HOMEBREW Digest #2372 Wed 12 March 1997
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/up_level_button.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
AFCHBC correction #3 (hollen)
Topping off... (Dave LaRocque)
Stuck fermentation, CO2 toxicity and wort composition (Alex Santic)
PH Meter Haywire (Russ Kruska)
Brew-Tunes (Jim Nasiatka)
competition announcement (Mark Taratoot)
Re: Conditioning (Scott Murman)
Converted kegs (David Root)
(U) (UTC -05:00)" <rbyrnes2.ford at e-mail.com>
Yeast Starter Tasting, Pitching a Bottle of HB ("Herb B Tuten")
Yeast Starter Viability (tsg)
Brew Music ("Aaron Herrick")
Beer Filter Treatment ("C&S Peterson")
All Wheat Conversion ("C&S Peterson")
Wyeast 1275 (Thames Valley)/ 1318 London Ale III (Charles Epp)
Grain Addition Timings (rkienle)
Decocting Pale Ale Malt - how to create headless, bodyless beer (Charles Burns)
re: Floating Sediment (Charles Burns)
Filtering Hops from Primary to Secondary (JeffHailey)
Lagering in Secondary or Bottle? ("Michael K. Cinibulk")
heterofermentative bacteria (George J Fix)
Liquid Transfer using Peristaltic Pumps (TOM ELIASSEN)
S.G. contribution from raspberries (shaun.funk)
Custom Keg refridgeration (Kevin.Cavanaugh)
Souring mashes/beers (DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932)
Gypsum in Sparge Water (SClaus4688)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://brew.oeonline.com/
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp from:
brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail
using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about
this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with
the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 19:39:33 PST
From: hollen at vigra.com
Subject: AFCHBC correction #3
Thanks to the information superhighway, I can get results of our
competition out almost before the last glass from BOS is emptied,
however, I can also make a fool of myself instantly in front of
unprecedented numbers of my peers. However, the third edge of the
sword is that by posting these results quickly, one judge and one
steward saw them and were able to spot a mistake. I apologize to all
for this.
German Dark Lager 13
First Stephen MacMillan - South Nevada Ale Fermenter's Union
Second Patrick Mckee - Redwood Coast Homebrewer's Assoc.
German Light Lager 14
First Edward Little - Foam on the Brain
Second Frank Leers - Quaff
Third Elizabeth Smith - Inland Empire Brewers
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com
http://www.vigra.com/~hollen
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 22:58:16 -0500
From: Dave LaRocque <davel at ids.net>
Subject: Topping off...
Many thanks to those of you who had taken the time to reply to my question
regarding the explosive IPA. In resonse to may of you... Yes, I am married
and yes, I did clean up the linen closet, but still had to spend two nights
on the sofa.
Next query(in two parts):
1> What are the pros and cons of adding boiled, then cooled water to the
scondary to make 5 gallons? I have a 5 gallon mark on the outside of my
carboy that I measured but have never reached it in secondary. I have
thought about adding pre-boiled, cooled water to equal 5G but haven't had
the guts to attempt this.
2>IPA recipe as follows:
3.3# muntons amber extact
3# Amber DME
1# crystal malt
1 oz Chinook (10.9% AA) - Boil
1 oz Kent Golding UK (5.0% AA) - Finish
Makes 5G. My question... This is VERY light bodied for me. How can I give
this a bit more body while retaining the flavor and characteristics of an IPA?
TIA again.
- --Dave
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:48:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Subject: Stuck fermentation, CO2 toxicity and wort composition
I'm having some problems I've never experienced before and finally decided
to put them before the collective in case anyone cares to comment. I
apologize for the length, but this takes some explaining.
It involves a batch of porter with about 82% M&F pale ale, 7% Beeston
crystal, 3% DWC Munich, and 8% DWC roasted malts, with a simple 90 minute
mash at 152F. I used Wyeast 1084 Irish Ale for the first time.
Attempt #1: I did a mini-mash to get starter wort, but had difficulties
getting clear run-off from the small mash, so I fermented out the starter
and pitched only the slurry. An additional glitch involved blowing off the
airstone while oxygenating. I contented myself with shaking the carboy
with perhaps some extra O2 still in the headspace. Primary fermentation
was noticeably short and not as vigorous as expected. Attenuation was from
1.050 down to 1.030. I eventually abandoned this batch as my first
hopelessly stuck fermentation.
Attempt #2: This time I reserved some wort from the mash, boiled it for 15
minutes, force-cooled and pitched some slurry salvaged from the stuck
batch to make a 1200ml starter. I went away for a few hours and
boiled/cooled the main wort upon my return. This batch was oxygenated
thoroughly and just in time to pitch the starter at high krausen. Primary
fermentation was a little longer, but still short. Oddly, the beer kept
swirling and fermenting vigorously after the krausen completely dropped,
with large-ish bubbles swarming across the surface. I've never seen that
before. My beers more often hold a head of foam for a while after primary
fermentation is done, but this was the opposite effect.
This batch went into the secondary at 1.020 only 2 1/2 days after
pitching. Better than the previous try, but still not fermented out. A
good bit of yeast settled, but a lot remained in suspension. Gas through
the airlock was a little more than just CO2 from the primary fermentation
coming out of solution, but just barely. The fermentation was neither
finished nor completely quiet, but going nowhere fast. After 4 days in the
secondary, the SG was about the same.
I tried a thorough rousing of the yeast by racking to a tertiary fermenter
with an open-ended racking cane. I simply vacuumed the slurry during the
transfer to get it mixed thoroughly in the tertiary. This had no
significant effect on the fermentation, but I noticed along the way that
the beer seemed to have an unusual amount of CO2 in solution. When I tried
swirling the tertiary, I got a huge torrent of bubbles through the airlock
and a thick layer of foam over the surface of the beer. I have been able
to repeat this dramatic performance at will for two days now...it just
stays saturated. I get perhaps a few bubbles per minute without swirling.
I can't really say what's going on, but I'm convinced this has some
relation to a discussion in BT's Readers' Tech Notes regarding stuck
fermentations and CO2 toxicity. For some reason, CO2 stops escaping from
the wort in a normal manner, and builds up to levels which suppress
fermentation. If anybody cares to read the material beginning on page 14
of BT 4.5 (American IPA cover story) I think you will see the connection,
although the author was having problems worse than mine.
I am hoping that manual intervention by swirling the carboy will help coax
the fermentation to completion, but I don't know yet if it's working. I
continue to get torrents of CO2 every time I do it, so something is
happening in there. The brewer with the problem in BT solved it by leaving
the cold trub in his wort. I don't know why this would apply in my case. I
do filter my cooled wort through the spent hops, but there's always some
cold break in the fermenter. I haven't changed procedures from previous
normal batches except for using all-grain starter wort. I also can't
explain why these two worts have seemed less foamy than my others.
Alex "Who Never Thought He'd Have a Dysfunctional Fermentation" Santic
New York, NY
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:51:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Russ Kruska <R.KRUSKA at CGNET.COM>
Subject: PH Meter Haywire
Hi all--
Yesterday's brew session (10 gallon batch of IPA) was going along
smoothly and I was adjusting the mash pH with lactic acid while boosting
the temperature of the mash from 125 to 155 degrees. Everything was
going smoothly as I was getting a reduction in pH of 0.1 for each teaspoon
of 10% lactic acid (I had made adjustments from 5.9 down to 5.6). I wanted
to continue and get this down below 5.5 when suddenly my meter readings
were bouncing all over the place (even up to 15 !!!).
I had just calibrated the meter about 6 weeks ago with 4 and 7 buffer
solutions. I also cool all readings to room temperature as I do not have
ATC with my old meter. Any suggestions ???
BTW, I did NOT get a very good hot break, but both fermenters are
fully fermenting...
Russ
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:27:29 -0600
From: Jim Nasiatka <Jwylde at interaccess.com>
Subject: Brew-Tunes
Musical choices here at the H-H brewery vary wildly depending on our
moods and the styles we're brewing. It's ranged the gamut from Nitzer Ebb
and NIN across to the Dead and Tracy Chapman. I think the most unique
mix of tunes whas for our Schitzophrenia Espresso Porter - Done on a
Hangover Sunday afternoon with music provided by Pansy Division, Tribe 8,
Joan Jett, Mona Lisa Overdrive, Cinderella, and Testament.
(this was of course followed by some of Chicago Public Radio's Jazz Forum,
and the Grateful Dead hour.)
All the money in the world is no match for hard work and ingenuity...
____
\ / Nothing is so strong as Gentleness; JWylde at interaccess.com
\/ nothing so gentle as real strength
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:06:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Taratoot <taratoot at PEAK.ORG>
Subject: competition announcement
Heart of the Valley Homebrewers Present:
The 15th Annual
Oregon Homebrew
Competion and Festival
At the Oregon Trader Brewery
140 Hill Street NE
Albany, Oregon 97321
(Off Street Parking Available)
Saturday, May 10th
From 11 am to 5 pm
JUDGING FOR THE 24 RECOGNIZED AHA BEER STYLES
PLUS ALL THREE MEAD CATEGORIES
We are looking forward to continuing the tradition of this festival in its
fifteenth year as the longest running competition in the Pacific
Northwest! This years activities will incude several displays, a raffle,
food concessions, and the opportunity to meet and talk with some of hte
best and most experienced homebrewers anywhere!
Details on entry requirements will be available soon. Contact Jennifer
Crum at bennyj at peak.org or Mark Taratoot at taratoot at peak.org, or
Visit our Web site at
http://www.peak.org/~taratoot/fest.html
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:07:11 -0800
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Conditioning
Brian Pickerill wrote:
> In my experience, letting it sit
> in secondary won't do that much good, it's the bottle (or keg) conditioning
> under pressure that will develop the flavor most.
OK, I'll bite. What is it about being under pressure that is
affecting how the yeast go about their business? It's my, often
limited, understanding that when people refer to conditioning or aging
of a beer they are referring to the yeast removing secondary
fermentation byproducts and higher alcohols from the green beer (sour
or other strange brews not included). At the same time, the yeast are
often removing desirable fermentation byproducts BTW. How does
pressure affect the yeasts performance?
SM
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:00:41 -0500
From: David Root <droot at concentric.net>
Subject: Converted kegs
Bubba Phillips (swp at datasync.com) Asks about slag in his keg.
First I would have partially filled the keg with water before cutting
the top off. I just left the stale 2 gallons of beer in mine. A wire
wheel will remove the slag the best without affecting the stainless.
After welding stainless, a wire brush or wire wheel brings the
chrome to the top to keep it stainless. They also make a round
disk by 3M called a Rolock (sp?) disc that is mildly abrasive. This disk
works wonders on stainless, and is what I used to dress the keg
after cutting the top off.
I have a question about Hops. I have grown them for 3 years.
Last year I picked 15 hop cones. Not a good yield. Do you think
watering them every day will help? They are not in total sunlight
and the soil has some clay in it. Thanks.
David Root Lockport NY droot at concentric.net
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:11:41 EST
From: "Rich Byrnes USAET(UTC -05:00)" <rbyrnes2.ford at e-mail.com>
Subject: (U)
>From: Dckdog at aol.com
>Subject: brewing music....
>I wonder if anyone out there has any thoughts on the music they prefer to
>listen to while brewing. Our kitchen could be filled with anything from Type
>O Negative to King's X to Bach to Korn to SR Vaughn to old Genesis to Orb to
>Coltrane to Patti Smith to Replacements to Them Jazzbeards. Eclectic is the
>order of the day. Maybe you should listen to different music depending on
>what type of brew you are working on......
>Brew On..
>Dean
Try the soundtrack to Rocky Horror (Time Warp pale ale?) or my personal
favorite: Monty Python Sings
WARNING! Don not, under any circumstance listen to anything Scottish or Irish
while brewing, many Celtic performers wear plaid while recording and you
definitely don't want that in your brew!
On a related note, Atwater Block brewing Co will be openeing their doors to the
public on St. Patty's day. Atwater is a new brewery in Detroit specializing
in German Beers. Their brewmaster, Tom Majorosi comes right from Germany, he
admits to never having homebrewed in his life, he started right off the bat in
a brewery and has been their ever since. All his ingredients will come from
Germany including a special proprietary pils yeast strain kept on reserve at
Weiphenstephan (?). They will be starting with a Helles and a Dunkel, but by
summertime will have Kolsch (OK, Kolsch style bier, let's not start an
international incedent) Alt, Weizen, Bock, etc... I can't wait!
Fermentaciously Yours, Rich Byrnes
Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen \\\|///
phone #(313)323-2613, fax #390-4520_______o000_(.) (.)_000o
rbyrnes2.ford at e-mail.com (_)
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:30:10 -0500
From: "Herb B Tuten" <herb at zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us>
Subject: Yeast Starter Tasting, Pitching a Bottle of HB
Greetings all,
Last night I made a yeast starter from Wyeast 2124
(Bohemian Lager) and will build it up for brewing a
Pilsner this Saturday. Normally I decant some of the
starter 'beer' to taste and see if the starter is ok just
before I pitch. My question is: How do you check
a yeast starter if the yeast is one which produces 'off''
flavors initially but improves with time? I've read
several accounts of this yeast producing bad flavors
early, but becoming excellent after lagering. Any ideas?
Larry in Little Rock asks about pitching a bottle of homebrew.
Yes, this works. I recently had a starter which showed
no bubbling. I was pressed for time, and left it alone until
boiling my wort, and I hoped. Then I opened it and tasted a
bit of the 'beer' inside. Yuk, terrible! So I drank some brews
during the boil and carefully replaced the caps atop the bottles
with sediment left inside. These were from a Wyeast 1056 batch.
At pitching time I had 3 of these and poured them in. The lag
phase was a bit long, but the batch turned out well. This is not
the recommended method, of course, but in a pinch it works.
Cheers,
Herb
herb at zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:23:35 -0500
From: tsg at eng1.netlink.com
Subject: Yeast Starter Viability
I have a yeast starter (Wyeast 1056) that I started about a month ago and
haven't been able to use (I know, I know). About once a week I pour off the
liquid and refeed it with new wort. The liquid I pour off always smells as I
expect the yeast starter liquid to smell (like yeasty beer).
My question is whether I should attempt to use this or whether I'm out of my
mind to even consider it. I'll certainly be tasting the liquid before I try
brewing with it (and will be using relatively inexpensive ingredients too).
Thanks,
Todd Goodman in Boston, MA
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:56:12 -0000
From: "Aaron Herrick" <chemstat at phoenix.net>
Subject: Brew Music
I'm a little in line with the "wierder is better" class of brewers
"The Rites of Spring" Stravinsky -for brewing with my girlfriend
"Symphonie Fantastique" Berlioz- for brewing alone
"Carmina Burana" Orff- For brewing with other people
"Ride of the Valkiyries" is always good for sparging.
It is important for the mash to sing at the loudest possible volume.
One more note on this thread: I've been trying to work up a "Bohemian
Pilsner Rapsody" in tribute to Freddie Mercury. Anyone familiar with the
lyrics to Bohemian Rapsody, email me alternate snippets relating to brewing
and I will post back the completed version.
Here's a (bad) example:
Origianl Text: Pils lyrics
Galileo! Dirty Hoses!
Galileo! Dirty Hoses!
Galileo! Dirty Hoses!
Galileo! Dirty Hoses!
Figaro, magnifico -o-o- The infection's in my beer-beer-beer
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 09:20:57 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com>
Subject: Beer Filter Treatment
Hbders -
In providing those of you interested in filtering your beer, I thought I'd
pass along a procedure tid-bit.
As I've written here before, my introduction to filtering has been littered
with problems. It was taking over an hour to get 5 gallons through my filter
(I got it through the Filter Store Plus; it was the 0.5 micron poly filter) on
my second batch, and despite extensive back-washing, the situation never
seemed to improve. After my 6th run through, the thing finally crapped out.
In frustration, I tossed the filter cartridge out.
So when I called the Filter Store today, I learned some valuable info. The
rep (Patti) suggests that you soak the filter in mild bleach, caustic, or even
iodaphor solution for 24-48 hours before you backflush. This breaks down all
but a few of the embedded "gunk" particles clogging the filter. This would
have been nice to know BEFORE I threw the filter cartridge out. Now it looks
like I'll be shelling out $40 for a new one......
Now this is in direct contrast to when I called the Filter Store after I first
got the kit. I wanted to know maximum temps, could I store in iodaphour, etc.
They said that storing for a long time in bleach would break down the filter
core, so don't do it. It looks like I just spoke with the wrong person (she
did admit that she wasn't as familiar with the "beer filters" as Patti, but
she was emphatic enough about the storage recomendation that I
figured I wouldn't risk losing a cartridge over long term storage in a mild
bleach solution. Oh well.)
When I did talk to "Patti" she did suggest that you could store the cartridge
in the freezer; an idea which I sort of like. She also mentioned that she
knows of folks getting over 200 gallons out of one of these things.
So I'm still a little skeptical, but ordered a new poly 1 micron filter for a
second chance.
Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 09:14:09 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com>
Subject: All Wheat Conversion
HBDers -
S. Askey writes about conversion problems with an all-wheat batch of beer. I
was wondering, did you use rice hulls for a filter bed? In my most recent
batch of all-wheat, I had to add a little amylase enzyme to get close to
conversion b/c I added the rice hulls mid-mash and they appeared to have a
*lot* of rice grains embedded in them. I too never reached the conversion I
usually see, but it was close enough, and the extra starch only added a little
cloudiness to the finished beer, which you would expect in a wheat beer
anyway.
Also, a decoction mash might help a bit in getting full conversion with a
grain like wheat. Strictly from grain analysis, there should be enough
enzymes in the wheat malt to mash itself (or so it has been said by reputable
sources in the HBD -- I myself am no grain expert and haven't ever looked at a
lot analysis....).
Never fear, All-Wheat is one hell of a beer,
Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:03:50 -0600
From: Charles Epp <chuckepp at ukans.edu>
Subject: Wyeast 1275 (Thames Valley)/ 1318 London Ale III
Hello fellow brewers:
What is your experience with Wyeast's 1275 Thames Valley strain? This
is one of the relatively new strains, and I'm curious about its
performance and characteristics. When I visited England a few years ago
I was very impressed with the Henley (Brakspear) ales, supposedly the
source for 1275.
Also, I can add another data point on 1318, London Ale III. Although
Wyeast reports that attenuation for 1318 should be 71-75%, other brewers
have reported in this forum very sluggish ferments and poor attenuation
when using that yeast (although performance may be improved when
fermenting above 70 F). I recently used 1318 in an Old Ale and had a
long (2 1/2 week) ferment at 68 F, with a miserable 66% attenuation,
even with repeated rousing through vigorous shaking of the carboy.
Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I've got an ESB going with 1318
now, and I'm trying to keep it above 70 to see if temperature, as others
reported, makes much difference. I'll try to report results when this is
finished.
In the meantime, I'd appreciate any observations on 1275 Thames Valley.
Private email is fine, and I'll post a summary.
Chuck in Lawrence, KS
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:16:57 -0600
From: rkienle at interaccess.com
Subject: Grain Addition Timings
Way back last week or so, Al K. wrote:
>Back in 1988 or 1989, I asked Dr. George Fix about this exact point
>(more specifically, I asked if mashing crystal would break down a lot
>of the dextrins we typically seek from crystal malts)... his response
>was that he uses the crystal malts for their flavour contribution and
>that he controls fermentability (i.e dextrin content) of the resulting
>wort by choosing appropriate mash temperatures, so he adds all the
>malts together at the beginning of the mash.
I've wondered about this myself, and while all of the above makes sense,
it leaves me wondering; if adding crystal early really does break down
its dextrins, and one follows this procedure (surely the most common),
and therefore utilizes the crystal only for flavor (and color), doesn't
this practice obviate the full potential of what the crystal malt offers
to the finished beer? What, if anything, would be lost in waiting until
the end of the mash to add the crystal, therefore capitalizing on its
full potential to maximize body and head retention (not insignificant
concerns!)? Or, alternately, what is gained by adding it at the
beginning? The only thing I can think of is color, since the longer the
crystal is exposed to the wort, the more intense its color contribution.
Sacrificing body/head for the sake of color doesn't seem like a
particularly desirable trade-off to me.
For what it's worth, and though I've not done a direct head-to-head
(excuse the pun) comparison, I will say that I've experimentally brewed
some pretty flavorful beers by waiting to add the crystal until
mash-out. So I'm not sure it "hurts" to do so.
It does bring up some additional, potentially more important, points,
however (at least for me), about the timing of grain additions. Since
different grains merit different mash procedures, what does one do when
combining them for certain styles? It's common procedure, for example,
to wait until mash-out to add a little black patent for clarity, so it's
not like the practice of timing a grain addition is completely unheard
of. But there are more complex situations to consider.
Although pale ale malt doesn't require a protein rest, many other malts
do. Therefore, what procedure is best when making a pale ale that also
contains, say, a little Vienna, Victory or roasted malt, some Crystal,
and maybe even a bit of malted wheat-all of which presumably benefit
from a low-temperature rest? Is it okay for the pale ale to also receive
such treatment though it doesn't require it? Or does this further
support a possible need to vary the timing of grain additions?
Cheers4Beers,
Rob Kienle
Chicago, IL
rkienle at interaccess.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 09:32 PST
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Decocting Pale Ale Malt - how to create headless, bodyless beer
I have now attempted 3 decoction brews. The first was the strawberry blonde
just to see if i could do it. Found all kinds of temperature control
problems with thick mashes to start with, cold concrete patio sucking heat
out of mash tun and the need to do an incredible amount of stirring to get
temperatures to stablize. The beer turned out very poor indeed. Has almost a
dishwater taste too it, that was before I added the strawberries. I'm
experimenting with Lactose and Dextrin to bring it back from the dead. It
was all-grain made with mostly Pale Ale Malt from Great Western.
My next attempt was to brew a Marzen with nearly 100% Vienna malt (from GW -
American), recipe from Cats Meow III. This was done on superbowl sunday with
about 12 assistants, all of which were slightly less buzzed than I was.
First rest went well but the decoction went up to boiling in about 5
minutes, way too fast. We boiled it for 15 minutes and began transferring
back to the rest mash. Remembering my problems with cold concrete sucking
the heat out of the mash tun, this time we had it inside on a couple of
cushioned chairs. However, we just couldn't get stable temp readings (didn't
stir it enough is my guess). So when I thought it was too hot (like almost
170f) I poured in some cold water. Ended up with the infamous 145F mash
again and gave up. Finished brewing - it smelled great.
Well, I kegged it the other night and force carbonated (2 week primary at
54F, 3 day diacytl rest at 62F, 2 weeks at 40F, 1 week at 33F) Its very clear
(yeah, no protein left in it). Same dry, no body taste, but nice color.
Actually much more drinkable than the strawberry but I'm not sure what that
dishwater taste is coming from, other than I thought it was the temp control
problem.
I was bound and determined to beat the decoction beast so I tried again. I
wanted a nice malty flavor under some very bitter goldings in an ESB. Ok so
sick the beer police on me, decocting a traditional English Ale is probably
a hanging offense, but what do you ever learn without trying something new.
I pulled together my Pale Ale malt, cara-pils, crystal 60, .5 lb wheat
ingredients and once again struck out on the trail of a successful
decoction. Well, this time I stayed 100% away from the homebrew until AFTER
the decoction was returned to the rest mash. Perfect. Hit the first rest at
140F for 20 minutes then cooked about 75% of the grains with some additional
water. Took about 20 minutes to bring it to 158F (very hard to do with a
cajun cooker, you gotta stir and stir and modify the heat little by little -
no time for resting or drinking). Then brought it to boiling for 20 minutes,
returned it slowly to the main mash and STIRRED LIKE CRAZY! This time it hit
160F and I left the tun open for about 10 minutes, stirred again and it was
at 158F. I slammed it shut for an hour and it was 155 when I reopend it.
Couldn't ask for much better, but boy was I exhausted, 2 hours into the brew
day and hadn't even started sparging yet.
Well, blah blah blah, everything went as planned. Used 100% East Kent
Goldings for bitter, flavor and aroma. Kegged it 3 days ago with another .5
oz EKG in the keg (in a bag). Same damn taste. Its driving me crazy - no
body in the beer, no malty flavor AT ALL. Actually it is even more drinkable
than the marzen but not what I expected.
In private email with Dave B, he was surprised (nearly sicked the beer
police on me) that I was decocting pale ale malt and asked if I had any head
retention problems. Duh. We'll call these the "invisible man of beers", no
head and no body (but a few hops and strawberries here and there).
So, what kind of malt should I ask for. When I look at all the supplier
catalogs (i've about given up on local brew shops) I see under the heading
"Pale Malts" listed Pale Ale from Great Western and Hugh Baird and some DWC.
Then I see Pilsener Malt. No where do I see Pale Malt next to a price. Take
a look at Hop_tech's online catalog and you'll see what I mean.
http://www.hoptech.com/grains.html
How are we supposed to know which of those grains to use for decocting an
Oktoberfest or Bock or any other lager? What really throws me if this is
true (wrong malt) is why the Marzen recipe of almost all Vienna malt also
turned out poorly (other than temp control).
Help! Damned and Determined to Conquer Confusing Decoction!
Charley
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:37:32 -0800
From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re: Floating Sediment
I'll try the obvious answer. Could it be that the stuff floating
suspended is really hop spooge? When you rack the beer to secondary, do
you place a filter over the end of the racking cane? I normally use a
piece of nylon gauze, sanitized, then wrapped over the end of the
racking cane and tied on with a plastic/wire wrap. Sring would work too.
This "filter" picks up trub, hop and yeast gunk and keeps it out of the
secondary. If I dry hop in the secondary, I use a filter again when
going into the keg. I used to bottle and did the same thing when racking
to the bottling bucket.
By the way, do you really boil the gelatin? I always mix it in cold
water becuase it tends to "gel" on me and turn into jello. I found
mixing it in cold tap water works much better and since the beer is
already fermented out, there has never been an infection issue dumping
it into the secondary on top of the beer.
Good Luck,
Charley
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:11:23 -0500 (EST)
From: JeffHailey at aol.com
Subject: Filtering Hops from Primary to Secondary
My second batch is now hapily fermenting in the primary! However, I had
a few problems which I need help in fixing. Mainly, I got a lot of hop
spooge (that is a great word, isn't it?) in my primary because I got in too
big of a hurry. My strainer is too big both for the neck of my carboy
fermenter, and also for my funnel. This being the case, I decided to
siphon the cooled wort into the carboy. Next time, I will definately use
a chore-boy to strain the wort going into the siphon. Meanwhile, I have
all kinds of hops in my primary, which I definately don't want in my bottled
beer. I will be racking the beer to a secondary shortly, and would like to
filter the hops at that time, but I'm also afraid of oxidation. Any good
ideas?
E-mail replies are fine. I will post the results for any future newbies
searching the archives.
Thanks!
Jeff Hailey, reformed Bud Drinker
Brewing in Tulsa, OK
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 13:16:11 -0500
From: "Michael K. Cinibulk" <cinibumk at ml.wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Lagering in Secondary or Bottle?
Brian Pickerill, Muncie Malt Mashers, Muncie IN writes:
....any big (high gravity) brew will take a couple of months of bottle
conditioning to get really good, maybe more depending on how big it is....
In my experience, letting it sit in secondary won't do that much good, it's
the bottle (or keg) conditioning under pressure that will develop the flavor
most. I use a secondary carboy for most beers, but only until it drops clear
and I get the chance to bottle/keg.
This reminded me of a question that I keep forgetting to ask. What is the
best way to lager if priming in the bottle to carbonate? In secondary and
then bottle, or bottle when fermentation is complete and then cool to lager?
Does a closed system matter (to allow CO2 to scrub out H2S, etc., which BTW I
never see occuring)? Does pressure matter as Brian claims? Is there enough
yeast present if we rack the beer of off the thin yeast cake in the secondary?
Does OG of the wort or style (Pils vs. Doppelbock) matter?
I would prefer to bottle and carbonate first and then lager in the bottle.
Mike Cinibulk
Bellbrook, Ohio
cinibumk at ml.wpafb.af.mil
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 12:42:44 -0600
From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: heterofermentative bacteria
i
In HBD#2371 S. Alexander writes:
> BTW G. Fix in PoBS claims pediococcus are hetrofermentative,
> every other source I've checked lists pedeococcus as
> homofermentative...
Most pedios known to me are capable of producing acid and large
amounts of diacetyl among other things. This is what I meant by
heterofermentative, i.e., produces more than one product.
Alexander continues:
> ...maybe another case for AlK's errata web site
Sure, but who is looking after the dismal signal to noise ratio
on this forum.
George Fix
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:33:07 -0500
From: TOM ELIASSEN <TELIASSEN at aot.state.vt.us>
Subject: Liquid Transfer using Peristaltic Pumps
Like many others, I tend to loose it when it comes to siphoning. In my search
for techniques and/or equipment to help me perform this task I began to think
about the use of a peristaltic pump to get my beer from one carboy to another.
I used to use this type of pump when I was working in the environmental
consulting business. Sampling groundwater for volatile organic compounds
requires that the collection method not introduce air during sampling. Seems we
have the same concern when we are trying to rack from one fermenter to another.
The important features of this type of pump is that they are self-priming, do
not introduce significant air to the liquid and liquid in the tube does not
touch anything in the process.
I began looking in the scientific catalogues for a cheap peristaltic pump and so
far have come up with the VWRbrand Variable Flow Mini-Pump. This pump is listed
at $119.00 which is still relatively expensive but considering the cost of other
brewing equipment these days may be worth the cost.
Anyway, I am writing this message to find out if anybody else has first hand
knowledge with using these pumps in home brewing.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Tom Eliassen
teliassen at aot.state.vt.us
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:37:31 -0500
From: shaun.funk at slkp.com
Subject: S.G. contribution from raspberries
Yesterday I brewed a Raspberry Wheat Ale. The ingredients included 6.6 LB=20=
M&F=20
wheat extract, and 5.25 LB frozen raspberries. The berries were added to t=
he=20
kettle immediately after the boil was complete. I dumped the whole thing t=
o=20
the carboy with enough water to yield 5.5 gallons. I aerated and pitched=20=
my=20
yeast before remembering to take an S.G. reading. =20
I am trying to approximate the S.G. of this wort. I recently brewed a=20
dunkelweizen with the same amount, brand, and type of extract. For a 5 gal=
lon=20
batch this beer resulted in a O.G. of 1.049. Based on this I calculated th=
at=20
the contribution of the extract to my new batch ( assuming all other things=
=20
being the same) would result in a O.G of 1.0445 without the raspberries.
My question is what participation should I expect from the raspberries with=
=20
respect to S.G., either per pound or per 5.5 gallon batch? Private e-mail=
OK.
Shaun Funk
shaun.funk at slkp.com =20
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:42:07 -0400
From: Kevin.Cavanaugh at gdc.com
Subject: Custom Keg refridgeration
I have a question regarding custom refridgeration for my beer kegs. I
would like
to make a refridgeration unit designed specifically for cooling beer kegs
so
that valuable fridge space is not taken up. I want to make this somewhat
portable (just wheel it to destination and plug it in), so I prefer not
using a standard
off the shelf small fridge with door compartments, freezer, etc. I use the
cylindrical
5 or 3 gallon soda kegs. I am wondering if it is possible to wrap the kegs
in a cooling
coil that is custom fitted. Is this possible with off the shelf plumbing ?
How do I figure
cooling requirements ? I am assuming if I build this, all I would have to
do is have it
charged with freon by a dealer. I would appreciate any info that would help
me get
started or pointed in the right direction. If this has to be manufactured,
who does this ?
Thanks for any help
Kevin
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 19:06:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932 <BRADLEY_DAVID_A at Lilly.com>
Subject: Souring mashes/beers
RE the current thread on souring mashes, I checked back to Nov. '96 when
I was looking for info on the Aeonbrau / Head Start Cultures product
called LactoCaps. The following summarizes the responses I got from
the HBD continuum:
1. LactoCaps are made and sold by Aeonbrau: 706-548-7051
(Spencer, Jeremy Bergsman, Mark Tumarkin)
LactoCaps strain: most agree its a lactobacillus but nobody says
which. Spencer says it is a brewing strain. No response from
the quite busy proprietor Dr. Brian Nummer, author of the article
in Brewing Techniques in mid-'96 about bacteria cultures in brewing.
2. Lacto capsules sold at health food stores:
(MB Raines-Casselman, Michael Gerholdt, Rian Rademeyer)
The strain should be listed on the package. Several folks told
me its usually lactobacillus acidophilus. Rian from
South Africa said their version contains lactobacillus Rhamnosus
and Bulgaricus bacteria. Leaves some question what your caps
may really contain...
3. Brewing strain?
MB Raines-Casselman said lactobacillus brevis is, "the appropriate
strain for souring beer." I think this differentiates souring
beer from souring mashes.
Summary: I'd guess the grocery/health food store capsules might create
a sour mash or wort. I suspect the LactoCaps strain may be l. brevis.
Anyone know how different these strains are (?) and if either one is
tolerant of hop components? Are l. brevis and acidophilus both cultured at
100-110F as posted recently? Several brewers refer to difficulty in
growing both Pediococcus and lacto. brevis strains too. If you've got
any specific info beyond the above for me, I'd love to read it! As always,
summary to the HBD will follow as appropriate.
Dave in Indy
Home of the 3-B Brewery, (v.) Ltd.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 14:39:49 -0500 (EST)
From: SClaus4688 at aol.com
Subject: Gypsum in Sparge Water
Greetings from from the banks of the Willamette in the shadow of the
Cascades.
I've been lurking here for a while, and came across an article last week by
A.J. deLange on pH that called into question the need for gypsum in sparge
water. Because his assertions seemed at odds with information I've come
across in commonly available homebrewing publications, I thought the
following EMail dialogue (reprinted with his permission) might be of interest
to others in the homebrewing community (my comments are marked with carrots;
Mr. deLange's are not).
My initial Email:
>In the 3/4/97 HBD, you said:
>"There is no reason to add gypsum to sparge water. It does not lower the pH
>of water by itself (in fact it usually increases it slightly)."
>While I defer to your much greater knowledge on the issue of pH (the BT
articles >nearly sprained my brain), I respectfully dissent from your opinion
on gypsum in >sparge water.
>As I understand it, gypsum can buffer increases in pH. I also understand
that pH >goes up during sparging as the acidic wort is replaced by the more
neutral sparge >water. As pH goes up, the potential for leaching tannins
from the grain husks >increases. Adding gypsum to the sparge water buffers
the pH increase and lowers >the potential for tannin leaching.
>Feel free to tell me why I am wrong.
>-Steve Claussen in PDX.
- ----------
AJ deLange's reply:
>>As I understand it, gypsum can buffer increases in pH.
Buffering capacity refers to resistance to change in pH due to the addition
of acid or base. Part I of the pH article indicated that buffering capacity
is maximum at pH values near the pK (log of the dissociation constant) of
the acid in the buffer system. The only acid in normal brewing water that
has a pK in the range of pH's normally encountered is carbonic with pK's at
6.38 and 10.3 thus carbonate is the only buffer which needs to be
considered in brewing liquor. In the mash there are organic acids and
phosphates from the malt and the calcium from gypsum (or chloride) reacts
with the phosphates thus changing the phosphoric/dihidrogen phosphate
balance and thus the pH. There are then two buffer systems in operation:
the carbonic and the phosphoric.
Gypsum is the salt of a strongish acid (HSO4-) with a pKa of 1.92 and a
strongish base (Ca(OH)+) with a pKb of 1.2 thus Ca(OH)+ is a slightly
stronger base than HSO4- is an acid and solutions of gypsum should be
slightly basic. Salts are generally thought of as being useless as buffers
at pH's greater than about 1 unit of pH away from their pK's. The pKa of
HSO4- is 3 pH units away from pH 5 which is, we hope, about as low as mash
pH would ever go, thus the sulfate system has little buffering effect. Now
gypsum will have a stronger buffering effect than say calcium chloride as
the pKa of hydrochloric acid is less than 0 but the effect is not
appreciable.
>>I also understand that pH goes up during sparging as the acidic wort is
replaced
>>by the more neutral sparge water. As pH goes up, the potential for
leaching >>tannins from the grain husks increases.
This is consistent with my understanding.
>>Adding gypsum to the sparge water buffers the pH
>>increase and lowers the potential for tannin leaching.
The buffering is not appreciable and tends to go in the wrong direction. In
a simple experiment I did last night adding 200 mg/L gypsum to DI and well
water resulted in no change in the pH of the DI water and a .02 pH increase
in the well water which is moderately alkaline (about 100 ppm as CaCO3).
>Feel free to tell me why I am wrong.
Strictly speaking, your'e not. It's just that the buffering effect of
gypsum is too small to be of appreciable value at sparge water pH.
Cheers, AJ
- ----------
Our follow ups:
>So, just one more question to try to get to the bottom of this, and possibly
increase >my understanding. Won't the (calcium in the) gypsum of the sparge
water react >with the phosphates from the malt of the mash into which it is
infused "thus >changing the phosphoric/dihidrogen phosphate balance and thus
the pH,
>"thereby keeping pH low enough to minimize tannin leaching?
The phosphates come from phytin and reacts with calcium at mash-in to
release the phosphates which combine with calcium (precipitating insoluble
calcium phosphate) and releases hydrogen ions. As you mentioned in your
last post the increase in pH occurs when the hydrogen ions and soluble
phosphates (H2PO4- and HPO4-2) are washed away leaving the insoluble
(precipitated) phosphates behind. Thus when calcium bearing sparge water is
added the conditions are quite different from what they were at mash-in.
There is no phytin nor are there soluble phosphates left in appreciable
amount (i.e. the solution is dilute with respect to phosphates) to combine
with the calcium to release hydrogen ions.
Cheers, AJ
Return to table of contents