HOMEBREW Digest #2916 Fri 01 January 1999

[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

  Lagering and repitching yeast (Cas Koralewski)
  RE:  Fruit flies (william graham)
  Re: First Lager Issues (Spencer W Thomas)
  Calcium Chloride (William Frazier)
  Complete the analogy, FRUIT FLIES : CLINITEST as... (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Re: cheap scales... ("Robert J. Waddell")
  Strike procedure ("Steve")
  Re: Electric Stove Heat Boost - Use Steam! (Gail Elber)
  All Grain Weizen (OCaball299)
  Whole hops/irish moss ("KC Sare")
  re: small fermenters (Jon Macleod)
  Brew Classic European Beers at Home (Ken Pendergrass)
  Re: Christmas Bounty (Automatic malt mill) (Doug Roberts)
  Re:Drosophilae Melanogaster (Rod Prather)
  More open fermenters (Rod Prather)
  Kornberg on Biotechnology (LEAVITDG)
  Re: Samichlaus (Rosalba e Massimo)
  too much head stability (Kevin TenBrink)
  Re: Mills and extract efficiency ("Matthew J. Harper")
  Danger from too much dissolved O2 in wort? ("Dave Humes")
  fruit flies in my science (Dave Sapsis)
  Re: Fruitfly fears (Steve & Dena Reynolds)
  Cock Ale... (Badger Roullett)
  Re: bottling times (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Good & Bad Grains, Good & Bad Advice (Jeff Renner)
  Westvletteren 12 Yeast ("Peter Zien")
  wyeast  3333 german wheat yeast (JPullum127)
  Water chemistry ("Chris Beadle")
  On fruitflies and dogma (John Adsit)
  Steam purity and how delicate are enzymes, really? (william macher)

It's 1999! Happy New Year! - From the Home Brew Digest NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org 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 COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above.) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:25:00 -0500 From: Cas Koralewski <caskor at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Lagering and repitching yeast I have made my first lager, an Oktoberfest. It is going to lager for 7 weeks at 40 degrees F. It will be bottle conditioned after the lager period. My question is; Will I have to pitch more yeast when I bottle, or will there be enough of the little critters in there to do the job? I've heard both versions. Help! I want this to turn out right! Thanks for the help, Cas Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:30:48 -0500 (EST) From: william graham <weg at micro-net.net> Subject: RE: Fruit flies Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> says: >> 4. Fact: A beer with a fruit fly in the starter was submitted to a contest and won third place. -- << I don't know if it's the altitude or the weather, but I don't think I've ever seen fruit flies up here in Golden, CO. I've called a few homebrew shops, and browsed the usual suspects on the web, but I can't find anyone selling fruit flies. So does anyone know where I can get some? Maybe some scientific supply houses? I really would like to improve my beers. Thanks, Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 15:09:31 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: First Lager Issues >>>>> "Gregory" == Gregory M Remake <gremake at gsbalum.uchicago.edu> writes: Gregory> The first issue is the importance of stability of Gregory> fermentation temperature. I do not have a refrigerator Gregory> in which to ferment a lager, but I have an unheated Gregory> attic. I rigged up a simple temperature control for an unheated closet. The same might work for your attic. It requires a transformer, a low-voltage fan, and a thermostat. I had the thermostat lying around, since I replaced the house thermostat a while back. I used a "power adapter" for a defunct battery-operated device as the transformer. The fan was a surplus "muffin fan," such as are used to ventilate PCs, from a friend who had a pile of them. Assuming that the "natural temperature" of the space is cooler than you want, you hook up the transformer, thermostat, and fan in series so that the fan will turn on when the temperature gets too cold. A cheesy diagram may make this more clear: wires connected thermostat fan wall to low-voltage plug --- +------+ plug +-+ +---------------------( )----------+ | ==)-----| |---< --- | | +-+ +------------------------------------+ | xformer +------+ You can either remove the low voltage "plug" from the power adapter, and just splice new wires onto the existing wires from the adapter, or you can try attaching the wires to the "plug" if you want the adapter to be still usable for its original purpose. The fan is mounted in the doorway, and the door is opened a bit. When the temperature in the closet gets too low, the fan turns on and blows warm air from the rest of the house into the closet (or, alternatively, blows cold air out of the closet.) This works best with a thermostat with a bimetal coil and mercury switch, because you can tilt the thermostat to make it work at the lower temperature range that you will want for lagering. An auxiliary thermometer makes calibrating it easier. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:19:14 +0000 From: William Frazier <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Calcium Chloride Recently I have been trying to rid my Redhawk ESB recipe of an unpleasant bitter quality. I believe it can be traced to high sulfate (152 ppm) in my Johnson County, KS water. My approach is simple enough...dilute with distilled water. For my next brew I plan to dilute 1:3 to lower sulfate to 38 ppm. Unfortunately this will also lower the calcium to 25 ppm. While this might be OK it is not optimal. I found some calcium chloride in a local homebrew shop and this is where the confusion begins. The label reads "calcium chloride, one tsp in 5 gallons increases Ca 95 ppm and Cl 84 ppm". Since calcium chloride exists as CaCl2 these labeled amounts can't be accurate. The first problem is with ratio of Ca and Cl. The second problem is that the label doesn't indicate whether the chemical is anhydrous, dihydrate or another of the possible forms of calcium chloride (NOTE: The shop owner called the supplier and said it was anhydrous). The problem may have started with information contained in The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing. This was my first brewing book purchased over ten years ago. Charlie Papazian states that one tsp calcium chloride flakes (CaCl2) in 5 gallons will increase (approximately) concentration of; Calcium (Ca++) ion 95 ppm Chloride [2(Cl)--] ion 84 ppm If the tsp did provide 95 ppm calcium it would have to provide about 168 ppm chloride. The way the chloride content is stated is very confusing. I referred to a couple of newer homebrew texts... New Brewing Lager Beer by Gregory Noonan One gram per gallon anhydrous calcium chloride gives; Calcium 161.4 ppm Chloride (ie. as Cl2) 168.8 ppm Homebrewing Volume 1 by Al Korzonas One gram per gallon anhydrous calcium chloride gives; Calcium (Ca+2) 95.41 ppm Chloride (Cl-) 168.79 ppm To end this long boring discussion, Al Korzonas' figures are correct. The others are either misleading or wrong. It's basic chemistry and arithmetic. If you are trying to get your water chemistry right don't believe everything you read on a label. Bill Frazier The Briarpatch Homebrewery Johnson County, Kansas Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 15:49:19 -0500 (EST) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Complete the analogy, FRUIT FLIES : CLINITEST as... As a full-fledged science geek I feel compelled to point out that the proferred "data point" is utterly useless without a proper control (same batch of beer without fruit fly). For all we know without the fly he may have garnered First Place! -Alan - ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life." -Jim Squire -Alan Meeker Johns Hopkins Hospital Dept. of Urology (410) 614-4974 __________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:07:19 -0700 From: "Robert J. Waddell" <rjw at dimensional.com> Subject: Re: cheap scales... Doug Moyer asks: >Can anyone recommend a resonably accurate scale that can measure >+/- 0.25 grams, at a reasonable price? You might want to check with your local Police Department. They often confiscate very nice triple beam balance scales while conducting drug raids. Most localities have Police auctions once or twice a year. I only learned of this AFTER buying one from the www.scaleman.com site. I'm not unhappy with the one I bought, though. It was very nice. rjw I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it off the bed at night. Women... --Pat Babcock *** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! *** ******************************************************************** RJW at dimensional.com / Opinions expressed are usually my own but Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared. ICQ #7136012 Owner & Brewmaster: Barchenspeider Brew-Haus Longmont, Colorado ******************************************************************** (4,592 feet higher than Jeff Renner) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:27:37 -0500 From: "Steve" <stjones1 at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Strike procedure Greetings, all! My question is about the initial mix of hot water & grain in the mash tun. I mash in a converted sanke keg by adding the strike water, heating it to strike temp, then pouring in the grain while stirring. I usually hit my mash temp within a degree , and don't seem to have any real problem with my brews. However, a fellow brewer asked me if I might be denaturing some of the the beta amylase enzymes when the grain first hits the 164F+ water and maybe don't get as many fermentables as a result. I do occasionally have a batch that finishes with a higher than expected gravity, and maybe this is a contributing factor. Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? Hoppy brew year to you all! Steve State of Franklin Homebrewers Johnson City, Tennessee http://home.att.net/~stjones1 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:32:50 -0800 From: Gail Elber <gail at brewtech.com> Subject: Re: Electric Stove Heat Boost - Use Steam! The July/August 1994 issue of BrewingTechniques (online at http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.4/jones.html) contains an article by Kelly Jones about using a pressure cooker to inject steam into the mash tun. Gail Elber Associate Editor BrewingTechniques P.O. Box 3222 Eugene, OR 97403 541/687-2993 fax 541/687-8534 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:14:09 EST From: OCaball299 at aol.com Subject: All Grain Weizen Greetings all, I'm interested in brewing an all-grain Dunkel Weizen which calls for 50% Wheat malt. I haven't done one of these before but am aware that I will get a stuck sparge. I purchased a couple of ounces of rice hulls to avoid it. Can anyone please tell me if 2 oz. will be enough and when do I add them? TIA. Omar - Aurora, IL "Live long and prosper" - Mr. Spock .. and have another Homebrew! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:46:12 -0800 From: "KC Sare" <KC at j4systems.com> Subject: Whole hops/irish moss Recently I have switched from hop pellets to whole hops in my boil. And since doing so I have had little success in settling break material out of my wort with the use of Irish moss. Could this have anything to do with my switch in hops? Any info would be appreciated. Sincerely, Fellow Brewer Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:16:38 -0500 From: marli at bbs2.rmrc.net (Jon Macleod) Subject: re: small fermenters The best fermenters I've found in the 1 gallon range are jug wine bottles. Three and 4 liter ones are pretty readily available, even filled with wine that you can stand to drink. I've used them for beer and also splitting 5 gallon mead batches down into small trials with various herbs, spices, and fruits. Mike Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:03:11 -0500 From: Ken Pendergrass <kenp794 at earthlink.net> Subject: Brew Classic European Beers at Home After lurking for a week or so it's time to send my first post to the digest. I'm just tasteing the first bottles of a batch of stout I made from the "Brew Classic European Beers at Home" Wheeler and Protz,Guinness Export Stout p.108 recipes (grain) and I'm dissapointed. I don't think I made a mistake I think this is a lack luster recipe. There is no complexity or depth drinkable but not exciting. It dosen't have rough edges. I doubt it will improve much with ageing. My point is that American homebrewed and microbrewed beer set the standard world wide for beer quality. With the exception of certian Belgian sour types which require 3 or 4 years ageing. Which to my knoweledge no one is making here. In fact all of the UK brews I try lately lack complexity, depth and interest compared to anything made by Bell's. What say you to that? Have you tried a recipe from this book? I'm doubly dissapointed because I have a batch of Hoegaarden Wit p.160 ageing in the secondary. I would also like to ask if anyone has used Papazian's "Home Brewer's Gold" recipes? These recipes look interesting but I've not used any of his recipes. Regards, Ken Pendergrass Ypisilanti with stout in hand and jack russell terrier in lap Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:53:11 -0700 From: Doug Roberts <gertchie at earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Christmas Bounty (Automatic malt mill) Greetings: I was also the recipient of an Automatic malt mill for Christmas. Unfortunately, I packed it up and sent it back to Williams Brewing the very next day: it was not able to mill Hugh Baird 140L crystal at any setting. The second roller (the one that is supposed to operate on the friction from grain caught between it and the powered roller) continued to get jammed. When the "free wheeling" roller doesn't turn, the grain doesn't get milled. I called Williams Brewing and accepted their offer to try a replacement mill, but I'm afraid that there is a design flaw in the mill that prevents it from being able to handle the larger, harder grains (like Hugh Baird 140L crystal). We'll see when I get the replacement. - --Doug gertchie at earthlink.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:17:17 -0500 From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> Subject: Re:Drosophilae Melanogaster >Absolutely true! But, so far we only have one real data point versus a >lot of speculation. As I said in my previous post *The posted data does >not indicate that fruit flies cause bacteria contamination problems with >beer.* MANY additional data may indeed change this conclusion. So far we >have not seen any. Paul you are ignoring the basis of all of the thories of central tendency and basic statictics. The fact that you HAVE only one point should tell you something. There are other points, they just didn't make it on the chart. Either no one else documents the fact that a fly invaded their starter out of embarrassment or they are out of range, they stink, they taste funny, they ended up in down the sink, etc. due to high acetic acid, wild yeasts, and/or other bacterial infections. It is just not wise to introduce unknowns to your beer in such a way. Now if a fly gets in your wort. You can't do much about that and you may as well take a chance. In the starter, I still feel uneasy. Maybe we should start a study project. Everyone who finds a fly in the starter and tosses it anyway can log in and evaluate the beer. Do you want to keep the list and log the points in. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:42:13 -0500 From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> Subject: More open fermenters >Dave Burley commented, >"I have used this "open" fermentation >procedure for three decades and never had a spoiled batch. I think it >is superior to the primary fermentation in a closed carboy system. >Others disagree. " Dave, I wonder how you justify this when fermenting so much over so many years. I can understand that it makes the process easier but remember yeasts are airborne. You may even get a superior product. Here's why. You are probably spending around 5 bucks a pouch for the purity of a liquid yeast only to have it compromised by the yeast soup you have floating around in your home brewery. Do you ever note little clumps of ale yeast floating on the top of your lagers? Remember that most great French bread bakeries NEVER add yeast, they rely totally on the yeast soup floating in the bakery. This may be a small portion of your total toss but it does count. Each beer You make has a bit of the Dave Burley yeast flora in it. You also take the chance of introducing airborne bacteria. If you have never had a putrid yellow puss pack floating on your beer, you are lucky. Pasteur learned this and used it as the basis for his studies on sterile process. (Don't ask me for the French name of the study, I don't speak French). In your case, you may have excellent results because you have an excellent soup of airborne yeasts. I HAVE to use carboys because I make wine each fall and montrachet and other wine yeasts make really funky beer. For newbies who are just starting, wild yeasts would make up the majority of their airborne yeasts. This could also have desirable or undesirable results, most likely undesirable due to bacterial concerns. Here's a test for you, take a small container of cooled wort out of your next batch, say a quart with an airspace, don't add yeast, set it in your brewery area for several hours uncovered then cover it, preferably with a lock as you normally would. Betcha' it ferments out to a decent tasting beer with a lot less acids and undesireables than you would think. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 07:45:26 -0500 (EST) From: LEAVITDG at SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU Subject: Kornberg on Biotechnology Admittedly a side issue for this list, but if any of you are interested in a report on Kornberg's (Nobel laureate) views on biotechnology (in which brewing and yeast is briefly mentioned), just ask and I will send. ...Darrell Leavitdg at splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:05:43 -0800 From: Rosalba e Massimo <rosamax at split.it> Subject: Re: Samichlaus Hi! > The assistant > manager (who knows and loves good beer) told her that Samichlaus was no > longer being made. He did succeed in finding some vintage variety packs > of Samichlaus. > > Has anyone else heard anything about this? This news appeared this summer in a UK site and mailing list, and also in rec.food.drink.beer. The site is http://www.breworld.com the news should be still in the main page. Samichlaus used to be brewed on 6 Dec every year to be released on the same day one year later. The brewery did not made the beer on 6 Dec 1997 (and quite surely also in Dec 98) and despite all the complaints and emails they have no will to start production any more. The last Sami you can find is the 1997 (still available in some shops) brewed in 1996. > And does anyone have a > better Samichlaus recipe than the one in Zymurgy a few years ago? We were talking about it in the italian beer newsgroup... besides the strength, it is a very attenuated beer (14% abv, about 1120 OG) and it is a lager, you should find an alcohol-tolerant bottom fermenting yeast... any suggestions? Cheers and Happy New Year from Genova, Italy Max http://www.split.it/users/rosamax/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 07:02:23 -0800 (PST) From: Kevin TenBrink <zzymurgist at yahoo.com> Subject: too much head stability After 2 years and 45 batches of extract based brews, I made the transition to all-grain this past summer. I am enjoying the fruits of that labor-intensive experience now and have a question about the product. There has been much discussion recently about mash schedules and the effect on clarity and head retention/foam stability. The problem I am having with my first all-grain is that it has TOO MUCH foam stability. When I pour a glass (from bottle or party pig), I get half a glass of this rocky dense head that does not receed. In fact when the beer is gone, there is usually still about 1/4 glass of head left. My glassware is clean, and I have tried pre-wetting the glass with cool tap water to no avail. The beer is not overcarbonated, if anything slightly under. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself could review the following procedure and tell me what is causing this. Ingredents: - --9 lbs Schrier American 2 row - --1 lb Breiss 60L crystal - --0.75 lb DWC Munich - --0.5 lb Cara-pils - --2 ozs Nugget 12.3 AAU 60 mins - --1 oz Nugget 12.3 AAU FWH - --1 oz Homegrown Saaz FWH - --1 oz Homehrown Saaz 20 mins - --1 oz Kent Golding Hop tea to secondary - --Wyeast 2112 from starter Procedure: Mash 90 mins at 156 sparge with 175 O.G.: 1.065 F.G.: 1.010 ferment at 50 degrees for 2 weeks secondary at 40 degrees for 2 weeks So what do you think? The mash schedule was pretty non-involved, I just combined water heated to 170ish with the malt in my pre-heated gott, stirred and let it sit, checking the temp periodically. The initial temp was about 159 and crept down to 156 during the 90 min mash. Does FWHing with a high alpha acid hop lend to foam stability? Any advice/insight would be appreciated. Cheers Kevin TenBrink Lansing, MI _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:47:46 -0500 From: "Matthew J. Harper" <matth at progress.com> Subject: Re: Mills and extract efficiency Jack Schmidling writes about Carona mills in todays digest: >Contrary to popular opinion, the maximum efficiency would occur if >the malt was ground to fine flour. Unfortunately, traditional >lauter tuns can not deal with flour so we have to crush the malt >in such a manner as to keep much of the husk in tact. > >As the Corona is designed to make flour, it is not hard to believe >that one can achieve excellent extraction. Adjusting it is a >compromise between pulverizing the husks and allowing whole grains >to pass through. It the lauter system can handle the fine grist, >the extraction can exceed a two roller mill. > >Extraction is only effected when going the other way and passing >whole grains. The advantage of a two roller mill is that it is >impossible to purverize all the husk and easy to set up so no >whole grains can pass. In the long run, better extraction may >result but it is not an inherent advantage over the Corona. > >The Corona has lots of shortcomings but extraction is not one of >them if adjusted correctly. I'm a Carona owner (say *that* a few times fast... :-) and I am quite satisfied with my extraction rates. I Found the best (subjective term of course...) overall spacing and locked it in tight. I am in full agreement with Jack on this aspect of roller or plate spacing; it isn't worth the hassle to tweak it everytime. I can screw up a batch in so many others ways! <grin> However, what Jack writes made me wonder about something related to this topic: The biggest reason roller mills are so attractive is because of the type of crush they give; which then translates into smoother lautering and run off procedures. However, as Jack points out above the best extraction would happen if the malt was pulverized into powder. Does this mean if I took my grain, turned it into powder and mixed it with a bunch-o-rice hulls in my tun I'd get the best extraction, provided the hulls performed as an adequate filter bed as the grain husks normally do? Would there be too much tanin extraction? -Matth About 10 Degress F Warmer then Jeff Renner here in Southern New Hampshire... Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:56:50 -0500 From: "Dave Humes" <humesdg1 at earthlink.net> Subject: Danger from too much dissolved O2 in wort? Greetings, I started oxygenating with pure O2 several months ago, mainly to shorten my brewing hours and also to insure that adequate levels of dissolved O2 are provided. I've become somewhat concerned that I have little control over DO levels since it's not something that I can measure. From what I've read for normal gravity worts, there's little advantage to be gained by introducing any more DO than about 25% of the saturation amount. BTW, what is the saturation amount? Some say 8ppm, others say it can go as high as 30ppm if pure O2 is used. I've also seen a recommendation to saturate the wort. My question is, can too much DO be detrimental. Or, is it the case that all the DO in a saturated wort will be rapidly metabolized before it can do any harm. Has anyone looked at what kinds of reactions occur between DO and wort compounds before the O2 is metabolized? Are there sufficient products from these reactions to cause flavor/aroma defects? Is it possible to get so much DO in the wort that it poisons the yeast? Thanks. Dave Humes >>humesdg1 at earthlink.net<< Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:04:16 -0800 From: Dave Sapsis <DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov> Subject: fruit flies in my science The ongoing debate concerning the net effects of fruit flies in yeast starters raises once again the weak science that is routinely tossed around here. Paul notes: But, so far we only have one real data point versus a lot of speculation. The problem lies not only with the paucity of data points, but in there very nature. In this instance we have a dependent variable apparently being something as vague and difficult to quantify as "beer quality". I have been judging beers in formal settings since 1986 and am quite active in it still. The "fact" that the beer scored 3rd in a homebrew comp means nothing about its "quality" other than two beers were judged "better". A more insidious problem with using these types of "data" is that they are entirely uncontrolled for. They represent empirical "studies"' as opposed to structured experiments. Tons of ancillary factors contribute to beer quality. As an example, a manipulative experiment looking at the fruit fly factor in contamination would test it across exposures (no flies -control, one fly, two fly, threee flies, more), across worts, across breweries, and across time. Multiple replications for each of these factors (or a time series with subsampling to account for time) would be required to develop inference regarding the relative import of a bug in your starter. This is what science does -- decreases uncertainty. The experiemental design can increase its potential inference by having very high levels of significance and high levels of power (ability to detect change from null). Secondly, it would always be good to use a quantitative measure as the dependent variable (cell counts make sense) in conjunction with structured blind taste evaluations by trained beer sensory people. Sounds daunting, eh? This is why even the most esteemed brewing jounals highlighting the best experimental research on brewing still come up with speculative results. At its very core, science can only get inference. Despite many (scientists even) talking about "proof", they are actually talking about statistical tests that they have deemed "significant". So what are we to do? There is already very strong experimetal evidence that common fruit flies harbor bacteria on their surface. There is also strong evidence that most beer (and virtually all homebrew) has at least background levels of contamination. Given that the starter is nutrient rich media, and that cell growth is an objective, I tend to think that low levels of bacteria contamination at the starter phase would be more problematic than later. This of course depends on the bugs particular life history and living requirements, but kinda brings to mind Dirty Harry. I dont discourage the use of individual data points in trying to develoip understanding, but I do think that an understanding of a particular factor should carry with it an understanding of how it was reached. Nor do I frown upon the use of exotic adjuncts in beer. How do you think I came up with the name of my 1994 barleywind "Old Stogie" or its 1995 sister "Old Loogee". Peace, and a fine 99 to you all. - --dave, sacramento Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:03:53 -0800 From: Steve & Dena Reynolds <strdar at pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Fruitfly fears Paul Niebergall wrote: >Until someone supplies additional data, we have to assume that >fruit flies are not a problem in starters. That assumption is on par with assuming that lying down on a highway is safe because, on occasion, there isn't a Mack truck tire where your melon (cranium) would be. If I hadn't seen other egregious lapses in logic in his reply, I would conclude that Mr. Niebergall didn't intend his response to read this way. His saying that the judges were schmucks removes all doubt. Undesirable yeasts or bacteria are not guaranteed to propagate from the feet of fruitflies, so there is a chance the judges sensed rightly. As a novice judge and willing audience to diverse points of view, I'm here to say it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. In general, it's downright unproductive to get all pissy about data you assume to be unimpeachable. No disingenuous welcomes, please. Just 'cause I've never posted before doesn't mean I don't revel in the democratic process. Steve, brewing quietly in the shadow of Mt. Tam Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:25:52 -0800 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: Cock Ale... From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azona.com> Subject: Re: Unique adjuncts "I once had a rooster ale. The brewer threw a cooked chicken into the primary. It was a heavy brew (OG around 1070). Only the bones were left when it was transferred to secondary. You couldnt taste the chicken but the beer had a richness that I havent tasted before. It sounds gross but it was actually not a bad beer." I have several recipes for "cock ale" in a couple of my historical books.. Cindy Renfrow's book _A Sip Through Time_ has four of them, dating from 1550 - 1780. This disgusting concept usually had a recipe of something like 2-10 gallons of fermenting ale, and a dead plucked chicken. Wheee.. badger ********************************************* Brander Roullett aka Badger (Seattle, WA) Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:19:43 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: bottling times John Herman <johnvic at earthlink.net> asks >If I store my bottles at room temperature, how long before >corn suger has fully fermented? Once it has fermented, how long before >the CO2 has disolved into the ale? Once I put the bottle to cool, is >there a re-adjustment of the CO2? > >Generally I find that 2 week in the bottle is not as good as a few weeks >more. I just don't get the same degree of carbbonation. John You've touched on one of the ongoing and unsettled questions on HBD. I don't think anyone has come up with the definitive answer as to why it takes more than a few days to carbonate, but it does. Obviously your ale finished fermenting lots more fermentables much more quickly that that. Suggested reasons have been low nutrient level in finished beer, low pH, pooped out yeast, Crabtree efect; I can't remember the rest. In spite of Dave Miller asserting that it takes time for the CO2 to go into solution after it's been produced, this is impossible. It is produced and immediately dissolved in situ. When you cool your ale, you will get less pressure and less fizzy beer because colder beer can hold more CO2. This will happen immediately without any"re-adjustment of the CO2." You will also likely get chill haze, but that's a separate issue. Give it those few extra weeks for full carbonation and the beer will probably taste better, too. And don't forget that British style ales are best with low carbonation and not too cold. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:40:55 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Good & Bad Grains, Good & Bad Advice Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com> asks about, among other things, George Fix's report of the poor quality of available Vienna malts. Since that book was written, excellent Vienna (and Munich) malts have become available. I believe George has posted to this effect, and others have had the same experience. The major German producers' products are excellent. Briess has also brought out a 2-row Vienna-style called Ashburne, which I haven't tried. Since I've stopped using the darker crystal malts with Pilsner malt base, I've been happier with the results - no caramel flavor. >is Hugh Baird or Maris Otter of comparable quality? You are comparing apples and oranges here - Hugh Baird is a maltster; Maris Otter is a older barley variety prized for malting. Several British producers produce malt from it, and Baird and other maltsters produce malt from several varieties. Halcyon is another variety. The only bad malt that I remember being reported here specifically is a Maris Otter that George Piro found to be substandard (greatly overmodified). I can't remember the producer. Most Maris Otter is fine although apparently very friable. I have had good luck with Scotmalt, Paul's, Munton & Fison and Hugh Baird. Cost isn't much of a consideration for me - all grains are close enough in price to one another for me to use grains from the country of the style I'm trying to produce. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:39:33 -0800 From: "Peter Zien" <PZ.JDZINC at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Westvletteren 12 Yeast I recently acquired a prized bottle of Westvletteren 12 Abt beer. It was picked up at the Trappist Abbaye 30 days ago and was shipped immediately. It appears to be in great shape, with a nice dusting of yeast on the bottom. I would like to culture it and pitch into a 1.080 OG Trippel if it is the same yeast used for primary fermentation. However, I am having trouble locating a source that discusses this particular strain. Michael Jackson appears to have first hand knowledge about the neighboring Westmalle Trippel yeast, claiming that although the primary yeast is filtered out, the same yeast is reintroduced at bottling. Does anyone know if this is true with the Westvletteren yeast? Has Wyeast already incorporated this yeast into their line-up, saving me the trouble? Thanks for your help! Peter Zien pz.jdzinc at worldnet.att.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:01:04 EST From: JPullum127 at aol.com Subject: wyeast 3333 german wheat yeast i just used this yeast in a monster.(doubledunkelweizenbock) i had a rapid and furious ferment at 64degrees,with about a quart of blowoff from 61/2 gal carboy filled to 5 gallons. blowoff smelled strongly of banana although this strain is supposed to be low in banana,clove,phenol of most wheat yeasts. gravity went from1.070 to1.018 when i racked to secondary at 12 days. hope this is usefull.p.s. dave logsdon(?spelling) the yeast guy at wyeast mentioned this is one of his favorites and suggested the strain for the recipe i had mentioned to my supplier marc Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:56:40 -0500 From: "Chris Beadle" <crbeadle at email.msn.com> Subject: Water chemistry Hi all - I am a five month lurker, first time poster. I'm hoping somebody can explain the results of a little experiment I ran. My understanding is that boiling water will cause calcium to precipitate with bicarbonate, thereby softening the water. I tested water with an aquarium water hardness test kit, which consists of sodium hydroxide and calmagite solution. EDTA color indicator is then added drop by drop (mixing between each drop) until a color change is noted. My results: Tap water 150 ppm hardness Boiled 10 min (and cooled) 140 ppm (no obvious precipitate) Boiled 40 min (and cooled) 240 ppm (granular and thread like white precipitates) The chemical analysis (Lake Huron water) lists the following: Mg 6.6 - 8.0 ppm, Ca 20 - 27 ppm, total hardness 96-104 ppm, non-carbonate hardness 21 - 46, and pH 7.2 - 7.6. These numbers are ranges for an 8 month period. Why did boiling trigger a higher hardness result from this test? TIA - email responses are fine - I'll post summary of results. Chris Beadle CRBEADLE at MSN.COM Macomb Twp., Michigan - about an hour from Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:50:58 -0700 From: John Adsit <jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us> Subject: On fruitflies and dogma I'm going to get a little philosophical here. A little while ago, not quite satisfied with the dry stouts I had made in the past, I began to browse the recipes in Cats Meow and other sources to see if I could find a recipe I liked better. After a while, I just started to see how many different recipes claimed to be clones of Guinness. I never really tried to count them, and I can't even provide an estimate, but they are legion. And they are DIFFERENT. It's hard to believe that so many recipes with such different ingredients and processes can all claim to result in the same thing. But they do, and I would bet that each one of them produces a dry stout that would please any reasonable stout lover. One of the most amazing things about this craft is that so many different techniques work! Over thousands of years of brewing, a world full of brewers has evolved so many ways of improving a vary simple biological process that we cannot even begin to guess at how many ways there are to make a good beer. And it is a simple process. Let's face it, if we took a can of hopped extract, mixed it with some water in an open bucket, and left it out for a while, we would probably end up with beer. Depending upon the kind of ambient yeast that chooses to ferment it, we may even want to drink it. Everything we do beyond that is to increase the probability that we will like the results. For example, if we just wash our equipment in a normal fashion, we will PROBABLY be OK, but since that degree of probability can be increased significantly by good sanitation technique, we all sanitize. But here's a confession: when I was a clumsy beginner, I frequently did stupid and unsanitary things I'm now embarrassed to admit. I had to toss a batch, and I had a couple with off flavors, but other than that, THE BEERS CAME OUT FINE. Another example: for a variety of reasons, today I always make a decent-sized starter for my yeast, but for the first forty batches I made, I just tossed in Wyeast straight out of the smack pack or used a dry yeast on occasion. I never had a problem I could notice. I had an occasional lag time approaching 24 hours, but nothing really bad ever came of it. As I grow more sophisticated in my technique, I get pickier, and I'm not sure that's all good. My friends rave about my last Pilsner, but I notice the diacetyl and feel disappointed. My stout-loving friend thinks the one I just finished is the best he's ever tasted; I know I mashed it at too high a temperature and taste the slight sweetness and extra body. I can't enjoy my own beers the way my friends can. There's actually a point or two to this rambling: As we develop our techniques and our palates, we can easily lose sight of the fact that much of what we do makes improvements only noticeable to an expert. More importantly, we lose sight of the fact that what we have learned to do is not the only way to do it. Most importantly, it seems that many of us have developed the attitude that there is something wrong with others who don't do or feel as we do. In the past months, many people have made posts which seem to speak with all the dogmatic authority of the Pope. All Wyeast yeasts suck! All fruit flies harbor diseases that will make beer undrinkable! (Well, at least to a REAL beer drinker.) You can't possibly make beer without at least a liter of starter! (There seems to be a competition to see who uses the most starter; I'm waiting for someone to announce they used a five gallon starter and noticed too late there was no room left for the wort. But it had no lag time, by golly!) I guess I'm suggesting that we lighten up a tad. The wonderful thing about a medium like this is the ability to share the things we do. When we try something and it works, sharing it here makes us all richer, but when we put down others with different ideas, we are all impoverished by the act. My son has asked me to introduce him to home brewing in his apartment this spring. I will start simple. I think I'll begin with a simple English Ale. I'll use some extract syrup with some crystal that we've steeped in an old enamel kettle. We'll pitch a couple of packages of Nottingham dry yeast. We'll ferment it in an old plastic fermenter I have left from a bygone era. No dry hopping. If a fruit fly comes by, we'll take it out and hope for the best. I bet it will taste just great. I may suggest he join this list. Maybe not. I hope nobody here tells him he's a piece of scum because he's using all the wrong equipment. - -- John Adsit Boulder, Colorado jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:10:08 From: william macher <macher at telerama.lm.com> Subject: Steam purity and how delicate are enzymes, really? Hi all, Micah Millspaw (MicahM1269 at aol.com) commented in Homebrew Digest #2915 that he felt that using steam in a heat exchanger would eliminate: >the risk of wort damage from the steam, which is not very pure from >a home pressure cooker, I'm certain. Since I sometimes fail to see the obvious, I must ask why one would think that steam from a home pressure cooker would not be as pure, or more pure, than the water used in one's mash. Wouldn't they be from the same source? Wouldn't the steam actually be more pure, since the condensate would essentially be distilled water? Let me throw out one question that has been bothering me with respect to steam injection in a rims. Recently someone (Steve Alexander?) questioned whether beating up the wort could have a bad effect on enzymes...my words not the authors who stated things much better :-) Anyway, steam condenses real fast in cold water, and I am pretty sure fairly fast at mashing temperatures as well. Steam bubbles changing to liquid water, within a pot of water, make a pretty good popping sound. There must be a significant shock at the point where the popping sound is generated. How delicate are these enzymes that we depend on anyway? should I put my beer glass down and start to worry as I continue to put together my steam injected rims? Welcome to 1999! Bill Macher....Pgh, PA...USA Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/01/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96