation due to the 
fact that, as Al correctly points out, some of the carbonation is going to 
fill the headspace rather than staying in the beer. 
 
Additionally, there is no reason (within the realm of liquid-gas 
equilibrium) as to why an overfilled bottle would be undercarbonated, 
although Al claims to have noticed this effect.  One possible explanation I 
have heard bandied about is that the yeast still present in a freshly 
bottled beer are too 'pooped' to effect the carbonation. The oxygen in a 
normal headspace helps get them back on their feet, whereas the lack of 
oxygen in an overfilled bottle leads to a significant lag time before full 
carbonation is reached.  Note that this 'yeast effect' would not fall under 
the umbrella of "liquid-gas equilibrium", so my previous statements stand. 
This yeast effect lies outside the realm of my expertise (could you tell?), 
so I will leave it to others to debate whether this is a valid explanation. 
 
Jeff continues by adding that he has experienced, in underfilled bottles 
>a strong tendency to oxidation and staling. 
 
The reasons for this should be obvious, however they are not related to the 
gas equilibrium issues. 
 
>Time to draw in the real chemists 
 
Feh! I'm a real Chem Engineer, which is what you really want here. 
 
Of course, most of this discussion is mostly academic, there's really no 
good reason to underfill bottles, except for those of us too cheap to throw 
out the last half-bottle from a batch (and this would include me!).  And 
when we're being that cheap, we can certainly learn to live with a single 
bottle which is over- or under-carbonated, depending on whom you want to 
believe. 
 
Kelly 
Hillsboro, OR 

Return to table of contents


From: Dave Greenlee <daveg at mail.airmail.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:16:51 -0600
Subject: Re: Dropped posts, HBD subscriptions

Dear BrewFolks: 
 
_Many_ thanks to the _many_ folks who replied via email to my inquiry 
regarding dropped posts. 
 
Follow up question: Someone mentioned subscribing to the undigested 
version of the list, but I'm somewhat lost about how to go about it, as 
well as some other technical issues about the HBD: 
 
(i) The header information says to subscribe/unsubscribe to the digest 
that one should send mail to homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org with the 
one word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the body; what's the difference 
between this and subscribing through BEER-L? 
 
(ii-a) To subscribe to the undigested version I've seen suggestions 
saying that you should do it by sending the one word body "subscribe" to 
homebrew-request@ aob.org, but I've also seen instructions saying it 
should be sent to homebrew-request@ hpfcmr.hp.com or pfcmr at hplabs.hp.com 
What's right (or "rightest")? 
 
(ii-b) If you subscribe to the undigested version using one of the 
foregoing addresses, can you unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe" to 
that same address? 
 
Nazdrowie, 
Dave Greenlee 
The Vindicated Major Prendergast 
 
******************************************************* 
*  Major Prendergast's Double Bach Dubbel Doppelbock  * 
*        Extra Specially Bitter Bedlam Brewery,       * 
*       a Texas noncommercial Bozoid singularity      * 
*             ( daveg at mail.airmail.net )              * 
******************************************************* 

Return to table of contents


From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:04:53 -0600 (CST)
Subject: mashout/fill experiment

Sorry about the long post and breaking my rule about waiting for others 
to respond first, but some of these topics are near to my heart. 
 
Eric writes: 
>Al K says: 
>" 
>Therefore, in all three cases, mashout would only be killing alpha 
>amylase which does not change fermentability.  Another way to think 
>about it is: if it mattered to you that the enzymes (which could only 
>be alpha amylase) were still working after the mash was compleat, then 
>there is *starch* remaining and you mashed-out too early! 
>                                                            " 
>Perhaps, and this is a wild guess on my part, all the enzymes are stable 
>below mash-out temps.  If so, enzymes inhibited at higher mash temps 
>would reactivate in the collection pot in the absence of a mash-out. 
> 
>Oh- and Al?  you misspelled complete. 
 
Before I comment, I'd like to point out that I am very much in favour 
(yes, f-a-v-o-u-r) of doing mashouts.  I know that they increase the 
extract efficiency (you get more out of the goods) and you decrease 
the likelyhood of a set mash (stuck laeuter).  I just don't believe 
that a mashout makes any *practical* difference in fermentability. 
 
I'm afraid your wild guess is wrong... enzymes are not all stable below 
mashout -- that's exactly why you can vary the proteolysis (a fancy word 
for cutting up proteins) and fermentability.  If you do a protein rest 
at 122F, both the peptidases and proteases are active for quite some time 
and they cut all the proteins down to amino acids.  If you do your 
protein rest at, say 140F, the peptidases are denatured quite quickly 
and only the proteases are active for any length of time.  These cut 
big (haze-producing) proteins down to medium-sized (head-retaining and 
body-building) proteins. 
 
Similarly, if you mash at 150F, both beta and alpha amylase are active and 
you get a lot of maltose and very few dextrins (highly fermentable wort). 
If you mash at 158F, the beta amylase gets denatured quickly and for most 
of the mash, only alpha amylase is active so you get less maltose and 
lots more dextrins (dextrinous, high-FG wort). 
 
There are many other enzymes some that are denatured even at 122F so that 
you need to do a rest at 95-100F to get anything from them. 
 
As for the spelling of compleat, visit the UK and ask them who is spelling 
it wrong... 
 
To paraphrase Dave Draper: "I'm not from there, but I love it there." 
 
*** 
Jeff writes: 
>I don't want to jump in Al's case, but seriously, folks, one experiment 
>does not a study make.  Among the many reasons for doing multiple 
>experiments before jumping to conclusions is that they help cover 
>a wide range of variables.  Right off the top of my head, I would say 
>that temperature would be a big one here, as would time, neither of 
>which could be addressed by one case. 
 
The beer was bottled in January and I tasted it in March and October. 
In the meantime, the bottles spent most of their time between 60F (winter), 
and 70F (summer).  I encourage everyone to repeat my experiment, but I 
ask that you do as I did: GET SOMEONE TO POUR THE BEERS FOR YOU IN ANOTHER 
ROOM.  When you open a low-fill bottle it makes a *huge* "FFFFFFFFT." 
This can cause a lot of bias... as a matter of fact, warn the person 
that some bottles will have a lot of hiss because they may be tempted 
(as any of us would) to dive for the sink after a sound like that! 
 
>The other problem, of course, is that others have experienced very 
>different results, and it's unfair to simply dismiss them as anecdotal. 
>For one, I've noted repeatedly that severely under-filled bottles (the 
>last one being filled, because I'm too cheap to pour out the last cup 
>of beer) DO have noticeably excessive carbonation, as well as a strong 
>tendency to oxidation and staling. 
 
Please try tasting those half-filled bottles "deaf" as Jacques put it 
and see if you may not have been swayed by the sound. 
 
>Sorry, Al, but there are real risks involved in publishing too early. 
 
No problem Jeff... you didn't call me names and you made some good points. 
Incidentally, I've done this experiment very informally literally a hundred 
times (I too cap that last 1/2-filled bottle) and I've found there to be 
no overcarbonation in the low-fill bottles.  This is just the first time 
I actually tried to quantify the depth of the headspace and did high-fill 
bottles too.  The high-fill experiment was indeed done by another poster 
before me.  Really, folks... this has to be the easiest experiment to do: 
next time you bottle, fill a few low and a few high... simple! 
 
Al. 
 
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL 
korzonas at lucent.com 
korz at xnet.com 
 

Return to table of contents


From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:15:27 -0600 (CST)
Subject: how long to sparge?/O2 cap sanitation/air dispense

Sorry again... I'll try to behave myself again after this post. 
 
Ian asks: 
>When the sg of the sparge reaches 1.010 (or you can taste tannins) you 
>usually stop sparging right....? 
 
I stop sparging when I've collected the proper amount of runnings.  For 
5 gallon batches, that used to be between 6.5 and 8 gallons (depending 
on my mood and willingness to boil for hours.  As for tannin extraction, 
monitor the pH and acidify your sparge water if your water limits you 
to less than 6.5 gallons of runnings (i.e. the pH gets above 6 before 
you have 6.5 gal).  Now, I do 1/2bbl batches and my kettle limits me 
to about 18 gallons of runnings. 
 
>until it cools to 60 F to take a reading or is the 1.010 reading at normal 
>sparge outlet temperatures and does not need converting ? 
 
If you do go by SG, yes, you must compensate for the high measuring temp or 
(alternatively) cool the sample to 60F. 
 
*** 
Phil writes: 
>I seem to remember something about using O2 barrier caps with iodophor, 
>is it good or bad? I know I'm not supposed to boil them. 
 
Sanitizing O2-absorbing caps can be done with iodophor or 200 ppm bleach. 
That's what the application engineer at Zapata told me.  One-step and 
B-brite will ruin them just as boiling will. 
 
*** 
Kevin writes: 
>2) Commerical beer systems are comprised of several components but 
>for this expose the three main units are the CO2 tank, the AIR 
>compressor, and the AIR-GAS blender.  Basically what happens is the 
>air-gas blender receives gas from the tank and what amounts to an air 
>compressor, 
>mixes them and feeds them into the keg.  Now the purpose of the air 
>is to force the beer out of the keg.  The purpose of the CO2 is to 
>keep the fizzies in the beer (by creating a pressure balance between 
>the CO2 in liquid and the CO2 in the headspace).  Additionally, the 
>CO2 is heavier than the air and falls to the surface of the beer while the 
>air remains at the top of the keg filling the ever increasing air space. 
 
I've read about systems like this and frankly, I don't buy it.  CO2 *is* 
heavier than air, but gasses don't behave like liquids, in other words, 
they don't separate into layers.  I know that there are many commercial 
systems that use air compressors, but I suspect that it's important that 
the beer be kept at 33F like they usually do and you have to go through 
the kegs pretty quickly or the beer will stale.  The CO2 will initially 
sink to the bottom and displace the air, but if you put the CO2 and air 
together in the same space, they will mix into a homogeneous blend of 
gasses in a short amount of time. 
 
In Scotland, one traditional method of dispense is with an air pump. 
"Doesn't that oxidize the beer?" you may ask... yes it does.  The key 
is to buy no larger a cask of each beer than you can dispense in a day 
or two.  All over Britain, all the traditional methods of dispense have 
the beer exposed to air.  Slow-moving beers will tend to go bad which 
is why some suggest that cask breathers be used.  CAMRA diehards will 
say "no way" but I (a CAMRA member) believe that good beer is more 
important and I'm not as afraid of the "give `em an inch, they'll 
take a mile" syndrome as some of the opponents of the breather believe. 
(Ooops... a cask breather is a demand CO2 system which simply replaces 
headspace with CO2 as the beer is drawn out by gravity or handpump). 
 
>air separates out in its own layer.  So apply that to a tank and you 
>have the heavier gas settling to the bottom and the lighter gas at 
>the top where the gas is dispensed. 
 
That's simply not how gasses behave... I also thought that initially, and 
it is intuitive, but really, gasses will diffuse into each other till 
their concentration is the same throughout the tank.  Really! 
 
>I don't claim to be an expert at beer system technology, however this 
>is how it was explained to me by my Perlick rep.  And for those who 
>don't know who Perlick is, they are the people who make the beer 
>dispensing systems.  Additionally, they supply all the big boys with 
>their brewery fittings, kegging fittings, etc. 
 
I don't think they require a degree in physics for sales positions at 
Perlick.  I know a local Perlick rep personally.  He's a nice guy. 
He used to sell suits at a big and tall shop a few years ago. 
 
Al. 
 
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL 
korzonas at lucent.com 
korz at xnet.com 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Thomas Flanagan <flanagan at webspan.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:08:00 -0800
Subject: Oak Barrel Exp.

Digest 
Janitor,                                                               I 
would like to get in touch with Jim Mosser to find out additional 
information on the experiment. I would also like to contact the company 
who makes the wooden barrels. I tried calling the number listed in the 
article but had no luck. Any help with this information would be greatly 
appreciated. 
sincerely, 
Tom Flanagan 
flanagan at webspan.net 

Return to table of contents


From: u-brew-it <ubrewit at csra.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 20:43:49 -0800
Subject: Multiple responses

I sent this last night but it seems that the "NONE" monster got it. Hope 
it gets out tonight. 
 
To the HBD, 
Here is my $.08 worth (4 responses at .02 each) to some questions on 
#2273. 
 
1) Weyerman malts:  Weyerman is the supplier of malts to Ireks, so they 
are one in the same.  Their quality is supposed to be second to none and 
I have been told that they are the suppliers to many German breweries. I 
too have just recently gotten in the smoked, caramunich, carafoam, 
carawheat, melanoidin, and carafa.  I'm looking forward to trying 
them....so little time so many malts. 
 
2) Ginger Beer (Re: Skip) I agree with Scott about using ginger, and the 
characteristics, make sure that you strain it out or else in the 
fermenter it will keep on spicing the beer and overpower it. 
Here is a mash extract recipe I have used in the past and it is very 
tasty and strongly flavored with ginger.  Give this beer at least 6 weeks 
to age.  Similar to some of the Jamaican "ginger beers" 
 
Ginger Beer: 
1/2 lb. Muntons Crystal malt (60L) 
1/2 lb. Muntons Carapils (10-15 L) 
"Mash" at 150 F. for 30 minutes. Remove grains. 
6 oz. Fresh grated ginger. 
Willamette hop pellets (4.3 alpha) 
Boil 45 min. 
1/2 oz. Cascade hop pellets (5 alpha) 
1/2 tsp Irish moss 
Boil 15 min. 
1/2 oz. Cascade pellets 
Turn off heat and steep 2-5 min. 
Sparge, bring to 5 gal. 
Ferment with Wyeast (#?) London Ale 
 
3) California Common yeast in uncommon beers.  After  having a lengthy 
discussion with the head brewer of 2 brewpubs in Florida, I used the Cali 
Common in some lagers (they use it in theirs due to quick turn around). 
I used it in a Munich Helles, Dortmunder, and then for the heck of it I 
added it to a Cream Ale that I was teaching a class on.  The cream ale 
turned into a great summertime lager, light refreshing.  I was happy with 
the results in all of the beers, not identical to the Munich Lager yeast, 
but good none the less.  Also the beer seemed to age quicker and thus be 
ready to drink more quickly (See above).  Make sure you ferment below 
60F. I was at 52-55. 
 
4)  Glycerol for freezing yeast:  Any homebrewing store that carries 
liqueur extracts and wine supplies should carry "Finishing formula" a 
food grade glycerine.  I have been told that glycerine and glycerol are 
basically the same.  Either way I have used the glycerine to freeze 7 
different liquid yeasts for reuse, and the yeasts have lasted up to 10-12 
months in the freezer. 
        NOTE:  when stepping up the liquid yeast make 2 starter bottles 
(possibly 3).  Take 1-2 tsp. frozen yeast slurry and add to a sterile 
bottle with 1-2 oz. starter solution (well oxygenated).  Within 24 hrs 
you will see a small krausen and the airlock will be "up", you may even 
see it bubble.  Then step this up to 4-6 oz. give it 24 hours, and if 
possible step up to 1-2 pints. 
        DO NOT try to step from frozen to 4-6 oz.  It will lag 36-72 
hours and then go berserk.  The problem is that you don't know what else 
may have gone berserk in the mean time. 
 
Bibo ergo sum, 
(I drink therefore I am) 
 
Kurt A. Meyer 
ubrewit at csra.net 
http://www.digidime.com/ubrewit/ 
 

Return to table of contents


From: u-brew-it <ubrewit at csra.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 20:45:26 -0800
Subject: Hazelnut brown

Another one eaten by "NONE", I hope it gets out this time. 
 
Phil Wilcox, 
I know your question was directed to the Boston Wort Processors but I 
thought I could help.  I made a similar recipe to the Longshot, except I 
wanted it to be richer, and a little less hazelnut.  I based mine on a 
nut brown recipe (Millers) with honey (1 lb.) instead of brown sugar and 
used 1 bottle of T. Noirot Hazelnut liqueur extract at bottling. Myself 
and a few friends said they liked it better because of its balance. 
        Since then I have gotten the original recipe from my rep. at 
Northwestern Extracts; 
 
Doug and Vicki Parkers hazelnut Brown: 
6.6 lbs N.W. Gold liq. extract 
1/2 lb. M&F pale ale malt 
1/2 lb. M&F crystal malt (60 L ?) 
1 lb. Cara-pils 
1.5 oz. Willamette (or Fuggle) 
60 minute boil 
1 oz. Willamette or Fuggle (aroma) 
5 min. steep 
1 tsp Irish Moss (15 min rrom end) 
1.5 bottles All Natural Hazelnut Flavoring at bottling 
2 tsp. gypsum 
Wyeast British Ale. 
Mash grain at 160 F. 
5 gal. yield. 
 
This is how I received the recipe, as you may notice no alpha ratings for 
the hops so your guess is as good as mine.  The T. Noirot should be 
available at your favorite H.B. store or they can order it if they buy 
from L.D. Carlson. 
 
Enjoy, 
Kurt A. Meyer 
ubrewit at csra.net 
http://www.digidime.com/ubrewit/ 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Richard Walto <70410.1112 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 14 Nov 96 21:11:50 EST
Subject: Dry hopping And disintegrating air stones

Mike Demers writes: 
 
>I went ahead and dry hopped a batch of Sierra Nevada 
>Pale Ale clone with 2 oz. of Cascade pellets.  They 
>floated for the first day or so and then began falling. 
>I also helped move this process along by gently agitating 
>the carboy each day.  Eventually I moved the carboy into 
>the refigerator and crash chilled it overnight.  This 
>caused all the hops to fall.  I then added gelatin finings 
>in an attempt to pack the hops down at the bottom.  I 
>kegged her up the next day and all went well. 
 
>...In fact, this is one of the clearest homebrews I have ever seen. 
>Virtually void of any haze as far as I can tell.  This is a 
>process I definitely will repeat. 
 
This really caught my eye, the part about the really clear beer.  I brew in 10 
gallon batches and keg in 5 gallon cornelius kegs.  Lately, I dry hop one and 
leave the other alone.  This last time around, I dry hopped with pellets in a 
ripped cheese cloth bag and it the pellets disintegrated and got all through 
the
beer.  The beer tasted pretty good (after 1 week of dry hopping) and I decided 
to filter out the hop particals.  Two things happened, the beer got very clear 
(unusually so for me) and the hop flavor dissappeared.  Now I figure if I had 
dry hopped for two weeks instead of one the dry hop flavor would have remained 
after the filtering, but what really surprised me was the clarity of the beer. 
My other keg (with the dry hops) was also filtered, but remained rather cloudy.
So hop pellets as finings, right?  If you can get rid of the hops. 
 
Graham Stone said: 
 
>I use a counter flow wort chiller taking wort directly from my boiler to my 
>fermenting vessel (plastic, no infections, nuff said!) and until recently a 
>fish tank air pump and air stone.  I use Chempro SDP for all my sterilizing 
>but found that it appeared to cause the air stone to disintegrate (unless 
>there's something odd about my ale!).  Does anybody have a neat set up for 
>conducting the aeration "in-line" from a wort chiller rather than using a 
>air pump/stone dipped into the fermenting vessel?  Alternatively, can 
>anyone confirm whether Chempro SDP is the cause of the air stone's demise 
>or perhaps suggest an alternative sterilizing agent, like bleach? 
 
Sorry Graham, 
I have no knowledge of in-line aeration, as I do the same thing you do.  I 
aerate with a large blue stone thing that I got from an aquarium store and I 
use
an aquarium pump and my stone is very slowly losing stones (bits). I do all my 
sanitizing with steam or chloring bleach.  In the case of the air stone, it's 
chlorine bleach. And I too wondered if (in my case) it was the chlorine making 
the stone fall apart.  I mean, what's making the stone hold together in the 
first place.  It looks like blue sand and glue.  (in my beer?). 
 
 
And finally, I ask: 
 
When you have one of the those little March MTX motors like I do and it pushes 
something like 7-gallons per minute, you don't leave it on for the whole mash! 
Do you?  I let the liquor slowly fill a bucket which has a float switch, which 
turns on the pump and so on...  How do others do it?  My float switch is home 
made, senses a high and low level and uses fishing floats and I don't like it 
very much except that it works great (it's a mess to look at, and maintain). I 
would rather have a very slow pump that I could keep on the whole time and 
forget the sump pump approach.  Comments? 
 
 

Return to table of contents