HOMEBREW Digest #2758 Sat 04 July 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

  Re: Lager yeast/grist%/CO2 scrubbing/low-temp rests ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Snapple bottles (TPuskar)
  Crystal Malt & Unfermentables (Ken Schwartz)
  re: What kind of capper is best? (randy.pressley)
  Wine Equipment / Bottle Capper / Newbie Fears (Marc.Arseneau)
  OK Jeff, I'll join a discussion about crystal malts (George_De_Piro)
  repitching wee beasties ("Jay Spies")
  RE: Bottle cappers (Robert Arguello)
  Re: picking nits; Flying Dog's Old Scratch ("Tidmarsh Major")
  Proposed Caramelization Experiment (Paul Ward)
  Fermentables from Crystal ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  dough in ("Mike Allred")
  Barleywine aging / New hops (Matthew Arnold)
  Re: crystal malt: call for discussion ("Brian Wurst")
  Re: Kraut/Lactobacillus ("George P. Lohmann")
  siRIMS (greg_young)
  re. brass vs stainless steel (John Palmer)
  salt (MicahM1269)
  Oud Bruin ("David Johnson")
  Which Kind of Capper is Best ("Michael O. Hanson")
  More about "medical gases" (Bob.Sutton)
  RE: crystal malt: call for discussion ("Mort O'Sullivan")

Have you entered a MCAB qualifier yet? 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 hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... 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: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 06:46:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com> Subject: Re: Lager yeast/grist%/CO2 scrubbing/low-temp rests On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Al Korzonas wrote: > Arnold writes: > >On page 287 of the "Encylopedia of Beer", it says under "Lager" (talking > >about ale yeast), "If the temperature of the ferment drops much lower > >(than 58F), the yeast goes into a state of hibernation, building a cyst > >around itself in a process called sporulation" > > AJ replied to this, but his response was far too polite and his point > (that this is incorrect) may have been lost amidst his politeness. AJ > took the tack of pointing out the difficulty in causing yeast to sporulate > rather than pointing out the fact that many lager yeasts perform best at > 50F (well below the 58F noted above) and traditionally lagering is done > at 33 to 40F, which would not work if the Encyclopedia of Beer was right. > You need live yeast for lagering to work! Sorry, my fault for not being more precise. The phrase was found under "Lager" but was talking about "ALE" yeast, it went on further to say that this does not happen with the "lager" strains. _________________________________________________________ Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company - --------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:59:50 EDT From: TPuskar at aol.com Subject: Snapple bottles My wife and adult kids don't drink my homebrew (or any beer) that much (Where did I go wrong???) but seem to consume mass quantities of Snapple Iced tea. Rather than lug all those bottles to the recycling place I was wondering if I could use them for my brew. Clear glass not withstanding, does anybody know if they would hold the pressure of carbonation? Are the lids reusable? How about for soda? I make them root beer once in a while and wondered if I could reuse the Snapple bottles for that. All comments would be welcome. Cheers to all, Tom Puskar Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 06:08:54 -0600 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: Crystal Malt & Unfermentables Jeff Renner raises questions about crystal malt production -- do they really contribute "unfermantables"?: >It seems to me that there is nothing inherent about this procedure that >should produce more unfermentables than a standard mash. If a temperature >regime is used in stewing that would result in higher unfermentables in a >conventional mash, the result should be the same. Obviously a maltster would have more control over the stewing process than those of us making crystal at home; I know I have had batches turn out distinctly differently with regard to perceptable sweetness, which I attribute to temperature. But in any case, Jeff's point is that even if you (or a maltster) made crystal with a high percentage of dextrinous sugars, wouldn't they be broken down in a mash just like any other existing starch or dextrin? Mash regimes that emphasize beta amylase activity should act to degrade crystal malt unfermentables, so you point is well-taken. This may give some credence after all to the practice of adding crystal malt at the end of the mash (long enough to be incorporated into the wort yet not so long as to experience enzymatic degradation, especially since your enzymes are pretty much toast at this point). Better extraction could possibly be obtained by separately steeping the crystal (use the same water ratio as a typical mash) and adding the grist at mashout (or even run off separately into the kettle?). Is it possible that the reported benefits of late addition of roasted malts may be somehow due to less processing of those grains by the mash enzymes? ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX kenbob at elp.rr.com http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 8:31:03 -0500 From: randy.pressley at SLKP.COM Subject: re: What kind of capper is best? > Has anyone else had bad experiences with these type of cappers? I am > thinking of getting a bench capper. Is there less of a chance of > breaking bottles with a bench capper since nothing wraps around the > top of the bottle? > Thanks for the info, Shannon I have also broken my share of bottles with the old lever hand capper. I purchased a bench capper for $25 and not only have I not broken any more bottles the capping process is much faster. The only pain is when you use different height bottles then you have to readjust the capper. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 05:29:40 -0400 From: Marc.Arseneau at fluordaniel.com Subject: Wine Equipment / Bottle Capper / Newbie Fears Tom Clark <rtclark at eurekanet.com> wrote: ... > Is there significant risk in using my beer making equipment to make > wine? Will it still be OK for making beer? My personal opinion is to keep winemaking and beermaking equipment separate. But if the budget is tight and you don't want to acquire any additional equipment, then as a last resort I would consider allowing any glass equipment (carboys, hydrometers) to be used for both, but buying a second set of any plastic equipment (racking hose and cane, bucket), only because I find glass is easier to clean (try smelling the inside of your racking hose sometime!) ================================================================ Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:38:26 -0400 (EDT) Shannon Miller <Shannon_Miller at transarc.com> wrote: > While capping my 2nd batch of beer last night I broke 3 bottles. I use a two-handled capper regularly, and the only bottles I ever break are the twist-off type (the glass is very thin around the mouth of the bottle). I have spent a great deal of time and effort accumulating a stockpile of thick-lip bottles that don't twist off (McEwans is a good example), and I have never broken one of them. And I also have several dozen "Grolsch" bottles with the ceramic swing lid. None of them have ever broken from capping yet, either. :) (although I did hear of someone who alsmost broke a 750 ml bottle with a capper. Seems he was corking his wine, and was using a beer capper by accident. The amazing thing is that he actually CORKED TWO BOTTLES!) ========================================================= And as a fairly new poster to HBD, I would say that for a long while, I was intimidated by the digest, with it's 7-page discussions on SRM calculations, the microbiology of yeast growth, and many other topics that I can't even pronounce. But, buried within all that information, lies the answers to several questions that have been nagging me for some time. And the petty bickering is rather amusing as well! Just like a regular family! (D'Oh!) ========================================================= Thanks to all the responses regarding labelling beer And thanks to Michel J. Brown for the info on Belgian Strong Ales! Now, a question. I use an aluminum pot for my boil. I have heard rumors and whispers that this is BAD. Oh someone, please tell me why. Marc Arseneau Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:06:57 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: OK Jeff, I'll join a discussion about crystal malts Hi all, Jeff Renner suggests something radical: a discussion about crystal malts to replace some of the less interesting threads that have been winding their way through our beloved digest as of late. Good idea! First, a minor correction to Jeff's post. He said that Munich malt is kilned at 122F (50C), but not brought into the amylase range. This is half right. It is brought up into the amylase range for saccharification during kilning (~149F, 65C). One major production difference between Munich malt and crystal malt is the *moisture content* during the different stages of kilning. Crystal malts are at 40-45% moisture when kilned at amylase temperatures (and beyond) while Munich malt is at about half that. This makes for less efficient saccharification in the Munich malt but helps preserve its enzymes. After saccharification Munich malt is dropped to 50C (122F) and the vents are opened in the kiln, allowing the malt to dry before it is roasted at higher temps (~220F, 104C; more or less depending on desired malt color). In this way it retains some enzymatic activity and does not become glassy. Crystal malt, on the other hand, is brought up to high temperature while the vents are still closed (therefore the malt is quite wet). This promotes greater melanoidin formation than in Munich malt, and causes the endosperm to become glassy. The vents are opened after a time at the high roasting temperature (the exact temperature is dependent on the color of malt being produced). The malt then dries. If the moisture is driven from the malt too soon, the malt will look shriveled, and some extract may be lost (you get a sticky puddle that caramelizes on the bottom of the kiln; still not quite sure why this happens). Commercial maltsters get around this by allowing the malt to "pop" (like popcorn, but not as dramatically) before driving off all the moisture. This is a trick I will try the next time I make crystal malt. The first time I did it I got shriveled grains and a sticky mess. It tastes OK, but doesn't look so nice. As to the fermentability of the sugars in crystal malts: I've been trying to figure this one out, too. I don't believe that they are any more or less fermentable than other sugars. Your mashing regime will break them down and that will determine the fermentability of the wort. Somebody more knowledgeable should feel free to jump in here, though. The major difference is that crystal malt is rich with melanoidins. This definitely effects the flavor and aroma of the beer thus produced. The rich, caramel character will add to the perception of sweetness and mouthfeel, regardless of how attenuated the beer is. Last summer I tried a courageous experiment in which I cooked some wort (from a stout) and turbinado sugar up to soft ball stage (or was it hard ball? ~250F, 121C) and dumped it into the kettle. The goal was to determine if caramel is fermentable. The resulting beer was less than good. There were some pretty major fermentation problems, and I don't know for sure what caused them. Maybe it was the caramel, maybe not. Je ne sais pas. In any case, the results were inconclusive. As a quick footnote, the kilning schedules for ALL the different malts in Kunze's _Technology Brewing and Malting_ utilize a rest at 122F (50C) while the malt is still fairly moist. This further supports my preaching that protein rests are unnecessary in modern malts. Not only is the acrospire allowed to grow to almost the length of the kernel, but they then rest the green malt right in the middle of the proteolytic temperature range. It is indeed well modified (yes, even the pils malts). Of course, each maltster may do what they wish, but if they are teaching aspiring young maltsters this stuff, what do you think they are doing in practice? Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:06:13 +0000 From: "Jay Spies" <spiesjl at mda.state.md.us> Subject: repitching wee beasties All - Firstly, thanks to the collective for the many responses on the ammonia smell from my starter. The culprit seems to be the yeast nutrient, which has since become plant food. Having brewed the belated Big 10, I have one additional question for the masses . . . The recent thread on whether or not a yeast cake population that has fermented a high-gravity wort can be reused has piqued my curiosity. I'd ideally like to make another batch of the b-wine, and was considering the possibility of using the present Edme yeast cake (it's now almost 2" thick). Are these yeasties indeed "toast"? Can I reuse them for a second 1.1-something b-wine? I know that dry yeast is cheap as hell, but I'd be interested to know what people think on the subject . . . TIA, as usual !!! Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com> Subject: RE: Bottle cappers Shannon Miller wrote about breaking bottles with a wing capper and asked about bench cappers: I used a wing style capper for awhile when I first started brewing. While it was fine for me as a beginner, one of the best purchases I have made was the purchase of my "Super Agata" bench mounted capper. The Agata adjusts automatically to virtually any size bottle, ( I have capped everything from 7 oz nips to champaign bottles with it), will cap even those bottles that don't have a lower lip and have never broken a bottle in the process of capping. At only $25.00, it is definitely money well spent. "All In A Day's Wort" Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com> CORNY KEGS FOR SALE! $12.00 each http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/keg.htm ProMash Brewers' Software - http://www/calweb.com/~robertac/promash Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:35:32 +0000 From: "Tidmarsh Major" <tidmarsh at pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: picking nits; Flying Dog's Old Scratch AlK responds to Arnold's post about yeast sporulation: > >On page 287 of the "Encyclopedia of Beer", it says under "Lager" (talking > >about ale yeast), "If the temperature of the ferment drops much lower ^^^^^^^ > You need live yeast for lagering to work! Just to keep you honest, Al, the Encyclopedia of beer seems to be talking about ale yeast, rather than lager yeast. I'm no expert on yeast behavior, so I don't know whether ale yeast sporulate, but the section cited does seem to exclude lager yeasts, which as you point out do work quite well at low temps. ############ While I'm on the line, I've recently picked up some of Flying Dog's Old Scratch lager, which has a wonderful malty aroma and flavor. Does anyone know anything about the malts used? This is my wife's new favorite beer, and we all know how much brewing for the S.O. keeps everyone happy. I've called the 800 number on the bottle, and the woman who answered said she'd forward my query to the brewer and took my number; I'll report back if I hear anything and if anyone's interested. (She also highly recommended their pale ale, but since it isn't available here in Alabama, I guess I'll have to wait for another trip out of town to try it) Cheers, Tidmarsh Major tidmarsh at mindspring.com Birmingham, Alabama Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:56:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Ward <paulw at doc.state.vt.us> Subject: Proposed Caramelization Experiment Mr. Jeff Renner's post in yesterday's HBD touched upon something I have questioned in the past, and may also impact on other recent discussions. Jeff said: >Brewers > >The fact that crystal malt can be used to add unfermentables is accepted by >us as a given, I think, but I thought it might be worth looking at and not >accepting blindly. It could turn out to be a momily. This may be >especially true for homemade crystal. > ....<snip >............................................................... And, of >course, the caramelization of most crystal malts' sugars adds an important >flavor component not easily (or at all?) achieved otherwise. Perhaps it is >these caramelized sugars that are less fermentable than they would be >uncaramelized? I don't think so, but I'm trying to think of all of the >angles. I have read repeatedly that table sugar is table sugar, that it's fully fermentable, and that your not going to change that. I question this premise. I think that caramelization MAY alter the fermentability of sugar. I first questioned this after heavily caramelizing (by accident) some priming sugar and getting a noticeably lower amount of carbonation. I couldn't be sure if the difference was due to caramelization though due to batch to batch inconsistencies. I know nothing about chemistry, but I know that something is happening during caramelization. People have recently asked why Belgium (Belgian?) candi sucre comes in different colors and imparts different tastes (and someone recently discussed possible increased head retention) as opposed to using regular table sugar. Decoctions are another example of where caramelization affects outcome. Whatever conversions are happening during the caramelization process result in (strictly supposition here) sugar components which are no longer as fermentable by our pet yeasts. Caramelization oviously darkens the sugar, and imparts taste (flavinoids?). Do these changes leave a residual unfermentable sweetness? Do they significantly affect the potential attentuation along a linear track as the caramelization darkens? I don't know. But I think so. If somebody had several of those pyrex lab flasks, it seems that it would be easy and cheap to run a set of experiments. 4 flasks (beakers?) 1/4 cup of table sugar mixed with a cup of water in each of them. Boil 3 of them for different lengths of time to achieve different degrees of darkening, keeping the 4th as a standard (boil just long enough to sterilize). Cool, measure the specific gravities, aerate, and pitch 1/4 teaspoon of rehydrated cheap yeast starter slurry in each flask and ferment to completion. Measure the specific gravities. I'd wager that as the sugar solution gets darker, the specific gravity gets higher. Not sure about residual sweetness though, you'ld have to taste for that. Is the proposed experiment flawed? Was it already done a hundred years ago by Pasteur or someone? Anybody close by got some flasks they want to loan out? I'd do the experiment myself if I had the equipment. Paul in Vermont paulw at doc.state.vt.us - -- According to government height/weight charts, I'm seven and a half feet tall. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:58:24 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: Fermentables from Crystal In #2756 Jeff Renner discusses the question of whether there are unfermentables available from crystal malt (caramalt, caramel, colored...etc). In talking to several professional brewer's in town about this I came to the conclusion, "It depends." The fermentability of crystal malts will be determined by the maltster, different crystals from different malsters will have varying levels of dextrine content and fermentabilty. The consensus was that crystal malt is not added for unfermentables, it is added for color and flavor. In an all-grain beer the mouthfeel and residual sugars will be determined by the temperature profile of the mash. The common usage of steeping crystal for addition to an extract beer undoubtedly will add some varying amounts of dextrines and unfermentables to a beer otherwise lacking in these components. The method of steeping is quite far from mashing in that no enzymes will work on the sugars released by the steeping so there is a gain to be gotten from simple steeping of crystal. I have handled some German crystal that was obviously meant to be decocted, it was quite mealy with steely tips, this particular crystal did not do so well in steeping, it released considerable amounts of unconverted starch and added to starch haze and instability of the finished beer. So I repeat myself as to whether or not crystal adds unfermentables to a beer, it just depends on the malting process and how you use it. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 08:50:00 -0700 From: "Mike Allred" <mike.allred at malnove.com> Subject: dough in >Ronald La Borde wrote >First, I put the hot water into the Igloo, cover it up and wait 5 >minutes or more for the temperature to stabilize. If it's too hot, I >stir or put in a little more cool water, then set the amount at 1 quart >per pound of grain. The Igloo is marked on the inside for water levels >in gallons, so this makes it real easy to get the volume right. After >everything has stabilized, I stir in the grain. Ok, I have often wondered about this. It seems a lot easier then the traditional method for dough-in. But wouldn't this method tend to denature the enzymes quicker then the traditional 'grain first' method? I would imagine that instead of the temperature of the grain slowly increasing as you add water, that the temperature would slowly decrease as grain was added. Am I off base on this? If there is no effect, Ron's method would be much easier (on the arms that is). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>this does put a small homebrewer at a disadvantage compared to >>>someone with analytical lab equipment and professional experience. >> >> I'm curious...Why would I be at such a disadvantage, just because >> I'm only 5'5" and 115 lbs.? >Makes it harder to lift heavy bags of grain, and threaten judges. Small brewers don't have to threaten judges, our beer is better :) Mike Allred 5' 5" and 140 lbs. - brewing the best damn beer in Syracuse Utah Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 15:22:56 GMT From: marnold at netnet.net (Matthew Arnold) Subject: Barleywine aging / New hops Greetings, HBDers! I have a barleywine that I brewed on May 26. The O.G. was 1.095 (about .005 lower than I wanted, but that's another story). I reused the dregs from a previous batch (Danstar Nottingham) and it promptly (and violently) fermented down to 1.028 after one week. At that point, I racked it to a corny keg along with an ounce of EKG whole hops. There it has sat for a month (70F basement). My questions are these: 1) I know that a "decent amount" of yeast (more than I usually take over to the secondary) made it over to the corny keg. Should I rack it again to avoid yeasty off-flavors? 2) If I do rack it again, is the dry hopping that I did all going to be for naught by time I drink it? I tasted it at racking time and it was _very_ nice. I could have just tapped it right then and there. I'm going to have a very difficult time just letting this one sit for (at least) two more months. - ----- I planted three Kent Goldings rhizomes this spring. When the first came up, it had a nice little bine, about an inch long. Apparently, a local rabbit found it to be a tasty treat too and left only a leaf. This was about three weeks ago and I haven't seen any new activity from this one. Is my rhizome ruined? Now all three are surrounded by a protective ring of chicken wire. Now if I can only find a way to electrify it . . . (or maybe tiny land mines?) Matt (trying to set a record for most parenthetical statements in a single HBD post) - ----- Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club http://www.rackers.org info at rackers.org Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:50:41 -0500 From: "Brian Wurst" <brian at mail.netwave.net> Subject: Re: crystal malt: call for discussion Jeff Renner challenges us with: - -------------- The fact that crystal malt can be used to add unfermentables is accepted by us as a given, I think, but I thought it might be worth looking at and not accepting blindly. It could turn out to be a momily. - ------------- Here is my experience, do with it what you wish: I have brewed extensively (N=104) using DWC CaraPils, CaraVienne, CaraMunich and Aromatic (is this a "crystal" malt?), varying the total percentages of these malts in the grist from 6% to 33%. Since a great number of these mashes (N=70+) were performed via single infusion at the same temperature on the same system and fermented with the same yeast, I think I am able to draw a reasonable conclusion as to the contribution of these crystal malts to the FG of the beer: It isn't much, if at all. I believe mash temps are way more influential on the FG of a beer than the percentage of crystal malts in the grist. However, checking back to my extract/spec grain brewing days when I used Northwestern Gold extract exclusively and just steeped the grains (N=90+), it seems the crystal malts added much more to the FG versus the same percentages in a mashed brew. This information implies that mashing crystal malts may actually convert some/part of their carmelized sugars to fermentables, thus reducing the contribution of these grains to the FG. Caveats: YMMV. My results are useless to you if you live in a different zip code. I wear no plaid while brewing. I am not a BJCP judge nor do I knowingly subject my beers to BJCP-certified palates. (c) Copyright HBD 1998 Happy Trails! Brian Wurst brian at netwave.net Lombard, Illinois "Nature has formed you, desire has trained you, fortune has preserved you for this insanity." -Cicero Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 11:33:38 -0400 From: "George P. Lohmann" <glohmann at whoi.edu> Subject: Re: Kraut/Lactobacillus Steve Alexander broadened our understanding of natural fermentation processes with his excellent description of sauerkraut. He then recommends: >As for sanitation and health issues and of course botulism(highly >unlikely!) - simmer your kraut before consuming. There is no better >protection for a wide variety of potential ills than simmering the >product. Is simmering really necessary? Is fermenting kraut really any more risky than fermenting beer, wine or yogurt? One of the appeals of homebrew (beer or kraut) is that its fresh and unpasteurized. >Now my question - since nothing goes better with a hoppy ale on a hot >summer day than Kim Chee (think chunky sauerkraut with tons of garlic >and cheyenne)does anyone have a 'recipe' for this over-the-top Korean >fermented vegetablefood ? The best I've found are in: "Kimchi, A Natural Health Food" by F C Lee and H C Lee (Hollym International Corp., 18 Donald Place, Elizabeth NJ 07208). Reminiscent of some recipes for cock ale and scrumpy cider (which call for roosters as an adjunct), these traditional kimchi recipes include oysters, shrimp and corvina in their "grain bill" and are fermented right along with the cabbage. And some people worry about pathogens in beer. Sanitation must be the key. Another fermented product that's good (once you acquire the taste) with a cool lager is surstromming...fermented herring. I'm not sure what's responsible for the fermentation, but its spontaneous. Essentially the same recipe as for sauerkraut. Pat Lohmann Woods Hole MA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:37:48 -0400 From: greg_young at saunderscollege.com Subject: siRIMS Howdy, gang. I've finally launched my official RIMS web page, so if you get a chance go ahead and take a gander at http://home.earthlink.net/~gregyoung1/rims1.htm Of course, I'm open to any questions or comments on the system. Cheers, Greg Young Philly, PA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:10:05 -0700 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at gte.net> Subject: re. brass vs stainless steel Jim asked: >my current 3 vessel(converted keg) system utilizes all stainless steel inside the kettles, but I do have a few valves and fittings on the outside that are still brass. Besides the obvious reason of cost and that brass is a softer metal than SS, what are the pros and cons of using brass vs SS? Brass is a good metal for brewing valves and such. It is not as corrosion resistant as stainless, and under prolonged contact can suffer from de-zincification, but I have continued to use it in my 3 keg brewery with no regrets. (Well, an all-adamantium brewery would be nice.) Just don't clean it with bleach, and it will last a long time. John Palmer The following is an article I wrote for BT on brewery corrosion http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/brewcorr.txt/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:48:45 EDT From: MicahM1269 at aol.com Subject: salt Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:45:41 -0400 From: Paul Mahoney <pmmaho at roanoke.infi.net> Subject: salt > So how many of us add a pinch or one teaspoon of table salt to our wort? >Will salt speed up our processes? Who does it, and does it improve your beer? >Do you recommend it? I have been adding salt to the boils of my stouts, dunkles, and brown ales, as well as a few barleywines, for as long as I have been brewing. I assume that thiis is a common practice for most home brewers. I am not aware of its impact on head retention, but it certainly effects the finish of the beer. The perception of fullness is added to the beer. I say try it, you'll like it. micah millspaw - brewer at large Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:21:51 -0500 From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj at inwave.com> Subject: Oud Bruin Brewers, After my post on using my cherries in a brew, it was suggested that I make an Oud Bruin (sp?). I am looking for help in formulating a recipe. I have consulted Cat's Meow and Gambrinus' Mug. I also consulted Pierre Rajot's book and Phil Seitz' Brewing Belgian Beers. There seems to be some variation in recommendations. For example, use of crystal Malt ranges from 1/4 lb to a full pound (sorry for the anachronistic units but they are comfortable). Yeast recommendations are all over and include recomendations for pedicoccus and Brett cultures. What about contaminating my equipment with this stuff. Some include the red ales as a subset. Oak is also a consideration. Seems pretty complicated! Do the Rodenbach beers fall in here? Alexander seems pretty wonderful. Private email is OK. If you think there might be enough interest post publicly. Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 15:06:45 -0700 From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson at winternet.com> Subject: Which Kind of Capper is Best I've used a bench capper for about six months and had no problems. I wouldn't go back to a capper with two handles now. The extra expense is worth it to me. I've broken some bottles with a two-handled capper. In my experience, this happened with bottles I used more than once and originally got from a liquor store. I've broken no bottles with a bench capper. Two-handled cappers can put pressure on bottlenecks. Bench cappers don't. A bench capper can be used for capping American sparkling wine bottles if you ever decide to make wine, mead, or fermented apple cider. I hope this helps, Mike Hanson Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:55:59 -0400 From: Bob.Sutton at fluordaniel.com Subject: More about "medical gases" If you want to know more about "medical gases" go here: http://www.fda.gov/cder/compliance/fresh98.htm or http://www.fda.gov/cder/compliance/fresh98.pdf You might be interested to know that according to Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Section 201(g), Definitions, that scuba diving tanks hold compressed breathing air, which is not a medical gas, but is, along with fittings and the regulator, regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Empty tanks are regulated by the Department of Transportation which addresses cylinder specifications and hydrostatic testing. May the scuba folks can comment on the presence of fungicides ;) Someone (sorry, I forgot who - darned aluminum boil pot) attributed the difference in medical and welding grades to the cylinder. This is true in part. Per FDA: "Industrial cylinders are widely distributed throughout all types of industry, and are routinely exposed to hazardous substances, some of which are extremely toxic, i.e., hydrocarbons, arsenic compounds, chlorine, etc. Therefore, it would be nearly impossible to determine what a specific cylinder had been exposed to and to analyze for that specific contaminant. On the other hand, medical gas cylinders are prepared under carefully controlled conditions to ensure that the drug product meets the requirements of both FDA and the U.S.P., and are not exposed to contamination from industrial sources. Each high pressure cylinder undergoes rigorous pre-qualifying inspections and examinations with one of the most significant being the vacuum evacuation step, prior to filling a product." Re: Medical grade Oxygen purity: The U.S.P. oxygen monograph lists the potency as being not less than 99.0% by volume of O2. It also states that oxygen produced by the air liquefaction process is exempt from the requirements of the test for Carbon dioxide and Carbon monoxide. Note: If a firm fills Oxygen U.S.P. and fails to have a certificate of analysis on file documenting that the oxygen is produced by the air liquefaction process, then a firm is required to perform the identity, strength, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide tests, not just an identity and strength test. The official method which is commonly referred to as the "ORSAT" buret method utilizes a calibrated 100 ml buret, copper wire, and ammonium chloride and ammonium hydroxide solutions which are mixed together and equilibrated by agitation with the copper wire. A 100.0 ml sample of the gas is drawn into the buret and agitated, the residual gas is then measured. In addition, a specific identity test is required to be performed at the same time, since carbon dioxide is capable of giving a similar test result. This is usually accomplished by using either a carbon dioxide detector tube or a properly calibrated handheld oxygen analyzer. The accuracy of the U.S.P. procedure is +0.1%. All for now... Bob (from Sawth Caroliner) Fruit Fly Brewhaus Yesterdays' Technology Today Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 22:12:04 +0100 From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com> Subject: RE: crystal malt: call for discussion Jeff Renner calls for a discussion on crystal malt, primarily questioning whether it is really true that the sugars from crystal malt are less fermentable than those from standard malts. >It seems to me that there is nothing inherent about this procedure that >should produce more unfermentables than a standard mash. If a temperature >regime is used in stewing that would result in higher unfermentables in a >conventional mash, the result should be the same. > >Now it may be that the stewing is indeed done at such temperatures >routinely, resulting in high unfermentables. I think that maltsters have >researched the results of temperature regimes, both regarding sugar >profiles and protein profiles, and control these precisely. And, of >course, the caramelization of most crystal malts' sugars adds an important >flavor component not easily (or at all?) achieved otherwise. Perhaps it is >these caramelized sugars that are less fermentable than they would be >uncaramelized? I don't think so, but I'm trying to think of all of the >angles. These are very good questions. The starting point for creating crystal malt is usually well modified green malt at >43% moisture and the initial air on temperature is usually 65-70*C. Holding at this saccharification temperature is often compared to mashing within the kernel, but some important differences should be kept in mind. First, at about 43% moisture, the liquor:grist ratio is much lower than in a normal mash; and second, the "grist" is never milled but simply consists of starch-and-protein-containing endosperm cells whose walls have been degraded during germination by endoproteases and beta glucanases. These conditions limit the amylase enzymes' access to substrate compared to normal mashing conditions. There are still plenty of reducing sugars released to react with the primary amines in Maillard reactions to form the reductones, furans, pyrroles, pyrazines and countless intermediates that provide the characteristic flavors and colors to crystal and caramel malts. Once caramelized, these sugars are no longer sugars, and so are not fermentable by yeast. However, only a small percentage of the sugars actually undergo Maillard reactions and so presumably there are plenty of other sugars, dextrins, and partially degraded starch molecules remaining that would eventually contribute to fermentability, especially after they are mashed in the presence of the "healthy" enzymes from the normal malt that makes up the majority of your grist. But this is not the case. Why? Starch molecules in barley are approximately 25% amylose, and 75% amylopectin. Due to the limited enzyme mobility described above, the amylopectin is preferentially broken down because the complexity of the molecules "entraps" enzymes in microchannels on the surface of the amylopectin molecules. The much longer, straight-chain amylose molecules are solubilized, but survive the process relatively unscathed. During the later, high temperature stages of kilning and subsequent cooling, these solubilized amylose molecules tend to recrystallize in a process called retrogradation. For reasons not entirely understood, these recrystallized amylose molecules are very resistant to enzymic hydrolysis and so will not yield fermentable sugars. It has also been noted by many researchers that regardless of the type of malt being produced, there is an inverse relationship between the time spent at high temperature in kilning and the fermentability of a malt. As crystal and caramel malts can spend quite a long time at temperatures as high as 150*C, it makes sense that their fermentability may be severely reduced. Hope this helps. Mort O'Sullivan Edinburgh, Scotland Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 07/04/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96