(formerly Volume 02 : Number 029)



Procedures:

To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <your email address>"
   in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

Contents:
  More Decoctions and Filtering Quesstion
  Hot and Cold break
  Planispiral Chiller
  Decoction
  Re: Sanitizing mini-kegs, Wyeast 1968
  Irish Moss and EashMashers
  Re: Decoction
  Wyeast 1338 (European Ale) Question & Data point (G.De Piro)
  Re: decoction
  Re: Air filter - The Final Answer
  First Wort Hopping
  Re:  Long mash time causes "off" odors?
  Re:  Long mash time causes "off" odors?
  Making beer
  Re: Wyeast London (Tom Gaskell)
  Re: Chocolate origins, Boiling not
  The Perpetual Fermenter
  Too cold for my yeast?
  Wyeast 2308
  LM34 Temperature-Sensor IC Information
  fear of protein rest


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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 05:20:32 UT
From: C&S Peterson <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com>
Subject: More Decoctions and Filtering Quesstion

In HBD #26 George writes

[begin quote]
     One problem I see with this is that he's leaving 1/3 of his mash in 
     the lower protein rest range for several hours, while 2/3 of the mash 
     never gets a protein rest.  Depending on the malts you're using, this 
     could leave a lot of higher molecular weight proteins and lots of very 
     degraded proteins (free amino acids), with not a large amount of the 
     more desirable mid-weight proteins (that provide body and mouthfeel 
     without as much haze potential as the larger proteins).
     
     Also, the bacterial action that occurs in a pot of wet grain at ~110F 
     over 8 hours will be noticeable.  The mash may taste a bit sour, 
     which is not usually desirable.
[end quote]

As for the protein degredation for the decoction mash, this is new information 
to me.  I've tried this method with only two beers -- which are still in the 
fermenter -- but I will certainly let you know if the end up thin or cloudy.

As for the concern about bacteria infection, I tend to use a bit of acid blend 
in my brewing (my water's pretty basic...), so the addition of some lactic 
acid is probably better than the acid blend, certainly no worse.  This long 
rest at low temps was covered in Greg Noonon's article in the special issue of 
Zymurgy a few years back.  In some case (he cited a Pils I believe), the 
lactic acid background character was considered a benefit.

Again, I'll report out on how these beers using this decoction method turned 
out once they're done......

Now for my filtering question:
I have recently purchased a filter and would like to bottle condition my beers 
ala Sierra Nevada.  My thought is, at the end of fermentation, to filter 5 
gallons or so, and then add back a portion of non-filtered beer (I usually 
make 11 gallon batches, so the extra beer is available).  The question is, 
what is the minimum amount of unfiltered beer I need to add back to the 
filtered product to boost the yeast population up to the level required to 
achieve carbonation with priming sugar?  Anyone try this?  Any yeast gurus 
have any suggestions.  I'll be happy to post results......

Chas Peterson

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:55:14 +200
From: "Braam Greyling" <acg at knersus.nanoteq.co.za>
Subject: Hot and Cold break

Hi

With all the discussions about removing hot and cold break from the 
wort I am getting a little confused.

As I understand it:  It is good to remove the hot break because it 
may give some estery tastes to your beer and other off-tastes. Cold 
break however is a yeast nutrient and it is better to leave it in the 
wort.

Am I right ?  If not where have I gone wrong. Will removing cold 
break make my beer clearer ? Should I remove cold break as well or 
can I leave it in the wort. I use a counterflow chiller and it is 
difficult to remove cold break. I remove hot break easily by 
whirlpooling the wort prior to chilling. 

Thanks a lot !

Braam Greyling           I.C. Design Engineer 
Azona (Pty) Ltd        
tel. +27 (12) 665-1338  fax +27 (12) 665-1343
- ---- 24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case ---- 
- ----     coincidence ?????                 ----

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:28:17 +0000
From: John Robinson <robinson at novalis.ca>
Subject: Planispiral Chiller

Since there is some interest in the planispiral chiller I've decided 
to post some information on it.  Ed's description of it is in the 
May/June 1994 issue of BT, in the Technical Communications section.  

In reading that over, I see there isn't much information on how it 
was built.  Ed originally went to a local hardware/automotive store 
(Canadian Tire) and purchased a pre-coiled batch of 1/4" copper tubing 
that was (I believe) originally intended for use in automobile 
airconditioners.  I used this as well.

This pre-coiled tubing was then bent into a planispiral by using the 
lid of a 33 quart enamelled (sp?) pot as a rough guide (since this is 
the pot it needed to fit in).

Ed's letter also describes the 'foot' that travels underneath the 
spiral and is used to support the chiller.

Having used mine for a couple of years now, (since '94) I personally 
think that 3/8" tubing would have made a more robust chiller, but 
then so would a few pieces of pure copper wire to woven between the 
spirals to strengthen them.  There are lots of ways to do this.  My 
chiller sometimes needs to be reminded of its original form... :)

- --
John Robinson
Software Developer
NovaLIS Technologies

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 08:14:40 EST
From: gravels at TRISMTP.NPT.nuwc.navy.mil
Subject: Decoction

Hello All,

     I tried my first decoction on Sunday.  I was aiming for a single 
decoction and ended up doing a triple!  Here's my recipe:

10 lb.   German 2-row Pilsner
1/2 lb.  Munich Special-B
1.5 oz. US Saaz 60 min. (5.4 AAU)
3/4 oz. US Saaz 30 min.
3/4 oz. US Saaz 15 min.
3/4 oz. US Saaz 5 min.
1/2 oz. US Saaz Dry in the secondary
Wyeast pilsner, made starter

     Mashed in (Gott cooler) with 3.5 gal of 125F water to hit 115F 
degree rest. (that was the only temp that I hit right!) I think I'll 
add less water next time, it was too loose of a mash.  Let rest for 15 
min, then pulled approx 1 3/4 - 2 gals. of grains, added a little 
boiling water so it wouldn't scorch, slowly brought up to 155F then 
put it in the oven for 30 minutes for a full conversion.  Brought the 
decoct slowly to a boil and boiled for 20 minutes.  Added back to the 
mash and hit 130F.  Not the target.  I wanted to hit 155F but didn't 
pull enough grains.  Let rest for 20 mins.  Pulled another gallon of 
grains and repeated the process, this time I hit 140F, still not high 
enough, so I drained a gallon of liquid and brought to a boil and 
added this in to hit 150F.  I let the mash sit at this temp for 1/2 
hour and got full conversion.  Sparged to collect 6 gallons for a SG 
of 1.040!  All of that work and I only got 24 points! :^( You know the 
rest of the process.

     I have two questions.  First, Is there a program that I can use 
that will help me calculate the amount of grains to pull and add back 
to reach the desired temp?  Suds40 is okay but isn't set up for 
calculating decoction temps. ( I know I could do it by hand but I'm 
lazy :^) 

     Second, why did I get such a poor conversion?  Is my proceedure 
screwed up?  Is it the grain bill?  I'm lost.  I really thought that 
decoction would raise my efficiency.  Thanks in Advance for any help 
(TIA)

      Steve Gravel   Newport, Rhode Island 
       gravels at trismtp.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
"Homebrew, it's not just a hobby, it's an adventure!"
     

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:34:52 +0100
From: Fredrik St{aa}hl <fredriks at abel.math.umu.se>
Subject: Re: Sanitizing mini-kegs, Wyeast 1968

On mini-kegs, Alex Santic writes:

>The heating technique may yet turn around to bite my butt. Most of these
>mini-kegs are laminated with plastic on the inside. It's important not to
>damage this coating or the containers will start to rust. But so far I've
>not detected any ill effects from the heat...just don't overdo it.

I usually dry the mini-kegs in the oven at just above 100 C after a
thorough soak in plain tap water. Sometimes I use this method to sanitize
before filling, but most of the time I use a chlorine-based (I think)
sanitizer called VWP for a few minutes only. The kegs are lined with
plastic so there should not be a big problem with corrosion. Unfortunately,
Iodophor is not available here in Sweden, as far as I know.

When drying I heat the keg in the oven for about one hour and then I just
turn the oven off, leaving the keg inside to dry out. Once my wife decided
to bake some bread in the oven, but she didn't know there was a keg in
there... The smell of plastic was strong and the keg got a little brownish
before I could save it but the coating seems to be intact. I have used the
keg two times after that and I haven't felt any off-tastes.
 ----------

Charles Epp writes:

>        First, 1968 is probably my favorite ale yeast -- very complex
>and malty, and wonderful for ESBs.

My favourite too - and works just as well for ordinary bitters!

>Also, in their most recent flier, Wyeast Labs recommends repeated
>aeration and rousing of the yeast to get it to finish properly.  I've
>used 1968 a lot in the past and never had any problem getting acceptable
>levels of attenuation (around 70%, which is in 1968's expected range)
>without doing any extra aeration or rousing after start of fermentation.

I think they refer to the high flocculation of this strain - I guess it
could be a problem if you don't use a secondary. I use the British
"dropping" practise, i.e. racking to secondary with some aeration after
about three days of fermentation. It seems to promote some ester production
and rouses the yeast. I get between 70% and 75% attenuation with this
method.

>        So, do any of y'all have observations on your experience with
>1968 recently, particularly about whether it's been changed and whether
>it now really needs additional aeration and rousing to get proper
>attenuation?

Hmm - I haven't heard about any strain change, I thought it was just the
name. My stock of 1968 is propagated from a pack bought more than two years
ago.
 ----------------

Jean-Sebastien Morisset considers two different yeast strains for his
robust porter:

>Wyeast #1335 British Ale Yeast-II
>     73-76% Apparent attenuation; High flocculation.
>     Typical of british ale fermentation profile with good
>     flocculating and malty flavor characteristics, crisp finish,
>     clean, and fairly dry.
>
>        -or-
>
>Wyeast #1968 London ESB Ale Yeast (64-72F)
>     67-71% Apparent attenuation; High flocculation.
>     Top-fermenting strain with rich, malty character and balanced
>     fruitiness. This strain is so flocculant that additional
>     aeration is needed. An excellent strain for cask-conditioned
>     ale.

I don't know about 1335 but I used 1968 in a brown porter a while ago. The
maltiness was welcome in this weaker style and the fruitiness complemented
the roasted flavour from the home-roasted grains very well. I'm not sure if
I would use it in a robust porter though. Perhaps a more neutral,
well-attenuative strain would be better, like Wyeast #1028. Well, the
fruitiness might be masked by the roasted malts anyway...

Although I usually prefer 1968 for British ales, I sometimes use 1028 when
I want a dryer, cleaner finish. I have used it in dry stouts with nice
results, since Wyeast #1084 doesn't give quite the dry finish I'm after.

It would be very interesting to hear some opinions of the new ale strains
from Wyeast, in particular Wyeast #1335 British Ale Yeast-II, #1318 "London
Ale III" and #1275 "Thames Valley". Although I'm satisfied with 1968,
variation brings happiness...

Cheers from Sweden!

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Fredrik St{\aa}hl          Tel: int + 46 90 166027
Math. Dept.                Fax: int + 46 90 165222
University of Ume{\aa}     E-mail: fredriks at abel.math.umu.se
S-90187 Ume{\aa}, SWEDEN   WWW: http://abel.math.umu.se/~fredriks

                   On tap: Nalle Puh Pale Ale
         *** Nemo saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit ***
- --------------------------------------------------------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:34:20 -0600
From: Marty Tippin <mtippin at swbell.net>
Subject: Irish Moss and EashMashers

Sorry I didn't get back sooner - I recently posted that I didn't think the
EasyMasher worked well when trying to filter the wort post-boil if you used
irish moss.  Others have pointed out that they don't see that trouble at
all and wondered what I had done differently.  Upon thinking back about it
(it's been well over a year since I last used the EasyMasher) I believe the
difference is that I used to put the whole hops in a cheesecloth bag rather
than loose in the kettle - thus, the irish moss coagulated all over the
easymasher screen instead of on the hops, hopelessly plugging the
easymasher and making it nearly impossible to drain the wort.  

- -Marty
 martyt at swbell.net
 http://alpha.rollanet.org/users/mtippin

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:49:54 -0500
From: Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan at bmd.cpii.com>
Subject: Re: Decoction

>yes, you can use decoction with ales and with partial mashes
>and get excellent results.  I routinely do this.  I would,
>however, recommend not using one in a mash consisting of a
>large percentage of colored malts, like what would happen
>in a munich beer.  When I have tried this, I have gotten
>tannins so hot they burn your mouth. 

Funny, I made an Octoberfest with 70% Munich, 20% Vienna, 10% Aromatic, with
2 decoctions and had no problems with tannins.  Came out great.

Bob

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McCowan                            
                                     
ATG/Receiver-Protector            voice:  (508)-922-6000 x208
CPI BMD				    fax:  (508)-922-8914
Beverly, MA  01915               e-mail:  bob.mccowan at bmd.cpii.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:49:11 -0800
From: George De Piro <George_De_Piro at berlex.com>
Subject: Wyeast 1338 (European Ale) Question & Data point (G.De Piro)

     Hi,
     
     Just a quick observation about Wyeast 1338, the "European Ale" strain. 
     I currently have it fermenting at 56F (13.3C).  It seems to be doing 
     well; the Kraeusen is a bit smaller than expected, but otherwise 
     chugging along.
     
     I was wondering if anybody else has tried to push the lower 
     temperature limit of this yeast?  I believe the Wyeast sheet says that 
     it's lower limit is 60F (15.6C), but that doesn't seem to be true.
     
     Can I expect the ferment to go to completion at this temperature?
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:27:26 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: decoction

In Homebrew Digest V2 #27, Brian Bliss <brianb at microware.com> wrote:

>yes, you can use decoction with ales and with partial mashes
>and get excellent results.  I routinely do this.  I would,
>however, recommend not using one in a mash consisting of a
>large percentage of colored malts, like what would happen
>in a munich beer.  When I have tried this, I have gotten
>tannins so hot they burn your mouth.  As an alternative,
>but pale malt in the decoction, and save any colored malts
>for the main mash.

I disagree.  Decotion mashing with Munich and other colored malts is the
traditional way darker beers are made in Germany.  I've decotion brewed
100% Munich malt beers, as well as ones with other colored malts such as
chocolate, with no trouble.  I wonder if your tannin problem lies somewhere
else in your brewing process.  Are you sure the problem is with tannins?
Tannins make your mouth pucker, not burn.

Maybe you forgot to cool the decotion before you tasted it? ;-)

Jeff

- -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:15:55 +0500
From: Keith Royster <keith.royster at pex.net>
Subject: Re: Air filter - The Final Answer

The HBD needs a good lively discussion, so here's my attempt to start 
one...

Ronald LaBorde <rlabor at lsumc.edu> responds to Mark Preston's 
<prestonm at labyrinth.net.au> question regarding filters and fish 
aeration pumps used to aerate your wort.

One of them (can't remember which) says: "I have done some reading
on aeration of wort with a fish tank pump, how does one go about
keeping the air that is pumped into wort contamination free??" Then
the other goes on to explain how to put sanitized cotton balls in s
syringe case and connect it with rubber tubing so the air will 
neatly be cleaned as it flows through the cotton balls.

Well, I have the one and only, the end-all be-all answer to that
question.  Are you listening?  The answer is "You don't keep the air
sanitized!  EVER!!" At least not at any practical homebrewing level.
 Your cotton balls will not really work, and of course you can go to
the expense and trouble of setting up specially made medical filters
that will filter out the air for you, but then that's what I
consider not practical.

Sorry if I'm sounding a bit harsh here, but the anal-retentive
beliefs regarding sanitation that abound in the homebrewing community
frustrate me.  It seems we focus on more elaborate (and silly, IMHO)
methods to keep contaminates out when if we'd spend just half that
effort on general house keeping and pitching an adequate quantity of
yeast we'd actually be better off (same result, less effort).  The
air that you are wanting to pump into your carboy with a fish
aeration pump is the same freakin' air you were formerly shaking into
your carboy manually. Why do you suddently feel the need to filter
it?  I've been using my aeration pump sans filter for a dozen
batches now and have had zero contamination problems.

Again, sorry about getting up on my soapbox.  And I didn't intend to
direct this at just Ronald and Mark.  I simply feel that this hobby
has gone way overboard in it's anal-retentive ways.  There should
obviously be a focus on cleanliness when brewing, but it should not
be the ONLY focus.  It should instead be balanced with pitching an
adequate amount of yeast.  Both methods achieve the same thing,
pitching so much yeast the the nasties don't have a chance to
compete, but the second method is much more relaxing and enjoyable
and effortless (unless you ARE anal retentive and enjoy that kind of
thing;) 

Cheers,

Keith Royster <keith.royster at pex.net>
Mooresville, NC, USA

"In the beginning, there was nothing - but nothing is unstable.  
And nothing borrowed nothing from nothing, within the limits of
uncertainty, and became something. The rest is just math..."
- --Paraphrased from Prof. Kim Macalester College Physics Dept. 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:15:05 +0200
From: Amdahl engineer <amdahl at oldmutual.com>
Subject: First Wort Hopping

HBDers

I have read about first wort hopping (FWH) and I believe there is a FAQ
available on this subject, which I am unable to find. I would like to try
this precedure and would appreciate somebody pointing me in the right
direction. 

Thanks

Rian Rademeyer
amdahl at oldmutual.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:58:07 +0000
From: "John R. Bowen" <jbowen at primary.net>
Subject: Re:  Long mash time causes "off" odors?

Ronnie Baert writes:
> Beware of extremely long mash timrs: it can cause to a typical flavour 
> like "boiled vegetables".

What is an extremely long mash time?  I have recently started partial 
grain brewing (I can't handle a full wort boil, so its hard to do all 
grain).  I heard someone talking about mashing overnight in an oven, and 
that seemed too easy to pass up, so I tried it:  6 lb pale ale malt, 4 
oz wheat malt, 2 oz crystal.  Heat 7 qt water to 120F, add 1 tsp gypsum 
and grains, wait about 10 min and adjust pH to 5.3 with phosphoric acid.  
Pop it in the oven (convection type, with circulating fan) at 150F and 
go to bed.  Sparge and brew in the morning.  Sure shortens the brew day!

I didn't smell (or taste) any DMS or other off odors, but it is still 
fermenting.

I understand that I will get a high conversion and probably low 
dextrins, which will be unsuitable fo some styles.  But that aside, am I 
really looking for trouble here?  Will the grain bill make a difference?

I would appreciate any voices of experience out there.

John

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:59:15 +0000
From: "John R. Bowen" <jbowen at primary.net>
Subject: Re:  Long mash time causes "off" odors?

Ronnie Baert writes:
> Beware of extremely long mash timrs: it can cause to a typical flavour 
> like "boiled vegetables".

What is an extremely long mash time?  I have recently started partial 
grain brewing (I can't handle a full wort boil, so its hard to do all 
grain).  I heard someone talking about mashing overnight in an oven, and 
that seemed too easy to pass up, so I tried it:  6 lb pale ale malt, 4 
oz wheat malt, 2 oz crystal.  Heat 7 qt water to 120F, add 1 tsp gypsum 
and grains, wait about 10 min and adjust pH to 5.3 with phosphoric acid.  
Pop it in the oven (convection type, with circulating fan) at 150F and 
go to bed.  Sparge and brew in the morning.  Sure shortens the brew day!

I didn't smell (or taste) any DMS or other off odors, but it is still 
fermenting.

I understand that I will get a high conversion and probably low 
dextrins, which will be unsuitable for some styles.  But that aside, am 
I really looking for trouble here?  Will the grain bill make a 
difference?

I would appreciate any voices of experience out there.

John

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:18:01 +0100
From: Mattia Porro <porro at dns.protec.it>
Subject: Making beer

Which is the simplest method to make beer at home?

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 11:22:08 EST
From: tgaskell at syr.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Wyeast London (Tom Gaskell)

In V2 #27, Chuck Epp wishes to know more about Wyeast London strains.

I have no experience with either 1318 or 1275, and no history with 1968, 
but I have made about 15 recent (past year and a half) batches with 1968, 
and have begun to learn a little about its personality.  

>From what I have heard about Ringwood yeast, I am beginning to believe 
that London Special is a relative of Ringwood.  They both have fairly 
low attenuation, produce diacetyl, flocculate like mad, and need plenty 
of oxygen.  In each case, I think Ringwood takes these behaviors to the 
extreme, while 1968 is the less radical step-child.

I actually saw a brewpub, which uses Ringwood, place submersible pumps into 
their open fermenters, and rouse and aerate the yeast by pumping the green 
beer up a tube resembling a racking cane, which sprayed the beer in a fan 
pattern back down into the rest of the beer in the fermenter.  The beer was 
sprayed with enough force to raise one hell of a head, and to entrain a lot 
of air into the brew.

The look of horror on my face must have been evident because the brewer 
explained that this was standard procedure for them, and their beers tasted 
pretty good, IMHO. There was very little diacetyl, and their brews were 
well attenuated.  

After I concluded that 1968 exhibited similar, but less radical behavior 
than cousin Ringwood, I decided to take similar, but less radical steps to 
counteract the high diacetyl levels and 60-65% attenuation I was getting 
from 1968.  My countermeasures were to aerate the wort well with a fishpump 
and airstone before the onset of fermentation, then rouse the yeast by 
stirring twice a day for three or four days, after the kraeusen began to 
fall.  My results were dramatically better beer.  

Gone was the diacetyl that I had become accustomed to (which usually faded 
out by itself after about four weeks), and my beers had a drier finish.  

I believe that the rapid flocculation is the cause of much of the quirky 
behavior.  Because the yeast drops out of suspension pretty quickly after 
the kraeusen falls, there are too few cells to reduce the residual sugars 
and diacetyl within a reasonable time.  Stirring gets the cells back into 
suspension for short intervals which allow them to reduce sugars and other 
compounds. 

One characteristic of London Special that I have not yet overcome is that 
bottled beer very frequently overcarbonates with this yeast.  Perhaps it 
is the slow finish of the yeast that contributes to this behavior, but 
I have bottled batches that at three weeks have no bubbles, at six weeks 
are perfectly carbonated, and become overcarbonated at ten weeks (to 
the extent that a worm of foam grows out of the bottle within a minute 
of being opened).  I have not tried shaking the bottles to get the yeast 
to work faster.  Partly because of the bottling problems, I usually keg 
ales made with 1968.

The minimum temperature for 1968 is about 62F.  A recent brew took two 
weeks to go steadily from 1.048 to 1.023 at a near constant 61F.  I moved 
the fermenter to a warmer spot, and the beer finished within 8 hours at 
1.013 at 66F.  Now I am into the stirring regime, trying to get another 
point or two of attenuation.  

If anyone has any other exerience with 1968, especially stories which 
differ from mine, I would love to hear about it.

Good luck with your decision and your brew, Chuck.

Cheers, 
 
Tom Gaskell  tgaskell at syr.lmco.com  Hog Heaven Homebrewery  Clayville, NY, USA

P.S. Chuck, I would have cc'd you but I threw out your address - D'oh!

Return to table of contents


Date: 14 Jan 97 11:23:26 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Chocolate origins, Boiling not

Brewsters:

Kirk Harralson wonders:

> The other day, I saw Hershey's "European 
> Style" cocoa powder at the store and wondered what the difference 
> could be.  Can anyone enlighten me on this?

I would guess they mean the same as what used to be called Dutch Chocolate or
Dutch Cocoa but are trying their best to not commit to any one country ( for
example, leaving the Belgians (YUMMMM!) out) as this would be politically
incorrect especially now that we have the EC. Will homogenization ( and I don't
mean milk) never cease?

"Dutch" Chocolate is made by alkaline processing and I suppose European
Chocolate is too.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of to boil or not to boil, DePiro asks while responding to a
question :
     
>      Any opinions?

In my own experience protein denaturization will proceed at lower temperatures
( you can cook an egg at below 212F - they do it all the time in mile high
Denver, Colo - it just takes longer).  However, the physical agitation of the
boil has two purposes.  1) To physically strip the insoluble hops resins from
the hops to aid isomerization and 2) to collect the flocs of protein into larger
particles.  Some breweries actually have agitators installed in their brew
kettles or use air ( no longer recommended), nitrogen or CO2 gas streams to aid
in these processes when the boil is not vigorous.  The possibility exists that
you could do likewise if you don't boil.


M&BS says (2nd ed p 509)  

" It has long been known that vigorous boiling gives better percentage
utilization and enhances other chemical and physial changes during copper boil.
Equally, it has been known that rather similar results can be obtained by
simmering the wort around 100 deg C (212 F) providing that there is intense
mechanical agitation of the wort. The question arises whether wort treatment
could usefullly be carried out at temperatures below 100 deg C.  Sweet worts
were held for 90 minutes at 85C (185F) in the  presence of hop extracts and
compared with similar worts held for 90 min under boiling conditions (Table
15.4) The unboiled wort and derived beer were lower in color and bitter
substances and higher in total nitrogen than the standard wort and beer.   The
unboiled worts were cloudy while the shelf life of the derived beer was lower
and its flavor was different from the standard." 

So, boil if you can. Insulate with a  non-flammable ( in the case of direct
flame heat) and  non-fibrous insulation.   As George suggests, leave the lid off
partway once the boil has started.
- ------------------------------------------------      

Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:30:59 -0700
From: Ken Sullivan <kj at nts.gssc.com>
Subject: The Perpetual Fermenter

I thought I would toss this out to the group for discussion before
I actually started building one ;-)

Suppose you have a tank to pour fresh wort into, just above the bottom
of the tank is an outlet which empties into a sloped, enclosed, trough.
Inside this trough is sterilized matting (like the evaporation mats in
a swamp cooler) which are preloaded with your favorite yeast. Now
also suppose that this trough is 20'-30' long and you control the flow
of wort through the trough such that fremented beer exits at the
other end.  Voila! Continuous yeast reproduction, continuous fermentation,
just add more wort..  what am I overlooking??  

Flow is controlled with a valve? and/or the slope of the trough?
How about a folded trough? How about 100' of flexible pipe filled
with yeast-primed, wort-compatible, matting or webbing? 

Some questions I would like feedback on are:

Trub? - leave it the inital holding tank and drain it off?
yeast mortality? etc?
Fermentation time given such a high yeast to wort ratio?
Secondary?
How much beer can you drink?

Thnx,
KJ 
(it was a sleepless night ;_)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 11:17:08 -0600
From: "Kurt J. Amann" <kjamann at students.wisc.edu>
Subject: Too cold for my yeast?

Howdy, folks.

Thanks to all out there who settled me down regarding 
my green foam a few weeks ago.  The beer is fine.  You
(all) were right.  It was just the hops residue.

Next  problem...
The beer I'm doing is a bock, so I've had it in my basement
where it's nice and cool.  The beer was fermenting really
well, then when it started to slow and settle a bit, I transferred
it to secondary and added some boiled water to bring the volume
back up.  I put it back in the basement and noticed that the 
fermentation stopped completely.  Nothing.  All the yeast 
settled, and no more bubbles.  My first thought was that I'd 
killed the yeast by osmotic shock or something.  This seems 
a little unlikely to me.  

Anyway, I think the deal is that it might just be too damn cold in 
my basement (I'm in Wisconsin and the basement temp is about 40 F).
I'm using Wyeast 2206 Bavarian lager yeast, so I wouldn't think
the temperature should be a problem.  I know there's plenty of
sugar left, because I've tasted the beer and it's still REALLY sweet.

Does anybody know what sort of temperature range these yeasts
are really capable of handling?  I once used dry yeast at about
38 F, and they seemed to be pretty happy.  

What does anybody think??

Thanks

Kurt J. Amann
Madison, WI

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:43:02 -0600
From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin at maine.com>
Subject: Wyeast 2308

Top of the afternoon to ye all,

Wyeast 2308 is a wonderful yeast IMHO.  After 2 week of primary at 45F +/-
it only wants a vacation at 60F for a week  before it goes into the lager
temp of 32-34F for a couple of weeks.  

I have repitched this yeast a number of times without any adverse or off
flavors.  It just needs that one week vacation for a diacetyl rest.

Bill

Richmond, Maine

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:54:50 -0500 (EST)
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: LM34 Temperature-Sensor IC Information

Ian Smith asked a few questions about about the LM34 temperature sensor IC.
 I've a few answers from National's LM34 data sheet.  Also, see my article on
"Electronic Thermometry for Brewers" on my web page (URL in sig line below)
for other brewing application information.

  "Does anyone know how to get a LM34 to talk to a computer board ?"

The LM34 is a 3-terminal device, having a terminal for "power" (5 to 30
volts), one for "output" (0.010 volts per degree F), and one for "common" or
"ground".  The output thus is a temperature-sensitive voltage source.  At 70F
it produces 0.70 volts; at 158F it produces 1.58 volts, etc.  It's also
available in a Celsius version (LM35; 0.010 volts per degree C).

To interface this to a PC requires an A/D (analog to digital) converter
board, either outside the PC or inside (plug-in card), and software to
read/display the temperature and perform whatever control functions might be
required.  Computer Boards Inc ((508) 261-1123, info at comp-boards.com) makes a
slick plug-in card with 8 analog input channels (12-bit resolution or one
part in 4096) as well as 8 digital inputs and 8 digital outputs, for $100.
 It's called the "CIO-DAS08/Jr".  It would be perfect for this application,
and the digital interface lines could be used to sense switches and control
outputs such as valves and heaters.  Even if you can only program BASIC you
can use this card with simple PEEK and POKE commands.

  "What is the accuracy ? Can it be calibrated ?"

The LM34 is available in five accuracy grades, LM34, LM34A, LM34C, LM34CA,
and LM34D.  They have max operating temperatures of 300F, 300F, 230F, 230F,
and 212F respectively.  At these temperatures the typical/worst-case
accuracies are 1.6/3.0, 0.8/2.0, 1.6/2.0, 0.8/2.0, and 1.6/2.0 respectively
(in plus-or-minus degrees).  The price goes up with better accuracy.

The device itself cannot be "calibrated" but the interfacing circuitry and/or
software certainly can be.  Again, see my article for interface circuit
ideas.

  "Is there a LM34 package that can be made immersible or into a water proof
  probe for using in hot water/wort ?  The only LM34's I've seen have 3 legs
  and are in a plastic package that would not work in fluids ?"

The LM34 is available in two packages, the TO-46 metal can and the TO-92
plastic package you mention.  The more-expensive metal can package (add an
"H" suffix on the above part/grade numbers) resembles a top-hat with the
leads egressing from the "bottom" of the hat.  It can be soldered to the end
of a brass tube, with wires connected to the leads run up inside the tube.
 The plastic TO-92 package ("Z" suffix) is like an "extruded D", a flatted
cylinder if you will.  I've used this package at the end of a 7/32" brass
tube (about a buck at a hobby store) and sealed it with food-grade silicone
sealant (DAP #8641, available at home stores).

The TO-92 package is physically a bit smaller than the TO-46 but conducts
heat more slowly than the metal would.  Response time of the TO-92 in the
tube is comparable to one of those little 5" dial/probe thermometers.  The
plastic is "epoxy" (I haven't been able to get any more info than that) so I
don't see any issues with using it in beermaking.  A thin film of the
food-grade silicone would isolate the epoxy from your wort if you're
concerned about it.

*****

Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy at aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:00 -0600
From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com>
Subject: fear of protein rest

collective homebrew conscience:

charles epp wrote:

>	So, do any of y'all have observations on your experience with 
>1968 recently, particularly about whether it's been changed and whether 
>it now really needs additional aeration and rousing to get proper 
>attenuation? 

i brewed 4 beers with 1968 this fall - i did notice that my ipa finished a 
bit high in terms of sg - around 1.018.  however, i cannot completely 
attribute this to the yeast as it may have been  a bit cool over the last
week before i kegged it.  the primary was in the mid 60's and then the last
10 days or so it was in the high 50's.  this may have been too cool, too early.
none of the 4 beers finished below 1.014, and the first two were mashed at
around 152 F.  so, i did not get tremendously dry results.  however, they all
tasted good.  i really like 1968.   it does require more kettle hops to get
a good bitterness, though, if that's what you're after.  that's my experience.







m muller wrote:

>Is it really necessary to have a rolling boil or will 98 C be OK if I stirred 
>it frequently. I've heard you must boil with the lid off.  Is this correct or 
>can I simply leave the lid on to maintain the boil?


you need motion in the boiling kettle to help the hot break to form.  i don't
know for sure how much you would have to stir, but ideally, you'd like to
reproduce a violently kicking boil.  that's continuous, vigorous stirring.

we tasted a beer at the st louis brews meeting a while back that had been
boiled with the lid on for the entire boil.  there was a lot of dms in the
beer.  we believed it was a direct effect of having the lid on the whole time.
i have read that hop oils do not evaporate and leave the kettle when the lid
is on, also.  i'm not really sure what that would do to the beer, taste-wise.



paul shick wrote:

>	Several people have written recently about concerns with excessively
>long protein rests while decoction mashing.  


i wonder about this.  when i pull a decoction, i pull almost all the grain
out of the cold rest.  i take almost no liquid at all, and dilute the 
decoction with acidified water.  now, i realize there are protein-degrading
enzymes in my cold rest tun, but where is all the protein?  

it seems to me that a large proportion of the protein is in my decoction
vessel, not in contact with the enzymes in the cold rest tun.  if i had a 
grain mill that crushed more efficiently, and didn't produce big grits of 
starch, i might think differently, but i'm sure a large part of the solid
fraction of my mash is in the decoction vessel, not the cold mash tun.  this
includes a lot of big starch grits that didn't get crushed into flour by my
homebrew grain mill.

am i wrong here?  i've brewed beers with excellent head retention and great
mouthfeel using a single decoction process that leaves the cold rest mash in
the protein rest T range for nearly two hours.  all barley malt.  

brew hard,

mark bayer

Return to table of contents


End of HOMEBREW Digest #2309