HOMEBREW Digest #3048 Fri 04 June 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

  Re: calling Dr.Imhoff/the Fix is 'out' (Jim Liddil)
  If you watch and wait... ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Yeast Evals (Robert Uhl)
  degrading ("Paul Niebergall")
  Nottingham yeast again ("Penn, John")
  Artful Brewing ("Daske, Felix")
  help with carbonation ("Gradh O'Dunadaig")
  ProMash Calculations (Jeffrey Donovan)
  Spirit of Free Beer Results (Anderson Andy W NSSC)
  Cold conditioning (lagering) (Greg Remake)
  Dextrins (Dave Burley)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Boneyard Brew-Off 6/12/99 * (http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/contest5.html); Buzz-Off! * Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff) 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: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 07:43:57 -0400 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at vms.arizona.edu> Subject: Re: calling Dr.Imhoff/the Fix is 'out' - --On Thursday, June 03, 1999, 3:34 AM -0400 Stephen Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Jim Liddil wrote ... >> Steve Alexander wrote: >>> At the HB level we have no objective way to compare runoff clarity. >> Oh but we do. It is called an Imhoff cone and has been discussed here >> before. See the archives. > > I remember the discussion quite well. I checked my local HB shop and > several catalogs and no Imhoff cones. The term "HB level" was used > purposely. Seriously Jim, if you have a source for a cost effective > Imhoff cone, please tell us about it. Where did you get yours (or do you > have one ) ? cynmar has them for $24. considering I spent $165 for my RIMS PID this was a bargain. (800)223-3517. Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:34:46 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: If you watch and wait... In 3047 it is said... >>For reasons not yet known to science, these >>recrystallized starch molecules are very resistant to enzymatic >>hydrolysis, and thus do not yield fermentable sugars in the mash tun." >>Ahhh. Science DOES know why retrograded starch is resistant. Not to be >>redundant, but what has been created is known in the literature as >>"resistant starch" (go figure). Amylose and debranched amylopectin in >>solution (or in the presence of excessive moisture) will retrograde. >>Retrogradation/crystallization of amylose causes the molecule to form >>helices, making most of the polymer unavailable for enzymatic attack. In Brewing Techniques a few issues back there was the question, "Is there any reason a homebrewer_must_use a portion of malt in a cereal mash" There was some discussion here that this was used to prevent retrogradation which someone explained to be turning into a starchy lump, and since homebrewers don't pump their cereal mash then it didn't matter. Well I guess now it seems that it _may_ matter to maintain the fermentability after the boiling cereal cools to mash temperatures. Maybe this is just conjecture on my part. What do you think? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:18:28 -0600 From: Robert Uhl <ruhl at austinc.edu> Subject: Yeast Evals Mr. Kenton wrote regarding the Lallemand yeast strains. While I have no hard-and-fast experimental data, my experience is that Nottingham is an _excellent_ ale yeast. I would describe it as a 'clean' ale flavour, not clean as in the sense of lager-clean, but rather in the sense of 'contributing only that which is appropriate in the style of ale I prefer.' This is not that helpful, but perhaps when I mention that I love bitters, brown ales, porters and stouts, with a soft spot for fruit ales, and that I love maltiness and a good hop flavour and aroma, it might become a tad clearer. I have made wonderful beers with Nottingham. I have also used Windsor. It works, and works well, but I find that it is perhaps slightly more suited towards bitters than other ale styles. Take that as you may. Sorry I cannot be more specific. IMHO, though, the only way to evaluate yeast (or any other brewing ingredient) is to make beer with it. The tastes desired by others are not nec. those one desires. E.g., I hate lagers with a passion (bocks, pilseners &c.) and love ales. Someone who loves lagers and finds ales just too nasty would prob. not be helped by my yeast, malt, water, hop or technique suggestions. Mr. West wrote with the results of his unit's beer tasting. Excellent stuff, we need more of it on the HBD. I remain As ever, Bob Uhl Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:31:30 -0500 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: degrading Scott Wrote: >I thought that the idea was to help and to learn, >not to degrade, slash and burn. Jeez, that means a lot from a guy whose sig line reads "the more I know about C*thy *wing the more I know the AHA s*cks" Among some other choice degrading, slashing, and burning stuff he has posted over the years Maybe Scott needs to practice what he preaches! Paul Niebergall Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:31:49 -0400 From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu> Subject: Nottingham yeast again Well I just finished my lawnmower beer. I've made it twice before and it ended with a gravity of 1.010 starting around 1.037. This time it ended with a relatively high 1.016 FG! The recipe for 3.75 gallons is 1-3.75# can of Morgan's prehopped malt, 1/4# dextrin malt to increase the FG by a couple of points, Nottingham dry yeast and maybe 1/2-1oz finishing hops. I've used Morgan's dark and wheat malt the last two times and this time I used Morgan's rice malt. Bittering should be about 24 IBUs based on the prehopped can producing 15 IBUs for 6 gallons and just extrapolating that to a concentrated 3.75 gallon batch. Not only did this batch finish a little high in gravity but it tastes "sweet" compared to previous batches. Of course this sample was at bottling time so I need to reevaluate the taste in a couple of weeks or more. Fermentation temperature was pretty normal for this yeast too, around 68-70F. Yeast was rehydrated and active fermentation started fairly quickly. Next morning there was a nice krausen. My question to revive the Nottingham yeast thread is, has anyone else been getting higher FG's? I had posted a question previously and my mistake that time was in getting lazy and just pouring the dry yeast on the cooled wort as I had years previously. Rob Moline pointed out the necessity of rehydrating the Nottingham dry yeast and in the next several batches I rehydrated and had active fermentation the following morning. So the rehydrating helped and my beers seemed to have reasonable attenuation the last couple of times until this batch. I can't think of any other variables except that my last 2 lawn mower beers were made about a year ago. Same recipe, similar fermenation temps, same yeast, same procedures, same carboy for fermentation. Any other ideas? Previously I expected 75-80% attenuation for this yeast. I estimate 1.034 gravity from the LME and about 0.003 from the dextring for the OG. Then I estimate an FG of around 1.007-8 after 75% attenuation of the LME plus 0.002-3 from the 15% attenuatable dextrin malt for an estimate FG of 1.010 which is what I got twice previously. This batch would indicate about 60% attenuation of the base LME. Anyone else having similar lower attenuations with Nottingham? TIA. Off the beer subject, I'm thinking of making a wine. Any similar sites like the brewery for getting started in making wine? TIA. Lastly I hate to see many of the dedicated HBD contributors getting "slammed". No wonder we don't hear as much from some of our core contributors. Please don't be so quick to judge others or take offense where none may have been intended. John Penn Eldersburg, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:05:35 -0700 From: "Daske, Felix" <DaskeF at bcrail.com> Subject: Artful Brewing I must have misinterpreted Richard Gardner's meaning when he, in HBD#3047, said: >> [snipped some...] I think no one has the answer to that, because while this isn't an "art" like wine, neither is it pure science; it is somewhere in between (must be engineering). << I think (...) that brewing beer is AT LEAST as artful as [over simplification alert!]fermenting grapes. Brewing finds me at my creative best, 'ceptin [maybe] for baking, or cooking. It is probably just that this comment was made in closing, to his review of the input given by the esteemed members of the Siebel Institute... or, it could be that Richard believes that wine is art... and beer is not... hmph. kind regards, Felix Fallen Rock Home Brewery (higher ground masherei) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:27:13 PDT From: "Gradh O'Dunadaig" <odunadaig at hotmail.com> Subject: help with carbonation hi kids, i am having a time with carbonation and would like to ask some questions. in every beer that i have brewed, save one, i have had less than favorable results, either malt geysers or a brew that looks at you as if you were expecting something when you pop the cap. i believe that i am aerating well, temperatures are between 60F and 70F, so....? 1. will using 3/4 cup corn sugar for priming of 5 gallons result in head and carbonation similiar to commercial brews? when i use corn sugar, i usually end up with a flat beer. 2. does the amount of hops used affect carbonation? my ibu's usually range at 80+. would the large amounts of hop oils make an effect on the carbonation? 3. do you have to revive the yeast or repitch after an extended time in the carboy? i usually let it go for 3 weeks or so, due to lack of enthusiasm for bottling. as an example, i used wyeast #1214 with wonderful results, then the second time i used it, barely any carbonation. I don't have any problems with my sparkling meads, so it occured to me that it might be the alcohol content of the beers. I am using only 6 pounds of extract syrup and up to 2 pounds of specialty grains, so i do not think that that is the case. any serious response (or attack) is welcome, either here or by email. Thank you for your time _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 13:03:28 -0700 From: Jeffrey Donovan <jeffrey at promash.com> Subject: ProMash Calculations Hi All! I'd like to address some of the concerns posted here regarding ProMash calculations vs. SUDS calculations. I've never used SUDS myself, so I'm flying blind on that, but there are some obvious possibilities that come to mind.... Anybody who would like to talk directly to me regarding this is free to email me at jeffrey at promash.com, or post a note on the ProMash BBS, http://www.promash.com/probaord/index.html So.....(I'm typing this out fast so excuse any mis-spellings)..... 1) As far as predicted gravity, are you sure the grain's extract potential per LBS in SUDS is the same as the grain's extract potential used in ProMash? This could definitely be a cause of different gravity readings, provided all other variables are the same (efficiency, etc.). This would be my guess and is why each grain in ProMash allows you to modify the extract potential accordingly. 2) As far as color goes, ProMash gives you 3 distinct methods to use for calculating color. The default is Morey, and is what I prefer but it generates fairly different numbers than the other formulas, which I believe SUDS uses. I have a detailed write-up regarding color in the ProMash help system, and I would suggest reading this for further enlightenment. However, I have used a spectrometer on many of my own brews at SpeakEasy Ales & Lagers (where I am an Assn't Brewer), and found Morey's to be the most accurate. I do admit it can read a bit light on the darker beers, but overall it's the best in my opinion. If you want to match color closer to values found in SUDS, I'd suggest switching the color model in ProMash to the Mosher or Daniels formula. 3) Regarding IBU's and Tinseth hop numbers, I've matched at least 20 beers in ProMash to Tinseth's own calculators and found them to be dead on. I'm also aware that there was a bug in the SUDS Tinseth calculation, and that could well explain the difference as well. Now, ProMash does ask for a 'Tinseth' concentration factor when you set it, and you should read the help in detail to understand what this number means and how to set it accordingly. It is basically the difference between pre-boil volume and post-boil volume. This number will not be used in up-coming versions of ProMash, because ProMash now calculates pre-boil values automatically, but in current versions it must be set correctly. Cheers All! Jeffrey Donovan Author: ProMash and PilotBrew Software jeffrey at promash.com http://www.promash.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:11:25 -0400 From: Anderson Andy W NSSC <AndersonRW at NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL> Subject: Spirit of Free Beer Results My apologies for not posting this sooner, but I was having too much fun on vacation to remember to post. (There's nothing like organizing a homebrew contest to make you enjoy a vacation :-) 7th Annual Spirit of Free Beer Results The results from the 1999 Spirit of Free Beer (SoFB), hosted by BURP and held May 22-23 at Virginia Native Brewing in Alexandria, VA are in. Results can be found at http://www.burp.org/SoFB99/ <http://www.burp.org/SoFB99/> There were 324 entries this year, and once again there were some outstanding beers judged in the contest. Thanks go to all of the judges and other volunteers who helped to make the contest a success. Special thanks also to the sponsors for their generous donations. All the score sheets were mailed out on Monday, May 24. So, if you entered but have not yet received your score sheets, send me an email. This year's contest was also part of the Master's Championship of Amateur Brewing (MCAB). The top scoring beers in specific categories will be invited to participate in the MCAB competition in early 2000. MCAB qualifiers from the SoFB can also be found at http://www.burp.org/SoFB99/ <http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/mcab99.html> Congratulations again to all of the winners - we hope to see you again next year. Cheers, Andy Anderson SoFB Organizer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 15:39:22 -0600 From: Greg Remake <gremake at gsbalum.uchicago.edu> Subject: Cold conditioning (lagering) Hello all, Why do lagers need extended cold conditioning (lagering)? What's really going on in the brew during lagering, and why is the temperature important? Why aren't ales lagered? I'm guessing the answers have to do with the lager yeast strain, but I'm curious. I haven't seen any good explanations in the archives or my brewing texts. TIA, Greg Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:36:40 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Dextrins Brewsters; George De Piro and Mark Sedam explain why <starches> which have been recrystallized into non-linear segments may not be fully accessible to enzymes. This does explain why the extract of specialty malts may be lower than regular malts. I can't find a comparitive extract yield for crystal versus pale malt, but my recollection is that it is only a few percentage points different. Ergo, sugar and dextrins are largely extracted with only a few percent being the recalcitrant starch mentioned above. Spiralling does not explain why dextrins cannot be attacked by enzymes. Dextrins are soluble, by definition, I think, and are not <crystallized> into spirals. Methinks dextrins can be attacked by beta and alpha enzymes and this is why, if you want to retain these dextrins in the wort, (say in a simple mash scheme) these specialty malts need to be added at the end of the mash. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/04/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96