Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1057
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/01/18 00:28:58
HOMEBREW Digest #1057 Mon 18 January 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Homebrew supplies (Rick Michael)
re:decoction mashing (Jim Busch)
decoction mashing (Roy Styan)
skimming ("Knight,Jonathan G")
Sears coolers ("Daniel F McConnell")
Bottle filler info wanted (Joe Rolfe)
Re: arf's Incredible Knowledge (David Van Iderstine)
Re: enzymes in pale malt (Jeff Benjamin)
HSA not a problem if chilled? (Martin Wilde)
Simple (low-cost) Kegging system (Frank Jones)
Computer error (George J Fix)
Paul Edwards ("Rad Equipment")
Cleaning agents, Papazian (doug)
RE: HBD 1056 (James Dipalma)
zymurgy (Charlie Papazian/Boulder)
Re: Jack's floating coins (Dennis J. Templeton)
Bottle Filler (John Hartman)
re: Rikard's Red (R.) Cavasin" <cav@bnr.ca>
GIF Files and Labels (Mike Leclere)
Under Pressure... (Lou Casagrande)
Sparge Temperatures (George J Fix)
Dangers of a High-temp Sparge (korz)
Please help me convert mg/L to ppm (jim ogilvie)
Daytona Beach and Jacksonville FL (Scott Weintraub)
questions (Gary Cote)
Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 08:25:34 EST
From: Rick Michael <rmichael@sesky4102b.pl.osd.mil>
Subject: Homebrew supplies
I have just started homebrewing, and looking for any information on mailorder
suppliers, and monthly publications dedicated to homebrewing. Any information
would be appreciated.
My e-mail address is rmichael@sesky4102a.pl.osd.mil
Thank -- Rick
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 9:29:26 EST
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: re:decoction mashing
In the last digest:
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 09:43:53 PST
From: rstya@mda.ca (Roy Styan)
Subject: decoction mashing
<I have been experimenting with decoction mashes for the last 5 or 6 brews, and
<have been experiencing a common problem with each. The final gravities have
<all been very high, typically 1025. This seems to be independant of yeast
<strain (I've used several different ones, both lager and ale) and only somewhat
<dependent of mash temperature. With very low temps (64C - 65C) I have brought
<the gravity down to 1018, but this is not always the case.
I would suspect an inadequate rest time at around 64C for the saacharification
rest of the decoction prior to boiling the decoction. Maybe you are resting
at this temperature, it is hard to tell without more details. Possibly,
you need to rest for a longer period prior to the actual boiling of the
decoction. 1.018 would seem a bit high depending on style, but not out
of range. Certainly 1.025 is quite high. My weizen decoctions have been
ending around 1.013-1.017 but I am certain of the quality and quantity of
viable yeast at pitching time. I assume you are pitching a large healthy
starter? FGs of 1.012 are possible with decoctions but the rest temps can
be tricky to hit and maintain.
on another subject:
From: "Knight,Jonathan G" <KNIGHTJ@AC.GRIN.EDU>
Subject: skimming
<I've been following the discussion on skimming with interest. Tell me,
<someone, would this skimming at the beginning of the boil be recommended for
<extract brews as well? So far it has been discussed only in relation to all-
<grain procedures.
Not important since the extract manufacturer has already processed the wort
for you, including the hot break which will remove many of the particles
that would coat the hops if you were all grain brewing.
Best of luck,
and yet another point:
From: woessner@psych.purdue.edu (Leo Woessner)
<re coffee stouts
try using small amounts of Roasted barley and/or very small amounts of
black patent malt to increase the coffee notes.
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1993 10:03:10 -0500
From: "Daniel F McConnell" <Daniel.F.McConnell@med.umich.edu>
Subject: Sears coolers
Subject: Time:9:45 AM
OFFICE MEMO Sears coolers Date:1/15/93
Arthur Evans writes:
>The local Sears sells 5-gallon coolers,
but I suspect that's too small for making 5-gallons
batches. Can anyone who has this kind of mash tun
tell me 1) what size they have, 2) what size batches
they make (how much grain, how many gallons), and
3) where they scored the damn thing?
I used to brew in a 5 gal Gott Water cooler (K-Mart, about 25$). This was
capable of mashing 13 lb of malt in a single infusion (1 qt H2O/lb)- plenty for
a 5 gal all grain batch and even enough for the occasional 10 gal of low
gravity beer (milds). It works great-loosing less than 1C over a 60 min mash.
By draining the thin mash, heating and adding back you can hit a mash out temp
prior to sparging.
I now make 10-15 gal at a time and use a 10 gal Gott of the type that football
players like to dump on their coaches (sez Gatoraid on the side, but who
cares). This big boy can do step mashes, decoctions and single infusions. 25
lbs is as far as I have gone, but that's plenty for my taste.
DanMcC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:45:41 EST
From: Joe Rolfe <jdr@wang.com>
Subject: Bottle filler info wanted
hi all,
this is not yur average request for info - what i am looking for is 2 items:
1) anyone know of a company in New York under the name of
Prospero Equipment Company??????
2) that failing any one know of where i could aquire a multi spout
siphon bottle filler, similar to the one offered by the
Compleat Winemaker?
the specs i need to meet are:
good polished tank welds, sanitary
1.5" triclover inlet
floor standing
easily cleaned
some type of float valve or mechanism to set the liquid level in
the tank
able to fill 12 oz, 16 oz, 22 oz, 750ml bottles
multi spouts 6 or more (up to 12) - capacity of 12+ bottle/min
not going to cost more than a few grand
these type of contraptions are not counter pressure devices, are mainly used in
the wine/champagne industry....
any help???
joe rolfe
- --
joe rolfe
jdr@wang.com
508-967-5760
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:48:06 EST
From: orgasm!davevi@uunet.UU.NET (David Van Iderstine)
Subject: Re: arf's Incredible Knowledge
I posted:
>>I've had some experience with these things, which was not good. I made the
mistake of adding ice over the cold plate before I had beer running through
it. It seems that ice crystals formed *inside* the plate's tubes, with the
result being incredibly foamy beer at the tap that did not go away for
days (it was a looong party! :-).
Jack posted:
> I am not sure how or why ice crystals would form inside but they would
quickly go away when the warm beer hit them and they certainly are not the
reason for the foaming.
Well, Jack, I spent many hours talking with the owner of The Spirit Haus
in Amherst, Ma, who rented it to me, as well as others, who said that was
the cause. It ran foamy for three days. Now, I want to know, what makes YOU
so God Damned Smart, huh?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 9:31:47 MST
From: Jeff Benjamin <benji@hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: enzymes in pale malt
> <Also, make sure your later grain bills didn't include disproportionately
> <high percentages of specialty malts like Munich or crystal. If you
> <don't have enough pale malt, you won't get enough enzymatic activity to
> <get a full conversion. (Try the iodine test next time if you're not
> <sure -- a drop of iodine in a bit of mash liquid will turn purple/black
> <if there are still unconverted starches.
>
> In general, this is not true. Domestic malts will contain more enzyme
> potential than you could ever use. Even modern continental malts will
> have enough enzymes for just about any all malt beer. The use of Munich
> and crystal malts in just about any reasonable percentage will work fine.
Whoops, sorry if I mislead anybody. When I said "disporportionately
high percentages" I was thinking of ridiculous percentages, like
*replacing* your pale male with Munich. I'm sure someone out there has
tried it (no, not me :-).
> My complaint
> with the Phils system is that the tube from the false botom has to
> rise up out of the false bottom to then exit the bucket. This can lead
> to a problem with an air bubble forming inside the tube. I have seen
> extremely slow runoffs that I think are due to this design.
So back to lauter tuns. I lauter with a slotted copper manifold
system that drains via a ~24 inch standpipe connected to a siphon. I
don't know exactly how the Phils system works, but I imagine my setup
could have a similar problem. However, I almost always get >30
pts/lb/gal yield. Perhaps the siphoning pressure removes any air
bubbles that might get in the way.
On another note, Arthur Evans asks about picnic-cooler mash tuns. I
believe Gott manufactures 10-gallon (40 qt) liquid coolers, the kind you
see on the back of construction-company pickups. You can also use
rectangular food coolers, which I've seen in sizes up to 54 qts, though
you probably don't need anything larger than 28 qts. I mash in a 40 qt
stainless kettle, and my mashes usually amount to no more than 20 qts or
so for an eventual 5 to 6 gallon batch of beer.
Which brings us back to lautering. If you're moving to all-grain you
need a way to lauter. I've used both the Zapap double-bucket setup
and the slotted copper manifold setup, and the manifold wins hands
down both in speed, ease of use, and efficiency. Stuck sparges due
to grain bed compaction were common with my Zapap; I've had nary a one
with my manifold (even when making beers with >50% wheat).
Both lautering setups have been discussed many times in the digest, so
check back issues or email me if you want more info.
- --
Jeff Benjamin benji@hpfcla.fc.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
"Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium."
- T.S. Eliot
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 16:35:43 GMT
From: Martin Wilde <martin@gamma.intel.com>
Subject: HSA not a problem if chilled?
As a bunch of us were recently talking at a brewing club meeting the other
night, the topic swung to HSA (hot side aeration). I had mentioned the talk
which has been going on in HBD about this and how most people thought it was
a nasty thing. I then recalled pictures I had seen of Sierra Nevada
and English breweries using a hop back and watched some local brew pubs using
them also. Someone came up with a reason why these breweries products do not
have the nasty tastes associated with HSA.
Could it be after you dump the wort over the hops and then immediately chill
it to ~70 degrees the nasty phenols do not have time to develop?
thanks
Martin Wilde | So many beers...
martin@gamma.hf.intel.com | So little time...
uunet!intelhf!gamma!martin |
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:20:17 MST
From: frank@Solbourne.COM (Frank Jones)
Subject: Simple (low-cost) Kegging system
Greetings,
This is a long one, but useful I think...
I recently found a low-cost kegging system which I wanted to
share with the Digest. It is very new to the market; I found out
about it at our local brew club (The Unfermentables, Denver) when
the manufacturer came and gave us a short talk on their product.
(The manufacturer, QUOIN, is based in Golden, CO.) I was looking to
go to a kegging system, and this caught my attention. I purchased one
keg as a trial and filled it with Christmas Ale, which was consumed
(decimated?) at a party the weekend before Christmas. This past
weekend I filled it again, and if anything it was easier. All went
as advertised, and I am very pleased with its performance. Well
enough of that, but I wanted to establish that I *had* used this
system, not just heard about it.
I've delayed announcing this for two reasons: 1) I just changed
jobs, and now have a real Internet connection, and 2) I was about
to use the keg a second time, and wanted to wait until that was behind
me to see if anything else cropped up.
The Keg system is produced by Quoin (pronounced "coin") Systems
Inc., (address below). The bottle was developed by Coors Inc.
originally as a take home cheap returnable keg for their
distributors (e.g. like a party ball), but the system was abandoned
by them, I believe, because of the difficulity with the charging system.
Quoin Systems (consisting of former Coors employees) bought the
kegging system, and came up with their own charging system, which
is unique (and patented). The charging system is a pouch which
contains a (food grade) mild acid & sodium salts in a
multi-compartmented pouch. The acid is kept separate from the
salts by a pressure sensitive barrier, which is triggered once
the keg is pressurized (with a small hand pump). Once the pouch is
activated the chemicals mix, producing CO2, which makes the pouch
expand, filling the head space in the keg. The contents of the pouch
are totally isolated from the brew. The beer is primed as normal
with sugar/wort. The pouch is only to keep the brew under pressure,
about 15psi, and the head space filled. When the keg is empty, you
simply puncture the pouch, remove it and throw it away.
The Keg is made of brown PET plastic, with removable aluminum
clamp rings for the plastic valve system. These things were
designed for public use, so are of very stout construction. The keg
holds 10 liters total, but only about 8 liters (about half a 5 gal batch)
of brew with the required head space.
Quoin is marketing the keg to home brewers and micro-breweries.
They are a very small operation, but they tell me they are selling
quite a few, and are staying up with the demand. I understand that
the Breckenridge Brewery (a local Colorado Micro-brewery) has
purchased some for take-home/returnable customer use.
I'll try and head off some of the obvious questions:
_how much does it cost?_
$29.50 .. 8 liter Keg, valve assembly, horizonal stand with
carrying strap (neat design) & 2 pouches
$ 4.00 .. 2 plastic sleeves for standing the keg upright for
filling
$ 5.00 .. activation pump
$ 3.00 .. 1 pouch ($33.00 for 12 of them)
(normal startup requires the keg, pump, and stand $38.95,
additional kegs don't require the pump or stand)
$ 5.00 .. shipping per keg.
Colorado residents add 4.3% tax.
They accept Master Card & Visa or checks payable to QUOIN.
_what about contamination?_
The pouches are pre-sterilized, and are sealed in a second pouch.
The air that is introduced to activate the pouch, once the pouch is
in the keg, is just outside air; however it is bled off immediately
after activation, so shouldn't be much of a factor. The keg itself
is easily disassembled, with the mouth opening being about 2 1/2" in
diam, and is very easily cleaned. Since it is PET plastic, care
should be taken not to scour/scratch it. but it cleans up quickly
and easily.
_What is it called?_
The best part: "The Party Pig"(tm) :) When the keg is assembled with
valve, and is in the horizontal stand, it does indeed look like a
pig. the only things missing are ears, eyes & tail (aftermarket
options???).
Where to order?
Quoin Systems Inc.
401 Violet St.
Golden, CO 80401
phone (303) 279-8731
_Disclaimer?_
Yeah, I guess I should. I do not have *any* monetary affiliation
with Quoin Systems (damn it), other than being a customer.
Problems: A brew buddy of mine purchased one at the same time I did,
and had a problem assembling the valve/restrictor assembly which
ended up damaging the valve. After looking at it the problem
appeared to be that, when the two parts are pushed together the
valve was depressed (opened) in the process which pinched it
between the two parts. She replaced the entire assembly for $5 but
I think that the valve itself might have fixed it. If care is taken
when assembling the restrictor, e.g. pushing on the valve body itself,
this shouldn't re-occur.
If you have any questions that I can answer please feel free to
post either directly to me, or to the Digest, and I will answer all
that I can. Also since Quoin is a local call for me I would be
happy to forward any questions/queries to them that I don't feel
qualified to answer.
fj..
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin R. Jones National Technical Support Engineer
frank@Solbourn.COM <-Internet...snail-> Solbourne Computer Inc.
303.678.4769 1900 Pike Road
fax 303.772.3646 Longmont, CO 80501
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If we are not supposed to play with words...
then why do we have so many??
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 10:55:28 -0600
From: gjfix@utamat (George J Fix)
Subject: Computer error
During the week of 1/11-1/15, utamat, our local workstation, frequently
down so the operating system could be upgraded and additional memory installed.
To make a long story short, selected mail to gjfix@utamat.uta.edu was trashed
due to a failure to properly backup the system during these changes. I was
told that some of the lost mail was to me, and at least a couple had the term
"HSA" in the subject title. I would be grateful if anyone who sent e-mail
to this node and has not received a response could resend their message.
More generally, I would be grateful to anyone who requested but has not
received the original HSA article could do the same.
I believe it was either Steve Stroud or his wife who gave the following sage
advice. "One can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many backups". I
believe the same applies to CO2 tanks, but that is a another matter!
I hope everyone caught CP's post in HBD#1055 about Zymurgy. I believe these
folks are quite sincere about these matters. This would mean that the ball is
now in our court, and those interested should definitely respond.
George Fix
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 93 10:06:25 U
From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment@rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU>
Subject: Paul Edwards
Subject: Paul Edwards Time:10:01 AM Date:1/15/93
Paul; I am unable to successfully contact you via the address I have, please
send me some E-mail so I can try a reply, or correct my address.
Thanks, RW...
Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment@radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61)
UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 14:11:43 EDT
From: doug <doug@metabolism.bitstream.com>
Subject: Cleaning agents, Papazian
Sorry this is a bit late, but my mail was down for a day.
C. Papazians article struck me as somewhat odd in HBD #1055. I
agree with his general point that people who have problems with
Zymurgy should contact Zymurgy, of course that is NOT to say that
they that they shouldn't use this forum as well.... the point that
struck me as odd was that it sounded like nobody on the Zymurgy
staff was a regular reader of the HBD. If that's the case, they
certainly are missing many great ideas for articles...
Secondly, Scott the BadAssAstronomer was looking for a new
cleanser. I've been told by a local brewer that DRANO contains
something that is very similar to what is used to clean hop residue
out the industrial aging tanks. I've never tried it, but he
suggested a teaspoon in 5 gallons really cleans up nicely. I
suggest a lot of rinsing...
good luck
doug@bitstream.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 15:01:34 EST
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: HBD 1056
Hi All,
In HBD #1056, Roy Styan asks:
I have been experimenting with decoction mashes for the last 5 or 6 brews, and
have been experiencing a common problem with each. The final gravities have
all been very high, typically 1025. This seems to be independant of yeast
strain (I've used several different ones, both lager and ale) and only somewhat
dependent of mash temperature. With very low temps (64C - 65C) I have brought
the gravity down to 1018, but this is not always the case.
So what gives? Does docoction destroy more of the alpha enzymes than beta,
yielding full conversion, but with lots of dextrins? Is it possible to get
a low final gravity with decoction?
I've used decoction mashing extensively, generally for Bohemian pilsners
and German festbiers. I've also experimented with styles that do not
traditionally call for decoction mashing, such as pale ales. Both the
pilsners and the pale ales typically finish around 1.015. I'm also aware
that wheat beers are commonly brewed using decoction mashing, and can finish
as low as 1.010, though I've never done this. A few suggestions come to mind,
some of which you've already covered.
Yeast attenuation: Roy mentions trying several different yeast strains,
I assume they had different attenuation ratings. If so, then yeast
performance may be eliminated as a factor, and the discussion focused
on mashing procedures.
Water/grist ratio: a higher water to grist ratio will produce a thinner
mash, which favors the beta amylase enzyme. I use 1.3 - 1.5 qts/lb
(I can hear the gasps from the infusion mashing crowd), which also helps
reduce the darkening effect of decoction. This is very important in
preserving the pale, delicate color in a pilsner.
Conversion temperature: the lower end of the sugar rest temperature
range also favors the amylase enzyme. 65C is ~149F, still sounds a
little too high if you're after a thinner bodied beer. Quoting from
Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer":
"temperatures below 149F(65C), on the other hand, seriously limit
dextrin formation while favoring the formation of maltose by Beta
amylase. Because starch granules are not gelatinized or dispersed
below 149F, Beta amylase activity at lower temperatures serves only
to eliminate the dextrins formed in the decoction, without further
significant starch reduction."
Try a brief rest at 140F-145F, should result in a less dextrinous wort.
*************************************************************************
Also in HBD #1056, Al. Korz on sparge temperatures:
> The ususal argument against
>using sparge water over 170F is that additional tannins are extracted
>from the grain above this temperature. I agree that a too-hot
>sparge will make your beer a bit astringent (due to the increased
>tannins), but there's another reason for keeping the sparge water
>below 170F, and that is STARCH EXTRACTION.
Point well taken, I'd agree that water that is actually in contact with
the grain should never exceed 170F. My use of sparge water at ~190 is a
result of the characteristics of my own brewing equipment. As stated in a
previous post, I mount a collander atop the lauter tun as a means of
diffusing sparge water, minimizing disturbance of the grain bed. This
setup cools the water rapidly, as the temperature at the top of the grain
bed is 160-165. I believe this is the hottest point in the system, and
still maintain that this is the key data point. What difference does the
temperature of the sparge water make when it's not in contact with the
grain? Extraction of tannins and unconverted starch is not likely to occur
when the sparge water is sitting in a pot on the stove.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 93 12:15:40 EST
From: Charlie Papazian/Boulder <72210.2754@compuserve.com>
Subject: zymurgy
So far I've received about a dozen responses to my last posting. I'd like to
say that we really appreciate the time you all have taken to send them our way.
Thanks again
Fermently,
Charlie P.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 15:28:08 -0500
From: djt2@po.CWRU.Edu (Dennis J. Templeton)
Subject: Re: Jack's floating coins
Jack writes
>>>I didn't have a silver dollar handy this afternoon but I had no problem
>>>floating a Costa Rican 25 Centimos piece on a glass of the World's Greatest
>>>Beer.
>>Is that anyting like a wooden nickel??? :^)
> Who me? No, actually it is about the size of a quarter but is made of
> aluminum.
^^^^^^^^
!
After all the anti-aluminum histeria to emanate from this source, I can
only assume that he promptly deposited the tainted WGB in the nearest
potted plant! (pity the plant :=)]
dt
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 11:05:04 PST
From: hartman@varian.varian.com (John Hartman)
Subject: Bottle Filler
Allow me to suggest yet another counter pressure bottle filler. It's
simple, inexpensive, and effective. Call it John's Cheaper Filler.
To make this filler you will need the following:
Standard 3-piece plastic airlock $.95
No. 2 rubber stopper w/hole (beer bottle size) $.30
3/8" ID vinyl tubing, 9" in length $.30.
3/8" ID vinyl tubing, 2" in length $.05.
The total capital outlay for this little project is $1.60, leaving extra
fun money for the rest of the brewery. Use a saw of some sort (I used a
hack saw) to turn the 3-piece airlock into a 4-piece airlock. Cut the stem
of the airlock off at the top, where it meets the bleach water reservoir.
Keep the stem and discard the rest of the airlock. Slid the stopper over
the stem so that the stem protrudes from both the top and bottom of the
stopper. Attach the 9" length of tubing to the stem below the stopper.
Attach the 2" length of tubing to the stem above the stopper. You've done it.
You now have your very own bottle filler and you're ready to bottle.
To bottle a beer from your keg attach the 3/8" tube on the top of the stopper
to a plastic cobra/picnic tap coming from your keg. Insert the assembly
into the bottle. Place 20 PSI of pressure on the keg. You may need a different
keg pressure for your system, but I bet it'll be close to 20 PSI. Hold the
stopper down and open the tap. Beer will fill the bottle to about 1/4 full and
then the flow will stop as the pressure in the bottle reaches the keg pressure.
You should see some foam. Wait about 10 seconds and the foam will subside.
Now carefully loosen your grip on the stopper so that a little air escapes from
the bottle. The tap should still be open and as the air escapes beer will
gently fill the bottle with no additional foaming. As the beer appoaches the
neck slow down. There will be about 1" of foam. Loosen your grip again to
allow the foam to be displaced by beer. Be careful or you'll be wearing that
foam. If you do get foamed remember you're a homebrewer and you like this
kind of stuff. Once the foam is displaced you can close the tap and then
slowly remove the filler. If you pull it out too quickly the beer will foam
and you'll loose carbonanation. You can now cap the bottle.
One obvious draw back to this filler is that the beer will potentially be
oxidized by the air in the bottle when you start. For those concerned with
oxidation, a second filler could be attached to a second keg filled with CO2.
Just before a bottle is filled you could blast the bottle free of O2 and then
proceed as above. I haven't found this to be necessary, but I thought I'd
mention it as we never seem to stop talking about the evils of oxidation.
It works for me. Try it!
Cheers,
John
hartman@varian.varian.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 15:58:00 +0000
From: "Rick (R.) Cavasin" <cav@bnr.ca>
Subject: re: Rikard's Red
A few people have asked about Rikard's Red which is widely available
in Ontario. It is brewed by MOLSON'S, and IMHO is an attempt to prevent
the micro's grabbing too big a segment of the market. They try to
downplay who makes it in an attempt to cash in on the microbrewery
mystique. All this wouldn't be so bad except that the beer tastes
more or less like generic Molson's (Canadian, Export, etc.) with a
touch more flavour and body. It can't hold a candle to any of the
good micro-beers like Wellington, Conners, or Hart. This is a matter
of taste however, and some who like a more mainstream beer may appreciate
Rikard's. Labatt's attempted to do the same thing a while back. The
beer was called something like 'Duffys' and was particularly vile.
Haven't seen it in quite a while. I must confess to a certain bias
against such imitation micro-beers in that the big breweries have a lot
of leverage (who's kidding who, they have a government sanctioned
monopoly on beer sales and distribution and MAKE the rules)
that they already use to make life hard for the micro's.
Also, the whole thing smacks of dishonesty.
Is it any wonder that many beer lovers view Molson and Labatts as the
'great satans'?
Cheers,
Rick C.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 13:16:31 PST
From: Mike Leclere <msl@orca.rose.hp.com>
Subject: GIF Files and Labels
I recall seeing a blurb somewhere about beer logos or labels having been
scanned into GIF files. I think it was in the HBD, but I'm not sure.
I made a note of it at the time (around New Year's so the memory is vague
at best) with the promise to myself that when I had the time I'd go get
them to play with. Well, I've finally gotten around to it, but I can't find
the note I made as to where they are. I have tried to consult the
archives, but I have a feeling it is too recent to be listed there - at
least I can't seem to find it in the index. Does anyone remember the details
about this? If so I would appreciate e-mail on it, or just a repost to HBD
with an appropriate title line like "Where to find beer logo GIFs."
Mike (msl@hprnd.hp.com)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 16:39:59 EST
From: casagran@gdstech.grumman.com (Lou Casagrande)
Subject: Under Pressure...
Bruce writes:
>Lou in the same issue "accused" :) me of pressurizing my HDPE jugs.
Okay, okay, so the airline does the actual work, but the result is the
same. ;^) He says he has extrapolated from this ~1/2 atm vacuum to
determine if the jugs would withstand priming pressure. But how much
pressure is generated by priming? My assumption before reading his
posting was that there would not be too much. However, it seems that
this might not be correct: Assume 1 lb priming sugar, glucose
(C6H12O6), or 454.5 g at 180 g/mol gives us 2.53 mol. Now assume that
every glucose molecule gives us 2 ethanol and 2 CO2 (I'm not sure
about this): C6H12O6 --> 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. Now we have 5.05 mol CO2.
Using the perfect gas law (imperfect, yes, but sufficient for our
purposes), pV=nRT, rearranging gives p=nRT/V.
n=5.05 mol
R=0.0821 l atm/mol-K
T=298 K
V=4 l (I'm assuming you're using 5 gal of a 6 gal jug)
p=30.9 atm! Am I going bonkers, or is this a lot? Even if I'm off by a
factor of 2 somewhere, there is still 15 atm of pressure generated. Is
Bruce's extrapolation still good? Maybe. Is there anyone out there who
knows for sure? Bruce or Ulick? Your turn.
Hopping Along,
Lou Casagrande
Physical Inorganic Chemist by training
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 16:28:25 -0600
From: gjfix@utamat (George J Fix)
Subject: Sparge Temperatures
It is possible that the time honored temperature range 168-172F
for sparging seen in many books on home brewing are a carry over
from older commercial practice. I know from direct experience at
some regionals using older brewing practices (e.g., Straubs in
St. Marys, Pa. and Pittsburgh Brewing to cite two examples),
considerable effort was extended to achieve this temperature
range throughout the grain bed. The rational behind the procedure
was to terminate all enzyme activity in a predictable way. Both
breweries were sensitive to even small changes in the wort % fermentability
as well as to yield.
I use to do the same until a few years ago Mark Carpenter of Anchor
suggested an alternative. At Anchor, after conversion they raise the
mash to only 160F, and sparge with water at 168F. (Russ, please help
if my numbers are not current). I tried this and found that for most
beer styles the change was positive in terms of finished beer flavors.
In my system there was a drop in yield, but also less husk based material
was extracted. (Russ, does Anchor have any other reasons for using this
procedure?)
A very radical procedure that was discussed in the commercial literature,
was to lower the mash temperature to 32F-34F, hold for a definite period,
and then sparge with water at that temperature. After that the mash was
heated back up and boiled as usual. The authors claimed only small
reductions in yield, and at the same time a ten fold reduction in
anthocyanogen levels. This article appeared in a peer reviewed journal,
which means their results were likely checked with care. I have personally
tried the procedure for a 5 liter batch, and the results were consistent
with their findings. Having said that, let also say that I have zero interest
in trying it with a 50 liter batch for obvious reasons.
I now believe that the traditional numbers should not be seen as engraved in
stone. If a particular brewer finds a particular combination of temperatures
which consistently gives beers to their liking, then to quote a well known
personality from my neck of the woods, "end of story". ( Well, at least I didn't
use the phrase "you people" in this post.)
George Fix
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 16:34 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Dangers of a High-temp Sparge
I wrote:
> Darryl, what sparge temp is used for
> Pilsner Urquell?
Two brewers wrote to me suggesting that knowing the sparge temperature
used to make Pilsner Urquell would probably not be as useful as I had
initially theorized. For example, Spencer wrote:
>Is this a relevant question? PU is heavily decoction mashed, so it
>seems to me that the sparge conditions wouldn't yield the same result
>as when applied to our typical infusion mash.
My initial response to both was something like this:
> Well, yes -- I feel we can learn and adapt from every source.
> After you dump your mash into the lauter tun, does it really
> matter which method of mashing was used to convert the grains?
And then I thought (in my reply to Spencer):
> Hmmm... then again, decoction mashed grains will have much less
> unconverted and trapped starch than infusion mashed, so they
> could probably get away with a hotter sparge than us infusion
> mashers. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps my earlier argument
> is the key to the demise of my PU comparison. In any event,
> maybe it will start some new discussions.
In Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer," he says that the primary advantage of
decoction mashing (and the reason that it yields slightly higher
extract efficiencies) is because as the during the decoctions, the heat
causes the starch grains burst and become available to be converted. This
was the basis for my contention that too-high a sparge temperature could
cause unconverted starch to be sparged out of the grains. Miller advises
against high-temp sparges also (for the same reason, I believe) in his
"Continental Pilsener" book from the AHA Classic Style Series.
That I asked Darryl if he knew the sparge temp for PU was a
mistake, since as Spencer (and the other person (sorry)) noted, the
fact that PU is decoction mashed means that its mash's grains have much
less unconverted (and unavailable) starch than our typical single- or
step-infusion mashes. Therefore, knowing their sparge temperature would
not be as useful as I had initially anticipated (not that I'm not still
interested).
Bottom line, the point I was trying to make was, that I feel that the
best way to lauter is to:
1. take the mash that you have raised to 170F during mashout,
2. put it in an insulated lauter tun,
3. sparge with 170F water (acidified if necessary), and
4. if your runoff is too cold (heck, I don't know, say, below 140F), then
insulate your tun better, rather than raising your sparge water temperature.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
Comments?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Fri Jan 15 17:34:05 1993
From: ogilvie@ficc.ferranti.com (jim ogilvie)
Subject: Please help me convert mg/L to ppm
I recently reqested and recevied a report from my water suplier
listing all the junk in my tap water. Now I could use a little
help interpreting what they sent me. What I expected was a
breakdown of how much junk in parts-per-million is in the water;
what I got was how much junk in MG/L is in there. Assuming
MG/L means milligrams-per-Liter (bad assumption?), can I read
that as being pretty close to parts-per-million? Since a liter
of tap water has a mass really close to 1kg, can I say that
1 mg/L is 1mg/kg here? mg/kg looks a lot like parts-per-million,
if the ratio is a mass-of-junk to mass-of-water ratio. Does
"ppm" mean normally mean "mass-of-one-part-junk to
mass-of-one-million-parts-water?
The person that sent me the report couldn't help me convert
MG/L to ppm.
Any help is appreciated.
Jim (ogilvie@ferranti.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 9:43:40 EST
From: sfw@trionix.com (Scott Weintraub)
Subject: Daytona Beach and Jacksonville FL
Im off to the land of spring break...any chance of real beer there (or in
nearby Jacksonville?
- --Scott Weintraub
TRIONIX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Scott Weintraub | TRIONIX Research Laboratory, Inc. |
| Software Engineer | 8037 Bavaria Road |
| | Twinsburg, OH 44087 |
| e-mail: sfw@trionix.com | Voice: 1-216-425-9055 Fax: 1-216-425-9059 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 11:51:41
From: Gary.Cote@leotech.MV.COM (Gary Cote)
Subject: questions
I am looking for three receipes for brews.
One is for "Taddy porter"
The second is for a "New castle brown ale" and third is
for a "corona" (not for me).
All are for extract brews.
Also is there any problems with the way that I cool my wort?
Here it goes..
I put 3.5 gollons water into a plastic fermanter and put it in my
large
chast freezer, Yes I cover and seal it tight.
I boil the wort then strain it into the 33 degree water.
It brings the temp down to around 65 degrees. then pitch the yeast
Also is there any problems with using those 5 gal. slightly tinted
water
bottles thet spring water comes in as a secondary?
Thanks Gary Cote gcote@leotech.mv.com
- --
Gary Cote
gcote@leotech.mv.com
* Origin: Leo Technology (603)432-2517/432-0922 (HST/V32)
(1:132/189)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1057, 01/18/93
*************************************
-------
