HOMEBREW Digest #3299 Fri 14 April 2000

[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

  more mashout. ("Stephen Alexander")
  solder plus crimp (Susan/Bill Freeman)
  Re: Iodophor (Dennis Templeton)
  Re: Fire Extinguisher ("Brian Dixon.")
  Chicken Scratch ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  Wort Retention in hops (Tony Barnsley)
  the road goes on forever..... ("Paul Niebergall")
  RE: 'scientific brewing' and a worthy cause (NYBombersFan)
  Decoction info needed ("Robert S. Jones")
  Yeast Harvest (RCAYOT)
  Water Source ("Jeff Beinhaur")
  iodophor and health ("Foster Jason")
  Strike Temps (Brad Miller)
  Re: iodophor and health (Some Guy)
  chiller turned flusher ("steve lane")
  Munich Lager Yeast (AKGOURMET)
  Yeast Q's--- from  Dr. Cone ("Rob Moline")
  Onwarch marching "Solders" ("Francois Zinserling")
  More musings on Art vs. Science & the Dr. Pepper Stout (James Jerome)
  Down By The Billabong ("Phil & Jill Yates")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 18th Annual Oregon Homebrew Festival - entry deadline May 15th * More info at: http://www.hotv.org/fest2000 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:54:15 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: more mashout. Delbrew (N.Lansing) says ... >The references I looked don't specify If it is 1lb in 1 gallon of solution >or 1 lb into 1 gallon of water. Oh yeah, those mystery references you refuse to divulge. >At least as legitimate as you 11 trails sans mashout; I have tried at least >that many in a Phils lauter tun, I found that if I wrapped 1 towel [...] Do you really think that towels vs no towel around your tun is equivalent to making careful repeated comparisons of mashout vs no-mashout. That's surely a joke. No-mashout is not equivalent to lousy mash temp control. BTW I've done a lot more than 11 no-mashouts, just 11 that could be compared directly to mashout brews w/ nearly identical grists etc. And yes I have lab notes with temps & extractions and evaluations recorded. > Do consider that if any B amylase survives (even 10%) as temperature >slips downward the BA now enters a range of its' most aggressive activity. >Causing an even more rapid reduction of the starch. NO! BA does NOT act more aggressively at the lower temperature. Just the opposite is true. >Read what I said carefully. I was referring to getting things up to boil. I see. Saving 10' AFTER the sparge is valuable, saving 45' before the sparge is not. I can't agree. >[...] but since I use hot water from the water heater little >time is spent heating mash and sparge water, and I do realize a savings in >propane this way. You meant 'saving propane' not 'energy'. I still don't buy it. I save a lot more propane w/ my nat.gas burner. Irrelevent. No-mashout saves energy. If you don't like your heat source then mashing conditions aren't the issue. >To counter, your "skip the mash out" post didn't offer > more than some test batches in your brewery and > the blanket statement that we shouldn't be recommend > a mash-out in the HBD. I NEVER recommended that anyone should avoid mashout, except an experiment to demonstrate it's effects.. I am responsible for *NO* blanket statement that anyone should not recommend mashout. To say different is a lie. You're free to recommend and mash as you wish, and I'm free to challenge you reasons. You are not free to misrepresent what I write. I did say that I have carefully experimented and compared and do not find your specific claims against the method credible. I have my own different issues with the method. > Isn't that just a "Steve says so"? In fact, that's what got me > fired up. Yes - you must be right. Carefully recorded HB experiments by someone with some background in experimental sciences, and supporting info from the pro-lit can hardly count for much when compared to someone who changes the number of towels on his tun and thinks it's no-mashout . Sorry Del, we just disagree and I don't find your arguments compelling or even based on a good grasp of the issues. Glycoproteins/Foam rests ... Del referenced a HB book which in turn referenced several articles in the MBAA-TQ which I don't have access to.but appear to say that glycoproteins are implicated in foam. All well known and I earlier pointed this out. He makes a vague reference to a recent J.ASBC which appears to be: >Application of ELISA to Quantitative Evaluation of Foam-Active Protein in > the Malting and Brewing Processes. Y. Ishibashi (...), Beer Research >Institute, Suntory Ltd, J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 55(1):20-23. > >An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique was used >to quantify the range of foam-active protein found in malts produced in >different geographic regions, and using different barley cultivars. >Significant differences were found between varieties and between >geographic sources. These differences could be partially explained by >differences in foam-active protein levels in the original barleys, but both >malting and mashing conditions influenced the foam-active protein levels >in experimental mashes. Based on these results, it is suggested that the >assay is widely applicable for the evaluation of foam-active protein in both >barley and malt, and during the mashing process. Someone found that malt variety, malting and mashing conditions impact foam. I'd love to know the details, but the fact remains that I have repeatedly gotten entirely normal foam w/o mashout. Kunze at least as early as 1996 suggests (pg 569) that malting conditions and mashing temps. Avoiding 50C-60C as foam negative, and encouraging 62-65C [and 70-72C long high pH *5.5 to 5.6 !!!] rests as foam positive. What seems to be missing is support for the claim the mashout temps (76+C) are NECESSARY for adequate foam. As for the loss of BA and the effects of fermentability w/ mashout. I've already posted from the pro-lit that it's not significant, and I will explain why in an upcoming post. The thumbnail answer is that altho the BA is denaturing quite quickly at mashout temps, it is also acting "most aggressively" at these very high temps. When you make some reasonable numerical comparisons you are left with the conclusion that the *potential* BA activity difference of mashout vs no-mashout is a few percent, tho the actual difference is likely even less in a real brew due to secondary factors. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:43:11 -0500 From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus at bellsouth.net> Subject: solder plus crimp Jonathan, By crimping AND then soldering you have made a virtually indestructible connection that is electrically sound as well, but the key is to crimp first - then solder. Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat KP Brewery - home of "the perfesser" Birmingham, AL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:33:31 -0400 From: Dennis Templeton <djt2 at po.cwru.edu> Subject: Re: Iodophor >http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/iodophor.htm > >Someone on another forum found this site. It talks about >iodophor, it's proper use, and what concentrations show up on the >palate. Good, interesting stuff worth looking at. I'm merely >passing it along. This is certainly a good writeup, and Robert's conclusion that rinsing after using proper concentrations of iodophor is well justified. He notes that tasters can detect the iodine diluted in water, but not in beer. This raises the point that may be lost on some users and not discussed in the report. The iodine in iodophor reacts with proteins (and nucleic acids) and thus is effective as a disinfectant only in low protein solutions, e.g water. Don't think that adding the "right concentration" of iodophor to a dirty carboy (or god forbid wort) will do much good. The iodine will be consumed by binding to the "dirt" (proteins) and little or none may be left to disinfect. In other words, clean well, then disinfect. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert that iodophor is a safe, economical and effective disinfectant for the homebrewer. Dennis Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:01:09 -0700 From: "Brian Dixon." <briandixon at home.com> Subject: Re: Fire Extinguisher [snip] > So please, everyone have a little respect for each other and our noble > craft. Remember that is both science AND art, and a little creative license > is what makes the difference between us and them. > Sincerely, > Gus Rappold Hear! Hear! (Although I must admit, I do enjoy the gossip-fence style once in awhile ... hehe.) Speaking of creative license ... a friend and BJCP judge brewed a beer last year that won a gold medal (can't remember which of Oregon's contests it was in) that was a 'special' Pilsner. He had tossed a few handfuls of 'biodegradable packing peanuts' into the boil as his secret ingredient! BTW, I don't recommend it ... many of those biodegradable packing peanuts are designed to dissolve in the rain and to _eventually_ break down, but they often contain compounds that prevent mold and mildew. That might be hard on either you or your beer yeast! > P.S. Anyone have a favorite all-grain Belgian Trippel recipe? Yes ... Please post it here! Now that the local temps are getting up to 70 or so, I want to do a "back room Trippel" ... a good recipe would be great! Brian N44 35' 54" W123 14' 56" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:03:57 -0400 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: Chicken Scratch Dick Dunn wrote about the possibilities of using chicken scratch in CAP: >Realize that what's commonly sold as "chicken scratch"--also called >"scratch grains"--is a combination of grains, of which corn is only one and >not even necessarily predominant. Here in NJ, Agway seems to be the major distributor of farm "stuff" and they're pretty good with listing their ingredients. We've gotten the scratch you refer to above and from what Agway told me in the past, it started out as floor sweepings and now has evolved into a real receipe mixture of grains. But I digress... speaking of the homogeneous bags... I've gotten cracked corn before for the deer in my area. The corn is mostly whole or half the original size and has a number of cracks in it. Certainly not enough exposed surface area to get a good extraction. They look like they need to be put through the mill again. This is a problem for me as I don't have a mill and certaily can't ask my homebrew store owner to crack it for me when he does my malt (that I bought there). It's been a while, but I believe I remember an all corn variety which had a crack to it similar in size to that which I'd get for the malt. I would think that this would be more desirable in a cereal mash since it has a larger exposed surface area. Again, I believe it was labeled for chickens and/or turkeys. We had bantams, so the corn had to be small ;-) Is this the size you are referring to below? And if so, what's the brand? Until I get a mill, this would be the best for me. "Cracked corn" is different (although it >can be fed to chickens too). Albers isn't a brand I've seen here, so I don't >know whether it really is all corn. As for cleanliness I agree 100% - it definately needs a wash. I'd also double check on hormone, vitamin and other possible chemical additives. But it surely would be great to pick up a bag of this stuff for so much less than what they sell it for in the homebrew stores. Hey, I support my local store, but I need money too, right? I'm sure we could come up with some goofy-ass names for a beer made with chicken feed, huh?? Glen Pannicke Merck & Co. Computer Validation Quality Assurance email: glen_pannicke at merck.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:53:52 +0100 From: Tony Barnsley <tony.barnsley at blackpool.gov.uk> Subject: Wort Retention in hops John Schupp Wrote << In an attempt to become more accurate with my water usage calculations I would like to know the amount of water trapped in the hops. I don't recall seeing this anywhere (there are numbers for water retention by grain). >> According to Noonan (OH NO! I've become a Librarian!!!) 1kg of hops retains 6 litres of wort. Of course it probably all depends on the time of the month :> HTH - -- Wassail! The Scurrilous Aleman Schwarzbad Lager Brauerei, Blackpool, Lancs, UK Reply To Aleman At brewmaster Dot demon Dot co Dot uk ICQ 46254361 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:55:06 -0500 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: the road goes on forever..... Alan writes: >And, if you find it hard to brew a lousy beer I consider >you very lucky indeed!! I've brewed plenty of beers >that sucked and many that were major disappointments. >I'm not content to sit back and be happy with the >ones that do work out. When a beer doesn't come >out the way I wanted or even worse, has a major >flavor defect, I want to get to the bottom of it and >correct the flaw!! I HATE making sucky beer, it's >frustrating and my time is just too valuable to burn >on making bad beer. >It is for this reason that I read and ponder the posts >on the HBD as well as reading virtually every piece >of info I can get my hands on. Also, as a scientist I >actually enjoy learning as much as I can about the >process. Perhaps I'm over-complicating things but >my beers are generally improving over time as I try >to apply some of the things discussed on this forum. We are all sorry if your beer sucks, is disappointing, and has major flavor defects (hey you said it, not me). A heavy load to bare indeed. At least, you say, your beers are starting to improve. Good for you.! I can understand if you are you frustrated. However, what I dont understand is why this frustration leads to so much inane drivel that gets posted in the name of science. You say your time is too valuable to burn. Then stop burning it. Put down your reading glasses once in a while and picked up your mashtun and charismatic stirring spoon and spend more time in the brewery. That will solve your problems quicker than sitting at a lab bench and theorizing all day. Why punish us for the shortcomings that you perceive in your beer? -P Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:58:53 EDT From: NYBombersFan at aol.com Subject: RE: 'scientific brewing' and a worthy cause Regarding Mr. Meeker's comments concerning my post in HBD #3297: My beer is certainly not "the best that it can possibly be". I also have a "gut" feeling that it never will be either. The mere fact that I subscribe to this digest is, in my opinion, conclusive evidence that I do indeed share your penchant for brewing great beer. I also share in your apparant unswerving quest to find that elusive destination known as "beer nirvana". I choose, however, to take a less windy road. Regarding my application of the "info posted to this forum". All I can say is ABSOLUTELY, but very little. Once in a while among the countless lines of verbiage, I will find a piece of useful and "practical" advice. HBD discussions regarding lag times and spoilage organisms prompted me to use yeast starters in the days when I "could not yet walk". Recently, discussions on FWH and preventing HSA sound too tantalizing NOT to try. But, I might add, do I really care whether to pitch a Wyeast pack at 1 inch versus 2 inches? No! I've tried both actually, and have brewed some pretty damn good tasting beer each time. Do I care about commercial pitching rates? Yes, but only when I play the beer version of Trivial Pursuit. While I too regard pitching rates as extremely important "on the quality of the finished beer" , the actual number of yeast cells is non-essential information in my brewing environment. I simply measure, pitch, ferment and taste. I don't have the tools, time or technical skills necessary to make such calculations or adjustments. Nor do I want to. The point I was trying to make in my post was the fact that I view brewing beer as a relatively simple process. In addition, I find that the HBD'ers with the smallest and simplest posts often times leave the largest impressions on me, the unsophisticated brewer. On the other hand, I am extremely grateful to the dazzling array of doctors, scientists, pharmacologists, and other "advanced" brewers who have contributed so much in the way of "raw" brewing data, interpretation and analysis to this forum. You have certainly honed my reading skills and have, at times, blown my mind all over the walls. Which brings me to the subject of the HBD Server Fund. If HBD charged a monthly fee of a penny per word for posting to this forum, many of you would be writing checks the size of a mortgage payment each month. In all seriousness though, where would this digest be without you? I salute you. In the words of a famous clergyman...... "The good news is that donations are up this month. The bad news is that they are still in your pockets. (hint, hint)" ALEX P.S. - too much literature again after reading this post. Let's talk about the BEER! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:17:47 -0600 From: "Robert S. Jones" <bigskygyd at mcn.net> Subject: Decoction info needed I am an all grain homebrewer and often use decoction programs in my brewing.I have always struggled with determining how much mash to remove for the decoction. Most of the decoction programs I use call for removal of 30% to 45% of the mash. I usually rely on the "That seems about like 40%" method and the beers turn out pretty good but I would like to have more consistency in doing this. I think I have a pretty good grasp for determining what makes up the "thickest part of the mash" and the "thinnest part" of the mash. I just don't feel like I can accurately determine what the percentage (either by weight or by volume) of the "thickest part" and "thinnest part"is in relation to the entire mash and then how to determine what the proper amount is to remove it from the mash.I would like to know if there are methods or suggestions others might have for consistently determining how much 30% - 40% is of a total mash whether it is the "thickest " or "thinnest" portion. Thanks for any help! Robert Jones Billings, MT Return to table of contents
Date: 13 Apr 2000 11:49:01 -0400 From: RCAYOT at solutia.com Subject: Yeast Harvest Rick Oftel had a question for Rob recently about how best to harvest yeast. From: Rick Oftel [mailto:Rick.Oftel at toro.com] Subject: Yeast Question Question: I ferment in two stages (glass) and would like to know the best way to harvest and store yeast. I have not been very successful in removal of cold break since my counterflow cooler outlet dumps into the fermenter and the primary fermenter always has a thick bottom layer of yeast and trub. Any ideas for separation and or storage?" Rob answered with the current favorite for American microbrewery practice. However, there is a much better (i.e. easier for the homebrewer) way to do this. Use a top cropping yeast and an open fermenter! A top cropping yeast such as Wyeast American Ale II. What will happen is that after about a day of fermentation a thick head of yeast and hop resin (if you used a low alpha variety) will appear on top of the fermenting beer. Scrape this off and discard. About 12 hours later, there will be a thick creamy head of nearly pure yeast, no trub, no dead yeast cells! Scrape this off with a sanitized spoon, I collect mine in a pitcher, then add a little tap water (GASP!!!) to liquefy and transfer to a sanitized Erlenmeyer flask with fermentation lock on top. Repeat about every 12 hours if fermentation temperature is relatively cool, (~68F) then you can harvest about 2-3 times before the reappearance of the yeast head slows down. At this point fermentation is slowing down and the CO2 blanket protecting the beer from air is not being produced as rapidly, rack the beer to a glass carboy and attach a fermentation lock. The yeast you harvested can be used without the benefit of a starter if used within a week or two. While most American microbreweries use the cylindroconical fermenters to remove hops, trub, and yeast so they can cold condition the beer in the fermenter, most of us don't have that kind of equipment, and so should not use the kinds of procedures designed for their use! The harvesting of top cropping yeast is a tried and true English (and recently Czech?) practice. I have NOT been able to get this kind of harvest from a Lager or bottom fermenting strain. In the case of lager yeasts, I have never re-pitched, so you will have to follow the advice from others on that! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:28:32 -0400 From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur at email.msn.com> Subject: Water Source I'm curious if anyone has used a natural source for brew water such as a creek or lake? I'm assuming some type of boiling and/or filtering would be needed to eliminate micro-organisms that may exist. I enjoy reading alot of the scientific text on this forum even though I don't understand much of it. What I really need is some practical advice less some of the scientific jargon if that's possible. I'm a fairly advanced brewer but when it comes to water I'm still in the woods. Can anyone help? Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery (can you guess what water I'm talking about?) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:14:36 PDT From: "Foster Jason" <jasfoster at hotmail.com> Subject: iodophor and health Since the topic of iodophor has popped up, I thought I would take the opportunity to ask a question that has been on my mind for a while. I have heard often brewers extolling the virtues of iodophor, and in particular its no rinse ability. My concern is this: iodine is known to be a body irritant and can, over prolonged exposure, lead to more serious health effects. I note in most jurisdictions, occupational exposure limits are in the 0.1 ppm to .5 ppm range. I also know that a study showed allergic reactions appear in a significant portion of people ingesting iodophor. I realize any residue left after drying is rather dilute, but I can't personally shake the feeling that leaving it there is something I should not be doing. Does any one have any more detailed sense of the health effects of iodine consumption, over longer periods of time in low dose amounts? Looking for a reason to use this "miracle" sanitizer, Jason Foster Edmonton, Alberta Canada ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:28:08 -0800 From: Brad Miller <millerb at targen.com> Subject: Strike Temps After under pitching half a pack of dry Flichmen's yeast into my open fermenter, I started to solder 22 gage wire on my RIMS unit just past my HSA manifold. All of this labor made me wonder, what is the equation for strike temps? I've seen java programs on the net but I actually want the equation, like 25lb of grains at 65 F and 9 gal water at 170 F will give a temp of X. I'll let you think about it while I hop my chiller water. I think I'll call it CFCWH. I'll post results when the batch is done. Brad Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:08:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at hbd.org> Subject: Re: iodophor and health Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... "Foster Jason" <jasfoster at hotmail.com> writes: > Since the topic of iodophor has popped up... <snip> > I have heard often brewers extolling the virtues of iodophor, and in > prolonged exposure, lead to more serious health effects. I note in most > jurisdictions, occupational exposure limits are in the 0.1 ppm to .5 ppm > range. > > I also know that a study showed allergic reactions appear in a significant > portion of people ingesting iodophor. > > Does any one have any more detailed sense of the health effects of iodine > consumption, over longer periods of time in low dose amounts? No, but... In low levels, iodine is a necessary nutrient required for proper health, as well as prevention of certain diseases in the general populace - hence, iodized salt. I know there are certain organizations that make it part of their charter to get iodine pills and iodized salt to pregnant women in third world countries (I am not a doctor - nor do I play one on the HBD...). Not sure what the concentration levels in a batch of beer would be since I never quantified the volume of whatever may remain behind, but I'd say it'd be way, way below any of the concentration levels you cite in terms of relative volumes (a very few ml vs five gallons). As a mind exercise (and to demonstrate my utter lack of mathematical ability - I'm not a mathematician, nor do I play one on the HBD...) If you use the recommended 25 ppm, and there's, say, 10ml left in the keg, you reduce the concentration by about 227273% when you add 22727ml of beer to it. In really, really rough terms, isn't this about .0011ppm? I should remember all this concentration stuff, but I don't. (I'm not a chemist, nor do I play one on the HBD) Anyway, it'd appear to my untrained eye that you can put around a liter of the stuff in your beer without it reaching the lower value in your cited range. I bet you'd taste it, though... > I realize any residue left after drying is rather dilute, but I can't > personally shake the feeling that leaving it there is something I should > not be doing. Well, there's MY attempt at it. And remember: if you shake it more than twice... - 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: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:09:04 CDT From: "steve lane" <tbirdusa at hotmail.com> Subject: chiller turned flusher As an avid home brewer and lurker I thought I might throw out a word about tinkering. I have a typical 2 tier RIMS system with what I thought was the great, "I have something nobody else has", twist. In my boil kettle I had two 1/2" couplings welded in for a built in immersion chiller. And of course a third coupling for the ball valve. The idea worked great but took forever to chill. Plugged the holes and bought the Hearts chiller. Love it. Now what to do with two 1/2" couplings that are plugged up? I have stuck the copper coil, that I was using, back in the boil kettle and hooked up my garden hose to it and it now acts as a heat exchanger to get hot water through my pumping system for clean up time. I unhook the mash tun, hook up the heat exchange hose and start the garden hose. I had, in the past, waited until the boil was over, switched the gas line back to the mash tun boiler, heated more water and then kicked the pump back on to flush the system. With my current way of doing clean up I can be flushing the system with hot water while my boil is rockin'. I know the flames are coming that I am increasing my boil time by stealing a few BTU's out of the boil kettle but this sure has saved me clean up time. As cool as this system is... I then do research and find that I have built nothing more than a HERM's... is everything already invented and I just haven't found it yet? Best brewing my digital friends... Stephen Lane, Parkville, MO. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:12:18 EDT From: AKGOURMET at aol.com Subject: Munich Lager Yeast Got a question about Wyeast Munich Lager 2308. I brewed a 10 gallon all grain batch of premium lager a month ago and it's only down to 1.023. Here's the stats: 18# Great Western 2-row 2# Hugh Baird Munich malt mashed at 151F for 75 minutes. Chilled to 60F in 30 minutes. Starting Gravity 1.052 Oxygenated for 1 minute. Pitched a 3 quart starter (decanted) of yeast (I know, underpitched for a lager, but not that bad). 7 days in primary at 49F (2" head, very active). 21 days in secondary at 49F. I measured the gravity last week and it was 1.026. Last night I went ahead and kegged it because I needed to free up the carboys and I was surprised to see that the gravity was only down to 1.023. I left the pressure relief valves open on the kegs so they can continue to ferment, but is this normal for this yeast? Is it a slow fermenter? What have other brewers experienced? Will it gradually get down to 1.012? I moved one keg inside to about 64F to see if that will speed things up. It will be interesting to see if the temperature will affect the flavor at this point also. Bill Wright Juneau, Alaska Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:44:45 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: Yeast Q's--- from Dr. Cone Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:35:26 +1000 From: Graham Sanders <GrahamS at bsa.qld.gov.au> Subject: Yeast question for the Guru <SNIP> I use a counterflow cooler and let the cold break go into the fermenter through a simple natural airation tube. Given that this is not the ideal "saturation" of O2 that many say is necessary, I believe that if you under-airate the wort like this, it is actually benefical to have the cold break left in, as it allows more O2 to be diverted to sterol and other essential membrane production, as the yeast can use the cold break in other areas (yes I'm not THAT technically minded). If this is true, would it be benefical for most homebrewers, (who dont airate their beers enough, to leave the cold break in the main wort. Graham, It is not uncommon in commercial breweries (Germany) to leave all or part of the cold break in the wort. The cold break is composed of about 50% protein which are bound to polyphenols and 20 - 30% high molecular weight carbohydrates, mainly beta-glucans. The particles have the size of 0.5 - 1.0 microns and can cause filtration problems. The proteins are unavailable as nutrients for the yeast and have the potential of causing sulfury off flavors . The cold break will add a small amount of minerals and fatty acids that makes it worth while considering. However, a very limited amount of research could not detect any benefit from the sterols in the cold break. It is believed that there was still insufficient aeration to transform the fatty acids in the wort into unsaturated fatty acids. The cold break material carries over into the pitching yeast and there is some evidence that this material weakens the yeast after several pitchings. It is worth while to evaluate leaving different amounts of cold break in the wort and weight it against any adverse problems that might occure. Active Dry Beer Yeast has built into it, at the factory, a very high level of fatty acids that makes it less susceptible to the problems of insufficient aeration. This is true for the first inoculation only. Dr. Clayton Cone Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 01:23:20 +0200 From: "Francois Zinserling" <francois at designtech.co.za> Subject: Onwarch marching "Solders" Jonathan Peakall writes : >>Many have pointed out that solder is a less than perfect >>conductor, No argument here, remember ... less than perfect ... Rod Prather correctly states : (HBD 3296) <Given pieces of metal with equal circular area and length we can <impose the given relative conductance: <Copper 100 (standard) <Silver 106 <Tin 15 <Lead 7 <Aluminum (soft) 45 Should we, however, form an alloy with 57% lead, 38% tin and 5% silver, we achieve an overall conductance of 78. (surprised ?) We now have a substance that has : lead : apply-ability, at low melting point, also anti-corrosion coat tin : hardening substance silver : improves conductivity dramatically >>and point out that a physical connection is best. Are we comparing apples with apples ? Although the majority of connections are of a physical nature, this is definitely NOT so because of improved conductance. The only reason why you do not solder your electric drill into the wall socket is because you need to un-plug it to make space for your RIMS heater unit. Also, picture yourself changing your home's fuses with a soldering iron late at night ... It's not about good conductivity here, it's about convenience. The same can be said for motor connections, keyboard/mouse connector etc. You will find, though, that motor connections inside the motor are silver soldered (commutator), keyboard components are soldered, components inside a (good) circuit breaker are soldered. You are not likely to change anything in there on a regular basis. >>While I always crimp a terminal before I solder it, I am >>reluctant to "crimp only" as some of my RIMS is stored >>outside, and after years of marine activities, have seen far >>too many "crimp only" connections fail due to dielectric >>corrosion build up in the crimped area. You've learned a valuable lesson. By applying both physical connection and soldering, you are getting the best of both worlds. Let's picture a connection : By applying a physical connection, you are forcing two (or more) spherical conductors against each other. No matter how flat you try and squash them, you can not achieve a "perfect" connection. You are still left with a lot of air between the conductors. The purpose of solder is to fill those gaps of air, by forming a surface bond with your conductor, and provide an alternative path for current to flow through. It immediately eliminates, or at least reduces, the bottle-neck effect by forcing current through a small surface connection. You've also now coated your primary conductor with a very effective anti-corrosion agent. >>So my question is, by how much does solder decrease the >>conductivity/efficiency of the connection? Are we talking a few >>percentage points or a lot? I think this one has already been answered... it doesn't decrease the conductivity/efficiency of the connection. It improves it. A LOT ! Air is for all practical purposes a non-conductor. (someone is bound to take me on for this ..) By replacing the air in your connection with a, albeit lower conductivity, conductor, you are improving the overall efficiency of the electrical connection. >>I want to try to gauge if for me, in my application, if soldering >>the leads is worth it to prevent corrosion problems or not. If corrosion is your major concern = solder .... definitely ! If you need improved conductivity = solder If you need even better conductivity = silver solder If you need to replace connections regularly = connect If you need a physically strong connection = connect For the best of the best = connect and SILVER solder ! Note1 : Solder is used to improve electrical conductivity in a joint, not to provide structural strength ! Note2 : Do not use ordinary soft-solder (high-lead, as opposed to silver solder, low lead) on connections that will heat up to about 100 degrees Celcius (as on a kettle). Soft solder loses half its strength at 100 deg. In this case rather use a physical connection, or silver solder (if you have the equipment) After all this technical stuff, I wish to say : Jonathan, if it works, and it's safe, and it makes beer, it is good. I hope all this info is of use to anyone ... all this typing has certainly made me thirsty .. CHEERS ZING (ZA) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:51:03 -0600 From: James Jerome <jkjerome at bellsouth.net> Subject: More musings on Art vs. Science & the Dr. Pepper Stout Hi Ya'll (I mean, Greetings) In response to Alan Meeker's response in HBD#3298 to Alex' recent post. Science vs. Simplicity is a rather constant theme on the digest, and after perusing some of the archives (which hate my system by the way), it is a theme that has a long history here. However, such is the usefulness of the forum. I would love to have the time and money and my wife's permission to "get serious" about my homebrewing. Visions of RIMS; stainless steel, conical-bottomed fermentors; finely-tuned, motorized grist mills; and a digitally-controlled temperature lagering room in my non-existent basement dance before my eyes. More realistically, a second-hand refrigerator in the garage and a couple of corny kegs and some large SS cookpots would keep me grinning for a long time. Unfortunately, all I have are some buckets and carboys and lower tech equipment... My recent fabrication of a simple copper-tubing, kitchen sink based immersion chiller is a wondrous improvement (Boy, I love that cheap gizmo). I resolve to keep improving my methods, materials, and approach, but I'll never catch up to some of the regular posters here. Kein Problem, I just glean what I can use now, and store the tidbits I might need for later. For me, I want to make good beer that my friends and co-workers will drink and actually enjoy. Like Alan, I really hate making something that sucks. I agree with Alex, that many of the 'dissertations/diatribes' on the forum are useless to me (right now, but who knows). Somebody out there might just make a better batch from reading it. Great! Personally, Alan responded to me when I got started in a very patient manner and gave me great advice (most important were: You can't be too clean with your equipment and pitch lots of yeast). He later sampled my first attempt at a true "style" (Scottish Ale) and was very generous in his detailed comments and suggestions w/o condescencion or heavy-handed criticism. I appreciated that. I'll make a better Scottish next time, as a result. As to the flame wars. Go at it guys, its entertaining. The free exchange of ideas is rarely calm, reasoned, and polite. I wish politicians were as restrained as some of the more vocal listers. But avoid jumping on the newcomers as they might give it up go back to mega-commercial beers, quit frequenting their local HB supply stores, etc... Gus Rappold's comments bear repeating; >As a 'lurker' who reads but rarely posts, I must say I agree with >the most recent posts concerning the blatent lack of respect on HBD. Our >beloved hobby (addiction?) is in enough trouble without the incessant >backstabbing and downright nastiness evident in recent posts. What better >way to scare off the few newcomers than to over-analyze every aspect of the >brewing process, then flame anyone who dares disagree. >So please, everyone have a little respect for each other and our noble >craft. Remember that is both science AND art, and a little creative license >is what makes the difference between us and them. A while back I mentioned making a Mint Chocolate Irish Stout (Four Nines Stout for 9/9/99 brew date). I used way too much of the spearmint my wife was determined to get out of her flower bed. It turned out to be a Dr.Pepper- flavored Stout after 3 months. I almost tossed out the entire bottled 5 gallon batch. Glad I didn't. Now it has a dark creamy head, greatt mouth feel, and a noticable but very subdued spearmint aftertaste. My 'sperment with spearmint wasn't a total waste, and I can't wait to use the stuff to marinate some lambchops for the grill. My Art definitely stepped on my Science, but I learned a lot, and I can comfortably (Now) drink the stout. I guess its back to lurking for a while, Jett Jerome in TN PS. Do the scantily-clad females just lean over the billiards table or do the dance on it? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:52:12 +1000 From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates at acenet.com.au> Subject: Down By The Billabong I'm glad Dave Burley finally caught up with me. I felt a tinge of guilt about Phil Wilcox being berated for my comments. Actually, I'll be honest, I didn't feel any guilt at all. It wasn't my fault. Perhaps what I referred to as B.S. could be less rudely called S.B. (Specialist Brewing). Some aspects of S.B. I consider to be B.S. But I am not here to advise D.B. on his S.B. Nor in fairness should I refer to D.B.'s S.B. as B.S. But suggesting I am a liar? Dave, this is getting a bit below ball racking level. I have in fact tried your little experiment, but not for any reasons relating to oxidisation. I've tried boils with lid on, boils with lid off, high boils and low boils. I even once by default tried a two hour simmer. On this particular day (back in the dim past when I used a 2400 watt immersion element) a severe power problem caused a huge voltage drop in our area (this of course would never happen in Burradoo where I am Baron) and the best I could manage was a lousy simmer. My results concluded as follows: - Boiling with the lid on will save you a bit on energy but increases the risk of a boil over. - High boils tend to darken the wort and add some caramel flavours which can be useful for some styles. - Low boils are great for doing brews such as rice lagers when I am aiming for very light colour. - Surprisingly, the unintended simmer produced a very good beer with no noticeable loss of hop utilisation - this really did surprise me, I was expecting a dud. Boil time verses intensity will of course affect evaporation expectations for final wort volume - pretty obvious. I have to say out of all of this I never detected any oxidisation. I have never heard of anyone ever worrying about destructive oxidisation being induced by the boil. But now I have. One of the great things about brewing (apart from the parties it induces in the billiard room - ball racking is done on the table, ding dong means "great") is that whilst it is scientifically quite complex, it is in fact a very forgiving process. You can bend the rules in all sorts of ways and still produce very good beer. I believe the strict "must do's" are but a few. Good sanitation, good ingredients and a good sense of humour. Without the latter you are R.S, and that's not B.S. Beyond that it more or less becomes S.B. I must be honest though and admit I am interested in the S.B. myself. As Baron of Burradoo I should know these things! Anyone wanting to argue with me can expect to be strapped to a boab tree down by the billabong and force fed quantities of Ray's obnoxious skunk oil. So Dave, I implore you, never ever mention the lid on your kettle again. Cheers Phil Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 04/14/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96