HOMEBREW Digest #2801 Tue 18 August 1998

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  RE:Mead conditioning question ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Nettiquette and Balderdash ("Timothy Green")
  Outatown ("David R. Burley")
  water analysis (JPullum127)
  Uses for an autoclave - Bottle Sanitizer? ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
  Yeast storage and transport / Weizen yeasts / beer reviews (George_De_Piro)
  hbd, the brewery (Jim Liddil)
  Killer Yeasts, Undercarbonartion ("David R. Burley")
  Hops-Off-The-Vine ("Eric Darrow")
  Karl Lutzen aka "Squonk" (Rick Olivo)
  N. Michigan brewpubs? (Christopher Peterson)
  reply to: Using Cornies HBD#2799 (Herbert Bresler)
  stuck mash/CAP (Lou.Heavner)
  Clinitest Utility as a Measure of Completion of Fermentation ("Steve Alexander")
  Apology (Some Guy)
  Wyeast 1098 (British Ale) performance (Dave Humes)
  Parti-Gyle Brewing/Thanks Mark! ("Riedel, Dave")
  Grapefruit soda? ("Bret Morrow")
  Lunar Rendezbrew (EFOUCH)
  Brewing School . . . Science or Craft? ("Mort O'Sullivan")
  Galena hops (Mark Kellums)

Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as every sentence deserves proper punctuation... NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:53:16 -0700 From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com> Subject: RE:Mead conditioning question Ron asks in HBD2800: >Folks- > I have a light ginger mead (only 9 lbs honey for 5 gal batch) which >has been sitting in secondary since 2/14/98. I want to bottle now for >New Year's consumption. I want a sparkling beverage. Wyeast Dry >Mead yeast was used. >Do I have adequate remaining viable yeast to carbonate the bottles >using 3/4 cup priming sugar? Should I pitch a conditioning yeast? If >so, what yeast would you suggest? Ron, My understanding is that Wyeast dry mead yeast behaves similarly to a champagne yeast. If you take care to include some yeast sediment when racking onto your primings, it should carbonate fine, at least this has been my experience. 3/4 cup corn sugar should be fine, if you want higher carbonation similar to sparkling wine, ala champagne, use 7/8 to 1 cup. Use good strong bottles, the recappable better American "champagne" bottles or 'Martinelli's' sparkling cider bottles are my favorite. If you remain concerned about viability of your yeast, I recommend rehydrating a packet of Redstar Premiere Cuvee or similar clean dry white wine yeast and adding with your primings. This has worked well for me in the past with ginger meads very similar to yours. Good luck and Wassail! -Grant Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei Des Moines, Washington Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 03:14:14 -0400 From: "Timothy Green" <TimGreen at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Nettiquette and Balderdash robert wrote: "I have been recently spanked for the content of my "sig". I was informed that I was using poor "nettiquette". HBD'ers who feel offended by my sig are asked to e-mail me and inform me of their feelings on the matter. I thought that my "nettiquette" was just fine, but I will bow to the general consensus." You know, the pure pomposity of some of the people who post to this list is completely unbelievable. How a line on someone's sig should be a problem is beyond me. My question is simple and to the person who manages this list. Hey Pat, did you find that Robert's sig was a problem? To the rest of the folks who seem to be afraid of someone who has something to sell that a number of us may need, what's the problem. Robert is a regular poster, helps people out when needed and does not blatantly wave commercial messages in our faces. To the people who were vocal about this, I am also a member of this list, abiet and quiet one normally and one who has junk email as much as the next person. If someone gives more than he takes, why blast him for a sig line. It's sad when people raise hell with someone for no good reason. Scuse me while I get down from the soapbox... Tim Green Mead is great... Beer is good... (But beer is much faster) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:02:03 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Outatown Brewsters: For those correspondents who send me a message, I'm not ingoring you, just outatown helping make wine at a commercial winery for the next two weeks or so and computer-deprived - thank goodness!! In the meantime, Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ Dave_Burley at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:12:49 EDT From: JPullum127 at aol.com Subject: water analysis i just got an analysis of my local omaha water from the utility. rather than print all of it here would someone experienced at this be willing to e-mail me and help me understand it and advise what if anything i should do to it to start allgrain brewing? thanks in advance Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:36:27 -0500 From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu> Subject: Uses for an autoclave - Bottle Sanitizer? Howdy. I now have an electric autoclave. Has anyone ever used an autoclave to sanitize bottles? I recently read a discussion on using steam to sterilize bottles. I would use SUPREME CAUTION using live steam from a pressure cooker to sterilize hand-held bottles. I do think that beer bottles are fairly high quality glass, but heat shock is the killer of glass. I don't know how good the brown glass is at resisting heat shock. Use a thick heat resistant pad to hold the glass and safety goggles, so if one of them suckers decides to shatter into billions of nearly invisible shards, we don't read about you and your lack of sight in one (or both) eye(s). (By the way, my autoclave is year 2000 compatible, as long as the electrical power grid is also year 2000 compatible) <personal opinion>This year 2000 frenzy is really getting out of hand. I was just at the Iowa State Fair over the weekend. A booth is giving away a year 2000 kit, which includes a bike, a bunch of batteries, a flash light, etc. to a lucky winner. These guys were computer support professionals from a group of businesses in Des Moines, if I recall correctly. I think it's pathetic to get people worrying about something that most people have no control over. </personal opinion> Jeff Jeffrey M. Kenton jkenton at iastate.edu Ames, Iowa brewer at iastate.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:36:49 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Yeast storage and transport / Weizen yeasts / beer reviews Hi all, Bill Anderson asks about the best ways to collect and store yeast for easy transport. Slants are pretty durable, and they have the advantage of not having to be kept frozen. If you are going to be on the move, how will you keep yeast frozen under wort? If you will only be traveling a couple of weeks, yeast on slants should be OK at room temperature. An even better method could be to store the yeast in sterile distilled water, as described in one of last year's issues of _Brewing Techniques_. While I haven't done this yet, it sounds like just the thing for you. The yeast can be kept at room temperature and will (supposedly) have a high survival rate. ------------------------------ Bill Also asks about Weizen strains, specifically asking about the importance of filtering the primary strain out of the beer and replacing it with a second (often a lager yeast). He also asks if he can get yeast from the bank at Weihenstephan. The reason to remove the primary strain from Weizen is largely one of beer stability. The flavor of the beer will not improve because the primary strain has been replaced with a lager yeast for bottle conditioning. The reason big brewers do this is because Weizen yeasts tend to autolyze readily, and the result of this is a dramatic decrease in head retention and thinning of body (because of the release of proteolytic enzymes during autolysis). I find that my Weizenbier is peaking 6-8 weeks after brew day, after which it quickly turns south, losing its head and body. I could purchase a filter and do the yeast switching trick that the big boys do, but why bother? I just try to finish the beer while it's good! As far as buying yeast from Weihenstephan, be prepared to shell out some major cash. Just buy it from a homebrew supplier here in the States. -------------------------- Bill also offers a review of Ipswich Stout (he didn't like it, finding it "undrinkable-oxidized.") First, before you go bashing a beer, think of what you are saying. If the beer is oxidized, is it the brewer's fault? Maybe, but it is just as likely to be the fault of the myriad people handling the beer after it left the brewery. I know that the owner of Ipswich insists that his beers be kept refrigerated (unfiltered, unpasteurized, etc.). He has even gone as far as saying that you should not buy his beer if it is not in the refrigerator case. Was that how the beer you hated was handled? I feel that beer reviews here on the digest are of very limited usefulness. Reviews of brewpubs are pointless to anybody outside of the geographic region of the reviewer (i.e., almost everybody). Reviews of beers are highly subjective, and many micro and import beers do not travel and store well. As a beer geek (and BJCP type) I think it is important to try as many different commercial beers as you (and your liver) can afford. This is essential to improving your own brewing and beer evaluation skills. Drinking your own beer all the time isn't going to help you expand your horizons. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:49:53 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: hbd, the brewery Just a quick note of praise to Karl and Pat. Remember what the AOB/AHA tried to do to this forum. Also if you are surfing The Brewery and find broken links please try to find the new link and let the Webmaster know about it. The Brewery works as a source of accurate information only through constant vigilance and volunteer effort. We are the ones who make it work. Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 11:36:48 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Killer Yeasts, Undercarbonartion Brewsters: Phil Grossblatt doubts my comment about Lallemand's Killer Yeast being due to sulfite production and then proposes some unknown protein which is supposed to kill undesired yeast ( but not bacteria?). Well, my information came from a discussion with a Lallemand Yeast Salesman some years ago. It is possible he was incorrect. Would you care to provide us with the "real" information Lallemand has instead of postulating some unknown protein? Kinda leaves us up in the air, particularly since you appear to be speaking for Lallemand. sort of. In any event, the production of sulfite by yeast is real as Phil agrees and it does depress competition from wild yeast and especially bacteria, since they are more sensitive - which was my main point. - ---------------------------------- I recently had private correspondence from an HBDer who was trying a recenty purchased Clinitest on his existing bottled beers and he found some of the beers gave Clinitest greater than 0.25%, which I consider to be the maximum reading for a finished beer. Some were undercarbonated and gave readings as high as 0.5% and all his beers, while good, were perceptibly sweeter than the commercial counterparts. He was curious as to what this meant and did this mean his beers weren't finished fermenting or what was Clinitest telling him? First, he was not using the test in the manner I prescribe as an indicator of the end of the fermentation phase, since he tested bottled beers. As I interpret it, some of hIs results showed a "stuck" priming fermentation, since they were higher than 0.25%. He was examining to what extent his priming sugar ( since he used glucose and not sucrose) had been consumed. Had he tried Clinitest on the finished beer and then on the bottled beer ( he hasn't been able to yet since he just bought the Clinitest) he could have definitely known if the carbonation was complete and what was the cause of the sweetish taste in his beer. The bottled beer should be equal to or lower ( in some cases with true lager yeast) than the fermentation end %glucose based on Clinitest. If this is not the case, then you need to do some work in getting a better set of bottle fermentation conditions ( like adding a small amount of FAN to the beer at bottling) and increasng the active yeast content at bottling. Note for this test to be thoroughly useful you cannot prime with table sugar, since sucrose is not a reducible sugar and Clinitest will not respond. It is unlikely that if you have a "stuck" priming fermentation due to inadequate yeast activity, that the extra-cellular invertase produced by yeast will invert all of the sucrose to reducible sugars and not consume it. Based on these results, I suggested that he inject active yeast into some of the bottles and follow it with Clinitest to prove that this was his problem. In the future, I recommend the use of an active priming "kraeusen" ( see the archives) to ensure the yeast will consume all the priming sugar. It would be interesting to repeat AlK's double blind and double deaf carbonation experiment ( see the archives) in which he detected a difference in carbonation, based on the headspace in the bottle and use Clinitest to see if the priming sugar content between different headspaces is different. I have postulated that, if Al's results hold up, it may be a result of increased yeast growth due to the increased amount of oxygen in the headspace, leading to more yeast and ultimately more of the priming sugar being consumed. Using this technique, we can for sure establish if more priming sugar has been consumed ( and convincingly support AlK's observations). An interesting parallel experiment would be to flush the headspace with nitrogen on some bottles. It may be necessary to increase the sensitivity of the test by using more drops of beer so that the results for a "normal" 0.25% reads 1%. This can be easily be done by using 20 drops of beer rather than 5 drops as in the standard test. This is not too far in volume from the current test which uses 5 drops of beer and 10 drops of water. The results on teh various haedspace experiments should be comparable in any event, since the results are within the 2% range of the standard test. Any of you bottlers ( I keg) out there want to take the challenge? - ------------------------------------- Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ Dave_Burley at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:46:53 -0800 From: "Eric Darrow" <edarrow at cmdpdx.com> Subject: Hops-Off-The-Vine I was glad to hear that its possible to brew with hops right off the vine. I have another question I was hoping there might be an answer to. My Cascades are in thier second season and although the flowers appear to be big and healthy, they aren't nearly as aromatic as the Cascades I can buy so I have been hesitant to use them for fear they'll add very little to the finished product. I've sampled them several times this season as well as last season and haven't noticed an "optimal" time to harvest. Just no aroma like I think Cascades should have. Comments? Eric Darrow Graphic Designer - Multimedia Group Creative Media Development Portland, Oregon http://www.creative-media.com (503) 223-6794 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:01:43 -0500 From: Rick Olivo <ashpress at win.bright.net> Subject: Karl Lutzen aka "Squonk" Warning: this post is off topic, but save your flames; I'm too thick skinned and thick-headed to notice. I would like to heartily concur with Pat Babcock's assessment of Karl Lutzen. It is rare that you get to run across a person of such selfless quality and balanced good humor. I am pleased to number "Squonk" as he is known to his many fans and friends at Skotrat's Brew Rat Chat (another SIG plug!!!) among my friends as well. Karl, thanks for the many slings and arrows of outragous misfortune you have endured for the Brewery and HBD. I think very few know how very much they owe to your efforts. I for one just want to say I appreciate it, please; keep up the good work you do for all of us. There are some who have greatness, there are some who have greatness thrust upun them, and there are some who grate onions. Uhhh... Let me rephrase that. Seriously though, Thank you Karl. Your work does not go unnoticed. Rick Olivo The Strange Brewer "Vitae Sine Cervesiae Sugat!!!" ("Life Without Beer Sucks!!!") ashpress at win.bright.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:25:04 -0400 From: Christopher Peterson <peterson at ucmg65.med.uc.edu> Subject: N. Michigan brewpubs? Beer geeks, I've seen the recent post that gave a critique of Michigan brewpubs. I'll be near traverse city (45 minutes away), and was thinking of checking out any brewpubs up there. Unfortunately, the review of the traverse city brewpubs indicated they werent worth making much of an effort to seek them out. I'd just as soon go somewhere that has a good selection then waste time drinking poor quality brewpub fare. Is there anyone else out there that thinks any of these brewpubs are worth seeking out? Private emails welcome. Christopher Peterson peterson at molgen.uc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:38:08 -0400 From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7 at osu.edu> Subject: reply to: Using Cornies HBD#2799 On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 Keith Christiann wrote in HBD#2799: [snip] I racked a hoppy pale ale to secondary (a Corny keg) after 10 days in primary. It is still cloudy. I usually wait for it to clear before racking but I couldn't wait this time. Is it a good idea to put minimal pressure in the keg and chill it or go ahead and force carbonate? Does it matter? I don't mind racking from one keg to another once it clears. It is sitting patiently at 32-35F. ________________________________________________ Keith, I did almost exactly what you are doing now with the last British-style Pale Ale I made. I kept it at room temp (60's F) for a week or so after racking from the primary and checked the pressure daily (just to make sure I wasn't incubating a time bomb). It never rose above about 10 psi (partly because I kept stealing a few ounces a day to "inspect" it). After a week of secondary fermenting I moved it to the fridge and maintained the pressure at about 10 psi by adding CO2 as necessary. This meant that I really only had to add CO2 back after I stole some of the brew for tasting (again, I couldn't wait). It took a little longer than usual to clear even though I was using a highly flocculent yeast (Wyeat 1968, no finings). But it was worth the extra week. The result was a very good, mostly naturally carbonated beer. (Many of you may have had some at Beer & Sweat in Cincinnati last weekend. There's precious little of it left now.) I will definitely use this technique again. Nice mellow carbonation, full body, mmmm-mmm good. Let us know how yours turns out. Good luck and good (natural) carbonating, Herb Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:51:43 -0500 From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com Subject: stuck mash/CAP From: "Steven Braun" <visualdelights at powernet.net> My system consists of a RubberMaid 10 gallon cooler and a Phils Phalse Bottom. The Phils has had the drain bored out to 5/8ths inch and I have a 5/8ths inch ID braided hose connecting to the bulkhead fitting. Thru the valve to the pump 10 inches below the drain. The false bottom sits pretty close to the bottom of the tun. I get the feeling that the false bottom is my problem. Does anyone have any ideas. My mash this AM lasted 4 hours! Three of those at 120 degrees. Cant wait to taste that one! Steven Braun visualdelights at powernet.net www.visualdelights.com Steve, I'm not experienced with RIMS, but I am with Phil's Phalse Phloater (PPP). What I did was take 3 quarter inch stainless sheet metal screws and screw them into holes in the PPP equally spaced around the perimeter about 1.5 inches from the edge. Then I screw them into the bottom of my gott cooler about 3/4 or 1 turn until they hold. Voila! No more grain under the false bottom, better lautering! I use a sliding stem valve (cross between a needle valve and a ball valve) and it works fine with gravity. I've found if you open the valve to wide too fast, you can get stuck and mine is smaller diameter than yours. I'd 1) make sure your false bottom isn't floating up on you, 2) just crack the valve on the pump suction to prime it, 3) before you turn on the pump, open the suction side wide, but just crack the discharge until you get your filter bed established. And some mashes are harder to lauter. I made a CAP last week of dubious character. Instead of 6-row and corn meal and decoction mash, I used 2-row and flaked maize and single infusion plus mash out. And that brings me to my questions. I misread the thermometer and for some reason mis-calculated my strike water, or it was hotter than I thought. Maybe my contacts had fogged over. Anyway, I ended up resting at 160F for about 20 min before I realized and added some ice down to 152. It was a 90 min mash plus 15 min at 168F and I didn't test for starch. I really didn't want to know if it hadn't all converted. Lauter took 90 mins and as a result I ended up with over 80% efficiency which is much better than my normal 75%. So there must not have been much channeling or else I screwed up other calculations as well. ;) Boil and chill were all normal. I ended up with just under 5 gals of 1.058 wort that was very turbid. Going into the kettle it had been crystal clear! I used Wyeast 2035 stepped up to a 3 Qt starter. I filled one babyfood jar with pre-pitched wort for WST and another with pitched wort for FFT. There was about a gallon of break in the kettle where I normally get about a half gallon. I brewed last Thursday. As of Monday morning, the WST sample is still turbid and the color of dark honey or light maple syrup. It has shown no visible activity of any kind. By Saturday night the FFT sample had foamed and frothed and cleared to a beautiful clear golden color only a hair darker than a Bud. But there was snow white sediment on the bottom and a tan colored layer floating on top. The floating layer does break up and settle to the bottom in clumps if I move the sample very much. Is this normal? Other than using a microscope or plating samples, is there any easy way to tell if I have a problem, or what it is? The main batch is fermenting normally (as far as I can tell in a plastic pail) at 50F while the babyfood jars have been kept at room temperature which around here is running between 77F-80F. Cheers! Lou Heavner - Austin, TX where the sky is falling! Hey! What is this wet stuff anyway???!!!! Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:36:02 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Clinitest Utility as a Measure of Completion of Fermentation Clinitest Utility as a Measure of Completion of Fermentation Clinitest kits cost about $20US recently priced. The bottles of (refill) tablets are available for approximately $12US. They are intended to measure glucose or keto-sugars that pass into the urine of uncontrolled diabetics, but current practice in diabetes care requires use of the much more direct method of measuring blood sugar levels with analytic meters and reagent strips that are glucose specific. Therefore Clinitest may require special order at a pharmacy. Clinitest is an implementation of the 'Benedict' test for reducing sugars. Clinitest measures the reducing end concentration of all reducing sugars by comparison with a color charts. The suggested '5 drop' test will permit a 1/4% resolution of glucose concentrations from 0 to 1% with an added point for 2% and greater. Note the Clinitest percentage readings are referenced to glucose so a 1% reading, (which I will call 1% reducing sugar glucose equivalent(RSGE) concentration) corresponds with a 1 gram glucose per 100ml of water concentration, but in the more general case of solutions containing other sugars indicates a total reducing sugar concentration of 55.6 mMol. The table below lists the available Clinitest color chart readings (RSGE) versus the equivalent Molar concentration of reducing sugars. Clinitest reading reducing conc. ---------- ----------------- negative 0 mMol 1/4% 14 mMol 1/2% 28 mMol 3/4% 42 mMol 1% 56 mMol 2+% 111 mMol or greater >From [1] in 1.043 SG wort the following sugar and dextrin concentrations are given, and I calculate the fermentability, reducing sugar concentration and the reducing concentration after 'extreme fermentation', meaning the removal of all fermentable sugars: Note especially that certain sugars such as sucrose are not reducing sugars, yet contribute to fermentability. From several sources I have estimated that the non-reducing dextrins represent no more than 5% of dextrins. sugar conc. fermentable reducing conc r.c.after extreme ferment. Glucose 40.0 mM y 40.0 0 Fructose 13.9 mM y 13.9 0 Sucrose 5.8 mM y 0 0 Maltose 162. mM y 162 0 Isomaltose 3.5 mM n 3.5 3.5 maltotriose 21.0 mM y 21.0 0 other trisacc. 1.0 mM var 1.0 0-1.0 dextrins 10.2 mM n 9.7-10.2 9.7-10.2 totals 257.4 251.1-251.6 13.2 - 14.7 After removal of all fermentable sugars, which is not entirely realistic, the final reducing sugar concentration does correspond with a 1/4% RSGE . The wort above is medium-high fermentability due to a mash schedule with an initial rest at 63C/145F for 60 minutes. The fermentable sugar to total extract ratio is 70.0% which falls in the middle of the range of data in reference [2]. If a less fermentable wort of 65% fermentable extract (see ref[2], col 8], 68.3C/155F mash) was created, we should expect that there would be a loss in fermentable sugars of 5% extract, and a corresponding gain in non-fermentables. The loss of fermentables would decrease the reducing concentration by about 12.1 nM and the increase in nonfermentable adds to reducing sugars reducing by about 4.7mM, assuming a proportional mix of fermentable/non-fermentable sugars. So for a less fermentable wort after extreme fermentation, we should expect that the reducing sugar concentration might be roughly (add 4.7) 19 mM. In higher gravity wort typical in homebrew, the non-fermentable sugar concentrations should increase in proportion with the extract per volume (OG points). In practice fermentations do remove that vast majority of fermentable sugars, but certainly do not remove all fermentable sugars. Here the limits and flocculation of the yeast and the fermentation conditions become important. Reference [3] give values of residual fermentable sugar in commercial unprimed beers (5 ales, 7 lagers) that correspond with reducing concentrations over a range of 0 nM to 52 mM, with a mean value of 18.6 mM. These residual fermentable sugar levels correspond to 0% to 0.94% (mean value 0.33%) RSGE. Three beers of twelve contained only trace fermentables, while five of twelve contained greater than 0.4% RSGE (22 mM). In the tables of reference [3] there is no clear relationship between initial SG (OG) and the residual fermentable sugars in beer. Conclusions: In beers made from wort with widely varying mash temperatures and so fermentability and widely varying SG values, we would expect a non-fermentable reducing sugar concentration of roughly 10 to 30 mM. Residual fermentable reducing sugar concentrations in commercial examples vary from trace to 52 mM. This forms an expectation that values for normally fermented beers should fall in a range of 10 mM to 80 mM (0.18% to 1.4% RSGE) for 'real world' beers with the greatest part of the variation due to residual fermentable sugars. A Clinitest reading of 0.25% RSGE confirms completion of fermentation. At levels above the "2% or greater" color chart value Clinitest indicates incomplete fermentation. Intermediate readings of 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0% RSGE available with Clinitest may be useful for assessing completion of fermentation, but only in the hands of an experienced brewer capable of estimating wort fermentability and yeast performance by other means. [1] Proc.EBC Congress, Interlaken, 1969, pp 205, 'Dextrins in Brewing', Bent Stig Envoldsen, Tuborg Breweries Ltd. [2] Malting&Brewing Science, 2nd ed, 1981, Chapman Hall, Pub,vol 1, pp 288-289, reporting results of Hall quoted by Harris, 1962. [3] M&BS, vol2, pp 777, 'representative analysis of beers', table 22.1 and v2, pp 784, table 22.5 'sugar content of commercial beers'. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:51:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Apology It seems I stepped on a set of toes with my statement regarding the "night of beer". My apologies to the offended individual. The insult you perceived was not my intent... See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:33:32 -0500 From: Dave Humes <humesdg1 at earthlink.net> Subject: Wyeast 1098 (British Ale) performance Greetings, I have a batch of American Pale Ale fermenting now that has performed rather strangely (to me) and was wondering if anyone has some recent experience with it that could comment. This was my first attempt at a big starter, so that may explain all of this. First some specifics on the wort composition just in case that's a factor: 11 gallon batch 17 lb Briess 2-row pale 1 lb 40L crystal 1 lb Biscuit Mash-in at 104F, hold 30 min. Boost to 140F, hold 30 min. Boost to 158F, hold 30 min. Boost to 168F and lauter. Mash and sparge water treated with gypsum to provide approximately 450ppm sulphate and 130ppm calcium. Bittered with Galena and finished with Fuggles. Boil 90 min and CF chill into two 6.5 gal carboys. Oxygenate with pure O2 through a stone for 60 sec in each carboy. O.G. = 1.050 The yeast was prepared by pitching the 50ml swollen Wyeast package into 500ml 1.040 well aerated wort. That was allowed to ferment out, roused and divided into two 2000ml flasks each filled with 1200ml sterile, well aerated 1.040 wort. Each was allowed to ferment out. 24 hours before pitching, the clear beer was removed from ontop of the starters and replaced with 500ml sterile, aerated 1.040 wort in each flask hoping to have active fermentation at the time the starters were to be pitched. However, after this feeding the yeast went almost immediately into fermentation and they were fermented out by the next morning. The starters were pitched at about 5PM that day into 75F wort and then placed in a temp controlled freezer at 68F. Airlock activity was visible 5 hours after pitching and the beer was in high kraeusen the next morning. The fermentation was VERY vigorous and was just about done in 48 hours. At 72 hours there was almost no airlock activity, so I racked to secondary carboys, S.G. = 1.020. It's now been 4 days since racking, and the gravity is only down to 1.017. There is still some minimal airlock activity and the beer's still cloudy, so I think it might make it down to 1.012, but I've never seen such a dramatic difference between primary and secondary fermentation. It just flew through the first 30 gravity points and is now crawling through the last 10. What worries me is that the last batch with basically the same recipe quit at 1.020 and was way too sweet for the style. It got dumped. I realize the mash schedule is somewhat excessive, but is not something that should produce an overly dextrinous wort. I was just playing with some of George Fix's schedules to see if they are any better than a straight infusion. So is this pattern typical of Wyeast 1098? Or possibly a side effect of a big starter? Or should I just relax and stop worrying ... Thanks in advance Dave Humes >>humesdg1 at earthlink.net<< Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:49:26 -0700 From: "Riedel, Dave" <RiedelD at PAC.DFO-MPO.GC.CA> Subject: Parti-Gyle Brewing/Thanks Mark! Badger brought up the parti-gyle concept of big/small beer brewing in a single batch. I have a data-point to pass on. Using about 12 lbs of malt, I made 3 gallons of 1.099 Barleywine and 6 gallons of 1.048ish Brown Ale by using the first runnings for the BW, then adding some chocolate malt, recirc'ing a bit then sparging the grain bed to get the brown ale. Both beers came out very well. A completely different hop schedule for each and the chocolate malt made for two totally different beers. A couple of things I learned: 1. I got much more small beer than I expected despite a lot of calculations trying to predict the amount so, be prepared to calculate your hop amounts on the fly after you've collected the wort. 2. It was a very long brewday- I suggest that you continue your sparge/runoff for the small beer as you boil the big beer. Put the runnings in a bucket or something... it takes a long time to brew a batch, back up, sparge/runoff and boil again. You have to clean the boil kettle too. - ------- Mark Bridges congratulated me on my success at our small local competition. Thanks Mark!! I appreciate it! cheers, Dave Riedel Victoria, BC, Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 17:24:08 PDT From: "Bret Morrow" <bretmorrow at hotmail.com> Subject: Grapefruit soda? Greetings, Sorry for posting a non-beer question. Does anyone have a recipe or know of a source of grapefruit extract for soda. The brewing season is officially over here until it cools down a bit and I'm looking for some distractions for the next month or so. TIA Bret Morrow, Johnson's Brewing, Home of the Yale Ale. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Aug 1998 16:01:39 -0400 From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com Subject: Lunar Rendezbrew HBD- Did anybody else send beers to the 5th Annual Lunar Rendezbrew? I sent two beers in, got conformation that they arrived at the shipping point, but have not received any scoresheets yet. The final judging took place on the 19th of July, and scoresheets were to be sent out within two weeks. I sent e-mails to the two contacts listed for judges and stewards two weeks ago, and have recieved no correspondence. Anybody affiliated with the LR or the Mashtronauts that may shed some light on the situation? Sign me....Curious Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 01:27:56 +0100 From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com> Subject: Brewing School . . . Science or Craft? George De Piro asked: >Perhaps Mort could tell us about the tastings and style lectures at H-W? When I was interviewing at Heriot-Watt, I asked the director of admissions about whether certain beer styles were emphasized during lectures, pilot scale brewing, etc. He looked at me blankly for a moment and then said that was irrelevant--the point of the course is to impart a thorough knowledge of the scientific underpinnings of brewing. Focusing on particular styles would be limiting and if I were truly able to grasp the theoretical side of brewing, then I should be able to brew any style of beer I wanted. I must say that there have been no *formal* style lectures at Heriot Watt, and I think this may be due to the fact that over 70% of the students come from major breweries in the UK, Africa, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, etc that only brew one style (can you guess which one?). However I must say that bits and pieces about styles come through in other lectures. For example my notes are full of references to lambic, wee heavy, IPA, berliner weisse, dubbel, classic pilsners, traditional bitters, american light lagers, stouts, porters, etc. I also remember particular lectures going into great detail about the workings of particular famous breweries such as St. James Gate, PU, Heineken, Carlsberg, Bass, Youngs, AB, Coors, Old Dominion. I would also say that the survey of brewing systems (including many systems little used these days, such as the Yorkshire Square, Burton Union System, etc.) inherently teaches a lot about classic styles. Also, not-so-thinly-disguised qualitative judgements about certain styles sometimes slip out during lectures: "Any brewer who doesn't use an all malt grist deserves those problems . . ." The opportunities to explore styles outside the classroom have been tremendous. Spending time in some of Edinburgh's traditional pubs has given me a grasp of the range in quality I can expect in cask conditioned beers. I attended a 10-week lecture series given in a local pub by Scottish beer historian, Charles McMaster. Visits to Traquair House, Caledonian, Youngs, as well as several larger and smaller breweries have been informative. There have been many opportunities to attend beer festivales, and I have also been able to take advantage of the cheap airfare to the continent to sample other styles in their natural settings (Dusseldorf was particularly enjoyable). Not to mention the resources in Edinburgh's libraries and at the Scottish Brewing Archives. This week I was reading about turn-of-the-century brewing with tapioca, and about Braga beer--now there's a style I haven't even seen Michael Jackson write about. I also participate in twice-weekly nosings for the Scotch Whisky Research Institute, but that's getting off the subject isn't it? I must say, however, that the average student at Heriot-Watt is not as interested in beer styles as I am, and there are some students who leave the program and will probably never brew or drink anything other than light lager. Basically, I'd have to say Heriot-Watt emphasizes the science of brewing. Information on the history and craft of brewing is certainly available, but it's up to the student to take advantage of it. Cheers, Mort O'Sullivan Edinburgh Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:34:03 -0500 From: Mark Kellums <kellums at springnet1.com> Subject: Galena hops Robert Arguello writes "I have been fairly successful with my Cascade vines. This is their third year in my yard and despite very poor growing conditions, (not much light and very poor drainage), I harvest enough from two rhizomes to make the effort worth while. I am wondering if I might have similar luck with Galena. I live in northern, central California. Anyone out there with experience with Galena?" Robert, I've been growing some Galena vines on the west side of my garage for for a couple of summers now. It seems no matter how much I neglect them they still put out a pretty decent amount of hops. Hec, they don't even get any direct sunlight until after 1 pm. I run twine from the eaves of the garage down to the plants. It's a very neat growing hop with not very many laterals but the laterals they do put out are very long. Evidently it's a top cropper because most of the hops end up at the top of the plant. It's a very vigorous hop. I also used to grow some Chinook and still do have some Eroica plants. They are both very vigorous and good hop producers as well. Mark Kellums Mt.Zion Illinois Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/18/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96