HOMEBREW Digest #2589 Mon 22 December 1997
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/Back.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
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
Contents:
Mash efficiency / Decoction mashing & Lautering (George De Piro)
Carbonation,Dangerous "NA " beer ("David R. Burley")
Cleaning Rust (John Palmer)
sankee keg for dispencing beer (michael rose)
Nitrogen and stout taps (Jack Schmidling)
RE: Nitrogen and Stout taps ("Mike Pierce")
$3.50 beer (Al Korzonas)
Re:Bottle Carbonation (Overfilling) (Kelly Jones)
Negra Modelo ("phil sides")
Re: Bottle Carbonation (Overfilling) (Scott Murman)
Cheap Orval... (Some Guy)
sweetening; nitrogen; gas burners; Orval (Samuel Mize)
Re: Don't go rushing to throw out your carboy and blow off tube (dfikar)
Press release: More MCAB News (Louis Bonham)
put your head back (AlannnnT)
More 60/70 and AA (Kyle Druey)
Aerating with wine yeasts (Chasman)
Using Malto-Dextrin/Lactose ("Roy R. Rimmele")
Triple Bock (Scott Moore)
corney secondary (crablesc)
Mills (Bill Giffin)
Open and Closed cases,Wine vs Beer Yeasts,Yeast storage ("David R. Burley")
Small-Scale Brewing, a review (Jack Schmidling)
Announcing URLs to this list ("Alan McKay")
Pils vs Pilsener ("Alan McKay")
Cooking the alcohol off (Mike Allred)
Steve's efficiency treatise ("Bryan L. Gros")
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...
ftp://hbd.org /pub/hbd/digests
ftp.stanford.edui /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer">ftp://ftp.stanford.edui /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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, 17 Dec 1997 09:06:20 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Mash efficiency / Decoction mashing & Lautering
Hi all,
Steve contributed a great post about mash efficiency calculations. I
just wanted to comment on it a bit.
I feel that Method D (the method that compares your actual extract to
a somewhat random ideal for each malt type) is quite useful for recipe
formulation. As long as you keep careful notes, you will know what
efficiency to expect from each malt type that you use, and recipes can
be consistently repeated. The first time you use a malt type is the
only time that you may experience a bit of inaccuracy, because you
don't know for sure how accurate the "ideal" extract number that you
are using is. In my experience you will be close, though.
Not all homebrewers (very few, in fact) have access to malt spec
sheets, and even fewer have access to the spec sheets for the actual
lots of malt they are working with. For this reason I find method D
to be most useful. Even though the values published in the Great
Grain Issue are a bit whacked, I use them consistently, take careful
notes, and can therefore formulate recipes with very good accuracy and
consistency. I always hit my OG + or - a point at the intended
volume.
---------------------------------
Paul (or the person he was responding to; it's hard to tell) asked if
decoction mashing Marris-Otter malt could give it a greater tendency
to cause a slow sparge.
Decoction mashing any malt can make for a slower sparge. While
decoction mashing can reduce wort viscosity by removing proteins from
the wort, this protein degradation also reduces the malt's structural
integrity (large proteins and glucans are the "girders" of the grain).
This means that the grain bed is easier to compact into a thick,
impenetrable mass if you are not careful about controlling the rate of
run-off.
Of course, the brewing system will have a tremendous influence on
susceptibility to stuck lauters, but in general one needs to be a bit
more careful about running-off too quickly when decoction mashing.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:44:37 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Carbonation,Dangerous "NA " beer
Brewsters:
> JC Ferguson says:I
>have a "stout" fawcet that I use to serve homebrew with the N2/CO2
>gas mix, ala guinness. I serve the beer out of cornelius kegs in a frid=
ge
>that has a temp at about 40F or so. .>
>My problem is I can never get the beer to dispense ala guinness! =
>When I keg, I do not prime at all, since that would generate CO2.
There's the mistake. Either prime or force carbonate with *pure* CO2.
>I tap the keg, turn on the guinness gas, and pour a pint, but it comes
>out with NO head! =
Well, the beer has no CO2 in it, the applied gas is just pushing it out.
> i have tried force carbonating with the guinness
>gas on at 28 PSI and shaking the keg without a whole lot of luck. =
This gas is only partially CO2 which dissolves in the beer and the
major head pressure is N2.
>what I have observed is as the keg gets lower, the head starts to get
>better. =
Not surprising, as the keg gets lower you have a higher CO2 =
amount/ beer which can dissolve in the beer at a given pressure.
>What I'm looking for is a sure-fire, step-by-step method of getting
>this to work just like force carbonating using C02 and having good
results.
Carbonate the beer in the Cornie first with *pure* CO2.
The reason the Guiness tap works is that the beer comes out
already carbonated. In the mixer faucet, nitrogen is forced into
the *foam* bubble (not the beer) - called "breaking out".
The nitrogen gas virtually is not soluble in the beer, doesn't pass
through the bubble wall quickly like CO2 and the foam has =
a looong life.
- ----------------------------------------------
"Liquid Man" aka Craig Myers says:
>As to your question of NA brews:
>1. Pre-heat the oven to 180 degrees F.
>2. Place fermented beer in SS or enameled-pot in oven.
>3. Leave in oven for 20-30 minutes, stirring occasionally.
>4. Remove beer from oven and give final stir.
>5. Cool beer using similar methods as when cooling wort.
>6. Use force carbonation method to carbonate, or use
priming sugar and pitch yeast (baking killed all active yeast).
>7. Bottle when beer is cool.
>8. Wait normal couple of weeks as with alcoholic beers.
>Viola! Non-alcoholic Homebrew!
Craig this is absolute BULLSHIT. Do NOT ever give this "NA beer"
to a recovering alcoholic or you will cause him/her a great deal
of agony, as it has plenty of alcohol in it. I have seen this sort of
process published before. Where did you find it?
I'll try to kill this dangerous rumor.
- ----------------------------------------------
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, 17 Dec 1997 09:14:16 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at gte.net>
Subject: Cleaning Rust
Bob asked how to clean the rusty weld on his keg.
Very easy. Use an oxalic acid based cleanser like Revereware Copper
Cleaner, Kleen King Stainless Cleanser, or Bar Keepers Friend. Put a
little on a cloth and scour the rust away. Rinse it thoroughly with
fresh water, dry it, and allow it to sit exposed to the air indoors for
a week or two. The rust should not return. ever.
John Palmer
metallurgist
jjpalmer at realbeer.com
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:36:34 -0800
From: michael rose <mrose at ucr.campus.mci.net>
Subject: sankee keg for dispencing beer
I hope to be doing 12 gallon batches soon and have realized that 2.5
cornies just isn't going to work for me. My plans are to take a sankee
keg and weld a 1" ball valve onto it. I'll use the valve for cleaning,
rinising, filling with beer and carbonating via a airstone. I'll
dispence beer with a regular sankee tap. For those of you that have
already done this, any advice that you can give me would be appreciated.
The drilling and welding will be done professionally.
Jeff, from the I-15 south, exit and go left on Blaine. Left on Flanders
for one block then right on Spruce St.
mrose at ucr.campus.mci.net mike rose 418 Spruce St.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:37:14 -0800
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Nitrogen and stout taps
From: JC Ferguson <jc.ferguson at digital.com>
Sorry to have to do this again but you have fallen into
the Momily trap.
Contrary to urban legend, nitrogen is not soluble in beer.
Any attempt to carbonate with it will fail, even with a
50/50 mix.
Guiness may have tiny bubbles but they are not nitrogen.
The reason nitrogen is used to dispense beer is not to
produce a nice head, it is because it can be dispensed at a
higher pressure without causing additional carbonation and
the foam that goes with it. It's so they can sell more
beer faster not to make tiny bubbles.
Don't feel bad, I got sucked into it too but now I am back
to good old CO2. The reason I am so smart is because I have
made so many mistakes.
js
- --
Visit our WEB pages:
Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp
Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf
ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:12:25 -0800
From: "Mike Pierce" <mpierce at ccnet.com>
Subject: RE: Nitrogen and Stout taps
I don't have a sure fire step by step method, but I do know that Nitrogen is
*much* less soluble than CO2. The fact that you are tending to get some
effect towards the end of the keg indicates that when you change the
gas/beer ratio in favor of the gas (less beer in keg--more gas) coupled with
the duration (time in contact with gas) you are going in the right
direction.
The amount of dissolved gas in liquid is a result of three factors:
1) Pressure
2)Temperature (gas more absorbable at lower temps)
3) Time
If your tanks seal well, and you are not pressed for time, try using about
60psi on the Nitro, and two days duration. Agitation helps, as would forcing
the Nitro through a stone.
Experiment. Document. Taste. As many times as it takes. That's my formula!
Hope it helps.
Wassail!
Mike Pierce
=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=
mpierce at ccnet.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:25:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: $3.50 beer
Joe writes about Orval...
>but I don't often shell out 3.50 for a 12 oz. beer.
When you consider what Bud costs at a bar, I'd rather
drink Orval at home (less smoky too!).
In response to your question Joe... yes, Orval is usually
very highly carbonated.
Al.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:05:05 -0800
From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com>
Subject: Re:Bottle Carbonation (Overfilling)
In HBD #2585, Todd Goodman writes:
> I've experienced exploding bottled homebrew once and that was with a batch
> that I attempted to fill to the top in an attempt to reduce the oxygen in
> the bottle.
The most likely cause of your exploding bottles had nothing to do with
overcarbonation (which, as you noticed in your other bottles, didn't
exist) but but instead was caused by simple thermal expansion: Beer,
being pretty incompressible, and having a CTE (coefficient of thermal
expansion) not equal to that of the glass, can exert enormous forces if
the temperature changes after bottling. Usually, the headspace acts
like a cushion to absorb this force. If there's no headspace, theres no
cushion, and you run a higher risk of exploding bottles when the beer
expands.
Always leave at least a little bit of headspace in any bottle.
Kelly
Hillsboro, OR
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:42:18 PST
From: "phil sides" <hopsock at hotmail.com>
Subject: Negra Modelo
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 12:33:05 CST
>From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
>Subject: Negra Modelo
>Negra Modelo (not Negro Modelo) is called a "dark ale" on its label.
>I don't know if it is really an ale but it is the best Mexican, or >for
that matter the best American, beer I have had. I had a couple >last
night in Joe T. Garcia's restaurant in Ft. Worth, as a matter of >fact.
>John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com
John,
Actually, Negra Modelo is a fine example of a Vienna-style Lager. There
actually is a good story about how the German-trained brewmasters ended
up in Mexico, but I think I had a few too many Lagers that night.
Anyone else remember?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:38:42 -0800
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Bottle Carbonation (Overfilling)
> I know others have reported exploding bottles when underfilled, but
> this seems counterintuitive to me (and counter to my experiences
> since I usually bottle a partially filled bottle each batch).
>
> Todd Goodman
As one who has written to the HBD about this subject in the past, I
just wanted to clarify what I observed. I did not note that the
underfilled bottles were more prone to explode. I had some
over-filled, and some under-filled bottles from the same batch, and I
don't know exactly which ones broke. I did note that when I relieved
the pressure on these babies, the underfilled bottles seemed much more
carbonated. In fact they resulted in gushers. I've since felt that
for some reason a low fill level can rapidly bring the CO2 out of
solution, but I don't know why. I don't have any theories I'm crazy
about, so if anyone wants to speculate (publicly or privately) I'm
willing to listen.
SM
about 1-1/2 hours southwest of the Lagunitas Brewing Co.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:59:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Cheap Orval...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Joe writes about Orval...
>but I don't often shell out 3.50 for a 12 oz. beer.
Ye gads! $3.50?!? Where do you live? That's almost half what I pay!
Pack yer bags, Ma! We's movin' today!
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brewing Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:20:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
Subject: sweetening; nitrogen; gas burners; Orval
Greetings to all,
A couple of people have recently asked about sweetening a stout
without using lactose. It that it was commonplace historically
to sweeten beer when it was served, by adding some sugar or
simple syrup. This is still done today with at least one brand
of lambic. If you can't get the sweetness you want by adjusting
your mash or caramelizing your wort, you might try this.
> From: JC Ferguson <jc.ferguson at digital.com>
> Subject: Nitrogen and stout taps
>
> I have a "stout" fawcet that I use to serve homebrew with the N2/CO2
> gas mix, ala guinness.
...
> When I keg, I do not prime at all, since that would generate CO2.
> I tap the keg, turn on the guinness gas, and pour a pint, but it comes
> out with NO head!
With no CO2, you will get no head. You need to lightly prime or
force-carbonate lightly, then DISPENSE with the N2/CO2. I don't know how
many volumes of CO2 to tell you to carbonate to.
> what I have observed is as the keg gets lower, the head starts to get
> better.
Yep. More CO2 is getting forced into the beer.
> From: Stankau <Stankau at aol.com>
> Subject: Request advice on gas burners
>
> Fortunately as a compromise I am getting a
> gas burner for Christmas.
The advice I've seen, that makes sense to me, is to look for a ring burner
rather than a "jet engine" type burner, as those tend to shoot a lot of your
BTUs right past the kettle. You'll spend a lot more on propane. From what
I've read, a 30K BTU ring burner will boil your wort plenty fast, but "fast
enough" varies widely from person to person. Some people really love their
rocket engines, believe they get a faster boil (may be right), and don't mind
paying for the extra propane.
> From: Headduck <Headduck at aol.com>
> Subject: Orval and bad grain info
>
> Just a note on bad information. I bought a can of extract recently
> ... On the label
> under ways to improve your brew it states: "More colorful and flavorful beers
> can be made to suit your own taste by adding crushed caramel, crystal and/or
> black malt to the boiling wort."
>
> Shouldn't these people know better???
Well, they said it would be "more flavorful" -- tannic astringency is a
flavor... Maybe they figure if you're having trouble using specialty grains,
you'll buy more of their pre-flavored kits. Or maybe they're just big
Papazian fans.
Best,
Sam Mize
Irving TX
Beer is my heaven, but I'm too early to be late.
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 20:39:16 -0600 (CST)
From: dfikar at flash.net
Subject: Re: Don't go rushing to throw out your carboy and blow off tube
>Don't go rushing to throw out your carboy and blow off tube (George De Piro)
>
> Hi all,
>
> Dave Burley writes about the evils of blow off tubes and closed
> fermenters (i.e., carboys). He encourages the use of a plastic pail
> covered with plastic wrap.
>
> While you can get acceptable results using his method, plastic pails
> are actually quite a bit more difficult to keep in sanitary condition
> than glass carboys. Plastic scratches easily, and once it is
> scratched, it is no longer useful as a sanitary vessel.
I respectfully disagree. I have been brewing for only about 14 months now but
have made 31 batches to date - all in the same plastic bucket that I started
out with. You can keep from scratching the plastic simply by using your hand
to wipe off the gunk with warm water. It rarely takes me more than a couple
of minutes to clean the bucket. I use iodophore to sanitize the bucket after
is clean. I have never had an infection - at least that I know of. :-)
Also, you make mention of infection potential from dirty blow off tubes. I
did not see the original post. I assume that by "dirty" you mean the spooge
that blows through the tube (yeast, etc.). If so, I would wonder what the
souce of the pathogen would be if you use sanitized tubing with the loose end
submersed in disinfectant? I know that the gunk in the tube would make
good nutrient media for bugs but how would they get in there in a closed
blowoff system?
- ---------------------------------------------
Dean Fikar - Ft. Worth, TX (dfikar at flash.net)
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:23:56 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net>
Subject: Press release: More MCAB News
The Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing ("MCAB") is pleased to
announce that it has added the Bay Area Mashers' World Cup of Beer
competition as its California-based Qualifying Event. When the original
list of Qualifying Events was announced last month, the MCAB indicated
that it was seeking to identify a suitable California competition to serve as
a QE. Thanks to the hard work of MCAB Steering Committee member
Byron Burch, we were able to find several excellent competitions to choose
from.
At present, nine of the eleven invited Qualifying Events have confirmed that
they will participate in the MCAB. In chronological order, they are:
February 20-21 Kansas City Bier Meisters competition
Contact person: Alberta Rager
913-894-9131
February 20-21 Boston Homebrew Competition
Contact person: Ken Jucks
jucks at cfaft4.harvard.edu
March 28 World Cup of Beer (Berkeley, CA)
Contact person: Doug Ashcraft
Ashcraftmd at aol.com
April 18 Bidal Society Competition (Kenosha, WI)
Contact person: Jeffrey C. Sparrow
jeffrey.c.sparrow at monsanto.com
May 15 Sunshine Challenge (Orlando, FL)
Contact persons: Steve Vallancourt
STEVEBRAU at aol.com
Carl Saxer
clsaxer at aol.com
June 7 BURP Spirit of Free Beer (Vienna, VA)
Contact person: Mark Stevens
stevens at burp.org
June BUZZ-Off (Philadelphia, PA)
Contact person: Chuck Hanning
Chuck_R_Hanning at sbphrd.com
October Dixie Cup (Houston, Texas)
Contact person: Steve Moore
swm at pdq.net
November Novembeerfest (Seattle, WA)
Contact person: Jim Hinken
jhinken at accessone.com
The two remaining invited QE's -- the Bluebonnet Brew Off (Dallas-Fort Worth,
TX) and a Canadian competition to be designated by the CABA -- have not yet
accepted or declined the MCAB's invitation. The CABA has indicated its strong
interest in participating in the MCAB, but is having difficulties in finding a
Canadian club with sufficient resources that is willing to run a QE. The
Bluebonnet Brew Off has indicated that it may have an administrative problem
with the MCAB's requirement of BJCP style guides for the 18 MCAB
Qualifying Styles. While the MCAB hopes that these issues can be resolved by
year end, it is possible that replacements for these QE's may have to be found.
The actual MCAB competition will be held in Houston in early 1999, and will
be hosted by the Foam Rangers Homebrew Club of Houston. Current Foam
Rangers' Grand Wazoo and former Dixie Cup organizer Steve Moore will be
in charge of the logistics for the actual competition. The formal rules for the
MCAB competition are under development, and will hopefully be released
early in 1998. We also hope to name a date and precise location for the
MCAB soon.
Finally, noted beer authority Fred Eckhardt has joined the MCAB
Steering Committee. Eckhardt, author of The Essentials of Beer Style
and numerous other works, brings his decades of experience in the world
of amateur brewing to the MCAB. We are pleased and honored to have
Fred as a part of the MCAB team.
For more information on the MCAB, check the MCAB website:
hbd.org/mcab
or contact Louis K. Bonham at lkbonham at phoenix.net.
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 01:39:24 EST
From: AlannnnT <AlannnnT at aol.com>
Subject: put your head back
Hi all,
I've got another way to put the head back in your poured beer. In case you are
sitting in a pub and don't happen to have a syringe handy, try this old
photographer's trick.
Start with a headless glass-o-brew, not full! Leave room for head development.
Roll up your tiny, otherwise useless, bar napkin into the shape of a skiny
cigar. Hold one end of the napkin firmly in your drinking hand. Very quickly
plunge the end of the napkin into the beer and rapidly piston the napkin up
and down 5 or 6 times. Viola! Mega head appears magicaly in the glass [and all
over the bar top].
I have used this technique many times in my former life as a photographer, try
it, it has never let me down. And no special tools required.
Alan Talman
Thirty or thirty five miles from Brooklyn Brewing Co. GABF gold and bronze
winners 1997. Damn good beer too. [for store bought]
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 00:09:02 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <kdldmd at lightspeed.net>
Subject: More 60/70 and AA
Concerning a 140 F rest and apparent attenuation Dave Burley writes:
>Kyle Druey did a nice number manipulation with his series of
>mashes in an attempt to discover a relationship between a hold
>at 140F and the %AA. I was surprised to see this, since I believe
>such a relationship doesn't exist. How then can his hard numbers
>match up with my cognitative dissonance?
Here is what others say about the relationship between mashing at lower
temperatures and fermentability:
"many traditional mashing systems have used two or more temperature rests
in that part of the mash devoted to starch conversion. One rest is
typically in the range of 55 to 60 C, which is optimal for amylase
activity. During this rest 70 to 80% of the starch is converted. A
second rest in the range of 65 to 70 C is used to finish off the starch
conversion at a faster rate."
Fix, "Principles of Brewing Science" p. 95
"...lower temperatures yield worts with greater fermentability, while
higher temperatures produce higher dextrin levels."
Fix, "Principles..." p. 96
These paraphrased comments are from "Brewing" by Michael Lewis and Tom
Young:
-beta amylase works best at 55-60 C while alpha amylase about 10-15 C
higher, p. 109
-mashing is *beta amylase* sensitive and therefore a
fermentability-sensitive event, p. 109
-beta amylase denatures in 10 minutes at 70 C, p.111 fig 7.2
-errors that affect beta amylase activity will show up in lower
fermentability before total extract (alpha amylase) is affected by the
same error, p. 114
-some mashing procedures incorporate a temp stand at about 55 C
specifically to promote beta amylase action and hence wort
fermentability, p. 117
I believe that the refenrences cited above all support my analysis that
there indeed is a relationship between the amount of time the mash is
held at 140 F and the apparent attenuation of the wort. Using only a
linear regression of my data with apparent attentuation as the dependent
variable and the time at 140 F as the independent variable produces a
correlation coefficient of 0.95. I think even Dave Burley would agree
this indicates a strong relationship. I know Dave will probably try and
convice me that my mashing data has produced a spurrious relationship,
but then again Fix, Lewis, and Young seem to indicate to the contrary.
Kyle Druey
brewing in Bakersfield, CA
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 23:49:56 -0800
From: Chasman <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: Aerating with wine yeasts
Andrew asks why you don't aerate with wine yeasts:
>Why is oxygenation not an issue w/ wine yeasts, at least not in the home
>wine making literature that I've read? I was quite suprised to read that
>ale & wine yeasts are actually the same kind of yeast (obviously different
>strains) - so why do you not oxygenate your must when you must (heh heh)
>oxygenate your wort?
I oxygenate anything that I am going to ferment regardless of the type of
yeast, that includes musts (mead, cider, wine) and wort. I have never heard
that wine yeasts don't need oxygenated wort/must and having transitioned to
mead/cider making from beer, I continue to oxygenate.
I did peruse my one winemaking book and it discusses the idea that in the
presence of oxygen, the yeast will not produce the maximum amount of
alcohol from the available sugar and that you want to eliminate any oxygen
in the must after fermentation starts.
Hmmm, perhaps it has to do with the differences in production methods for
beer and wine...
In beer making, after boiling the wort for 60+ minutes, you have driven off
most if not all of the oxygen that the yeast need for cell growth. In must
production, the crushing of the fruit probably splashes the must around a
bit and aerates it to some degree.
Sounds reasonable to me. AFAIK, wine and ale yeasts do not differ in their
oxygen requirements. I say don't debate, aerate!! (chuckle, chuckle).
Charles Hudak in San Diego, California (Living large in Ocean Beach!!)
cwhudak at adnc.com
ICQ# 4253902
"If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs."
- --David Daye
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 97 22:03:19 -0500
From: "Roy R. Rimmele" <flossbos at downcity.net>
Subject: Using Malto-Dextrin/Lactose
I recently brewed a Raspberry Stout. When I racked it into the secondary,
there was a very distinct change from very raspberry sweet taste after
brewing. The fruit taste has become very tart. I experienced this
previously when I brewed a lambic style kriek. The trouble is I would
like to take the edge off the tartness, and make the finished beer a bit
sweeter. After reading in Papazzion's book about malto-dextrin and
lactose, I think I want to use malto-dextrin when I bottle.....Help!
Please let me hear how you've used it. Did you achieve the results you
wanted? How much did you use for a 5 gallon batch?.....Thanks in advance
Roy :{)
> Roy R. Rimmele
> flossbos at mindport.net
> flossboss at aol.com
'So much beer.....so little time!
>
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:20:28 -0500
From: Scott Moore <kcumoore at earthlink.net>
Subject: Triple Bock
Being a long time lurker on this forum I'd like to first thank the
collective for helping make each batch I've made great (so far...).
I recently had a chance to try Samuel Adams Triple Bock and I was very
disappointed. I found it to be thick, sickenly sweet with no hop
balance, and uncarbonated. I'm a big fan of high gravity beers
(Eggenberger Urbock being the best beer ever produced) and at 6.50 a
bottle I expected it to be at least drinkable.
My question, is this typical for this beer or did I just get a hold of a
bad batch? I really like unique beers and will try anything a couple of
times but I have a hard time believing anyone would find this beer
good. If it was a bad batch I would like to give it another shot.
Private replies are fine to save bandwidth.
Thanks,
Scott Moore
Currently lagering in Cleveland, OH - The Rock and Roll Capital of the
Universe and not too far from Jeff.
kcumoore at earthlink.net
Clever sig still under construction...
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:03:58 -0500
From: crablesc at email.uc.edu
Subject: corney secondary
My apologies to the collective for dredging up an old thread but I recall a
discussion not too long ago on using a corney keg as a primary or secondary
fermenter. I wish to lager a bock but alas, it's a little tight in the
fridge for a carboy in addition to the two kegs presently occupying it.
However, a third corney would fit. My question is, what type of air-lock
setup works best for this arrangement? Thanks.
Scott Crable
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:07:17 -0500
From: Bill Giffin <billg at ctel.net>
Subject: Mills
Top of the morning to ye all,
Again Jack defends his mill, and I agree his mill is fairly well made. But
for the money you cannot beat the Corona mill. Dollar for dollar, without
question the Corona is the best buy. Contrary to Jack's assessment the
malt mill will allow small grains to pass through the mill without being
properly crushed. I also had a difficult time getting the proper crush on
some German Pilsner malt.
If you take apart a Corona mill you will see that the plates are not flat,
but when properly adjusted the mill presents much same attack as a
commercial mill. Much of the problem with the Corona comes from the mill
not been properly adjusted. To properly adjust the Corona, use a dime as a
feeler gauge then take additional 1/4 to 1/8 turn inward then the mill will
be properly adjusted.
Much of the reason for fractured husks has been as a result of not properly
adjusting the mill. If the mill is adjusted to couarsely than the malt
corn goes through the mill on end breaking up the husk.
Stuck mashes are more a result of improper process than to fine a crush.
When I conducted a screen test on both the malt mill and the Corona only 50
percent of the crush pasted through the screen from the malt crushed by the
malt mill whereas 75 percent passed through the screen when using the
Corona mill. A properly set commercial mill would allow 85 percent to pass
through the screen. You see the Corona came closer to commercial
standards that did a malt mill.
Save your money and don't buy an expensive mill, get a Corona.
Bill
Bill Giffin
61 pleasant street
Richmond, Maine
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:51:50 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Open and Closed cases,Wine vs Beer Yeasts,Yeast storage
Brewsters:
AlK comments on my comments:
>You've been critical of me for questioning the Clinitest without
>experience,
Yep
> but it's okay for you to question blowoff hose cleaning
>methods with which you have no experience? Ahh, ahh, ahh... ;^).
{8^) Not true. My first excursion into brewing used this method =
- long before Charlie's book. I may have been shown this method
by another Prohibition trained brewer ( and maybe that's where
Charlie learned it?) or invented it myself - don't remember.
I even tried to ferment at a more concentrated wort and then
dilute it to keep down the foam. I do know that when I met open
fermentation methods during my post-doc in Britain, I knew this
was the way. When Charlie's book came out, I tried it again and
was totally disappointed. With all grain of course it is impossible
to use a 5 gallon fermenter and a 6.5 gallon is a must.
My point is, if you are going to use a 6.5 gallon fermenter to prevent
overflow, why not use open fermenter which can be easily cleaned?
>Ever tried it? A 1-day soak in PBW or a week in 200ppm chlorine bleach
>makes that grungy ring wipe off easily. Again, are you speaking from
>experience? I am.
Yep. First, I don't like to have gallons of water sitting around
with organic material in them -( other than beer). My plastic
containers can be nested easily and put away in my brewing
closet when dry. I have let them sit around on occasion with
water and a little bleach in them when I was pressed for time =
and I don't disagree that the ring is softer than after the fermentation.=
However, a quick wash with bleach and hot water immediately
on racking the beer to the secondary is all that is needed and =
how I normally do it. I just have no good reason to do as you
suggest and a long time sitting around with depleted, dilute bleach =
could lead to contamination.
> I've used both open and closed fermenters.
>Incidently, those plastic scrubbers are likely to scratch your fermenter=
=2E
I normally don't use any scrubber. At the most, a paper towel,
although I have used a plastic scrubber, on occasion,
without problem. I have yet to see the proof that scratches on
either glass or plastic harbor microorganisms in properly
disinfected equipment. I suspect a Charlie P mommily.
The biggest problems with glass are that it is heavy, breakable
and thermally shocked as a recent contributor noticed when his
rug started turning brown suspiciously close to his closet.
This thermal sensitivity may be why you have to use cold soaks
over a long time. Ease in storing the dry fermenter with stuff in it
is a plus in my case. =
To re-iterate my point - there is no reason why great beer can't be
made in either method as experience in both our cases =
( and many others) show. The question comes down to the
ease of use and the risks of each method. I still come down =
on the side of open fermentation in plastic as I have detailed
previously. That's what makes horse races I guess - it is a
personal decision and hopefully we have explored all the issues.
- -----------------------------------
Drew Avis says:
>Why is oxygenation not an issue w/ wine yeasts, at least not in the home=
>wine making literature that I've read? I was quite suprised to read tha=
t
>ale & wine yeasts are actually the same kind of yeast (obviously differe=
nt
>strains) - so why do you not oxygenate your must when you must (heh heh)=
>oxygenate your wort?
Good question. Being both a brewer and a wine maker, I
asked the same question. It amounts to the fact that you use
wine yeast only once and can use brewer's yeast more times.
In wine also, the non-enzymic browning from oxygen is also a problem
and would give a rotted fruit taste to the wine.
I only oxygenate wort since I re-use my beer yeasts many times
and evidence (M&BS) has it that if you don't oxygenate the wort
before fermentation then the yeast begins to ferment more and =
more poorly with subsequebt pitchings, giving off-flavors
(like esters, aldehydes, etc.) and lower AA.
There is a substantial difference over 5 re-uses.
I suspect the myth ( as best as I can tell) that yeast "mutate" after
5 re-uses is due to this kind of phenomenon and perhaps
bacterial contamination.
On the negative side, AJ DeLAnge has pointed out that oxygenation
of the cold wort can produce aldehydes ala his comments on the
smell of starters after oxygenation. I always oxygenate my worts
with the active yeast already pitched to reduce any side reactions
like this and hope any by-products are chewed up during the
fermentation.
- --------------------------------------------------------
AlK comments on my suggestion to use distilled, =
sterile water to store yeast a long time.
Like you, I have re-juvenated yeast from beers some
years old, but my comment was that this can be dangerous, =
since the beer above the yeast can become bacterially
contaminated. I have also had the experience that yeast =
- especially lager- continued to ferment the higher sugars
and other stuff in the beer and produce a real fizzer which
caused me to lose a substantial portion of yeast.
My suggestion to cause the yeast to go dormant and prevent
bacterial contamination by removing all food sources is not
a development of mine, but comes from Copenhagen about
1930 ( or maybe earlier) or so as I recall and allows one to
store yeast at room temperature for several years.
I store my yeast in the refrigerator, capped and under water.
If Santa's real good to me,I'll get a sterilizable vacuum funnel,
so I can do this washing faster with less chance of contamination. =
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: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:26:51 -0800
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Small-Scale Brewing, a review
Small-Scale Brewing
By: Ilkka Sysila
Calling this a review is a bit misleading because I only skimmed it
and read the parts that I found most interesting. Ilkaa does a nice
job of covering the fundamentals of brewing in a manner somewhere
between Papazian and Fix. It's about as technical as one needs to
get to make good beer and at the same time, easy reading.
This book is aimed at the advanced brewer and the discussions and
illustrations are a mix of serious homebrew equipment and small to
medium scale commercial brewing. It is refreshing not to have to
wade through all the really basic stuff like hydrometers, blow off
tubes and bottle cappers.
What I like most about the book (written in Finland) is the "local
color". The photos alone make the book unique. The chapter on
water opens with a picture of a boy straining at a rural hand pump
to fill a plastic bucket. Glass carboys are presented in quaint woven
baskets. One local brewery looks more like an outhouse on a farm.
The very extensive section on Finnish Sahti shows an old geezer
sparging a batch in a hollowed out log setup that looks like it is
several centuries older than he is. The aura is only destroyed when
we later see how they are made these days. The guy with the
chain saw just doesn't fit.
The photos and drawings on the commercial operations will provide
hours of serious pondering. They are a gold mine of ideas.
I have been exchanging mail with the author for a number of years
and he sent me a copy for my own enjoyment and I thought I
would share my thoughts with the group. As a point of interest,
one of the photos shows a Finnish version of a large hopper on
one of our mills.
The only problem with the book is that it is not readily available
in this country but I guess he is working on that. If you want to
communicate with the author his email is: isysila at clinet.fi
js
- --
Visit our WEB pages:
Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp
Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf
ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:27:26 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com>
Subject: Announcing URLs to this list
Hi folks,
>
>When you announce a URL to the HBD , if you give a complete URL most
>Email and web programs will allow people to click directly on the URL to go
>to the site.
>But when you give only a partial URL as many people do in the HBD, we can't
>click
>directly on it. Typing a few extra characters saves us all a lot of typing.
>
>e.g.
>
>www.realbeer.com/
>http:/www.realbeer.com/
>
>In my mail program, I can click directly on the 2nd one, but not on the first
>one.
>
>So please, folks, give complete URLs.
>
>cheers,
>-Alan
>
>
>--
>Alan McKay
>Nortel Enterprise Networks
>Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
>PC Support Prime
>
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:22:41 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com>
Subject: Pils vs Pilsener
The only difference between "Pils" and "Pilsener" is that the former
is the English word, and the latter is the German word.
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:52:15 -0700
From: Mike Allred <mballred at xmission.com>
Subject: Cooking the alcohol off
>From: "Liquid Man" <luv2jeep at redrose.net>
>As to your question of NA brews:
>1. Pre-heat the oven to 180 degrees F.
>2. Place fermented beer in SS or enameled-pot in oven.
>3. Leave in oven for 20-30 minutes, stirring occasionally.
>4. Remove beer from oven and give final stir.
(SNIP)
I'm no expert, but wouldn't this procedure produce alcohol fumes that could
explode when the oven 'cycles' to keep the heat constant?
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:04:54 -0800
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: Steve's efficiency treatise
In HBD #2585, Steve Alexander posted a great article
describing four methods of measuring your mash or
brew efficiency. Very clear, straightforward descriptions
of each measure, and he recommends comparing your
numbers to the DBCG numbers (dry basis coarse
grind percentage, available on malt spec sheets).
Steve, as you explain, all methods use numbers from either
malt spec sheets or average numbers from some publication.
Method A uses the percent moisture numbers from BT
Market Guide. Method B uses the DBCG numbers, also
from the BTMG. Method C uses the "homebrew" standard
of 36 pts/lb/gal. And Method D uses potential pts/lb/gal
from the Zymurgy Great Grain issue.
You mention that the numbers for Methods C&D are fairly
arbitrary and thus are poor standards for comparison. But
what about the numbers for Method A & B? Are the moisture
numbers more constant from batch to batch, or malster to
maltster? How does moisture in the malt change during
storage?
If moisture numbers are fairly constant, then simply
tracking your extract (in pts/lb/gal) from batch to batch
would suffice. If you normally get 28 pts/lb/gal and on a
certain batch you get 26, you know something changed.
One advantage of Steve's Method B is that it would account
for lower extraction due to the specialty malts used.
- Bryan
Bryan Gros
gros at bigfoot.com
Oakland CA
Visit the Draught Board site
http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm
Return to table of contents
HTML-ized on 12/22/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96