---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

                     Your Business Name Here
    Visit http://hbd.org "Sponsor the HBD"  to find out how!
			 
    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

DONATE to the Home Brew Digest. Home Brew Digest, Inc. is a 
501(c)3 not-for-profit organization under IRS rules (see the
FAQ at http://hbd.org for details of this status). Donations
can be made by check to Home Brew Digest mailed to:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

or by paypal to address serverfund@hbd.org. DONATIONS of $250 
or more will be provided with receipts. SPONSORSHIPS of any 
amount are considered paid advertisement, and may be deductible
under IRS rules as a bsuiness expense. Please consult with your 
tax professional, then see http://hbd.org for available 
sponsorship opportunities.
***************************************************************


Contents:
  Sourness/Bitterness Continued-- ("Michele Maatta")
  "just when I think I'm out, they drag me back in again." ("Rob")
  Hops bitterness ("A.J deLange")
  Shops that still have hops ("Dave Larsen")
  Limit of Attenuation (fermentability) experiment (Kai Troester)
  Yeast Performance Versus Pressure ("Mark Prior")
  Re: Fast Ferment Test (Kai Troester)
  wheat ("Darrell G. Leavitt")
  Re: Sour Bitter Perception (Mike Kilian)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           The HBD Logo Store is now open!             *
*            http://www.hbd.org/store.html              *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*   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.

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
                  and Spencer Thomas



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:50:00 -0400
From: "Michele Maatta" <mrmaatta at gmail.com>
Subject: Sourness/Bitterness Continued--

I used a much less scientific method than fellow HBD posters, and this
has been an interesting thread of posts for me.  Thanks to those folks
who have a more sound explanation than my own personal preferences.  I
still read and learn, and enjoy despite not brewing-- I place my
knowledge critiquing the brewing skills of the local breweries.

Thanks to those who are always passing along great and valuable information!

Cheers!

Michele


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:11:33 -0500
From: "Rob" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: "just when I think I'm out, they drag me back in again."

	Gump Checks In...

The mere mention of CLINI**** Makes my blood ferment! 

Actually, the man I hold 2nd highest in regard as one of my "YEAST GOD's"
(SYNTAX, MY ASS!), only behind Clayton Cone, Tobias Fischborn....told me
years ago, as reported here in HBD, that he uses the dreaded CLINI**** in
his work.

And that was enough for me to have, only once mind you, issued a Public
Apology to Dave Burley.
Leave it to you b@$t@rds from the HB bloody D to remind me!

"just when I think I'm out, they drag me back in again."

Cheers!
Jethro (Glad to be Here) Gump




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:29:35 -0400
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Hops bitterness

RE:

>For me, it is the type of bitterness.  There are beers that are
harshly bitter, and smoothly bitter.  For example, harshly bitter hops
include the three C's: Cascade, Centennial and Columbus.   Smoothly
bitter hops include most noble hops: Hallertau, Saaz, Fuggle, and the
like.  I can't stand American IPAs, but I love Bohemian Pilsners.<

I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Nice to know that I'm
not alone! Even so life with Saaz at $3 an ounce - if you can get it -
is tough. I've found that Sterling works pretty well for bittering being 
closer to the smooth side between rough and smooth. Bittered with Sterling 
and finished with what Saaz I can get the Pils is pretty good.

A.J.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:08:15 -0700
From: "Dave Larsen" <hunahpu at gmail.com>
Subject: Shops that still have hops

I was in Seattle a couple of months ago.  While there, a friend took
me to this little hole in the wall brew shop.  It was tiny.  Mostly
they had wine making supplies.  However, I was totally surprised
because the shop had all the hops that were short in supply: Fuggle,
Saaz, Cascade, and the like.  I'm guessing that they are last year's
crop (or older), so I do not know how much Alpha Acid degredation has
taken place.  Regardless, if someone was looking for flavor or aroma
hops, it would be a good score.  The shop was called Market Cellar
Winery.  I just thought I'd mention it.

Dave
Tucson, AZ
http://hunahpu.blogspot.com/


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:20:49 -0400
From: Kai Troester <kai at braukaiser.com>
Subject: Limit of Attenuation (fermentability) experiment

A wile back I started a series of experiments designed to quantify the affects
that various mash parameters have on the fermentability of the resulting wort
and the brewhouse efficiency in a single infusion mash. Mostly because much of
the literature, especially literature targeted at homebrewers, that I read so
far provides qualitative statements and doesn't go as far as how much change
can be expected when changing a particular mash parameter.

The experiments were micro mashes in a thermos bottle followed by a short boil
and fermentation with dry bread yeast at a high pitching rate. The latter was
intended to remove fermentation variations by basically creating a fast
ferment test environment.

So far I have the results for temperature and pH. The series for temperature
matches the results mentioned in Palmer's How To Brew. The curve seems to be
shiftet a little bit towards higher temps, which I contribute to the  
temperature
loss (about 2 C over the 60 min) in the mash. I'm planning to change the
temperature axis from beginning mash temp to average mash temp to  
mitigate this
problem. Interesting was the  - 4% attenuation / C slope for temperatures
higher than the optimal attenuation temp. I wonder if that relationship
actually carries over into practical mashing if mash-out and/or heating of the
wort is added. Note, that these results are for limit of attenuation. The
mashing temp also affects the ratios of fermentable sugars (glucose, maltose
and maltotriose) which in turn will affect the yeasts ability to come close to
the limit of attenuation in a realistic fermentation environment.

The pH data matches data points I found in the literature, but I didn't see as
big of a brewhouse efficiency drop as I expected based on efficiency boost
numbers that homebrewers report when they start correcting their mash pH. I'm
going to run some experiments with tap water, which has much more  
minerals than
the
reverse osmosis water that I used so far. An important result was the
attenuation hit that a sub 5.0 mash gets, especially in the light of a recent
BYO article where H. Dornbusch suggested that an authentic Pilsner needs to be
mashed well below 5.0. At these pH levels I also saw conversion problems
(stronger iodine test).

In the future I plan to evaluate mill gap spacing, mash time and mash  
thickness.

All the data and more information regarding this work can be found here:
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Limit_of_attenuation_experiment

I'm interested in data, from both commercial and home brewing, that
supports or contradicts my findings, as well as comments and concerns  
about the
methods I used or conclusions that were drawn.

Kai




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:22:04 -0400
From: "Mark Prior" <priormc at gmail.com>
Subject: Yeast Performance Versus Pressure

I'm fermenting 5 gallons of IPA in a 10 gallon keg and would like to
naturally carbonate the beer. I'm at 1.021 now and expect to finish
around 1.016 - 1.018. I'm curious if anyone can comment on the impacts
of pressure on yeast. I understand that increased pressure can kill
the yeast and increase ester production. I'm using WLP51 - White Labs
California V yeast. I don't recall at what PSI these effects occur.
Does anyone know? Are there any other effects that I should be
concerned with? Note: I have a variable pressure relief valve connect
to this keg right now. It is set to release the pressure at 16 PSI,
for the moment.

Thanks for your input.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:19:08 -0400
From: Kai Troester <kai at braukaiser.com>
Subject: Re: Fast Ferment Test

> Your "fast" fermentation test is better known both to amateurs and in
> the English Sci literature as a FORCED fermentation test (aka FFT)  and
> has been discussed on this forum for well over a decade.

I used to use fast and forced ferment test interchangeably in the past, but
then I remembered that some call a test to test the sanitation level  
buy waiting how long it takes to ferment w/o the addition of yeast  
forced ferment
test. And since this test is known as Schnellgaerprobe in German brewing,
fast or quick ferment test seemed more appropriate.

> Forced fermentation tests are mentioned in George Fix's last two brewing
> books, including an explanation in AoBT.  It's mentioned in John
> Palmer's "How to Brew".  It was certainly mentioned liberally in the
> (defunct) "Brewing Techniques" magazine and I would be surprised if it
> doesn't appear on an irregular basis in the less technical Zymurgy.

I must have missed this. Mostly because little emphasis was put on this test.

> The simple FFT described by Kunze requires adding 3gm of dried yeast to
> 0.3L of filtered work and this is allowed to ferment for taking
> hydrometer readings from day 2 until stable at a temperature controlled
> 25C/77F.

I got the fast ferment test from Narziss, another German brewing author, who
doesn't list as elaborate method as Kunze. He only states that wort is pitched
with a very high pitching rate and fermented warm. And most of your dislike of
this test is based on the rather complicated method. I don't need that  
much wort
to perform the test. As a matter of fact I only need enough to fill a  
hydrometer
once. Some brewers I know use even less since they work with refractometers.

As outlined in the posted article, I resuspend the to be pitched yeast slurry
with wort and then leave some behind in the propagation vessel. After  
adding some more wort I shake it well and place it in a warm spot. The  
exact temp doesn't matter much. But above 70F is better. After that I  
just give it time.
There is no daily measuring. If that would be necessary I would have  
dissed the
test already. Once the beer lays completely flat, no CO2 comes out of  
solution and and the yeast settled, generally after 3-5 days, I take  
the only hydrometer reading I need to take. The sample is degassed at  
that point and I'm using a more precise 0.990 - 1.020 hydrometer. The  
total amount of work needed is 5 min max.

The idea begind this simplified method for the fast ferment test is  
simple. The
FFT is designed to show the limit of attenuation of the wort. This means that
there is a limit how far the yeast can attenuate regardless of temperature and
pitching rate/yeast health. The relationship between attenuation and temp/cell
count is likely to be asymptotic. 50F may get you 80%, 60F may get you  
83%, 70F may get you 84% and 75 may get you 84.5% with the true limit  
of attenuation being 85% for that wort. Based on that I conclude that  
as long as the temp is high enough, the result of the FFT will be  
within the limit of attenuation with
a fairly small error. The same is assumed to be true for pitching rate and
I plan to show that with some experiments. I'm not sure yet, how big  
the differences between various yeast strains are, though.

> Lab ones (and you'll need a pair) are ~$25/ea and
> gain you 0.5dSG resolution but probably less accuracy.

Using the hydrometer that I have, I get an accuracy of about 0.2  
Plato, which is good enough for what I'm looking for. And if there is  
a systematic error in
my measurements, it will be applied to FFT and actual beer readings.

> a modestly experienced HBer has a fairly good
> idea  what sort of AA% to expect, say within 2 or possibly 3 degreesSG,
> or ~5%AA.

Estimation is good, but knowing is better

> For HB (and medicine too) one should never perform a test that does not
> result in an actionable outcome (not for beer production anyway -
> curiosity is another matter).

I have taken action based on the FFT outcome many times:

 - account for residual extract when bottling. Especially when I'm  
rousing a beer
   and want to get it to cold conditioning faster. With the FFT I only need to
   make sure that there won't be to much extract left and that  
diacetyl has been
   remduced.
 - start lagering when the extract level is close to the level targeted  
based on
   FFT and style
 - fix a overly sweet beer by adding more yeast and raising its temp. I  
have done
   that a few times b/c I didn't get the expetcted yeast performance during
   lagering and b/c of the FFT I knew that the cause for that sweetness were
   fermentable sugars.
 - priming with only residual extract. Called Gruenschlauchen (green  
racking) in
   German brewing and I like to use that when I have to bottle a large  
number of
   smaller batches (experimental batches). I just pay attention to the current
   extract of the beer and when it is low enough for adequate  
carbonation I fill
   the beer into bottles w/o the use of a bottling bucket or priming sugar.
   It also works well for Weissbier since the lager amount of yeast in  
the bottle
   is not as much of a problem.

> So I'm not a fanboy for FFTs.

I see. But I wanted to show that many of your objections to that test  
were based
on an overly complicated method of performing it.

> if you suspect but cannot detect a defective ferment one can always pull
> a sample from the fermenter and re-pitch dried yeast and try an FFT at
> that point.

I still have to show that this actually works or if rehydrating yeast in an
alcohol solution deprived of many nutrients actually gives the same results as
a FFT would have given. I tried this with my Maibock, but when the beer was
fermented with dry yeast, it didn't go as low as the fast ferment test  
did. But
in the past I have seen differences between a FFT done with the main yeast and
bread yeast.

> Let me suggest an alternative.  Cl*nitest (Clinitest).

I'll have to look into this test.

Kai




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:14:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Darrell G. Leavitt" <leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu>
Subject: wheat

What do you figure is the essential difference between Torrified Wheat and
Malted Wheat in terms of head retention and such?

I recently made a Colonial Ale (Blue Spruce tips), and there is so much
going on that I am unable to determine the effect of 1 lb of Torrified
wheat in this recipe:
2 lb Vienna Malt
4 lb Pale Malt
2 lb Pale Crystal
1 lb Torrified Wheat
1 lb CaraAmber

2 step infusion (148, then 155 F)

og was 1.055
fg was 1.012
%abv was about 5.7%

Several large handsfull of fresh Blue Spruce tips in the boil, most near
the end.  Oak Chips in the fermenter.
A few cluster hops at the beginning of a 2 hour boil.

Way too much going on in this brew for me to see what the Torrified Wheat
has done.
Darrell



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Kilian <mikekilian1947 at yahoo.com>
Subject:  Re: Sour Bitter Perception

S said:
                                                          
<If you find sourness (acidity or tartness) and bitterness
<so unpalatable, that you cannot enjoy a good coffee, 
<dark chocolate, a hoppy beer or cannot tolerate a granny
<<smith apple or lemonade -  then I pity you.  You dislike
<not merely some specific aroma among many thousands 
<sensible, but 2/5th  of the sensations your tongue is 
<capable of perceiving and you are doomed to live in 
<the underworld of Bland.

I was hoping that my point was that there are some areas
of beer bitterness that I can't appreciate.  I can and
do judge those styles I know what the style needs to be
on point, but it's not what I'd brew at home.  Heavily
hopped beers are easy to produce.  Balanced beers are 
a bit more difficult, IMHO.  Again, while I can 
appreciate a real Lambic, I don't feel any need to 
purchase or brew the style.

I enjoy sauerkraut and a several cups of good dark 
coffee (I tend to get the dark roast whole bean and 
buy 5 lbs at time).  I also love dark chocolate.  
However I do like sweetener with my tea.  There are 
a number of foods that I perceive as sour that I can 
and do appreciate.  A nice vinegar based BBQ sauce 
on pulled pork is wonderful.  

So, I don't feel "doomed" and I don't feel that I 
need pity.

Dave said

<For me, it is the type of bitterness.  There are 
<beers that are harshly bitter, and smoothly bitter.  
<For example, harshly bitter hops include the three 
<C's: Cascade, Centennial and Columbus.   Smoothly
<bitter hops include most noble hops: Hallertau, 
<Saaz, Fuggle, and the like.  I can't stand American 
<IPAs, but I love Bohemian Pilsners.

Dave, from my brewing past, I agree totally.  
"Hammering" bitterness is simply a brewing process 
fault.  A good Bohemian Pilsner while similar in IBU's 
to an American IPA is a better bitterness to my tastes.  
But so are many Bitter's and ESB's, which I brew quite 
often.

I hope my point is understood -- there are different 
tastes for different people and I was trying to 
understand if there was something other than nurture 
that caused tendencies.
 
Mike




      


Return to table of contents

---