HOMEBREW Digest #1022 Mon 30 November 1992

Digest #1021 Digest #1023

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  1-stage/Trub Rack (Walter H. Gude)
  cider clearing (KLIGERMAN)
  A clarificatioon on clarification (Richard Childers)
  re: clearing cider  (R.) Cavasin" <cav at bnr.ca>
  what happened to my efficiency? (cush)
  Harrington Vs Klages (SynCAccT)
  When to pitch -- a myth exploded (Mike Sharp)
  Doppelbock recipe (parsons1)
  Easymash and Step Infusions (SynCAccT)
  Freeze Distillation (Roy Rudebusch)
  Culturing Chimay Yeast (Phil Hultin)
  WYEAST 2112 - Problems ? (Murray Robinson)
  re THM's (Chip Hitchcock)

Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at 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 at 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 at novell.physics.umr.edu**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 11:20:35 CST From: whg at sunf99 (Walter H. Gude) Subject: 1-stage/Trub Rack Yes ladies and gentlemen I can't help it, it's time for another round of discusing the merits of 1/2-stage and racking off the trub. In yesterdays digest (1017?, as well as sereveral previous digests) I read with interest a post by Al Korzonas (korz at iepubj.att.com): Al, I read your post today and was very interested that you've determined that a single stage ferment is all that is required. After several years of automatic racking to secondary I started experimenting myself. I've never had the patience to make "exactly" the same beer twice changing just one thing, but some of the best beers I've made in the last year used my normal process with only a single stage. Clarity, astringency and any other fermentation characteristics were indistingishable from 2-stage. I also read with interest (correct me if I'm wrong) that your practice is to pour the wort through a strainer into the carboy after chilling. I usually put the lid on and let the trub settle for 30-60 minutes and then siphon, leaving as much trub as possible. However, given the "yumminess" of your brews I'm re-evaluating the need for this step. It's not too hard but if its not needed why bother. I'm I wrong about your methods? What to you think about the 30 minute settling time? Is it worth the risk? BTW, this question is directed not just to Al but the Digest as a whole. Thanks, Walt Walter Gude || whg at tellabs.com Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Nov 1992 09:14:13 -0400 (EDT) From: KLIGERMAN at herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov Subject: cider clearing Thanks to all those who answered my post by E-mail. I will be patient and let the cider clear naturally over the next half year (if I can wait!). Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 21:11:19 PST From: Richard Childers <rchilder at us.oracle.com> Subject: A clarificatioon on clarification I just finished repeating, successfully, the experience described earlier today in a posting the HBD, where I responded to someone's request about how they might clarify their home-brewed cider. What I'd said is that all one needed to do was add boiled water and honey. This is true. However, the first time I did this, this evening, I omitted a step I'd carried out the first time, letting it cool for a few minutes, and the result was cider foaming out of the bottle as it reacted with hot water and honey, or, more precisely, nearly boiling water and honey. After cleaning up, I did it again, this time letting the mixture cool for a very few minutes before, very slowly, dribbling it into the jug. Within a few minutes, clarification again began and is proceeding as I speak. When I get some time and energy, I'll try water alone, and maybe honey alone, and see if I can isolate the cause of this clarification. It seems to me that this could be used repeatedly to sweeten and clarify a cider, along with transfer to another fermenting container ... I'd guess flavoring agents could also be added at this time - spices, fruit extractions, et caet ... I have to note that it was Jack Schmidling's description of some fruit wines that really got me started on this path, and, realistically, there are few boundaries to this brewing thing ... the only constants are fermentables, adjuncts, yeasts and water. Thanks, Jack !! Your freewheeling imagination is _not_ unappreciated, I think. - -- richard ===== - -- richard childers rchilder at us.oracle.com 1 415 506 2411 oracle data center -- unix systems & network administration Klein flask for rent. Inquire within. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 16:59:00 +0000 From: "Rick (R.) Cavasin" <cav at bnr.ca> Subject: re: clearing cider Regarding Richard Childer's observation that adding a hot honey solution seems to clear his cider: I think you may be onto something here! I've been wondering what to make of a similar observation. I had a strawberry melomel that had been aging in the secondary for some months, which, on tasting, I had decided was too dry. So I figured that I'd rack it and add some concentrated honey solution to fill the headspace. Although the melomel still had a bit of haze to it, the racking and adding hot honey made it drop clear as crystal. I've noticed that although I skim my honey when it's boiling, I still get a considerable amount of 'cold break' from it. What may happen is that the formation of the cold break 'catches' the haze and draws it to the bottom. I suppose that this is analagous to adding gelatin. I also have a hunch that this is dependant on the amount of honey/water added being small compared to the total volume. IE. the cooling must be quite abrupt, so that the formation of the break is very sudden. This, because I still thought the melomel too dry (I'm trying a less attenuative yeast now) and tried to do it a second time. This time the volume added was larger, and the result is that the melomel has gone from crystal clear to slightly hazy again (curses!). Rick C. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1992 14:48:47 EST From: Ming-chung Lin <MARS at suvm.acs.syr.EDU> Subject: San Francisco microbreweries AND hops/cannabis answers I'm going to San Fran soon (YAY!) and would like to know about microbreweries in that area...can anybody help? Why do people pass on recipes that they have not yet tasted? A friend of mine has a penchant for wierd beer ingredients-- cilantro, peppermint, pomogranate, basil. We've tried to dissuade her, but those published basil beer recipes (EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT TASTED) only encouraged her. The basil beer she made IS pretty tasty, reminiscent of pesto, but she is keeping her recipes secret. We have yet to taste the pomogranate lager...I admire her willingness to make a potentially disgusting brew in the search for the unusual. She doesn't get the digest, so if you are interested in her recipes, write her at <ALEIMANI at SUVM>. Actually, Andra (the above mentioned) and are "swamp queens" (our masters thesis research) and would like to know if anybody out there has used swamp stuff (besides spruce and fir) in their brews (and tasted it!). Now for the word on cannabis and hops...they belong to the same botanical family, Cannabaceae. THE BOOK (Gleason and Cronquist's 1991 Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada) lists two genera in this family, Cannabis and Humulus. There is one species of Cannabis, C. sativa, and two species of hops, H. lupulus (and several varieties) and H. japonicus. I'm not so sure this makes them second cousins, consider yourself and see what you think. You and chimps belong to the same order, Primates, but to different families. People belong to the family Hominidae. There's only one extant genus, and only extant species of humans, Homo sapiens. Other species like H. habilis, and other genera like Australopithecus (A. afarensis is "LUCY") are extinct. So, if you consider yourself a second cousin to Lucy, then perhaps hops and cannabis are second cousins. I had to infiltrate Ming-chung's account becuase mine is not big enough to handle the digest mail. Thanks, Lisa St. Hilaire <MARS at SUVM> Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 92 23:02:56 CST From: cush at msc.edu Subject: what happened to my efficiency? Here is one for the cummulative wisdom of the all-grain brewers on the net: I just Brewed a batch of porter, was shooting for an OG of 1.046...but got 1.040. That is 25 points/lb./gal. :-( I usually get 29 - 30 points. This is especially dissapointing, because I have just finished studying Miller, and had decided to go for the best efficiency I could get. Specifics of the process are: 9.5 pounds of grain (8.5 lbs. 2-row pale,1/2 pound each,crystal and black malt) Mash-in at 153F using 9.5 quarts water (that's 1 quart per pound) PH started at 4.6, raised to 5.0 using 1 teaspoon CaCo3 Mash rest, 1 hour at 153-146 (infusion mash done in rectangular cooler) Iodine test indicated full conversion. Add boiling water to mash-out at 170F (5 minutes) Sparged to 8 gallon total - water at PH=6.7 (took about 45 minutes) boil down to 5.75 gallons (about 1.5 hours - hops anly boiled last 60 min) Cool and pitch OG=1.040 at 5.75 gallons. bummer! When I checked the grains afterwards, it looked like many of them had been cracked in half, but the starchy material was still in the husks. The grind looked alright, i.e. few whole grains, but in some the starch had not been released. Causes I can think of are: 1) strike temp was not high enough to gelatinize the starch 2) the crush was actually too coarse (I WANT a roller-mill!!!! Santa???) 3) I should indeed have done a step-mash and raise the temp to 158 for 15 min. at the end of the mash. 4) I sparges too fast. 5) the mash was too tight. Miller recommends 1.33 quarts per pound. This was indeed the tightest mash I have yet done (Micah??? you say you usually use a rather tight mash.....) 6) As I said, this same sparging system has turned out 29-30 points, so I am pretty confident that I am not suffering from dead spots in the lauter-tun. Does anyone have any other ideas, or care to comment on which of the above is the most likely culprit? I left the kitchen in a really bad mood, and ran four miles to blow off my frustration. Geez....I almost felt like giving up if my best effort would turn out my worst results. Oh well...1.040 is low, but alright, and I pitched a nice healthy starter, so that after eight hours it looks like the yeast is just coming out of respiration stage. Maybe in a few weeks I will be able to drink away my frustrations!!! - -- > Cush Hamlen | cush at msc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Nov 92 20:04:07 GMT From: SynCAccT at slims.attmail.com Subject: Harrington Vs Klages In HBD1021 James Diplama comments on how I posted in 1014 asking about the differences between Klages and Harringtons malt, and was dissappointed with the response. So was I Jim, although I did get a few responses, none were difinative. I called the maltster at Canada Malt to get the goods. Klages malt is not grown anymore and hasn't been for a few years. All malt grown in North America is the Harringtons variety. This is exclusive to commercial barley, and private farmers can grow Klages if they have the seed stock, but no new Klages seeds are sold. The reason is that Klages became disease intolerant as crops have a tendancy to do and is systematically replaced about every 10 years with a new variety. This happens to be Harringtons right now. In a few years it will be the another variety. Harringtons malt yields the same extract as Klages, tastes the same and is the same color. For all intents it is Klages. Perhaps it is better to refer to it as Domestic (we call it Canadian) 2 Row Malt, rather than Klages or Harringtons. Unless someone cares to dispute, this is what I'll believe. +----------------------------------+ | Internet: gande at slims.attmail.com| | Glenn Anderson | | Manager, Telecom. Facilities | | Sun Life of Canada | +----------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 92 3:46:12 EST From: Mike Sharp <msharp at cs.ulowell.edu> Subject: When to pitch -- a myth exploded "Knight,Jonathan G" <KNIGHTJ at AC.GRIN.EDU> writes: > ... I posted a similar question > awhile back and one respondent said that one ought to be careful about > letting the starter sit too long so that the yeast don't pass out of their > reproductive cycle into their fermentation phase, or something like that, > if I'm remembering correctly. I'm no biologist, I just cook beer. I believe what is being refered to here is the all to common belief that one should only pitch yeast at high krausen. This is, in fact, NOT the ideal time to pitch. You _DO_ want to pitch the yeast when its in the stationary phase. Why? As the yeast is quickly multiplying it's glycogen level decreases. Yeast in their stationary phase are able to rebuild their lost glycogen supply. There is a direct correlation between the glycogen level and the lag phase of the fermentation. The more glycogen stored the shorter the lag phase. (assuming constant cell density of course) For those of you who might call me a heretic: Practical Yeast Management Dr. Paul Monk, Fermchem Pty. Ltd. Brewery Operations Vol 6, pp. 127 and for the real die-hards (bio. chem. knowledge required): Impact of Yeast Handling Procedures on Beer Flavor During Fermentation Pickerell et. all. American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) Journal, Vol 49:2, 1991, pp.87-92 --Mike Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 92 09:59:15 -0500 From: parsons1 at husc.harvard.edu Subject: Doppelbock recipe Here's a really good Doppelbock recipe. Irrumator Doppelbock (makes 5 gals) 6# Dutch dme 4# Pilsener malt 2# Munich malt 1# German crystal 1# Chocolate malt 1.5 oz. German Hallertau (4.9% a) (30 min) .75 oz. Hallertau (15) .25 oz. Hallertau (5) Wyeast Bavarian Lager (make a starter with 2 tbsp pdme) .75 c. corn sugar for priming OG 1.084 Raise 10 qts water to 128 F and add grains for mash in and 30-minute protein rest at 122F. Saccharification rest 1/2 hr. at 153F, then 1/2 hr. at 149F. Mash-out 169F, then sparge 4 gals at 170 F. Primary ferment 51.5F After Kraeusen head falls, lower temp (5F/day) to 40F Raise temp for 52F diacetyl rest, 1 week Lager in secondary at 36F for 2 months Bottling: raise temp to 55F, prime with corn sugar and active yeast culture. Keep filled bottles at about 55F for a week or two Making this recipe, I was shooting for something like the Celebrator. I think this is a pretty close approximation, although I don't have a Celebrator on hand for comparison. In any case, I love this beer. Jed Parsons parsons1 at husc.harvard.edu Harpsichordist, Classicist, Homebrewer Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Nov 92 17:05:33 GMT From: SynCAccT at slims.attmail.com Subject: Easymash and Step Infusions I must apologize to JS for posting misleading or incomplete information about the Easymash. My comment in the HBD was that I could not do a step mash using the Easymash. This is in inaccurate statement on my behalf. What I should have said is that it is impossible to do a step mash with my application of my reproduction of the componant JS sells to manufacture an Easymash. The Easymash is a simple and effective device which, simply,is a tap, tube and screen. It works elegantly, but JS mounts his in a stove pot. If one were to mount his Easymash in a cooler or large plastic vessel, as I do, heating on the stovetop is impossible and therefore step infusions are impossible. Hope this clarifies this issue, Jack. :) What I meant by "finer crushes" is exactly that. Not everyone that mashes also crush their own grain. If you buy precrushed grain from more than one source it is likely that the crush will be of varying consistency. I have purchased grain that looked like the barleycorn was simply broken int 4-6 pieces and I've bought grain that was more the consistency of large table salt. I don't want a discussion on the merits of proper crush, I'm well aware of that. My comment reflected a problem that happend to me with improper, finely crushed grain. I would also like to comment that the same grain was used by a fellow brewer in a Zapap lautertun and he reports no problem with his sparge. I would also like to say that I have used my easymash with properly crushed grain and it works flawlessly. Glenn Anderson email: gande at slims.attmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 92 14:11:00 -0500 From: roy.rudebusch at travel.com (Roy Rudebusch) Subject: Freeze Distillation From: roy.rudebusch at travel.com Date: Brewday PD:>> How would that freezing technique work anyway? I thought water PD:>>and alcohol where fully miscible, so why would the water freeze but leave I made some Apricot brandy from some leftover Apricot wine that I had made. Freezing the wine turned the entire volume into a slush that caused the alcohol to be almost inseparable from the ice. So I put it into a colander, and let it partially thaw and collected the drippings. Needless to say it was not very efficient. Next time I will do this: Put the wine (or dopple-bock!) into a shallow vessel and cool to 32F. Place ice cubes into it and drop the temp below freezing. The ice cubes will act as a nucleus and draw water to it. Pluck the enlarged ice cubes out and add more ice cubes. Cheers! * OLX 2.2 * Hungry? Eat your union card Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 15:58 EST From: Phil Hultin <HULTINP at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Subject: Culturing Chimay Yeast I saw recently some mention of using yeast cultured from a bottle of Chimay. So, naturally, I rushed out for a bottle of the same, consumed it while making up a Belgian style brew one Sunday, and put some sterile 1.025 wort and some yeast nutrient into it. After about 2 days, I had a nice krausen and activity in the lock. Today, when all activity had ceased, I went to decant the stuff into (sterile) beer bottles in order to put it to sleep in my fridge for a while. To my horror, I found what appeared to be floaters in the liquid. They did not look like other bacterial infections I have seen, and the stuff smelled clean, and recognizably like Chimay. Questions: One: could this just be low-density fermentation byproducts? Two: I read in the Zymurgy Yeast Issue that Chimay uses a mix of yeast and bacteria in bottling. Could this be the bacteria? Three: if Chimay does in fact use such a mixture, is there any point in trying to plate out the yeast? Is Wyeast 1214 more or less similar to Chimay minus the bugs? Four: Can I plate out a clean yeast from this stuff even if there is other microfauna present? Thanx, P. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 21:33:06 GMT From: POIRIER at IREQ-CCFM.HYDRO.QC.CA Subject: Belgian Ale yeast From: Deborah Poirier <poirier at ireq-ccfm.hydro.qc.ca> Hi all, I'm looking for any information about/experience with Wyeast 1024 (Belgian Ale). What kind of critter is this? After 1 week in bottles, (I know, too soon) it stinks. But it doesn't taste all that bad. Help. Thanks in advance for any replies, Deb Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 13:10:03 +1030 From: Murray Robinson <robinm at mrd.dsto.gov.au> Subject: WYEAST 2112 - Problems ? I have a couple of questions to pose to the users of liquid yeasts in particular WYEAST 2112 - California Lager. DISCLAIMER: Last weekend was the first time I have ever used a liquid yeast and as such I do not know what to expect from it. Basically I am worried about viability of the yeast itself. As per the instruction of the packet and readings from various newsgroups I performed the following steps: 1) Broke inner bag and gave yeast-wort mixture a thorough shake(day 1). 2) Continued to give bag a good shake every few hours. 3) Waited till bag swelled to approximately 1 inch thick (day 4) 4) Mixed up a starter bottle containing water-wort-sugar. 5) Pitched yeast into starter(day 4). 6) Waited for signs of high Krausen. 7) and waited (day 5) 8) and waited (day 6) - yeast was producing CO2 but not bubbling enough to produce that characteristic froth. 9) Made up batch of all-grain and pitched starter anyway. My questions are thus: 1) How active is such a yeast - should I expect to see that bubbling froth on the surface of my ferementing beer which always happens with dried yeasts. 2) What lags times can be expected with WYEAST 2112. 3) Do lager yeasts generally exhibit such relaxed feremetation behaviour. I really am at a loss here. I have 5 gallons of Munich Lager sitting in the fermeter with a yeast I am not too confident about. Should I have faith in this yeast or go and pitch a packet of dried yeast into it before it gets infected? Thanks for any help MC YEAST PROFILE: WYEAST 2112 - CALIFORNIA LAGER YEAST *************************************************** Warm fermenting bottom cropping strain, ferments well to 62 F while keeping lager characteristics. Malty profile, highly floculant, clears brilliantly. Apparent attenuation 72 - 76%. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 92 19:32 PST From: alm at brewery.ht.intel.com (Al Marshall) To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Subject: Yeast Nutrient Questions In the spirit of Never Leaving Well Enough Alone, I picked up some yeast nutrient powder from my local homebrew supplier with the intent of seeing what it could do for my yeast starter performance. Can anybody give me information on the following? Background Info: I make SG 1020 starters from dry malt extract and hops. The procedure is similar to Papazian's in TCJOHB. The starters usually work fine (hence the "Leaving Well Enough Alone" comment above). The yeast nutrient package is labelled as follows: "Contains: Thiamin, All other Vitmain B Complex, Biotin, Pasteurized Yeast cells. Use 1/2 teaspoon per gallon". 1. Is the stuff even useful given that I use malt extract already? Does anyone have any theoretical knowledge or before/after anecdotes to report? 2. Does anyone have additional or contrary information to the instructions I got? 3. If I add the nutrient to the starter wort before boiling and then boil to sterilize, will I end up denaturing any of the nutrients? Thanks in Advance Al Marshall Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 92 17:03:11 EST From: cjh at diaspar.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Chip Hitchcock) Subject: re THM's > You may not have much THM (trihalomethane is a gaseous form of chlorine) in your water at all. THM and chlorine aren't totally unrelated, but they are a LONG way from equivalent. Chlorine \is/ a gas; in everything from filters for large swimming pools up to water supply systems it is kept as a gas and force-dissolved in the water as it goes through the system. (Small swimming pools use bleach, just like homebrewers, but it's applied either as crystals or as a concentrated solution delivered by tanker trucks.) THM is mostly trichloromethane (aka chloroform). It's called THM in water analyses because the analysis isn't sensitive enough to separate out bromoform and iodoform (fluoroform and astatoform are possible but very unlikely)---both of which aren't pleasant, but it's chloroform that is generally considered carcinogenic. THM's are volatile, but generally liquid at room temperature. THM's can show up in water supplies from contamination of the water source (chloroform has various lab and industrial uses); I \think/ chloroform can also come from careless chlorination (reaction with waste organics in the supply). Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1022, 11/30/92