HOMEBREW Digest #2449 Thu 26 June 1997

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Stick it in your ear (Jason Henning)
  effect of CO2 on yeast ("Andy Walsh")
  fill & carbonation (again) ... (Steve Alexander)
  Malts and  Re: Decoction Theories Put To Test (Steve Alexander)
  I'm Baaaaack (Steve Alexander)
  Re: Kegging at WARM tempetures... ("David Augsburger")
  CO2 Pressure in bottle (Charlie Scandrett)
  LUNAR RENDEZBREW IV (michael wiley)
  Bells Amber Ale/Motorized Mills/ (eric fouch)
  Leak detection / Igloo mashtun spigots ("Dave Draper")
  Biermeisters' New Web Page!!! ("Decker, Robin E.")
  SUDS Databases / Galley Pump Beer Engines (KennyEddy)
  Strawberries ("Robert L. & Arletta J. Seiple")
  RE: MM motor ("Bridges, Scott")
  La Fin d'Fin ("David R. Burley")
  Miller and botulism (Jeremy Bergsman)
  hop balance ("John Penn")
  RE: Beer engine with corny keg (Luke.L.Morris)
  bottle baking (smurman)
  A simple approach to decoction mashing ("Hubert Hanghofer")
  Water analysis (John Wilkinson)
  Ale yeast for Beck's clone (Randy Ricchi)
  Brewing software (Dennis & Jennifer Britten)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:18:48 -0700 From: Jason Henning <huskers at cco.net> Subject: Stick it in your ear Hello friends, I've seen a couple of post to Hardpipes (what kind of a handle is Hardpipes?!) about using soappy water to detect co2 leaks around the regulator. Well if your not excited about soapping your co2 rig down, don't. Use about a foot of 3/8" tubing as a stethoscope. Stick it in your ear and listen around the connections. Be sure to go all the way around, a very small leak has a very small 'voice'. Works great. Cheers, Jason Henning (huskers at cco.net) Big Red Alchemy and Brewing Olympia, Washington - "It's the water" "You should've tasted the one that got away" - Fish Tale Ales Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:33:20 +1000 From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh at crl.com.au> Subject: effect of CO2 on yeast from Dave, >I would like to hear more facts from that article in BT or Zymurgy. Anyone care to comment on examples of fermentation under CO2 pressure? OK. I'll bite. Except I'll reference (1) GJ. Arcay-Ledezma and JC Slaughter. "The response of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae to fermentation under carbon dioxide pressure" Journal of the Institute of Brewing. V90. pp81-84. 1984. (2) RS. Renger et al. The formation of esters and higher alcohols during brewery fermentation; the effect of carbon dioxide pressure". JIB. V98. pp509-513. 1992. At pressures up to 0.2 ATM, CO2 stimulates yeast growth, generally thought to be because of its use as a substrate in carboxylation reactions. 0.3 - 0.5 ATM, CO2 acts as an inhibitor, especially in the tricarboxylic cycle (part of respiration), not that this is generally relevant in real wort fermentations. Alcohol production is unaffected up to 4 ATM. 2.5 - 3.0 ATM CO2 is said to prevent cell division completely. Brewery fermentations depend upon a certain amount of cell growth so are unlikely to function above 2 ATM, depending upon the exact temperature. Within the zone 0-2ATM there is little effect of CO2 on fermentation rate *per cell*, although at the upper end a reduction in growth rate occurs, leading to an extension in the time required to reach a given level of attenuation. "The influence of the size and geometry of brewery fermentation vessels on beer flavour and aroma is generally attributed to carbon dioxide pressure." (2) Fermentations with CO2 pressure maintained at 2 ATM show prolonged fermentation times, with reduced final ester and higher alcohols. Reduced yeast biomass is another feature, as is higher final pH. VDKs and precursors are in general reduced with lager yeast and increased with ale yeast (variable results). Commercially, it is common to ferment at higher temperatures to accelerate fermentation, and with applied CO2 pressure, to reduce fermentation byproducts. Application of 2ATM CO2 at 16C decreases the fermentation rate by approximately 40%. Under the same conditions, daily agitation increases fermentation rate by 10%. "The total yeast crop was unaffected by the resuspension treatment so it seems that the faster fermentation under this condition must be due to improved mixing of yeast and fermentation medium".(1). Under static conditions, the CO2 pressure in a homebrewery fermenter is 1 ATM. This is significantly less than the 2 ATM said to retard yeast growth. There *must* be a higher CO2 pressure than 1 ATM during the fermentation to cause bubble formation - the more nucleation sites there are, the lower this difference will be. In commercial situations (big), the fermenter height will be a significant factor in contribution to CO2 pressure (as already posted). My money goes on more CO2 bubbles causing better mixing, rather than CO2 "toxicity" as such, at least on homebrew scales. Andy. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:24:55 +0000 From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: fill & carbonation (again) ... re fill level vs carbonation ... David Burleys analysis a few weeks back makes a lot of sense - and I suspect that some residual priming sugar in the overfilled bottles is not fermented (at least not as quickly) as in underfilled bottles. Just a guess right now tho'. Aaron Kelleys' comments were quickly, and correctly ripped to shreds here. But in case it was missed - the notion that water freely migrates across yeast cell walls is nonsense. The tough part about being a single celled creature is keeping the high concentrations of 'good' soluables in, and the water out. A classic experiment is to drop a bit of lysozyme enzyme to a cell slide and watch the cells absorb water and burst as the enzymes breaks down the polysaccharides in the cell wall. Did I mention that biologists are cruel people ? AlK asks about the CO2 production in the aerobic vs anaerobic metabolism of glucose .... Jeff's math is indeed correct. In anaerobic (normal) fermentation you get 2 mols of CO2 per mol of glucose. In aerobic fermentation you get 6 mols of CO2 per mol of glucose, *but* you use 6 mols of O2 to accomplish this and so end up with the same amount of gas. In any case even a 2/3rds bottle fill with air vs an inert gas will not add enough oxygen to make more than about a 6% difference in the amount of CO2 produced. The included oxygen, if used for yeast respiration, is not the answer to this puzzle. Yeast do react to hydrostatic pressure, tho a good lit search would be necessary to find the critical data -(I'm still studying phenols at the moment). I don't understand Dave Whitmans comment on yeast suspension as a colloid nor the concept of the "zeta potential". Can you explain Dave ? Dave Burley wrote ... >I can explain all of the observations, so far, >simply by postulating premature flocculation of the yeast - which is a >well-recognized phenomenon among ale yeasts, especially. Flocculation doesn't necessarily mean the fermentation ceases. Also my underfill=overcarbonation experiment was performed with lager yeast, Wy2308 I believe. In any case you'll need to explain the reason for the (seemingly consistant) differential flocculation with respect to bottle fill level to make this one fly - tho' there are a lot of good potential reasons to choose from IMO. Oxygen might allow for some cell membrane growth (sterol+ergosterol production) which could prevent flocculation. The hydrostatic pressure increase might impact cell membrane properties, that in turn might effect flocculation. Simple sugars (like a priming addition) are known to disperse flocs, but perhaps oxygen is needed. Many possibilities. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:02:10 +0000 From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Malts and Re: Decoction Theories Put To Test Rob Kienle writes about his recent decoctions and uses a 122F=50C rest temperature for break and haze reduction in his altbeir. I find that a 40C/58C/70C schedule with Durst malts produce beers of great clarity - no haze - YMMV. The "1997 Brewers' Market Guide" from the publishers of Brewing Techniques is out. The section on malt technical specifications however shows that no specs or very vague ranges are given for many parameters in this table. I realize that there is no point in listing diastatic power of crystal malt, but wouldn't you think that every pils and pale (ale) malt would list diastatic power ? Wouldn't you think that screening(size assortment) information would also be available for most pale/pils malts ? SNR ? I don't know whether to blame BT/New Wine Press or the maltsters for the omissions, but this table would be much more useful if there were more comparable numbers for the various malts. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:55:00 +0000 From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: I'm Baaaaack No it not Nokomaree - just me. Sorry for the non-brewing note but briefly, please use the email address above for correspondence. My employers' IT department has apparently been taken over by the borg - thus no personal email traffic is permitted via my previous address. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 07:31:00 -0400 From: "David Augsburger" <daugsbur at monroe.lib.mi.us> Subject: Re: Kegging at WARM tempetures... >I have been trying to get into kegging, and been having problem with >FOAMing in a big way. I have been told that i need to keep the kegs >cool, but i cannot afford (space and money) to get a beer fridge, plus i >wanna take them camping and stuff with me (medieval style, i do SCA) so >thats not really an option either.. >what tricks have the experienced keggers used to to Carbonate at warmer >tempetures? Any advice you all can give is great.... >Plus anyone build a portable bar out of wood with a draft system? i >would like to build a case for 3 kegs that has an extended (upwards) >back peice that has 3 taps in it. build it with wheels (like a >handtruck) and make it look like a free standing cabinet (hide the >hoses)... i would love to hear how other people have done portable >draft systems... I have been keging about 40-50 % of my beer for about a year or so now. I keep my kegs warm for the same reasons you do, cash flow. Have you ever heard of a jocky-box? They work pretty good. This is what I use to cool my kegged beer. I have not had a problem with excessive foaming, but you can adjust keg pressure for both tapping and dissolving to stop foaming. First I dissolve CO2 at about 25 lbs., Adjust this to your desired carbonation level. I have a beer line going into a cooler which attaches to 30 feet of copper coil, Stainless would be better. I mounted a Tap Spicket on the cooler. Then I fill the cooler with ice and water. There you have it cooled beer from a warm keg. A couple of things to keep in mind. 1) The tap hose and copper coil must be the same Inside diameter, or get smaller as you progress to the spicket. If you get larger you create a beer engine, i.e. major foam. Also make sure the way you attach the coil to the hose does not change diameter for even the shortest distance. 2) With 30 feet of coil you will have to keep about 25-30 lbs of presure to get a good flow. This is no big deal because you need this much pressure to get enough dissolved CO2 at room temp. Hope I was able to help, with all these ramblings. David Augsburger daugsbur at monroe.lib.mi.us Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:21:37 +1000 From: Charlie Scandrett <merino at squirrel.com.au> Subject: CO2 Pressure in bottle Kelly Jones wrote >we see that the equilibrium pressure for beer (with 2.5 volumes of CO2) >at 32F is 8.2 psi, whereas the eq. pressure at 80F is 34.8 psi. The >pressure increases fourfold, for only a 50F rise in temperature - much >greater than what is predicted by incorrectly applying Boyle's Law. And he is right, I did my calculations at 1 volume of CO2 in which case the increased solubility of CO2 at higher pressures exactly matches the decrease in solubility at higher temperatures that produce the higher presssure. In this case Boyle's is a very good approximation. I failed to think it through to other cases. Apologies to Spencer Thomas whom I refuted on this point offline. I still don't think pasteurization is an explosion problem as pressure vessel regulations require a large margin of safety and this is common practice commercially, and bottles are made for "them", not "us". Charlie (Brisbane, Australia) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 07:27:29 -0500 From: michael wiley <mwiley at flash.net> Subject: LUNAR RENDEZBREW IV ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After numerous requests, here's some FAQ's answered: 1. Yes, we're AHA & BJCP certified 2. The address really works. I screwed up the placement. It's http://www.ghgcorp.com/rlivingston 3. Yes, we accept 7 oz. bottles for mead & barleywine entries 4. Ticket prices for the festivities: $12.50 prior to the 20th, $15.00 the day of the event...Beer entry prices are $6.00 per entry.... 5. Yes, we'll accept "grolsch" type bottles... I hope this clarifies some issues. Again, any other questions can be answered at mwiley at flash.net. Pull down your entry forms, laelling info, and rules at: http://www.ghgcorp.com/rlivingston Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:42:49 -0400 (EDT) From: eric fouch <S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021.efouch%Steelcase-Inc at mcimail.com> Subject: Bells Amber Ale/Motorized Mills/ Date: Wednesday, 25 June 1997 8:36am ET To: STC012.HOMEBRE3 at STC010.SNADS From: Eric.Fouch at STC001 Subject: Bells Amber Ale/Motorized Mills/Fill Levels In-Reply-To: The letter of Wednesday, 25 June 1997 1:51am ET HBD- A newly converted neighbor (to home brewing) has entered the fold. As his shepherd/guide/beer myth debunker, my first task is to procure for him a Bells Amber Ale clone extract recipe. Anybody got one? I do know a guy who was the college roommate of the present assistant brewer at Kalamazoo Brewing CO. I guess this guy wandered into the brewery carrying a case of his own home-brew, and when questioned by a secretary said "Uh..delivery for Mr. Bell.." The secretary let him into Bells office, he dropped off his beer with a resume, and was hired the next week. Cool, huh? Concerning the motorize your own malt mill thread, I bought an Italian grain mill intended for gelatinizing wheat grains and whatnot (the users manual contends that the heat generated by rolling the grains gelatinizes the grain on the fly). It has three rollers (about four inches across) two above the one, and is somewhat adjustable. I set it in-between markings for a first pass then set in at one of it's fixed settings for a second pass, and it takes about an hour to grind 12 pounds of grain to a good crush. I motorized it with a 12 volt motor through a step down gear box that turns the mill about as fast as you could turn it (unloaded) by hand. I don't know other particulars about the motor, as an electrical engineer buddy whom I also converted to home brewing "procured" the motor for me at no charge (to me). The mill, a "Marga" I believe, cost $50 at a local HB shop. If the third roller was independently adjustable (working on it) it could be a three roller single pass malt mill. Keith Roysters' experiment for fill level vs. carbonation sounds like trying. I'll try it on the barley wine I have in the secondary right now. I'll let you know in a few years. As an aside, a month after transferring the barley wine to the secondary (on top of Champagne yeast) I siphoned off one gallon onto 12 ounces of raspberries to test a previous theory submitted here (don't remember who) regarding fruits working better in thicker, darker brews. Once again, let you know in a few years. Thanks for pretending to listen. Eric Fouch efouch at steelcase.com Bent Dick YactoBrewery Kentwood MI The opinions expressed here could very well be those held by Steelcase Inc. I've just never bothered to check. PS- Any Primetime Brewers frequent this electronic rag? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:39:39 -6 From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Leak detection / Igloo mashtun spigots Dear Friends, John Schnupp wrote about using soap solutions for leak detection, and mentioned both a product called Snoop and child's soap bubbles. For what it's worth, I've used both in my labwork over the years (we often run various mixes of hydrogen, argon, CO2, O2, and CO in our experiments) and ordinary soap bubbles from the toy aisle at your favorite grocery work just as well as Snoop. Cheaper too, and a lot easier to get, I'd imagine? Anyway, just confirming John's surmise that they work great. Dave Thomson asked about replacing the push-valve in his Igloo. When I got going again here after my recent relocation, I had an Igloo to work with as well. Mine just has a drain hole at one end, not a valve. It turns out that the ID of that hole is a perfect friction-fit with the OD of the tubing I have on hand, so what I did was just slide the tubing through the hole (had to work at it for about 10 min-- *very* snug fit), attach the end inside the cooler to my copper manifold (another good press-fit), and put a plastic hose-clip on the outside end to regulate the outflow. Bingo, instant mash/lauter tun. So, it may be that you need not have to replace the valve with anything else at all. Cheers, Dave in Dallas - --- ***************************************************************************** Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083 ddraper at utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html Pitching your yeast at 70F instead of 90F *does* (in my experience) improve the taste of your beer. ---John de Carlo Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 9:47:00 -0500 From: "Decker, Robin E." <robind at rmtgvl.rmtinc.com> Subject: Biermeisters' New Web Page!!! Greetings! You are all cordially invited to visit our brand new web page at www.biermeisters.com. Please keep in mind that we are still under construction, and a little rough around the edges (heck, the pics aren't even there yet), but we are very excited about our new venture. Please stop by and let us know what you think... and pass it on to your friends and neighbors! ;> Regards, Goldings South Carolina Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:14:51 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: SUDS Databases / Galley Pump Beer Engines Badger asks about expanded SUDS databases fro malts & hops: "Has anyone expanded the malt and extracts databases? could i get pointers to a link to download or simply send me theirs?" Check out my web page (URL in sig line below). I added all the malts from the Zymurgy Great Grain Issue (1995) and all the hops data I could find from a number of sources. Simply download and replace your SIDSHOP.DBF and SUDSMALT.DBF files. **WARNING**: The way SUDS deals with the database, if an existing recipe calls for something that isn't in the database anymore (whihc will happen after replacing the old databases), the recipe will end up with screwy numbers for color & gravity. You will have to convert all of your old recipes' malt & hops bills if you use the new database. Another option would be to manually edit the new database to include all of the old offerings. This will result in some duplication of items, with slightly different names, but will make the databases backward compatible with your old recipes. If you don't care tovisit my web page, the direct ftp address is: ftp://members.aol.com/kennyeddy/files/sudsmh.zip Mike Spinelli brings up galley-pump beer engines: "My local HB store, informs me that galley pumps used in motorboats are perfect to adapt as a beer engine. I guess they have the same design of pulling liquid up from below. I would guess it would be a cheaper alternative than the commercial beer engines."" Check the May 1997 Brew Your Own magazine for the poop on this idea. ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, Texas KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:24:00 -0500 From: "Robert L. & Arletta J. Seiple" <seiplesr at ziplink.net> Subject: Strawberries Beers to All, Being new to homebrewing (two years) and especially new to the Digest (third issue) my question may have gone before and I was just not around for it. If so, please forgive . . . if, not please help . . . even so, please help, any road! I am considering a batch of brew with strawberries (my all-time favorite fruit). I have read recipes with just about every other kind of fruit (and nut) but, alias, no strawberries. Do I just brew a batch as usual and add the berries? . . . or, is there something special I need to do? . . . or, should I just forget the whole thing and buy a (ugh) Bud? I am thinking along the lines of a wheat beer, or maybe a honey wheat beer . . . or is there something else that may go better with strawberries? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Private replies are welcome (will save me the humiliation of being publicly flogged for repeating questions). Thanks in advance. R.DW.HAHB. Bob Seiple Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 10:05:00 EDT From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess at mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> Subject: RE: MM motor Martin writes: >I'd say not. The MM seems to have a pretty high starting torque, and If I >remember correctly, JS once said he tried a 60 in-lb gearmotor without >success in a standing start, loaded condition. I have a 30 in-lb 150 RPM >motor driving a Glatt mill, which works fine, at about 1 lb of grain per >minute. The Glatt's rollers, however, are only about 4 in long compared to >the MM's 10" (effective length being somewhat less). You may be able to >reduce the speed using pulleys, thus multiplying the torque, but at a loss >of through-put. Look for a bigger motor. > >Martin Manning Martin, I have a used GE gear motor to drive my MaltMill. It has 30 in lb torque, and turns at 154 RPM. It does just fine with the MaltMill. I've been using it for a good while with no problems at all. You could get a beefier motor, but I don't think you need it. Not sure why JS did not have success with a motor with 2X the torque of mine. Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:55:02 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: La Fin d'Fin Brewsters: Spencer Thomas, Denis Barsalo, Gino - brewmaster at Unibroue - via Denis and AlK all corrected me on the type of beer that is La Fin Du Monde of Unibroue in Montreal. I called it a Gueuze because of the Lactic /Sauerkraut aroma that was obvious in the bottle I tasted. I assumed it was a Gueuze style imitator= with lots of young beer blended in. Remember, however, it had been give= n the road test - along with my Explorer - over an hour's worth at 45 mph o= n BuMpY Northwoods Canadian dirt logging roads, so it was cloudy despite tw= o days in the fridge and it had endured a ( how long?) stay in a Provigo Supermarket. I recall some of the beer bottles were dusty. All declare that it is a strong Belgian ale type ( like a double or tripp= le according to Gino). Its quality of manufacture was obvious, even if a little infected, as I really enjoyed it. I'll have to get a fresher bott= le next time. Thanks to all who corrected me. Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com = Voice e-mail OK = Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:04:04 -0700 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Miller and botulism Steve Claussen posts David Miller's comment on the botulism thread: Well, I was willing to give Miller a break for the little slip on that odd concept he has of bottle conditioning, but I feel he has made a number of potentially dangerous errors in his comments here: > Botulism, however, is > a Gram-positive organism, and most Gram-positive bacteria are inhibited by ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ > hop resins. So if you have been putting hops in your wort, there is probably > little cause for concern. What if botulinum is not included in "most?" And inhibited doesn't mean absolutely prevented from growing/producing toxin. > "I would also point out that if bugs start to grow in wort or any other > growth medium they show signs of their activity -- clouding of the wort, > bubbles on the surface, and strange odors, for example. > [snip] in jars of clear wort, the signs [of botulinum activity] > should be much easier to read. If the botulinum growth is slow and hasn't progressed very far (maybe due to inhibition by hops?) one wouldn't expect any of these to be noticed. Anyway, not everything clouds the growth medium, causes bubbles, or strange odors. It doesn't take much botulinum growth to cause a problem. I have here a reference for producing one of the botulinum toxins (C1--the one I use). The reference is FEMS Microbiology Letters 30:47. They produce at least 25mg of purified toxin from a 600mL culture. That's the size of a starter. And don't forget that there must have been losses during purification. 25mg is on the order of 100,000-1,000,000 lethal doses of toxin. In other words, if they have grown only 0.01-0.1% of what these authors get in your starter, you are dead (assuming dilution in the beer of 1/100 or less). This also ignores the risk that growth might continue in the beer. [Description of Tyndallization deleted.] > you might > want to Tyndallize any jars of canned wort (steps two and three; you did step > one when you canned them) that you have on hand I think he misses the point of Tyndallization as well. The steps must be carried out according to the timing he first presents since you don't want to allow any re-sporulation to occur (although I am not sure if that would happen in anaerobic wort or not). - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: 25 Jun 1997 13:45:30 -0400 From: "John Penn" <john_penn at spacemail.jhuapl.edu> Subject: hop balance Subject: Time:12:24 PM OFFICE MEMO hop balance Date:6/25/97 First some answers and then a question. >About that iron in your well water--You might look into one of those Brita Filters, or something equivalent, and use that for your brewing water. There was a post about those in a previous digest and I've tasted the water from a Brita and think they are pretty good. >Peat Taste--I used a 1/2# of peated malt in a scottish ale and it was much different than a previous scottish ale (Alex's Scottish Ale from the Cats Meow) which used Wyeast 1728 Scottish Ale yeast. If you want a peaty or smoky flavor in your scottish ale use the peated malt. Alex's scottish ale was quite good using 1728 but I wouldn't call it peaty/smoky if thats the flavor you want. >Update--My stout which I had posted some questions about previously seems to be doing well after a month. I had aerated it when I transfered it to the secondary in an attempt to wake up the yeast and get away from the seemingly stuck 1.040 SG. It ended up at 1.035 from a starting 1.085 and is thick and would have been sweet except for the 60 IBUs of hops which about balances it. So I guess I didn't ruin it but next time I will rely on pitching plenty of yeast to start and if I get a high FG I'll just leave it alone. Now for the question--Hop Balance? Somewhere I saw a reference which gave a ballpark figure for "hop balance". It was a linear scale which made me wonder because I thought bitterness was a non-linear function. This one gave about 8 IBUs / 1.010 of starting gravity. Why isn't final gravity factored in. This would give 36IBUs for a 1.040 OG beer but if that 1.040 OG beer attenuated 75% in one case and 50% in another case, I would think that the 1.010 FG beer would taste more bitter. It would seem to me that a ballpark hop balance figure would be non-linear, would take into account Final Gravity as well as Initial gravity. Any ideas or leads on a ballpark "hop balance" equation or table. Thanks, John Penn Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 03:37:02 +0800 From: Luke.L.Morris at woodside.com.au Subject: RE: Beer engine with corny keg Reference HBD 25 June 1`997: *** Roy writes: >I'm interested in possibly obtaining and using a beer engine with a >"corny" keg instead of a CO2 bottle. I know that many of the pubs draw >their ales...with these 'pumps' in the UK. <snip> *** Al writes: Ideally, you should finish the keg quickly. A way to cheat, that no respectable CAMRA member would ever do (;^), is to: 1. vent the keg and leave the vent open, 2. connect the handpump, 3. serve the beer, 4. disconnect the hanpump, 5. purge the headspace with CO2, 6. close the vent, and 7. store the beer at 55F till the next drinking session. Beer will keep quite long this way, but is time-consuming, non-traditional, and wastes a lot of CO2. <snip> *** I wonder: For a small capital investment and an hour or so of playing "plumber"; it should be possible to fit a secondary (low-pressure) regulator to your CO2 delivery line so that it delivers CO2 direct to your "corny keg" at atmospheric pressure (or only slightly higher than atmospheric). Not enough pressure to force beer through your beer engine or force-carbonate your beer, but enough that you can draw off a beer and have the "airspace" filled immediately with CO2 rather than air (I guess that makes it CO2space). LPG regulators are cheap from camping suppliers and deliver LPG at low pressure (I forget how much exactly - in the order of a couple of psi). Try plumbing one of these into the CO2 line AFTER the main regulator (these LPG regulators are generally rated to 250 psi). The better regs have a cap on top which can be removed to expose an adjustment screw. By unscrewing this slightly you can reduce the delivery pressure. **How to adjust the delivery pressure** Connect the inlet of your LPG reg to the outlet of your high-pressure CO2 reg, leaving the outlet of the LPG reg open to the air. Turn your CO2 bottle on and CO2 will come out the LPG reg outlet. Unscrew the adjustment screw slowly until it **only just** stops delivering CO2 to atmosphere. Now connect the outlet of the LPG reg to the "corny keg" via the appropriate delivery tube etc. As soon as there is vacuum in the "corny keg", generated by your pouring off a creamy pint, CO2 will be delivered to replenish pressure. **Warning** If you adjust one of these regulators, it should not then be used for LPG until it has been profesionally re-adjusted to deliver the correct working pressure. **Another warning*** This is not a traditional technique. Nor is it endorsed by CAMRA, I suspect. It should however save you time and CO2 once you have set it up, and seems to be a fair compromise for home use. **Disclaimer** I have not done this yet, so I can't step forward and guarantee the technique. Actually, I haven't even started kegging yet. I'm still saving my pennies to buy a kegging set-up. But I plan to try this myself someday. Can anyone pick holes in this plan ?? Luke Morris Brewing in Perth, Western Australia. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:36:41 -0700 From: smurman at best.com Subject: bottle baking Those of you who have been on the HBD for a while may remember the discussion of bottle baking we had last year. The idea is to slowly heat and cool the bottles in an oven at about 250F or so in order to sanitize them before bottling. I've been doing this since last summer, and I've bottled over a dozen batches this way. It is very simple and convenient to do, and I'm not going to do it any longer. The repeated heating and cooling fatigues the bottles too much in my opinion. The thicker bottles bear up better, but I'm even starting to see fatigue damage in these. This is leading to fractures while baking, and also fatigue fractures when the bottles become carbonated to high levels such as with wheat beer or Belgian ales (my favorites natch.). I know some of you will chime in and say you've been doing it that way since 1906 and never had a problem, but I'm just reporting what I've experienced. I don't feel the risk of giving my friend or relative a bottle that may later crack or worse is worth the convenience, and I'm tired of worrying about it. This is especially the case since I don't think it's even a necessary step, because of the pH and alcohol level of finished beer. YMMV, SM Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:33:30 +0200 From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hhanghof at ping.at> Subject: A simple approach to decoction mashing Reviewing recent posts on decoction, we feel that some authors and homebrewers have discovered and developed advanced philosophies on decoction. -That's fine, one more fact that shows the infinite world of brewing. ON THE OTHER HAND HOWEVER, ONE MUST KEEP AN EYE ON TRADITIONAL ROOTS, OTHERWISE THINGS GET VERRY INVOLVED AND PREVENT HOMEBREWERS FROM USING DECOCTION TECHNIQUES. In particular, people seem to worry about: 1) Low control over extended protein rests (head retention problems) 2) Force of starch conversion during decoction, leading to long schedules. 3) Fear of transition from 65C to 75C with a decoction that contains unconverted starch. - --- ad 1) --- No matter if using double or single decoction, our PR temp. is tuned to the degree of malt modification: low (sometime back in the past) 50C medium (now and then) 54C high (as usual now -even here in central Europe) 57C If using high modified malts and a double decoction schedule (triple makes not much sense for such malts), try PR at 55-57C *AND immediately* -without delay- take the first decoction. But although commercial brewers do it, I don't feel it makes much sense to step from 57C to 62-65C, using a decoction. -Having no possibility to independently heat the mashtun, I get more control over the proteins, if I mash in thick and step up with hot water into the 60-65C range. Later, taking a decoction to go from 62-65C to 75C, I could increase boil time to some extent to get almost the same flavor profile as with double decoction. - --- ad 2) --- Just bring the decoction to a boil at a rate of 1C/min instead of wasting time by resting and testing with jodine. You needn't force starch conversion in a decoction (expect some comments here)! Decoction will physically aid yield and starch conversion in an indirect way -by bringing starch into solution, so the enzymes in the remaining base mash can easily break it down. Decoction varieties without conversion rests are well documented in both old and new literature. It should be noted however, that rests at 70C are not touched by the base mash either and the value of such a rest is far beyond converting starch only. But our quality control (competition results) shows, that this may not be necessary for every beerstyle. - --- ad 3) --- Keeping ---2)--- in mind, going to 75C with a normal-mash decoction (homogeneous, neither thin nor thick) will cause unconverted starch to be added to converted mash. But you needn't worry, due to a-Amylases there is much of enzymatic activity left at 75C. Although Amylases are degraded at their optimum working temperatures (70-75C for the alphas), enzymes are working fast in the range of 75C and complete kill of a-Amylase occurs at 80C. Problems may arise, if mashing in too high and the rate of enzyme degradation exceeds the rate of releasing them. REFERENCES: All German brewing scientists from Philipp Heiss in 1855, Emil Leyser in 1900 to Dr. Narziss in 1995 have described and documented single and double decoction schedules involving normal or even thick-mash decoctions to go to 75C. Even the thin 3rd mash used in triple decoction is usually not free of grain (e.g. water / malt mass ratio = 5 / 1). ADVANTAGES: All we need is classical, traditional brewer's equipment: 1) A simple kettle without stirring engine, even direct heating with low control (e.g. wooden fire) could be used. 2) A well designed, insulated mash- / lautertun that can be built in many ways. 3) If you thrust physics and have some routine, the whole method consists of resting and heating. -Much time to read the HBD. Sometimes my wife doesn't even recognize that I'm brewing. 4) It's an IDEAL METHOD FOR BEGINNERS. JAWOHL! EXAMPLE: WHEAT GRAIN BILL: 4.0 kg Wheatmalt / Plohberger -Grieskirchen 3.6 kg 2 row Lager / Liesing -Vienna 0.4 kg dark Caramalt / Stadlau -Vienna MASHING: kettle full with 27L water, added 5.4 grams CaCl2x2H2O thus remaining alkalinity adjusted to 8 dH = 142 ppm CaCO3 *FIRE ON, FULL THROTTLE* pasted grist with 12L water of 41C to 39C rest 30 mins (heating time) stepped up to 55C with 9L water of 81C 10 mins stepped up to 63C with remaining 6L water of 92C 20 mins stepped up to 75C with normal mash (1 / 3.4) TURBO DECOCTION -30 mins to start boil, boiling for 10 mins, returning jodine negative after 10 mins, rest for further 10 mins, mashed out at given temps of 74-73C Total mash time: 2 hours mashing yield 70%, brewing yield 60% (shortcut sparge, both refer to grain mass) total wort boil time: 100 mins Boil gravity 1.070 HOPS Malling, P90 6%a 35 grams 70 mins boil Hersbrucker, P90 4%a 40 grams 5 mins boil total IBU's about 15 OG adjusted with boiled water to 1.050 open fermentation, Wyeast #3068 (slant) bottled 4 days past pitching, adding green wort to +0.8P above FG (1.015 / 1.012), yielding in carbonation level of about 6g/L. RESULTS: Entered Bavarian homebrew competition in Aschau after 4 weeks GOT A 1st PLACE :-) got a 2nd place for my Alt, used an even shorter mashing schedule (leaving the 39C step, 95 mins!). QUESTION: SO WHAT'S THE PAIN WITH DECOCTION? MIME-Note: Hope I didn't hit special characters this time (Sorry, German PC keyboards are packed with them). ...and sorry for my German English and for being so long winded... Cheers & sehr zum Wohle! Ing. Hubert Hanghofer <hhanghof at netbeer.co.at> Salzburg / Austria http://www.netbeer.co.at/beer/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 16:42:40 CDT From: jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: Water analysis In HBD #2448 Michael Fay wrote of water analysis being expensive (over a hundred dollars). I have seen other such references and thought I might suggest something. In Texas water analysis is available from Texas A&M for $20. Analysis request forms and instructions are available from county agricultural agents. I would not be surprised if other states had a similar setup. You might try looking in the telephone book for a county agricultural agent or ask at any ag. school. A lot of states have land grant colleges like Texas A&M and they may well provide such a service. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at imtn.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:03:33 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: Ale yeast for Beck's clone Mark Johnson asked about what type of yeast to use to brew an ale that tastes somewhat like a lager (Beck's) and mentioned that someone recommended California Common. If he meant California lager yeast ("steam") I would advise against it. I tried the same thing using that yeast (Wyeast, I believe) and fermented at 55 - 60 degrees, and the esters were quite powerful. I did the same thing using Wyeast 1338 European, and got really nice results; clean and malty. Another choice, although IMO second to the 1338, is Wyeast 1007. This gives a nice maltiness and a real "beery" nose, but has a slight ale like complexity that I wasn't crazy about, which diminished with cold storage for 3-4 weeks. Come to think of it, cold storage (38 - 40 degrees F, in my case) really smoothed out the 1338 beer also, and made it more lager-like. I don't have the refrigeration for large scale cold storage, so I just put a bunch of bottles in the fridge for a few weeks and drink english style ales stored at cellar temp. in the meantime. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:26:40 +0000 From: Dennis & Jennifer Britten <djbnajke at iserv.net> Subject: Brewing software I would like to get some feedback on brewing software. I have seen the demos for a few but I am interested in Homebrewer's Assistant and they dont have a demo. If anybody has any info please e-mail me. djbnjake at iserv.net Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/26/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96