HOMEBREW Digest #2941 Sat 30 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

  AOL Subscribers (Homebrew Digest)
  Sparklers (AJ)
  re: dextrins/proteins/head/sweetness AND Yeast (Charley Burns)
  Polenta & CAP (John Varady)
  Kegging w/ CO2, but w/o a tank&regulator ("S. Wesley")
  GFCI, just curious (The Holders)
  European pub info needed... (Jamie)
  I was just thinking the very same thing, Matt! (jim english)
  Wine into fishes and walking on beer ! (Malcolm)
  Fuer diejenigen, die diese Nachricht lesen koennen (Alan McKay)
  The Jethro Rolfe Report ("Rob Moline")
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  Re: Endless fermentation (Scott Murman)
  : Lager Questions (Nathan Kanous)
  Duvel Yeast (MaltyDog)
  DME vs. LME ("Penn, John")
  Cloudy Beer in keggs (kchris1)
  Re:anthocyanidin data point (Tidmarsh Major)
  Corn Meal in CAP ("Crossno, Glyn")
  Re: Excessive Blow-off ("Scott Moore")
  Keg sanitation (BioCoat)
  Bottling bucket necessary? ("Gregory M. Remake")
  state your qualifications? (kathy/jim)
  head retention, beer bullets (Jim DiPalma)
  Re: How can I improve head retention? (Matthew Arnold)
  Mass. Brewer, Montreal Continuous Fermentation Brewpub (Joe Rolfe)
  Excessive blow off (Ted McIrvine)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Enter The Mazer Cup! _THE_ mead competition. Details available at http://hbd.org/mazercup 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. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. 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. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:32:57 -0500 (EST) From: Homebrew Digest <hbd at brew.oeonline.com> Subject: AOL Subscribers AOL Subscribers: Your HBD for 1/29/99 was bounced (en masse!). You have not been unsubscribed, and the fault is with AOL. AOL is installing a new mail system and, apparently, they weren't too successful on its maiden voyage. Please refer to the HTMLized version or the archives until AOL can work the bugs out of the system. Cheers! The Home Brew Digest Janitorial Staff Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:13:53 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Sparklers Jeff Luck enquired as to what a sparkler is. As I'm writing from Yorkshire and put down a pint drawn through one a scant few minutes ago I'll take a whack at this one. A sparkler is a device that attaches to the end of the swan neck on a beer engine. It can come in several forms but all have in common that the beer is forced through small apertures which disturbs it and causes tiny CO2 bubbles to form giving, in a beer with proper protein spectrum, a rich, creamy, long lasting head. The publicans here seem to like to violently spray the first pull into the glass, then lower the sparkler beneath the surface as they complete pulling the pint. When the glass is put onto the bar the beer is so full of bubbles that the color can't be discerned i.e. you can't tell which one is the bitter and which the Old Peculier. Not all beers benefit from sparkler treatment. It is generally associated with the beers of the north though sparklers are now finding their way, often improperly, into establishments in the south. The CAMRA guide indicates in its listings which brewers' beers should be pulled through a sparkler (little shower head symbol next to the brewery name) and which should not (showerhead with a transverse bar through it). Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 99 15:39 PST From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) Subject: re: dextrins/proteins/head/sweetness AND Yeast Steve Alexander writes a wonderful summary of how malt selection and processing can affect malty flavors and head retention in HBD 2939, continuing the discussions from last year. I recommend everyone interested in this topic to review a number Steve's past posts, especially if you're interested in the details of what goes on in the mash tun, decoction kettle at the molecular level. Just read it reallllll sloowwwww. However, he only hints at what yeast does to impact malty flavors: [Steve] Oddly yeast seem to have a big impact on an aspect of flavor that is sometimes called maltiness. To my mind this is different than aromatic maltiness, but I'm not sure that I can characterize the flavor any better than that. Yeast choice matters when it comes to malty character. [me] Boy do I agree with that. I have on occasion split batches of wort between yeasts (as many of us have) and been really surprised at the taste differences. Now those of us that have used some of the Wyeast Belgian strains to make Dubbles and Tripels know that yeast can have a profound taste impact. But there are much more subtle differences in other yeast strains. Take for instance CalCommon 2112. I can't believe how strong the malt flavors come through with this yeast when I make a steam beer or even an altbier with this yeast. Its great for that. Fermenting the same wort with 1056 produces a clean beer sure, but instead of malt, you get hop flavors and bitterness accentuated (and a drier beer too). The Scottish Ale yeast (1728?) has the same sort of impact, focusing on the malty character of the wort. Next time you make an IPA, split the batch a few ways with 1056, 1968, 1728 just to see for yourself. I've been trying to come up with a clone for HopDevil (Jim B just clams up when I ask for hints) and I'm convinced that there is a yeast contribution that is other than the typical 1056 used for american pale ales. (am I right jim?...). Play with yeast, you'll really be surprised how it changes the character of your beers. Charley (hop deviling this weekend) in N. Cal PS - all yeast numbers above are Wyeast. Their web site for further research (no affiliation at all) is: http://www.wyeastlab.com/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:28:06 -0500 From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: Polenta & CAP I am planning on using polenta in a CAP tomorrow and was wondering how much to use by weight to substitute for flakes. Since flakes are dry and polenta soggy, I thought about using 120% more polenta than flakes. If I used 19 lbs of malt and want to shoot for 24% corn, I would use 6 lbs of flakes. If I use 120% more polenta than flakes I would use 6*1.2 = ~ 7.5 lbs of polenta. Does this sound right? Is 120% too high? John John Varady * New email address ***> rust1d at usa.net Glenside, PA http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:21:52 -0500 From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Subject: Kegging w/ CO2, but w/o a tank&regulator Hi Folks, The recent thread about kegging without a tank reminded me of an idea I had a few years back but never followd up on, or tested. The principle is to use the fermentation process to provide the CO2 necessary to dispense your beer. Here is the basic setup Equipment: Two S.S. soda kegs. Two gas in fittings Two beer out fittings Three hoses One thumb tap One large syringe Hose clamps etc. 1) Begin by priming and kegging in one soda keg. Allow the beer to naturally carbonate. 2) When you are getting close to the point where you want to serve the beer make a small (perhaps a half a gallon might suffice) batch in the second soda keg using DME and pitch some yeast. You might use dry yeast, or the sediment from a fermenter. 3) Allow the yeast to ferment a bit and purge the headspace of the keg. Close the vent and allow the yeast to ferment some more. 4) Make up a hose with gas fittings on both ends. Connect the gas ports on the kegs together. 5) Attach the dispensing line to the beer out on the main keg, and serve. 6) Attach a short length of hose to the second beer fitting and clamp the tip of the syringe securely inside the short hose. 7) When the fermentation and pressure subside you will need to feed the yeast in the auxiliary soda keg. Remove the plunger and sanitze the syringe setup. Fill the syringe with sterile wort and replace the plunger. MAINTAIN PRESSURE ON THE PLUNGER as you attach the syringe to the beer port on the auxilliary keg and then depress the plunger to feed the yeast through the dip tube. Repeat as needed. I realize that the feeding process (actually the whole process!) I outlined has a number of potential problems associated with it but I'll leave it up to anyone who is brave (or foolish) enough to try this to work the details. I assume no liability for injuries sustained from high velocity projectile syringe plungers, but I will demand royalties if anyone makes money off this idea!:^) Have Fun, Simon Andrew Wesley Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:23:54 -0800 From: The Holders <zymie at sprynet.com> Subject: GFCI, just curious Every time I read a post or website about brewing with electricity, I think to myself......hmmmmm, why is everyone so anal about GFCI protection? I have a few theories: 1. Don't know anything about electricity, therefore "Me Too". 2. Know too much about electricity, therefore "Me know, me too". 3. "me too" 4. Don't know what an equipment ground is, or what its used for. (see #1) 5. Like to be ultra safe whether knowledgeable or not. It doesn't seem to damn likely that someone is gonna stick their head or hand in a bucket of boiling wort and get electrocuted, but I guess it could happen. Most people never give a thought to the fact that their electrically heated water coming out of the shower head isn't GFCI protected. Hmmmm.... Wayne Holder AKA Zymie Long Beach CA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:39:09 +0000 From: Jamie <wyldecat at slip.net> Subject: European pub info needed... Greetings Collective! I'm going to be in Europe for a couple of weeks on business (well, one week business, and one week pleasure) and need some input on good pubs to visit. I'm going to be in the following cities: Copenhagen Amsterdam London. Any input on where to go in those places would be apprecated. Jamie Pacific Urban Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:32:08 -0500 From: jim english <jimebob at mindspring.com> Subject: I was just thinking the very same thing, Matt! The mention of Alt in a post prior to Matthew's in #2939 got me to wondering where AlK has been? JRE Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:29:42 +0000 From: Malcolm <malcolm.purves at which.net> Subject: Wine into fishes and walking on beer ! A few tuppenceworth from SW England resulting from HBD2939 :- I don't usually say too much, so indulge me ,,, J. Matthew Saunders said I'd say that a post on Beer in times past--in and outside the Bible or any other text--is on topic. One is not, according to list-iquet, supposed to send messages saying 'me too' or 'I agree' , but I DO agree with Matthew, particularly as I had never before thought about what the common person in Judea would have been drinking. The orig. post on this topic got me thinking and it was quite an entertaining and surprising experience ! Dredging up the brain cell(s), was it not the Romans who introduced the hop to to northern europe and hyperborea anyway? They must have had a good reason for this ? Was it because it was their preferred beverage, were they tired of all that wine and what was his name, Baccus? Did the common roman erk bring it whilst his masters were importing wine at vast expense from the south and trying to get the grape to grow so far north ? - ---- Hang on, I'm not done just yet, on a light hearted note :- further down #2939 Rod Prather says "Brings a whole new meaning to Sunday morning communion. "This drink in rememberance of me" POP, FIZZ, GLUG, GLUB, BURP. well, in the church I used to be taken to in my childhood (long time ago - dont know what they say now ) it went something like this : The goblet of wine was presented and this intoned, " In remembrance of Me, drink ye all of this " well, of course some of us sometimes did ! Deliberately ignoring the semantics which were more akin to the american y'all ie. the assembled multitude. Not supposed to be all the contents of the goblet! - ---- Even further down Jeff Renner says : Jeff (Hoping to spread oil on troubled waters) hmmm, I do believe the Romans ( you see, I am trying to keep on thread!) used oil on the surface of their wine stored in amphorae (amphoras?sp.) to prevent oxidation/infection ? Before the use of corks and bottles. What's up, had they not found the cork-oaks of Portugal or not discovered how to make bottles with parallel( cylindrical ) necks then ? Does this suggest that for a truly authentic brew that we should maybe use olive oil to keep our beer under, not a keg ? he he te he <G> ! - --- On a less frivolous note Jeff also said : Today in the US, especially, many use it to promulgate intolerance and bigotry of the worst sort. Huh? what's special about the US ? Just look round the rest of the world from N.Ireland via the Balkans, mid-East, to the (indian?) subcontinent to Tibet, need I say more ? On second thoughts don't bother looking, its too depressing. This could be why I dont know what they say, now, in that church of long ago. Opps, sry, my last post on that bit of off-topicness, lets get back to beer and brewing, past,present and future with emphasis on the humour and pleasure of it. Good will to all brewers. Thanks to y'all for many interesting digests, I will now go back into obscure lurk-mode. ( without asking if it is true that the Egyptians, in the times of the pyramids, made their beer from loaves of bread or what their leavening was. ) Best wishes, Malcolm. 51deg26min N,2deg45minW, ( Capt.Picard,sir-am I within transporter range of Jeff? ) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:25:40 -0500 From: Alan McKay <amckay at mail.magma.ca> Subject: Fuer diejenigen, die diese Nachricht lesen koennen Gruss Gott! Falls ihr nicht wisst, gibt es auch ein deutsches HBF (Hausbrauer- Forum), das man bei http://www.netbeer.co.at/beer/forum/ finden kann. Die Ausgabe ist leider nicht so regelmaesig, wie das Englische (1 oder 2 mal in der Woche, jeweils bloss 2 bis 5 Nachrichten), aber es ist sehr interessant. In den deutschspraegigen Laendern faengt man mit verschiedenen Anfangspunkte an, als wir "hierdrueben". z.B. wird die Gaerung dadrueben selbst bei Anfaengern unter Druck durchgefuehrt, wobei man dies auf dieser Ozeansseite nur selten sieht. So lernt man viele verschiedene Sachen, die man sonst niemals sehen wuerde. Dazu gibt es auch eine gute Brauklatsch-Homepage bei : http://www.bier-selbstgebraut.de/wwwforum/index.html Meldet euch mal! The more, the merrier! cheers, -Alan - -- "Brewers make wort, yeast makes beer" - Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:39:35 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: The Jethro Rolfe Report The Jethro Rolfe Report >From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com> >Subject: Dry Yeast... <SNIP> > At that time >it was >easier but the flavors (DRY YEAST) where well less than those of quality pure >strains. >(totally baseless data point there - no hard facts to back it up - >just >the brewers and informal taste panel taste buds) Joe, I always assumed that the yeasts I used were 'quality pure strains.' >One thing wont change tho, a brewpub and a micro are very different in >respect >to products. Pubs have a captive crowd. Micros must stand alone >amidst the >other micros on the shelf/tap. The bottom line is flavor profile. And >as we all know the yeast is a major contributor. (another baseless data >point??). I agree with you...flavor profile rules....and the flavor imparted by the yeast I used 'stood alone' on the 'shelf/tap' of 96 GABF, among many micros, including some that have long dominated the Barleywine category.....now, if you can name any 'shelf/tap' that has 40 Barleywines, other than GABF, I'd like to hear of it.... A further assurance to you, in regards flavor imparted by a dry yeast, is the rating given by James Robertson and his team for the "Beer Taster's Log," of 99/100 for my beer brewed with a Dry Yeast....from a panel of 5 tasters..... > In >general I still dont see and did not see many commercial packaging >breweries using dry yeast (no matter whose it was). I have long been aware that there are many major and micro breweries that use dried yeast for their brews....Individual agreements preclude me from knowing, yet alone naming them, but.....the bottom line, as you say, is flavor..... >One way to stand out is to find a very unique yeast, that, not many - >if any, >of breweries in the area are using. It is my experience that the best and easiest way to stand apart is to keep your brews 'clean'.....a process which seems to elude most that I encounter....... Picking it is quite a difficult >process .and if your buying them at $100-$400 a pop, expensive. The dry yeast >lab I >was refering to is Alfred Jorgensons (spelling may be way off...). At >the >time I looked into them they had several dozen extremely pure dry >yeast - again >you only get a small vial. You only buy it once. The >Lallemand/Whitbread dry yeasts >I had access to did not come with purity certificates nor where they >very stable >(stable = each batch of yeast produced the same flavor profile in the >final product >and you really did not want to repitch very many times before using a >new brick). And that's where you get into trouble, repitching 'very many' times.....Yes, I do know breweries that repitch countless times....BUT, they do lab analysis on the yeasts they RE-CULTURE and GROW, for viability, vitality, purity, etc..... But, to me, (and what do I know?) repitching more than 5 times is asking for trouble.......and again on the 'what do I know,' I virtually never repitched ( at LABCO)....finding the cost of using a new brick to be negligible......( at CABCO, we frequently repitched, never more than 5 times)...no probs... But, as you say, the Lallemand yeasts I have long been using did not come with a certificate of purity.....I only found them not to need one.... OTOH, Mr. Bonham's reports on their use, in BT, found no problems either.....Indeed he remarked on his surprise at their qualities... Another who knows a damn sight more than I, Dave Draper, remarked on his changed attitude to dry yeast after using this product, in these pages of HBD.... >Dry yeast is very easy for the pubs, no lengthy build up, limits the >amount >of lab work, cheap in price and reasonable in flavor. Good/well funded >micros > - have alot of hardware and manpower invested in yeast management. The >expense >incurred by investing inhouse yeast management over the long term is >cheaper than >continually buying dry yeast. (baseless to the point that when someone >sits >down and does the math - it will be come clear). The math shows me that when I make a 7 bbl batch that uses less than 25 bucks in yeast to make over 3 grand in retail, even at $ 2.25/pint (compare that to where YOU live!!) prices, with no lab equipment, nor management of yeast time......DOH! I have been so stupid! I could have bought an autoclave, hood, microscope, dedicated refridgerators, and incubators, and spin centrifuges.........not to mention lab personnel! Instead, I spent 20 minutes in rehydration/attemperation....Time incorporated in knockout......! DOH! I have been so stupid! A micro will live or >die by >its yeast, a brewpub is a restaurant first - it will live or die by >its food/service. >(this is not a baseless fact - but alas I have no refs...) We all know of many micros/brewpubs that fail......whether or not they used dry yeast... Joe, I don't know of any micro's that failed by using dry yeast... AS A MATTER OF FACT...I will guarantee you that if you look hard enough at the MICRO's/BP's that have failed...the majority, if not all of them used a yeast other than dry. The last time I attended a bankruptcy court for the remains of a failed brewpub, no one mentioned the yeast. Undercapitalization...yeah...bad management...yeah....Embezzlement...yeah...Fraud...yeah... I do know many that failed, both BP's and micros, cos they had crap beer..........I also know of BP's that had glorious, and multi-medal winning beer, AND grand food that failed.... (Can you say LOCATION?) I certainly wouldn't presume to state that they died by their yeast management practices..... >Having a world class dry yeast available may be one of the greatest >steps forward >in recent years. (yet another baseless datapoint). One wonders how you classify a 'world class' dry yeast? Do medals in World Beer Cup/GABF/World Beer Champs qualify? >I know I will more >.than likely. >(one way or another) obtain Lallemands new dry yeasts - if in fact >this does make >it to market. I give Lallemand large congrats - if they can pull it >off. I hope you will............I'm sure they will.... BTW, Lallemand has been doing it for years......It is only the prejudices from past practices that provide the base for opinions made in the past.... Try it...You might like it...... DISCLAIMER....I will be aiding Lallemand effective 2.1.99, and receiving fee's for such...but the position I put forward in this post....that certain dry yeasts are a quality product has been stated by me many times in the past on HBD and other electronic media...... Jethro Gump Rob Moline brewer at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:39:44 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report The Jethro Gump Report From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com >Subject: re: fusels... > > Do the yeast > consume the fusels? Are other metabolic byproducts or enzymes > reactive with them. Are they oxidized? In general, alcohols are > natural solvents and fairly stable, or so I thought. They are less > volatile than ethanol but more volatile than water as indicated by the > fact that they create problems by accumulating in continuous > distillation columns that separate ethanol and water. I assumed that > if you had enough fusels in your beer to taste, that you were pretty > much stuck with them. But that is really just a wag which was neither > theoretically nor empirically derived. Lou, your point is well raised...though I had hoped to stimulate discussion on the issue raised by the Ingledew paper, that yeast generate more ethanol during growth than that of the non growing cells..... I guess that is not going to be argued.... BTW, for those that want the reference...."Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Sept 1984, p 639-646, Vol 48, No 3., Casey, Magnus, Ingledew" can be obtained from .. www.isinet.com or 1-800-336-4474. Cost seems to be about 10 bucks, maybe more..... But the essentials are these....as questioned most notably in a private communication from Pete Santerre....who understates his acuity.... 1) High yeast growth does lead to higher fusel production.. 2) Lower temps of fermentation decrease fusel production....Higher temps = More fusels... 3) Fusels are a product of 'spillover' of amino acid metabolism, and carbohydrate metabolism...obviously, in a high grav brew....there are many more of these reactions occurring...thence, more fusels..... 4) "Fusels are pretty much there for the duration".....Some are oxidized...for no matter the storage, nor the method ..there is some O2.. 5) "Fusels are pretty much there for the duration".......Some is volatilized...though this is a very, almost insignificant amount.... 6) "Fusels are pretty much there for the duration".....Some will be attached to the products of protein degradation....and yeast autolysis....(keep in mind that we have been talking about high grav brewing.....it follows that there is a long lagering.....and most of these products, if not all, are not filtered, in a BP/Homebrew environment...as opposed to a commercial high grav brew, that will be diluted and filtered).... 7) Remembering that esters are the product of a reaction of an organic acid with ethanol....and that "Fusels are pretty much there for the duration".....a slow, up to 2 years or longer reaction of fusels with other organic acids, (from autolysis, protein degradation, etc)will lead to formation of more esters.....This is a slow process...BUT.. 8) "Fusels are pretty much there for the duration"....this is why, even with a 12 months or 24 months aged barleywine...consumption of a "fair bit" (scientific term) will result in a 'hang-over' or head ache.... In short, in a VERY complex chemical reaction(s)....the "Fusels are pretty much there for the duration." Maturation and 'softening' of a high grav brew is a long term, and complex process..... (Source, Dave Radzanowski, Lynne Kruger, Siebel Institute) Jesus and Beer.... Good Lord, I just hope that the Reverend Matt has a good vacation!!! Gentlemen and Gentlewomen, I post in the spirit of the tag line, "and Beer Related." I know that this has been mentioned by others, and if you have been around long enough, you know that this has also been a prior issue with the Gump Report....... As then, it is now...change the subject header of the HBD, and I will stop posting things like this....... "MILLER BREWING CO's new plastic beer bottle is being taken on by environmentalists not because of aesthetics, but because it's amber tint and label make it incompatible with recycling-plant requirements. WSJ....1.28.99" I won't even mention the prior day's WSJ article on 'Fast Trains and Local Beer" ....look for it if you want...they don't even mention a brand... No, I just thought it was an interesting brew related subject....I have researched the GBN...and found that the article on Jesus and Beer on their site posessed no more references than that I posted here.... For those that wish to pursue the more religious/scientific/archaelogical aspects of this story...I found the web site for the GBN and noted that the info comes from their December 1998 newsletter, page 137....the site is located at http://www.globalbeer.com/web/p2.html....... One HBD'r has pointed out some features of the story that do 'jibe', not to say that he necessarily agrees with the GBN story...personally, I would like to invite him to share his information....and will in private e-mail.... I guarantee you, there was no offence intended......if an article is interesting to me, in beer related manner, then you might see it here..... Beer Bullets and Momily's.... Thomas Murray asks about Bullets and Momily's....I'll let Jack speak on Momily's....... The first mention of Beer Bullets in HBD came from Curt Schroeder...The day of Big Brew '98..In a JG Report... >Well I think I emptied my magazine of beer bullets! Thought I earned some >back with the post hole digging but apparently not. Great AHA party! <SNIP > - Curt Schroeder, Operation Hypoxia Commando Explanation .... >Extracted from file: 2714Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 23:01:49 -0500 >Subject: The Jethro Gump Report > The Jethro Gump Report > <SNIP> >"Beer Bullets" > When visiting Colorado, hearing of the "Beer Bullet Theory" and then >running into Curt Schroeder, who gave his consent to be identified as the >originator, I present the following...... > As avid brewers, folks such as ourselves like to attend beer events, >such as homebrew club meetings, beer festivals, the unveiling of the new >brew at the pub, having the fella's over for a few brews and football on the >TV. etc.... Each attendance at such an event uses a "Beer Bullet." > Now, assuming the above, the "Beer Bullet' Theory states that each >month >all brewers are given a certain number of "Beer Bullets" by their S.O., but >they are unable to determine how many are in each month's magazine, and the >number varies each month. > But, they are ALWAYS able to determine when they have run out! Cheers! Jethro Gump Rob Moline brewer at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Jethro Gump Rob Moline brewer at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:37:44 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: Endless fermentation > I have a Grand Cru fermenting presently. OG 1.083, after 10 days 1.034, and > still popping every 17-20 seconds. Ambient temp about 68F, yeast is La > Chouffe. Is there any danger of off-flavors if I just leave it? I am loathe > to rack to secondary (I usually do after a week or so) as I suspect it > might stop fermentation completely. > > Keith Busby This seems to be a pretty common mis-conception. Everyone seems scared to death of the autolysis-trub-bogeyman, and feels they have to rack at 1 week (or 2 weeks, or whatever). Bigger beers take longer to ferment. If it's still fermenting, leave it alone. Even if it's not fermenting actively, leave it alone for awhile. About the worst thing you could do is take it off the primary yeast cake. As long as there is sugar available, you have no risk of autolysis, and any trub compounds the yeast wanted they took long ago. -SM- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:47:31 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: : Lager Questions Kelly had some trouble with a lager fermenting out completely. Here's what was said: The first 5 gallons went to the 1st carboy . The next 3.5 went to the second, where I added 1 gallon of boiled and cooled water. 1st carboy 1.064 the second should be around the 1.050 range. I had a starter of Bavarian Lager Yeast going for a while at 48 degrees in a well controlled fridge.a full 1 gallon bottle of yeast stepped up about 6 times. A fine looking yeast sample at high krausen when pitched. Now, the complaint is that the first carboy has not fermented out as well. I've got an observation that I encountered when fermenting a batch of ale in a similar manner. You had a 1 gallon starter of yeast. Good! You had 2 batches (no HUGE fermenter). Good, me too. Now, I suspect that after the first carboy was full, you swirled your starter to rouse the yeast and you dumped half of the starter into the first batch and half into the second. If that is not true, the rest of my discussion is faulty. If this is how you did it, think of what happens when you swirl your wort after chilling before running off into a carboy. Not everyone does this, but it serves to illustrate. The swirling after chilling, before running off is to pile the hops and trub into the center. When you swirl your yeast starter, you do the same thing. You "stack" the yeast in the center on the bottom and pour off some of the supernatant as your starter into your larger batch. Now, it may not be quite that simple, but I know that when I swirl starters, I've got some large flocs of yeast on the bottom. Those do suspend a little, but don't pour off. I had a Kolsh perform similarly. Huge starter, first half looked alright, but didn't ferment out as well as the second. Two solutions. Now I split and make 2 starters for 10 gallon batches. The other option would be to allow the two to ferment near completion, and then "mix" the batches in secondary. Half of each 5 gallon "batch" into each of the secondaries. Hope this helps. If this is too unscientific and not founded on reasonable logic, I'm always interested in constructive criticism. We don't learn a thing if we don't make mistakes, now do we? nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:07:59 EST From: MaltyDog at aol.com Subject: Duvel Yeast I read John Penn's post about using Duvel yeast, which stopped fermenting at 1.030, with interest. I've also cultured yeast from bottles of it, and have found it to slow down sometimes at regular fermentation temperatures. It seems to function much better at around 76-78 degrees, and will finish a beer off with a very clean flavor at that temperature. As a matter of fact, I fermented with it in the summer for that very reason! Just thought I'd add another data point. Bill Coleman MaltyDog at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:20:37 -0500 From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu> Subject: DME vs. LME I want to correct or expand on what I saw as an "error" in this mornings HBD. A poster mentioned that 1# of DME (dry) was equal to 1.1# of LME (liquid). Maybe they meant 1# of LME is equivalent to 1.1# of grain (which is roughly true depending on efficiency). I usually use 1# of DME to 1.3# of LME. My first couple of recipes in Papazians second book came out about 10% lower in gravity than I expected. Then I found in Noonan's Scotch Ale book that he uses 1.034 ppg for LME vs. Papazians 1.037 ppg. Voila, the 10% difference. I now use 1.034 ppg for LME and 1.045 ppg for DME in my spreadsheet and have had pretty good results such that I don't worry about measuring the OG knowing that I will probably be within a couple of points of my calculations anyway. I realize that I often see a range of 1.042 - 1.045 ppg for DME in different references and I have seen 1.033 - 1.037 ppg for LME. As Al K. once pointed out to me, Alexanders malt extract is about 1.033 ppg which is lower than some other malts. But, I usually use M&F LME so the 1.034 ppg seems to work well for that malt. Liquid malts and dry malts probably vary a bit among manufacturers but I find 1# of DME vs. 1.3# of LME to work well for me. Just another data point. John Penn Eldersburg, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:16:33 -0800 From: kchris1 at lausd.k12.ca.us Subject: Cloudy Beer in keggs Alan Dowdy writes I tried using my cornie as a secondary and found that while the beer turned out pretty good(IMHO), it had a lot of chunks(trub?) floating in it. I figured this was a good excuse to experiment with filtering snip I too have been using kegs as a secondary and find the cloudy beer a neusence... Now I am trying to lager my kegged beer on its side. My thought and hope is that the sediment will floculate and stick to the side of the keg staying out of the way of the liquid out line. If this does not work, I will probably begin to hit the beer with gelatin. The problems are not usually my beer, it is usually the impatient brewer/drinker ;-) If I let the beer sit at 35- 40F for a few weeks, it clears up nicely. I just cant stand to wait. Any advice on whether to lager beer under pressure or not? Looking to shorten the time Ooops the impatient brewer in me is about to show. Ill end my post here. Keith Christian Chatsworth CA Cloudy beer has never stopped my blind friends from drinking my beer I just never tell them ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:31:55 -0600 From: Tidmarsh Major <ctmajor at samford.edu> Subject: Re:anthocyanidin data point Steve Alexander (Welcome back!) provides detailed information about blue and red plant pigments and pH and notes that: " If any anthocyanidin remains blue at beer pH values - you'll likely find it in a purple-blue tart fruit like blueberies or blackberries." A friend of mine made a blueberry mead, and it turned reddish-pink, so those particular blueberry anthocyanidins didn't remain blue at mead pH levels. (QDA-I don't know the pH of his mead nor how it relates to beer pH). Tidmarsh Major Birmingham, Alabama Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:34:11 -0600 From: "Crossno, Glyn" <Glyn.Crossno at cubic.com> Subject: Corn Meal in CAP Good to have you back Steve! Having just bottled the Corn Meal CAP, CMCAP, I noticed a higher than in the past terminal gravity. Did you have similar results. Jeff R. have you noticed a difference in TG between CAP adjuncts? Glyn Crossno Estill Springs, TN - --------------- > Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; > Responsibility for all your actions. > Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:50:17 PST From: "Scott Moore" <brewathome at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Excessive Blow-off Ian, I just recently tried adding Crosby & Baker Anti-Foam (1 drop per gallon) to my primary of Scotch Ale (or is it Scots Ale):-> before aerating with an aquarium pump. I never got more than an inch of foam even during vigorous fermentation. From what I understand, this product isn't supposed to hurt head retention, although I'm a little bit skeptical... I got it at The Grape and Granary, http://www.grapeandgranary.com, an excellent local shop that gets all of my business with the upside being that they're also cheaper than most other mail-order shops. NA,JASC. Scott Moore >I just had a very vigorous fermentation and lost 1/2 gallon to blow >off! Is there anyway to somehow reduce or eliminate this waste of >potential beer? I was thinking of some kind of recirculating system >or maybe larger blow off tube? Anyone solved/eliminated this problem? > > Cheers > > Ian Smith > isrs at cmed.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:27:16 EST From: BioCoat at aol.com Subject: Keg sanitation I have several cornie kegs in a temperature controlled chest freezer. Unfortunatly this is not the most sanitary environment. Should I be concerned about sanitizing the quick disconnects and the associated fittings on the keg? What about the CO2 lines, should they be considered a source for contamination? Thanks in advance for help. Rick Georgette Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:42:19 -0600 From: "Gregory M. Remake" <gremake at gsbalum.uchicago.edu> Subject: Bottling bucket necessary? Hi all, I've always racked my wort from the secondary carboy to a bottling bucket for bottling. Is this step necessary? Couldn't I add the primer to the carboy and stir it in, attach the filler to the siphon hose, then fill the bottles directly and avoid the intermediate transfer to a bucket? Potential advantages include saving time, eliminating some aeration, less beer wasted, and less cleaning. What are some potential problems? I thought the sediment might be a problem, but I have to avoid that when racking to a bucket anyway. I'm planning on bottling tonight, and since I couldn't post yesterday, I won't be able to assess the concensus on this issue in time for this batch. It seems to me that those that keg don't bother racking to a bucket. But what method do those of you that bottle prefer? BTW, I actually enjoy bottling. I don't drink my beer all that fast, and have no desire to spend more money on optional equipment, so kegging has never been a priority for me. It's also the only process with which my wife and kids like to help me: they love to operate the capper. Thanks for any help, Greg Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:06:11 -0500 From: kathy/jim <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Subject: state your qualifications? > Despite what a few ego-maniacal, over-aggressive, frequent posters believe > in there own minds, the HBD is NOT a scientific journal or forum. At > best, it approaches it at some times. > > What if you are simply relying on experience and do not have any > *references* to back yourself up? You are then left to throwing in a > lot phrases like: *Based on my 10 years of brewing experience.......*, > or *when I was at Seible.....*, or *while working on my Ph.D. in yeast > mutation theory at MIT.....*. All of which is a big turn-off to the > majority > of HBD subscribers who are regular, working class (and some professionals) > people who like to drink and brew there own beer. I for one do not want > to keep reminding people that I have been brewing > since 1985, have a college degree in engineering (from a well I'm sorry to dissent but I couldn't feel more to the contrary. I appreciate just what the individual brings, and I value HBD because it has both the Ph'D specialists and the newbie brewer, but I do want to know who's who. I know someone may have brewed 1000 batches of lousy beer that no one has the heart to tell the brewer what he/she's got, but I find it interesting to know that poster has brewed 1000 batches. IMHO cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:01:16 -0500 From: Jim DiPalma <dipalma at omtool.com> Subject: head retention, beer bullets Hi All, In HBD#2940, Jim Kingsberg asks: >My brewing practice currently is to do a single step infusion at 152 to 158 >degrees F. (Sorry, no protein rest!) Im currently using Shrier 2 row >(bought a sack from the guys at Lakeside Brewing in Milwaukee, thanks >guys!). Most of the brews I make are English style pale ales/stouts. >So the questions is what factors can I control that produce good head >retention? The single infusion mash schedule you're using is fine for the styles you're brewing, though you might want to mash a bit lower than 158F for a pale ale. I suggest adding a little torrified wheat to your grain bill. Keep the addition small, 1%-2% of the grain bill, and you won't need to adjust your mash schedule or worry about haze. I use a cup, 8 oz by volume, in a 10 gallon batch of bitter/pale ale/IPA. No clarity problems, great foam stand, and the beer leaves a lovely lace on the side of the glass. IMHO, use of torrified wheat in this manner provides great head retention in styles with a low level of carbonation. Eric Fouch provides his approach to beer bullets: >Or you could take my approach- >Look honey, you got two choices: I brew all day Saturday and you bitch, or I >brew all day Saturday and you *don't* bitch. Your choice. Get me a beer. ROTFLMAO!!!! Eric, you are obviously a twisted, irreverent individual - my kind of guy! If you're ever in the southern New Hampshire area, look me up and drop by for a pint, we can discuss re-loading techniques. My own approach is to simply get out of bed on Saturday before the wife does, and mash-in. She hates brewing smells, so this approach never fails to send her fleeing to the nearest shopping mall for the day. A very small price to pay, IMHO. Cheers, Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:06:17 GMT From: marnold at ez-net.com (Matthew Arnold) Subject: Re: How can I improve head retention? On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:19:19 -0500, you wrote: >So the questions is what factors can I control that produce good head >retention? Is it strike/mash temp? Malt age? Malt type and/or >modification and/or composition? Additives or adjuncts? How do the big >boys do it? I can't give you the technical stuff, but I can tell you what I know. Most of my beers are lacking in the head retention department. My IPA, on the other hand, has a head that could deflect small-caliber bullets. It is the only beer I use Briess Carapils in (1/2 pound) and it is the most highly hopped beer I make (6 oz / five gallons). >From what I've read crystal malts, carapils, wheat, and/or flaked barley can improve head retention. Higher hopping rates can help too. Soap residue in the glass can kill head retention, as can very long protein rests. AlK's book addresses this on p. 304-5. Hope this helps, Matt (back to his usual distance from Jeff Renner) - ----- Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club http://www.rackers.org info at rackers.org Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:25:39 -0500 From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com> Subject: Mass. Brewer, Montreal Continuous Fermentation Brewpub Ips Brewing it is a rumor on the street, Mass Bay (Harpoon) has bought the labels. Harpoon has great packaging equipment (a Krones), Ips has a reasonable sized brewhouse and quite a few fermentation/storage tanks - may be they will over the road tank it down to Boston for packaging. My guess anyway. Or maybe they will fianlly shut down the bastardized brewery in Ips..(- did i publically bash my x competition again;) sorry Jim/Paul no malice intended. Speaking of yeast growth.....Any one been to Montreal and gone to the brewpub that had the Continuous fermentation rig??? I thought they had sold it off but did anyone have any of the beer produced whilst it was in operation?? I think (***QDAlert*) this type of fermenter would be a great little toy to play with... Joe Rolfe Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:32:19 -0800 From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Excessive blow off Ian Smith <ISRS at Cmed.Com> asks about excessive blow-off and how to avoid losing the beer. I often do primary fermentation by splitting a 5 or 6 gallon batch into two carboys with the extra head space keeping the beer from blasting out, and then rack into a single carboy with no head space. Ted McIrvine McIrvine at Ix.Netcom.Com Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/30/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96