HOMEBREW Digest #2317 Sunday, January 19 1997
Digest #2316
Digest #2318
(formerly Volume 02 : Number 037)
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:
corn grits and flaked maize; Storing Flaked Barley
Re: Pitching Quantity vs O2 (Michael Gerholdt)
drilling stainless steel (Dan Ritter)
re: yeast re-pitching (Dan Ritter)
Crisp Marris-Otter Pale Ale Malt
KETTLE MASHING
RE: Pitching Quantity vs O2
[No Subject Provided By Sender]
Sea Salt
[No Subject Provided By Sender]
lambic vs. Belgian, sanitizing air
Beer that starts out clear and gets murky
Calcium carbonate (AJN)
nothing, zip, zero, nada.....
American Ale II 1272 (Michael Gerholdt)
subcribe homebrew digest
Spargeless Mashing: Something New?
War of the Worts Winners!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:11:33 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: corn grits and flaked maize; Storing Flaked Barley
Mark Thompson <mark_thompson at hp.com> suggested the following Heineken Recipe
>`Stinky' Pilsner (aka Heineken)
>
>for 22liters / 5 gallons # converted
>4.2 kg/ 8# Pilsner malt (Durst)
>0.6 kg/1# Corn grits (Flaked Maze)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>200 g/6oz Pale Crystal malt (Cara Pils DWC)
>45g/1.6oz Hersbruck (4%)
>Liquid lager yeast (2124)
I want to point out that corn grits and flaked maize are not the same.
Grits must be cooked to gelatinize the starch, flaked maize (or corn) does
not, as it is made of moistened grits that are run through heated rollers,
which gelatinize the starch, flatten the grits, and dry them. Flakes can
be added directly to the mash, as he suggests.
Tim M. Dugan wants to know if he can use flaked barley left over from three
weeks ago.
>
>Dave Miller says it is not a good idea to store flakes as they readily =
>pick up moisture. On one hand, I've stored the flaked barley in doubled =
>zip-locked bags and it being winter my house is quite dry. On the other =
>hand, a one pound bag only costs $1.79...not going to break me.
Don't worry, that flaked barley was a lot older than three weeks when you
got it. It isn't going to change moisture very much. Keep it in a plastic
bag and you'll do fine. I've kept it for many months. A bigger problem is
rancidity (oxidation) of the oil in the germ, which will occur with time,
so keeping it cool or even in the freezer is a good idea. You can
recognize rancid oils by the old (oil-based) paint smell.
Jeff
- -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:36:51 -0800
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Pitching Quantity vs O2 (Michael Gerholdt)
On Fri, 17 Jan 97 12:12:44 -0500 Michael Gerholdt wrote:
>
> Actual truth: If you pitch 'adequate quantities of healthy yeast' there is
> no need whatsoever to oxygenate the wort.
>
> Practical truth: A 'work-around' of sorts to pitching adequate quantities of
> healthy yeast is oxygenating the wort, which compensates for inadequate
> amounts of yeast. Since most homebrewers do not pitch adequate quantities of
> healthy yeast, oxygenating is in order.
I was under the impression that even if you pitch "adequate"
quantities of yeast, there still is a benefit to giving oxygen to
your wort. The oxygen helps the yeast build their cell walls and also
changes their excretions which will make a more alcohol tolerant
yeast, with different flavor contributions. Yah or Nay?
SM
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:54:33 -0800
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com>
Subject: drilling stainless steel (Dan Ritter)
I will appeciate anyone who can advise me about drilling stainless steel.
I am ready to install an Easymasher in my 10 gal. Vollrath SS pot. The
technical experts at my local hardware store advise me to buy a
cobalt-tipped drill ($12 for a 3/8") and spray WD40 as I drill. Drilling
this pot will make me very nervous because I'll never be able to afford
another one! I want to do it right the FIRST time.
Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery
Grangeville, Idaho
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:46:34 -0800
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com>
Subject: re: yeast re-pitching (Dan Ritter)
>We can re-pitch our yeast like the breweries and some of us do, at
least
>sometimes. But as homebrewers, we often like to brew a variety of
styles
>with a variety of yeasts, and we haven't really solved the problem of
>storing large quantities of pitchable yeast for extended periods for
use
>in future brews. In the spirit of George's post, I think this would be
one
>of the most useful solutions we could devise.
I have been successfully storing yeast saved from post-primary
fermentation for as long as 3 months. I use the yeast washing
technique described below and then restart the yeast in a one quart
starter a day before I plan to brew. Even after 2-3 months, the yeast
takes off like a rocket.
<fontfamily><param>Courier</param><bigger>Yeast Washing for the
Homebrewer
The following notes were taken from a demonstration given to the Oregon
Brew Crew by Dave Logsdon of WYeast Labs, on September 12th. According
to Dave, it was important for healthy yeast to be washed free of trub
and hop residue so that it could be stored for future use. Dave said
that the problem with simply storing the mixed contents from a carboy
after fermentation was that the unwanted particulates would suffocate
the yeast over a period of time. Most breweries, Dave stressed, use an
acid wash; the sterile water wash is much more practical for
homebrewers.
Objective: To recover yeast from a finished batch of beer for
repitching or storage for future brewing.
Materials: One primary fermenter after beer has been siphoned off or
otherwise removed.
Three sanitized 1-quart Mason jars with lids, half full of sterile or
boiled water. They should be cooled down, then chilled to refrigerator
temperature (ca. 38^F).
Procedures:
1) Sanitize the opening of the carboy (flame or wipe with chlorine or
alcohol)
2) Pour the water from one of the quart jars into the carboy. Swirl the
water to agitate the yeast, hop residue and trub from the bottom.
3) Pour contents from the carboy back into the empty jar and replace
the cover.
4) Agitate the jar to allow separation of the components. Continue to
agitate periodically until obvious separation is noticeable.
5) While the viable yeast remains in suspension, pour off this portion
into the second jar. Be careful to leave as much of the hops and trub
behind as possible.
6) Agitate the second container to again get as much separation of
yeast from particulate matter as possible. Allow contents to rest
(about 1/2 hour to 1 hour) then pour off any excess water--and floating
hop particles--from the surface.
7) Pour off yeast fraction which suspends above the particulate into
the third container.* Store this container up to 1 month refrigerated.
Pour off liquid and add wort 2 days before brewing or repitch into a
new brew straight away.
</bigger></fontfamily>
Dan Ritter <<ritter at camasnet.com>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery
Grangeville, Idaho
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:56:39 -0500
From: Mike Dowd <mikedowd at geocities.com>
Subject: Crisp Marris-Otter Pale Ale Malt
Recently, I bought a sack of Crisp Marris-Otter malt. After hearing so
many good things about it, I wanted to give it a try myself. However, it
has given me nothing but trouble. For some reason, my sparges stuck. So I
wanted to see if anyone had any advice or comments. Here's what happened:
I used the malt for two batches. The first was last week for a 5 gallon
batch of Scotch Ale, the second was just today for a 2.5 gallon batch, as a
test, to see if I could figure out what had gone wrong with the first
batch. My procedures for both batches were identical. The only difference
in the mash being that the first was 11 pounds of the Crisp malt plus 1.25
pounds of American 6-row Victory malt (I would have preferred 2-row, but it
was all I could get a hold of) and today's batch was 6 pounds of the Crisp
malt plus one ounce of roasted barley.
In each case, I used a MaltMill to crush the grain, and an EasyMasher
installed in a stainless steel pot for sparging. My mashing procedure is
taken from the George Fix method. I start off with .75 quarts of water per
pound of grain at 106 F, dough in, and then rest for 25 minutes at 104 F.
Then I add another .35 quarts per pound of grain of boiling water, plus
external heat, to raise the temp to saccrification at 153 F. After 1.5
hours saccrification, I add another couple quarts of boiling water, plus
external heat, to raise the temp to 172 F. I then rest at 172 F for 25
minutes to let the grain bed settle before sparging. This is the procedure
I've been using (for British & American ales) since I started doing
all-grain, and it has never failed me. Prior to this time, I have used
Munton and Fison pale ale malt.
In both cases, the grain bed never really settled, and when I opened the
spigot to sparge, the flow eventually slowed to a trickle. The mash looked
and felt like I was doing a batch of wheat beer, or maybe something with
rye in it -- lots of protein, very viscous, very gummy. I did the second
batch as a test to see if maybe my problems with the first batch were
caused by the 6-row Victory malt. Apparently not. I had the same problems
with the second batch. In both cases, I did everything I could think of to
get it running properly, but nothing worked. I even tried adding a few
ounces of rice hulls to today's batch, but even that didn't work.
At this point, I have had enough with this malt, and the homebrew store I
bought it from is willing to exchange it for another malster's pale malt,
which is very cool. I'm sure I could do some more experimentation (maybe
try doing a protein rest) and find out what's going on, but I really have
no desire to do that. This malt should not need a protein rest, and I
consider it to be a bad batch of grain if that's what's necessary to make
it work right. I have no desire to spend my own time and money on solving
problems which should be taken care of by the maltster.
If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or opinions, I would appreciate
hearing them.
- --Mike
Michael Dowd Whoever makes a poor beer is transferred
Yeastie Boy Brewing to the dung-hill.
Pittsburgh, PA
mikedowd at geocities.com -Edict, City of Danzig, 11th Century
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:34:21 -0800
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net>
Subject: KETTLE MASHING
- -
From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: Kettle Mashing, et al.
>If i made a Kettle masher and used the er.."rest schedule"? in papazian,am i going to get a decent amount Gravity, and not waste sugars?
here is the schedule from Papazian
Put grains in kettle, with 1.25 qts per pound of grain.
1) bring mixture 113-122 F and hold for 30 minutes.
2) raise to 150 F and hold for 10 minutes
3) raise to 158 F and hold for 10-15 minutes
>Heres is the schedule from Kettle Mashing
Put grains in kettle, with 1.25 qts per pound of grain.
1) bring mixture 155 F and hold for 30 minutes.
2) bring to 178 F and hold for 10 minutes.
>Which is better or recomended? Comments...
My guess is that they are about the same.
As the author of the article, "Kettle Mashing", let me explain
the strategy.
It's all in the words, specifically, the word "bring".
As we are "bringing" it to the "two" rest temps by applying heat
slowly enough to prevent scorching, we are not making quantum leaps.
I humbly suggest that the mash spends at least some time at every
possible rest temperature that has ever been proposed. You might
call is a shotgun approach, one b b at a time.
You can also just heat the water to about 170F, dump in the grain
and do a typical infusion mash. Frankly, I have never really been
able to tell the difference but than again, I can't tell the difference
between Coors and Millers so what do I know?
js
- --
Visit our WEB pages:
Beer Stuff: http://dezines.com/ at your.service/jsp/
Astronomy: http://user.mc.net/arf/
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:13:47 -0700
From: "Maribeth_Raines, Asst_Prof" <raines at radonc.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Pitching Quantity vs O2
For the record, I would like to express again (the last time I posted this
the HBD was in a sad state) my disagreement with Michael Gerholdt's
contention that there is no need to oxygenate/aerate if adequate quantities
of healthy yeast are pitched. As I said before, pitching at 20-30 millions
cells/ml (this is at least 2-3 times the normal pitching rate) into a
1.050 wort, I could detect noticeable differences between a 4 ppm levels of
DO and 10 ppm levels of DO. The lower DO levels consistently produce more
sluggish fermentations (3 vs 7 days). I have also seen similar results
with yeast that has been repitched from a previous batch. In each case
viability was greater than 95%. My personal experience therefore directly
contradicts your "actual" truth.
Also why is it that large breweries who clearly pitch adequate quantities
of yeast still aerate?
In all of the brewing information that I have read I have never seen a
statement to the effect that "there is no need whatsoever to oxygenate the
wort." What is the data that supports this? What is considered an
adequate amount of yeast?
It was my understanding that underpitching with adequate aeration promotes
too much growth and leads to excessive ester formation. Conversely,
studies by the Kirin brewery have shown that yeast from under aerated wort
does not perform well upon repitching. So it seems that both adequate
yeast and aeration are needed. I will concede that you can ferment wort
without oxygenating or aerating, but the quality will not be as good or as
consistent as if you aerate.
I apologize for bringing this up again but I thought that some of the other
HBDers may have missed the specifics on this. Surely there must be some
circumstances ( yeast strains, fermentation temps, etc.) under which this
works well, if it is the so-called "actual" truth. Please enlighten me.
MB Raines-Casselman
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 19:09 CST
From: postmaster at swpe06.sw.lucent.com
Subject: [No Subject Provided By Sender]
>From postmaster Sat Jan 18 19:09:00 1997
Subject: smtp mail failed
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2483
Your mail to swen01.lucent.com is undeliverable.
- ---------- diagnosis ----------
<<< 554 Transaction failed -- I/O error
- ---------- unsent mail ----------
>From uucp Sat Jan 18 19:08 CST 1997 remote from swpe06
>From homebrew Sat Jan 18 11:20:08 0700 1997 remote from dionysus.aob.org
Received: from dionysus.aob.org by swpe06.sw.lucent.com; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:08 CST
Received: by ihgp0.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
id TAA16267; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:16:26 -0600
Received: from cbig2.firewall.lucent.com by ihgp0.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
id TAA16261; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:16:21 -0600
Received: by cbig2.firewall.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
id UAA24014; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:10:50 -0500
Received: by cbgw2.lucent.com; Sat Jan 18 20:12 EST 1997
Received: (from dionysus at localhost) by dionysus.aob.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA01763 for homebrew-digest-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:20:08 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:20:08 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199701181820.LAA01763 at dionysus.aob.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: dionysus.aob.org: dionysus set sender to owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org using -f
From: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org (Homebrew Digest)
To: homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #36
Reply-To: homebrew at dionysus.aob.org
Sender: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Errors-To: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 41156
Homebrew Digest Saturday, January 18 1997 Volume 02 : Number 036
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.
1 Re: Simplified version of decoction?
2 Planar Chillers/ Koelsch yeast (Dave Hinkle)
3 Re:White labs, p-lambic
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:39:23 -0700 (MST)
From: Rod Schlabach <schlabr at iquest.net>
Subject: Sea Salt
Fellow Homebrewers,
Can anyone out there comment on the use of "sea salt", supposedly the
product of the removal of water from ocean water? I've been using sea salt
in place of non-iodized table salt or canning salt lately when building up
water character using my reverse-osmosis water, although I have been unable
to find any information on such use. Can anyone comment on how the trace
minerals in sea salt might nourish yeast? I'm told sea salt fairly closely
reflects the salt profile of the human body, presumably because the ocean is
where we evolved from. Does using sea salt in place of pure NaCl matter to
beer?
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 22:51:32 -0800
From: The Rich family <riches at halcyon.com>
Subject: [No Subject Provided By Sender]
subscribe homebrew-digest jonnboyy at aol.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:58:14 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu>
Subject: lambic vs. Belgian, sanitizing air
"Gerald S. Welker" <gswelker at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #35
> Before I tell you how (if you're interested), it is noteworthy that the
> pitching of yeast in Belgian abbeys (Duval, Chimay, and the like) where
> lambics and trippels are made is accomplished by...opening the windows.
> The yeast, in the form of airborne spores, wafts in on the breeze via
> the open cellar windows, settling lightly on the wort in open oak vats.
> Nice results, too (mmmmm...think I'll go buy some!)
First off, I think it may be confusing to label Trappist monasteries
"abbeys" since the term "abbey" in the beer world refers to beers
made in the Trappist "style" by non-Trappist breweries. "Trappist"
is an appelation controlee which means that only they can use that
term on their beers. Any brewery can make a beer and call it an
abbey beer.
Second, lambics and [Trappist and abbey] beers have little in common
except that they are made in Belgium. Lambics are indeed made with
wild (i.e. uncultured) yeast. They are not made, however, in a monestary.
Also, maybe someone else will jump in here, but I don't believe that
any of the oak barrels are open, but there is a stage where the wort
sits open in a coolship, and I think this is more likely to be in
the attic than the cellar. The problem with those cellar windows is
that dirt keeps pouring in. (Sorry)
I can only think of one Trappist or abbey beer offhand with a particularly
wild pedigree, which would be Orval, which contains quite a bit of
Brettanomyces. Probably this is added from a culture rather than through
the air.
By the way, many would classify Duvel as neither a lambic (obviously)
nor an abbey. Jackson calls it a "Belgian Golden Ale" and Rajotte calls
it a "Special." Peter Crombecq calls it a "Noble."
[Description of air deleted]
> To sanitize it, you can do two things...kill the bugs
> (gamma irradiation is the most practical, as air is difficult to heat)
> or remove them. It's hard to irradiate rooms contiuously (especially if
> you put people in them), so when surgery calls for sterile air (most
> don't...prosthetic joints are the only routine situation in which this
> is necessary), the patient is placed in a positive pressure clean room,
> and the operating team wears isolation suits[Description of suits deleted]
This is a long-winded way to say just filter it. Since I believe we are
talking about the air used to oxygenate cooled wort this is an easy task.
As discussed many times here in the past,
(come on guys, search the archives first when you have a question:
http://alpha.rollanet.org/cgi-bin/hbdindex/hbd
http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/cgi-bin/dothread
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew
)
you can find inexpensive inline air filters that will strip out things
larger than ~.2 microns, which is pretty "sanitary."
I'm sorry to take this out on Gerald but his post hit several pet peeves.
Please, if you are interested in exotically fermented beers, check out
the lambic digest:
Send article submissions only to: lambic at engr.colostate.edu
Send all other administrative requests (subscribe/unsubscribe/change) to:
lambic-request@ engr.colostate.edu
Note that the request address is not an automated server. It forwards
to a real person who may not be able to process the request immediately.
Subscription changes often take 2-5 days, sometimes more.
and any of several lambic web pages:
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb/lambic/lambic.html (New lambic FAQ)
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil (Jim Liddil's page)
http://bioc-www.uia.ac.be/u/pvosta/pcrbier1.html (A new page about lambic)
http://www.dma.be/p/bier/beer.htm (Peter Crombecq's page)
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 17:02:23 -0500
From: Keith Flick <kaflick at sylvania.sev.org>
Subject: Beer that starts out clear and gets murky
I opened some of my first batch of beer Friday night and it acted a little
strange. The beer is clear in the bottle and when I open it and pour into
a glass it is still clear. BUT within 45 seconds it will have turned very
murky, almost muddy looking and is opaque. It looks almost like it is
pure trub.
It tastes O.K. In fact it tastes better than O.K. But I would like to
know what causes this.
My wife got me the Home Brew Pub kit for Christmas. I think it is a good
kit, none of this stuff about adding 50% sugar etc. It only makes 2 1/2
Gal. but I am going to standardize on this size for my home brewing until
I get sorted out what I am doing and which methods work best for me.
This way I will brew twice as many batches for the same amount of beer.
More chances for experimentation, more combinations.
Here is what I did/used:
2.2 lb. Continental Lager Flavor Hopped extract
added to 3/4 gal water and boiled for 20-25 minutes
(I couldn't exactly tell when it started to boil.)
I then added 1 qt. cold water and poured it into 1 gal. of cold
water in my fermentation container. The temperature was O.K.
so I pitched my yeast (previously readied by adding to warm water).
I put the fermentation lock in and waited......
Within 12 hours the co2 bubbles were streaming up the sides
and the lock was bubbling steadily with more that one bubble per second.
It was loud enough that it woke my wife up that night.
Within two days it had stopped and the beer was clear.
I bottled it (24 bottles, the last one had a little trub in it but I really
wanted to get all I could.
I waited 11 days and the bottles looked clear and when some friends came
over we tried it. As I said it tasted good but looked funny.
Our water is hard, but not very hard. It tastes OK to drink.
Any ideas ?
Keith A. Flick Keith Flick Consulting
5750 Flanders Road Ph. (419) 882 - 0274
Sylvania, Ohio 43560 Fax (419) 882 - 5786
kaflick at sylvania.sev.org
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:06:10 -0500 (EST)
From: AJN <neitzkea at frc.com>
Subject: Calcium carbonate (AJN)
I need to incress the calcium in my water, but my brewshop is out of
gypsom. Also since my water already has enough sulfate, I would like to use
calcium cloride but can't find any.
Has anyone ever used calcium carbonate AKA TUMS(tm)? If yes, how much
would you use?
_________________________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 08:26:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Dckdog at aol.com
Subject: nothing, zip, zero, nada.....
Forgive father, it's been 7 months since my last brewing. In response to the
abysmal weather in the northeast I decided to brew yesterday after a
prolonged hiatus. I brewed a light lager using 3 lbs of extra light DME and 2
lbs. of honey with Perle hops added to the boil and rehydrated a pack of
Austrailian lager yeast at 100 degrees (Superior? I don't remember the brand)
and pitched it. I stuck the brew in a closet whose ambient temp is like 40
degrees and after 18 hours, nothing is happening. The yeast had been stored
in the freezer for at least 6 months before I decided to use it. The
complication factor is that the local homebrew supply (Niagara Traditions,
good folks I must say) doesn't do business again until Tuesday. If the yeast
was dead, bad etc. could I buy another on Tuesday, rehydrate it and dump it
in? Or, should I drag the brew out of the closet into the house and see if
fermentation starts? Our house temp is cold, usually only around 60 degrees.
I suppose if it starts fermenting I could leave it in the house and see what
happens. Please e-mail me personally with your help, it would be greatly
appreciated!
Dean
"......bad beer rots our young guts but vodka goes well."-Al Sleeper-eight
grade electronics teacher
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 09:35:49 -0500
From: Michael Gerholdt <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu>
Subject: American Ale II 1272 (Michael Gerholdt)
- -- [ From: Michael Gerholdt * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
Craig Rode <craig.rode at sdrc.com> writes in HBD Volume 02 : Number 035:
>What is with Wyeast American II 1272? I can't get the stuff to sink into
the
beer after primary fermentation. I racked my beer into a 5 gal secondary
after 7 days, and I still got a airlock full of gunk when it started
fermenting again and formed an evil layer of foam rubber on top of my beer.
Is there a secret to using this stuff?
Craig, my experience has been quite the opposite. 1272 is touted as a high
floculator, and I can testify to that. I made an IPA with it which sat in
glass secondary in temperatures that ranged from 36 - 42 ^F for about three
weeks before I bottled. This beer dropped bright, clear and beautiful. In
fact, it was so clear, that it took three weeks in the bottle at 68^F to
condition properly.
I moved to 1272 because the 1056 became just too boring, and I'm enjoying
the difference. If I can get 1272 to floc and drop so nicely on a regular
basis, I'll be very happy when it comes to kegging and force carbonation.
Lager and keg.
You must have had a fairly high OG beer that might have benefited from a
larger fermenter or a blowoff, as far as gunk in the airlock is concerned.
Other than that, I'm at a loss to explain your experience.
But I wouldn't give up on 1272 for the right styles of beer ...
Good luck,
Michael
- --
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:33:23 +0100
From: paul degraaf <pdegraaf at globalxs.nl>
Subject: subcribe homebrew digest
subscribe homebrew digest
pdegraaf at globalxs.nl
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 13:35:23 +0100
From: Jeff Irvine <irv at wireworks.se>
Subject: Spargeless Mashing: Something New?
I would first like to apologize in advance, in case I have
misunderstood what is being discussed, or am reiterating the obvious. I
print this "retraction" in advance as I am quite new to this medium.
This combined with the fact that Compuserve seems to be getting
competatively squashed (at least in Europe) has made my in and out
service quite unsure, and I have only caught snippets of the topic under
discussion.
What I have understood, is that someone is proposing "spargeless
mashing". The idea is meant to have origins with Dr. Fix, and various
advantages/disadvantages are discussed here. I am afraid that I have =
been unable to download the original document, so the following comments =
are directed at the reactions that I have read.
If I have understood correctly what is being described, it is a
technique I have used for about 12-13 years and have variously called
"infusion sparging" or "dilution sparging".
I would like to mention here that the idea did not originate with me
but rather with Dave Lines. He first suggested it in the 1970's. I
stress this point because I think the man was a true pioneer. He
understood the process well, communicated that knowledge, and was
responsible for a lot of innovations that have become quite standard
within homebrewing and to which he receives little credit.
As Mr. Lines mentioned this as more of an aside, or alternate
technique, I was under the missimpression that it was somehow less
"professional" or "clean" and avoided its use until about 1983. At that
time I had (once again) rebuilt my brewing system, and my mash tun sat
inside my boiler. The idea being that the water bath around the outside
would help stabilize mash temperatures,and one could continue heating =
the =B3bath water=B2 at the end of mash, and use it as sparge water. It =
then occurred to me that
since the point of sparging is really just to come up to the solubility
of sugars, I could simply at the end of mashing begin heating the bath,
and then empty the contents of the mash tun into it and Voila!, I was at
the correct temperature and could simply draw the liquid through the
grains. I have changed many things since then, but have never returned
to a traditional sparge.
My present technique involves a three stage mash. At each change of
temperature, the heat is turned on and a measured ammount of boiling
water is added to the top and stirred (heat on bottom + heat on top =3D
instant temperature change). I am quite happy to discuss which enzymes
I think I am promoting and even why I think a dilution is more
beneficial than harmful if someone is interested, but I think that this
is not the place. Suffice it to say, that the "sparge" is simply a
larger dilution and a fourth temperature. The first runnings are
recirculated and after everything has run through the grain bed about
10- 15% of total volume of warmed water is then added to the top as an =
=B3after sparge=B2(as in
a traditional sparge, but with much less care taken- I can supply more
details of eventual problems and how to avoid them for those truly
interested at another time).
THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS TECHNIQUE ARE...
1) You save a lot of time.
THE POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES ARE...
1) You might reduce the ammount of hot side aeration (HSA). Personally
I think this is a fear that is much exaggerated in terms of its effects
on the home brew. I am first aware of this particular concern being =
introduced to the home brewer by the writings of Dave Miller. =
Reasonably, if there really was a great risk of phenolic
production with the combination heat/oxygen/grain husks, I would suggest
that every other possibility of entering oxygen into the process would
be quite marginal compared to giving your grains a "hot shower".
2) You could reduce the ammount of tannin extraction. Another worry
which I think is given more issue than it warrants. Your mash does have
the buffering capacity however (at least with my grains and water), to
maintain low pH after this last dilution, making any sparge water
acidification superfluous (if it isn't already).
3) It gives you a maltier taste? This is something I have read here.
It is nothing I've ever noticed, and not anything I would believe for a
second. Generally, I think that sweet flavours tend to enhance malt =
taste perception, whilst bitter flavours tend to weave themselves into =
hop flavour, masking malt taste. Possibly through points 1 and 2 above, =
one is reducing bitter flavours and thereby making malt taste more =
percievable, but it has not been my experience. If believing that gives =
you more confidence in trying an
infusion sparge, then fine.
THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS TECHNIQUE ARE...
1) You waste a lot of grain.
Before using this technique, my extraction efficiencies were
consistantly in the 90's (97% at best), after the adoption of this, it
fell immediately to about 75% and has stayed there. Then again, even if
I'm in a terrifically patient mood, I would not =B3after sparge=B2 down =
below
about S:G: 1020. I simply don't enjoy sparging. I'd rather brew more
often with less yield and remove the boring steps. We are fairly active
brewers around here and order our malt by the tonne, so grain costs =
become
quite marginal. Rather than continually do a part of the process that I
find so unenjoyable, I create a lot of deer food. In fact, as I trodded
out into the snow for my morning "pee" at dawn, I was standing face to
face with a moose. It is either a new form of ungulate voyeurism, or
that fella' has developed a taste for my spent grains as well, giving me =
just one more pleasurable side effect of my brewing.
In this region of Sweden, everyone who brews was either taught by me,
or has in turn learned as a =B3spin off=B2 effect, so it is understandable =
if my particular bad habits are locally wide spread. Each brewer has
gone on to develope their own techniques, but I know of no.one who uses =
a
traditional sparge (could this be one of the reasons that some of the
best beers in the world are found here?) ;-)
I recently visited someone doing their "stovetop technique" where he
used every burner on the stove. At the end of mash, the contents were
mixed with the different pots of water, poured through a sieve into a
fermenting bucket and then a last pot poured over the top. Then he goes
away and has a sandwich, comes back and racks off of the trub to the
boiler. He doesn't expend 5 minutes sparging. Sound appealing?
Another advantage according to him, is that once you know the volume of
boiling water and mash that reach sparge temperatures, you don't even
have to measure the combinant with a thermometer- It always turns out
right.
As I have mentioned, I am quite new to this medium of communication,
and find it a quite brilliant way of sharing knowledge. There is a
risk, however, of the developement of a homogenicity in both thought and
technique. From what I have read thus far, the ideas and practices
being presented here and elsewhere on the net, are far afield from what =
exists here. =
If the quite varied techniques and philosophy is at all appealing,
and the opinionated way of expressing it not too offensive, I have begun
to write up a bit of our local experience and it can be found at...
http://alpha.rollanet.org/~mckay/brew/columns/
If there is an interest in infusion sparging, I will try to write up a =
more detailed description rather than wasting more of your space here.
Once again, sorry to use up so much space here, and if inappropriate
please let me know.
Dr. Pivo
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:52:07 -0800
From: folsom at ix.netcom.com
Subject: War of the Worts Winners!
Following is the (somewhat lengthy) winners list from the 2nd Annual
War of the Worts homebrew Competition held yesterday, 18 January. My
thanks to the judges and stewards who made the competition run as
smoothly as it did, to the other organizers, Rich Rosowski and Jason
Harris for all the work they put into it, to our host, the Buckingham
Mountain Brewery and Restaurant, a great restaurant and brewpub worth a
visit from anywhere, and especially to the brewers who sent in the 333(!)
entries!
There is another club which had claimed to have had the largest non-commercial
homebrew contest east of the mississippi. We will have to ask them to cease
and desist in such claims, at least until next summer!
Al Folsom
Competition Organizer
- -----------------------------------
COMPETITION WINNERS for WAR OF THE WORTS 1997
TABLE: 1 STRONG ALES 17 Entries
REEVES,JAY Barley Wine HUNTSVILLE, AL 1st
BICKHAM, SCOTT Barley Wine COLUMBIA, MD 2nd
SCHANKWERTER, MARC Strong Scotch Ale READING, PA 3rd
TABLE: 2 STRONG BELGIANS 12 Entries
ZWIRNMANN, RALPH Belgian Strong Ale ROSLYN, PA 1st
SCHANKWERTER, MARC Belgian Strong Ale READING, PA 2nd
TEMPLETON,KENT Belgian Strong Ale PHILADELPHIA,PA 3rd
TABLE: 3 BROWN ALES 12 Entries
GREEN, CHARLES American Brown Ale NORTH WALES, PA 1st
GAROFALO, PETER American Brown Ale SYRACUSE, NY 2nd
FOLSOM JR., ALAN American Brown Ale WARRINGTON, PA 3rd
TABLE: 4 ENGLISH PALE ALES 22 Entries
CAUM, TIM English Pale Ale WARMINSTER, PA 1st
GRAHAM,BILLY India Pale Ale PASADENA, MD 2nd
SALOTTI, LEWIS English Pale Ale GLENSIDE, PA 3rd
TABLE: 5 AMERICAN PALE ALE 22 Entries
GROSSMAN, BOB American Pale Ale HADDONFIELD, NJ 1st
SOLOMON,MARK American Pale Ale BENSALEM, PA 2nd
GORDASH, ROBERT K. American Pale Ale FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 3rd
TABLE: 6 BITTERS & SCOTTISH ALE 13 Entries
FOLSOM JR., ALAN English Best/Special WARRINGTON, PA 1st
SUSLA, MARKO Strong/Extra Special EDISON, NJ 2nd
LEFEBURE, PAUL English Ordinary HAVERFORD, PA 3rd
TABLE: 7 PORTERS 19 Entries
WALTERS,STEVE Porter NORRISTOWN, PA 1st
SAPONE,NICK Porter WEST CHESTER, PA 2nd
BEHLER, JAY Porter PAOLI, PA 3rd
TABLE: 8 DRY & OATMEAL STOUTS 14 Entries
SYKES,BOB Irish-style Dry CONSHOHOCKEN, PA 1st
BRITTEN, D/SMITH, K Irish-style Dry WYOMING, MI 2nd
McHALE, JIM Irish-style Dry PHOENIXVILLE, PA 3rd
TABLE: 9 DARK & AMBER LAGERS 19 Entries
FOLSOM JR., ALAN Traditional Bock WARRINGTON, PA 1st
ROSOWSKI, RICH Munich Dunkel HORSHAM, PA 2nd
BERNHARDT,M/SENNER,G Oktoberfest/Marzen WARMINSTER, PA 3rd
TABLE: 10 LIGHT LAGERS 18 Entries
BERNHARDT, SENNER Bohemian Pilsener WARMINSTER, PA 1st
GAROFALO, PETER Lager/Ale-Cream Ale SYRACUSE, NY 2nd
BERNHARDT,M/SENNER,G Bohemian Pilsener WARMINSTER, PA 3rd
TABLE: 11 MIXED STYLES 15 Entries
HILZINGER,MATTHEW Kolsch ROYAL OAK, MI 1st
FOLSOM JR., ALAN Kolsch WARRINGTON, PA 2nd
SHORE, KENNETH JR. Dusseldorf-Style Alt EAST WINDSOR, NJ 3rd
TABLE: 12 WHEAT BEERS 17 Entries
SPANEL,PHILIP Weizen/Weissbier LEMONT, PA 1st
LEFEBURE, PAUL American Wheat HAVERFORD, PA 2nd
UKNALIS, JOE Weizen/Weissbier JENKINTOWN, PA 3rd
TABLE: 13 SMOKED & SPECIALTY 24 Entries
ROSOWSKI, RICH Bamberg Rauchbier HORSHAM, PA 1st
HOUSEMAN, DAVID Classic-Style CHESTER SPRINGS, PA 2nd
LISTER, BRIAN Classic-Style KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 3rd
TABLE: 14 FRUIT & VEGETABLE 22 Entries
PRIVETTE, ROBERT Fruit & Vegetable LANSDALE, PA 1st
BEHLER, JAY Fruit & Vegetable PAOLI, PA 2nd
HAULER, JACK Fruit & Vegetable MALVERN, PA 3rd
TABLE: 15 HERB & SPICE 23 Entries
BEHLER, JAY Classic-Style PAOLI, PA 1st
WESTMAN, MICHAEL Herb & Spice Beer STATE COLLEGE, PA 2nd
HANNING, CHUCK Classic-Style MALVERN, PA 3rd
TABLE: 16 MEADS & CIDERS 22 Entries
GROSSMAN, BOB Sparking Traditional HADDONFIELD, NJ 1st
ROSOWSKI, RICH Still Traditional HORSHAM, PA 2nd
GROSSMAN, BOB Still Melomel HADDONFIELD, NJ 3rd
TABLE: 17 WITS & LAMBICS 14 Entries
FOLSOM JR., ALAN White (Wit) WARRINGTON, PA 1st
REEVES,JAY White (Wit) HUNTSVILLE, AL 2nd
BRESE, NATE White (Wit) LANSDALE, PA 3rd
TABLE: 18 BELGIAN ALES 15 Entries
SMITH,D/WALENSKI,J Tripel PROSPECT PK, PA 1st
STUTMAN, STEVE Dubbel NARBERTH, PA 2nd
SCHANT,PETER W. Belgian Pale Ale PHILADELPHIA, PA 3rd
TABLE: 19 STRONG STOUTS 13 Entries
GRIFFIN,GREG&TINA Foreign-style Stout ARLINGTON, VA 1st
HUDOCK, LISA Imperial Stout WEST CHESTER, PA 2nd
ALGERIO, PETE Sweet Stout YAPHANK, NY 3rd
BEST OF SHOW: GREG & TINA GRIFFIN - Foreign style Stout
Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2317