HOMEBREW Digest #3166 Wed 10 November 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

  Aeration (Miguel de Salas)
  LA & Thanks (RJ)
  more yeast generations... (Biergiek)
  Re: Exploding Bottles (phil sides jr)
  wheat beer question (jdickins)
  Bonafide Style Pages?! (Pat Babcock)
  re: aeration (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
  My shiny new Anchor Brewing decoder ring... (ThomasM923)
  Re: Lead in Brass (David Lamotte)
  Contemplating Widgets ("Phil and Jill Yates")
  RE: Anchor Code ("Sherfey")
  Re: Anchor codes (Jeff Schroeder)
  Re: Toasting Grain (KMacneal)
  HERMS construction ("Micah Millspaw")
  Oxygen Levels (AJ)
  Re: Dan Elgart system queries ("Sieben, Richard")
  Anchor date code (Mike Bardallis)
  Clogged again (Nathan Kanous)
  malta starters (Marc Sedam)
  home made soda (Jeff Renner)
  musings on Berliner Weiss (Marc Sedam)
  Re: Rusty Anchors ("DeCarlo,John A.")
  more yeast stuff... (pt.1) ("Alan Meeker")

* 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: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:37:58 +1100 From: Miguel de Salas <mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au> Subject: Aeration Greetings! Frank J. Russo asks some questions about aeration that reflect what seems a common perception: You need to aerate your wort in order to make good beer fast: WRONG! In 5 years brewing, 3 of which have been all grain and I also grow my own hops, I have never once gone to any greater lengths aerating my beer than to pour the water from a height or give it a good swirl with a long, plastic spoon. In this time I have travelled widely and tasted many commercial beers, both here in Australia, where 99% of them taste the same, and in Belgium, the UK and the United States. I always try to taste a new beer that I haven't tried before. I have also attended a few beer tastings. All this self-centered ramble is just to say that I think I know what a beer I make should taste like, according to which style it pretends to emulate. I tend to be pretty harsh judging my own beers, but of course, quite often, there is some fault in the beer, which need not necessarily detract from my enjoyment of it. In all this time I have not had one single brew which suffered the effects widely attributed to under-aeration. I severely underpitch my wort (I use a 500 ml starter from the Wyeast packet), but I've never had a beer take more than 18 hours to start, a time I consider reasonable at 18 deg. C (my standard ale brewing temp.). My fermentations are usually fully attenuated in 6 days at most, and they spend 10-15 days clearing in a demijohn before they go into a keg. Which all goes to say, unless you're certain that your chances of contamination are nil, have the time to spare, and think there may be abstract benefits in aerating, other than those reflected in the final flavour of the beer, why go to such pains in the first place? Cheers Miguel de Salas School of Plant Science, University of Tasmania, PO Box 252-55, Sandy Bay, Hobart Tasmania, Australia, 7001. mailto://mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au My Moths Page: Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 19:49:35 -0500 From: RJ <wortsbrewing at cyberportal.net> Subject: LA & Thanks To everyone who wrote or sent info into making Low Alcohol / NA beer. Thanks. I kegged my first batch of LA beer, yesterday afternoon, and I must say, I'm very pleased with the way it turned out... ~0.8% ABV without having to do anything funky... And, quite suprizingly tastes pretty darn good, too. Reminds me of the Italian brew called Morretti... Anyone interested in the all-grain recipe can contact me at the reply address. Ciao, RJ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:45:41 EST From: Biergiek at aol.com Subject: more yeast generations... Thanks Alan and DaveB for responding to my questions regarding yeast generations and their importance to the finished product. I think if I give you my unscientific summary of what is going on with 'yeast', 'fermentation', and 'generations', it might lead to the answers I am really looking for. >From what I have read, when yeast are pitched they start to reproduce and multiply as they metabolize the wort. Each time they multiply a new yeast generation is created. I think I read somewhere that they can multiply thousands of times if necessary to metabolize all the wort sugars. One can pitch a 50 ml smack pack and the yeast will eventually ferment all the wort. The problem is that the yeast will have to work so hard to do this (multiply several hundred generations?) that undesirable fermentation byproducts will be produced, resulting in a fouchian butt rot type of brew. If too much yeast is pitched (maybe no generations, or 1 or 2?) this can cause problems too, that of which I am not sure about - autolysis? The idea is that there is an optimum amount of yeast to pitch for each style of beer. The rule of thumb I keep reading about is to limit yeast growth (generations) to 3X-5X for lagers, and 8X-10X for ales. >From what I know (forgive the simpleton explations, I was educated in the state of Michigan) the amount of yeast to pitch is measured by the number of viable yeast cells. The rule of thumb is 1.5E6 cells/ml/degree P for lagers, 0.75 cells/ml/P for ales. I think my real question is, how does one design a starter that will produce the desired cell rate??? Is there a rule of thumb formula like 'make an X liter starter to produce X number of cells/ml'? The old quart starter momily just isn't cutting it for me these days. Kyle Bakersfield, CA PS - on a related note, does anyone have a protocol for measuring Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:47:08 -0500 From: phil sides jr <psides at carl.net> Subject: Re: Exploding Bottles Ross Reid asks: >What are the chances of exploding bottles if one follows the recipe as >posted? >5 gallons of water >5 pounds of sugar >Stir well 'till sugar is dissolved. >Add 1 packet of yeast, either bread or champagne type. >Mix well. >Immediately pour into used 2 liter soda bottles. Cap tightly and store >in a warm place for 5 days. >After 5 days move to cool place. Well it seems dangerous to me with that much sugar in it. How do they know it won't take off fermenting like mad? Although, I think those PET bottles can take a lot of pressure, I estimate 60 lbs. or so (please do not try this) it still seems rather brave. There was an article in Brew Your Own last month about soda making and they used about half that amount of sugar in their base soda recipe. After reading the HBD today I went grocery shopping and was picking up some spices when I saw Mc Cormick Root Beer Extract. I picked up the box and looked at the back and sure enough - the instructions you posted were there word-for-word. Go figure... Phil Sides, Jr. Concord, NH - -- Macht nicht o'zapft ist, Prost! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 02:03:14 GMT From: jdickins at usit.net Subject: wheat beer question Hey all, I've got a question about mashing a wheat beer. I want to do a decoction to get the benefits from it, but I don't like the side effects that come with the long protein rest at 50C. I've got two scenarios that I'd like to get an opinion on. Am I worrying for nothing? I saw a recipe posted the other day from someone that won the aha nationals and he used warner's temp schedule, which includes the long 50C rest. (sorry about the jump from C to F, but I think in F right now and only have a few C points memorized) 1) follow warner and after the first decoction is pulled at 50C, immediately cool the main mash down to 99F. I have HERMS so this is very easy. Proceed as normal and then warm the main mash back up to 122 and add the finished decoction back into the mash and proceed as normal. Any problems with a long acid rest? 2) use two different mashes. Start one with the amount of grain and water that will make up the 40% first decoction pull and again follow warner, except when it comes time to pull the first decoction, I already have! I'll just decant off the liquid and add a little water to do the decoction. While the decoction is going, start (obviously I'll need to time this beforehand) the main mash per warner, only adding the now finished decoction at the end of the first protein rest and proceed as normal. I know, I know both are alot of trouble. I've seen many posts that claim decoctions aren't necessary, but I'm of the belief that they are for a wheat beer and I don't like long protein rests. I would prefer #1 because its a little easier. thanks for any and all advice, Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:58:59 -0800 From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org> Subject: Bonafide Style Pages?! Greeting, Beerlings! Take me to your indigenous ales and lagers.... Alan speaketh thusly: >As I mentioned last time, if you've never been in Cologne, then >I won't consider your opinions on a Bonafied Koelsch. Similar >goes for any other style. No offense, but if you haven't had the >real thing, then you can't know the real thing. Among the other detractors to the comments above, add my voice :) You don't have to BE from an an area to know about an area. Same is true for the indigenous beers of an area. Ve haff thees theengs called "jet planez" that kweekly moof one frum one playz to anudder. Funny you should pick Koelsch as your example. It was exactly this style that a friend carried six distinct examples of from Koeln to Canton for me a few years ago. Some May argue that Koelsch must be had fresh in order to truly appreciate the style. The koelsch I had were purportedly three days old -purchased and packed one day before "the journey home". Barring any shelf time at the point of purchase, I'd say that's pretty fresh. My point isn't that I should be your Bonafide Koelsch stylist, but that using "been there, done that" as your criteria excludes some equally qualified people who merely "got the tee-shirt... - See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at hbd.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock/ "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:12:41 -0700 From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net> Subject: re: aeration Frank Russon asks about the optimal length of time to aerate wort: >Okay, I am getting close to my question. I now pitch the yeast culture >into the primary. Normally, I now put on the airlock and let it go for 5 >days to a week. What if for a set time X HOURS after pitching, you >continued to aerate the wort? Yes I know about oxidation etc... But, is >there a time period after pitching, when continued aeration will be of >benefit to the yeast culture without causing damage to the wort, 4 hours, 8 >hours, 12 hours, 24 hours???? Anyone have any answers or ideas here. If >not I guest I have to create an experiment on my own and report back. In the FWIW department, a few years back I started using a process that ensures adequate wort aeration and has dramatically improved my beers and the quantity and health of my starters: aeration with pure oxygen. I'll never go back. It costs some extra bucks but the time savings alone is worth it to me. Instead of aerating with an aquarium pump for hours, I now shoot 90-120 seconds worth of pure O2 into my cooled wort and it's over. No worry about contamination or if the O2 levels are high enough. My beers finish at the planned final gravity every time (high finishing gravities were sometimes a problem for me in the pre-O2 days) and start quickly (altho I think this variable has more to do with yeast quantity than O2 levels....?). I believe a bottle of O2 costs me around $8.00 at the hardware store (lasts approx. five 5-gal. batches and accompanying starters) and the one-time cost for a regulator and air stone is another $40 or so. As I've mentioned in this forum, the two process changes that have improved my beers more than any other in the 8 years I've been brewing are 1) aeration with pure O2 and 2) pitching adequate quantities of yeast. Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net> Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Hamilton, Montana Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:11:22 EST From: ThomasM923 at aol.com Subject: My shiny new Anchor Brewing decoder ring... Thanks to all for the info on how to unravel the code on the back of Anchor brewing products... In case no one posted the info to the digest, here is the formula: 1st character denotes the last digit of the year, i.e. 9 = 1999, 2nd character denotes the month: J = Jan L = July F = Feb G = Aug M = March S = Sept A = April O = Oct Y = May N = Nov U = June D = Dec 3rd character denotes the day of the month: A - Z = 1 to 26 7 = 27th 8 = 28th 9 = 29th 0 = 30th 1 = 31st Thanks again, Thomas Murray Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 17:36:47 +1000 From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Lead in Brass Jack Straw correctly describes brass as only containing small amounts of lead. While this is true, it is the way that the lead is distributed over the brass surface during machining that can be a problem. The lead is added as a lubricant in to aid the machinability of the brass fittings. It is present as small globules and when viewed under a microscope, looks very much like peas frozen in a block of ice. As the cutting tip travells through the brass, the lead allows the material to be removed as small smooth chips, and is also smeared accross the surface to act as a lubricant. Soaking the part for a few minutes in the vinegar/peroxide mixture disolves the lead coating. Soaking for too long starts to disolve the brass, allowing more globs of lead to be exposed. Our aim is to get rid of the mushy peas on the surface, without melting too much ice. Of course, the lead has to dissolve in the passing wort in sufficient quantities before it can do you any harm. Probably not worth worrying about, but then they do turn such a nice golden colour when treated. Keep smiling David Lamotte Newcastle, NSW, Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:32:51 +1100 From: "Phil and Jill Yates" <yates at infoflex.com.au> Subject: Contemplating Widgets Sounds like A.J. has had a nice holiday and whilst sitting on a rock has contemplated widgets. And found them different as I too have noticed here in Oz. But tell me A.J., did you figure how the little beasty does it's thing? I have a book or two that describes the life of a widget. But I am surprised at how many different versions of "what happens when you pull that ring" seem to be in existence. And to be honest I am not sure which one is right. Phil Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:03:41 -0500 From: "Sherfey" <sherf at warwick.net> Subject: RE: Anchor Code First number = year First letter = month January = J February = F March = M April - A May = A, a being the next available letter in the month June = U and so on Last digit = batch code >From a bottle of now drinkable Christmas ale I have, 6OW = October, 1996 batch W Cheers! David Sherfey Warwick, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:50:26 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Schroeder <jms at rahul.net> Subject: Re: Anchor codes Others may chime in here, but what I've seen explained in the past is: 9YD ^^^ ||+-- Day of the month (see below) |+--- Month (see below) +---- Last digit of the year Month code: January: J February: F March: M April: A maY: Y jUne: U juLy: L auGust: G September: S October: O November: N December: D (The way to remember the month code is to use the first letter in the name of the month that hasn't yet been assigned to another month, assigning the codes in order of month starting with January. So, May is 'Y', because March used 'M' and April used 'A'.) Day of the month: A-Z: 1st-26th 7: 27th 8: 28th 9: 29th 3: 30th ('0' would look like 'O', so they use '3') 1: 31st Couldn't be any easier and consumer-friendly, huh? So, your beer labeled '9YD' was bottled on May 4th, 1999. Not quite 9 years old, but old enough to not be exactly at its peak, especially if it hasn't been handled gingerly. I generally don't buy Anchor that's more than a month old, which means that I don't often buy Anchor. I'm seeing date codes now that have a fourth digit at the end, like '9YD1'. Does anybody know what that means? Are they differentiating multiple batches that were bottled on the same day? - Jeff - -- Jeff Schroeder | jms at rahul.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:49:19 EST From: KMacneal at aol.com Subject: Re: Toasting Grain In a message dated 11/9/1999 12:14:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, Maria Werrbach writes: << Oh, and one more question. I've never toasted grain before and I wanted to know the oven temperature and time approximations to do it. I'm assuming that I crush my grain prior to toasting. >> I use a 350F oven for 15 to 20 minutes. I crush after the toasting. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 06:39:14 -0600 From: "Micah Millspaw" <MMillspa at SILGANMFG.COM> Subject: HERMS construction I have a very detailed set of instructions for the construction of a HERMS unit. I made them up for my presentation at the '99 AHA conference in KC. I can e-mail a copy to anyone who wants it. THe file is in PowerPiont and is 4.5 meg in size. Micah Millspaw - brewer at large Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 13:25:42 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Oxygen Levels Just a small clarification on Dominick's quotation of Maribeth Raines reporting on George Fix. It is certainly quite possible to dissolve more than 8 mg/L O2 in wort and I have done it many times as has anynoe that uses oxygen as opposed to air. One cannot dissolve more than about 8 mg/L using air because air is only about 20% oxygen. The 8 mg/L figure corresponds to saturation with air at sea level at a nominal temperature (forgive me for being too lazy to look it up). Slightly more can be dissolved in colder wort and slightly less in warmer. Another widely accepted idea (is this a "mommily"?) is that less oxygen dissolves in high gravity wort than in low. I have trouble with this one. Certainly a DO meter will read lower in such cases because it really responds to O2 mole fraction which is decreased because of the sugar content but a correction factor can be calculated to compensate for this. - -- A. J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:47:55 -0600 From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1 at AERIAL1.com> Subject: Re: Dan Elgart system queries Dan, I have one of these systems you mention at: http://www.advancedbrew.com/compubrew.html and I am a very happy customer! I will answer your specific questions as I have experienced them. >1) With the wort constantly re-circulating, why would one assume >temperature stratification- do commercial units paddle( this >unit uses considerably less grain than a commercial operation!- **is >it >necessary at the 5 to 10 gal level of production?) If it wasn't stirred, the liquid would tend to create a cavity in the mash and run nearly straight down to the pump from the return feed line. The paddle gives all of the mash an opportunity to have the enire mash keep the desired temperature. I have found that keeping the mash temperature consistent throughout the mash can be the difference between getting an 85% mash efficiency and a 90% efficiency. (assuming you did your temperature steps and sparging properly). When I was decoction mashing, I was able to get up to 93% mash efficiency when I had a second person around to stir the main mash constantly while I added the decoction back slowly. This prevented scorching the enzymes and getting the temperature increase to all parts of the mash as quickly as possible. >2)Commonly- the initial rest temp.( for home brewers) is achieved by >starting with a known water Vol.+ a known grain Vol.(usually at a pound of >grain per liter of water) producing an expected >temp. drop when the grain is introduced- that is to say... >grain is dumped into hot water to achieve a predicted rest temp, then >holding that Temp. is the only concern (in single step >mashes). Are they telling me that this kills most of the available >enzymes, not leaving enough enzyme content to do what little >there is to do- with today's highly modified malts? Please expand on >this, I try for perfection also- but now, mostly by >achieving simplicity. i.e.: When using a single step mash- is a slow >and predictable heat ramp necessary? Most folks (and anyone can chime in here as this is what most single step mashers tell me) only get 75% mash efficiency with a single step infusion mash for just this reason. A multi step infusion, like you can get with this system, or a decoction mash gets a better mash effectiveness because you first have to get the starch into solution with a protien rest and then you can let the enzymes go to it on turning the starches into sugars. Just for the heck of it, I did make a beer this summer that was a single step infusion and low and behold, 75% mash efficiency resulted, and this was with the same old picnic cooler system I had always used in doing decoction mashes. It also resulted in my first ever stuck mash despite the fact that it was an all malt ale. Heck, I never even had a stuck mash with an oatmeal and rye stout that I did via decoction before. So the step mashing has the same benefit of preventing stuck mashes even with highly modified malts. >3) It seems to me that the paddle would grind the grist like being in a pepper >mill- only to sift more particles into the re-circulating pump?? >Is this necessary to not starve the re-circulating pump? Is the >paddle necessary for reasons other than un-stratifying the mat of >grist?? This was a concern of mine as well, but it just doesn't seem to happen. (grinding the grist like a pepper mill) Like I said above, the paddle helps keep the temperature throughout the mash consistent and this improves efficiency. >4) Wall mounted -- this unit seems as if it would be a >nightmare to clean, any comments, please?? Wall mounted? You must mean the control unit? Anyway, I just put a couple of nails in the wall on which to hang the control unit near the outlet and where I am brewing. Cleaning is pretty easy, rinse it out and fill it back up with a cleanser like PBW and let it run and get the temp up to about 140 degrees and hold it for about 5 minutes. By the time it is done doing that, my wort is nearly ready to be chilled anyway. I turn off the brew machine, chill my wort put it in the fermentors, rinse my brew kettle and then transfer the already warm cleaning solution into the brew kettle so it gets cleaned. Then you rinse out the mash machine will and recirculate some clear water through it and you are done with it. About every 3 brews, you need to take the plumbing apart to make sure the pump is clean (mine was and I decided it really doesn't need to be taken apart quite that often) and to clean off the protiens on the heating element. These come off with a brush, very easily...I mean the stuff just falls off and you give the heating element a quick rinse and put the whole deal back together. I am experimenting with using Star san after the PBW cleaning to see if it takes away even the protien buildup on the heating element, which according to Charlie at 5 Star, it should. I have to do one more brew before it is 3 brews since the last cleaning as I want to compare similar situations with different cleaning regimens (using star san vs. not after the PBW). >5) Sparging- hot water source: is this achieved by way of another external >unit (not incl.)? If sparging is done in a gravity fed way- does this >system require to be mounted up high? Further complicating the >cleaning. I Use my brew kettle to heat my sparge water and then let it gravity feed to my old picnic cooler mashtun, which now serves as my hot liquor tank. The brew kettle sits about 4 feet off of the ground when on the burner and it flows down to the picnic cooler that sits about 2 1/2 feet off of the ground and it gravity feeds the sparge arm that sits on top of the mash unit that sits on the ground. Since it is just water, I don't know what you mean about complicating cleaning. When I am done with the picnic cooler, I just turn it upside down to drain dry. >ABT seems like the bread machine of beer, requiring >several more components, immobile, and awkward for a mash only unit. >Please comment. It is like a bread machine for beer, and you already should have a boiling kettle anyway. And a picnic cooler for a HLT is not much of an investment if you don't already have one! Now as to immobile? huh? As opposed to what? The Sabco system of 3 kegs on the rolling rack that requires a full garage to park it in? I find the ABT system very movable and I can stack it in the corner with my other brew stuff taking very little room. My boiling kettle sits on a cart that has wheels (the cart was in the garage anyway and was conveniently the right height), the HLT sits on the box the ABT system came it. Nope, I think this system is great! I have gotten 95% mash efficiency with it and it no longer monopolizes my day to brew. One day I was brewing, cutting the lawn and had spagetti sauce cooking on my outdoor grill, all at the same time. My wife didn't even realize I was brewing until after dinner I excused myself to go chill my beer. (she actually said 'what beer") So it gives me beer bullets, I can brew anytime now. you see before this, brewing was an all day decoction thing that meant I couldn't be bothered to do anything else around the house, which meant reduced weekend time together. Just a justification for getting it, if you need one. By the way no affiliation with ABT etc etc, well not other than I buy most of my brew supplies from them since they treat me well and I am just a satisfied customer. Rich Sieben Island Lake, IL. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:13:31 -0500 From: Mike Bardallis <dbgrowler at provide.net> Subject: Anchor date code How to read the Anchor date code: The three-digit date code appears on the back label of all Anchor products. Here's the poop: First digit: last digit of the year Second digit: the first previously unused letter of the name of the month, i.e: J=Jan F=Feb M=March A=Apr Y=May (because M and A are already taken) U=June L=July G=August S=September O=October N=November D=December Third digit: Day-of-month, A-Z=1-26, 7=27, 8=28, 9=29, 1=30, 2=31. Example: 8UY = July 25, 1998 (Too old!) This and many other dates codes are detailed on the web at "Beer Dies!", http://web.superb.net/islander/beer/regional.html Mike Bardallis dbgrowler_at_provide.net MIY2K Events Team Secretary/GROWLER Editor Downriver Brewers Guild Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:47:24 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Clogged again Kurt, Don't give up...yet. A couple of thoughts in my little brain here. One is the pumpkin. Yeah, you could blame that. But, if you mashed it like is required, you've eliminated a lot of the gunk already. Not to say that you couldn't have a clog due to the pumpkin "stuff" that makes it to the kettle, just less would make it to cause problems. One other thing to consider is how you run off your wort. Do you abruptly open the valve? This may sound elementary, but just as all the computer support "programs" start "is your computer plugged in...turned on...etc." I think a little information on how you run off is in order. If you throw that valve wide open, I'll bet you suck all of your hops and trub right down onto your manifold / drain and you physically clog it this way. Try to be gentle with your runoff. Start the flow slow and don't force it. While having good head pressure is nice, too much of anything is not a good thing. I contend that if you get enough head pressure, you could clog any drain that serves to restrict what flows through it. My advice? Start slow and go slow...at least slower that what you've tried. If you've already done this, I apologize for interrupting your thought process. If you haven't tried this, give it some thought...for what it's worth. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:58:58 -0500 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: malta starters As another possibility, you could simply put a small "pinch" of yeast nutrient in a bottle of Malta and shake to dissolve, prior to pitching the yeast. Simple and should solve the problem. -Marc Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:19:52 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: home made soda Brewers Contrary to Dave Burley's thoughts on the safety of home made soda based on his experience with beer, I have found, like Dan Listermann, from personal experience that this kind of a recipe is indeed safe, although PET bottles are probably good insurance. I think two things are at work here - the very limited nutrients in soda pop extract, and (perhaps) the limited ability of bread yeast, at least, to ferment under pressure. I used to brew this with my 7th grade science students 20-30 years ago (I haven't made it since). It was mostly an exercise in demonstrating the importance of sanitation, because most kids' bottles had blobs of unpleasant looking things growing it them. They would make up individual bottles using pipettes to measure their favorite flavor concentrate, and a scale for sugar, then boil the mixture in a beaker, cool it, bottle it and weigh the yeast using a triple beam balance, add it and cap. Then we would always make up a big batch, where it was easier to control sanitation. They always tasted fine and worked as a nice control. Well, actually, they didn't taste all that fine, they always tasted unpleasantly yeasty to me, but the kids loved it. We bottled in heavy, clear glass soda bottles (Towne Club brand, remember that, SE Michiganders?) As I recall it, we kept the big batch for a class picnic later in the year, but I don't remember how long that would have been. I think they did get increasingly fizzy, though, which made the boys happy. I always opened the bottles myself. I don't think I agree with Dan that the limited amount of yeast is the clue here. I would think that this would only slow the rate of carbonation, not limit it (although as I recall the directions caution against using more yeast). I also am not sure that I agree on not using bread yeast. We got no "boogers" in the bottles of the big control batch that would indicate contaminants. I tried making a batch once with a friend using Red Star ale (or maybe it was champagne) yeast to try to avoid that bready/yeasty taste. I can't remember how it tasted, but many of the bottles cracked at the bottom or neck. I'd guess that yeast is more tolerant of pressure or low nutrients. Mike O'Brien of AABG and pico-Brewing Systems makes great kegged root beer with artificial carbonation. Two of his secrets - extra extract for full flavor and some malto-dextrin for creamy body. 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
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 13:48:42 -0500 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: musings on Berliner Weiss Boy, y'all are pushy. One innocuous statement about Berliner Weiss and I get emails aplenty asking me to get with the post already. I guess it's better than being flamed (as I step into my asbestos email-writing suit). ;-) Rather than rehash what I've already posted, search the archives (HBD#3077, 3088) for the recipes I posted a few months back. I followed it exactly this time, complete with preboiling Hallertauer hop plugs and a dual decoction. My observations: 1) Do the decoction. Yes, it's a colossal pain in the rear if you're not set up for it. Just borrow someone else's pot and do it this once. I got much better extraction (wound up with 6 gallons of 1.033 wort instead of 5 gallons) and a super easy lauter. For comparison-- step infusion lauter time, 3 hours; double decoct., 50 minutes (with me controlling the flow). Including the hops in the mash certainly helped as well. 2) Pure lactobacillus culture can be obtained through a special order from Wyeast (#4335). If you fall in Camp Liddil, find it from another source. I used a German ale yeast for the "regular" culture, and cultured the yeast and bacteria separately. I'm no expert in culturing bacteria, but I pretty well ignored it other than a good shake every once in a while, out of fear I'd contaminate my yeast ranching equipment. More on this later. 3) As per the recipe, I pitched the lactobacillus culture in the wort first and let sit for 48 hours at room temp (72F). It seemed sour so I took a gravity reading...sure enough those little buggers knocked the gravity down quite a few points (1.020). I pitched a healthy starter of yeast and let ferment at a greatly reduced temp (60F) for another week. The reduced temp serves to slow down the bacteria. Gravity dropped to 1.007 at kegging. Beer was force carbonated at 3.2 volumes/CO2 so I could drink the damn stuff. One gallon of remaining weiss was put in a purged 3 gallon carboy on some sour cherries and ignored. 4) I let this "mature" for a whole two weeks at 30F to try and stop further souring. Poured the beer into my weissbier glass--immense head, very cloudy, slight tartness. Not really overwhelming. Then I remembered the beer sitting in the 3 gallon carboy. I took a wine thief (everyone should have one) and took up about 4 ounces to taste. Holy sour Batman!!! The stuff nearly burned my throat. However, it *was* lactic so I tapped another 16oz of kegged weiss on top of it...magic! Refreshing sourness, quenching, even slightly nutty; all the good things you hear about Berliner weiss. I continued messing with the dosing over time, only to figure out that the original ratio was a pretty good one. Solution? I drank the "plain" weiss until about a gallon was gone in my keg and racked the sour cherry lactic liquor on top, covered, shook, and served. Really enjoyable stuff. For those curious, the cherries never added any flavor but did give the beer a slight tinge of pink. I kept the keg at 30F to prevent further souring and proceeded to drain the keg in record time. It was really nice to have an imperial pint of beer knowing that it wasn't going to be very filling. Goes very well with grilled tuna, BTW. It will be my new beer of summer. In NC, summers are long and hot, so maybe I'll have to get that new 10 gallon keg. You, however, might want to let the beer ferment at a reasonable temperature until it gets the right sourness. Again, that wine thief comes in handy. Crash cooling would stop further souring. For those putting this in bottles...you better have a lot of room to chill them down. I was amazed at how sour the beer got from having that one fermenter sitting at RT for two weeks. 5) Other observations: As with all other non-S.cerevisiae (or carlsbergensis) buggers in your brewery, cleaning and sanitation post-Berliner weiss are of the utmost importance. I found this out yesterday, so let me share. I was setting up to brew a triple batch (bock, Vienna lager, American Mild) from a single mash. Earlier in the week I cultured the yeast using normal procedures then, because my 3 gallon carboys still weren't diligently cleaned, I poured the 1 gallon starter in a 6 gallon sanitized bucket to finish fermenting and ignored until I needed it. Big mistake. When all the beers were done (very successful...I can't thank Lou Bonham and our dearly-departed BT enough for the article on no-sparge brewing) I went to grab my yeast. Except it was yeast and bacteria. Not wanting to make a Berliner-bock, although it is an interesting concept, I had to chuck the culture. All my equipment got a serious scrub with PBW and soak in Star-San and iodophor. 6) One last helpful hint--always have a pack of dry yeast handy. I thought all was lost on Sunday afternoon (brewshop didn't open until Tuesday) until I remembered that I had one fourteen gram pack of dry lager yeast and a pack of Edme dry ale yeast in the freezer. After rehydrating and pitching, all three beers had a thick kraeusen within 12 hours. I'm not a huge proponent of dry yeast and it's no replacement for proper sanitization and culture techniques, but they sure are convenient in a pinch. I'm always going to stock a dry lager and dry ale yeast from now on. Whew! Well, there you have it. All you needed to know about Berliner weiss and (for some of you) were afraid to ask. Proost! Marc Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:01:56 -0500 From: "DeCarlo,John A." <jdecarlo at mitre.org> Subject: Re: Rusty Anchors > From: ThomasM923 at aol.com > Subject: Rusty Anchors > > One of my most favorite beers is Anchor porter. Not only is it somewhat hard > to find in these parts, it is very hard to find it in fresh condition. Has > anyone been able to decode the alphanumeric code on the back into meaningful > born-on information? The last one I had was in sorry shape and had 9YD > stamped on the back, perhaps for 9 Years olD. Here is the information I gleaned from the listing for Anchor in gak's www.beerismylife.com web site: ***************** Here's the key to the three-letter bottling date code on the back label: First character: last digit of the year. (e.g. 7=1997, 8=1998) Second letter: month code January February March April MaY JUne JuLy AuGust September October November December Third character: day of month code: Letters A-Z = days 1-26 Numbers 7-1 = days 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 So that bottle of Old Foghorn, stamped 6JV, was bottled January 22, 1996. ***************** The reasoning behind the month code, as I recall, is to use the first *unused* letter in each month. That's why May is Y, because the M and A were already used. - -- John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own email: jdecarlo at mitre.org voice: 703-883-7116 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:04:28 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu> Subject: more yeast stuff... (pt.1) Arrrrrg this message got bounced for being too big. I'll have to send it in parts... > Dave, I rummaged around in my references for a few minutes last night and > dug out a couple of things that shed some light on the discussions we have > been having recently... > > First, you asked if there were any graphs of sugar utilization vs > "equilibrium" growth or population size (can't recall which). Several > brewing resources show fermentation progress composite graphs, including > curves for yeast number, percent ethanol, FAN concentration, sugar > concentration, pH, etc. in various combinations as they change during the > fermentation's progress. In general, these tend to show roughly mirror image > sigmoidal (s-shaped) curves when yeast number and specific gravity are > plotted together as a function of fermentation time. I have a nice example > in front of me from C.A. Boulton's paper "Developments in Brewery > Fermentation" from Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 9, > Dec. 1991. (An OUTSTANDING reference by the way - highly recommended) One > of his figures shows this very nicely - the increases in yeast number tracks > almost perfectly with the decrease in S.G. Here, the most rapid decrease in > S.G. corresponds with the most rapid increase in yeast population size > (expressed here as dry weight). The bulk of the sugar utilization is > occurring during the period of rapid yeast growth with little change in S.G > either before or after this. The wort started at 1.060 and by the time the > yeast population is plateauing the S.G. is down well below 1.010. > > >From this graph it is clear that, in this particular example at least, by > the time the yeast stop growing there is precious little left for them to do > as far as sugar utilization is concerned. Of course, they still have > important roles to play in the conditioning/maturing phases... > > Second, as far as the increased rate of sugar utilization by actively > growing yeast goes, one reference is B.H. Kirsop's "Developments in Beer > Fermentation" from Biotechnology Vol. 6, 1982. where it was observed that > the rate of sugar utilization by growing yeast was up to 33-fold higher than > in non-growing cells. > > Third, I was wondering how true it was that actively growing yeast > contributes more to the beer's flavor profile compared to non-growing yeast > /just by virtue of the fact/ that they are "in cycle." Note that what I am > questioning here is the idea that on a /per cell/ basis an actively > growing/dividing cell will be introducing much more esters/higher > alcohols/aldehydes/etc. into the beer than a non-dividing cell. This could > certainly be true as one expects the metabolism of growing yeast to be quite > different than that of yeast in their plateau phase. On the other hand, what > is the relative contribution of such metabolic by-products of growth versus > say wort composition, yeast vitality, or the whole host of other process > variables?? > > This phenomenon was cited by Dave as the reason for wanting to limit the > number of growth cycles the yeast undergo, so as to limit the amount of > these flavor-active compounds getting into the beer. Dave said that this is > the reason that one pitches higher numbers for lagers than for ales - that > this increased pitch size would cause the yeast to get to "equilibrium > population" faster so not have to go through as many divisions, therefore > not contributing flavor active compounds in lagers where they would be > unwelcome. > > The previously mentioned Boulton paper does a nice job of reviewing much of > the literature on the relationships between many of the various > flavor-active compounds and the state of growth of the yeast. I'm > summarizing some of them here. Again COMPLEXITY rears it's ugly head: Here > are some quotes: *************** see part 2 of post ************** Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/10/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96