HOMEBREW Digest #3145 Fri 15 October 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

  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  cranberries (R.L.)" <rbyrnes2 at ford.com>
  RE:Cranberries ("Kelly")
  Starter stepup / SG to Plato (Demonick)
  convert sankey to corny? (Ian Smith)
  Champagne alcohol (Dave Burley)
  Re: stepping-up starters (Bob.Sutton)
  Czech malt (John Wilkinson)
  mass conservation ("Bayer, Mark A")
  Plato Conversions/Alcohol Limits (AJ)
  Primarily a Prime Priming Question (Kevin or Darla Elsken)
  Re: stepping-up starters ("Sean Richens")
  yeast, cranberries (Jim Liddil)
  clearfine ("jim williams")
  Beer in Denver (Jeff Renner)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies. * Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one * line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and * instructions for use. 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, 14 Oct 1999 00:07:20 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report The Jethro Gump Report Martha Stewart... Allegedly, Martha Stewart is doing a show from the Puterbaugh Hop Farms, on Monday the 18th of October... Set your VCR's accordingly....... Jethro Gump Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:27:39 -0400 From: "Byrnes Jr, Richard (R.L.)" <rbyrnes2 at ford.com> Subject: cranberries Just to throw my $.02 in, Hoptech (www.hoptech.com ) now carries Cranberry flavoring, $5.95 for 2oz, presumably enough for a 5 gal batch. I've used Hoptech's fruit flavorings before and find them to be of excellent quality. I know the "purists" would never stoop to using fake flavorings over real fruit, but with the concerns of tannins this might be a good and safe alternative. Cheers! Rich Byrnes Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:07:10 -0500 From: "Kelly" <kgrigg at diamonddata.com> Subject: RE:Cranberries One of my first beers was a 'Cran-Beer' that I kind of made up. I crushed berries and put them in my primary, but, only after the heat had died down quite a bit. I had no problems with pectins nor infections. And to this day, my friends still rave that this was one of my best beers....!! My $0.02, Kelly A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, With the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:37:55 -0700 From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: Starter stepup / SG to Plato The conversion formula for SG to Plato, from, Manning, M.P., Understanding Specific Gravity and Extract, Brewing Techniques, 1,3:30-35 (1993) is: P = -676.67 + 1286.4SG - 800.47SG**2 + 190.74SG**3 I'm with Alan Meeker who said, "I don't see any reason for there to be a limit on the dilution of yeast cells you can perform in stepping up the yeast." Also, thank you, Alan, for noting that you refrigerate your starters. I do it too, and other brewers are often aghast at the practice. It sure drops the yeast and makes a nice cake! My guess is that this starter step practice developed to limit contamination before sanitation practices were as good as they are today. A large starter will tend to out-compete any wild nasties in the brew. In all honesty, I must say that my microbiologist friends say that in fact, yeasties prefer a certain density of chums. To date they haven't really been able to say why, and the yeasties certainly seem to do fine, but I'll ask again. Every field of human endeavor has its owm Momilies, perhaps this is one of microbiology's. Any effect that may come from "lonely yeast" is well down the list of other factors that have a much larger effect on my brew. Perhaps once I have gotten everything else perfect, crush and ingredients, water treatment, mash and sparge technique, conquer HSA, sanitation, fermentation temperature, proper and perfect aeration, etc. When I can get everything right, every time, for every different recipe, then, perhaps, I'll worry that my yeasties are stressed by initially not having enough chums about when they hit my 2L starter from a measly plate scraping. Or maybe I'll just use the time saved to pursue other interests. By the way, a 1 quart starter into a 5 gallon batch is a 20x jump. Why should the jump to the fermenter be any different than the starter steps? Cheers! Domenick Venezia Venezia & Company, LLC Maker of PrimeTab (206) 782-1152 phone (206) 782-6766 fax orders demonick at zgi dot com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:32:23 -0600 From: Ian Smith <isrs at cmed.com> Subject: convert sankey to corny? There is a way of making the oval corny opening in a sankey keg. I'm not sure where I saw it but all you have to do is purchase an extra corny lid and o-ring and voila! You have the traditional corny opening and an easier way of cleaning out the keg (by getting your whole arm down in there!). Has anyone out there seen this type of setup? How difficult is it to cut the necessary hole? Does it work? Cheers! Ian Smith isrs at cmed.com <mailto:isrs at cmed.com> Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:09:50 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Champagne alcohol Brewsters: Larry Land asks why Champagne has a limit of about 12% alcohol and wants to go to 15%. Champagne by the classical methode Champenoise is limited to some extent by the fact that it must referment in the bottle. Typically, the alcohol content is 10% or lower after the first fermentation. Sugar in the form of sweet juice or sometimes sugar is added to produce 5-6 atm of CO2 after a second fermentation in the bottle with S. Bayanus. I haven't calculated it, but suspect this would bring the champagne up a point or two. After degorgement ( yeast removal) a dosage of sweetened "brandy" ( use vodka) is sometimes added, depending on the producer and the style of the champagne. This is to stabilize the champagne in the bottle by kicking the alcohol a little higher to keep the added sugar from refermenting. And it also has other effects. It isn't just the bubbles. You can add as much alcohol at the end as you wish and take it to 15% if the delicacy of the champagne will not be overpowered. - -------------------------------------- Rob wants to make a Stella Artois. I was never very impressed with this beer, and don't think it has anything special done to it. Just try a pale malt recipe low hopped with Saaz, mash at 158F and your beer will become his favorite. I would use a Copenhagen Lager yeast. - -------------------------------------- Paul Niebengall's philosophy that the sugar doesn't go away upon boiling is correct. His explanation is perhaps a little clouded by skipping to the ratio of volumes before and after the boil. It is perhaps simpler to say that the gravity ( the digits after the decimal point in an SG measurement X 1000) times the volume is constant during the boil. Gi X Vi = Gf X Vf Such that for an SG of 1.040 ( gravity of 40) and a volume of 1 gallon would give a gravity of 40 x 1 = Z X 0.75 or a gravity of Z = 53 if 25% of the gallon is boiled away. The final SG would be 1.053 - ------------------------------------- Sean asks about including cranberries in his beer, when and how. If you want to cook these, do that, cool and then add pectic enzyme. Allow it to sit around for a few hours and then add to your primary, which you have done in the "open" style in a plastic container, covered with a plastic sheet or lid. After the new fermentation has subsided and the color extracted is OK, scoop off the majority of the berries which are floating and rack to the secondary to finish. This should take care of the haze and the problem of gushing carboys and all that cleanup. Remember the beer will foam up when you add the berries, so add them slowly. - --------------------------------------- Keep on Brewin' Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:24:53 -0400 From: Bob.Sutton at fluor.com Subject: Re: stepping-up starters Kyle asks about stepping up yeast and Alan's comments are spot on... >I don't see any reason for there to be a limit on the dilution of yeast >cells you can perform in stepping up the yeast. >My advice to you is to decrease the number of steps to a bare >minimum. Ideally, this would mean going right from your 50 ml >smack pack to whatever starter volume you are shooting for. Commercially you'll see 1-3% inoculum levels for the growth phase - however, oxygen availability is critical as Alan acknowledges... >...but the geometry would limit proper aeration. [snip] >you can get around this problem by using some sort of >aeration system or a magnetic stirrer).... I scale-up from the 50 ml smacker into a 3-liter soft drink bottle in successive steps (aerating w/O2 at each interval). On brew day, I decant the 3 liters, and add fresh media either from DME, or wort I've set aside from a previous batch. Eight hours later when the new wort is in the fermentor, the three liter starter is at high krausen and ready for brewing. Bob Sutton Fruit Fly Brewhaus Yesterdays' Technology Today -------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. -------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:26:32 -0500 (CDT) From: John Wilkinson <John.Wilkinson at aud.alcatel.com> Subject: Czech malt Someone asked about the modification level of Czech malt. St. Pat's page gives the Kolbach index of the Moravian malt they sell as 44.6. They have the complete analysis there. Their ID is http://www.stpats.com/bindex.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:29:10 -0700 From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com> Subject: mass conservation collective homebrew conscience_ paul n wrote: >Anyway, enough of the science. The easiest way that I have found to think >about SG when brewing beer is to use what I call "beer mass units" (BMU). >This is not a real technical term, but here is how it works. If you >measure the SG of your pre-boiled wort and it is 1.052, subtract 1, and >think of that as .052 "BMUs" . As long as you dont add additional sugar >or extract to your wort, the amount of BMUs remains constant and will not >change no matter how much you boil off from your kettle or top off in your >fermentor. You will always have .052 BMU's (I call this the "First Law of >Conservation of BMUs"). To get the SG of the final wort, all you have to >do is divide the original wort volume (the that you measured the SG in the >first place) by the final volume of wort, multiply this ratio by your >BMUs, and add 1. Example:<snip> preboiled wort contains material in solution that is broken out during the boil, into hot break. also, cold break will come out of solution as the wort is cooled. is this error usually "in the noise" so that: preboil [gravity points*vol] = postboil, chilled[gravity points*vol] remains approximately true? just curious. brew hard, mark bayer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:32:23 -0500 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Plato Conversions/Alcohol Limits For those who wish "official" SG/Plato interconversions I have done polynomial fits to the ASBC tables. The results are given below. Each conversion is in the form exemplified by the first set of data which converts degrees Plato (symbolized by 'P') to specific gravity ('SG'): SG = C0 + C1*P + C2*P*P + C3*P*P*P. Second order fits have 3 coefficients and third order fits 4. The use of the third order fits is rarely justified. Specific gravity here means the ratio of the weight of a fixed volue of the fluid (beer or wort) being tested at 20C to the weight of an equal volume of pure (degassed, deionized) water at 20C (and 1 atmosphere pressure). Conversions are given for true specific gravity which is a number near 1 such as, for example, 1.0471 and where specific gravity is expressed as "points" obtained by subtracting 1 from the specific gravity and multiplying by 1000 (e.g. for SG = 1.0471 the "points" are 47.1). "Degrees Plato" means the grams of extract in 100 grams of beer or wort i.e. the percentage by weight of extract in the beer or wort. "Res" means "residual" and measures the imperfection of the polynomial fit. RMS (root mean square) residual is a sort of average error. "Pk Res" means the largest error over the range of the fit (0 - 20 P; 1.000 - 1.083 SG). Thus the first fit given below ( 3 coefficient Plato to specific gravity) is in error by at most 0.00004 SG units with the errors most likely to be encountered being more like 0.00001 SG units. Using 4 coefficients reduces both the peak and rms residuals somewhat; usually not enough to make the trouble of having to compute the fourth term worth while. Examination of the residuals reveals 3 things of interest: 1. The polynomials which model the data very well above 1 P do so a little less well below 1P. The peak residual is found between 0P and 1P in all cases. 2. Outside this range the residuals are clearly due to roundoff error in the ASBC tabulations 3. There is an exception to Observation 2 near 2.05P where a small peaking in the residuals occurs. The nature of this peak is distinctly unlike roundoff noise and amounts to perhaps half the peak residual value. These coefficients can be conveniently inserted into spreadsheets, computer programs, programmable calculators etc. Degrees Plato to Specific Gravity (SG = C0 + C1*P + C2*P*P + C3*P*P*P): C0 C1 C2 C3 RMS Res. Pk Res 1.00003918997 0.003852303054 0.00001466135913 1e-5 4E-5 1.0000130841 0.0038677699 0.000012744687403 6.34964E-8 2.3E-6 1.5E-5 Degrees Plato to Specific Gravity "points": C0 C1 C2 C3 RMS Res. Pk Res 0.03918997 3.8523030547 0.0146613591 0.01 0.04 0.01308411 3.8677699173 0.0127446874 6.349639E-5 0.002 0.014 Specific gravity to degrees Plato (P = C0 + C1*SG + C2*SG*SG + C3*SG*SG*SG) C0 C1 C2 C3 RMS Res. Pk Res -463.37389 668.72340 -205.34914 0.0016 0.002 -616.98918 1111.48785 -630.60624 136.10405 0.0006 0.003 Specific gravity "points" to degrees Plato C0 C1 C2 C3 RMS Res. Pk Res 0.00035982658 0.258025110875 -0.0002053491 0.0016 0.002 -0.0035242703 0.258587513965 -0.0002222941 1.3610405E-7 0.0006 0.003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Larry Land asked about pH testing and alcohol tolerance in mead making. pH testing has been extensively discussed here and in the brewing magazines. In a nutshell, test strips and electronic meters are the main options. The test strips are inaccurate and the meters expensive and a bit tricky to use though they keep becoming less (expensive and finicky both) as the technology advances. As for alcohol tolerance, there are two parts to the story. One is the fundamental tolerance capabilities of the yeast strain used and the other is the ability of the particular strain selected to work up to its inherent ability. Selection of a yeast strain which can go the required distance is thus one part of the brewer's task and the other is to make sure that the culture he pitches is strong and that the must is suitable. A strong culture is obtained by feeding up the starter with sugar and nitrogen and supplying oxygen frequently. This results in a large number of cells with strong cell membranes and this is what is required to tolerate high alcohol. The must itself must provide enough nitrogen (honey doesn't contain very much so yeast nutrient must be added) and it is also important that it be oxygenated at pitching. I've really only worked with the Wyeast Pasteur Champagne and found that it will typically go to 13.5% ABV but on one occasion it went to 17.4% for me. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:49:44 -0400 From: Kevin or Darla Elsken <kelsken at adelphia.net> Subject: Primarily a Prime Priming Question In HBD# 3143, Bill Steadman writes about his under carbonated bitter: >I bottled 8.25 gallons of an Ordinary English Bitter with 5 oz of corn sugar >desiring 2.0 CO2 VOL...I have read in past posts that temperature definitely >plays a role in carbonation levels. The dorm refrigerator was pretty cold >maybe 40 degrees or so. This works out to 0.5/8.25 or about 0.6 oz/gallon of dextrose. In Noonan's "New Brewing Lager Beer" Table 23 on page 246 lists recommended priming levels for various volumes CO2. He recommends 1.2 oz/gal for 2 volumes CO2 at 50 deg or 1.5 volumes at 40 deg. It appears that approximately every 0.3 oz/gal increase in dextrose adds about 0.5 volume CO2. Now extrapolating backwards (always dangerous), this would suggest that Bill's Bitter had only 0.5 to 1.0 volumes CO2, depending on temperature. Now, I have a question. I recently brewed a 5.5 gallon batch of Porter. Terry Foster, in his book on Porter ("Classic Beer Style Series"), recommends about 1.9 to 2.0 volumes CO2 in a bottled porter at 50 deg F. He claims 4.25 oz dextrose will increase the CO2 volumes by about 1.4 in 5 gallons of beer. He states that fermented beer at room temperature holds about 0.5 volumes. So by his recommendation, I would need about 4.25 x (5.5/5.0) or 4.7 oz dextrose. Now Noonan says nothing about CO2 in fermented beer. By his calculations I would need 1.2 x 5.5 or 6.6 oz dextrose! Now to further confuse matters, I weighed out 6.2 oz dextrose and I had well over a cup of dextrose. Until I recently purchased a scale, I always used the 0.75 cup dextrose per 5 gallon rule of thumb that seems to be the norm. My beers always have had decent carbonation (but whether they held a head is another story!). I weighed out 4.7 oz dextrose and had about 7/8 of a cup. That is what I used. I have not tasted this batch yet, so I cannot comment on its carbonation level. So who is right? It seems that Foster is closer to what is normally recommended. Comments? So back to Bill's dilemma. You might have up to 1.5 volumes of CO2 at 50 deg F, if Foster is to be believed. Bitters are not supposed to be heavily carbonated anyway. Warm that stuff up. Drink it as it is meant to be drunk! Regards, Kevin Elsken Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:41:17 -0500 From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca> Subject: Re: stepping-up starters Alan writes: ================================================= I don't see any reason for there to be a limit on the dilution of yeast cells you can perform in stepping up the yeast. Whether you do a 4X, 8X, 10X, or even a 100X step up it will not affect the growth rate of the individual yeast cells thus the population as a whole will increase at the same rate in any of these cases (it will take you the same amount of time to get your desired yeast numbers regardless of the dilutions or number of steps involved). What is their rationalle for limiting the dilutions in your steps? ==================================================== Well, that's what the math I learned in Engineering school says. But I also learned that math has its limits. I work in the antibiotic business and even with 100% guaranteed sterile closed systems we stick to 10X steps (50X at absolute maximum). I'm not a microbiologist or biochemist, so I look at it this way: the bugs get lonely if you dilute them too much. Also, the faster the fermentation starts (dropping the pH, nutrient levels, etc.) the sooner the wort becomes unfriendly for bacteria. Some yeasts (the Lalvin Champagne yeast EC1118, for example) actually make antibiotics against wild yeasts. Now, I pitch 50 mL smack packs into 1 L , take a sniff, then pitch into 23 L. It works, and I repitch 2 more times. You'll find a whole range of practices among your fellow brewers, but they all work more or less at those limits. Hope you don't get flamed too badly. Sean Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:59:39 -0400 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at vms.arizona.edu> Subject: yeast, cranberries Bill wrote: > I asked Wyeast if they could provide this yeast. They can but initial > costs would be around $200. As I understand it they would maintain the > yeast and you could place an order for it through your homebrew shop as > usual. I'm interested in trying this out but the initial cost is pretty > steep. If one or more homebrewers would like to try it perhaps a > Ludwig's yeast consortium could be formed. If anyone is interested let > me know. And what kind of guarantee si Logsdon going to provide that the yeast is what he says it is? will he provide the information as to where the yeast came from? will he provide carbon and nitrogen assimilation data, sporulation etc? Will he guarantee it to be free of bacteria (not the less than 1 cfu/liter or whatever it says on their web site). I've already had a conversation with Bill and am working on getting this strain directly from a yeast repository. I will say nothing more until I actually have the yeast and have propagated it. Sean asks: > The worst I get with adding cranberries (loads and loads of them) at the > have an alternative at the liquor store tend not to complain. I can't > decide if the haze nicely brings out the red colour or detracts from the > beer. I must confess that my wording was a bit strong and incorrect. But I have found getting rid of the pectin haze from cranberries to be problematic. but again does it really matter? > > I add them at this stage because I want the carbonic maceration effect. Now that's a new term. :-) As Dan and Ken and others like al K have pointed out adding fruit in the secondary has numerous advantages. At this point the beer is low in pH, and has alcohol so contamination risks are minimized. the alcohol will help extract flavor and color and aroma. The beers that Dan and Ken served where fruit was added in the secondary were clearly superior to all others. If you puree the fruit first then "carbonic maceration" is not necessary. Any one familiar with how cranberries are processed knows that only fruit in good shape survives the bouncing selection process, so again contamination concerns are minimized as compared to many other fruits. I might suggest you split the batch into two vessels. thus you can have plenty of headspace for the secondary fermentation that the fruit sugars will provide. A second bucket won't break the bank will it? Also I read their is a glut of cranberries on the market and prices are expect to be lower than usual this year. And you might think about using a yeast that does not form such a large krausen. Jim Liddil North Haven, CT Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:13:51 -0800 From: "jim williams" <jim&amy at macol.net> Subject: clearfine Hi, I've got some of Siebels Clearfine in my garage. It's been there for about 2 years through winter AND summer.. 1) is it still good? 2) How do I use it? 3) How much would I use in 5 gal.? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:07:15 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Beer in Denver Brewers My friend Paul Crossley, who is an engineer for Ford in the UK, just called me to say he is flying to Denver Saturday to for a few days on business. He wondered what the beer scene was in Denver, but I couldn't help him. If anyone can send him a tip before 5PM UK time Friday, please mailto:pcrossl1 at ford.com . Tell him I sent you. Paul is a real ale fan and a fine home brewer, and a fine gentleman, too. Thanks Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/15/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96