HOMEBREW Digest #1632 Mon 16 January 1995

Digest #1631 Digest #1633

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Decoction mashing (Jim Busch)
  KEG beer line length answers (John Glaser)
  PET Bottles ("peter williams")
  ESB comparisons/Licorice/Oatmeal Stout/Foam/Mulch! ("David B. Sapsis")
  Eisbocks (Dennis Davison)
  Re: using licorice (Sean MacLennan)
  mini-kegs ("Brent A. Spoth")
  Keg Crimes -- poll results (Louis K. Bonham)
  Re: Fellow aol.com members (PatrickM50)
  Wild yeast (kit.anderson)
  NDN: Homebrew Digest #1631 (January 14, 1995) (Gateway)
  What hops for Bud? (Newton White)
  Cold Conditioning Ale Yeast Strains (Diane S. Put)
  Chipotle peppers ("nancy e. renner")
  PET bottles (again) ("Lee Bussy")
  HSA with Vienna and Munich malts - correction and summary ("nancy e. renner")
  Oxygen permeability of plastics ("NAME SEAN O'KEEFE, IFAS FOOD SCIENCE")
  EM Prob, JSP MOVES (Jack Schmidling)
  PET bottles (Dan Pack)
  O2 diffusion thru PET bottles ("nancy e. renner")
  How Pilsner Urquell acidifies its mash ("nancy e. renner")
  O2 in PETs/Color conversion/Max efficiency (David Draper)
  Honey treatment in Boddington's Pub Ale (Scott McLagan)
  Mexicali Rogue - Chipolte's... Just what are they are...? (dsanderson)
  new magazine (Kathy Kincade)
  Sam Adams joke ("Lee Bussy")

****************************************************************** * NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu 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 under /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 at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:03:53 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Decoction mashing Jim asks about decoction mashing and its relevance to soft Pilzen water. One of the often overlooked properties of malt carbohydrates (starch) is that it is composed of trace elements of Calcium, magnesium and silica. Decoction mashing helps to explode any leftover starches, liberating these trace elements. Decoction mashing also tends to increase the phosphate levels. Pilzen brewers additionally employ long low temperature rests that favor natural acidulation of the mash, through the reactions of calcium and phosphates from the malt and enzymatic activity of phytase. Calcium reactions with proteins also help to force the pH down. Decoction mashing also coagulates proteins during the boil of the mash. Lee writes: <In another post someone posted about why decoction mash and what effects it <has on a brew. <As a regular user of this technique, even in ales, let me comment: Im sure Lee understands the tradeoffs involved in mashing and malt choices, but I wanted to point out that if ales are being made using English (or DeWolf) pale ale malt ,a decoction mash is the last thing one wants to do. Pale ale malts have already been proteolytically reduced and the equivelent of a maltose rest has already been performed by the malting process, the last thing one wants to do is further the protein reduction via decoction mashing. That said, I like to make some ales using Pils and Munich malt, but for this I opt for a 60C dough in/protein rest/brief maltose rest followed by saccharification at 66C and a mash off at 77C. The resulting beer has a greater apparent degree of attenuation (ADA) than Pale ale malt mashed at 66C, and tastes fuller to me. This is with recent versions of the DeWolf Cosyns malts. I was chattin with some of my pro brewer friends the other day about partial decoction mashes. In this method, the main mash of pale/pils malts is performed separate from the specialties until conversion is complete. Concurrently, a small decoction mash is done with say 50-100 Lbs of base malt and 50-100 Lbs of specialties, usually Munich and caramel malts. The mashes are combined and lautered as usual. Im curious about applying this technique in our smaller breweries and am wondering if anyone has any results to share. For me, it doesnt make much sense since I make ales, and I only decoct weizens, and this obviously would not apply to that. I would think this is something for lager homebrewers to try, it would combine the advantages of a decoction mash, but make the volumes much easier to handle and the time required would be shortened from standard decoctions. It would also increase the melanoiden concentrations competely separate from the main base malt choices. - -- Jim Busch busch at mews.gsfc.nasa.gov "DE HOPPEDUIVEL DRINKT MET ZWIER 'T GEZONDE BLOND HOPPEBIER!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 13:26:15 -0700 From: John Glaser <glaser at widlar.ece.arizona.edu> Subject: KEG beer line length answers OK, I got my replies, so here's how to do it (but only if you like convenience and minimal work). Several people sent me replies about my kegging beer line questions. You can indeed dispense and carbonate at the same pressure. This is the way to go, since you don't have to bleed pressure and mess with the regulator every time you want some beer out of your keg. To do so, read on. For kegger's who don't like theory: In short, in order to get minimal foaming at the tap, you want to have a pressure drop across the beer line and tap that equals the pressure at the keg. I have gleaned the following approximate pressure drop figures for immediate use: 3/8" I.D. hose 0.25 psi/ft. 1/4" I.D. hose 0.85 psi/ft. 3/16" I.D. hose 2.2 to 3 psi/ft. standard spigot 1-2 psi check valve 2 psi (CO2 side only) vertical rise 1 psi/ft. (avg. measured from keg center) So, let's say we have our beer carbonated at 15 psi, and now wish to serve it at the same pressure. If you have a CO2 check valve, you will have to set theregulator about 2 psi higher to account for the drop across the check valve (so I've been told). Then the pressure at the keg will be 15 psi. Let the tap height be at about the center of the keg, so we don't have to worry about the vertical rise. Subtract 2 psi for the spigot, leaving 13 psi to drop across the beer line. If we use 3/16" beer line, and assume 2.2 psi/ft. pressure drop, then 13psi / 2.2psi/ft. = 5.9 ft., so use 6ft. of 3/16" line. If you do this, you can keep the beer at 15 psi while tapping with minimal foaming. If your spigot is mounted above the keg beer, you get an additional 1lb./ft. drop due to gravity for each foot above the beer level, so you can shorten your hose accordingly (I wouldn't worry about this unless your tap is a couple of feet above the keg height, since the beer level in the keg will change anyway.). If you really want simple, figure about 1 ft. of 3/16" beer line per 3 lbs. pressure (as stated in the kegging FAQ). If you *foolishly insist* on using 1/4" line, it would take about 13/0.85 = 15.3 ft. for the same result. HINT: to fit 3/16" line on 1/4" hose barbs, stick the end of the tube in boiling water to soften it up first. For those who like a little theory: The actual pressure drops in the beer line, spigot, etc. depend on the fluid (beer) velocity, with the pressure drops increasing as velocity increases. I suspect this is probably nearly-linear for slow flow rates with minimal fluid turbulence, and you don't want a lot of turbulence unless you like foam more than beer (feel free to call me on this if I'm wrong). Hence, the above pressures are valid at a specific flow rate. I was given a rate of about 0.5 to 1 oz./sec. for the pressure drop quoted for 3/16" line, and assume the other figures are probably for a similar flow rate. In fact, no matter what kind of line you use, nearly all the keg pressure must appear across the beer line and spigot, since the tap opens to the atmosphere. With too-short and/or too-wide lines, the total resistance to fluid flow becomes too small and the beer velocity increases, causing additional turbulence in the line and at the tap, which in turn causes the sudden release of CO2 in the form of foam (the latter is conjecture on my part). The flow rate of 0.5 to 1 oz./sec is probably a good compromise between too much foam and waiting forever to get a glass of beer. Sorry about the long post, I'm just practicing for my dissertation (which sadly has nothing to do with beer :( ). Thanks to all those who sent me info. Also, thanks to the people at the Beverage Company. When I placed my order, they told me to get the 3/16" line, although they didn't have any explanation other than they thought it would work better. Well, I got it, and you know the rest. (no affiliation, blah, blah, blah). John Glaser (glaser at widlar.ece.arizona.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 17:17:52 AST From: "peter williams" <peter.williams at acadiau.ca> Subject: PET Bottles Someone asked for hard evidence of the permeability of PET bottles. I attended a conference and one of the invited speakers was from a company which had developed a process to apply a thin(nano-meter) glass coating to a plastic surface. The surfaces of interest were: 1) plastic food wrap 2) PET bottles The purpose of the coating was to reduce gas transfer. He mentioned that the shelf life of pop in a PET is limited(sorry, I can't recall the time), but that by coating the bottles it was significantly extended. Coating the food wrap was also done to extend the shelf life of products. I have used PET's myself and was pleased with them. I did find that I had to add a bit more priming sugar than I do in glass to compensate for the volume increase of the container. I now use glass - primarily for aesthetic reasons. I do find that filling one PET allows me to monitor the bottle conditioning quite nicely however. Peter Williams pwilliam at acadiau.ca Wolfville, Nova Scotia Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:07:51 -0800 (PST) From: "David B. Sapsis" <dbsapsis at nature.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: ESB comparisons/Licorice/Oatmeal Stout/Foam/Mulch! >From HBD 1630: "Evil Scientist" Michael Lloyd purports that after refining his Trolleyman ESB, it "cannot be told from Redhook ESB ib a blind taste test". Although I do not question the quality of the beer, I would argue on scientific grounds that statement is non-attainable. Presumably, Michael has experimentally failed to reject the null hypothesis of no difference (in taste between his Trolleyman and RH) in controlled blind tastings; hence his statement should read: "...has not been told from ...". A minor semantic and or epistomoligical issue, but any (even an evil one) scientist recognizes that experiments never prove anything, they only can only give inference. ****** Tim Lawson inquires about using Licorice in Stouts. I have used brewers licorice (comes in a stick) in a Russian Stout once. I used 1/2 half stick, and the flavor was subtle, but nicely perceptable. Be warned, I believe that this stuff is manufactured from licorice root and not anise, and consequently has a distinctive (not totally licorice-y) flavor. I would suspect that a similar dose used in a lower gravity beer (mine was around 1090) would yield significantly greater perceptability -- hence proceed with caution. ********* Glen Wagnecz gives a detailed recipe for his Sand Pit Speacial Oatmeal Stout. One thing struck me though: Hop bittering is stated to come from solely one addition of 14 grams of Nugget at 13% alpha, for a 15 gallon batch. Even assuming excellent utilization rates, that would only yield about 10-12 IBU -- i.e., barely at the threshold of perception. Is this correct, and if so, is the beer very low in bitterness on purpose? I know that Oatmeal stouts can tend to be sweet, but this seems way out of range. Comments, Glen? Anyone? ********* Following up on the now lost FOOP thread, I was surprised that no one made mention of the effect that dispensing practice has on foam *production*. Having been an admirerer and consumer of good foam for many years, and having attempted many efforts at duplicating a draft Guinness type of beer, I was struck by how the Guinness tap mechanism worked. Upon investigation, I discovered that in addition to pushing the beer with a high Nitrogen composition gas (usually 70%N2 and 30%CO2), the beer exits out a small disk called a sparkler. Now, this disk simply has 5 very small holes in it, thus causing the beer to be forced or "spritzed" through these holes, initiating considerable foaming. Forgetting momentarily that the high N content is much closer to the partial pressure of the gasses in the atmosphere, I though, why not simply "spritz" from the soda keg. Turns out, in lieu of a Guinness/Nitrogen setup, it works great. All you have to do is put sufficient top pressure on the keg to allow the beer to froth out when *barely* squeezing the tap. I have found that 14-18 psi works real well, and when done right should make a dramatic ssssssssssssss-sound. If you do not want to add additional carbonation to the beer, be sure to bleed off the pressure after dispensing. You may have to tweak with the pressure and dispensing routine to match your desires, but if you are having trouble getting acceptable foam from your keg beer, give it a try. I employed this method for years to good avail, but have since aquired a Nitrogen can and Guinness tap for the real thing. Now I'm working on refining the (draft dry stout) recipe. ********* Finally, one reminder to all you home hopgrowers out there: Mulch! They simply love it, both for thermal protection and nutrient flux. If you use a high carbon source of mulch, like straw, remember to give a good dose of fertilizer -- you want to keep the C:N ratio relatively low, particulrly during the first three months after emergence. I go with reccommended dosing of organic chickewn manure in late Feb., early April, and Late May, then dose with bone meal (phosphorus) at the intitiation of flowering. The mulch does many thing for the soil environment, including regulate nutrient availability, hold moisture, promote good infiltration, and provide a medium for new rhizome development and vegetal cloning (i.e., rhizome thinning). Heres to the '95 harvest! Cheers, dave dbsapsis at nature.berkeley.edu UC Berkeley Wildland Fire Research Lab Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 17:34:10 -0600 From: ddavison at earth.execpc.com (Dennis Davison) Subject: Eisbocks | 1. Brew an all-grain Helles based on a recipe in Richman's Bock book | - -- available only in paperbock ;) | 2. When fermentation is complete after ? amount of time in glass secondary, | rack to a primary plastic bucket and place outside for ? amount of time. | 3. Remove large chuncks of ice thereby substantially increasing strength. Richard, your on the right track. I have a modified program. Place the beer in a 5 gallon cornelius place that outside. After a few hours shake the keg. If it sounds like ice crystals forming just rack under CO2 to another cornelius. Do it until you get about 1/5 the volume removed in the form of ice. If you take a SG reading you will probably see very little change. Your increasing the dextrine per volume while increasing the alcohol. Thus the gravity will read close to the same. For the % alcohol you'll have to calculate what the original gravity would have been if it had whatever volume of water you removed. I've had fun with eisbocks, hope you will also. - -- Dennis Davison ddavison at earth.execpc.com Milwaukee, WI Judge Director of the 1st Round of The AHA Nationals - Chicago,IL 1995 Organizer - Real Ale Fest - Chicago - October 13,14 1995 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 19:23:28 -0500 (EST) From: sam at deuce.toolsmiths.on.ca (Sean MacLennan) Subject: Re: using licorice Tim Lawsen asked about using licorice in a stout. I just used a stick of brewers licorice in a extract porter. Following instructions from one of the beer books I own (can't remember which) it said "Just throw the licorice into the boiling wort." Well, this didn't work. The brewers licorice did not dissolve at all. No licorice taste at all! I brew on an electric stove, so maybe one of the jet burners will actually dissolve the stuff. Sorry I can't help on how to do it right, but at least don't try what I did! Next time I think I'll try grinding up the licorice first. Sean MacLennan sam at toolsmiths.on.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 21:12:14 -0500 From: "Brent A. Spoth" <bas8v at dayhoff.med.virginia.edu> Subject: mini-kegs I am sort of new at homebrewing and I am already tired of bottles but don't want to commit to tapping a keg when I sample a batch. I recently saw a mini-keg system at the local brew store that uses BB gun style CO2 cartriges and the 4 litre? grolsh cans. Has anyone heard of or use such a thing? It seems like a pretty ideal system at face value. I would greatly appreciate any input anyone has. Thanks Brent bas8v at virginia.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 21:13:24 From: lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net (Louis K. Bonham) Subject: Keg Crimes -- poll results After two days, the votes are in: 35 people are interested and want to see the discussion continued. 2 people (including Mr. Korzonas) do not. 1 person (Mr. Demers) thinks the topic is of only marginal relevance to the HBD, but withdraws his opposition to it being discussed here. My personal favorite (not included in any of the above tallies) was the HBD reader who opined as follows: >Personally, the keg crimes topic bores me, but I do not object to >you posting about it. It is simple for me to skip over it. The >nature of the digest (or of any printed material) is that different >issues will interest different groups of people. It is impossible >to please everybody. So I suggest you continue to post on the topic >if you feel you have something to say about it (don't ask me - I >just hit 'Page Dn'!). Anyone who writes "so and so is wasting >bandwidth" does so themselves - so ignore them. Even making generous allowance for sampling error, I think there is a sufficient amount of interest to justify continuing the thread a bit longer. I will be posting a summary of the various comments and anecdotes I have recently received (as well as my further thoughts on the subject) soon. Please feel free to hit me with your thoughts on the subject at lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 01:32:20 -0500 From: PatrickM50 at aol.com Subject: Re: Fellow aol.com members In HBD #1630, DONBREW at aol.com writes: <<<Wait a Dammed minute!!!! nobody sent me #1628!!!! Is this foxmail thing what is screwing things up?>>>>> Dear Don, I have noticed that flames here in the HBD are generally preferred under the brewpots and not online. I find it to be one of its most appealing and civilized aspects, don't you? I doubt anybody reading your message actually has anything to do with "this foxmail thing" either gramatically or otherwise. Digests, #1628 included, are automatically sent out unhampered by human intervention. But sometimes even computers make miskakes. ( I just got #1628 (dated 1/11/95) today on 1/13/95.) So RDWHAHB! :-) Jim Somers at aol.com writes: <<<<<In HBD #1628 the table of contents listed Mac brewing software, but I did not see anything in the text about it. Is there Mac brewing software available?>>>>> Dear Jim, We AOLers are getting a bad reputation for quickly looking at an Internet feature, making a comment and then getting out before finding out what the heck is going on ;-) ! Perhaps this is because our monthly time is measured and always ticking . . . Anyway, the HBD table of contents lists the subjects of the included *messages*, not programs. Perhaps that is the source of your confusion. Either that or you didn't get the second half of #1628. HBD usually comes to me (and I assume, to all other AOLers) in two installments. The mac messages were in the second posting, tho the table of contents is in the first. Anyway, mac brewing programs can possibly be found elsewhere, but not in this newsgroup. I think I saw something called a *Brewstack* program (mac hyperstack?) at ee.stanford.edu in the brewing directory. Let me know via aol email if you need ftp help in reaching it. Please, fellow AOLers, a little suggestion: If you are really interested in getting info from and contributing to the extremely well informed, experienced and always interesting dialogue taking place here, subscribe to this newsgroup by sending email to: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com. Just be sure to say you want to *subscribe* in the text area of your email. (Just like it says to do in the header of each HBD!) Then get the latest version of the AOL software (free download, keyword = UPGRADE) and use the new FlashSession feature of Mail to get the day's HBD for only seconds of download time. Read and reply at your leisure and upload later for only a few seconds online time. You won't be wasting your time or that of the rest of the world-wide HBD community. End of speech and suggestions. Remember, when in doubt, RDWAHAHB! Pat Maloney (PatrickM50 at aol.com) p.s. Anybody have a suggestion for a hombrew smiley? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 15:08:45 -0500 From: kit.anderson at acornbbs.com Subject: Wild yeast In HB1630, <CGPCS07.WING at WING.SAFB.AF.MIL> James Linscheid asked about culturing wild yeast. Last year I cultured yeast off of locally made spontaneously fermenting cider. I just plated it out and took one of the small circular colonies that looked like yeast. I grew it in 10cc 1030 wort and plated it again to make sure it was yeast. I grew 10cc again and stepped up to 500cc. This went into a 1050 wheat beer to make a lambic. It tasted "lambicy" even before adding brettanomyces and pediococcus. It was fruity, slightly cidery, and very attenuative. As a gueuze it scored 38-42 in local competitions. Most judges thought it was too dry, though. It was interesting, but I would use a Belgian wit yeast next time. They have similar flavor characteristics, but don't attenutate so much. If you are going to culture wild yeast, use what you find on fruit, not old socks. Kit "Travels With Chiles" Anderson Bath, Maine <kit.anderson at acornbbs.com> * - --- * CMPQwk #1.4 * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Jan 1995 01:28:39 -0000 From: Gateway at foxmail.gfc.edu (Gateway) Subject: NDN: Homebrew Digest #1631 (January 14, 1995) Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to: Robert Hoover,George Fox College (The name was not found at the remote site. Check that the name has been entered correctly.) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 04:48:44 -0800 (PST) From: nrwhite at netcom.com (Newton White) Subject: What hops for Bud? I'm seeking advice on which hops to use for a Bud type lager. Any sources for the hops as well as brewing details would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! - -- nrwhite at netcom.com Sysop - ACS BBS -(404) 636-2991 Home of the Atlanta CoCoFEST! V - October 1,2 1994 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 09:16:51 PST From: diput at eis.calstate.edu (Diane S. Put) Subject: Cold Conditioning Ale Yeast Strains >From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu >Subject: Ale ferm temp / Thomas Hardy's Ale >In the most recent issue of The Malt Advocate (containing, by the way, >articles relating a recent tasting of 25 years of Thomas Hardy's Ale: 8 >vintages from 1993 to 1968), the Homebrew column recommends fermenting >ales at 60-65F, in order to reduce undesirable aromatic components >(specifically, diacetyl, fusels, and excess esters). My feeling is >that this is asking for slow, stuck fermentations, particularly at the >low end of the range. Hello all (from "Don" Put): Thanks for bringing this up, Spencer. It just so happens that I stumbled across something pertaining to this in the De Clerck book and it's been on my mind ever since. In describing the differences between lager (bottom dwelling) and ale (top dwelling) yeast strains, he makes the following statement: "Difference in temperature is not, however, really a distinctive characteristic between the two systems because top yeasts can be acclimatized to the low temperature of bottom fermenting brewing." Now, I'm sure there are some low temperature tolerant ale strains out there, but I'm not sure that they are included in the pure yeast strains available to the homebrewer (from Wyeast, Brewtek, etc.). Has anybody had any experience with acclimatizing an ale yeast strain to ferment at a lower temperature? It seems that it could be done if the temperature was lowered gradually over the course of several successive starters. Perhaps one of our resident microbiological experts could comment (Maribeth Raines, are you out there?). I realize that we could just use one of the higher temperature lager strains available, but I think it would be an interesting experiment because ale strains would still give a different flavor profile. don (hiding behind his wife's moniker at diput at eis.calstate.edu) Tom Nelson: Did you get my email reply to your questions about the mixer? Your address seemed incomplete. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 12:49:00 -0500 (EST) From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Chipotle peppers (From *Jeff* Renner) In HBD 1631, John Dodson said >(BTW, the chipolte is it's own pepper, no such thing as a 'chipolte >jalapeno. ;) ) Sorry, John, but I have to disagree. A chipotle (pronounced she-POAT-lay) is a smoked, dried jalapeno pepper. They are traditionally dried in this manner because they are too fleshy to air dry - they just rot. (See DeWitt, David and Nancy Gerlack, The Whole Chile Pepper Book, Little, Brown (Boston, 1990), pp. 25, 55). Thinner walled chiles such as cayennes or serranos will air dry nicely. They are a great addition to meatless dishes such as beans and rice. Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 12:05:06 +0000 From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb at southwind.net> Subject: PET bottles (again) Joseph Santos throws his hat into the ring and joins the PET debate. Joe, even though there is plenty of pressure in the bottle, the pressure is CO2. There is an atmospher of pressure outside the bottle and it contains oxygen. No kidding right? Well, to the oxygen, the bottle is in a vacuum because there is no O2 in there. Osmotic pressures force O2 into the bottle untill the pressures are equal (about 16-20% O2) regardless of the pressure in the bottle. I can't remember to whom we attribute this law to but someone is bound to remind me :). That's it for today... yesterday was my anniversary and we had a Friday the 13th Anniversary party. Two (stolen keg crimes!) kegs of my Pudswiller Doors American Premium Lager and half a keg of a Wee Heavy that quieted everyone down almost immediately! Ouch... my head! - -- -Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... | leeb at southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 13:12:32 -0500 (EST) From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: HSA with Vienna and Munich malts - correction and summary (From *Jeff* Renner) I recently posted that two dunkels made from 90+% Munich malt and a Vienna made with a similar amount of Vienna malt had all "crashed and burned," i.e., over a period of 1-2 weeks (at ~3 months age) had become extremely "wet cardboardy." I strongly suspected that this was from hot side aeration, even though my techniques were the same as for other beers with good stability. In reviewing my notes, I find that this was the case only with the dunkels, NOT the Viennas. In fact, I just had the last of a year old Vienna that was in perfect condition. I also opened a 2-1/2 year old dunkel and 1-1/2 year old bock (BOS) that were made with mostly pilsner malt and some crystal and home roast "almost chocolate" that were also in perfect condition. It seems that the Munich malt is the one thing the two oxidized beers have in common. Lee Menegoni and I have had an off-line discussion on this. His experience is that all-Vienna beers are extremely stable. At his suggestion, I reread the Fixes' "Vienna" and Darryl Richman's "Bock," both of which emphasize the importance of delivering the melanoidins to the wort in the reduced state rather than the oxidized state. Oxidized melanoidins lead to several reaction chains that can result in later flavor instability, whereas reduced ones will actually protect beer from later staling reactions. Fix didn't use Vienna malts in his recipes, apparently because at the time he wrote them, Vienna and Munich malts seemed to be of poor quality. He has stated elsewhere (BT?) and here, I believe, that this is no longer the case, and Richman does use Munich predominantly in his dark bock recipes. I still haven't figured out why my two dunkels made with nearly all Munich oxidized, whereas all my other decotion lagers (and all other beers, period) have not. I don't think I'll make any more all Munichs until I do. Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 12:48:48 -0500 (EST) From: "NAME SEAN O'KEEFE, IFAS FOOD SCIENCE" <SFO at gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> Subject: Oxygen permeability of plastics Data for oxygen permeability & plastics: material ml o2/(day*mil*sq. meter*atm) PE (polyethylene) 6000-15000 HDPE 1500-3000 Saran 10-350 Mylar 50-100 Foil laminate 0 Plastic laminate 10-400 Data for permeability ratios (relative ability to permeate) material H2O/O2 CO2/O2 Polypropylene 30 4 Polystyrene 100 5 PET (polyethylene terephthalate) 5000 3 "Normally, carbon dioxide permeates four to six times faster than faster than oxygen, and oxygen four to six times faster than nitrogen. Since carbon dioxide is the largest of the three gas molecules, one expects its diffusion coefficient to be the lowest, and so it is. Its solubility coefficient, however, is highest, because its solubility, S, in polymers is much greater than that for other gasses." Karel, M. 1975. Protective pckaging in foods, Ch 12 In "Physical principles of food preservation", O.R. Fennema Ed., Marcel Dekker. I'm not sure how all this relates to the Coke type 2L bottles, but I have stored beer for 6+ months in these 2L beauties (at 5C) with no ill effects noticible. However, I would recommend avoiding root beer bottles, or clean then very well. Residual root beer flavor does not go well with beer. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 13:20 CST From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: EM Prob, JSP MOVES >From: Philip DiFalco <sxupjd at gds.fnma.COM> >Subject: One problem with the spigot on the EasyMasher<tm>: > The taper on the nozzle makes it difficult to keep > a hose from slipping off. >> I've experienced a similar concern. Even a hose clamp does not resolve this problem too well. Has anyone come up with a solution for this problem? The hose clamp will actually aggravate the problem by squeezing it off. The choice of spigot was a tough call and I decided that this issue was less of a problem than others created by other available cocks. The one with a hose barb, for example, does not have a hex on the outside to get a wrench on to and I wanted to make it as easy to install as possible. I think the more one worries about the "problem" and tries to solve it, the worse it gets. If you just wet the end of the hose with a little sweet wort, it will dry to a hard glue within a few minutes. In three years, the only time I had a hose fall off while sparging was when I used a hose clamp. I never bothered doing this, but I assume that if you rough up the end of the bibb with a file or sand paper, it would never slide off. ......... It is with great pleasure that I announce our upcoming relocation to "our place in the country". Although there are lots of reasons we are getting out of the city, not the least is that the basement MM factory is bursting at the seams. Our new place will have a 3000 sqft building devoted exclusively to assembling MALTMILLS and EASYMASHERS. There is also a 500 sq ft barn that will be turned into the "estate brewery" after I learn how to deal with not-so-friendly well water. On the other hand, the farmer next store raises corn and the one across the road raises wheat. Looks like the end of Reinheitsgbot for the WGB. Not sure what kind of net access I will maintain but for anyone who needs me, Effective Feb 11, 1995, our new address will be: Jack Schmidling Productions 18016 Church Road Marengo Il 60152 Phone 815 923 0031 Fax 815 923 0032 js Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 12:15:30 -0800 From: danpack at grape-ape.che.caltech.edu (Dan Pack) Subject: PET bottles Maybe I can provide some chemical engineering insight into this question. "Dr. J" says: >the permeability of 2L plastic bottles can be solved by a little common >sense. When a brew is bottled in a closed container it builds up a >positive pressure, hopefully :). I would think that the pressure in the >container makes the permeability irrelevent because the lower >atmospheric pressure could not possibly enter the container unless it is >opened or cooled significantly below the saturation pressure of the It's not obvious, but actually there are two ways for a gas to enter the container: convection (bulk flow) and diffusion. The pressure difference between the inside of the bottle and the surrounding air will, in fact, prevent _flow_ (or convection) of oxygen into the beer. However, diffusion is driven by the difference in _concentration_ of oxygen in the beer and air. Since there is, hopefully, very little oxygen in the beer to start with there is a relatively strong driving force for diffusion of oxygen through the plastic. Also, the consumption of oxygen by reaction with the beer (oxidation) ensures that the concentration of O2 inside the bottle will remain low. So, the relevant question is whether PET provides a barrier for oxygen transport. Since PET is used to keep CO2 _in_, and since CO2 is a bigger molecule than O2, I would say it is very likely that O2 is free to diffuse through the plastic. The conventional wisdom and the tongues of talented tasters such as Lee Bussy seem to support this conclusion. Dan Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 17:29:05 -0500 (EST) From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: O2 diffusion thru PET bottles (From *Jeff* Renner) In HBD 1631, Dr. J said >I think the discussion of >the permeability of 2L plastic bottles can be solved by a little common >sense. When a brew is bottled in a closed container it builds up a >positive pressure, hopefully :). I would think that the pressure in the >container makes the permeability irrelevent because the lower >atmospheric pressure could not possibly enter the container unless it is >opened or cooled significantly below the saturation pressure of the >liquid within the container. In conclusion: A brew can be stored in a >container without concern as long as there remains a positive CO2 >pressure in the container. I suspect that CO2 and O2 are not very permeable thru PET since, as has been pointed out, soda retains its pressure over a long period of time. One thing that does not enter into the physics of O2 diffusion, however, is the pressure of the CO2 in the bottle. While this may seem counter-intuitive, even if the plastic were permeable to both gases, the CO2 pressure inside would not affect O2 diffusion against this CO2 pressure gradient. The atmospheric O2 would diffuse into the bottle and come into equilibrium with the O2 in solution in the liquid in the bottle. The presence of one solute does not affect the solubility or diffusion rate of another. Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 17:39:45 -0500 (EST) From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: How Pilsner Urquell acidifies its mash (From *Jeff* Renner) In a recent HBD, Jim DiPalma asked how Pilsner Urquell acidifies their mash with their very soft water with its very low level of calcium. I believe the answer is biological rather than chemical. Several years ago someone related (either here or in Zymurgy) their trip to PU. As I recall, they mash in cold and leave this mash overnight for lactobacillus acidification, then procede as usual. Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 11:04:25 +1100 (EST) From: David Draper <David.Draper at mq.edu.au> Subject: O2 in PETs/Color conversion/Max efficiency Dear Friends, comments on a few things in today's digest. Dr. J. makes the intuitive conclusion (as many before him have) that the positive pressure of CO2 inside a bottle will keep any O2 out. The amazing truth is that the pressure will *not* prevent oxidation. The process by which O2 gets inside the bottles is diffusion, and diffusion typically takes place in response to a gradient in chemical potential. The chemical potential for this instance is largely composition-dependent--that is, because there is so much more oxygen outside the bottle than inside, there is a "driving force" for oxygen to want to get inside. This happens with glass as well as plastic, but the amount of time it takes for oxygen to diffuse through a glass bottle is many orders of magnitude longer than that for plastic (because of vessel thickness and composition--plastic vs. glass). Dirk asks how to convert from srm color units to EBC. Yes, for our purposes, srm = Lovibond. There is a conversion equation, but it is not generally well-regarded by the pros, according to George Fix. The equation is: degrees Lovibond = 0.377 * EBC rating + 0.45. Dr. George says that this is reasonably applicable only for beers whose colors are in the vicinity of about 4 srm--only the palest beers. See Dr. George's excellent article on color that he posted here last year (email me if you want a copy, I've got it sitting in my email directory) for the Whole Story. A very similarly-worded account also appears in George and Laurie Fix's book, Vienna. Steve the Outlaw asks how to figure out the maximum extract from a given grain bill. You need access to some data for specific grain types for starters. Let's take a simple example: an ale made from 9 lb pale malt, 2 lb Munich, 1/4 lb crystal malt, and 1/2 lb gr wheat malt for heading. The data I have for these kinds of grain go like this: mashing 1 lb of these grains in 1 gallon of water would give 36 gravity points for the pale malt, 33 for the Munich, 29 for the crystal, and 39 for the wheat malt. These are the basis for obtaining a calculated pts/lb/gallon efficiency. What you do is just take a weighted average to get the max possible from this grain bill. First, determine the fraction of the total bill made up by each grain. The total amount of grain is 11.75 lb, so pale malt is 9/11.75 = 76.6% of the total. Similarly, the Munich is 17.0%, the crystal 2.1%, and the wheat 4.3%. Now multiply these fractions by the data values above. From the pale malt, you can get a max of 36 * .766 = 27.6 pts per lb per gallon. For the Munich, you can get max 5.6 ppg, from the crystal 0.6 ppg, and from the wheat 1.7. Finally add these up: 27.6 + 5.6 + 0.6 + 1.7 = 35.5 pts/lb/gal is the theoretical 100% extraction. After you sparge, you compare your actual ppg with this to get % efficiency: if you got 30 ppg, this would be about 85% efficiency. The data on each grain are contained in several of the brewing software programs, and I expect will be in the forthcoming Grain FAQ that Jim Busch and Johh Palmer are amassing. Presumably some of the brewing books have this too. Cheers, Dave in Sydney - -- "Give yeast a chance" ---Peter Graves ****************************************************************************** David S. Draper, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109 Sydney, Australia. email: david.draper at mq.edu.au fax: +61-2-850-8428 ....I'm not from here, I just live here.... Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 16:45:57 PST From: Scott McLagan <smclagan at schdist43.bc.ca> Subject: Honey treatment in Boddington's Pub Ale Hi Folks. The talk lately about using honey in beer caused me to notice the bee in the logo of 'Boddington's Pub Draught Ale'. So I tried it. Comes in cans and is imported into Canada (and probably the US) from England. The can includes an internal pressurized vessel that 'explodes' when the can is opened, similar to the Guinness draught cans we get. When you pop the top, the gas (nitrogen, I think) is released into the beer, giving it the beautiful creamy head that the Brits are famous for. The ale has a subtle and delicious hint of honey along with the requisite hop bitterness. Anyone have a suggestion for the honey and hop treatment? I'd like to give it a try. Many thanks. Scott McLagan (smclagan at schdist43.bc.ca) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 20:48:56 EST From: dsanderson at msgate.cv.com Subject: Mexicali Rogue - Chipolte's... Just what are they are...? Seems to be a bit of controversy about what Chipoltes are... According to Mark Miller; owner of Coyote Cafe in Santa Fe', New Mexico and author of the cookbook of the same name, a Jalapeno is "...Fresh, ripe Jalapenos, when dried and smoked are know as chipotles." and "Chipotle... A light flat brown in color, wrinkled, tapered, and measuring about 2 1/2 inches long and 3/4 inch wide, the chipotle is the dried form of the fresh, ripe jalapeno chile smoked slowly over the dried foliage of the chile plant. It is extremely hot and has a wonderful toasted, smoky flavor that contains tones of leather, coffee, and mushrooms and a marked aftertaste of pure capsicum.". Best regards, Dave Sanderson Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 17:26 EST From: Kathy Kincade <0006391766 at mcimail.com> Subject: new magazine Just wanted to make an official announcement about a new magazine some friends of mine are starting -- it's called "Brew", The How-To Homebrew Beer Magazine, and the first issue will be out in May. It will be a monthly magazine available on the newsstand and by subscription, and the emphasis will be on providing real information in an entertaining format. According to the editor, Craig Bystrynski, "The backbone of the magazine will be hands-on articles that teach readers how to make better beer. Not esoteric articles--just practical advice where self-taught brewers can get their questions answered and old-hand homebrewers can still learn something new." Some of the features that are already scheduled to appear in the magazine include "Foolproof Methods for Recipe Calculation", "Spicing Up Your Brews", "Building a Killer Draft System", Beeristroika: Homebrew Buddies in the USSR", and "The Big Leap: From Kits to All-Grain Brewing." Anyway -- I just wanted to let everyone know that this looks to be a good publication, and that input is more than welcome. If you have any article ideas (as I said in an earlier message, they will pay for all published articles), contact Craig Bystrynski at cbbrew at delphi.com. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 20:40:35 +0000 From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb at southwind.net> Subject: Sam Adams joke Actually It's more a Jim Koch joke: Q: What happens if you put 100 lawyers in the basement? A: You get a whine cellar! Okay, not much about beer but there was a reference to wine... :) - -- -Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... | leeb at southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1632, 01/16/95