HOMEBREW Digest #2622 Thu 29 January 1998

[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

  Amber Ales ("Michel J. Brown")
  varied ("Myers, John")
  On politeness, critiqueing, chillers and Dunkelweizens (TheTHP)
  Priming for bottling. (John Hessling)
  Best Way to Remove Chlorine From Brew Water? (Lynn & Mike Key)
  oxygenating starters (Al Korzonas)
  Homebrew Digest Post ("Bryan L. Gros")
  re: Practical Boundary Layers ("C.D. Pritchard")
  False Bottom Type / Malt Modification "Sinker Test" (Kyle Druey)
  B+ Grade on the Protein Rest Quiz (Kyle Druey)
  Re: Simple Yeast Culturing ("Michael Gerholdt")
  ultra fast fermentation (Heiner Lieth)
  Mit Trub? (Calvin Perilloux)
  Water Chemistry (KennyEddy)
  Late Hop Additions Revisited (John Varady)
  RIMS (Bill Giffin)
  [ANNOUNCE] New stuff in recipe calculator. ("Joseph S. Sellinger")
  aeration (Anti-spam: email blocked)" <demonick at zgi.com>
  More Propane and Propane accesories... (RooJahMon)
  Re: Fast starts ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  a hell of a technical problem ("Paul A. Baker")
  nip bottles (Dave Sapsis)

Be sure to enter the... The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition Brooklyn Brewery, Brooklyn, NY Entries due by 1/31/98, competition 2/7/98 Contact Bob Weyersberg at triage at wfmu.org for more info. NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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://ftp.stanford.edu/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: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 03:02:32 -0800 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: Amber Ales I looked at the latest AHA style guides and discovered that American Amber Ale was added. I have tried Full Sail Amber ale and have found it a full bodied, well hopped ale with a nice long dry finish. Bridgeport also makes a nice Amber Ale, a bit closer to an ESB than an Amber IMHO, but was well flavored with malt and hops. Crisp finish that left my palate a bit wanting, perhaps from using dry hops? Portland's MacTarnahans Gold Medal Scottish style Amber Ale was even lighter still in color, and in body as compared to the first, but was a well balanced brew, albeit a bit light on the body, and color. Finish was a bit on the tart side, which may be due to their yeast strain. Widmer makes a passable Amber Bier that reminds me of a watered down Alt. Perhaps this is what they do with their leftover Alt. No hop flavor, as compared to the previous brews, but balanced bitterness to the lightly bodied malt profile. Short abrupt finish that left my palate feeling like the carpet on my garage floor, ie a bit fuzzy. Althought it's not an American Amber Ale, Fuji makes a nice Amber ale (right color too imho), which is very malty with a pronounced hop nose and palate. Long clean finish which fades away into a hoppy, malty, slightly dry taste that beckons for another. Altogether, I'd rank these beers as I have reviewed them (actually tasted in reverse order), and would hold the Fuji up to the Full Sail as archetypes of the style. As for the rest, well, nice try, but not close enough, given that the rest weren't even AMBER beers! Full Sail even admits to using just Pale Ale, Crystal, and Chocolate malt. Hops are Mt. Hood, and Cascades, most likely around 35~40 IBU's which blends well with the OG which I'd say would be around 1.062 to get the claimed 6%ABV. No mention of the yeast, but my guess would be Wyeast 1056, as it appears to be the defacto microbrewery yeast of choice in this area. I'd like to try cloning this brew, and use the Wyeast ESB (#1968) yeast instead, as I feel it gives a rounder brew which American Amber deserves IMHO. Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR} homemade at spiritone.com http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html "Big Man don't drink no stinking light beer!" "Big Man drink beer what got BIG TASTE!" Big Man Brewing (R) 1996 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:50:12 -0500 From: "Myers, John" <JMyers at polkaudio.com> Subject: varied Hiya Friends. This Saturday last, I was at my local homebrew store for supplies and equipment. Working part time is the brewer for a local brewpub. I had the opportunity to ask him his opinions of some recent threads. I'll call him "Artemus" (not his real name) because I did not ask his permission to repeat his thoughts. Also, I did not wear a wire. (Take that, Mr. Starr and Ms. Tripp.) As I have yet to go all grain, I have no bias in some of the issues...I merely report, not editorialize. * RIMS or Mash Mixing? Artemus: Basically, we mix the mash. However, I recirculate during the last 30 minutes of the mash. The object is to get the clearest wort possible into the boiler, and then the clearest wort possible into the fermenter. * Single temp or step mashing? Artemus: Single step is all you need with today's highly modified malt. When it was less modified, or if you were to use a less modified malt, you'd need the temp rests. But most small brewers do single temps. Ask a German brewer, though, and he'll read you chapter and verse about why you must step mash. * Sparging: Do you stop at a certain pH, or when you've collected enough liquor? Artemus: Neither, really. I sparge until I'm at 1:020 gravity. See, brewpubs aren't going all out for that last bit of efficiency. We net about $375 for a barrel of beer. A micro brewer, though, has to sell his beer for, say $50 for a barrel, so he'll cross all the tees and dot all the eyes to get as much efficiency as possible. * Yeast: Do you culture your own, and how often do you use a new culture? Artemus: We don't have a lab. I just buy a litre of live yeast and use it for about a year. We've not noticed any "off" flavours, and I just got a new culture just because I thought I should. I use the same yeast in all our ales, typically Wyeast 1056. The yeast collects in the cone of the fermenter. The idea is to harvest the yeast in the middle of the strata. The bottom has a lot of trub, and the top has a lot of floculents, so I collect what's in the middle, put it in the available fermenter, and add new wort. I don't "wash" the yeast, I just take care to get what's in the middle. Nice chap, that Artemus. If things had been slower in the store, I think he would have chatted me up for hours. He told me he went to a brewer's school in California, and that it was very cool although quite intense: 8 hours of class followed by 5 hours of homework and projects daily. Enough to make your brain explode. His brewpub has been reviewed in several publications including Ale Street News, and the beers got good reviews. As I said, I'm presenting another's opinion on these issues, and have no bias. Also I am relying on memory here, but I think I got it right. cheers, john John Myers Polk Audio Mechanical and Industrial Design Manager The Speaker Specialists mailto:jmyers at polkaudio.com http://www.polkaudio.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:49:28 EST From: TheTHP at aol.com Subject: On politeness, critiqueing, chillers and Dunkelweizens In HBD 2618 Eric Fouch commented on his lack of knowledge on how to run a brew pub. I second that opinion and raise the point of how to politely review a new brewing establishment. Eric, If you don't what you are talking about. Don't talk about it! On Harpers. Nobody got the smoked Rye? What a brew! Darn shame. Its heads and tails above the rest. Especially that awful porter. I made my first visit just after the new year--I had the pleasure of being the first customer to quaff the smoked rye. I almost stopped in again last night after the game for some yeast, but alas the weather and time of day kept me away. If your going to publicly rag on a brew pub you'd better have at least tried all the beers. Get a sampler. For $4.50 you get six 7oz samples--My friend thats the best beer buy for the dollar of any of 30+ brew pubs I've visited in North America and thats even if you don't discount the Canadian exchange rate. I ranked Harpers beers like this. Smoked Rye - A delicate winter warmer. Smooth rye overtones and a not quite subtle hint of smoke when its cold. As it warms the smoke fades into oblivion and a more malty presence quietly makes its way to the front of the palate. An Excellent brew that will only improve with age. Stout -- Its a stout. Dark, dry, and roast. Nothing fancy here, just a good quality brew pub stout. Am Wheat-- Their biggest seller. Its wheat. Its cloudy. Its not too clove and no Banana hints at all. It is however right in the middle of the Am. Wheat category. Note: Its cloudy beer! And its selling well in a brew pub smack in the middle of Michigan State University. That says something. Amber Ale-- Its ale. Its amber. It had some hops. Uneventful Cream Ale--Or shall we say pale ale. Bland, Pale and not real "Creamy." Marketers... Mocha Java Porter--What a disaster. They should serve it in a cup and saucer. Or like English tee with a strainer to filter out the coffee grounds. Yelch! Hello, Bartender, I'd like some beer with this coffee! Way over done. Only flavor is that of coffee GROUNDS! According to brewing staff, it was made by steeping 5 10 lb bags of grounds for an amount of time. To say the least it didn't turn out they way they had intended. And they know it. On oxidation...did'nt taste any. Brew pub Operations-- If you don't understand how they work-SHUT UP!!!! and stop making stupid offers to redesign them. Within 4 feet of the base of the kettle is a large water cooled chiller. Just where and just like ever other brew pub in Michigan. The bright/serving tanks are located on the same level as the brewery/pup because there is a HUGE Dance club underneath the pub that been there for 30+ years. They couldn't go straight down and create a cold room like most brew pubs. Instead they have to pipe it across roof into glycol- chilled copper-clad serving tanks located around the restraunt. Its visually beautiful--and practically awful (PITA) not to mention expensive. But there is no place left to go. Now, I've only been there once, but I did catch them while they were brewing. I had a really good discussion with the brew master and assistants about their process, yeast strains and brewery design. And they were polite enough to warn me about the porter. I did sample ALL of his brews, ranked them by mostly empty glass and left instructions with the bartender for the brewer to see them. But beyond that, I took the time to really study the place. When I sampled the beer, I analyzed it as I proceeded slowly and carefully. The bartender was even nice enough to offer to pour our samplers one at a time. It's a nice establishment. Well, layed out and still being worked on. Please remember its new, The equipment is new, the staff is new, and yes the brewer is new too. He may look like a teenager wearing his dad's brewery shirts, but he's not. Their his, and they look old and faded because he earned them with the experience that got him to where he is today. The brew master at the newest brew pub in Michigan. I don't want to turn this into a flame war with Mr. Fouch, but I think we need to review what we learned from the last LABCO flame war. 1. A little politeness goes a long way. 2. If you don't know all the facts don't fuel the fire with incompetent speculation. 3. If you insist on making you opinions known, take the time and effort to know what your talking about. 4. Goto #1 On chillers-- I like my Helically-wound finned copper tubing chiller. Its 20 ft of 3/16 ID tubing with 1/4 inch fin wound on it with 1/8" gap. Its has twice the efficiency of standard tublar copper (80% VS. 40% Heat transfer rating). Or so the manufacturer claims. Currently I am putting together an article on chillers for my clubs newsletter. I'm also currently web-less which seriously hinders my research abilities. If any of you out there have write-ups on how to make a chiller (any and all kinds) on there web page or If your someone who just wants to be "Published" I'd love to be able to know about and or use your article in next months "Sentencing Guide". on Dunkelweizens Mark T A Nesdoly was having problems with color. If your going to take the time to do a triple decoction why not try doing one or more using a pressure cooker. I made a similar beer this fall. A Double "Pressurized" Decoction 50/50 HB wheat and briess pale ale. My target was blond bock, but i got a Dunkle Wietzen instead. I was really suprised at how much Darker the P- Decoctions made it. I think the recipe I used in the the AOB Recipator. Thanks in advance for any and all help. (Wow that was long, sorry for the bandwidth) Phil Wilcox The Poison Frog Home Brewery Sec/Tres. of the Prison City Brewers (Jackson, MI [32 miles west of Jeff Renner and 32 miles south of Harpers]) Editor of "The Sentencing Guide" Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:14:52 -0600 From: John Hessling <hessling at inlink.com> Subject: Priming for bottling. I brewed an all-grain beer about three weeks ago. It is had a 1.060 starting gravity and is finishing at about 1.012. I am considering using some of my 1.040 gravity canned wort for priming instead of the priming sugar which I have used in the past, but I haven't a clue about how I should figure out how much to use. I have read a couple of sources which just say you have to play with it. That's okay, but were do I start? Any body have some experience with this? (Either good or bad?) Thanks for your help, John Hessling, St. Louis, MO. hessling at inlink.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:14:43 -0500 From: Lynn & Mike Key <flakeys at ibm.net> Subject: Best Way to Remove Chlorine From Brew Water? How important is it to remove chlorine from brew water? Is the difference in flavor significant? What is the best way to remove the chlorine? Dave Miller says to boil or filter. Boiling will take too long and use too much propane. The carbon filter I bought at Home Depot ("attach to the sink faucet"-type) is also really slow (rated 1 gal. per minute). Is there a faster carbon filter available? How do the commercial breweries remove chlorine? Or do they? Has anyone had any luck buying filtered/treated water from local breweries? Thanks. - -- Cordially, Michael Key "Extremism in the pursuit of prudence is no vice"-- Greasy Fingers, Chicago Gangsters Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:33:12 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: oxygenating starters Andy writes: >In any case, type B yeast [fresh anaerobic, 30% glycogen, 0.1% sterols] >is what we generally have close to the end of >a fermentation. Aerating such yeast for about 2 hours prior to pitching >will reduce the glycogen to about 5% and increase sterols to about 1%. >Such yeast is in optimum form for immediate fermentation. I've read one paper where they dispute this assertion. They claim that their research showed increased levels of various fermentation byproducts (I know acetaldehyde was one) and significantly lower attenuation rates from pitching low-glycogen yeasts[1]. I do suspect, however, that they were not using this method of aeration in water prior to pitching, so maybe it counteracts the negative affects of low glycogen levels. I don't know, but I did want to bring this up anyway. I'd also like to point out, that in my case, I think that I would use submicron-filtered air due to the fact that I know that aerating with room air gives my beer a mild clovey character. Finally, I think that while we may learn a lot of things from the commercial brewers, their methods may not always be in the best interests of flavour. The research that attracts the most investment is that which results in cost savings for the brewers and not necessarily improved beer. We should keep this in mind when considering applying their methods. Most commercial brewers don't store their hops in oxygen-barrier packaging purged with inert gas... I do. Most commercial brewers use one yeast strain and only a handful use three or four... I use 20 or more. We have the benefit of doing this for fun and personal interest which means we can do some things that a commercial brewer would think wasteful (like not sparging or bubbling oxygen through a fermenter) or not physically possible (like rocking a fermenter back and forth to resuspend yeast!). I'm not saying that this is one of these examples, but rather just trying to offer the other extreme to help us keep it all in perspective. [1] Pickerell, A.T.W., A. Hwang, and B.C. Axcell, "Impact of Yeast-Handling Procedures on Beer Flavor Development During Fermentation," ASBC Journal, 49 (2), 1991, 87-92. 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: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:50:26 -0800 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: Homebrew Digest Post Mr. O'Shea, Five Star Products: I read with interest both Jim Liddil's "review" of your product and your response on the internet. You wrote that you wished Jim had conferred with you prior to his post, and that you would appreciate such collaboration with others in the future. In my opinion, Jim's and anyone else's opinions and experience with this product is much more valuable when it comes as an independent remark. Any "collaboration" would be seen, at least by me, as advertising. Most of us realize that an experiment such as Jim described is not the final word on any idea or product, and we also appreciate any additional information you can supply. But independent remarks and debates are the most valuble. - Bryan Bryan Gros gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Visit the Draught Board club website: http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:54:19 From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net> Subject: re: Practical Boundary Layers If discussions of fluid flow gives you a headache, hit PgDn... Charlie S. posted (in part): >However in a small tube like a RIMS, 2 metres per second would usually >produce turbulent flow, the diameter of flow influences the calculation. YIPES! In the typical 1.5" Cu tubing that's used for a RIMS heater chamber, that's an astounding flow of 36 GPM! No RIMS technology I know of can possibly induce such a flow. The grain bed would have to be rather radical also. Marks' Mech. Engr. Handbook (8th edition- kinda long in the tooth...) says flow is turbulent when Reynolds number >= 4000. For your 2 m/sec, I calc the Nr at 160,000! (Assumming abs. viscosity of wort is about that of 140 degF water). One important item not considered is the heating element in the tube. Neglecting it in calculating Rn is conservative tho. OTHO, Charlie's right- 2 m/sec will "usually" produce turbulent flow. <g> >The turbulence is achieved rather suddenly, it can be calculated by >esoteric math involving Prantl and Renyolds numbers, however this is >best left to thermodynamic engineers... For determining if the flow is turbulent, the principle and the math are straight-forward and easy. Heck, there's not even an exponent to be found in the equation <g>. As for the Prandtl number and it's application to boundary layer heat transfer, I strongly agree that the math is esoteric as is the principle embodied in the math! Thus concludes fluids 101... c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net Web Page: http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:29:29 -0800 From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net> Subject: False Bottom Type / Malt Modification "Sinker Test" >Subject: Commercial False Bottoms >Is there a consensus among the collective as to the best commercially >available false bottom. I've reviewed past issues and have a wealth >of information, but a recommendation from someone who has already >done the experimenting with different models would be appreciated. The best type of false bottom to use is dependent on your mashing process. How do you get it done: decoction, single infusion, RIMS, BladePlowing (tm), kettle mashing...? ********************************************************************* Testing for Malt Modification Noonan describes a very simple method for estimating malt modification. The purpose of such testing is to determine if and what type of protein rest is needed. A simple procedure to determine malt modification is to administer the "Sinker" Test: 1) Shake 50 kernels of malt into a container of water and let it sit for 10 minutes. 2) Count the number of kernels that float and the number that sank. Noonan suggests that with good malt (does he mean highly/well modified?) 95% of the kernels will float parallel to the surface of the water. At the very least 70% should float (does he mean moderately modified?). I thought this test was very practical for home use. Has anyone tried this test, and if so is it fairly accurate? Somebody please fill in the blanks... I plan on obtaining samples of various base malts and performing this test, then looking up the modification numbers in the BT market guide. I will report results if they appear useful. Kyle Druey Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:48:24 -0800 From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net> Subject: B+ Grade on the Protein Rest Quiz Thanks goes to Al K for being the first HBDer to take the protein rest quiz. Al, I gave you a 'B+' grade instead of an 'A' because you did not show some of your work and provide references :)! I have some comments and questions to your responses (only because I want to learn when the protein rest is needed): >e pretty much a waste of time better spend elsewhere. Modification >determines whether you need a protein rest, not the style. OK, I agree. Style should not determine if a protein rest is needed. The more appropriate statement might be that one should use malt from the country that exemplifies the beer style. (e.g., don't use highly modified British lager malt to make a pilsner, use a German pilsner malt) >Going back to "3" for a second, why would you do the rest at 122F and >not 131F (or 135F or 140F)? Because it is *even less modified*? Again, >I think you are somehow associating modification and rest temperature. Well, seems as if some homebrewing icons adapt the protein rest time/temperature to the degree of malt modification. Here is the most recent example: check out the protein rest Fix recommends in his new book AoBT for the following malts: 1) no protein rest, malt = 2-row ale (44 Kolbach, 1.6% FG/CG, 10% protein) 2) 15' at 122 F, malt = European pilsner (38 Kolbach, 1.7% FG/CG, 10% protein) 3) 15' at 131 F, malt = domestic 2-row (40 Kolbach, 2.2% FG/CG, 11.7% protein) Fix further explains that from his experiments there is no significant difference in reduction of chill haze proteins from a rest at 122 F versus the same rest at 131 F. So, if there is no difference in chill haze reduction at the two temps, maybe all he is doing is controlling the FAN level of the wort? Why does he distinguish between 122 F and 131 F for a protein rest? Hopefully you can make better sense of this than I can... >All modern malts will have more than enough amino acids in all-malt >worts. A rest at 122F simply increases wort amino acid levels at the I have often read this, and perhaps the more critical problem with modern malts is that they may provide too many amino acids? Comments... If this really is a problem how can the wort FAN be reduced to acceptable levels (besides using adjuncts)? >expense of body and head retention. With our modern malts, I contend >that NO recipe needs a 122F rest! If you are using an undermodified Never say never! The one exception might be mashing with wheat malt which needs the 122 F rest to generate sufficient yeast nutrients and to degrade HMWP proteins for easier lautering (see Warner's wheat beer book p. 59). The other exception is if you have poorly modified malt with a Kolbach index less than 35. >I've posted about this before and I'll say it again. Here's how I >determine whether I need to use a protein rest for a particular malt: >1. brew a batch using this malt and *don't* use a protein rest, >2. if more than 1/5 of the carboy is filled with break material >the next morning, then next time I use this malt, add 15 minutes at >135F, and >3. if there's only a small amount of break material in the carboy >the next morning, then *don't* add a protein rest next time. >Simple, no? I like the simplicity. But it assumes you are using a glass carboy, if you use a plastic bucket as a fermentor your method won't work. Perhaps for 'bucket people' like me Burley's 'Bite Test' or Noonan's 'Floater Test' could be used instead to estimate malt modification before mashing, and if or what type of protein rest is needed. I am still looking for references for the Floater Test, but I did find a reference supporting the Bite Test "possibly the best measure of malt modification is the kernel's hardess. Chewing on a kernel of poorly modified malt is much like chewing on a steel ball bearing. Properly modified malt, on the other hand, will have a soft, mealy texture caused by the breakdown of the hard protein matrix in the endosperm." (Fix, PoBS p. 103)... thought Burley would enjoy reading this :). Kyle Druey Bakersfield, CA "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -Ben Fanklin Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:45:29 -0500 From: "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu> Subject: Re: Simple Yeast Culturing Mark Nelson wrote: >In short the idea is to brew a mini-batch of unhopped beer, then bottle it with all the yeast in suspension. In other words swirl the carboy to get all the yeast suspended, then bottle and cap as normal. Each bottle becomes the equivalent of a smackpack (or better) and can be used in a starter for an upcoming batch, or probably to pitch directly into an upcoming batch. WARNING: Make very sure the beer is _fully_ fermented before trying this. A friend gave me a beer bottle with about 3/4 inch yeast cake on the bottom and some beer on top. A couple of days later it exploded, and all I can say I'm glad the kids and wife were away when it did. Cleanup time was 7 hours, and the damage it did was enough to make me realize what it would have done to human bodies had any been in its path. Safe brewing, Michael Gerholdt in WNY Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 22:32:35 -0800 (PST) From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org> Subject: ultra fast fermentation After posting a question regarding partially open fermentation, I involuntarily did one last night. I took all this "oxygenation" and "big-starter" talk seriously with the brew I did yesterday. I had the yeast cake from a California Common (Wyeast 2112) ready to be reused. After cooling the wort (partial mash, 3-gallon boil) I brought it to a gravity of 1.046 in my bottling bucket. Once it was ready, I let it run slowly out of the spigot into the sludge. This really did a great job getting the yeast cake back into solution and it seemed to really oxygenate. I had this baby bubbling at a steady pace within 20 minutes. I moved it to the garage (T=65F) and by the time I went to bed it was bubbling as fast as I've ever seen it. Unfortunately my teenage daughter had some sort of crisis this morning (not surprising) so I couldn't check on the fermenter. But when I got home this afternoon I found the the lid had been blown off (very surprising - those of you with these buckets know that that requires an enormous amount of force). It made surprisingly little mess when it blew. I transfered to a glass carboy right away. What is really strange is that the fermentation is just about done (i.e. within 24 hours): gravity at 1.012, there was little or no foam left on top of the beer. The sample from the hydrometer flask tasted real nice (no yeasty flavor). So here is what I'm wondering: (the age-old question) Is my beer ruined? I figure the chance of microbes (bacteria, yeasts, fungi,...) making its way into that bucket is pretty high. Will these cause problems or will the alcohol in the beer prevent spoilage? Heiner Lieth Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 06:57:41 -0500 From: Calvin Perilloux <peril at compuserve.com> Subject: Mit Trub? >From Dave Burley, = >I have seen "mit Trub" on the bottles and it just = means with sediment. Nevertheless it doesn't say "mit Hefe" which would be with yeast.< Odd. I can't question what you've seen in the States (I assume you are there), but all I ever saw in Germany was "mit Hefe" or "Naturtru:b" (don't forget the umlaut!), the former meaning with yeast and implying cloudy, = and the letter stating naturally cloudy but attributing = that to no particular source, though most Bavarians would have been mightily disturbed to have the = cloudiness come from anything but yeast. Living in Erding, home of Erdinger Weissbier, I had heard frequently that the strain of yeast used in the = bottles was a lager yeast (cleaner flavor, but still = throws the desired sediment when you want it). That was a quite mild Weissbier in relation to others, perhaps due to the yeast they use (or don't use). I can vouch, though, that some like Schneider had = live cultures that friends were able to use for brewing. = These were from bottles bought in Germany, where they were certainly not pasteurized, at least according = to the brewery and drink markets. (Blasphemy! Might as well drin beer from a can!) Unfortunately, I can't tell = you if the bottles destined for shipment to the States = are pasteurized or not, though a few Weissbiers I had = there over Christmas tasted quite unpasteurized to me. Guesswork and speculation follows: I would tend to = trust the smaller, local breweries in Germany to have = "real" Weissbier yeast in the bottle; I would avoid the trouble of trying to propogate from any of the bigger = breweries bottles (Paulaner, Erdinger especially, z.b). = Calvin Perilloux Bayerisches Bier -- Sta:rker als Heimweh... 'ber als 'ne besseres Job leider net, deshalb bin ich hier. Bondi Junction, Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:19:13 EST From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy at aol.com> Subject: Water Chemistry AlK asks about my comments on water chemistry: "I've only read "accentuates flavour." Could you email me or post the source that gives these descriptors?" My references for what I posted included: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wsawdon/www/water.html Pappazian, Complete Joy, p. 272 Pappazian, Home Brewer's Companion, pp. 76-68 Miller, Complete Hdbk, pp. 66-67 Foster, Pale Ale, pp. 59-60 Foster, Porter, p.75 Mosher, Brewer's Companion, pp. 164-165 ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:06:40 -0800 From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: Late Hop Additions Revisited I asked a question recently about the amounts of hops to add to a pale ale and when to add them. Well, I found a good definitive answer in the Brewing Techniques article, The Great Pale Ale Experiment. For those not aware of the article, it is about Pac NW brewers attempting to brew identical recipes to see if it was possible to reproduce another brewerys ale. All the brewers in the experiment meet, debated, and came up with a pale ale recipe. The grain bill was 74.5% pale, 15% Crystal 40, 10% Munich and .5% Chocolate, and hops were Columbus 13% aau at 60 & 30 mins (40 ibus) and 5 oz Cascade per barrel at 15 & 0 mins. My original question was if 60 gms of hops (in 13 gallons) at 20, 10, 0 minutes was too much. Well it turns out that my 60 gms of hops scaled up to a barrel actually comes out exactly to a 5 oz addition in a barrel. If 10 brewers from Oregon can collaborate and come up with such a hop bill, then in my head it must be ok. I will make the switch to 30, 15 and 0 mins for my finishing additions (although the 30 min addition they were using was apparently for bittering). BTW, My BT subscription ran out after the issue containing this article and I didn't renew it in time for the next issue. The experiment was supposed to be continued in the next issue but browsing it in the bookstore, I didn't see the article. Is it there? Thanks for the time, John (G.D.P - I think the porter I sent you will be ready to sample when you get home from Seibel...) John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program Glenside, PA rust1d at usa.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:46:39 -0500 From: Bill Giffin <billg at ctel.net> Subject: RIMS Top of the morning to ye all, Why in the world would anyone want a RIMS brewing system? When an enamelware pot will do everything that a RIMS will do only better. How do you do decoction mashs with a RIMS? How do you do a mixed mash with a RIMS? If you are doing an infusion mash why do you need to recirculate? Brits don't! I can brew a lot of beer for the cost of the pump alone, and better beer at that. Those of you who are planing to go all grain use the KISS system and stay away from RIMS, too much cost and the potential for problems without enough gain to warrant building a RIMS. Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:12:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Joseph S. Sellinger" <jss at jrock.com> Subject: [ANNOUNCE] New stuff in recipe calculator. Hello HBD, I am posting this note to announce some new functionality of my recipe calculator. The URL is http://www.jrock.com/recipe_calc I have now completed two authors IBU calculations and created a graphic for the results. The Rager and Tinseth calculations are complete. I think you might find it interesting to see in a graph the results. There is some surprizes to be found in the data. Once the see a IBU calculation graphic click on it. I have done a page to display the values that went into the calculations. You might also like that. Please take a look and add a recipe or comment about a recipe. Joe Sellinger Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:57:37 -0800 (PST) From: "Domenick Venezia (Anti-spam: email blocked)" <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: aeration First, let me say hello to all who may remember me. Life has conspired against my brewing and drinking beer for the last year, but all is well now. Thank god for gin and vodka and tequila and brandy and port and wine. It is VERY good to see the HBD healthy and going strong. Thank you to Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen for stepping up and taking the reins. Spencer wrote in #2619: > ... > SHEESH! SHUT UP OR PUT UP! > Make a batch of beer. Split it into two (or more) fermenters. Aerate > one during fermentation and don't aerate the other. > Take notes. > ... This harkens back to a thread from way back that I took to heart and tested. I did not split a batch (I wish I had) but I did use a recipe that I have brewed many times. I aerated 5 times during a 100 hour primary fermentation. The details: 9# HughBaird 2-row 1# 80L Crystal 1# flaked maize The yeast was bootlegged from a famous English brewery. OG: 1.057 (5.75 gallons) Temp: 17-19 C (63-66 F) Wort was aerated with aquarium pump, microbial filter, and ultrafine airstone. Initial aeration was 26 minutes, subsequent aerations were 5 minutes at hours 14, 24, 54, and 101. Fermentation peaked at 40 hours. The final aeration was an attempt to kickstart the fermentation after it had apparently stopped. At the time of the final aeration there was no airlock activity and subsequent to the aeration there was no airlock activity. Oops! FG: 1.019 The beer sucked! Can you say "oxidized"? Can you say "sherry"? Can you say "cloying"? The aerations did not bring the FG down anymore than previous batches with basically the same grain bill and the same yeast. I tried to salvage the brew by making almost 2 gallons of hop tea and replacing that much of the brew. What did I learn? The aeration did not seem to increase the vigor of fermentation any more than simple non-aerating "rousing". So, aerate the heck out of it at pitching time, and perhaps during the fermentation, but do NOT aerate after the fermentation has peaked. What do I do now? Aerate the heck out of it at pitching time only. Domenick Venezia demonick at zgi.antispam.com (remove .antispam) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:14:02 -0700 From: RooJahMon <RooJahMon at Brew-Meister.com> Subject: More Propane and Propane accesories... AN UPDATE on the LP bottle exchange, I exchanged my old style bottle for a new one at the local Conoco gas station this weekend. The attendant just gave me a key, you open the cage and trade yours for a full one. There were both types of valves in there, just pick your poison. The biggest DRAWBACK is I paid $16 for $10 worth of propane, but now I'll just refill my "new" bottle. Jeremy Bergsman had a question; Here's a bunchocrap about LP and NG. The air to gas ratios are quite different, so watch that too. The conversion you seek is at the bottom, but I've never done it myself, YMMV. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PROPANE, BUTANE AND METHANE(natural gas). PROPANE(LP) BUTANE Natural Gas(Methane) Chemical formula C3H8 C4H10 CH4 Specific Gravity (lqd) .509 .582 .3 Specific Gravity (gas) 1.52 2.01 .64 Weight Per Gallon 4.24 lb 4.84 lb N/A Boiling Point -44F 31F -260F Ignition Temp 920-1200F 900-1000F 1150F Maximum Flame Temp 3595F 3615F 3400F Flammability Limit-Upr 9.6% 8.6% 14% Flammability Limit-Lwr 2.15% 1.55% 4% Ideal Combustion Ratio (Air to Gas) 24:1 31:1 10:1 Heat Value per cubic foot 2,516 BTU 3,280 BTU 1,000 BTU per pound-liquid 21,591 BTU 21,221 btu N/A per gallon-liquid 91,547 BTU 102,032 BTU N/A Cubic Ft Per Gal 36.4 ft3 31.1 ft3 N/A Cubic Ft Per Lb 8.6 ft3 6.5 ft3 N/A PROPANE VAPOR PRESSURES; 0 deg F 30psig 70 deg F 132psig 100 deg F 205psig PROPANE OCTANE NUMBER, 125 PROPANE/METHANE JET CONVERSION CHART: OK, changed my mind, I'm not going to type out the entire NG/LP jet conversion chart, but you can use the following example; To run a Methane (NG) burner with a #60 (.040) jet on Propane (LP) it would require a #72 (.025) jet. The approximate ratio is the Natural Gas jet is 1.6 times bigger than the Propane (LP jet*1.6 = NG jet or LP jet/1.6 = NG jet) Just thought you might want to know. If you use electric heat, just so you won't feel left out, 1KW = 3413BTU. Unless Otherwise Specified, RHG Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:31:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com> Subject: Re: Fast starts In an attempt to make it easier to make a fast starter, I did the following for Brewday (Sunday). Friday 1. Take 5 Tbs DME and 2 cups water, boil and cool. 2. Pour into a 2 liter pop bottle 3. Add tube of lager yeast and shake vigorously 4. Store at about 68 F. Sunday 1. 8:00am take 3 Tbs DME and 1 cups water, boil and cool. 2. Pour into the 2 liter pop bottle with yeast. 3. Shake vigorously. 4. 12:00pm add to the cooled wort in the carboy. First signs of activity was two hours later, 12 hours later at 57 F, it had a nice layer of foam on top. The total time I had to attend either day was about 10 minutes and the yeast seamed to be very happy. P.S. I started heating the water for the mash at about 6:30am, by 12:30pm I was out in the yard sledding with the kids. On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Charles L. Ehlers wrote: > <<From: "Andrew Avis" <Andrew.Avis.0519423 at nt.com>>> > > <<I use a yeast starter method that is unorthodox and in theory should lead > to bad beer, but has in practice made excellent beers that start in 2-4 > hours. I've done this with both lager and ale yeast: > 1) I make a 1 litre starter w/ OG 1.040, well aerated, & pitch the smack > pack or washed yeast from a previous batch. The starter is kept at about > 70F. I do this 2-3 days before brewing. (I'll step up once if brewing a > strong beer). > 2) I pitch the entire starter at high karausen into well aerated 85F > wort.......>> > > This is essentially the same technique I've used since I began using > liquid yeast and have always had excellent results with both ales and > lagers. However, my wort has usually cooled lower than 85F, but usually > not lower than 75F. Have always wondered why others have complained about > slow starts. > _________________________________________________________ Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company - --------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:36:25 -0600 From: "Paul A. Baker" <pbaker at facstaff.wisc.edu> Subject: a hell of a technical problem Fellow brewers: I recently tried to make E-mail contact with a relative. My attempt failed. Here's the unedited error message I received from the server: Unable to deliver the message due to a communications failure MSEXCH:IMS:KYGOVTMAIL:DISCH:DISCHEXCH1 0 (001202AA) Too Many Hops I should have known. . . Paul Baker Wisconsin Center for Education Research (608) 263-8814 http://www.wcer.wisc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:39:07 -0800 From: Dave Sapsis <DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov> Subject: nip bottles Tom Puskar inquires about a source for the small "nip" bottles so nice for packaging barleywines. However, in doing so, he unfortunately violated the 11th commandment, also known as Renner's Rule: Its easier to tell you where something might be available to you if we know where you are at, nicht var? That said, California Glass Co. (Cal-Glass) makes a very nice 7 point something ounce nip, in very dark green glass, complete with punt (the cone on the bottom as found on Champagne bottles). They are located in Oakland, but have (or at least had as of a couple years ago) a 50 buck minimum order. Given that the bloody things are kinda pricey though, this isnt actually that many bottles (as i remember they went for around $10/case!). One retailer that carries them that I know of is Oak Barrel in Berkeley (oakbar1 at aol.com). No affiliation, other than a friend and occasional customer when I can't get my stuff on the free. - --dave sapsis, in lovely Sacramento (some folks say), or 12,047 km NE of Sir Andrew of Sydney "Man, you ask too many questions" -- Latrell Sprewell, to NBA inquirey Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/29/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96