HOMEBREW Digest #2788 Wed 05 August 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

  coiled hose; carboy handles; pitch rates; boiled yeast (Samuel Mize)
  Starters (Tony McGlinn)
  The long ferment (Wyeast 2206) (Charley Burns)
  Sweet gale beer (Martin Fredfeldt)
  "Best" Starter Method? ("Frederick J. Wills")
  Old Firestone Keg Parts (John Elsworth)
  sparge water acidification (Jeff Pharr)
  counter-pressure bottle filling & CO2 table (Alan Edwards)
  __publication_only__ ("Matt's Mail")
  RE-stainless steel passivation (tonja and kevin eichelberger)
  Clinit*st (Mark Riley)
  FG & Flavor Profile (Kyle Druey)
  peracetic acid (jeff blake)
  Starters ("LordPeter")
  pH and Temperature; Brix ("LordPeter")
  re: Holes in the fridge (fridge)
  Yeast Data ("Brian Wurst")
  Wyeast 1968 OK for porter/stout? (Dean Fikar)
  Recipe Conversions ("Dave Russell")
  Plato v's Specific Gravity (David Lamotte)
  re: Oak in Brewing (randy.pressley)
  Re:Jack Bashing ("Bob Zamites")
  pH, Coils, Reducing Sugars (AJ)
  Infected Primary ("Kris Jacobs")
  Head (de)formation (Spencer W Thomas)
  Carboy Handles (mwmccaw)

There will be a Sunday Digest this week... 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: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:00:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at mail.imagin.net> Subject: coiled hose; carboy handles; pitch rates; boiled yeast Greetings to all. Al writes: > Laurel writes: > >In answer to Mark Swenson's question about dispensing from a keg at > >relatively high pressure - you're right to use a longer dispense line, > >but you might also try coiling it up several times (say, a 5-6" diameter > >coil or as small as you can make it without kinking the tubing) to give > >more back pressure. > > Are you sure about this? I don't see how coiling would increase back > pressure... It seems to me that a tight-enough coil would bend the profile of the tubing out of round, effectively reducing the diameter of the hose. An oval of a given circumference has a smaller area than a circle of that circumference. So this may work. - - - - - - - - - - > From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn) > Subject: RE: carboy safety > folks who deliver 5-gal bottles have long used a "handle" that has a hand- > grip and a fork that grabs the carboy just below the molded-in bulge in > the neck. This indicates that our ubiquitous carboy handle is probably > quite safe ... I can imagine that > you'd be able to gorilla up a difficulty, but I think you'd have to work at > it. Ook ook ook... I mean, you're generally right. Do make sure your handle is the right size for the carboy. I've read that carboys can slip out of wrong-size handles. - - - - - - - - - - > From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> > Subject: artistic pitching rates re-visited > Samuel Mize wrote: > >"Dry yeast does contain about 50 times the yeast in a Wyeast pack, but > >I still don't think it's enough for pitching directly. No, I didn't. A prior poster made this confused attribution, and it's taking on a life of its own. It's not my words or my belief. My feeling is: one rehydrated envelope is generally "good enough," e.g. when I'm just making good beer, not brewing for a competition. Those going for the Very Best should pitch more yeast. On the other hand, they're probably building a starter from a liquid culture. > When talking about yeast we are using an exponential > scale to measure things like cells per mL of wort (as in 1EXX cells per > mL). Only after this basic scientific principle is understood, can one > appreciate the absurdity of arguing the merits of an additional 25 percent > of starter volume. What's so absurd about it? There are millions and skillions of cells, but each one is tiny and does very, very little. 25% more starter gives you 25% more cells. One purpose of exponential notation is to simplify comparing and thinking about such large numbers. If you're really trying to quantify the factors that go into your beer's flavor profile, it doesn't make sense to just say that a number larger than 1000 or so is "a lot." BTW, 1EXX is an exponential notation, not an exponential scale. The other posters claim that they have observed better results with larger starters. Have you used larger starters and observed no difference, or only a small one? It isn't a difference I worry about right now, since I'm wrestling with other parts of the process at the moment. But I don't just discount their experience out of hand. - - - - - - - - - - > From: "Lou Heavner" <lheavner at tcmail.aus.frco.com > Subject: fermentation questions > I have heard that ... other yeast nutrients are actually > spent/dead/destroyed yeast cells. If that is true, would it be > possible to feed the live beer yeast with a packet of my wife's bread > yeast that had been previously boiled? We just discussed this briefly on Mead Lover's Digest. I got at least one first-hand report of someone boiling bread yeast for 15 minutes and still getting apparent fermentation from it. I theorize that some of the bread yeast got stuck somewhere, e.g. bubbled up onto the side of the pot, where it safely rode out the boil. There's non-viable yeast available at health food stores, but it's been pointed out to me that they don't guarantee it's dead, they just refuse to guarantee it will work well for making bread. - - - - - - - - - - Finally, Al said: > ... and suppose *other* people started using these spellings. Next > thing you know there's a Beer Style Series book on Colsh! Hmmm, Vorlon beer. If you don't get it, don't worry about it... Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:26:11 -0400 From: Tony McGlinn <tmcglinn at nz1.ibm.com> Subject: Starters I'm interested in the discussion on starters. If I take say 7 grams of dry yeast and make a 2 liter starter from it, which I then pitch into my wort and use to ferment my wort, why do I get less nasty by-products of yeast growth, than pitching direct into the wort? I would have thought that the amount of yeast growth would be greater by using a starter first, which has been aerated, and then pitching into an aerated wort, and I get the impression that it is the yeast growth that causes the nasties. I assume nothing is done to the starter to remove nasties that are generated there. I know I am missing something, because the posts seem to be unaniamous on the subject - can someone turn the light on for me please. On the subject of geographic diversity of brewing locations which was running some months again, I never saw a greater range south to north of brewing than mine. Invercargill, New Zealand at about 47 deg south and Reykavik, Iceland at about 64 deg North. Currently happily brewing in Helsinki, Finland. Tony McGlinn Mobile:(358) 40-538-1175 Internet; tmcglinn at nz1.ibm.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 98 13:52 PDT From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) Subject: The long ferment (Wyeast 2206) It finally quit. To review: 1.075 Bockoberfest at 52F with Wyeast 2206. After 2.5 weeks or so it was down to 1.028. I raised it up to 60F and after about 4 days it dropped to 1.020 and stopped dead. Its racked to secondary and comfortably sitting at 38F (added 1 teaspoon of gelatin boiled in a pint of water) to fine it. A number of others commented on how long 2206 took for them also. Several people had primary ferments of around 4 weeks so I guess this one was pretty typical. I suppose a bigger starter might have helped - next time. Charley (cant wait for Boctober) in N. Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 22:54:53 +0200 From: Martin Fredfeldt <viper at diku.dk> Subject: Sweet gale beer Dear All I want to try to make a beer with sweet gale. I have read somewhere that sweet gale used to be a poor mans substitute for hops, but a friend of mine makes snaps with sweet gale and i tastes very good. I have also tasted a commercial beer flavored with sweet gale, but the sweet gale taste was very (to) discrete. I have a supply of sweet gale and the basic question is how to use it. My idea is to make a pilsner style beer and use the sweet gale instead of the flavoring hops, that is adding them in the last 10 minutes of the boil or so. I have _no_ idea about how much sweet gale to use, but the leafs smell very potent - much more than the hops I use (we only have one kind, totally unspecified commercially available here in Denmark) so I thinking about using about half as much sweet gale as hops. I have considered to other options namely to make an essence and adding it just before bottling or dry "hopping" the beer with sweet gale. I'm new to home brewing (this will be batch #8) so any experience or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks - Martin Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:17:43 -0400 From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills at compuserve.com> Subject: "Best" Starter Method? In order not to be confused with the "Better Starter Method Thread" I have changed the subject of this post accordingly.<g> I'm going to get a bit risqu here and propose that the Best Starter method is *No* starter! Yes, that's right, I've had the best feremntation results in beers in which I used no starter at all. My results have shown complete fermentations, no off flavor development and lag times as short as 2 hours. There is also no chance of diluting or altering the end beer with nasty spent starter media since ther is none. Of course, I'm goofing on you a bit since I'm talking about pitching on the harvested yeast cake from the primary of a previous fermented batch. Some might say that this is essentially a 5 gallon starter after having removed the fluid. A great way to prove to yourself the merits of repitching yeast is to make back to back identical recipes. In the first, pitch your "normal" starter. In the second, pitch right on top of the yeast cake. Of course it might be prudent to give a little taste of that first brew during transfer to be sure you want to subject the second one to the fermenter. I've done this and the results were remarkable. I used W1056 and the repitched beer began actively fermenting in about 3 hours and produced an excellent *clean* beer in short order. The first batch had detectably higher levels of fruitiness and never fermnented out as far. It was a darn good beer too, just differrent I have been warned by others about yeast mutation and advised that the yeast should be washed or acid washed between uses, but I have not had any problems repitching 5 or 6 times succesively with no intervention. After that I usually get bored with that strain anyway. For actual conventional starters, I usually mix the appropriate amount of DME and water in a mason jar and nuke it in the microwave for about 20-25 minutes. Wicked easy and everything that touches the wort is well sanitized (maybe even sterilized for a short while). Microwave starters are so easy it makes me woinder why anyone would bother canning wort. YMMV, Fred Wills Londonderry, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:31:35 +0000 From: John Elsworth <jdelsworth at snet.net> Subject: Old Firestone Keg Parts I posted a question a week or so ago about parts for old Firestone Challenger soda kegs (racetrack style lid, not Firestone Challenger V or VI). Specifically, I was interested in the nylon insert that lies beneath the poppet in each stem. I received several comments and suggestions (thanks to Al Korzonas, Herbert Bresler, John Wilkinson, Stacy Groene). The bottom line seems to be that the white nylon inserts that are generally available do not fit this type of Firestone keg (they are too tall); however, they can be sanded or filed down successfully. The whole posts including the insert are apparently available (eg.South Bay Homebrew Supply, no affliation etc), although I haven't actually got one and tried it on my keg. Other parts for this type of keg are getting hard to locate, but the fat O-ring that goes on the beer dip tube is also available. John Elsworth "One day you'll realize there's more to life than culture" - Monty Python Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:42:46 -0400 From: Jeff Pharr <pharr at metsci.com> Subject: sparge water acidification A question or two on the process of acidifying the sparge water: Most sources I have read suggest acidifying the sparge water to match the mash, or at least bringing it down to the pH 5.5 to 6.5 range. None however, give suggestions on how to achieve these pH values. I have had no trouble adjusting my mash pH up or down using small additions of calcium carbonate or gypsum. It has been my understanding that one should avoid using large amounts of these additive (large being over two teaspoons per 5 gal), although I must admit that I am not sure what ill effects emerge if these limits are exceeded. Based on these instructions and in the absence of any better suggestions, I have been trying to use gypsum additions to adjust the pH of the sparge water downward. But even the addition of massive amounts (massive being 12 teaspoons in 12 gallons of sparge water), the pH remains pegged above the upper limits of my pH test strips (pH 7.0). I have had similar experiences now with three different water sources and have decided that there must be another way to drop the pH. So here are the questions: What is everyone else doing to bring down the pH? Should I just start buying gypsum in 50lb sacks? What are the problems associated with excessive gypsum usage in the mash? What are the problems with using sparge water with a pH up around 7.5? I have not yet requested an analysis of my local municipal water source but it seems neither extremely hard or soft. - --Jeff Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:57:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com> Subject: counter-pressure bottle filling & CO2 table Al K responds to Robert: > The rest of Robert's post is excellent and very accurate, however, I must > disagree with two points here. One is that chilling the beer (keg) is > not just "helpful" but *ESSENTIAL*. You simply cannot do this at 65F > no matter how careful you are. Remember my previous post where I mentioned > that the colder the beer is the more the CO2 tends to stay in solution? > That's exactly what is in effect here. In my opinion, 45F (7C) is pretty > much the highest workable temperature and 35F (2C) is not too cold. First of all, thanks to everyone who responded to my question a week or so back on why my first attempt at counter-pressure bottle filling was a "no-win" as far as choice of pressure. The consensus: temperature! I don't know why I didn't think of it, but cooling the beer to 45F was simply not cold enough, as Al points out above. > Secondly, 20 psi may work great for Robert, but it could be terrible for > someone else. At 35F, 20 psi will make gushers. Guaranteed! You need > to get yourself a table of pressures vs. volumes of CO2 for various > temperatures and get the beer to contain the proper number of volumes > for that temperature. You'll be surprised at how few psi you need to get > 2.25 volumes at 35F. A: 7.22 PSI This reminds me that I derived a formula and generated CO2 tables several years ago posted them to the HBD. Maybe after a few years, it's time to post the tables and formula again: In HBD #1179(!), I wrote: | Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 09:59:50 PDT | Subject: A Handy Table for Keg Pressure | | Hello fellow brewmeisters, | | While we're on the subject of kegging and pressure, I've come up with a | formula and a table for determining what pressure to apply to achieve a | certain carbonation level. I believe that this table is more useful | compared to the other table that has appeared on the HBD and elsewhere. [referring to the table with the diagonal data that goes on and on] | It's smaller (fits easily in an 80 column window), but contains all the | needed information in a more obvious arrangement. (It makes more sense | to me to ask "what pressure do I need" rather than "what do I get if I | use this pressure"). Besides, it can do any temperature. | . . . | Pressure = F(Temperature, Volume) | | P = -16.6999 - 0.0101059 T + 0.00116512 T^2 | + 0.173354 T V + 4.24267 V - 0.0684226 V^2 Fellow Unix geeks: If you want the Perl code to generate tables with various increments or units (it does KiloPascals!), drop me a line. Here's some output: PRESSURE (PSI) REQUIRED FOR DESIRED CARBONATION Volumes of CO2 desired 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Temp 32F 3.5 5.4 7.3 9.2 11.0 12.9 34F 4.3 6.3 8.2 10.2 12.1 14.1 36F 5.1 7.2 9.2 11.2 13.3 15.3 38F 6.0 8.1 10.2 12.3 14.4 16.5 40F 6.8 9.0 11.2 13.4 15.5 17.7 42F 7.7 10.0 12.2 14.4 16.7 18.9 44F 8.6 10.9 13.2 15.5 17.8 20.1 46F 9.5 11.8 14.2 16.6 19.0 21.3 48F 10.4 12.8 15.3 17.7 20.1 22.6 50F 11.3 13.8 16.3 18.8 21.3 23.8 52F 12.2 14.8 17.3 19.9 22.5 25.1 54F 13.1 15.7 18.4 21.1 23.7 26.3 56F 14.0 16.7 19.5 22.2 24.9 27.6 58F 15.0 17.8 20.6 23.3 26.1 28.9 60F 15.9 18.8 21.6 24.5 27.4 30.2 62F 16.9 19.8 22.7 25.7 28.6 31.5 64F 17.8 20.8 23.8 26.8 29.8 32.8 66F 18.8 21.9 25.0 28.0 31.1 34.1 68F 19.8 22.9 26.1 29.2 32.4 35.5 70F 20.8 24.0 27.2 30.4 33.6 36.8 Volumes of CO2 desired 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Temp 00C 3.5 5.4 7.3 9.2 11.0 12.9 01C 4.2 6.2 8.1 10.1 12.0 14.0 02C 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 03C 5.7 7.8 9.9 12.0 14.0 16.1 04C 6.5 8.6 10.8 12.9 15.1 17.2 05C 7.3 9.5 11.7 13.9 16.1 18.3 06C 8.1 10.3 12.6 14.9 17.1 19.4 07C 8.8 11.2 13.5 15.8 18.2 20.5 08C 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 09C 10.4 12.9 15.4 17.8 20.3 22.7 10C 11.3 13.8 16.3 18.8 21.3 23.8 11C 12.1 14.7 17.2 19.8 22.4 25.0 12C 12.9 15.6 18.2 20.8 23.5 26.1 13C 13.7 16.4 19.2 21.9 24.5 27.2 14C 14.6 17.4 20.1 22.9 25.6 28.4 15C 15.4 18.3 21.1 23.9 26.7 29.6 16C 16.3 19.2 22.1 25.0 27.8 30.7 17C 17.1 20.1 23.1 26.0 29.0 31.9 18C 18.0 21.0 24.1 27.1 30.1 33.1 19C 18.9 22.0 25.1 28.1 31.2 34.3 20C 19.8 22.9 26.1 29.2 32.4 35.5 If you are crammed for space, use this one (you don't really need that extra significant digit, do you?) and delete the lines or columns that you will "never use": PRESSURE (PSI) REQUIRED FOR DESIRED CARBONATION Volumes of CO2 desired 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Temp 32F 3 5 7 9 11 13 34F 4 6 8 10 12 14 36F 5 7 9 11 13 15 38F 6 8 10 12 14 16 40F 7 9 11 13 16 18 42F 8 10 12 14 17 19 44F 9 11 13 16 18 20 46F 9 12 14 17 19 21 48F 10 13 15 18 20 23 50F 11 14 16 19 21 24 52F 12 15 17 20 23 25 54F 13 16 18 21 24 26 56F 14 17 19 22 25 28 58F 15 18 21 23 26 29 60F 16 19 22 24 27 30 62F 17 20 23 26 29 32 64F 18 21 24 27 30 33 66F 19 22 25 28 31 34 68F 20 23 26 29 32 35 70F 21 24 27 30 34 37 And, as a bonus for those of you across the pond: (You thought I was kidding ;-) PRESSURE (KPa) REQUIRED FOR DESIRED CARBONATION Volumes of CO2 desired 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Temp 00C 24 37 50 63 76 89 01C 29 43 56 70 83 96 02C 34 48 62 76 90 104 03C 40 54 68 83 97 111 04C 45 60 74 89 104 119 05C 50 65 81 96 111 126 06C 56 71 87 102 118 134 07C 61 77 93 109 125 141 08C 66 83 100 116 132 149 09C 72 89 106 123 140 157 10C 78 95 112 130 147 164 11C 83 101 119 137 154 172 12C 89 107 125 144 162 180 13C 95 113 132 151 169 188 14C 101 120 139 158 177 196 15C 106 126 145 165 184 204 16C 112 132 152 172 192 212 17C 118 139 159 179 200 220 18C 124 145 166 187 207 228 19C 130 152 173 194 215 236 20C 136 158 180 202 223 245 REGURGITATED REFERENCE: Volumes of CO2: British style beers = 2.00 - 2.40 Most other beers = 2.40 - 2.85 High-carbonation beers = 2.85 - 2.95 Later, -Alan Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 21:04:02 -0500 From: "Matt's Mail" <stankboy at mtco.com> Subject: __publication_only__ __publication_only__ Subject: Stuck fermentation of grape wine I'm hoping I can benefit from some of your experience(s). I know there's not much talk about wines on this posting, but I'll bet someone can draw from their knowledge and help me. About two months ago, I started about 50-gal. of grape wine and added sugar, yeast, and yeast nutrient as I've done so many times before but this time, it only fermented about two weeks and then stopped cold. I've checked the acidity level, and it was a little high, but not much, so I brought it down to acceptable levels according to a wine-making book I bought by adding water, but nothing happened. I know the temperature is fine because I've got another batch that fermented out perfectly right next to it, plus I've measured it at about 73F. At this point, the stuck batch is WAY too sweet to just give up, so I'm wondering if anyone knows anything else I might try before scrapping the batch. It's been sitting now for about 6 weeks without doing a thing. Appreciate any ideas you might have. Thanks... Matt Garrett Peoria, IL Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 21:18:36 -0500 From: tonja and kevin eichelberger <tkeich at falcon.cc.ukans.edu> Subject: RE-stainless steel passivation For more information on SS passivation , check out the article on this subject in the July/August issue of Brewing Techniques, 1998. Hope this helps! Respectfully, Kevin Eichelberger Lawrence, Ks Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:56:40 -0700 From: Mark Riley <mriley at netcom.com> Subject: Clinit*st The horse is now very, very dead. ;-0 Mark Riley The Beer Recipator - http://hbd.org/recipator Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 10:30:10 -0700 From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net> Subject: FG & Flavor Profile My friend Dave Burley comments on FGs: >Actually you don't care what the FG is supposed to be, but as AlK >points out to know "Is the beer done?" Ah, but I disagree. I think we do care what the FG is. Dr. George in one of his books discusses the affects of FG and how increasing the FG will increase the sweetness of the finished beer. I think it went something like this: (this is from GeorgeF) dry - less than 1.010 semi-smeet - 1.010 to 1.014 (this is my extrapolation) sweet - 1.015 to 1.020 very sweet - greater than 1.020 Of course, this all depends on the OG of the beer, etc. etc. But I think you get the general idea (even Fouch could get this) to help with beer flavor profile design. How 'bout Siebel using Clinitest as a quick and dirty way to determine if fermentation is finished! What do ya say about this Al? :) Kyle Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 23:11:24 -0700 From: jeff blake <jblake11 at uniserve.com> Subject: peracetic acid The combination of peracetic acid with any normal strength of chlorine base sanitizer will release a violent-health threatening off gassing of chlorine. These are products that are ment to be used with a long water rinse between.I know P3 is not a common home brew sanitizer but please do NOT mix it with any chlorine base sanitizers, or washes.A sudden large lungful of chlorine gas can spoil your whole weekend-or end your life! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 02:34:47 -0700 From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net> Subject: Starters Alan wrote: "I suppose one possible compromise would be to step up the starter to 2L and then only use the percipitated yeast for pitching. But that has been debated also: do I use the yeast (which is already tired and sitting on the couch) or use the young active yeast that is in solution?" I asked Lyn Kruger "Should I use the sediment from a primary fermenter or the sediment from a secondary fermenter as pitch for my next batch." Her response was that over time, ( and I think she meant several pitchings) I would effectively be selecting for non flocculent yeast. And Steve wrote: "Maybe you 'lazy types' should try a commecial sized starter for a change." It seems to me that most commercial batches are started from slurry, not starters. In the case that a commercial brewery needs to start anew with their yeast, they are not likely to build up from a smack pack, but rather they will purchase a large amount of centrifuged cells. And when they do need to propogate, they will likely have off flavors in the first few batches that may need to be blended with subsequent brews. How's that for lazy? And Mort was right when he suggested that Lyn Krugers quote >Governing principal in fermentation: >The rate of fermentation will depend on the rate and extent of yeast >growth." was intended for a normal pitching rate of 10 to 20 M/ml cells. When I asked her about whether to use the primary or secondary sediments for subsequent pitchings I had to explain that I was looking at 5 to 15 gallon batch sizes. But do you mean that we can simply pitch 7 grams of dried yeast per gallon and forget aeration? Is yeast growth not important? This is just my opinion. Actual results may vary. Cheers. Peter Gilbreth barleywine at prodigy.net www.barleywine.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 02:23:21 -0700 From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net> Subject: pH and Temperature; Brix Hey Al, Concerning pH you said: "5.8 at 170F (which would be between 5.9 and 6.1 after cooling to 68F) or 5.8 at 68F?" I have one of those handheld pH meter pens...I am pretty sure (*and I mean I am pretty sure I remember it right, not that I am pretty sure that I can read my meter) that when I pull a sample of wort and check it at 150F(or so) that it reads higher than when I cool the same sample. I'm writing this out of memory; I would guesstimate that a sample read at 150 says 5.6 and the same sample at 80F says 5.4. Are you sure you have this right? About Alexander's malt, I am confused. I took the brix rating straight from correspondence with the California Concentrate Company. I think my math checks out. Here's Al's reference: " Me: So for an 80 brix syrup, use 36.54 pts/lb/gal and you will be very close. >ie: one can of Alex Pale at 4 lbs and 36.54 pts/lb/gal in 5 gallons total >volume is (4)(36.54)/ 5 = 29.232 SG. >Two cans becomes (8)(36.54) / 5 = 58.464. AlK: All was well until near the end. Peter assumed 36.54 pts/lb/gal for the Alexanders Pale Extract. As it turns out, Alexanders is the one extract that is *considerably* lower pts/lb/gal than all the others. Most dry malt extracts are 45 pts/lb/gal and most syrups are between 35 and 37 pts/lb/gal. Alexanders is only 33 pts/lb/gal! It is less dense than other extracts because it is concentrated less. Subsequently, it is also one of the palest extracts and has less caramel flavour than most (which may be good or bad, depending on the style, but it's far easier to *add* caramel flavour than to subtract it!). " I don't think I assumed 36.54 pt/lb/gal for Alexander's Pale. I think I showed it. CCC says their extract is 80 brix. What am I missing? I agree with Al's statement about it being easier to add caramel flavor than to subtract it. I've found it best to use the palest extract you can find and add color and flavor with specialty grains. You also nabbed me on my tannin to sherry phenomenon. Sheepishly I say: I think I was relating to the role of tannins in the development of a wine over time. I am not sure why I made the jump from there to oxidation flavors in beer. Could have been the Arkansas Cabernet (don't laugh, it kicks Butt), or it may have been the Missouri BarleyWine (I know you're not laughing now), then again, that MacDonald County stuff is fairly funky too. MyBad. Cheers. Peter Gilbreth barleywine at prodigy.net www.barleywine.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 07:10:17 -0400 From: fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu Subject: re: Holes in the fridge Greetings folks, In HBD#2787, Bob Johnson asked for help in finding a safe place to put taps on his freezer-on-top Frigidaire. The refrigerant lines in most fridges of this type run from the compressor underneath, inside the back, and to an evaporator in the back wall of the cabinet, or in the freezer compartment. The safest place to drill will be in the door, because unless you have a heated butter keeper there, there isn't likely to be any electrical wiring in the area. The second safest location is through either side wall, midway between the front and back of the fridge. The fridge's wiring harness may be lurking near the corners, and door heaters often run just underneath the door gaskets. Having said the above, please understand that any drilling carries some risk of damaging either the refrigerant tubing, or electrical wiring. Make sure the unit is unplugged, and go slowly. Hope this helps! Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 07:03:48 -0500 From: "Brian Wurst" <brian at mail.netwave.net> Subject: Yeast Data HBD #2786 had a number of posts with comments about yeast pitching rates. For a data point, today I hydrated a 5 gm. package of Danstar Nottingham dry ale yeast (lot 10828609, exp 11/00). It was refrigerated at the store upon receipt from the distributor and remained refrigerated until I opened it. Cell Count: 7E10 cells Viability (via Methylene Blue staining): >99% With a nominal pitching rate (for ales) of 1E06 cells per ml. per Degree Plato OG, 5 gallons (19 liters) of a 12P (1.048) wort would require: 1.2E07 cells/ml. X 1.9E4 ml. = 2.3E11 cells, or about 3 packages. (Sorry, Paul, I don't have a package of Wyeast to do a cell count of it.) I would wager that most homebrewers underpitch almost every time they brew...Could this be the origins of THT (That Homebrew Taste)? 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: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 07:12:18 -0500 From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net> Subject: Wyeast 1968 OK for porter/stout? I've not yet brewed a porter or stout and plan to brew both soon. I'd like to brew close to style guidelines, at least for my first attempt at both styles. I have slurry from a batch of ESB fermented with Wyeast 1968 that I'd like to be able to use, if appropriate. The limited research I've done so far seems to indicate that 1968 probably would be a good choice for a sweet stout but not a dry stout since you'd probably more attenuation than the 67-71% that Wyeast lists for this strain. Does the above analysis sound reasonable? Can 1968 be reasonably used for imperial or foreign stouts? What about porters? Seems like a more attenuative strain might be appropriate for a porter but the nice full-bodied maltiness you get from 1968 might make for a nice brew. If it's appropriate for a porter then would it be better for a robust or brown porter? Thanks! Dean Fikar - Ft. Worth, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:11:38 -0400 From: "Dave Russell" <drussel3 at ford.com> Subject: Recipe Conversions The first conversion is a recipe I am interested in calls for 3oz. Raspberry Extract. If I was to substitute it for real raspberries, how much should I use? Another recipe I have worked with called for a 3.3# can of John Bull Light, Hopped LME. The label listed bitterness as 30 +/- 3. I would like to have more control over this recipe the next time I make it, so I would like to go with an unhopped extract and add my own bittering hops. What type of hop variety should I use to match the canned extract, and what quantity of whole hops for a 60 minute boil? (It made a wonderful tasting Cream Ale) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 22:18:24 +1000 From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Plato v's Specific Gravity It seems that one of the few remaining differentiators between those who do it for fun, and those that do for money (Professional versus Amateur BREWERS that is), is the unit of measure used for wort gravity measurement. I believe that the Specific Gravity that we measure with our hydrometers represents the ratio of the weight of the solution under test to the weight of the same volume of pure water. On the other hand degree Plato is a measure of the amount of extract present as a percentage of the weight of the solution. Personally I find SG very easy to work with, and it has the added advantage that a ale wort with an OG of 1.048 tends to make a beer with a final ABV of about 5%, 1.060 = 6% etc. Also, considering that you cannot measure Plato directly (need to measure SG and convert to Plato via tables/formula), what is it that makes Plato more usefull/meaningfull than raw SG to the professional brewers. Should I start to divide any SG readings by 4 and talk exclusively in Plato ? Thanks for killing the curiosity in this cat. David Lamotte Brewing down under in Newcastle NSW Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 8:37:11 -0500 From: randy.pressley at SLKP.COM Subject: re: Oak in Brewing >From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> >Subject: Use of OAK in brewing >Hi All, I have lately become enamored of a certain red wine that, >according to my wine-knowledgeable friends, has a strong oak character. >This of course immediately led me to ponder what oak could do for my beer. >I've seen oak chips for sale but haven't the foggiest idea how best to use >them so am asking the collective for advice and any experiences they'd >care to relate concerning the use of oak in beer >Any commercial examples of oaked beers worth seeking out? I brewed a batch of India Pale Ale and added a handful of oak chips I purchased at the Jack Daniels Brewery. I soaked them in some Gentleman Jack for about a week before pitching. I wanted to give the beer a bourbon barrel taste. I tossed them directly into the secondary for about 10 days wearing only their birthday suit. When I bottled I put a cheese cloth on the end of the racking cane. Well it worked! The oak taste and the bourbon taste was very apparent. I loved it, most others either loved it or hated it. When I do it again I'll add a half handful of chips and go easier on the bourbon. I'll also leave it in the secondary for only about 5 days. If you decide not to add the bourbon you can just boil the chips in water before pitching. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 06:47:55 -0600 From: "Bob Zamites" <bamzam at trail.com> Subject: Re:Jack Bashing Okay, okay I'm just a little oversensitive about name-calling. In my several years of reading the HBD, I suppose I got tired of everyone (well, many folks) giving JS a hard time about his "momilies", stovetop/overnight cooling techniques, blah, blah, woof, woof. Sam, I owe you an apology for being so vicious in my response, and to the other posters whose bandwidth ( and toes) I stepped on. Regarding other matters, I'm looking for a good supplier for sacks of whole or pre-crushed malt, mail-order, since our local HB shop closed, and the ones in Albuquerque IMO aren't quite up to snuff. I want to get 2-row and crystal in large quantities, and the nearby shops will only sell you specialty grains by the pound, and at a huge (HUGE) markup. Private E-mail okay. P.S. We love you, Jack ! Bob Zamites (First Fire Brewing Co.) Santa Fe, NM Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 09:15:14 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: pH, Coils, Reducing Sugars The following is not a lecture on Nernst Equation. There has been some recent discussion again on the subject of where the brewer should measure pH. The consensus at Siebel has been reported that it is done on cooled wort. BHS&Y support this. Individual breweries do what they do and there are definite advantages to measuring cooled wort. You can't melt the reference in cooled wort. You won't contaminate the wort with fill solution if a sample is removed for pH determination. Low temperature is less stressful on electrodes (even those whose references don't melt). It's easier to bring a sample out of a mash tun than to get a pH meter and ATC probe in. In the old days removing a sample was a mater of practicality. The meter was an elaborate affair - not something that slipped into the pocket of the lab coat. A sample would have had to be carried to the laboratory for analysis and would have cooled during transport . That a shift in pH occurs was well known. DeClerk tabulates the amount of shift as a function of temperature and, though he says "When the pH is measured in connection with mashing, it always refers to the cooled wort." (Vol I p 266) on the next page he says "... the pH should be measured at the temperature of the reaction." The reason for this is that the shift in pH, which is real and is related to the fact that the equilibrium constants for the components of the grist/water buffer system are functions of not only temperature (i.e. Kevin Eichelberger's explanation is essentially correct) but composition. Thus the pH shift depends on temperature shift and on what is being brewed with what raw materials. If a measurement is taken at room temperature it should be corrected to mash temperature. In a commercial operation where the same beer or handful of beers is brewed day after day the correction can be determined once (by measuring hot and cooled mash), checked periodically and applied on a daily basis. The DeClerk publishes a shift of about 0.3 pH units. In my own brewing I see a shift of about half that. I solicited measurement data from other brewers and got data from only one respondent who actually measured a mash (and got similar results) and from another who did measurements with malt samples on the bench (and got about 0.3). Thus the application of the correction is "iffy" if you are interested in knowing pH accurately and we could argue for ever about how accurate a measurement is needed. The homebrewer has several options. He can easily access the hot mash with a handheld meter. Equipped with a proper electrode he can make an accurate reading but a proper electrode is more expensive than many homebrewers wish to spend for this function. Therefore, many homebrewers use cooled mash even though using a pH meter and naturally those that use pH strips must do that as well. The real question here relates to whether the 5.2 - 5.4 "optimum" range which is often cited is at room or mash temperature. BHS&Y (Vol I, p279) make it clear that it is at mash temperature (they are describing an infusion mash). "Thus the pH in the cooled wort will be 5.5 - 5.8." indicating a shift of 0.2 - 0.3. To return to Kevin Eichelberger's question as to whether the actual pH changes or just the meter reading the answer is "both" and it is important to understand this. The change in equilbriun constants mentioned above is responsible for the former and the unmentionable equation explains the latter. With respect to Fred Jonson's question: it is my impression that enzyme optimum operating points are specified at their optimum operating points i.e. the optimum temperature is specified at the optimum pH and the optimum pH at the optimum temperature. I hope one of the pro's will comment on this. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jeff McNally explains how coiling a tube increases friction. I was sure it was Coriolis! (this is humor - at least to me). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dave Burley should be pleased to note that the ASBC Methods of analysis has not 1 but 2 methods for determing reducing sugars. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:11:15 -0400 From: "Kris Jacobs" <jtsnake at net-link.net> Subject: Infected Primary Well, the IPA(Dave's Sister Star -- boohoo, *sob*) that I brewed on the 25th of July seems to be infected for sure. I was suspicious of it for the last couple days -- looking at the carboy, many particles seemed "suspended" in the wort, almost as if it was a big jug of some sort of gel. I used ye ole sanitized turkey baster last nite to take a sample for hydrometer reading, and I didn't need more than one baster-full to realize. The beer had taken on a strange viscosity -- slimy, snotty, kinda raw egg-whitish thick. Instead of dripping off the end of the baster, it ran in "lines". Just like a line of mucous from a child's nose. ;) This is the second time this has happened in two months- but not with consecutive batches. I think I am definitely missing something sanitation-wise here once in a while... Do these symptoms indicate any particular sort of infection? I intend to throw the whole batch out, I just have to bring myself to do it sometime. Probably Saturday morning, when I will whip up a quick and dirty low-gravity pale ale. I am getting thirsty!!! - --Kris Jacobs Galesburg, MI Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 09:58:29 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Head (de)formation This spring I made an oatmeal stout. When it was young, it had a bit of residual sweetness, a creamy mouthfeel, and a wonderfully dense, long-lasting head. Last night I opened one of the last few bottles. It almost gushed (granted it was at room temperature). It made a very coarse head with lots of big bubbles, which fell quickly. The flavor was extremely dry, and the mouthfeel was thin, with non of the creaminess it used to have. Clearly some fermentative activity had continued in the bottle. There was no really detectable off flavor or aroma, so I don't think it was bacterial. But whatever it was had obviously broken down and consumed at least some of the compounds that were making the good head and creamy mouthfeel. So what happened? Did continued fermentation (slowly) break down dextrins, killing the head? Did the oatmeal contribute some mystery compounds (b-glucans?) that was degraded in the bottle? Or was it something else. Speculation is invited. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:05:28 -0500 (CDT) From: mwmccaw at ix.netcom.com Subject: Carboy Handles I have to chime in with my $0.02 worth. I use carboy handles, but have learned the hard way to NEVER trust them with a FULL carboy. I carry empty carboys all the time with the handles, and used to carry full ones that way on the advice of my homebrew shop owner. One fine brewday, a full carboy of freshly pitched wort was on its way to the fermenting room when it slipped out of the handle and dropped nine inches to the floor, with fully predictable results. The handle had been checked for tightness that very day, I was quite anal (and a bit afraid) of the very thing that happened. Now, I use the handle as a stabilizing device in holding full carboys, but always carry them with one arm wrapped around the carboy pressing it to my stomach and the other hand holding the handle. It was the plastic material coating the handle that slipped and allowed the carboy to fall; I have never seen a carboy fail at the neck. Brew on, Mike Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/05/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96