HOMEBREW Digest #3288 Sat 01 April 2000

[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

  Those pesky identities ("Dr. Pivo 49")
  RE: Question on Belgian beers (Graham Sanders)
  Stated values of attenuation ("Doug Moyer")
  Vacuum sealer bag & hops? ("J. Doug Brown")
  misplaced hefeweizen (Mark Tumarkin)
  misc stuff ("Louis K. Bonham")
  Belgian Wit (Nathan Kanous)
  Oatmeal Stout ("Penn, John")
  RE: No Sparge Barleywine ("Frank J. Russo")
  Grain Mill Rollers for a homebuilt mill ("Scott W. Nowicki")
  A Canadian Hefeweizen! ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
  Re: FWH (Jeff Renner)
  Mash hopping ("G. M. Remake")
  Wyeast Contamination - Part 2 ("H. Dowda")
  2 questions from a new guy. ("J. Morgan")
  Mash-out and efficiency (Chris Cooper)
  genetic yeast engineering for foam retention ("Czerpak, Pete")
  AHA-NHC First Round Judging In Chicago, May 12 & 13 ("Jim Hodge")
  No Sparge Barleywine (Project One)
  Re: No Sparge Barleywine ("Brian Dixon.")
  Boiler as settling vessel? & April Fools page ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Phil's Philler (Dan Listermann)
  Re: canning hops (Mark Kellums)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * Entries for the 18th Annual HOPS competition are due 3/24-4/2/00 * See http://www.netaxs.com/~shady/hops/ for more information * 18th Annual Oregon Homebrew Festival - entry deadline May 15th * More info at: http://www.hotv.org/fest2000 Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:02:15 -0500 From: "Dr. Pivo 49" <drpivo at pivo.com> Subject: Those pesky identities HBDers, I am a little concerned about the poster hiding behind this Fred Garvin character. How can we trust the comments that he makes? Is he truly as perverted as he claims, or is he attempting to use his professed authority to mislead us into performing unnatural acts with bottle brushes and PrimeTabs? People who are dishonest about their identities are obviously inferior brewers, and should refrain from doing anything but cowering in the linen closet. (So, Fred, please--back into the closet!) Ing. Makju Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:08:15 +1000 From: Graham Sanders <GrahamS at bsa.qld.gov.au> Subject: RE: Question on Belgian beers G'day all In relation to Julio question of fresh yeast for bottling High gravity Belgian beers. My own experence may help. I've been making dubbels and trippels lately and transferring them into kegs when after two to three weeks fermentation. When I want some bottled "belgian beauties" I just make up a starter of 300ml about 1.040, let it go for two days, then cool it overnight, run off the liquid and cut this yeast between 18 grolsch bottles primed with 1/2 teaspoon of sugar. I have on occassions had the odd exploding bottles, even from kegs that have sat for two months. I put it down to two things. Firstly I have found some Belgian yeast will attentuate the last of the sugars slowly. I have bled off excessive pressure from my keg months after kegging. This leads to the second cause that maybe I not pitching enough and getting to that final t-gravity. I doubt this as I do not get this with all my kegs, only certain strains of yeast I seem to have this problem. The pitching of fresh yeast will certainly give you the possiblity of explosions if your yeast is still working, (be it very slowly) or you haven't reach t-gravity. If you keg your beer (which I like to do and run off bottles as I need them with fresh yeast), I speak from experience when I say use less sugar than you would normally for a bottle or two first to see if its ok to go the full hog on carbination. The advantage of kegging is you can get that perfect carbonation with fresh yeast once you know where your kegged beer is at with a minor bit of experimentation (thats if you are after those high carbonation levels those belgians, and myself, love) Shout Graham Sanders Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:40:12 -0500 From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at yahoo.com> Subject: Stated values of attenuation Brewers, I am quite confused about the often repeated differences in attenuation attributed to various yeasts. Can someone please explain how one yeast will attenuate less than another? Intuitively this seems like hogwash. Bold statement, huh? But here's my thought process... Lots of folks in hbd-land bottle condition. If the yeast had stopped attenuating due to the oft-stated "alcohol tolerance" then the bottle would Let's set up a thought experiment. (I don't brew often enough for real experiments.) If we take a batch of bitter wort and split it in two (say 1.050 OG) and use two different yeasts, by what mechanism could they end up at different terminal gravities? Let's not assume any unusual yeasts. How about a couple of popular choices: Wyeast 1056 (73-77%) and Wyeast 1728 (69-73%). The apparent attenuation ranges, as stated by Wyeast, do not overlap between the two yeasts. Now, some of y'all will state that 1728 flocculates more than 1056, and accordingly, will result in lower attenuation. If that is the case, then why would it bottle condition? Oh yeah, you say, the yeast gets back into suspension when racking to the bottling bucket. If so, why doesn't it overcarbonate, as it chews up the malt sugars left over from fermentation along with the corn sugar? As I see it, both yeasts are going to consume all of the available (fermentable) sugars. Any differences will come from the ingredients and method that the brewer uses. I.e., a brewer will use 1728 when making a bigger, maltier beer, which means more crystal, etc. If there are differences in the strains (in attenuation) then it will be negligible. Whaddya think? Brew on! Doug Moyer Salem, VA Star City Brewers Guild: http://hbd.org/starcity "Give a man a beer and he wastes an hour. Teach a man to brew and he wastes a lifetime." ~ ?? (Back of a t-shirt) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:10:02 -0500 From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown at mteer.com> Subject: Vacuum sealer bag & hops? Hello, Just wanted to say thanks for the many suggestions of using a vacuum sealer and bags for storing hops. Just one more question on this thread. I had read that when storing hops to not crush them. Does vacuum packing hops in vacuum bags crush the hops significantly enough to cause a problem, ie lupulin glands bursting, and is this really a concern? Thanks for your help Doug Brown - -- J. Doug Brown - Fairmont, WV Sr. Software Engineer jbrown at mteer.com jbrown at ewa.com www.labs.net/kbrown www.ewa.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:15:42 -0500 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: misplaced hefeweizen Beth writes: Ok, I know you'll all laugh and wonder how I could misplace a keg of beer, but it was done. After my superbowl party, my husband moved my half-full cornie keg of hefeweisen to a corner and then promptly covered it with a blanket. It has been stored under CO2 pressure at about 60-70F. My question for the brew-rus-is this keg of hefeweisen shot or should it still be ok if I get it chilled? Thanks! Well, there's one simple way to find out, and I hope you've already answered your own question. Chill it and take a taste. Is it still good? But in general, 60-70 is not a bad storage temp. Obviously, the cooler the better, but these are certainly lower temps than in my storage area in Fl. I have a beer fridge (in addition to my fermenting fridge) but it only stores just so much. So for most beers I'd say you should be ok. However, hefeweizens aren't most beers. I find that they need a couple of weeks storage - bubblegum esters are too prominent when real young, but fade somewhat and allow the clove and banana flavors to come forward after a few weeks aging. They are then at their prime for a month and a half or so. After that they really start to loose the freshness and esters/phenolics - that is, if they last that long. So taste your hefe and see what you think. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, Fl Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:45:26 -0600 From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at hypercon.com> Subject: misc stuff Hi folks: A couple of random responses to recent HBD questions: Doug Moyer asks if home distillation of beverages for personal use is legal. Let me assure you that in the US is is most definately NOT legal, both under federal law and also the laws of most states. The BATF regs are quite clear -- indeed, the exception that allows you to operate a small laboratory still without a BATF permit (i.e., for distilling essential oils or doing various biochem experiments) expressly *excludes* using the still for the distillation of alcoholic beverages. I have a small lab still that I use for doing ethanol assays per the ASBC methodology. This has required me to have a Texas state permit for the equipment (no big deal to get, but acquisition of the distillation equipment without one is a state jail felony [read: 1 year imprisonment], and a BATF permit. I got my BATF permit by specifically promising that the distillate of the alcoholic beverages would be discarded immediately after analysis and not consumed or saved. As to "the BATF doesn't care" or "you'll never get caught" arguments, I leave those for others in the HBD collective. For me, my livelihood depends on obeying the law -- even laws that might be construed as silly or overreaching. ======== Tony Barnsley asks about doing a no-sparge barleywine. Tony, the technique you are describing is what I called a "dilute mash" in my Brewing Techniques column, and is a modification of the no-sparge technique that I and others have used for normal gravity beers. (In this technique, you bump up the grain bill by 20-25%, add sparge water at mashout (without draining), recirculate, and drain.) For barleywines, I suggest using the "pure" no sparge technique -- just bump up your normal grain bill by a third, mash as normal, and then drain the first runnings to the kettle -- i.e., no sparge at all. (You'll probably want to make a small beer from the second runnings -- add a bit a black patent to your grain bill **after** draining the first runnings, refill and recirculate, and you'll probably have the beginnings of a nice mild.) Using this technique and a really stiff mash, I often have first runnings that are well in excess of 24P (1.100) before the boil, which makes the addition of additional sugar to the kettle unnecessary. LKB Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:40:17 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Belgian Wit Victor, Try these sites: http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/realbeer/Belgian/index.html http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/realbeer/Belgian/white-brewing.html The first is general, the second is the Belgian Wit site. I've been quite happy with the results of brews made according to this guide. The Wit site even discusses the use of lactic acid. Hope this helps. nathan Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:55:28 -0500 From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu> Subject: Oatmeal Stout This is probably a question for Jeff Renner, but I was wondering if I can use regular oatmeal in a partial mash? Should I use the quick 1 min oats, or the old fashioned longer-to-cook oats? I see flaked oats at the homebrew store but didn't know if I need to go to all that trouble. I was hoping I could just throw them in the mash without having to do the extra steps of the cereal mash that I've seen recommended. Any good recipes for an oatmeal stout? I was kind of thinking of something like... 1# of oatmeal 2# english pale malt 1/2# roasted barley LME as needed to bring gravity to about 1.055-7. Hops to about 40 IBUs or so Any inputs would be appreciated. John Penn Eldersburg, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:22:54 -0500 From: "Frank J. Russo" <FJRusso at coastalnet.com> Subject: RE: No Sparge Barleywine Tony Barnsley calculated the IBU's of his Barleywine to be 80. My calculator gives me a whopping 185!!! Anyone else check this? I calculate the color to be a Lovibond of 47, and I get the same OG 1.105 using a 60% efficiency. However I suspect the actual efficiency with a no sparge is closer to 50% Hops Quantity Boil Bitterness Ozs AA Time Units Target 1.90 11.2% 90 pellet 94.1 Fuggles 1.75 5.0% 60 pellet 38.7 goldings 1.50 6.0% 60 pellet 39.8 fuggles 0.60 5.0% 30 pellet 6.6 goldings 0.50 6.0% 30 pellet 6.6 Total International Bitterness Units 185.9 Frank Havelock, NC ATF Homebrew Club of NewBern Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:40:00 -0500 From: "Scott W. Nowicki" <nowicki at voicenet.com> Subject: Grain Mill Rollers for a homebuilt mill Does anyone know where I might be able to purchase (or scrap & re-engineer) rollers for a homebuilt grain mill? I'm currently using a Corona mill, but I'd like to move up to the more effective roller mill design. Given the price of these mills, I thought I'd give building one a shot. The design is simple enough, and the precision mechanics of it all (for adjustment) will be a slight challenge - but I have some ideas. My problem is the rollers. Unfortunately, I've never really looked closely at a roller mill (other than the photos on The Valley Mill page), which would probably help me come up with some ideas. Actually, from looking at the Valley Mill Page (http://www.web.net/~valley/valleymill.html), I got the impression that a steel bar-bell bar might work for the roller stock. Does anyone know of a source for roller stock material, or even replacement rollers for existing mills? As a last resort, if I can't locate a suitable stock material or pre-built rollers, my Father used to be a machinist and with a suitable design, could probably make them out of stainless steel. In which case, are there any suggestions on the design (depth of groves, diameter of shaft, etc.)? Does anyone know of any good designs for a homebuilt mill on the web (or elsewhere)? I've never been able to find one. Thanks in advance for any help! If I do pull this off, I'll certainly post a "homebuilt grain mill" web page for others. Scott Nowicki Holland, Pennsylvania nowicki at voicenet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:51:10 -0600 From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders at paddockwood.com> Subject: A Canadian Hefeweizen! Canadian Prairie Dwellers might be interested in this: Agassiz Brewery out of Winnipeg MB has a Hefeweizen! Generally in Saskatchewan it's pretty much a beer wasteland. The good folks at Bushwakkers in Regina brew a nice pint, but other than that it's Molson or Labatt bland beer, or imported brew which has often skunked or staled. So I was shocked to see a Hefeweizen at all, let alone one brewed so near by that may actually be fresh. It was! And it was good! It was nice to have an example with which to compare homebrew. Their flavour profile was exactly what one would expect from Wyeast Weihenstephan Wheat #3056. I'm almost positive that's what they've used. They missed the clove phenols -at least below my threshold, but it was fairly banana. The yeast was quite settled, but the date stamp on the box indicated it was fresh. he bottle doesn't say to swirl up the yeast, so it can be poured almost Crystal, but it's not nearly as yummy. They call it Harvest Haze Hefeweizen. Very brave of them, I think, marketing a Hefeweizen in the land of Great Western Light and Labatt Light... Kudos to Agassiz... Stephen Ross -- "Vitae sine cerevesiae sugat." ______________________________________________ Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK orders at paddockwood.com www.paddockwood.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:37:57 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: FWH "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> writes: >I think it would be interesting to taste the product of a FWH beer where >whole hops were used to line the false bottom in the lauter tun. I'm sure >someone has tried this one already and must be dying to spill his/her guts >about how it tuned out.. <hint-hint> Too bad you didn't make it to the MCAB2 in St. Louis where a 5 gallon keg of my CAP FWHed just as you describe disappeared in about 20 minutes. I used 1 oz. Saaz and 1/2 oz. Hall. Hersb. for 7.75 gallons. Everyone seemed to like it. At last year's MCAB Pete Garafalo had a triangle blind test with identical beers - one FWHed and one using the same hops as late additions. I could tell the difference clearly. Nearly everone at our table of perhaps a dozen correctly picked out the different beer, although not everyone could describe what made it different. Interestingly, another table that was assembled later after some strong recruiting came up with statistically meanlingless results. Not sure why, but I suspect they were less interested or had more beer to drink before. Pete might be able to give more information. BTW, be sure to set plan now on attending MCAB3 next February. The tentative sites are Boston or central California, and the final selection should be made soon, I understand. It's a great weekend. Jeff Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:08:09 -0600 From: "G. M. Remake" <gremake at gsbpop.uchicago.edu> Subject: Mash hopping The posts I've read recently on mash hopping got me curious, so I decided to give it a try. I brewed a single infusion 1.050 Cream Ale and hopped the mash with 1.5 oz. of Saaz and 1.5 oz. of Hallertau (domestic). The only other hops addition I made was enough Hallertau for 60 minutes to get about 20 IBUs. Besides being appropriate for the style, I kept the IBUs low to make obvious any flavor and/or aroma impact the mash hops may contribute in the finished beer. Well, the beer is still in the primary so I can't yet comment on the final product. The runnings certainly had strong hop flavor, and the boiled wort did too, although it's hard for me to distinguish between bitterness and flavor in unfermented wort. There was definitely no noticeable hops aroma, though. I'm wondering if the final brew will be more bitter than expected, and how the flavor compares to FWH which I do often. The most noticeable result was the distinct improvement in my extract efficiency. I normally get about 72% efficiency (26.5 pts/lb/gal), but this time I got 80% (29.4 pts/lb/gal). Unless I decoct, that 72% rarely varies, and I didn't do anything out of the ordinary besides the mash hops. Any guesses as to why I saw this jump in efficiency? Has anyone else who's tried mash hopping observed similar results? I suspect two things going on: 1) all those hops flowers in the mash helped ease the lauter, sort of like adding rice hulls for a rye beer, and 2) the hops helped keep the mash pH lower. I tested the mash pH after doughing in, and it was where I expected (low-fives), but the last runnings were only mid-fives (usually about six). I'll report on the final results once the beer is ready. Cheers! Greg Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:39:50 -0800 (PST) From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com> Subject: Wyeast Contamination - Part 2 11:22 AM EST 3/31/00 Technical addenda: Single paks of four dry yeast were also included (Danstar Windsor, Manchester, Nottingham, Cooper Lager). Inocula was prepared by weighing out, asceptically, 100 mg and rehydrating in 100 ml of water (10 ml ??, sorry, don't have these notes in front of me) BCG was, of course, incubated only at room temp in the air, for 48-72 hrs. Broth media were subcultured after 5 days incubation to the media described in part one (less broth media), and incubated under the conditions of the initial broth media (that is, plates streaked from aerobic tubes were incubated aerobically, etc) and after appropriate incubation those plates were examined. After growth was obtained typical colonies were subcultured to plates to re-check for purity and this material used to inoculate standard biochemical test media, to assure that the organisms were Sacc. cerevisiae. Examination of Growth: (cont.) Plates were examined for growth visually and microscopically using a dissecting scope and occassionally on a conventional scope. Evaluation of colonial morphology (shape, size, color, texture) was made on general growth media. Differential characteristics on BCG (color, color distribution, size, shape, consistency etc) were evaluated. Results: Bacteria: No bacteria were found in any yeast on any medium, grown under any condition. Wild Yeasts: No yeasts other than Sacc. cerevisiae group were identified. Colonial variation: In two strains of lager yeast, based only on colony size, two colony types were detected. When the larger of the two was subcultured, it threw both colony types. In both initial and sub culture the ratio was 40:1 or so (as I recall) large:small. Large and small colonies were subjected to biochemical analysis and the profiles were identical, as were apparent growth rates and other aspects of colonial morphology. Personal observations: Colonial mutants deriving from pure yeast have been observed by others posting on HBD. I do not make any representation as to the meaning of this finding. However, I have seen this before in pure cultures from other sources. I believe this phenomenon is well covered in authoritative brewing publications, usually in the context of 'lager' yeast. Limitations of the study: This study was designed to detect levels of contamination which would affect other studies on-going in my laboratory at that time. There will be those who fault the study because the presence of, say, 10 bacteria per pack could not be detected. The limits of detection for this study can be - and I am sure will be - calculated, by those interested for whatever reason. Enjoy This study was based on 23 individual paks (+ 4 dry). Others studying other paks, from other lots, manufactured in a different time, of other yeasts for other reasons and their own agenda will have their own results, valid in the context of their experiments and to the limits of their expertise. I am working from personal desk notes that are over a year old and my memory. The bound lab ledgers are in archives and I do not plan to dig them out. Yeasts in my desk records were assigned accession numbers. Sorry I do not have a Wyeast number list handy. Let the nitpicking begin!!<grin> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:47:28 -0700 From: "J. Morgan" <j_morgan at bigfoot.com> Subject: 2 questions from a new guy. (Crossposted to beer at cuy.net & homebrew at hbd.org to get the benefit of the most possible answers. I'm just that kinda guy...) Hello, brewrus. Two quick ones: 1: My local brewshop owner advocates letting the krausen fall back through the wort during primary, rather than using the blowoff method, then using a secondary fermentation for clarification. Thoughts on the retention of krausen in the primary would be appreciated. 2: I've sent two email messages to brewposter at aol.com, the vendors of a poster described at www.consult.org/homebrew and have not received any response yet. I thought the poster might be a groovy thing to put up in the basement, any word on whether they're still in business, or any leads toward a similar product? Thanks in advance. - -- Jeff Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:51:43 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Cooper <ccooper at a2607cc.msr.hp.com> Subject: Mash-out and efficiency Greetings all! I thought I would throw in the following observation from my brewing log with respect to the mash-out discussion. I have never felt that a mash-out was really neccessary in my brewery as the wort would be immediately raised to the boil anyway. I mash in a 7-gal. Rubbermaid cooler with a dual SureScreen(tm) (the bussiness end of the EasyMasher(tm)) in the bottom. The following describes my normal procedure (single-step infusion and "batch sparging"). I mash-in with 1.25 qt of 168^F water per pound of grain. Once conversion has occurred I top-off the mash tun with 160^F water, stir the mash, allow it to settle, recirculate until clear and then drain into my converted keg cooker. I then fill the mash tun a second time with 160^F water and repeat the above process. While the second batch is draining I start the burner on the cooker and by the time it has drained I am usually up to a boil. I usually get around 28 points per pound of grain (varies from 26 to 30). Last weekend I brewed a combination pale ale/pilsner (10 gallons of 1.060 wort split onto two different yeasts, Wyeast #1056 and Pilsner) and increased the temp of my second "batch sparge" to 186^F (no this wasn't done for any scientific reason. I was just busy and my hot liquor tank got up to 186^F before I noticed it! So I decided to try a "mash-out"). The final mash bed temperature was around 176^F and to my surprise my yield was around 32 points per pound of grain (I intended to make a 1.054 wort and ended up with 1.060!). This isn't exactly science just an observation. I really am not that concerned with efficiency as adjusting the grain bill by a pound or two really doesn't bother me if it simplifies my overall procedure (ie. the "batch sparge") but I do take notes and calculate things like yield so that I might better understand what is going on in the brewery. I am still amazed that with relatively few ingredients and a little bit of time and effort one can be rewarded with BEER! (This was my 80th batch by the way). PS. The main reason for this batch was to test the starter preparation method suggestion I recieved from Wyeast's David Logsdon (posted in HBD #3269). My ale got off to a good start in under 8 hours at room temperature, and my pilsner was underway within 12 hours at 54^F. I'll report on a flavor comparison once both beers have finished. Chris Cooper, Pine Haven Brewing (aka. Debbi's Kitchen) Commerce, Michigan Member, Ann Arbor Brewer's Guild (Approximately 25 miles from 0.0 Renerian) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:04:42 -0500 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: genetic yeast engineering for foam retention The below was taken from the MSN website when I went to go use my hotmail account. Interesting... ULF STAHL and a team of scientists at the Technical University in Berlin have produced a brewer's yeast used in the fermentation process that is enhanced with an gene called LTP1 to produce a better froth, according to the magazine. "The basis of foaming in beer is the LTP1 gene," the weekly magazine quoted him as saying. The protein made by the gene forms bubbles of carbon dioxide when the barley is ground up and forced into water. More LTP1 produces more proteins, which in turn create a more stable froth. But amounts of LTP1 protein vary in the barley crops according to the weather. More LTP1 is produced in barley crops during dry summers than in wet ones. The genetically modified brewer's yeast secretes so much of the froth-making protein that the beer will produce the same amount of foam regardless of the quality of the barley. Stahl said German brewers had expressed interest in his work, but at the moment they do not think there is much of a market for the beer because of the German public's opposition to genetically modified food. (c) 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:33:29 -0600 From: "Jim Hodge" <jdhodge at worldnet.att.net> Subject: AHA-NHC First Round Judging In Chicago, May 12 & 13 The judging for the Great Lakes region of the AHA-NHC for 2000 is swiftly approaching. This year the judging will be held May 12 & 13 at Goose Island - Wrigleyville, 3535 N. Clark St., Chicago, IL. We need both judges and stewards for this popular annual event that is one of the largest single homebrew competitions outside the state of Texas. We have gained a state or two this year from which to receive entries so more than ever we need your support! Judges and stewards are requested to be at Goose Island - Wrigleyville at 6:30pm on Friday and 8:30am on Saturday. A Thursday night session may also be necessary at the discretion of the organizers. Please contact the Judge Coordinator - Jim Hodge - at jdhodge at worldnet.att.net or the Steward Coordinator - Ron Phillips - at rmphilli at uic.edu. Alternately, you can call or send us snail-mail at the Chicago Beer Society address at the end of this message. Remember that your commitment to judge/steward is necessary to insure that all entries are judged in a professional and timely manner so let us know that we can count on your participation! For further questions you can contact the Site Coordinator - Jeff Sparrow - at jeffrey.c.sparrow at monsanto.com. Chicago Beer Society PO Box 1057 La Grange Park, IL 60526 Phone: (847) 692-BEER FAX: (847) 429-1995 www.chibeer.org Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:36:12 -0800 From: Project One <project1 at pond.net> Subject: No Sparge Barleywine Well, this is actually more of a batch sparge. For true no sparge, you'd just do the first runoff & then boil. I generally do batch sparges w/ about a 65-68% efficiency (depends on type of malt, how it's crushed, etc.), so 60% may not be too far off. Hope this helps... ----------->Denny Conn Eugene OR At 12:33 AM 3/31/00 -0500, you wrote: >So to my question, Do I understand the process of No sparge correctly? That >is, you Dough in with the normal amount of liquor, mash as normal, and then >add all the 'sparge' water to hit the mashout temp. Recirculate and drain. > >Or have I missed the point completely? > >Is 60% efficiency a good guess / ball park figure for this process? > >Thanks for any help Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:04:32 -0800 From: "Brian Dixon." <briandixon at home.com> Subject: Re: No Sparge Barleywine [snip] > Mash for 2 Hours at 65C then add the sparge water to hit mashout, stir, and > leave for 15 minutes. Recirculate until clear and drain into the boiler. > Then boil to 20 litres with [snip] > >So to my question, Do I understand the process of No sparge correctly? That >is, you Dough in with the normal amount of liquor, mash as normal, and then >add all the 'sparge' water to hit the mashout temp. Recirculate and drain. > >Or have I missed the point completely? Yes, you understand the process. Just mash as always. When the mash is complete, then add enough hot water (right volume and temperature) to raise your mash temp to 74 C (165 F). The 15 minute rest denatures the enzymes. Then as it says, recirculate to clarify the wort, then let it slowly drain into your boil pot. This process is almost exactly what I do for big beers, except I heat on the flame to mash out. I let it take about 30 minutes to drain. Since I cannot mash around 30 lbs of grain at a single time, I actually do 2 mashes. The first is a "first runnings only", otherwise known as a no-sparge mash. The second is sparged just barely enough to get the correct pre-boil volume in my kettle (about 8 gallons in my case.) >Is 60% efficiency a good guess / ball park figure for this process? Let's see ... the last brew I did this way utilized 29 lbs of grain and I got a starting gravity of 1.125. This represents, according to my grain bill, about a 67% efficiency ... but remember that I sparge my second mash a bit. Even so, I'd guess that your 60% figure might be a bit low, but low is better than high. I'd brew it as instructed then adjust the amount of sucrose in your recipe a tad to get your 1.105 OG. Or just take it as it comes and don't worry about it. Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:44:11 From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net> Subject: Boiler as settling vessel? & April Fools page Before I commit a batch of ale to an experiment in trub removal, I'd like to know if anybody has already been down this road or has any thoughts/warnings on: 5 minutes before the end of the boil, put in immersion chiller and put on a tight lid/foam stopper on boiler, sub cool the wort to about 40 degF in the boiler, allow the break to settle for a couple of hours, rack into the primary via a manifold in the bottom, add O2, raise to 65 degF (about an hour) and pitch yeast. Details: all-grain, Wyeast Amer. Ale, Irish moss and whole hops will be used and boiler has a manifold on it's bottom. Private email is fine. TIA! Also, the april fools day beer page is up: http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/beerhold.htm Enjoy! c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net http://hbd.org/cdp/ http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:59:35 -0500 From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> Subject: Phil's Philler I would be remiss if I did not attempt to clear up a misunderstanding expressed by Stephen Ross ( orders at paddockwood.com) regarding Phil's Philler. It is not made of stainless steel. It is nickel plated lead free brass assembled with lead free solder. We have looked into stainless, but have came to the conclusion that it might satisfy the many homebrewers who have a strong fetish for stainless steel, but there are few who would be willing to pay the price we would have to charge for them. On another note. Phil himself has started to work here. He is now 19 and needs money enough that working for the old man is not quite beneath his exalted status. His truck threw a rod. I am pleased! Not about the truck, mind you. Dan Listermann Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:46:16 -0600 From: Mark Kellums <kellums at springnet1.com> Subject: Re: canning hops J. Doug Brown asks about canning hops. Since last fall I've been vacuum canning my hops in mason jars with the Tilia Foodsaver. I can get 8 oz in a half gallon jar, 4 oz in a quart jar, and a couple ounces in a pint jar. I then store the jars in my freezer. I also vacuum pack my specialty grains with the Foodsaver. A half gallon jar holds just over two pounds. I don't store these in the freezer. I don't have the room for that. They just go back into the boxes they came in. I got my Foodsaver at K's Merchandise Mart. It came with a couple rolls of bags, a stack of precut bags, and a jar sealer attachment. The manufacturer tells me the bags are oxygen barrier. With taxes it cost me about $170.00. Mark Kellums Decatur IL. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 04/01/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96