Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2068
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/06/12 PDT
Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 12 June 1996 Number 2068
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
chlorine + acid = ? , and thanks. (robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston))
California Common? (RBoland@aol.com)
Eudora tip thanks (darryl.davidson@uvm.edu (Darryl Davidson))
A good Crush (Carrick Legrismith)
Oil Barrel (Wallinger)
Request (Schwab_Bryan@CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil)
Basic variables (Dave Greenlee)
Re: dogs and hops again ("Tracy Aquilla")
RE: World's Fines Microbrewery ("Decker, Robin E.")
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:52:27 GMT (jltaylor@ix.netcom.com (John Taylor))
Re: yeast respire? NOT! (dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma))
Silly troob question ("David K. Schafer")
Response to newbie potpourri . . . (Steve_Rosenzweig@wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve))
recipe info (mwtoczek@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu)
Re: When is it beer? (jdecarlo@mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo))
liability (David Raitt)
"homemade" taste/protein rest/respiration/flkd brly vs. crystl/blowoff (korz@pubs.ih.att.com)
Ominous moves in the Great White North . . . (Steve_Rosenzweig@wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve))
5 liter mini kegs (Todd_Etzel@ccmail.leos.loral.com)
Dogs+ Hops= Malignant Hyperthermia (Rob Moline)
Esters and O2 (Jim Busch)
Australian Yeast (lheavner@tcmail.frco.com)
Re: Wort Chilling (lheavner@tcmail.frco.com)
Results (WOLFF%eclus.DNET@tron.bwi.wec.com)
Re: Fly-in homebrew (Cory Wright)
Longshot American Pale Ale, misfire ? (Steve Alexander)
Re: Ester's saga, O2 and diacetyl ("Tracy Aquilla")
Hydrometer vessel - any differences? (Michael Mahler/Shiva Corporation)
Re: Thanks (Aaron Sepanski)
Brewers Workshop correction. ("Rich Byrnes")
Re: Wort chilling (Aaron Sepanski)
Re: Trub (Aaron Sepanski)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES
homebrew@aob.org (SUBMISSIONS only)
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org (for REQUESTS only)
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@aob.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-digest-request@aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via BEER-L NET, you must unsubscribe by sending a
one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
This list service is now being provided by majordomo@aob.org, so some
of the commands may have changed. For technical problems send
e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org or visit
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web. Othere information is available by
e-mail from info@aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob.
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu.
Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the
password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.
AFS users can find it at /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.
If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail
using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about
this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with
the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message. Some
archives are available via majordomo@aob.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 22:29 PDT
Subject: chlorine + acid = ? , and thanks.
chlorine + acid = ? death?
My question is: what is the reaction between chlorine and acids which are
harmful to people? I'd like to have some firm info on what quantities of
reactants produce something harmful to humans. My ingnorant guess is that
chlorine, in the miniscule quantities neede to sanitize homebrew equipment,
poses no threat when mixed with acid. But I'd prefer not to be dead wrong <g!>
Thanks to Russell Mast for helping me get re-subscribed. For those of you
who wish I weren't, flame him (he loves it) [<g>e2!].
Also Steve A. Thanks for your help on water info; my thanks were e-bounced.
- -- Rob Lauriston at fifty-plus latitude. My longitude is impolite in mixed
company.
------------------------------
From: RBoland@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 01:40:43 -0400
Subject: California Common?
I've been told that Anchor Steam is the only beer brewed true to the
California Common style.(Category 24a). I'd like to compare some other
beers, if any, to Anchor. Any suggestions? As I am in St. Louis, national
(or close to it) distribution is required.
Thanks for the help!
------------------------------
From: darryl.davidson@uvm.edu (Darryl Davidson)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 02:00:44 -0600
Subject: Eudora tip thanks
Has anyone taken their CO2-based kegging wisdom and done
anything to emulate nitro-dispensed Guinness? I'm
getting hitched and wanted to include Guinness at the
after-wedding party.
Quick-n-dirty ways of faking a good pour for a few
hours of party service come to mind first. For example,
perhaps doing the appropriate amount of nitrogen pressure
into a second (empty) keg connected to the gas-in point of
the Guinness keg might work to get me thru the night more
or less. Or (though this one seems doomed by the absorption
rate of CO2, etc.) somehow using CO2 and getting the
pour I want.
Second would be advice from anyone that's done a home-
cobbled nitrogen regulator setup. As I understand, US
bars that are serving Guinness under nitrogen are doing
a high-p.s.i. (70p.s.i.g.?) system, since that much
pressure is needed to get the nitrogen to dissolve into
solution (compared to the 8-12p.s.i.g. range needed for
similar solubility with CO2). Then, there's a mechanism
at the tap they fiddle with that seems to be acting as
another pressure drop to avoid Guinness geysers. A
home job of this would seem to involve a nitrogen tank,
dual regulator, perhaps that pressure-valve tap... whew...
just to get that remarkable head and taste...
Come to think of it, maybe I'll just buy six dozen
widget cans...
DIRECT REPLIES to darryl.davidson@uvm.edu, since I'm
gettin' swamped by these weddin' plans and HBD will
likely take a back seat for the next while. I'll recap to
HBD and/or pass-along requests, as seems fitting.
Thanks, in advance,
PS: to the guy that ranted about the internet not being
anyone's mom, I just gotta say that the Eudora-split-HBD
question asked and answered was useful to me, it is
UNIX that isn't my mother (as any unix junkie knows),
and the internet-at-large and the HBD resemble mom
more than he knows. In fact, _he_ even sounded like
mom for a moment there. ;-)
- - --
DL Davidson, UVM Environ. Engineering, darryl.davidson@uvm.edu
Fill with mingled cream and amber, I will dram that glass again,
Such hilarious visions clamber, Through the chamber of my brain--
Quaintest thoughts--queerest fancies, Come to life and fade away;
Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today.
------------------------------
From: Carrick Legrismith <hiscope@c4systm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:58:06 -0700
Subject: A good Crush
From: Michael Owings <mikey@waste.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:35:17 -0500
Subject: Home-Built Roller Mills
>I have found this setup to give an adequate crush.
>Note that while the diamond cylinders can be found with reasonable
>ease, you'll need a good machine shop to machine the knurling onto
>the cylinder's surface, and to hollow the cylinders (if not already
>hollow). Lots of times they'll do the work for a six pack or so of
>homebrew. Obtaining the uranium cores _can_ be somewhat difficult;
>check defunct nuclear power programs, your local classified ads (look
>under "Rods, Fuel") or keep an eye open at garage sales. My cores
>came from the Government of Pakistan (no affiliation, just a satisfied
>customer, etc.). IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTE: for goodness sake, make
>sure the uranium is actually _spent_ before attempting to use it in
>constructing your mill -- you may be able to borrow a geiger counter
>from a friendly local university, medical center, or other facility
>that handles nuclear materials. And of course, make sure the uranium
>cores cannot come into contact with your grain; the resulting beer
>could end up toxic, carcinogenic, or astringent.
>I recently motorized this mill; if there is sufficient interest, I
>shall post a report at a future date.
=============================================================================
Michael Owings Chief of Operations
Uncle Leroi's Hazardous Materials Storage and FemtoBrewery New Orleans, LA
=============================================================================
Michael--I have two questions:
1. What size screen did you use to determine that it was indeed a good crush?
2. How did you get Pakistan to sell you the core material? We have to get ours
from China which isn't
too hard or expensive; but that slave labor thing has my societal self
spinning.
Carrick Legrismith
Hiscope Brewery
hiscope@c4systm.com
------------------------------
From: Wallinger <wawa@datasync.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 06:59:20 -0500
Subject: Oil Barrel
Kyle says, "An oil barrel is 32 gal, a beer gallon is 31 gal (US). A =
barrel is
not a recognized international amount, whereas a hectoliter (100l)
is."
Actually, an oil barrel (abbreviated Bbl) is 42 US gallons. And oil =
trades internationally in US dollars per barrel. By the way, is there =
any truth to the rumor that the abbreviation Bbl came from "beer =
barrel", since that's all that was available in Pennsylvania during the =
mid-1800s oil boom?
Wade Wallinger
Pascagoula, Mississippi
http://www.datasync.com/~wawa
------------------------------
From: Schwab_Bryan@CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 07:34:08 CDT
Subject: Request
Greetings, Was wondering who out there within the West Chester PA area
knows of some tried and Proven Brew Pubs as well as Homebrew Supply
shops wort visiting while out that way next week.
E-Mail:
schwab_bryan@ccmail.navy.ncsc.mil
Thanks
Bryan
------------------------------
From: Dave Greenlee <daveg@mail.airmail.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:24:14 -0500
Subject: Basic variables
I was perusing the list of winners of the National Homebrew Competition
in the last special issue of Zymurgy and happened to note the following
facts:
+ Not one of the winners was brewed in a single-stage
fermentation, every one used a secondary fermentation and a substantial
number went on to a tertiary.
+ Not one was brewed at a fermentation temperature of over 72F,
and all but one were at 70F or below.
+ Plastic fermenters were all but absent; in the few cases where
they did appear they were used only for the primary fermentation with the
secondary and tertiary, if any, in glass or stainless.
+ Not one (I'm working from memory and am not positive about
this) used extract as its primary malt base, though some used it to
supplement their grain bill.
(The foregoing comments do not include the mead, cider, or saki
winners, but they do apply to all the others, ales and lagers alike.)
Being a beginning brewer who is getting ready to do an
extract-plus-steeped-specialty-malts brew in a single-stage plastic
fermenter at a fermentation temperature of 72-79F, should this be telling
me something?
If I wanted to change one or more of these factors, and
presuming that I'm currently interested only in brewing ales, how would
you rank them in importance? My guess would be that the plastic issue
would be last, presuming that I properly control sanitation and
avoid scratching the plastic. The secondary fermentation would probably
be next from the bottom, since I'm limiting myself to ales (i.e. short
periods of time on the yeast and trub). The other two, I'm not so
certain about. I'm just not certain which would have the more important
impact on the finished product. I _suspect_ it would be grain vs.
extract, but the longer conditioning made possible by the lower
temperatures could be just as important. In fact, instinct tells me that
the temperature and secondary fermentation issues are, per se, less
important than extract vs. grain because, I suspect, they just don't have
as much effect on an extract or extract+specialties brew as they do on a
partial mash or all-grain brew.
Your comments would be much appreciated...
Dave Greenlee
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 10:36:41 CDT
Subject: Re: dogs and hops again
In Digest #2066:
"Dave Hinkle" <Dave.Hinkle@aexp.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Sorry to hear about this near tragic happening. I remember reading about a
>(human) drug that can be administered that will quickly stop the run-away
>hyper-thermic condition as an antidote to hop poisoning. I think it was a
post
>to RCB several months ago? Does anyone have this information? All I remember
>was it was some kind of "[?]-blocker" given to humans to treat some specific
>condition (something to do with the kidneys?). I would like to get this info
>so I can forward it to my vet. Because the drug isn't normally given to
>ANIMALS, it seems my vet has never heard of such a thing. If there is such an
>antidote, getting this info to the veterinary community would be a great
>public service. No matter how careful we are, accidents can happen.
Malignant hyperthermia is rare, but has been fairly well-characterized
(particularly in pigs) and approximately one in ten-thousand anesthetized
individuals develop the chain reaction of symptoms: the muscles contract
uncontrollably and get very hot, causing a high fever, then muscular
rigidity, rapid heartbeat, increased blood CO2 levels, and convulsions soon
follow. Usually it occurs during surgery under general anesthesia, and thus
is often not fatal, since the victim is already in the hospital and doctors
are readily available to treat the condition. Administration of dantrolene
(a calcium-channel blocker) has proved effective in saving 93% of
hospitalized patients (mostly humans and pigs) exhibiting this reaction.
In pigs, a mutation (somatic dominant) has been identified in one of the
genes (calcium release channel, aka ryanodine receptor [RYR]) controlling
muscle contraction. This mutation has been shown to be the cause of
predisposition to malignant hyperthermia in pigs. However, the prevalence of
this mutation is unknown in all species, and it would be prudent to assume
that all animals, including humans, dogs (all breeds, not just Greyhounds),
cats, livestock, etc. are potentially susceptible to hops poisoning, until
more data are collected and analyzed.
Tracy
------------------------------
From: "Decker, Robin E." <robind@rmtgvl.rmtinc.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 10:44:00 -0500
Subject: RE: World's Fines Microbrewery
Okay, I've been trying to send this for days, and I just realized I've been
sending it to aob.COM instead of aob.ORG!!! Sometimes it really is just
operator error (as hard as it is for me to admit that <g>). This is a
little late, but I've updated it somewhat:
---------
(Bob @ Flour Daniel in Greenville, SC provided a critique of a local
brewery)
Bob, Bob, Bob, <shaking head in dismay>
The place you visited was NOT a microbrewery! You were in one of the THREE
BrewPUBS in Greenville. And since there IS also a Microbrewery in
Greenville, I think you owe Dave Bracken, head brewer of same, a public
apology for casting aspersions upon his product and his practices. BTW,
Dave started out as a homebrewer (I suspect he even owns a copy of "TCJHB")
and he is currently producing 2 excellent beers: Caesar's Head Amber, and
Caesar's Head Pale Ale, both available at local restaurants (e.g. Macaroni
Grill) on tap and at Biermeisters in bottles.
Bob, next time you want to slam someone, either name them or make sure that
noone will be confused about your target.
You may want to visit the Downtown Brewing Company or the Blue Ridge Brewery
for technical advice (and I bet our local homebrew shop, aka Biermeisters,
would be happy to answer questions), as The Chicago Brew Pub has closed its
doors. It seems there were just too many obstacles for them to overcome,
ranging from lack of a knowledgable brewer, to inattention to details like
service and quality. Additionally, with 2 more professionally run brewpubs
slated to open here soon, there wasn't enough time to turn the operation
around. (This is entirely my own opinion, based on very slim info gleaned
from locals "in-the-know"). And I bet I know where there's a reasonably
priced brewpub available if anyone is interested... <g>
As for the newest brewer having the "TCJHB" at his side, considering the
lack of training he received, I give him credit for at least trying to learn
what his new job was about. And face it, who do we regularly refer newbies
to? He learned enough from Charlie to know that he needed help, and then he
went looking for help. It was just too little, too late.
Sorry if my being rubbed the wrong way chafes anyone else...its just that
the specialty beer industry is an infant here in Greenville, and I for one,
would like to see it flourish.
Goldings
"Don't even think about asking for a disclaimer"
------------------------------
From: jltaylor@ix.netcom.com (John Taylor)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:52:27 GMT
Subject: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:52:27 GMT
Has anyone used gelatin to clear beer.
How?
------------------------------
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 10:56:45 EDT
Subject: Re: yeast respire? NOT!
Hi All,
In HBD #2066, Dominic Venezia writes:
<excellent, informative post on yeast metabolism snipped>
>On the other hand, the
>Fuller's ESB yeast, rumored to be one of the Wyeast's (which?) has a
Wyeast 1968 is the Fuller's ESB yeast.
>very high aeration requirement and I have yet to get it to finish
>lower than 1.020 starting around 1.056 even with massive and periodic
>(during fermentation) aeration at pitch time.
My 1.055ish ESB's typically ferment down to 1.015 or so with this yeast.
It is extremely flocculant, and needs to be roused 3-4 days after pitching.
*****************************************************************
Also in HBD #2066, Russell Mast writes:
>I think it's important to ask yourself - can you still enjoy the beer
>despite of the defect? If not, you are poorer for having that knowledge.
Gee, I dunno Russ. I can't conceive of any situation in life where a person
is worse off by virtue of being knowledgable. Of course, some people actually
believe ignorance is bliss, so I guess such people would not share that
opinion.
>> >But I wouldn't
>> >give up the knowledge for the world...
>Neither would I. But, I think I'd still be able to appreciate the joys
>of a beer with whatever problem it may have.
Consider then how you would feel when you encounter a beer that's free
of defects, a perfect example of a style. Like the time I wandered into a
pub in Bath, England just as a fresh cask of Worthington's IPA was being
tapped. Pronounced, clean hop bitterness, beautifully balanced by a malt
character with slight caramel notes, and a dry, hoppy finish that lingered
forever - heaven! Or last fall at a cider picnic I attended where a keg of
fresh Spaten Ur Octoberfest was served. Clean, incredibly smooth malt
character, felt like silk on the palate. I don't think I moved more than
10 feet from that keg all afternoon.
Of course, if one doesn't have enough knowledge to appreciate what's in the
glass on such occasions, the whole, joyous experience is lost. Now who's
the poorer??
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
From: "David K. Schafer" <DSCHAFER@museum.nysed.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:04:25 EDT
Subject: Silly troob question
Hi all,
First, I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my query regarding
dry yeast vs. liquid yeast cultures. The 100% opinion is that I
should use liquid yeast and it will be the biggest improvement to my
home brewing that I will make. Even a larger improvement than going
to all-grain! I'll be making the switch. Cheers!
Anyway, on with my silly question.
I am still having a slight troob problem. After boiling my wort I
use an immersion wort chiller and cool the wort to +-70 f in about 15
min. There is a definite / visible cold break. However, not all of
the coagulated proteins drop to the bottom, a significant amount is
free floating. Also, after racking or transferring to a secondary
there is still a significant amount of troob in the bottom of my
primary. BTW, I use hop pellets in a bag, so I don't have a natural
filter bed of leaves.
Question:
Should I let my cooled wort settle in the brewpot for an unspecified
amount of time (in order to let the troob settle) before I transfer to
my primary? Even more trivial.... *How* should I transfer the cooled
wort from my brew pot to the secondary??? I can pick the silly pot up
and pour it through a funnel right into the primary, but this may
transfer the troob as well if I'm not careful. I seem to recall in
Papazian that the wort was transferred via a smaller (2 quart pot??).
Is this the way people do it?
Any advice people could offer would be appreciated. Maybe I'm missing
some simple piece of information.
Thanks in advance.
Happy Brewing!!!
Dave
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Schafer Cultural Resource Survey Program
dschafer@museum.nysed.gov New York State Museum
518/473-1503 3118 Cultural Education Center
FAX 518/473-8496 Albany, NY 12230
------------------------------
From: Steve_Rosenzweig@wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:10:02 PDT
Subject: Response to newbie potpourri . . .
Duckdog:
>Hey, first homebrew attempt yielded a very palatable (albeit young) dark beer
>with a good hop aroma and pleasing taste, the head was decent and clung to
>the sides of the glass.
Congrats!! Your life will never be the same . . .
>I seem to have a problem with specific gravity. My
>first batch-the aforementioned-was bottled after 10 days of fermentation and
>an ending SG of 1.022, hmmm, as a rookie I didn't take a starting gravity but
>the end result is o.k. The latest batch is extract, all malt and started at
>1.048 and appears stuck at 1.018 after like 9 days, I racked to a secondary
>and activity is minimal.
I don't think you have a problem. I have been an all extract/specialty
grain brewer for over 6 years now, and those gravities seem acceptable
for that type of brewing. 1.048 to 1.018 is quite acceptable. The
first batch, (dark = stout or porter?), may have had an even higher
starting gravity, so 1.022 is ok as well. Most importantly - how does
the beer taste? Is it good? Is it the best damn beer you've ever
made? Does it make you want to keep brewing? If so, you're on the
right track!
There are a couple of things that you may already have picked up
through HBD and r.c.b. If not, I'll give you a brief starting point:
pitching sufficient amounts of liquid yeast and aeration of your
cooled wort; I've found that these have improved my beer immensely!!
>My understanding is that SG denotes density of
>particles in solution, is it possible that all malt brews (meaning all malt
>extract-no sugar until priming) would have a higher overall ending SG?
Be aware that different extracts provide different amounts of
fermentables. I've found that Munton&Fison seems to ferment out more
fully than John Bull (but in the JB Amber - I *like* that quality!).
>Should I throw away the hydrometer and have a homebrew?
No, and yes!! You don't need to master (or even use) use the tools of
the trade; but I am an advocate of *learning* about them for process,
form, and function; then if you decide that it's not a step necessary
in _your_ process, at least you will have made an informed decision!
>What would be a good transition to malt extract/partial grain brew? Is it too
>soon to attempt it?
Never! I suggest a porter or a stout - my first specialty grain brew
was Sparrow Hawk Porter from CP's first book, and it came out damn
good! Stepping from all malt to specialty grain to partial grain to
all grain is a good way to gauge your brewing interest/experience. My
own experience was that I got *really* into extract brewing the first
couple of years (30-40 batches), then I moved out of my house, went
back to school, found that I didn't have the time, space, or interest
to continue brewing for a couple of years (besides - I still had
*cases* of reserve to drink through - and I have ;->). Now that I am
back working and bought another house, I'm back into brewing (12
batches since last T'giving), still extract/specialty grain to get my
chops back, but with the knowlegde from HBD and r.c.b, I'm planning on
making the move to all grain starting in the fall . . .
>Any direction is certainly appreciated, thanks in advance.
One of the best parts about brewing is bringing others into it and
along through the processes.
>Dean
Dckdog@aol.com
(short for duck dog, y'know, labrador.....)
Brew On!!
Stephen
------------------------------
From: mwtoczek@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:12:30 -0400
Subject: recipe info
I am looking for a recipe for a wheat beer, flavored with orange and
coriander. Can someone point me in the right direction? Private e-mail is
fine. TIA
Michael
------------------------------
From: jdecarlo@mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 11:05:26 -0400
Subject: Re: When is it beer?
After catching up on this discussion, let me just add one more question.
When is wort no longer wort?
When discussing the process in between boiling and bottling, you have the
question of when is it legally beer, but you also have the question, when is
it
no longer wort? Unless you have an intermediate stage "in fermentation" with a
name, it presumably stops being wort at about the same time as it becomes
beer.
I think it is no longer wort after fermentation has begun. I say this happens
after the "lag time" has finished, though I can see why legal types would opt
for something simpler.
In the meantime, I call it wort until I see signs of fermentation and then I
call it beer.
------------------------------
From: David Raitt <draitt@scri.fsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:29:05 -0400
Subject: liability
In HBD 2066, Robert Uhl writes:
> [...regarding club meetings in brew shops...]
> Personally, I would trust my fellows not to sue me
> for their own problems. I remain
The issue is often not your fellows so much as your fellows' insurance
company. If someone gets in an accident leaving any event, the insurance
company would like to spread the cost out as much as possible, and will
often initiate a law suit under a state's dram shop laws.
The approach that our club takes is to find a willing local bar with a back
room that they will let us use. It is good advertising for them, since we
are obviously people who like beer. The club meetings are then covered (we
believe) under the massive liability insurance that all bars carry, so that
we have to worry less about that issue.
I'm not a lawyer, so take that into account when considering the above
advice.
David
draitt@sci.fsu.edu
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 10:29:14 CDT
Subject: "homemade" taste/protein rest/respiration/flkd brly vs. crystl/blowoff
Brian writes:
>I want to take the "homemade" beer taste off my beer. How do I do that?
The four things that I found removed that "homemade" taste were:
1. reducing Hot-Side Aeration (I used to aerate the wort when it was still
hot -- cooling before aerating improved my beer more than anything else),
2. using *fresh* malt extract (old extract gives a similar flavour to HSA
and has been blamed by some for that "extract twang"),
3. switching to good yeast (at the time, the dry yeast I was using was
pretty bad -- when I switched to liquid there was a big improvement...
since then I've often used Nottingham, Windsor, Coopers, Muntona... all
with very good results), and
4. steeping the crystal malts in no more than a gallon of water per pound
(if you steep them in any more than that, you will extract excessive
tannins which will take a long time to mellow out).
***
Howard writes:
>What is the protein rest for? I take it that it's to break down proteins, but
>why? What significance does it have in final beer...clarity? body? head
>retention??
Quick question, longer answer.
The protein rest is for breaking big proteins into medium and small proteins
and amino acids. If you have excessive big proteins you increase your hot
and cold break (and the associated beer losses) and your risk of chill haze.
Medium-sized and small proteins increase head retention and body. If you
already have well-modified malt (most modern malt is well-modified) you can
break your medium and small proteins down to amino acids -- good for yeast
nutrition, but bad for body and head retention.
***
George writes:
Yeast, in
the presence of oxygen, WILL RESPIRE. Respiring yeast DO NOT produce
alcohol, and they do produce compounds that cause off flavors but
these compound are later metabolized by the yeast (or, in the case of
volatiles, purged from the beer by CO2), so they do not usually make
it to the serving vessel.
Tracy's right, George. Kirk, Miller and Noonan are wrong (at least
regarding yeast and respiration). Look in more bio (not homebrew!)
books till you find "Crabtree Effect." It is because of the Crabtree
Effect that yeast do not respire. They do use oxygen for sterol synthesis
which is essential to healthy cell membranes which, in turn, are important
for alcohol tolerance, among other things.
***
Bill writes:
>I've heard people say that flaked barley will add "body, mouthfeel,
>and head retention", and that crystal malt will do the same, in
>addition to adding residual sweetness.
>
>So here are my questions:
>
>1. Which is right? Are both correct (regarding the body/mouthfeel
>part)? Can anyone provide a definitive answer?
Both, but Fix says that proteins have a bigger effect on body/mouthfeel
than dextrins. I believe that only proteins increase head retention,
although I would be interested in a reference or experience that
indicates otherwise. I believe that there are plenty of medium and
small proteins in crystal malt which is why it helps with head retention.
>2. I don't understand how crystal and carapils provide higher
>dextrins. Say we are mashing with a significant amount of 2-row, and
>we're doing a long enough 60C rest that we're converting a significant
>amount of the 2-row starches into simple(sque) sugars. Why wouldn't
>the beta-amylase, presumably largely concentrated, now, in the liquor,
>convert the sugars in the crystal or carapils as well? Would one do
>better to add these malts at the 70C rest, or during mashout? If
>dextrins are responsible for body/mouthfeel, should flaked adjuncts be
>added later, as well?
I believe that some would be converted and some would not. Limit dextrins
are not converted by beta amylase. I have it on my list of things to do
to find out what percentage of crystal malts' dextrins are limit dextrins.
Flaked adjuncts MUST be mashed. They contain starch, so you cannot add
them later in the mash as you can with crystal malts.
***
Darrel writes:
>Given that I will be out of town during this time, can I establish my
>blowoff setup (discharge end of blowoff tube submerged in weak chlorine
>solution) before I leave and then replace with airlock when I return
>without risking infection or chlorophenols in my beer ? Should I
>reschedule by brewing session ?
Unless your setup is set up such that your fermenter can suck back liquid
from the vessel that catches the blowoff (i.e. unless you are using narrow
ID tubing, which is not recommended for MANY reasons) there should be no
risk. This is a closed system and therefore there is no more risk of
infection with a blowoff system than with an airlock. Personally, I prefer
to use plain water in airlocks and blowoff buckets, because if I do get
suckback of airlock water, I would rather it be plain water than bleach.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: Steve_Rosenzweig@wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:27:35 PDT
Subject: Ominous moves in the Great White North . . .
No disrespect meant to our Canadian friends, but what the hell ????
I hope this doesn't give our US State and Federal weasels any bright
ideas! Seems like we may be playing right into their hands - sure,
we'll make it legal in every state - then they can tax it!!!
Now that the cherry has been popped in North America we can't hide our
heads in the sand any more!! I think we should raise this as a
platform plank for all parties in the 1996 election!!! Forget those
petty issues of abortion rights, the budget, the deficit, depleted
entitlement programs, foreign policy, old geezers, womanizing, . . .
now there's a real issue of interest!!!
Read My Lips - No Brew Taxes!!!!
Stephen
(Looking to buy a few acres in Montana . . . )
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------
>From RBPMail 2.6, June, 1996
Real Beer Page Mail, The Monthly Brew News Digest For the Online Brew
Enthusiast.
CANADIAN TAX ON BEER & WINE MAKING FOOD ITEMS The
government of Quebec announced in its budget Thursday that starting May
16, the 6.5-per-cent provincial sales tax will be added to grapes,
concentrated or nonconcentrated, malt, malt extracts and similar products
used to make wine or beer. Federal tax will not apply. "They want to tax
food and that's not fair," said beermaker Nicolas Balikci at a supply store.
He was referring to the sugar, yeast, malt and other products lining the
shelves. "They sometimes sell honey in this store," said Mary Schurman,
another customer. "How do they know I'm not going to put it on my
toast?" Some home brewers even suggested that extending the provincial
sales tax to beer and wine-making ingredients is an attack on ethnic
communities. The tax will hit people like Garcia Moutinho, who estimates
he spends $1,000 on grapes to make about 150 gallons of wine a year.
"It's bad for me and for all the guys like me - Italians, Portuguese,
Greeks." Grape-seller Claudio Porco wondered how the government can
tell the difference between grapes that are eaten and those that are
pressed to
make wine. (Source: Yvonne Zacharias; The Gazette - Montreal; May 11,
Saturday, News; Pg. A3) A local merchant due to open a microbrewery in
Quebec soon insists that this is not an ethnic issue. If consumers or home
brewers want food items without taxes, they can buy them at the local retail
stores. The group affected by the tax and therefore most vociferous will be
the home and wine making suppliers.
? copyright, Real Beer, Inc. 1996. Feel free to distribute to friends,
just keep the copyright clause intact. An archive of past RBPMails is
available at http://realbeer.com/newsletters/ cheers!
------------------------------
From: Todd_Etzel@ccmail.leos.loral.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 08:50:07 PST
Subject: 5 liter mini kegs
In response to the question about the 5 liter mini kegs, I have
started using them (3 batches) and have had no problems with them.
Since I bottle part of the batch and put the rest in the mini kegs, I
use the normal priming rates of 2/3 to 3/4 cup of corn sugar, and the
carbonation has come out fine. As for the cost of the CO2 cartriges,
if you can get a good seal with your tap (not always gaurenteed on the
first try) it will take only one cartrige to dispense the keg, so the
cost isn't significant. Overall, I like them and plan to keep using
them.
Todd
Todd_Etzel@ccmail.leos.loral.com
------------------------------
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:45:13 -0500
Subject: Dogs+ Hops= Malignant Hyperthermia
Dave Hinkle writes about the human equivalent of Hopped up Dogs-
It's called Malignant Hyperthermia, or malignant hyperpyrexia, 1st
identified in the 1960's. A rare, life threatening condition, triggered by
succinylcholine and volatile anaesthesia agents, notably halothane, though
it may also be induced by trauma, emotional stress, and strenuous exercise.
The syndrome begins with a hypermetabolic state in muscle tissue and is
believed to involve altered calcium mechanisms at the cellular level.
Symptoms include generalized contracture of skeletal muscle, tachycardia,
marked temp elevation, metabolic acidosis, hypoxia, and dysrythmias. Death
rates of 50 - 80% were common until Dantrolene was introduced as a
treatment. Immediate infusions and total body ice baths are used.
Dantrolene is a VERY expensive drug and has a limited shelf life, and will
not be found in quantities greater than that necessary to treat 1 or 2 cases
at any one time. But it will be found in EVERY operating room in the
developed world and further supplies are air ambulanced in, when necessary.
That's why the anaesthetist asks you about 'any problems with previous
anaesthesia,' that you or any family member may have had. Muscle biopsy may
be required in suspected individuals. As you amy understand, this is a big
concern when surgery must be done on a susceptible individual.
Cheers!
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Copmpany
Manhattan, Kansas
------------------------------
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Esters and O2
Lots of good discussion on yeast metabolism and fermentation byproducts!
Much more interesting than who has the cheesiest malt mill!! ;-}
> Under oxygenation of the wort is the surest way to increase ester
> production.
<According to Greg Noonan, "this is another source of controversy-much of the
<brewing literature states that underpitching/lack of oxygenation results in
<less ester formation, but again, it just ain't so" (Greg Noonan, Barleycorn
<Press 7(7):1 (1996). Greg's statement is bourne out by my reading of the
<brewing literature and empirical observations.
At the first Spirit of Belgium conference, Weihenstephan Diplom Braumeister
Eric Toft presented some general material relating fermentation parameters
to fermentation byproducts. He was careful to point out these are
generalizations and each brewery/strain must be monitored to see the
cause and effects. That said he did present this:
Decreasing wort aeration generally results in a vast increase of esters.
Late O2 injection, Drauflassen, generally results in a vast decrease of
esters. In the former case, higher alcohols are decreased while in the
latter case they are increased.
An increase of pitching rate can either increase or decrease esters and
fusel alcohols. Open fermenters also tend to increase esters.
<However, for those wishing
<to make exquisite Scotch Ales or Doppelbocks, I submit that some
<experimentation to this effect might be well worthwhile. I know it works for
<me!
Maybe with Scotch ales but I would not make a doppelbock without saturation
to 8 ppm of O2.
Greg wrote:
<Such is the case for beers like Scotch Ales and Bocks, where the original
<specific gravity is usually rather high and the finished beer is generally
<intended to be very clean (i.e. free from esters, fusels, and VDKs). This is
<particularly important when fermenting high gravity worts, since ester
<production is naturally increased during fermentation of these worts. By
<pitching as much as 15-20x10E6 cells/mL, keeping the initial fermentation
<temperature relatively low, and minimizing or even eliminating the aeration
<step, one can avoid extensive yeast growth and excretion of the esters which
<naturally accompany reproductive activity.
Now it is all becoming very clear indeed! What Noonan considers "high
pitching rate" is what most professionally trained brewers consider
minimal pitching rate! The rule of the trade is 1 million cells/degree Plato,
so a 18 P doppelbock would be pitched with 18 million cells/ml. Not what
I consider high, but normal pitching rate. This is probably another
example where words can be misleading when not defined in a more rigorous
fashion.
Good lagering!
Jim Busch
------------------------------
From: lheavner@tcmail.frco.com
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:41:04 -0500
Subject: Australian Yeast
Greetings,
I recently adapted a recipe (bottled yesterday) that called for dry
Australian Ale Yeast. I was wondering if such a yeast has a name and
if there is an equivalent liquid yeast. I ended up using 1056 because
the recipe seemed like a typical Pacific Nor'west red ale, if there is
such a thing. Just curious and I've seen numerous posts from down
under, so I decided to kill a cat.
Regards,
Lou
<lheavner@frmail.frco.com>
------------------------------
From: lheavner@tcmail.frco.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 12:20:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Wort Chilling
From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska@it.uwp.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 22:53:38 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Wort Chilling
I was wondering.... I never use a wort chiller. I usually put my wort
directly into the fermentation tank (carboy) top it up with water, then
set it in the bath tub. It usually takes about three hours to cool to
about 85-95 degrees F. At this time I rack off the trub, and then pitch
in my yeast. This gives me a pretty short lag time. What risk am I
actually running. I've only done it the last 4 or 5 batches with no
problems. Any opinions?
That is basically my approach. I use a galvanized washtub instead of
the bathtub because I use ice and it takes a lot of ice to fill the
bathtub. Also, if you can, you might want to try cooling the hot wort
first before adding to carboy and water. Several benefits to this:
You can cool your boiling pot much faster and with less risk of
breakage than you can your carboy. Presumably, you'll get a better
break by cooling faster and less HSA by pooring cooler wort rather
than hotter wort. In fact, I cool the wort far enough that I can pour
it vigorously (of course I ferment in a plastic bucket) to achieve
some degree of aeration prior to pitching without detecting any HSA
affect. I guess the only downside is if your water is not sterile,
but then if that's the case, it probably won't get sterile by simply
adding hot wort to it.
It takes me about 30 - 45 minutes to cool 3 gal in my kettle to 80F -
90F which I add to 60F tap water (added with the sink sprayer to
increase aeration) and pitch. I cool in 2 stages. First I cool with
tap water in the wash tub until it feels hot (about 10 or 15 minutes.
Then I remove about a gallon of the water and add 8lbs of ice. The
ice is usually melted a few minutes before cooling is complete, so
another bag of ice could be used. I just don't think it would help
that much, because the water is still pretty cold and I'm too cheap to
spend the xtra 87 cents for another bag. I swish the water around my
kettle by hand to improve heat transfer and monitor water temp.
Sometimes I'll move the kettle around in the tub in such a way as to
get some stirring action inside of the kettle. However, I'm always
worried about HSA and my back, so I usually don't. I do keep the lid
on the kettle at this time to minimize the chance of contamination,
since this is done on the floor. I also put a couple of bricks in the
bottom of the tub under the kettle to enhance water flow under the
kettle as well as around it.
On another note, I find it is always useful to check a mechanical or
bi-metallic thermometer against a known standard before using it.
Boiling water, ice water bath, room temperature are all easy to
achieve and verify them. Probably a good idea for liquid thermometers
as well, but I've never found them to be innacurate. This may sound a
little anal retentive, but it comes from one who usually forgoes
testing SG and still manages to make pretty good brew IMHO.
Lou
<lheavner@frmail.frco.com>
------------------------------
From: WOLFF%eclus.DNET@tron.bwi.wec.com
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Results
I received someone else's scoresheets along with mine for the AHA
preliminary round. It is entrant # 18241 and the Cat is 11 (a
Dry Stout. If you want it e-mail me and I will fax it to you.
I told the AHA I had it, but no response.
Bob Wolff
Sr. Chemical Eng.
Northrop Gruman
wolff@eclus.bwi.wec.com
------------------------------
From: Cory Wright <cwright@midcom.anza.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:30:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Fly-in homebrew
In HBD #2066, Steve Potter writes about fly in homebrew.
Now, personally, I don't care for fly in my homebrew. But if you must, I
would make sure that the fly fit the style. If you're brewing a stout, a
common black fly will most likely work. If you want to brew with fruitfly,
use a mildly hopped wheat beer for a base. I would personally add the fly
to the secondary, though I have heard of adding it to the last couple
minutes of the boil as well. Remember to freeze the fruitfly first to break
down the cell walls. Anyone else have any suggestions?
Cheers,
Cory
cwright@midcom.anza.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:22:30 -0400
Subject: Longshot American Pale Ale, misfire ?
I just tasted Sam Adam/Boston Brewing/Jim Koch - Longshot American
Pale Ale. As has been reported in HBD previously Boston Brewing chose
3 homebrew contest winning beer recipes and are commercially producing
these. A previous HBD post spoke about their Hazelnut ale. There are
also a black lager and an american pale ale.
The Amer. Pale Ale is from Jim Simpson(Simson?) recipe and altho it's
a nice drinkable beer it tastes a lot more like Marzen/Octoberfest
brewed with an ale yeast. The Vienna or Munich malt is the dominant
flavor, and the evidence of the four varieties of hops advertised on
the label is minor - the label claims 31 hops units whatever that
means - IBUs ? There isn't much hop aroma/flavor evident, and the
bitterness is masked by the vienna malts dryness. The color is a
medium brown, a bit lighter than most Octoberfest beers. It is drier
and softer than an Octoberfest. I'm putting this one in the (colder)
upstairs fridge with the lager beers.
OK - so I'm not a purist, a good beer is a good beer - *BUT* when the
label says 'American Pale Ale' a beer more in line with Sierra Nevada
Pale Ale or Anchor Liberty Ale comes to mind. I expect an IPA minus
the molasses/sugar cane note of a Bass, plus a heavy hit of US varietal
hops aroma and flavor.
Not to pick on Boston Brewing or Jim Simpson, vienna and munich malt
in pale ales is becoming epidemic around here. One local brewery
(Crooked River) uses this malt to excess in all of their ales that I
have tried. A new local brewpub, with a German brewmaster is also
adding a heavy dose of vienna to his hoppy ale. I guess I wouldn't
object to vienna as a minor side note in an ales flavor, but these
don't taste like APAs to me. Comments ? Am I alone ? Would a BJCP
judge allow such a beer in the Amer Pale Ale category - Al ?
APA=Austrian Pale Ale maybe ?
- ---
Robert A. Uhl writes Re: Cost of extraction losses ....
>> bbl = 31 gallons
>
>Actually, a barrel _should_ be 32 gallons; the liquid measurement
>system works by twos (2 mouthfuls=jigger, 2 jiggers=jack, 2
>jacks=gill(jill), 2 jills=cup, 2 cups=pint, 2 pints=quart, 2
>quarts=pottle, 2 pottles=gallon &c). However, in America, for some
>strange reason, a barrel is reputed to be 31 1/2 gals. No-one knows
>why this change occurred. Very strange indeed. I remain
>
>Yours,
>Robert Uhl
>
>Chief Programmer,
>CR Systems
Hmmm - well there certainly seems to be a disconnect between gallons
and larger units as far as powers of two go, but US pints are 16
US fl.oz., against a 20 british fluid ounces in a british pint. 3
taespoons per tablespoon loses its 2-ness as well. I can't verify all
of your units, but it appears that people have very small mouths in
your part of the world. From a Unix utility source we have gill or
noggin = 4 floz. The 31.5 US gallons (or sometimes 31 gallon) seems
to apply to brewing/fermenting. The 42 gallon barrel is a petroleum
measure. I suspect that ther are several other barrel definitions.
approaching barrel sizes we get back to factors of 2 ...
firkin 0.25 barrel
kilderkin 0.5 barrel
barrel (US fermenter's) 31.5 gallon
hogshead 2 barrel
pipe 4 barrel
tun 8 barrel
Interestingly a tun of water (2016 pints) should weigh a ton (2000lbs)
at some reasonable temperature.
And clearly there is little reason to take offense when someone asks about
your firkin homebrewery!
- --
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 14:33:02 CDT
Subject: Re: Ester's saga, O2 and diacetyl
In Digest #2067:
Andy Walsh <awalsh@crl.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
>even Greg Noonan in New Brewing Lager Beer spouts the conventional wisdom:
>"When respiring yeast lack oxygen, fusel alcohols may be excreted or
dehydrated
>by acetyl Co A to esters."
Greg's book was written over 10 years ago; he's probably learned a few new
things since then. I discussed this with him just last month; he now sees
things quite a bit differently. I seem to remember that Pierre Rajotte was
also recently quoted saying at a conference that esters are produced during
yeast growth. I think this is worth investigating further.
>In short, I could not find *one single item* that supports the theory
>that lack of wort aeration leads to lower esters, except for Greg Noonan's:
>(according to Tracy)
[snip mis-attributed quote]
>From _Scotch Ales_, Greg Noonon, p. 95:
"Dr. Brown of Scottish and Newcastle advises that oxygenation of the wort
must be minimal; "low oxygen and a low initial growth temperature are
necessary to control esters by reducing yeast growth. Five-fold growth is
even too great for Scottish beers; the pitching growth must be great enough
that the yeast needn't exceed three-fold growth, to control esters."
(personal communication to the author)."
>Just because Greg Noonan made some poxy IPA at his brewpub does not mean
>we should disregard what appears to be the weight of worldwide scientific
>opinion on this subject, does it?
Greg's brewery experiences relating to this discussion were much more
extensive than just "some poxy IPA". They had so many problems with their
yeast at the VP&B (possibly due to following conventional wisdom?) that they
were finally forced to switch strains. What was the problem? It seems that
the level of esters in their ales was never up to par, unless aerated
continuously throughout the fermentation. So at least in that particular
brewery, with that particular yeast strain, decreased aeration led to
decreased esters, while increased aeration led to increased ester synthesis.
I have no motivation to synthesize this account, these are just the facts as
they were reported to me by Greg Noonan.
Concerning the weight of scientific opinion, are you forgetting the
Copernican Revolution and the fact that it wasn't too long ago when many
regulars reading the HBD thought that yeast respires in wort! Scientific
opinion can (and does) change to accommodate new observations and
interpretations. I'm certainly willing to take some heat on thisa(fter all,
it flies in the face of conventional wisdom), however, I think this is an
intriguing observation and I believe it's definitely worth further
investigation.
>If there is enough interest I can summarise (from the above articles) what
>does influence ester production in a future post.
I'm quite interested, if it's not too much trouble for you. I'm particularly
interested in factors which are known to influence yeast esterase activity.
;-)
korz@pubs.ih.att.com Al K. wrote:
>I have read two different descriptions of how it is
>created. Maybe they are related. One is that the oxygen oxidizes
>alpha-acetolactic acid (I believe) into diacetyl. The other description
>says that the yeast start using a different metabolic pathway which causes
>the diacetyl production. Are we talking the same thing here? Is the
>oxidation of the alpha-acetolactic acid *inside* or *outside* the cell?
Alpha-acetolactate is produced in the cytoplasm of the yeast cell as a
by-product of valine biosynthesis, and leaks from the cell into the medium
at a strain-dependent rate. Alpha-acetolactate is then oxidized to diacetyl;
this reaction apparently does NOT require a catalyst (eg. yeast encoded
enzymes) and can be accelerated by dissolved oxygen. Hence, increased
availability of O2, particularly once fermentation has started, can increase
diacetyl levels, and this oxidation reaction occurs outside the cell.
Interestingly, acetohydroxy acids (eg. alpha-acetolactate) can not be
assimilated and reduced by the yeast until they have been oxidized to the
vicinal diketone (eg. diacetyl). The rate at which VDKs are re-absorbed and
reduced by the yeast is also strain-dependent.
(See Malting and Brewing Science (2nd ed.) vol. II, ch. 17 for review).
This brings up another interesting point. Certain yeast strains which have a
very high O2 requirement (eg. Ringwood) produce the highest levels of
diacetyl only when the wort is heavily aerated, often requiring aeration
well into the fermentation. In fact, the Ringwood strain often requires pure
O2 to perform as desired. The extremely buttery ales produced are certainly
unique, however.
Tracy
------------------------------
From: Michael Mahler/Shiva Corporation <mmahler@shiva.com>
Date: 12 Jun 96 14:43:57
Subject: Hydrometer vessel - any differences?
I recently made a honey/wheat lager and I suddenly couldn't find the tube my
hydrometer came with so I improvised with a salad dressing bottle (classic
wishbone shaped one). I filled it to the top and took a reading of .1080 (7
pounds of malt in 5 gallons + 1 pound of honey).
Would this have given a different reading as compared to the straight tube it
came in?
mmahler@shiva.com
------------------------------
From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska@it.uwp.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:29:42 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Thanks
I'd like to thank everyone for there replies, personal/posted.
Thanks
------------------------------
From: "Rich Byrnes" <rbyrnes2.ford@e-mail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:30:36 EDT
Subject: Brewers Workshop correction.
Greetings all!
Yesterday I posted the e-mail address of Tom Nelson incorrectly,
the address you should use to send any comments/suggestions is
tnelson@slonet.org. Sorry for the confusion!
if anyone has any suggestions or comments for the database updates
please e-mail me directly. Again I'm adding all the grains from
the great grain issue, all Yeastlab/Wyeast/RTP yeasts and all the
hops listed in Garetz's book. Any other suggestions before I
submit this would be welcome, thanks!
Again, I have NO financial interest in this little endeavor, just
want to see the databases more complete next time.
Thanks!
Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr
Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen \\\|///
phone #(313)323-2613, fax #390-4520_______o000_(.) (.)_000o
rbyrnes2.ford@e-mail.com (_)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska@it.uwp.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:35:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Wort chilling
For the record I haven't had and problems. I got this method from the
bible (it seems) Complete Handbook of Homebrewing -Miller-. Although it
many cool their wort in the boiler, which obviously takes less time, it
would seem to me that you are running the greater risk of infection doing
it this way. Your lid on your boiler is not airtight. I put my boiling
wort directly into a sealed (airtight) and sterile carboy. What do you
think?
------------------------------
From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska@it.uwp.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:40:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Trub
I personally noticed a distinct difference when racking the trub in two
brown ale one yes, and one no. The batch that I didn't rack the trub in
there were fusels present and the beer was extremely "bitter." The batch
that I racked the trub off of tastes just fine. Well, actually very good.
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2068
****************************
