Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1067
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/02/01 08:29:09
HOMEBREW Digest #1067 Mon 01 February 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
malt mixing (Chicago) <cjk@denver.ssds.COM>
Dough in, yeast, all Munich brew, barley wine (Ulick Stafford)
Old Porter Brewed using Salvaged Yeast (Steven Tollefsrud)
hops (Michael T. Lobo)
Aluminum brain death? (jason)
re: reusing yeast & open fermenters (Jim Busch)
EBC -> Lovibond conversion (Greg Jesus Wolodkin)
re: EBC to Lovibond (Darryl Richman)
Lagering in the Fridge (David Pike)
Re: Isolating pure yeast (Drew Lawson)
Doughing-in (korz)
Spraying the grist (korz)
Wyeast #1084 (Arthur Evans)
Weird beer flavor (Mark Lundquist)
Yeast Re-Use and Attenuation (Jeff Frane)
keeping properties of yeast slurry (Peter Maxwell)
Alternative yeast re-use method (MEHTA01)
World's Worst Brewer (McHarry)
Growth Media,Dough-in (Jack Schmidling)
Keg problems (Carlo Fusco)
Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 02:38:20 MST
From: Chris Kunath (Chicago) <cjk@denver.ssds.COM>
Subject: malt mixing
Dear Hopheads,
I've followd this reflector group for several months, and am
finally motivated enough to try my first batch of homebrew.
Whilst doing my homework, though, I've stumbled across a few
contradictions. After I figured out the difference between a
single-stage and two-stage fermentation (thanks to "Better Beer
& How to Brew It") after about ten books, I have only one
conceptual block (so far): mixing the malt.
Mr. Beadle ("Brew it Yourself*"), and at least two other British
1960s-type books abhor boiling:
"Do not bring the water to a boil. You will remember
from the section on commercial procedures that the malt
was kept at a temperature of 153 degrees Farenheit to
allow the diastase enzyme to convert starches to sugar
for correct fermentation of the malt. If you allow the
water temerature to approach the boiling point, you will
upset this sugar conversion and cause it to refix at a
stage that will not allow the yeast to convert all the
malt sugar to alcohol and and carbon dioxide. The
temperature of the mixing water must not exceed 153
degrees F. Every other book on home-brewing has
incorrectly given instructions to boil the malt in the
water to dissolve it. This will only guarantee that
some of the malt sugar will not be converted. This
single bit of misinformation from those who should know
better has caused many beginners to become unnecessarily
discouraged in their attempts at brewing."
Tenth-grade chemistry was many moons ago. Every book I've stumbled
across published since then (c1971) recommends boiling, even up to an
hour for porters and stouts. Since that is what I'd like to brew, I
have a few questions:
1. Has brewing chemistry advanced since then, proving this guy
and my library of 1950-70 homebrewing books wrong?
2. Am I treading on rwar territory? If so, don't waste
bandwidth, flame me direct at cjk@denver.ssds.com.
Perhaps I should not "Don't Worry," and instead "Don't Panic!"
:-)
* Beadle, Leigh P.
Brew it yourself, Doubleday Canada Ltd., Toronto. 1971
Library of Congress catalog card number 79-164535
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 10:18:08 EST
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Dough in, yeast, all Munich brew, barley wine
I have haqd some trouble with the mailer. My last 2 postings bounced
after several days...
Congrats to js for finally giving an accurate description of dough in,
i.e. adding the minimum COLD water to form a dough. This is not just
to prevent dough balls, but to allow enzymes to leach into tha water
before the rests. It assumes s poorly converted malt. Normally the
temp is raised to ACID rest with an infusion of boiling water, but
who does an acid rest anyway? I will dough in for my barley wine
this weekend, mostly because I don't know how thin my mash can be
(24 lb in a 7ga cooler), and because I'll be using Pilsener malt.
I often reuse yeast and have had few problems, except that occasionally
fermentation will start so quickly, I won't have a chance to rack
off the trub before it gets dispersed. I will reuse the yeast from
the primary of a stout made with yeast cultured from a Guinness bottle
for my barley wine.
I made a beer with all munich and 1 lb of Ireks-Arkady crystal. My
suppliers has been having trouble getting anlyses, so I was shooting
in the dark. Rather than a dunkel, the beer is a Vienna. Now I am wondering
what the supposed Vienna I made with 3lb Munich and 6lb lager will be-
a Muenchener Helles - my attempt at the latter became an award winning
Helles Bock (maybe I'll brew what I intend to sometime!).
Someone asked about agar - 1.5% is normal for slants i.e. 15g/liter.
Convert from these units to those you like perhaps 1/2 oz per quart
would be close.
Ulick Stafford
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 11:24:25 +0100
From: steve_T@fleurie.compass.fr (Steven Tollefsrud)
Subject: Old Porter Brewed using Salvaged Yeast
In response to someone's not so recent interest in this story, I dug around
in my dusty archives and found a copy of an article which I clipped out
of the Int'l Herald Tribune (Nov. 29, 1991). The story is written by
Steven Prokesch of the New York Times Service.
It is about the successful efforts of a microbiologist, Dr. Keith Thomas, to
cultivate yeasts taken from two bottles of Porter recovered from a ship that
sank in the English Channel in 1825. He is now brewing Porter from this yeast
with a Porter recipe from the same era taken from the archives of Whitbread.
The significance of this beer is that it is an example of what true Porter
was like in the early 19th century and how, over time, yeasts have changed
through genetic mutation and brew recipes have changed in response to
consumer mutation.
The name of this brew is Flag Porter and Bottle Green. At the time of the
article, only about 4000 gallons per year were being produced. Flag Porter
and Bottle Green were being wholesaled by Vinceremos Wines Ltd. and most of
it was being sold through restaurants, specialty liquor stores, health food
shops, and pubs in the UK, though, according to the article, they were hoping
to start exporting to the U.S. in 1992.
This is a very interesting story for this forum, and I have not done it
justice with the scant details I have included here, but I don't know
whether it is legal to transcribe it without permission from the
publication or the author. Can anybody advise me on this?
I hope that this info has been useful for the person who was asking about it.
Steve Tollefsrud
Valbonne, France
e-mail: steve_T@fleurie.compass.fr
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 08:33:23 EST
From: mlobo@sentry.foxboro.com (Michael T. Lobo)
Subject: hops
Greetings:
Can anyone tell me where I can buy hop seeds/plants/whatever you need
to grow hops? A mail order place would be great.
Thanks - please just email me directly-
Michael
Michael T. Lobo 508 549 2487
Foxboro Co.
mlobo@foxboro.com "I Love beer, beer loves me; when I drink too much,
my beer speaks for me" -Monty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 09:28:11 -0800
From: jason@beamlab.ps.uci.edu
Subject: Aluminum brain death?
Is there anything wrong with using an Aluminum brew pot.
I don't know if this is related, but it seems that everytime
I try to make a beer with any spices or special ingredients
it turns out horrible. All the simple ale's with only
malt, sugar, and hops turn out great, but with the addition
of even just cinnamon it turns into icky beer.
Some of the bad spiced brews seem to have the presence of another
form of alcohol or solvent, that the non-spiced ones lack. The
procedures are the same for both spiced and non-spiced. The only
thing that could be different (besides the presence of spices) is
maybe I boil longer when I add spices.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Am I making Alzheimer brew?
J
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 11:14:59 EST
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: re: reusing yeast & open fermenters
Since the yeast reuse thread has popped up again, I thought
I'd add my two cents worth. I am most likely in the minority
of homebrewers in that I am currently utilizing open fermentation
techniques. I ferment in a SS vessal with a heavy lid that in
no way could be construed as a closed system. One of the
great advantages of open fermentation is the ability to skim
a lot of trub junk off the fermenter during the first 8-24
hours of fermentation. The resulting krausen head can be
quite strikingly clean and white. Since I brew mostly ales,
my yeast tends to rise to the top of the fermenter around
day 4 or 5. I skim this yeast off and since I usually have
more yeast available to me than I can ever use, I throw it
away, or give it to fellow brewers. Top cropping ale yeast
is a more effective and viable technique to reuse yeast than
waiting to harvest off the secondary. Yeast allowed to sit
in the secondary will invariably be less healthy than fresh
top cropped yeast. This is due to autolysis and alcohol
effects on the yeast cell.
I have generally been quite pleased with the ease of open
fermentation with respect to skimming and harvesting of the
yeast. If you are a careful clean brewer, using quality
yeast, open fermentation is great.
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 09:50:04 PST
From: greg@bandit.Berkeley.EDU (Greg Jesus Wolodkin)
Subject: EBC -> Lovibond conversion
Sorry if I've lost track of who said what in this thread.. I think
it went like this:
Murray writes:
>>> I have just found a new supplier for my grain requirements who has data
>>> sheets on the malt available. Specifically, it mentions a colour rating
>>> expressed in degrees EBC as opposed to degrees LOVIBOND. What is the
>>> conversion factor between the two units.
Al Korz adds:
>> I don't have a conversion, but here are some L/EBC pairs from Siebel's --
>> perhaps you can figure out your own conversion factor:
>> Lov EBC
>> 3.21 8
>> 7.83 15
>> 7.87 15
>> 21.65 45
>> 22.5 55
>> 25.7 55
>> 77.5 155
>> 221 500
>> 497.5 1100
>> 557.5 1400
>> 601 1400
Jim Dipalma says:
> Hmmm, a couple of interesting observations here. First, from looking
> at the pairs Al provided, it would seem that whatever the conversion
> formula is, it's not linear [...] Second, there are three pairs where
> the EBC rating is the same (15, 55 and 1400), yet the equivalent
> Lovibond ratings are different. What gives?
Looks to me like the EBC has just been rounded off to the nearest
convenient number -- for all intents and purposes, though, 557L and
601L are identical, no?
> I would be very interested in an accurate method of converting these
> units. If anyone knows how to convert the two, please jump right in.
Take a look at the data on a log-log scale.. the relationship
p
Lovibond = M * EBC with M = 0.5 and p = 0.98
works well, even in the range of pale malts. I don't know if this is
an "exact" conversion, but it does a good job on the data given.
/* In case the notation is confusing.. */
double Lovibond (double EBC)
{
double M = 4.9950570e-01;
double p = 9.8024579e-01;
return (M * pow(EBC, p));
}
/* */
Happy brewing,
Greg
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 07:13:28 PST
From: Darryl Richman <darrylri@microsoft.com>
Subject: re: EBC to Lovibond
Yesterday, James Dipalma expanded on Al Korzonas' observation that the
conversion between EBC color units and Lovibond (SRM) is not linear.
This is indeed true. Both would like to find some kind of relationship
between the two. Unfortunately, there is no real conversion between
the two. The problem is that they represent two different ways of
measuring color in beer, and they react differently to different
coloring agents. The widely quoted conversion of 2.65 + 1.2 does work
passably for pale beers where there isn't a lot of coloring material.
Even if you could work up a curve fit for readings against one set of
beers, other beers might not lie on that line because their coloring
comes about from different materials.
The problem stems from the fact that the EBC has specified measurements
at one light frequency while the ASBC has opted for a different one,
with a fudge in it to try to approximate Lovibond. Although two beers
might appear to be the same color to our eyes, these differing
measurement techniques might come up with strongly different numbers.
To use a rough analogy, it's like watching a B&W TV; although red and
green are being transmitted, to the observer they are both gray.
--Darryl Richman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 8:15:41 PST
From: davep@cirrus.com (David Pike)
Subject: Lagering in the Fridge
This comment is in response to the lagering question where the beer had been
in the fridge for 9 weeks and still 'glugs' slowly....
Refrigerators inject cool/cold air INTO its interior while cooling. This means
that the ability of CO2 to be released into the air from the beer will be
less than if the beer is outside the fridge (ie. the air pressure inside the
fridge is a *bit* higher than the outside air pressure.
Now you open the door, and the air pressure drops, but slowly. If you stand
and look at your beer, perhap a minute or two, one or two glugs may appear,
so...(to repeat what we already know) the best way to tell if fermentation is
done is to take an SG. Get some beer, let it stabilize re. temperature, and
perhaps even release some CO2, then take the SG.
Dave Pike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 10:41:15 PST
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Subject: Re: Isolating pure yeast
> There exists a agar called "WL nutrient agar" that is great for isolating
> pure yeast from wild yeast strains. This agar is green in color. The pure
> yeast take up the green color when grown up on Petri dishes and the wild
> yeast remain white.
> Bob Jones
This may not be exactly a question for the Digest, but here goes.
This stuff sounds interesting and useful, but it also sounds strange.
What is the difference in "pure" and "wild" yeast that determines
whether they will pick up the color?
I mean, at some point they were _all_ wild yeast.
Drew Lawson If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com you're part of the precipitate
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 12:58 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Doughing-in
Jim writes:
>In the last digest Al Korz wrote:
><For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist
><(which is highly recommended) not vice versa. Adding the grist to
><the strike liquor will work, but will create much more balled starch
><than the opposite (see Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer").
>
>This is indeed what Noonan preaches. I have always wondered about
>the importance and significance of adding water to malt as opposed
>to the converse. Ok, so one can get "balled starch", wont it then
>hydrate and become "non balled"? Cant you just stir enough to
>completely mix the mash? Since I do an upward step mash, the
>protein rest provides a 30 minute hydration period for the grains.
>Wont this hydrolyze the grains and liquify the starches? Also, who
>has ever seen a professional brewery doing this?? All of the breweries
>I can recall visiting do what most homebrewers do, raise a volume
>of water to a given temp, and add the crushed grains onto the
>water. This is one of the "Noonanisms" that I feel is rather un-
>important to the overall beer quality. THere are so many other
>places for brewers to make significant improvements to quality
>in brewing like malt/hops/yeast choices and even water chemistry.
Russ writes:
>>From Al:
>
>>For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist
>>(which is highly recommended) not vice versa. Adding the grist to
>>the strike liquor will work, but will create much more balled starch
>>than the opposite (see Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer").
>
>Curious. I add the grist to the liquor, and get what seems to be a fine
>dough-in. It seems to allow for better mixing -> no dry spots. How does
>Noonan determine that it creates more "balled starch"? Just what is
>"balled starch"? Obviously I don't have the book.....
Noonan's book is the first place I've seen this "add the liquid to the
dry" procedure recommended regarding brewing, but I believe that most
food cookbooks recommend adding the liquid to the dry so you can work out
the clumps. Theoretically, I believe the problem is in that little
"pockets" of the dry material can become encapsulated (like lumpy
gravy). This is probably less of an issue with the relatively stiff
mashes that we use in our infusion mashes, than with the much "watery-er"
mashes that Noonan uses in his decoction mashes.
I don't agree that it is overkill -- I don't think it's that hard to add
3/4 of your water at first, smush-out (a very good technical term... see
DeKlerk ;^) the clumps and then add the balance of the water. I feel
that the biggest problem may not be the loss of extract rather the
possiblity of these clumps un-clumping during the mashout and releasing
starch into your runnings (say goodbye to any hope of crystal-clear beer).
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 13:17 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Spraying the grist
Both Jim and Donald mentioned the spraying of water on the grist
as it enters the mash tun. I suspect that this has the addional
benefit of reducing grain dust which is explosive.
Yes, both methods (liquor-to-grist and grist-to-liquor) will work,
but I, personally am always looking for ways to improve my methods
-- I get a great deal of new ideas from the HBD and other digests
and this is what keeps my brews constantly improving. Thanks to all!
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 14:02:02 -0800
From: arthur@chiba.esd.sgi.com (Arthur Evans)
Subject: Wyeast #1084
In Digest #1065, Joseph N. Hall asks:
> Finally, on a slightly different topic, has anyone here tried using
> 1084 (Irish) for purposes other than stouts and porters? I feel like
> trying it in bitter and mild ... perhaps it might make a good alt
> yeast, too?
I used the "Irish ale yeast" in an ESB--strong, farily light in color,
and aggressively hopped--pretty un-stout like. It was really tasty,
and probably my favorite of all the batches I've brewed (it was
rated pretty highly by a random sampling of friends too, who
said things like "your best yet," and "can I have another?").
I can certainly recommend it for bitters--and it seems like it
would be good for beers calling for some residual sweetness,
like milds and Scottish ales. Go for it.
OK
-arthur
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 93 12:49:57 GMT
From: mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist)
Subject: Weird beer flavor
I have some extract ale that is ready to go into bottles, but it tastes
wrong. I'd like some help in identifying what the wrong flavor is,
and how to eliminate it!
The best way I can describe it is: have you ever tasted malt extract
syrup right out of the can? There's a molasses-like malty sweetness
up front, followed on by an unpleasant aftertaste (at least, I find it
to be unpleasant). Well, the weird flavor component in this batch of
ale is very much like that aftertaste in malt syrup.
Here's the specifics:
Two cans (8 lbs) Alexander's Pale malt extract syrup
13 AAU (1 oz.) Chinook hops (boil)
1 oz. Cascade hops (finish)
W. #1098 (British), recultured from dregs of a
homebrew (1st generation)
O.G. 1.058
F.G. 1.017
Does this taste description ring any bells? Is it something that will
go away with time? (Please don't bother with "Well you're using all
this malt extract, so of course your beer is going to taste like malt
extract, why don't you switch to all-grain, blah blah blah". I'm sure
I'll switch to all-grain someday soon, OK? But I have never had this
problem with an extract batch before, and I want to find out if anyone
has had any specific experiences with it).
Thanks for any help,
- --mark
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 93 17:22:59 EST
From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067@compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeast Re-Use and Attenuation
Russ Gelinas makes an interesting observation:
> Subject: re-use slurry
>
> Re-using yeast slurry is easy, efficient, cost effective, and taste
> effective; I do it often. Some things to keep in mind:
>
> 4) Don't overdo it. All yeasts mutate; some more (and more quickly)
> than others. Often the mutation is to become more attenuative (making
> a dryer beer). I've found this to be true of Sierra Nevada/Wyeast 1056
> yeast; after 3 batches the beer is too dry for my tastes. Whitbread
> ale yeast, otoh, had been reported to be able to be re-used many times
> (20+ ?) without much change in character.
>
This datapoint on WYeast 1056 is very appropriate for me right now.
I've been repitching the same yeast for several batches and used some
stored 1056 to ferment out the extract beer I made in my Beginning
Homebrew class. When I measured the specific gravity the other night,
the hydrometer dropped right through like it was in water -- and the
beer doesn't taste too good. :-( (Don't worry, I've got plenty of other
good stuff in kegs so I won't die of thirst.) I was surprised by this,
as the yeast strain I used to use regularly never performed this way;
Russ' observation answers my concern.
On 'tother hand, Ballantine Brewery supposedly used this yeast strain
over and over, repitching hundreds of times without any problems. So
I'm still scratching my head over this one.
One thing the yeast was _very_ good for was the barleywine I brewed on
the 10th. As I mentioned previously, I ran the wort in on top of a
deliberately created yeast pack (after racking out a "starter" ale); the
specific gravity dropped from 1.095 to 1.030 in 15 days, which is pretty
damn good. So, by the way, is the barleywine.
James Dipalma asks:
> Subject: RE: EBC to Lovibond
>
> Hmmm, a couple of interesting observations here. First, from looking
> at the pairs Al provided, it would seem that whatever the conversion
> formula is, it's not linear, so I'm not terribly surprised the equation
> from Eckhardt doesn't quite hold. Second, there are three pairs where the
> EBC rating is the same (15, 55 and 1400), yet the equivalent Lovibond
> ratings are different. What gives?
> I would be very interested in an accurate method of converting these
> units. If anyone knows how to convert the two, please jump right in.
>
I can only reiterate what I was told by the lab folk at Great Western
Malting: There is NO conversion formula, and I've told this to Fred,
too. According to the lab folk, who should know, the only way to get an
accurate Lovibond figure is to test the sample on equipment calibrated
in Lovibond. A few years back they ran some tests for me on British
malts and the figures didn't come out anywhere near where they would
have using Fred's calculations. Fred's calculations, by the way, as
much as I love the man, are not always, um, completely reliable.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 16:00:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter Maxwell <peterm@aoraki.dtc.hp.com>
Subject: keeping properties of yeast slurry
There have been a few replies to my earlier questions regarding reusing the
slurry from the secondary fermenter. Comments like "it should keep for a
few days" or "a week or two" appeared as did something to the effect of
leaving it longer would result in autolysis, which is bad.
Given that several people have indicated that they leave their brew in the
secondary for months sometimes, why don't they suffer from autolysis also?
What's the difference between leaving it in the secondary for months and
leaving it in a separate bottle for months? In particular I was thinking of
filling a beer bottle with the slurry, capping it (because fermentation is
finished) and putting it in the refrigerator. Then all I'd have to do is
warm this up to wort temperature and pitch, then wait for the fireworks.
Does this sound viable?
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 18:18:59 -0600 (CST)
From: MEHTA01@SWMED.EDU
Subject: Alternative yeast re-use method
i sp
spoke to a fffriend here at UTSouthwestern Medical Centre where
we are students about culturing yeast, as she is doing her Ph.D. on yeast
genetics and is always culturing all kinds of yeast (nasty mutated ones
though).
i had previously done the re-use slurry trick successfully and told
her about it, asking her why it can be re-used only a few times...
One main reason, she said, is that alcohol kills yeast or at least causes
severe damage to the poor beasties. Thus, resuing the yeasties that have been
exposed to alcohol for a long time (in the secondary) is not a good idea.
The ones that are left are the ones that are more tolerant of alcohol (hence
the fact that the Sierra Nevada culturer noticed severe attenuation after 3
life-times... in theprevious HBD # 1066 Jan 29).
So, the solution is to take off some yeast during the aerobic
fermentation period and store them in a cold (0 to 5 C) fridge in whatever
kind of wort they are in. They should stay well for quite a long time (settling
into their cyst mode due to thte cold) and every time you make a starter,
you can just store alittle bit before you pitch, for next time.
i would recommend carryinmg out the std sanitary procs with these
yeast viz. flaming the mout of the containers, and all other things that touch
the yeasties...
Good luck. If you have any more qs, pls email me, i have a real informed source
who can help me answer these qs.... :-) (for the price of a good HB, she says)!
Ciao
Shreefal Mehta
mehta01@utsw.swmed.utexas.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 16:35:28 EST
From: mcharry@freedom.otra.com (McHarry)
Subject: World's Worst Brewer
Sorry, Jack, this isn't a flame :)
I have a friend, who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty, who
claims to be the World's Worst Brewer. I think it might be amusing to
outline his process:
He is, of course, an extract brewer. He doesn't have a big enough pot to
boil the whole brew, so he squirts the extract into his carboy with some of
the water. Some of the rest of the water goes into his kettle with the
hops, which are boiled for an hour or so. This water is then dumped into
the carboy, bringing the level up to something less than full. The (dry,
of course) yeast is pitched and a lock fitted. When the krausen falls, he
tops up the carboy with more water, thus avoiding the need for a blow off
tube and such. When fermentation is finished, he syphons the beer into
plastic soda bottles primed with sucrose. The result is not too bad.
One side effect of this process is that there is no coagulation and
precipitation of protein, so the brew never clears. He has two solutions
to this: The first is to brew mainly dark beers so he can't tell. The
second is to refer to the stuff as "high protein sports drink." I don't
think the brewing supplies shop keeper likes him hanging around talking to
the other customers.
He claims his next project is to use only a small amount of dark extract
for color and to make up the rest of the fermentables with table sugar.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 21:50 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Growth Media,Dough-in
>From: "Bob Jones" <bjones@novax.llnl.gov>
>The pure yeast take up the green color when grown up on Petri dishes and the
wild yeast remain white... I like these type of eyeball sort of tests.
Me too but this one sounds like a wet dream.
> Maybe some microbio type out there could post the availablity and cost of
the media for those interested.
Maybe some microbio type could tell us how it works.
.............
One more pass at dough-in. Two batches back I doughed-in a batch before
going to bed and mashed in the morning just to see if it made any difference.
I thought it might improve the conversion by solubilizing the starch better
but did not know what effect it might have on the taste.
The conversion was at the high end of typical for me (31 pts/gal/lb) but it
might be more helpful on poorly crushed malt than on properly crushed.
It is now in the keg and I have been drinking it for about a week and
completely forgot about the experiment till this dough-in thread joged my
memory. I can't find the slightest clue that the taste was affected and I
passed around a liter at a recent CBS meeting and at the last report, no one
has died from it.
js
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 09:57 EST
From: Carlo Fusco <G1400023@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA>
Subject: Keg problems
Hello,
I have made the leap into kegging but I can't get the thing to work properly.
Every time I try to pour a beer there is nothing but foam. I have tried some
of the ideas mentioned last week in the digest and none work.
I have chilled the beer before taping, tried a long [6ft] and short [10in]
liquid out hose, bleeding off the excess pressure in the keg before pouring,
let it sit for a week after force carbonating.
What I have noticed is that the beer is not losing CO2 in the liquid out
hose, it remaines a liquid until it gets to the cobra tap and all I get is
foam comming out of the tap.
I have a few ideas what the problem is but I could use some input from the
ever knowing HBD crowd. I think I might be over carbonating the beer or the
beer comes out to fast and foams up when it hits the glass.....any
suggestions at fixing these things or other insights to what the problem may
be.
Thanks for the help
Carlo Fusco g1400023@nickel.laurentian.ca
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1067, 02/01/93
*************************************
-------
