HOMEBREW Digest #4019 Mon 19 August 2002

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  RE: Portland Trip ("Parker Dutro")
  Gump on Star San/PBW ("Rob Moline")
  brown krauzen. ("Dr. Pivo")
  re: Counter Pressure Bottling and Filtering ("Mark Tumarkin")
  mashing low beta-amylase malts ("Steve Alexander")
  Dry hopping with fresh hops ("Lou King")
  Filtering (Kent Fletcher)
  Re: Brian's judging story (John Schnupp)
  Bavarian wheat yeast blends (Eric Martens)
  Lagering temps ("Parker Dutro")
  re: First Wort Hopping ("Steve Alexander")

* * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. 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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:10:00 -0700 From: "Parker Dutro" <ezekiel128 at edwardwadsworth.com> Subject: RE: Portland Trip I will suggest two places, both of which are uniquely Portland. The Horse Brass on 48th and SE Belmont is a wooden, cave like pub with a great list of beers. The Rose and Raindrop is also very cool with a list of good regional brews. The Rose is on 5th and SE Grand. Both have good food, but not as tasty as McMenamins. Have fun! "Excuse me doctor, but I think I know a little something about medicine!" -Homer Simpson Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 02:05:44 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com> Subject: Gump on Star San/PBW Gump on Star San/PBW >From: Bill Wible >Subject: Re: Star San ><SNIP> Star San is tasteless, odorless, >adds nothing to the beer, and doesn't have to be >rinsed. The bubbles are no problem. > >In addition to Star San, they also make a product .called PBW, which is one of the absolute best >cleaners I've ever seen. ><SNIP>PBW comes in a single use 2 oz packet, .a 1lb jar, or a 4lb jar. You use 2 oz in 5 gallons. >Soak overnight, and just about anything comes off. >It can also be re-used. While I am a huge fan of 5 Star, (the only chemicals I use in my brewery,) and especially Charlie Talley, who could certainly be a model for certain Texas based operations with regards to customer service.... I am no fan of Star San......and don't believe in 'No-Rinse' anything...... For me, Iodophors and acids rule....I use Galaxy and Acid 5 for sanitizing.... Again, I rinse everything..... I wish it were true that PBW could be re-used.....but this is folly..... Once is gets loaded with debris.....and loses its temp....foaming in a keg washing or CIP op indicates the power is gone... Clarity of solution is a key in a still reservoir.... A degree of 'sweetening' is allowed...but all good things end...... Gump "5 Star Rocks!" - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:56:47 +0200 From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se> Subject: brown krauzen. Who says lightening doesn't strike twice in the same place. It certainly does here. Once again blowing all manner of computer communication into a cinder, and right at the start of the generous offering of a "Siebel week"! I had wanted to ask them a follow up of a question I had put to them earlier. I had previously asked them if there was any basis for my emperical observation, that "krauzen" lagered beers (ones where one mix an active primary at "high krauzen" with a "finished beer" and then lager) have better head retention than otherwise. It seems that I am not the only one who has noticed this, but the answer I got was rather surprising. I was expecting some "exoprotease" to be active then, whacking apart some larger proteins or some such. The answerer quite simply speculated that it could have to do with the "brown krauzen" being introduced, that would normally leave the "bath tub ring" in a ferment. Hmmmmm. I never thunk a that. (In Brian Lundeen's defence, he only bludgeons me with soft instruments when I missuse the English language). It did give me pause to 'spurment with this. I spoke with a German brewmaster about my intentions, and he said at a brewery in Germany, they measured a 5 point drop in bitterness during the primary.. The foul taste of "brown krauzen" (both bitter and astringent.... now everybody who as at some time been just TOO tempted to taste this stuff, please raise your hand!) suggested that that was where it was going. I wondered. Was it that simple? Was brown karuzen skimming originated because the most likely airborne infectants were sitting there, or was there more to it. Here's what I did. I fermented in a stainless "milk holder" the thing that the milk goes into after the cow and before the dairy picks it up. It has a dandy external cooling jacket and a strirrer. I did one brew and let the stirrer go (it activates each time the thermostat says that the cooling needs to take place) so the "brown krauzen" was continually getting mixed back into the ferment. I did a primary that started at 5C, and then let it slowly lift to 9C (I won't go into why this odd schedule here). I then brewed the exact same recipe, used the same fermenter, yeast, and temp shedule, but took the stirrer off so the usual crud layer (technical term) formed around the edge ..... In other words I've got one beer where I intentionally forced the brown krauzen components to stay in the beer, and one where I let them exit by their usual route of just "hanging about". I have no objective way to measure head retention, but "browny" seemed to have a better scum. More interestingly it was not at all more bitter! It had a sort of "fat" taste, that was far from unpleasant, but neither was it the taste one would normally associate with a lager. That was in fact the comment most tasters gave.... they liked the beer, but they had never tasted a lager with such a "thick" taste. I don't really know if there is any value to these observations at all..... but I sure didn't know it. Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:08:20 -0400 From: "Mark Tumarkin" <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: re: Counter Pressure Bottling and Filtering Dennis brings up some interesting questions about counter pressure bottling and filtering. On cpf, he writes: "A friend and I have noticed that our long term storage (2 weeks or more) of counter pressure bottled beer bears no resemblance to the beer that comes out of the keg. The bottled beer loses hop and malt character and develops a sweet edge that may resemble some kind of infection. My logical conclusion was that our equipment is not clean, except that we have taken our CPBF's apart and scrupulously cleaned and sanitized before the bottling operation. " Given a decent quality cpf, good sanitation practice, and proper use of the equipment; counter pressure filling is essentially only a transfer process. A good quality cpf & proper technique should ensure minimal loss of CO2, while this can be more of an issue with a lesser quality cpf. Still, loss of carbonation wouldn't account for the flavor changes you mention. Another issue could be oxidation, though 2 weeks is not what I'd call long term storage. Anything that impacts flavor that quickly and significantly is a serious issue. Don't know that I've got any cause or solution to suggest. How many times have you observed this occurrence? I've got another question re cpf regarding long term storage, especially with higher gravity beers. If you force carbonate and use cpf; you are going to end up with significantly less yeast in the bottle than if you'd bottle conditioned. Still, you'll certainly have some yeast in the bottle, just a lot less. My question is, given the same big beer, say a barleywine or other big beer intended for long term storage and aging; would we be better off bottle conditioning? Will the yeast make a significant difference in protecting the beer, or conversely will negative flavors impact it more quickly if they're not present due to cpf? On filtering, Dennis writes: "I didn't think filtering was supposed to affect the taste this significantly, just clear up an already very good beer." Most megas, many micros & brewpubs, and certainly some homebrewers filter and that's what they'd like to believe. Personally, I don't buy it. It's a clarity issue. Since the industrial revolution (which made glass drinking vessels affordable and easily obtainable) and the lager revolution, clarity and 'cleaner' taste have become major consumer issues with commercial beer. I believe that you are also stripping out flavor with filtering, and of course lagering makes for a 'cleaner' taste, read less flavor. I'm not arguing that you can't get a lot of flavor in a lager (both malt and hops), but the trend has been to less flavorful beers along with bright clarity. While filtering makes for a bright pretty beer, it also strips out flavor. Now, I know at least one pro brewer who argues the opposite. Wayne Wambles brews for Buckhead. He was in Tallahassee, FL but now brews at their Atlanta location. Wayne has posted on the HBD, and may respond to this. He filters his brew-pub beer and has told me that he thinks the flavor components that are stripped are those that tend to mask or muddy the positive flavors we want. He maintains that you end up with better flavor as well as a clearer beer. He says that he's tasted the same beer, before and after filtering, many times and finds this to be the case. Wayne is a brewing fanatic and I respect his palate and opinions. Still, most other pro brewers I've discussed this with seem to feel that filtering strips flavor. And there are certainly other things that a brewer can do (finings, cold conditioning, time, etc) to get clearer beer, short of filtering. I don't filter, and haven't had the opportunity to do many before and after comparisons. And I admit flavor is way more important to me than clarity. I think that this is true for most homebrewers, though clarity is a big issue with some (right, Dave?). What about those who do filter? Have you done many before & after taste tests? If so, what's your opinion on the issue? Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:51:30 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: mashing low beta-amylase malts Martin Brungaard writes ... >>"Munich malt often have relatively low amounts of BA too and need to be >>coddled to get good attenuation on their own." > >[...Alt beer...] "What kind of coddling is needed to get good >attenuation?" Altbier and Marzen both require good attenuation despite high amounts of Munich malt. Kunze suggests mashing at 62C-64C(143-147) and setting the mash pH at 5.5-5.6 for maximum fermentability of conventional beer. I think that will be sufficient for an Alt. Of course when mashing at lower temperature about 50% more time is required for each 5C(9F) drop to account for lower enzyme activity. The starch release is slower as well. It's extreme, but Kunze writes about dietetic beers with low dextrin content (because dextrins "contribute to the gradual enlargement of the frontal region of the assiduous beer drinker"). An extensive 3-4 hour mash is required with rests of: 30':50C, 45':62C, 45':65C, 30':68C, 30':70C, 15':72C, +73C-74C mash-off(mash-out). and this results in a terrific 90-92% attenuation with base malts!! Another factor is mash thickness. 2.5:1 (1.25qt/lb) is a reasonable point. As a rule thinner mashes have lower attenuation and thicker mashes have greater attenuation (to a point) since beta-amylase is more stable(tho' less active) in thicker mashes. At higher temps a 2:1 ratio would probably give greater attenuation, but below 65C there's little difference and extraction will be less in a thicker mash. - -- DP as measured by Lintner units(L) is mostly a measure of beta-amylase effectiveness. DU (dextrinizing units) are more dependent on alpha-amylase content. Here are some figures. US Pilsen/pale 110-130L 43-48DU (Breiss 2row pilsen) 110-130L 43-48DU (Breiss 2row brewers) Continental Pils malt 73-79L 30-60DU (Kunze TB&M) 70-96L 25-40DU (Durst pils) US Munich malt 45-55L 20-35DU (Breiss 10Lov munich) 15-30L 10-20DU (Breiss 20Lov munich) Continental Munich malt 47L-53L ? (Kunze TB&M) 50-60L 15-25DU (DWC munich ~6Lov.) UK Pale Ale malts 65L 30.5DU (Crisp - ?unusually high Lintner) 45L ? (Baird PA) 45L ? (Pauls PA) 40-60L ? (Beeston PA) 35-48L ? (Northam analysis of 4 malts) - ----- I have a few Schreier/Cargill figures which are similar to Breiss'. Tho' there is a lot of variation between maltsters, it is clear that Munich and Pale_Ale malts have less beta-amylase than Continental and particularly US pale malts. All have plenty of alpha-amylase for self conversion. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:18:34 -0400 From: "Lou King" <lking at pobox.com> Subject: Dry hopping with fresh hops I am planning on adding fresh dry hops to my fermentation after about a week of fermentation -- I use a single fermentation vessel. I don't have much experience with dry hopping. My question is, will the fresh dry hops, after a week of steeping, sit on the bottom, float on the top, or hang around the middle? I have read that one idea is to put these in a nylon hop bag with a weight -- is that what people have done with success? If so, is a piece of copper (plumbing stuff) ok for the weight? I guess I should boil the weight at least, if not the bag, too. I'm making an American Pale Ale, using Cascades to dry hop. I plan to add 1 or 2 oz to my 10 gal batch. A secondary question is will 2 oz be too much? Lou King Ijamsville, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:43:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Kent Fletcher <fletcherhomebrew at yahoo.com> Subject: Filtering Dennis Collins asked about filtering. >My friend has one of those plate filters from >Williams Brewing with the large diameter filter >pads. The beer prior to filtering tastes quite good >(snip) but after filtering, the then crystal clear >beer tastes terrible. Your friend is likely using too fine a filter media. If you want to filter ales to achieve better clarity, use no smaller than a 5 micron media. I've done some playing with this, using a cartridge type filter. A spun poly element with a nominal 5 micron rating will "polish" a decent ale quite nicely. While CP bottling a really hazy wheat ale, I went down to a 1 to 2 micron element as an expeirment. It came out crystal clear, I mean it was beautiful! Unfortunately it tasted more like seltzer than beer, and gone from an appropriate pale straw to almost colorless. >(snip)Is there some trick to filtering? Not a trick, just need to find the right leve of filtration. >Is a dramatic flavor change just part of the >territory and you have to actually adjust your recipe? In this case, I doubt that it would be possible to adjust a recipe to overcome over-filtering. At levels much lower than 3-5 microns you are removing flavor elements, yeast and a significant amount of color. Your friend should check his suppliers for "coarser" media. Hope that helps1 Kent Fletcher brewing in So Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:04:48 -0700 (PDT) From: John Schnupp <johnschnupp at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Brian's judging story Bill sez, &gt;It seems the guys who get a 38 and a first place award every &gt;time out usually don't care as much about what the judges &gt;actually wrote, now do they? And you'll notice its the same &gt;guys every time. You don't hear from them about quality of &gt;comments. Its usually guys who got low scores or who &gt;didn't get a ribbon that are doing all the complaining &gt;'about the judges'. Yeah but getting a 41/50 AND not getting anything sorta' does suck wind. I usually score in the 30's and have never won anything but 3rd. You are right. Most people do want to win something and I realize that not everyone can win but after almost 10 years at this &#34;hobby&#34; I find it hard to believe that my brewing has not improved. However, I am now brewing/entering less and still winning so I guess that is an improvement. Also the negative comments have shifted more toward style problems than technical so I guess that is another plus. It could also just mean that I have developed my palate to the point at which I know which ones have flaws therefore don't enter them. Again a step in the positive. OTOH, my biggest gripe is with the folks who seem come up with more awards than seems possible. I've seen one person enter almost 20 beers in a 200 entry competition. I'd say that the odds are pretty much in his favor of winning. Personally, I like to show off my ribbons, but ultimately, the praise I like best is when all my friends rant and rave about how good my beer is. When I take a keg to a party and it is the first thing gone, well it was good. In fact, I was recently at a &#34;competition&#34; where we had about 18 beers. There were brewers and non-brewers. The judging was basically an thumbs up/thumbs down thing. I had lots of fun participating in that. In the end it really it what you decide to make of it. ===== John Schnupp, N3CNL ??? Hombrewery [560.2, 68.6] Rennerian Georgia, VT 95 XLH 1200, Bumblebee Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 12:01:10 -0500 From: Eric Martens <ecmartens at students.wisc.edu> Subject: Bavarian wheat yeast blends Hi all, I'm interested in being able to culture my own yeasts for my hefeweizens, but of course, if using a blend of two yeasts (as is apparently common practice) I would have to grow up each yeast separately. I have two questions for the yeast/Bavarian wheat experts: 1. Does anyone know what the purpose of using two yeast strains (or blends of yeast strains)in a Bavarian hefeweizen is? and, 2. Does anyone know what two types of yeast strains typically get combined for fermentation of a Bavarian style hefeweizen? And in what proportions? For example, Wyeast sells a blend (#3056) that is said to contain two strains, but they don't describe them much. They do, however, sell three other German wheat strains that are monocultures (#3068, #3333, and #3638). Does anyone know if a typical Bavarian blend contains yeast that fit any of these three single yeast profiles? Any help or insight is greatly appreciated, Eric in Wisconsin Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:47:56 -0700 From: "Parker Dutro" <ezekiel128 at edwardwadsworth.com> Subject: Lagering temps I have an Oktoberfest in the fermentation chiller, at 50-52 degrees. The schedule I have been recommended is 52F for 2 weeks. After week one let in 60F for 24 then resume to 52F for remaining week. Secondary at 50F -34F (take down temp over 1 week) --> 34F for 6 weeks. Because I will be bottling, is it advisable to do the 34 degree hold for six weeks? Is it possible to do so, and then add some yeast at bottling time? Will lager yeast also become dormant at such low temps, throwing off carbonation? It's Wyeast's Bohemian lager strand. Please feel free to make any suggestions. Parker Dutro P-Town, OR "Excuse me doctor, but I think I know a little something about medicine!" -Homer Simpson Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:20:20 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: First Wort Hopping Fred Johnson says ... >I understand the interest in comparing FWH to later additions, but I >think the first question to ask and the question that no one has >adequately answered for me is, "Does FWH add more hop flavor than >simply adding a single hop addition at the beginning of the boil (say >10 minutes into the boil)." I agree Fred. It would be very educational to compare FWH with early boil hopping. As it is FWH has given me some appreciation of the degree of hop flavor that survives a long boil, with no clear picture of what are the necessary conditions. Still that's something. >I am VERY interested in Steve Alexanders experiments in which FWH was >the ONLY hop addition. Please report, Steve! The first case was a pils with only Ultra FWH as the hops - my comments at the time states the flavor was real but subtle and the method required more investigation. Next were a pair of marzens which of course don't need a big hops impact and didn't have one - nice balance. Most recently I've brewed two pils which are if anything slightly ovebittered and decidedly under-flavored by hops. The hops was H.Mittelfruh and ProMash calculates 40-45IBU. All the hops added as FWH and tho' the hops flavor is clearly perceptible it leaves you wanting more flavor and a notch less bitterness. The hops aroma is very low which makes the malt aroma a more obvious. I'd summarize my experience by saying that FWH alone does not give sufficient hops flavor(and too little hops aroma) for a style like CZ-pilz which highlights the hops. The hops flavor presented by FHW is of high quality - clean and not "weedy" but weak. In a style like marzen or fest or maybe even German pils which doesn't highlight the hops so much this might be just the thing. My experience with FWH+ other additions is intermediate - more flavor&aroma but the hops flavor is less clean and clear a flavor than FHW-only. -S Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/19/02, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96