HOMEBREW Digest #2551 Fri 07 November 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

  WST and homebrewers (Chasman)
  No Sparge & No sparge tactics (Dennis Waltman)
  Dry Hopping in Cornelius keg (Rich Miani)
  Pasteurised my Mead ... what next? ("Alan McKay")
  starter temps (Ritter, Sharon/Dan )
  Help - I don't want flat barleywine! (Joe Sever)
  Re: Airlocks - some answers (bthumm)
  Corrections to our new book (George J Fix)
  Doing your own thing (Tom Clark)
  Traquir House (Vintage Cellar)
  Ethyl Alcohol and Benzene (Jim Liddil)
  Su: Priming your Beer ("William Warren")
  Brew pot Fittings (Bill_Rehm)
  Thoughts on Copper/Brazing/ Infusion Calc.s (John Palmer)
  WST/Forced Wort Test Reference (WalkerMik)
  Wort chiller prep (dajohnson)
  Ester formation (Al Korzonas)
  Scotch Ale/Caramelizing Sugars (Greg Young)
  underpitching (Al Korzonas)
  cleaning carboys (michael rose)
  Aeration with Oxygen (Jim Larsen)
  Using pure O2 ("Pat Babcock")
  Air-locks and O2 leakage (Mallett,Mark)
  Correction/WST/O2 (AJ)
  New toys new questions (Alex Paredez)
  Carbonation of first 2 batches (Bryan Fitzhugh)
  Re: Yeast Pitching ("John Robinson")
  re: Droste Dutch cocoa power (j&a)
  Starters (aab1)

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 brewery at realbeer.com 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: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 22:51:14 -0800 From: Chasman <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com> Subject: WST and homebrewers Jeremy wrote: > This is the HOMEBREWER'S digest. I don't believe that a single >homebrewer on this forum is going to spend the time and money to brew a >batch of beer, then let is sit unpitched for 4 days at 85F to see if there >are any off flavors. You seem to be missing the boat there Jer. Maybe you should pay closer attention. You don't need to use the whole batch. This clearly shows your ignorance of the procedure which I am discussing. See HBD #2549 for an outline of how to do the test. "It is best to remain silent and be perceived ignorant than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt" BTW I *am* a homebrewer. How the hell do you think I ended up in a commercial brewery? I homebrew 20+ batches a year as well as 100+ commercially. You? > Homebrewers working outside, out of basements, garages, and kitchens using >non-enclosed brewing systems DO need to worry about fermentation lag times >because for us, the likelyhood that we are going to inoculate our wort with >an unwanted nasty organism is much greater. Oh really? And just how do you know this, or are you *assuming*. The whole point of my post was to force people to back up their conjecture with hard evidence. Content on remaining ignorant and scared? Your choice, but don't blame me for your ignorance and please refrain from posting imcomplete info on the digest which doesn't benefit all the brewers you claim to be helping. You don't sound like much of a scientist there Jeremy (and yes, I *am*, I have a degree in chemistry) The scientific method which *I* was tought seems to believe in the idea of experimentation to prove ones theories or hypothesis. >Our brewing areas are (microbiologically speaking) filthy, and our equipment is by no means >sterile. Without a healthy yeast population to remove oxygen, alter the pH, >and to remove the simple fermentable sugars, wild yeasts and bacteria can >and will begin to multiply. These are the same homes in which folks are plating wort samples, plating yeasts, growing starters and doing quite a few other microbiology related tasks. Just how is it that they are so successful if their areas are so "filthy". While I can state that my breweries (home and work) are clean, I laugh at the thought that they would be sterile.Hahahaha. I would expect the use of more appropriate and correct terms from a scientist. Nothing in a brewery is *ever* sterile only hopefully sanitary. I'm apalled that a member of a university science department would confuse these two *very* different terms (and concepts). >I would be willing to bet that if homebrewers >did conduct these stability tests there would be alot of bogus beer going >down the drain. As if one would use the whole batch to conduct the test and then throw it out! Seems to me that they don't teach the concept of QA/QC in college anymore. The idea is to get a "representative sample" of the product which one wants to analyze--not analyze the whole product. Do you think that manufacturers test every circuit board coming off an assembly line? Of course not, they pull a "representative sample" of the finished products for Quality Assurance testing to make sure that the products are up to par. Same concept here. C-- Charles Hudak cwhudak at adnc.com "If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs." - --David Daye Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 02:04:36 -0500 From: Dennis Waltman <waltman at bellsouth.net> Subject: No Sparge & No sparge tactics Earlier I asked a question about the downside of not sparging; just draining the mashtun after mashout. I received a few replies, and aside from the economic issue of requiring more grain, the only downside was that the resultant beer would be a maltier beer and for beer styles where maltiness is inappropriate it would be a problem. The tannins extracted from sparging counteract the maltiness; dilution with water would not have the same effect. I'd guess then that if one stuck to beer styles that were not negatively impacted by maltiness, one would be OK. No Sparge Tactics What my brew-partner and I have done twice now in the no sparge area, is something I read somewhere (it may have been a historical document) was called parti-gyle brewing. The first results of this trial have been quite tasty. One uses an extra third of grain in the mashtun, and uses the regular schedule of temps. Then after mashout, drain the tun of liquor. Later (for us while the 1st is boiling) additional water is added to the mashtun aiming for a 165F temp (a little more than a quart per pound of grain), mixed and allowed to sit. This liquor is drained in a no sparge method and a second beer (a small beer) is made. In the first trial of this, we made a high end gravity IPA, and the second beer was an ordinary bitter. The second beer we added a 1.4 lb kicker (1lb DME would probably suffice) making the second beer technically a partial mash. Both beers are bottled and ready to drink. It is interesting the color difference, and both taste quite nice. In this way for the 33% extra grain and a 1.4 lb kicker we got two beers instead of just one. No doubt a little more care may have gotten a better efficiency out of the second draining. Also, one needs to expect to make a higher end gravity beer and a lower one. Overall time of brewing was a great deal less than two all-grain. The second trial of this is still in the secondary, about to be lagered. The first beer was a triple decotion mash beer. After draining the tun, we added additional specialty grains (mostly crystal) to the grain and mixed it before adding the water to steep. The first beer was very light, this was an effort to see how it would effect coloring and flavor. Would one expect some of the character of the triple decotion to appear in the the second beer? If anyone has an idea how the term Parti-gyle came to be, or perhaps I'm mispelling it, I sure would be interested. Private email is OK. I would suspect that if one did not drain the tun all the way the first time, one might make two beers of approximately the same OG from the grain, but this has not been tried by us yet. Anyone else tried mashing this way? TIA Dennis Waltman Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 07:49:03 -0500 From: Rich Miani <miani at hudsontg.com> Subject: Dry Hopping in Cornelius keg hi folks, I recently dry-hopped a batch by throwing a hop boiling bag containing an ounce or so of whole leaf hops directly into the cornelius keg. I am getting quite a lot of hop particles in the glass when I dispense. Any suggestions on how to avoid this ? Perhaps I should rack to another keg at this point........ thanks, Rich Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:15:35 -0500 From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com> Subject: Pasteurised my Mead ... what next? Hi folks, The other night I siphoned my blueberry mead into my brewpot, brought it up to 155F, then put it into my (Pyrex) carboy where I let it cool down overnight. I did this because I had a mild infection, assumedly from not having pasteurised the fruit in the first place. Now I'm wondering if I should re-introduce some yeast, or just let it age as-is. How will it age better? thanks, -Alan - -- Alan McKay Nortel Enterprise Networks Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations PC Support Prime Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 06:23:59 -0700 From: ritter at bitterroot.net (Ritter, Sharon/Dan ) Subject: starter temps George De Piro writes: >Also, when growing lager yeasts, you can keep the temperature in ale >range, but you must slowly cool the yeast before pitching it, so as to >not shock it on brew day. I would let the last starter step ferment >out near lager yeast temp and cool it to pitching temp a few days in >advance. On brew day pour off the liquid over the yeast cake and >resuspend the yeast in wort of the same temperature. Then you can >pitch that active, cool slurry later in the day. I have also grown my starters at higher than their usual fermentation temperature range...and I've always wondered if this has an effect on the fermentation when the yeast finally gets to the wort. It seems odd to step up a smack-pack of lager yeast, keeping the temp. at the recommended range on the Wyeast pack (70-80F), and then use that yeast to ferment at 45F - a potential difference of 35 degrees! I assume Wyeast recommends the higher starter temps to speed things along. I have recently begun to start my yeast (when not repitching from a subsequent batch) 10 days or two weeks ahead of brew-day, growing the starter at close to the same temp. as I will use during primary fermentation. Has it changed the quality of my beers? I can't tell but I feel better about it!! My question for the microbiologists among us: Should I worrying about the temperature differential between starters and primary fermentation? Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net> Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Hamilton, Montana Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:27:03 -0500 From: Joe Sever <JPS at cbord.com> Subject: Help - I don't want flat barleywine! I just racked a 3 gal. batch of barleywine, for which I used Wyeast #1728 (Scottish Ale). It tasted delightful at racking, at which time the SG was about 1.027. I say "about" because I never seem to be able to "see through" the meniscus... My questions: 1) I've read many posts about 1728's apparent inability to bottle-condition barleywines using the standard priming method. Is this a shortcoming specific to 1728, or is it true of any high-gravity beer (pooped yeast)? 2) I've heard of good results from pitching yeast along with the priming solution to ensure carbonation. How much yeast? As I'm not a rancher, do I need to buy another smack pack, or can I culture from bottles of homebrew? Do I simply make a small starter? Basically, what is the "accepted" (dangerous term, I know) method? 3) How long should I leave it in the secondary (a 2.8 gal. carboy)? I take hydrometer readings to avoid grenades, of course, but err on the side of caution (that damn meniscus!). Will a long secondary diminish the odds of carbonation due to the decrease in the amount of yeast in suspension? As I'm planning on aging this stuff in the bottle for a while (self-control willing), will I benefit at all from a longer secondary fermentation? It seems to me that the bottom line is: Do I want clear beer or carbonated beer? TIA. Joe Sever Ithaca, NY jps at cbord.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 97 07:29:27 CST From: bthumm at entergy.com Subject: Re: Airlocks - some answers >Yesterday I poured a light colored lager which has been kegged for 3 >months (quite clear) and let it sit on my kitchen counter for ~15 >hours. Today I poured a second from the same keg. Same type glass, >same fill level, identical lighting. When viewed against a white >background the color difference is obvious. Exposing light colored >beers to air does cause darkening. After 15 hours, wouldn't the CO2 have outgassed from the first beer, causing an increase in density and consequently a darker, more concentrated sample? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 97 07:44:49 -0600 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Corrections to our new book Please note the following corrections to "Analysis of Brewing Techniques": 1. Page 29 - Figure 1.3 - The caption should read 104F, 1450F, and 158F. The numbers for degree C are correct. 2. Page 46 - Replace "Miller" with "Mitter" in the FWH references. 3. Page 101 - The reference to Figure 3.5 should be to Figure 2.9. 4. Page 117 - The sentence "... the Z-value has no units..." should be replaced with "... the Z-value has units of temperature...". 5. Page 141 - RE (real extract) should replace AE (apparent extract) in the alcohol formula. We would like to thank Jim Busch and Gerald Lemmens of Morris Hanbury for their input. Any additional input would be welcome. Take care, George and Laurie Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:57:13 -0500 From: Tom Clark <rtclark at eurekanet.com> Subject: Doing your own thing Jim Anderson... I agree with you. Too often people get too wrapped up in technology and lose their ability to simply enjoy a hobby. However, don't hibernate, you seem to have some pretty good ideas which should be shared. I plan to begin trying some light as possible extract brews in the near future. I'll try to keep you posted. Tom P.S. Has anyone tried lagers at 56% F.? This is about what our underground temperature stays. (We have an old root cellar off the basement of our house). The other alternative is a used fridge. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:22:47 -0500 From: Vintage Cellar <vcellar at usit.net> Subject: Traquir House Charles, According to Greg Noonan in Scotch Ale and Merchant Du Vin the bill is 99% pale and 1% roasted barley. 34 IBUS of bitterness from EKG. The key to this beer is a very long, vigorous and propane consumptive boil. I made a batch and boiled the wort for 5 hours which made for a long brew day but one damn fine Scotch ale. It has an incredible caramel aroma and taste. The only problem I have with the 5 hour boil is the reduction of beer (from 22 gallons to 12). Cheers, Kenny Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:43:35 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU> Subject: Ethyl Alcohol and Benzene Since we routinely use 200 proof ethanol here I decided to inquire about the amount of benzene in the stuff we get. The manufacturer does indeed still use benzene to remove the last bit of water. But the final product has 0.1 PPM benzene with total impurities of <50 PPM. Soon they will be switching to using molecular sieve to remove the water. I think the issue of benzene toxicity is essentially a non-issue, particularly when talking about a 5% EtOH solution in water or broth. Lambics are infected with large concentrations of e-coli and other enteric bacteria in the first weeks. Viable organisms do not survive. This is due to a combination of ethanol, low pH, anaerobic conditions and lack of glucose. The same basic points apply to regular beer, though the pH is not as low. Jim Liddil Arizona Cancer Center Tucson, AZ Return to table of contents
Date: 5 Nov 1997 08:47:33 -0700 From: "William Warren" <wwarren at geron.com> Subject: Su: Priming your Beer Su: Priming your Beer = 11/5/97 Has anyboby heard of priming the beer with some of the wort. I heard = about it in a book? According ot the book the brewers in Germany will do = this to prime their Weisser Beers. I would appreciate the information. - -------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:36:04 -0600 From: Bill_Rehm at DeluxeData.com Subject: Brew pot Fittings I am hoping that someone out there can help me out with this. A local beer distributor helped me obtain a empty 1/2 barrel, that I want to convert to a boil kettle. I have researched the conversion enough to decide that I am going to have a SS coupling welded to the barrel. I was then going to use a compression fitting and 1/2" copper tube to run under the SS screen. My question is, "Is a compression fitting the way to connect the tube to coupling or is there a better method to use, considering the number of times it will be broken down for cleaning?" I have spoken with some "handymen" that I know and they seem to think that the compression fitting will begin to leak after several uses, and at $8-$10 per fitting I don't want to replace them often. TIA, BR Marry bashing to all, and to all a good brew. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:14:04 -0800 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at gte.net> Subject: Thoughts on Copper/Brazing/ Infusion Calc.s Simon wondered about the affect of oxygenation in his copper fermenter; I dont have any data comparing the activity of copper in wort versus beer, but a few thoughts come to mind. Copper oxide is more readily dissolved in wort than is clean copper. So, if you did oxygenate the wort in the copper vessel, then conceivably you could oxidize the copper and have much more of it dissolve into the wort than would otherwise. Its a pity I dont have any historical references at my fingertips. It seems like this should have occured at some point in the past, although perhaps in those days the yeast was added before it got in the fermenter and so most of the oxygen had been scavenged by the time it was introduced. I dunno... The best thing to do would be to find a small copper pot and do an open ferment in it and test for copper levels in the wort and beer afterwards. Then you could get a better idea of the copper toxicity risk (to the yeast) involved. *** In Response to Lorenzo Barquin's question on silver solder (braze) Yes, silver based brazes and solders are good to use. Just make sure the formulations dont include cadmium. *** Frank asked for the mashing infusion equations. Here is a copy of the sidebar from my article on using a cooler Mash/Lauter tun in a recent Brewing Techniques. Calculations for Boiling Water Additions This calculation is based on calorimetry and thermal equilibrium. By figuring the amount of heat provided by a volume of hot water we can predict how much that heat will change the temperature of the mash. The basis for this calculation is the first law of thermodynamics and assumes that no heat will be lost to the surroundings. The factors used in the following equation are rounded to single digits to make the math simpler and more conservative. The actual values for the thermodynamic constants are 10 decimal points long, but evaluation of the numbers for our purposes shows that the difference at most is a cup of hot water and less than 1 F. The equation presented here has been algebraically simplified, including conversion of the mass of the water to volume. All temperatures must be in degrees Fahrenheit. Experience has shown the equation to be reliable, even if it may be a couple degrees off in its prediction, depending on the mash tun. It will be consistent if the mash tun is pre-heated in the same manner for each batch. You can tackle the initial infusion two ways. You could use the Seat of Your Pants Infusion approach (i.e. target plus ~10F) described in the main text for the initial wetting -- measure your resulting temperature and proceed with the mash infusion equation from there. Or you can use a simplified equation to calculate the proper strike water temperature. When mixing hot water with dry grain, the thermodynamic equilibrium equation simplifies such that the amount of grain does not matter, only your initial grain temperature, the target mash temperature, and the ratio of water to grain in quarts per pound. Initial Infusion Equation Strike Water Temperature (Tw) = (.2/R) * (T2 - T1) +T2 Mash Infusion Equation Wa = (T2 - T1)(.2G + Wm)/(Tw - T2) where: Wa = The amount of boiling water added (in quarts). Wm = The total amount of water in the mash (in quarts). T1 = The initial temperature of the mash (or dry grain). T2 = The target temperature of the mash. Tw = The actual temperature of the infusion water. R = The ratio of water to grain in quarts per pound. G = The amount of grain in the mash (in pounds). The infusion water does not have to be boiling, it could be the nominal sparge water temperature of 170F. Then TB becomes 170F and more water (Wa) will be needed to make up the additional quantity of heat. Example: We are going to mash 8 pounds of grain through a 40/60/70C multi-rest mash schedule. These temperatures correspond to 104/140/158F. For the purposes of this example, we will assume that the temperature of the dry grain is 70F. The first infusion will be to bring the temperature of the mash from70F to 104F We will start with an initial water ratio of 1 quart per pound. Using the Initial Infusion Equation, our Strike water temperature is: Tw = (.2/R) * (T2 - T1) + T2 = (.2/1) * (104 - 70) + 104 = 110.8 or 111F For the second infusion, to bring the temperature to 140F, we need to use the Mash Infusion Equation, and note that Wm = 8 quarts. We will assume that our boiling water for the infusions has cooled somewhat to 210F. Wa = (T2 - T1)(.2G + Wm)/(Tw - T2) Wa (140) = (140 - 104)(1.6 + 8)/(210 - 140) = X quarts = 36 x 9.6 / 70 = 4.9 or 5 quarts For the third infusion, we need to realize that the total water volume is now 8 + 5 = 13 quarts. Wa (158) = (158 - 140)(1.6 + 13)/(210 - 158) = 5.0 quarts This makes the final water-to-grain ratio in the mash 18 /8 = 2.25 qts/lb. John Palmer jjpalmer at realbeer.com Palmer House Brewery and Smithy http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:25:42 -0500 (EST) From: WalkerMik at aol.com Subject: WST/Forced Wort Test Reference Greetings, In HBD 2549 Charles Hudak racks his brain for a reference to WST. The September/October 1994 issue of Brewing Techniques contains the article that he's looking for. The article is titled The Microbrewery Laboratory Manual - Part II: Bacteria Detection, Enumeration, and Identification. This is part 2 of a 4 part series written by Fal Allen, the head brewer for Pike Place Brewery in Seattle. Mike Walker Mesa, AZ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 97 12:21:49 -0500 From: dajohnson at mail.biosis.org Subject: Wort chiller prep Hello all, I finally recently made my immersion wort chiller (copper tubing and vinyl hose method) and i'm wondering if anything needs to be done to the copper prior to just sticking it in my boiling wort. i plan to leave it in the boiling wort for the last 10-15 minutes of the boil for sanitation purposes, but does anything need to be done to it prior to that? Thanks a bunch, dan johnson Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:07:35 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Ester formation Thanks to Steve for a very informative post on ester formation. Steve writes: >The mechanism is enzymatic formation from an alcohol (fusel alc. or >ethanol) and a coenzyme-A(CoA) activated compound, often a fatty acid. >The CoA compounds may result from fatty acid synthesis, fatty acid >catabolism, activation of existing fatty acids and also, (perhaps a >minor mechanism?) acyl-CoA may arise from amino acids metabolism. and: >Ethanol and acetyl-CoA both form in high concentrations directly from >sugar fermentation. Ethyl acetate, formed from these two most common >precursors, is the most common ester in beer. Caproyl-CoA is an >intermediate product of fatty acid synthesis. This sort of compound may >appear at high levels during yeast growth under low oxygen, low fatty >acid wort conditions. Are these the only pathways? What about post-fermentation esterification of higher alcohols (I've seen it happen myself... try tasting Bigfoot Barleywine at 1 month and 12 months)? I've read where non-enzymatic esterification would be so slow that it would not explain the significant increase in esters in aged high-alcohol beers, so that the yeast must be involved somehow. Certainly aging is not during "yeast growth," but perhaps there are still some coenzyme-A compounds active then? Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:22:34 -0500 From: Greg_Young at saunderscollege.com (Greg Young) Subject: Scotch Ale/Caramelizing Sugars Cheers, all. I'm in the midst of formulating a Scotch Ale recipe and I could use some help. Somewhere I read/heard that a good way to get that rich, caramel flavor that's so prominent in Scotch Ales is to take a small portion of the wort into a smaller pot and boil it down to caramelize the sugars. Has anyone heard of or tried this method? What volume of wort should be separately boiled, and for how long? Any help or past experiences would be greatly appreciated.... Greg Young G.Young's Basement Brewery greg_young at saunderscollege.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:52:40 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: underpitching Charles writes: >BTW overpitching is just as >detrimental and causes just as many fermentive and flavor problems as >underpitching. You might want to keep that in mind next time you toss in >that half gallon starter (tongue firmly in cheek). I agree that overpitching *can* cause problems, but I think it's a *huge* overstatement to say that there are "just as many" problems as with underpitching. Despite your "tongue-in-cheek" warning, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. A half-gallon starter for a 5-gallon batch is only a 1:9 step-up. There are some German brewers who insist on a 1:5 step-up! This would be a gallon starter in a six-gallon batch and not (according to these German commercial brewers) overpitching. Nobody I know is advocating using these sizes of starters, mind you... no, when the Germans say 1:5 step-up, they usually mean taking 1/5 of the yeast from a previous batch, that's all... I'll take this one step further... on the last Barleywine I made, I first brewed a 1.050 beer two weeks prior. On brewing day, I racked the 1.050 beer into a secondary and racked the Barleywine wort (1.125 OG ... yes, "eleven twenty-five") directly onto the *entire* yeast cake of the 1.050 beer. That would be equivalent to a 1:1 step-up. The result is a wonderful beer that has been praised by many judges. I've done similarly with a 1.070 Helles Bock and another (darker) Doppelbock (entire yeast cake from another batch). The Helles Bock was high in acetaldehyde (or maybe it was ethyl hexanoate... hmmm?) but the Doppelbock was perfect in terms of yeast character (a little too much roasty character... I think I scorched the mash accidentally). Oh, just to add another data point against *another* popular fallacy (that overpitching leads to autolysis)... that 1.125 Barleywine spent six months in the *PRIMARY*. NO SECONDARY WAS USED FOR THIS BEER! No perceptable autolysis whatsoever, even at ambient temperatures from 60 to 70F. As per Steve's post earlier in today's HBD, high pitching rates may increase ethyl acetate, but for a Barleywine I don't think this is an issue (it's already going to be high in esters from the high OG if from nothing else!). I should look into the possibility that the Helles Bock suffered from excessive ester production from overpitching, but that jury is still out. Now that I think of it, I think I killed much of that Helles Bock yeast cake due to procrastination. I remember that I had racked the Vienna off the yeast almost three weeks before brewing and although I kept the whole fermenter in the chest freezer at 45F and oxygenated the Helles Bock wort for a minute with pure O2, the lag time was still three days! Something was wrong with that yeast cake. You can send that jury home now... skewed data. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:54:44 -0800 From: michael rose <mrose at ucr.campus.mci.net> Subject: cleaning carboys What is the easiest way to clean a carboy after using it as a primary fermenter? I'm not happy with the carboy brush. Thanks, Mike Rose E-mail probably best for this remedial topic Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:19:33 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Larsen <jal at oasis.novia.net> Subject: Aeration with Oxygen Lee asks: >Anyone had good success using pure oxygen aeration kits (Liquid Bread, >Gulf Stream) to aerate your wort? >I hear that 2 quick 15 second blasts is all that's needed. That >doesn't seem like enough! Is this really enough to fully aerate a 5 >gallon batch? I know some of you just shake the carboy a bit to aerate >wort, but I had no success getting complete fermentations until I used >an aquarium pump in 10 minute intervals, on/off for almost an hour. >This worked great, but I'm trying to cut down the time this takes, by >going to pure O2. I use Liquids Bread's system to oxygenate my starters. I start with 200 ml in a one-liter flask, adding O2 until the foam reaches the top. After high kreusen (sp?), I move to 800 ml in a two-liter flask, again adding O2 until the foam reaches the top. This seems to provide enough yeast that I don't need to add more O2 to the fermenter. Note that I have not actually measured the yeast pitched into my 8-10 gallon batches, I've just observed lag times of 4-10 hours. Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:11:11 -0500 From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Using pure O2 Greetings, Beerlins! Take me to your lager... Lee spaketh thusly: >Anyone had good success using pure oxygen aeration kits (Liquid >Bread, Gulf Stream) to aerate your wort? >I hear that 2 quick 15 second blasts is all that's needed. That >doesn't seem like enough! Is this really enough to fully aerate a 5 >gallon batch? I know some of you just shake the carboy a bit to >aerate wort, but I had no success getting complete fermentations >until I used an aquarium pump in 10 minute intervals, on/off for >almost an hour. This worked great, but I'm trying to cut down the >time this takes, by going to pure O2. Through the generous donation of a Bernz-O-Matic oxygen requlator from my Faithful Sidekick, Scott Henry (thanks again, Scott!) and some foam aquarium aerator stones, a couple of rings of copper and a length of aquarium air hose, I oxygenate using a home-brewed (fitting, eh?) "Oxynator". I sanitize the line and "stone" in iodophor solution, sink it in the fermenter, and turn the pressure up enough to allow a gentle stream of bubbles to flow through the wort for several minutes. The gentle stream prevents the foaming, and allows me to do other things while oxygenating than be vigilent against foam-overs. For starters, I use about 200 ml in a one-liter flask, and blast the O2 until the foam fills the flask. I let this settle, then pitch the yeast. After high kraeusen, I repeat the oxygenating procedure on another 200 ml batch of starter wort and add this to the fermented first. After this batch kraeusens, I oxygenate 400ml of wort, and add this. The resulting 800 ml starter is pitched into five gallons of wort for the batch. I've had lags as short as two hours with this method, though the typical is between eight and 12 hours. I use this method, rather than decanting off the spent wort, to avoid "selection" in the yeast pitched. Pouring of the spent wort will (arguably) select for more flocculent yeast. See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Harvest THESE: rhundt at fcc.gov jQuello at fcc.gov sness at fcc.gov rchong at fcc.gov Return to table of contents
Date: 05 Nov 97 20:45:52 GMT From: mallem60 at wales.bbc.co.uk (Mallett,Mark) Subject: Air-locks and O2 leakage I think some of the problem might be variations in ambient temperature during day/night etc where beer is stored. If the air space above the beer cools at any time, air will be drawn in, stalling the beer. Best to keep barrels with air-locks in cellars, where temp is constant, or seal the vessel and vent it now and then. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:16:35 -0400 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (AJ) Subject: Correction/WST/O2 In number 2549 I wrote: >Its difficult to decrease the alkalinity of water with >lots of permanent hardness (low Ca, high HCO3). Jeff Renner pointed out that this sentence is not exactly spot on. It should read something like: It's difficult to decrease the alkalinity of water with low hardness (little calcium or magnesium but a fair amount of bicarbonate). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * One way of testing water for microbial contamination is to put about 10 mL of it into a pre-sterilized vial with screw-on cap which contains nutrient and a little tube sealed at one end called a Durham tube. The Durham tube sits on the bottom of the vial with the sealed end up (like a shot glass upside down in a beer glass). If bacteria are present which can ferment the nutrient some of the gas evolved gets trapped under the Durham tube and the fact of fermentation is easily detected. This strikes me as a convenient way to do wort stability tests. One could autoclave a supply of these and keep them on hand. They apparently stay sterile as long as the cap is tightly sealed. On brew day one would remove the cap, flame the mouth, pipet in (sterile pipet) 10 ml of cooled wort and replace the cap. Or I suppose the tube could be filled with iodophor, rinsed with wort and then filled with wort. Part of the appeal is that so little wort is required. After filling with wort the tube has to be tipped to get all air out from under the Durham tube and, if the wort has been aerated/oxygenated, this must be repeated in an hour or two to tip any dissolved gas which comes out of solution out of the Durham tube. The tube would then be put in a warm place and checked every 6 hours or so for gas under the tube. The longer it takes for gas to be produced, the better. If no gas is produced after a couple of days assume that your wort was free of wild yeast and spoilage bacteria. A taste test at this point would probably be a good idea. This thought just occurred to me. Has anyone tried it? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lee B. asks if 30 seconds worth of pure O2 is enough to oxygenate 5 gallons of wort. It depends on how vigorous the blasts, how good the stone (i.e. how small the bubbles are) and the geometry of the container but the answer is that 30 seconds probably is enough to get you to 8 mg/L dissolved oxygen. Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 23:09:06 -0800 From: Alex Paredez <aparedez at sdcc14.ucsd.edu> Subject: New toys new questions Hello, I am making my first lager and my second all grain batch. My first question is about temperature. My fridge (a recently acquired throw away from the UC Regents) is set at 49, but my beer is 54 degrees Fahrenheit. Of course they wouldn't be the same temp because metabolism causes heat, but what I want to know is whether the temp of my beer or the temp around my beer is important. I am concerned that if the temp of the beer is actually what is important I might over correct and knock out my yeast or worse freeze my airlock and blow up my carboy or something to that effect. I am using White Labs German lager yeast, which is supposed to be at 50-55, but a couple of days ago the fridge was set the same and my beer was at 62. So, I am just curious how others get their beer to the right temp with the aid of a fridge and thermostat? Is my lager going to suck because it was a little warm for the first two days? My second question is about mashing in. Is there an easy way to get within a degree or so of conversion temperatures or is it trial and error. My first batch went great, but this time I overshot and the beer was at 162 for a few minutes. Does anyone know if this will adversely effect my beer, and also how hot and how long does it take to inactivate the conversion enzymes (alpha and beta amylase?)? Finally, I tasted my first all grain beer (a red ale) and thought it was the greatest thing ever... but this was at about 68 degrees. I thought it could only be better cold, but after a day in the fridge my crystal clear beer got all cloudy and I think it even has some off flavor as a result of being chilled. Does chill haze have a flavor? What is the best way to avoid chill haze? Thanks, Alex Paredez aparedez at ucsd.edu P.S. Like Jim I am also a lurker here, I thought his analogy of the HBD as a family was a nice way of looking at things. So what I am getting at is, well I have noted that many people (including myself) always have to say I am a lurker or I am new or no affiliation etc. All of those little interjections indicate that people are on the defensive and I think they shouldn't be. Even if you have a stupid question I am sure there is someone else wondering the same thing and they are probably just too shy to ask. So ask away and if others are not interested they will just scroll down the page much like I do. Thanks and sorry about the bandwidth (another of those interjections). Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:19:00 -0600 (CST) From: Bryan Fitzhugh <fitzhugh at students.uiuc.edu> Subject: Carbonation of first 2 batches So far I have 2 brews under my belt--wishfully more, but money and time restrict at present. Anyway, I am just looking for a little input on how these first couple turned out. The first one was an Australian Ale (John Bull's) simply made with two cans of hopped extract. The second was a robust porter made w/ 1 lb. black patent, 1 oz. Cascade, .5 oz Tettnanger for bittering, with 1 oz. Tettnanger steeped for couple mins. before cooling. I have noticed that I find both beers to be much better if stirred in order to release carbonation. I suspect that most of the CO2 leaves as I stirred rather vigorously (for 5 secs. or so). The Pale Ale was primed with .75c corn suger and the Porter was primed w/ 1.25c DME. Still with me? For the questions... I now realize that I probably don't like beers quite as bitter as the Pale Ale is (unbalanced with flavoring hops, at least) and I'm unsure as to the robust porter--I was actually very pleased but I actually think it tasted better before bottling (more hop aroma, smoother, etc.) Does anyone prime their porters w/ only 1/2c corn sugar? Should I try this? SHould I try a sweeter porter w/ less patent and some crystal instead? Should I try both? I suspect that the addl. CO2 is simply adding to the perceived bitterness and this is what I don't care for, plus the added creaminess with less CO2. For what it's worth I guess I'd kinda like body similar to Sam. Smith's Taddy Porter or so and this just seems a lot more 'fizzy'--I realize the recipes are quite different, but is this still approachable with extract techniques? Malto dextrine? This has just been bothering me a bit as it seems nearly every recipe calls for 3/4 cup corn sugar and I just found it a bit much in these cases... My apologies for the long-windedness--TIA! -Bryan Fitzhugh -fitzhugh at uiuc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:46:23 +0000 From: "John Robinson" <robinson at novalis.ca> Subject: Re: Yeast Pitching George wrote: > > 1. First, it is crucial not to underpitch, *especially* during the > early stages of the growing program. The main reason is that you > absolutely do not want wild bugs getting any kind of foothold in your > starter. They could possibly grow to large numbers, along with the > brewing strain, and ruin your culture. That would be a bad thing. It > is better to step up in too small an increment than too big. (Of > course, many of us make good beer even when slightly underpitching > during step-ups; I'm just posting the theoretical optimum. If your > sanitation is very good, you can get away with a bit). Point taken. > 2. You don't need to use different containers for each step; I use a > 1 gallon glass jug for all steps (excess headspace = air = oxygen = > good thing for yeast growing). A very good point, however, in your original post you indicated: " From 500 mL you can step up to 5000 mL (~1.3 gallon or so). >From 5000 mL you could inoculate a 50 L batch. Each time you step up you should provide a lot of oxygen for the yeast. If you provide constant aeration you will grow up more cells faster." My point was that in order to inoculate 1.3 gallons, one needs a jug greater than 1 gallon! :) > 3. I prefer to let the yeast grow in a higher gravity wort for the > last step before pitching. In this way, it is more acclimated to the > wort it will ferment. I don't know how critical that is, though. I don't know either. - --- John Robinson "When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. Software Developer I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I NovaLIS Technologies have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know robinson at novalis.ca it is wrong." - Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:47:15 GMT From: mrpookey at mindspring.com (j&a) Subject: re: Droste Dutch cocoa power hey now, i don't use droste dutch cocoa powder but i have had really good success with Ghirarllidi (msp?) cocoa powder. jonathan *Everything is better when made at home: home cooking, homebrew,and homegrown!* /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Email Solicitors and Spammers have forced me into this: to reply via email, please remove FriedSpam from mrpookey at mindspring dot friedspam dot com /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:49:06 -0500 From: aab1 at chrysler.com Subject: Starters Here's a tip/idea/question for the forum. I've been brewing starters for a while per my HB shop's directions but was still having around 24 hour lag times, so I wanted to pitch an even bigger starter. What I didn't like was the idea of pitching a half gallon of starter wort into my painstakingly mashed and boiled etc. wort. So I had this Idea. let me begin by presenting the HB shop's procedure: 1 cup DME to one Quart water, boil and pitch a swollen Wyeast packet. I believe this makes a starter with around an .020 gravity. So, what I did was add 1/2 cup DME to one Pint of water (around .040), boiled and pitched. The next day, I boiled 1 cup of DME with one Pint of water, cooled and added it to yesterdays starter with this thought in mind: by adding the .040 wort, I have one Quart at .020 (Wyeast's recommendation). So, I've now bumped up the yeast twice instead of once, but I'm only adding a pitching a quart instead of two. Results: My lag was cut down to about 10 hours. Question: Is this really helping or is this just not the way stepping up works. Is this a volume related type of thing where the yeast will bud to full a certain volume to a certain density, or is it a food thing? My logic was to feed the yeast twice and double the volume. Does mixing the .040 with a mostly fermented starter cause any problems? Should I not worry about adding 1/2 gal of DME no hop wort starter to my all grain wort? -Andy Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/07/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96