Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1218
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/09/03 00:32:32
HOMEBREW Digest #1218 Fri 03 September 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
fermentation temp monitoring/cold room/bandwidth (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com))
trub, acid 'washing' etc (ROB THOMAS)
Trub, trueb (Patrick Casey)
Re: Rootbeer question--how can I sweeten it up? (Jim Grady)
Beer ball keg... (Corby Bacco)
Clarity/CO2 activity in a dry-hopped beer ("Robert H. Reed")
Secondary Fermentation (Domenick Venezia)
GABF DD, etc. (npyle)
Kegging FAQ (Dion Hollenbeck)
Liberty Brewing Company (Daniel Roman)
Homebrew Digest #1217 (September 02, 1993) (JZABDER)
Yeast FAQs, Bandwidth, et caet (Richard Childers)
Gas and Jack (not all at once!) (Jeff Frane)
FAQs (Alan Edwards)
Overcarbonation (Jack Schmidling)
lagers/peaches/keg pressure/dry rootbeer/hazy beer/Briess/chill haze (korz)
Peach beer, Brew-Caps, and trub (Nate Clark)
Scotch in Barrells (r.mcglew3)
Wyeat 2112 California (Dave Smucker)
A miscellany of things... (Paul dArmond)
Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 04:32:40 CDT
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com))
Subject: fermentation temp monitoring/cold room/bandwidth
>From hinz Thu Sep 2 04:24:25 1993
To: homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Subject: fermentation temp monitoring/cold room/bandwidth
Content-Length: 1672
Al K. brings up a good point about keeping an eye on the temperature of
your beer as it ferments. It's easy to brew someone's recipe, use the same
grains, and then come up with something totally different from what they did,
just because your fermentation temperature was different.
What I did is bought some temperature-sensitive LCD type thingies ('thingies'
is a technical term) that I stick to the side of my carboys, and this tells
me what the temp of the glass, and therefore the beer, is. It is more
accurate than air temp for all the reasons stated (concrete or wood floor, air
circulation, etc. etc. etc.). There are so many variables involved, it just
makes sense to monitor the actual product, rather than trying to predict the
temp from other factors.
I think Sheaf & Vine brewing supplies (They're on the net, great service &
prices, I don't work there, etc. etc. etc.) have these, they're a couple of
bucks a piece.
- -----------
I'm in the process of building "the cave", an insulated room in the bottom of
my barn. Last winter, as an experiment, I put a bucket of water in that `
corner, and it only froze during the coldest week of last winter (below zero
for a week).
I haven't quite figured out how to regulate the temp, but it'll probably be
a temp probe stuck into a carboy full of water or something - that way I get
the most accurate reading, and can run either the A/C or heater from there.
Hopefully, it won't need much of either.
- -----------
About the bandwidth thing & the yeast FAQ. Yes, the FAQ is fantastic. I do
agree with the point, however, that it would have been easier on the bandwidth
to have posted one part per day.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 13:20:22 MET DST
From: ROB THOMAS <THOMASR@EZRZ1.vmsmail.ethz.ch>
Subject: trub, acid 'washing' etc
Hello all,
I'd just like to add my two cents worth here:
Firstly, the pronunciation of trueb for us anglosaxons. The
nearest sound to the ue in trueb is trying to say treeb while
keeping your lips in an o shape. At least if you speak nearly
Queens English: I have no idea what happens if you start with
a Bronx accent!
If anyone has comments or flames about the above, could they
be constructive about them, AND email me privately. I'll
summarise if it's worth it.
On another matter, although it's a bit late for the yeast FAQ,
(which I also found excellent IMHO) I read in the handbook of
microbiology we have in our library that the predominant
method of "acid washing" yeast is not washing as such.
What they do is suspend the yeast in aqueous acid (sulphuric,
phosphoric or tartaric) at pH 2-2.6, 5-10 degC for 2-4 hours
and then add the WHOLE LOT to the wort. They say that the
limits of temperature and time must be strictly adhered to,
since some yeast deactivation occurs under these conditions.
As a reference point, the Aldrich chemicals catalogue says
that a 1 mol/dm3 aqueous solution of tartaric acid has a pH
of 1-2 at 20degC. (for Aldrich above read Fluka). This
acid is usually available as a powder in wine making shops.
A 1 molar solution is 150 g/l.
Finally, could everyone who wishes to flame people do so
directly to the person in question. If bandwidth is being
abused by posting informative but huge articles, them it is
certainly being abused by people publicly flaming the poster,
and also people publicly flaming the public flamer: especially
if they have nothing else to say. (OK, so my glass house is
falling around my ears!)
That'll do.
Happy brewing,
Rob. T.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 08:24:16 EDT
From: pacasey@lexmark.com (Patrick Casey)
Subject: Trub, trueb
ari.jarmala@mpoli.fi (Ari Jarmala) writes:
The correct pronounciation is impossible for an english speaking
person, because in English there is no such vovel as ue. Ue is a
front vovel and it resembles e, but e is a back vovel. Start the
training...
So you're saying that an English speaking person can _NEVER_ learn to
pronounce the German ue sound?!? I beg to differ.
- Patrick
Patrick A. Casey pacasey@lexmark.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 9:22:12 EDT
From: Jim Grady <grady@hpangrt.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Rootbeer question--how can I sweeten it up?
Lactose is not fermentable but does not add as much sweetness/lb as
sucrose which can make it a fairly expensive alternative. The last time
I made root beer, I bottled it in old plastic soda bottles (2 l. PET).
I bottled immediately after pitching the yeast and put the bottles in
the fridge after a week or so. Anyhow, we don't drink root beer that
quickly and it did get to be pretty dry, openning a bottle would send a
geyser of foam all over the sink but no bottles burst! I have had
problems with glass bottles bursting when making root beer.
- --
Jim Grady |"Root beer burps don't have to be said 'Excuse me'."
grady@hp-mpg.an.hp.com | Robert Grady, age 4.75
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 07:58:06 MDT
From: bacco@md.fsl.noaa.gov (Corby Bacco)
Subject: Beer ball keg...
Hello all,
I remember some time ago someone posting something
about a kegging system (comercially avialable) made from
Coors beers balls. One that didn't use CO2, but instead
used some sort of bladder inside the ball. If anyone saved
the post (or the original poster is still out there) if
you could send the info it would be much appreciated.
TIA,
Corby
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 10:14:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Robert H. Reed" <rhreed@icdc.delcoelect.com>
Subject: Clarity/CO2 activity in a dry-hopped beer
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 11:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Subject: Secondary Fermentation
> I've had 4.5 gallons of beer in the secondary (glass) for 7 days
> with 2 oz of hop pellets and 2 tbsp Polyclar in hot water.
>
> Although fermentation had ceased (no bubbles in >= 5min) in the
> primary, the secondary began producing bubbles almost immediately
> at the rate of 4/min (after 7 days 2/min). I've heard Polyclar
> liberates dissolved CO2 (is this true?), so is what I am seeing just
> that?
>
> Some of the hops are floating, some laying on the bottom, but there
> is a recycling going on, where hops are sinking from the top and rising
> from the bottom continuously. We're not talking churning here, but an
> obvious low level of activity.
>
> Also the beer does not seem to be clearing appreciably. Usually by this
> time there has been a clarity gradient in the carboy, clearest at top
> fading to cloudier at the bottom. Has something gone horribly wrong? Or
> I am just "worriedly pacing the waiting room"?
>
> I had planned on a 7 day dry hop, but I expected clear beer too. How
> long shoud I wait for clarity, and how long can I dry hop?
>
>
> Domenick Venezia
> ZymoGenetics, Inc.
> venezia@zgi.com
>
In response to Domenick's question regarding the use of Polyclar in a
dry-hopped beer:
Adding Polyclar will liberate fairly large quantities of CO2. If the beer
was fermented at cooler temperatures, there will be more CO2 in solution and
you will experience more foaming. Keep in mind that Polyclar is an adsorbant
that primarily attacks tannins. The clarity problem you mentioned may due to
proteins or yeast in suspension. Bentonite or silica gel work well for
precipitating proteins. Isinglass finings should be used to precipitate
yeast, although time and patience will also work.
My experience with using pellets to dry hop beer is that some clarity will
be sacrificed and invariably, some of the fine hop powder is carried to the
bottle or keg unless filtration is employed.
This does not occur when dry hopping with flower hops; however, some hop
lupulin glands may survive the journey to your bottle or keg.
Rob Reed
Delco Electronics Corp.
rhreed@icdc.delcoelect.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 9:13:41 MDT
From: npyle@n33.stortek.com
Subject: GABF DD, etc.
I wanted to clear up some misinformation that is floating around netland about
the Great American Beer Festival. I've just talked to Marsha Shermer of The
Shermer Group (don't know if the spelling is correct) who is involved in
marketing the GABF. She can be reached at (303) 499-9646, which was listed as
Lori Tullberg's number on rec.crafts.brewing. Lori markets for the Association
of Brewer's and that is not her number (it's Marsha's). Anyway, the AAB
contracts out a lot of the work to independent companies such as Marsha's.
Now, what I originally was looking for: Designated Driver information. Marsha
told me that there is a DD option, sold only at the door. The cost is $8 for a
DD (pretty steep IMHO for someone to walk around a bunch of drunks and then
drive some of them home!). I believe the cost for Designated Drinkers is
$18.50 or so. Oh, one more piece of misinformation to correct: The GABF is at
Currigan Hall, 14th and Champa in Denver. r.c.b had it in the Colorado
Convention Center. Parking downtown is free after 6 pm. See you at the Fest!
- --
Norm Pyle, Staff Engineer, Head Brewer,
Storage Technology Corporation Pyledriver Brewery, A Non-Profit Organization
2270 South 88th Street 1045 Pale Ale Place
Louisville, CO 80028-0211 Longmont, CO 80503-2323
(303) 673-8884 npyle@n33.stortek.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 08:22:26 PDT
From: megatek!hollen@uunet.UU.NET (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: Kegging FAQ
I have become fairly proficient in the use of soda kegs for
fermenting, conditioning and dispensing beer. In the process, I have
acquired quite a lot of info on the subject. Also, I have noticed
that both in r.c.b. and HBD, quite a few people have been asking a lot
of kegging questions recently. While I am not an *expert* on the
subject, I have a lot of info, and would be willing to be a collection
point for other info and to publish a FAQ on kegging.
Do people think this is a worthwhile topic for a FAQ? If the
consensus says "yes", then I will later solicit for people to send me
info, post the FAQ and upload it to sierra.
dion
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 13:07:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: roman@tix.timeplex.com (Daniel Roman)
Subject: Liberty Brewing Company
I'm not sure how many of you got a mailing offering investment
opportunities for the Libery Brewing Company which is to be located in
Hoboken, NJ, but I got one and I suspect it was because of my
AHA membership and possibly geographic location (near Hoboken). A few
friends who'd love to open a brewpub figured this would be an
interesting alternative. They've called the phone number a few times
and left messages on an answering machine asking for information and
have not received any response. Does anyone know anything about the
legitimacy of this startup? The brochure is filled with grand plans and
descriptions of how successful the brewpub concept is.
If anyone wants further details or has information please mail me
direct.
- --
Dan Roman Internet: roman@tix.timeplex.com (prefered address) //
ccMail: roman_d@timeplex.com GEnie: D.ROMAN1@genie.geis.com \X/ Only AMIGA!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 09:25:57 PDT
From: JZABDER@BCSC02.GOV.BC.CA
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1217 (September 02, 1993)
To: HOMEBREW--INTERNET homebrew@hpfcmi.fc
*** Reply to note of 09/02/93 04:34
System Operations
Thanks for all the information and insight into homebrewing. Would you please
for now remove me from the distribution list as I will be away for some time
and my "A" disk is only so big.
Thanks again
G'day
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 09:17:05 -0700
From: pascal@netcom.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Yeast FAQs, Bandwidth, et caet
"Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 21:08:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dave Smucker <TWF99@ISUVAX.IASTATE.EDU>
Subject: BACK OFF JACK
"While it would have been nicer to post the FAQ on yeast over 2
or 3 days and maybe during mid week when the HBD has been
running light lets not lose sight of the fact that this yeast
information has been some of the best data posted to the
digest."
Nobody is disparaging the quality of the FAQ. Jack said as much.
But the sucker's huge - eight parts !! - and has been posted and
reposted.
Perhaps instead of accruing every single posting on the topic of
yeasts and calling it a FAQ, one might attempt first to identify
what, exactly, are the Frequently Asked Questions with respect to
yeast ... and then address, exclusively, that smaller set of
concerns.
As it stands now, the Yeast FAQ came across as a book, not a FAQ.
"It was a lot of work to compile this information and
it is very useful to many of us. This data on yeast, IMHO,
made better use of this forum that your misinformation on
wort aeration. You don't own this forum, none of us do, and it
is hopefully for the reasonable use of and by all of us. Brew
more Blast less."
Ahh, ahh ... no personal attacks, please. Jack's intelligent and
reasonably well-informed ( from a layperson's point of view )
speculations hardly qualify as "misinformation".
"Dave Smucker, Brewing Beer, Not making Jelly!!"
- -- richard
Spontaneous human combustion really burns me up.
richard childers pascal@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 10:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Gas and Jack (not all at once!)
> From: Cisco <FRANCISCO@osmo.ccit.arizona.edu>
> Subject: Kegs becoming overcarbonated with time
>
> I have posted a few articles on calculating dispensing pressure with
> different diameter/length tubing. If you drink 5 gallons of homebrew
> within 2 weeks everything works fine. However, if you only drink a
> pint of beer a day, like I do, your beer will eventually become
> overcarbonated because the nice cold temperature at which you dispense
> the beer also allows the beer to absorb more CO2 over time.
>
> The solution to this problem is to get your CO2 cylinder filled with
> Nitrogen/CO2 (30% / 70%) mixture.
An alternative solution, which is a teeny bit easier: TURN OFF THE GAS!
Over the last few months I've followed all this concern about tubing
lengths and dispensing pressures et al with an increasing amount of
amusement. According to all this data, my system doesn't work - but
then it's easy to prove a bumblebee can't fly either.
So when the CO2 level is correct, turn off the gas. When it begins to
fall off, give it a nudge with a little more gas and turn it off again.
The beer will not overcarbonate and your gas cylinder will probably last
longer. And you can go back to worrying over whether your beer is any
good, or whether you should have left out the cherry bark in your last
pseudo-lambic.
> From: Dave Smucker <TWF99@ISUVAX.IASTATE.EDU>
> Subject: BACK OFF JACK
>
> RE: Jack's BLAST on FAQ yeast
>
Sorry, I'm with Jack, although I seem to recall being blasted by him a
year or so ago when I suggested something he'd done (an offer for a free
MaltMill) had ruined the day-to-day utility of the HBD. Or maybe that
was a different Jack Schmidling?
I think that great big files -- even really interesting and useful ones,
are better off being summarized and then made available through FTP and
some other source, then posted directly to the Digest.
<<Omigod, is Frane agreeing with Schmidling? Head for the shelters!!>>
- --Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 13:15:47 PDT
From: rush@xanadu.llnl.gov (Alan Edwards)
Subject: FAQs
Jack Schmidling writes (in HBD #1216):
| As no one else seems to want to, I will take it upon myself to speak out on
| net protocol.
|
| The yeast FAQ is a noble effort but I think some self-restraint is in order
| regarding eating up big chunks of the Digest.
Are you an expert on net protocol? How many newsgroups/digests have you
read where FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions) are discouraged? In all
the ones I've read, they are encouraged--and for the very reason you give
to the contrary: space. In the long run, it saves space if there's a
definitive place to look for info a given subject. It saves repeated
questions; and it saves repeated answers, especially if the FAQ ends up
in an archive somewhere. Then, if someone has a question about yeast,
someone else would just send him email saying "Here's how to download
the yeast FAQ".
If it takes a couple of passes to get the information corrected, then so
be it--it is only a one-time deal. Once the FAQ is complete, it needn't
be posted again; or it could be reposted at long intervals.
| I am not about to criticize anyone for what they post or how often
I am. What do you think you just did?
I think FAQs are a MUCH better use of space than, say, someone defending
EVERY SINGLE position he's ever taken (right or wrong) with long, drawn
out, and often-repeated arguments.
| but one must keep in mind the fact that what makes the Digest most
| useful is its near real-time currency. Getting an answer to a question
| the very next day is a powerful reason for participating. When the
| Digest is flooded with very long articles that could be just as easily
| serialized, the currency is lost.
I, for one, can handle a delay in even a whole day's digest, if it means
I get a very good source of information such as the yeast FAQ. Take it
easy--it's only a one-time deal (OK two, if you want to be picky and
count the corrected version).
If you look at the dates (and I did), the yeast FAQ only delayed response
by ONE day. There were articles that were sent on Friday 8-13 that
would've been published in the following Monday's digest (the one with
the FAQ in it), but were delayed until Tuesday. Big deal.
| I would like to suggest that users voluntarily limit articles to 200
| lines in any given day. That is after all about 20% of a typical Digest
| and would still allow significant participation by others. That thousand
| liner the other day was just a bit much and I suspect more are on the
| way.
What if your article needs more than 200 lines to be complete? I don't
know about you, but I hate to see "(to be continued)" when something
interesting is happening. The continuity is lost; the interest is lost;
the argument is less effective.
I agree that fast turnaround IS an issue, but the problem is not caused
by one guy posting a large FAQ; and it didn't just start recently. The
problem is the limit on the digest. How many of us have experienced long
delays between the time you post and the time you see your article
published? And then you have to wait for the replies to make it to the
digest. Last time I posted, a couple of months ago, the publishing delay
was at about two days. When the delay is just two days, the time until
you see a reply is probably six days, because the odds are that there
will be a weekend in there somewhere. It looks like the queue must be
small lately; but it does happen sometimes.
Instead of limiting articles even further, I would suggest allowing each
digest to be larger, or not limiting traffic at all. That way, you WOULD
see your article in the next digest--regardless. After all, everything
we submit eventually gets posted when the queue catches up; so the total
traffic would be the same, but not delayed. We may have large digests
one day and small ones the next--that's fine with me. If there were a
large article posted that you'ld rather ignore, just skip it and go on
to the next one.
If the current limitation is in place because some mailers may choke on
large files (I suspect it is), and if this is a REAL problem and not just
a superstitious holdover from earlier computing days, then I suggest that
the digest be published TWICE a day, for an even faster turnaround.
Actually, I have suggested it to the moderator, but he has a lot of other
things to do (I fully understand). But maybe if several of us make the
suggestion, he would deem it more important.
| It is also obvious that much of the cleaning up of the FAQ could be done by
| email now that the experts have been identified.
I would suggest that only changes be published until it is finished.
Then post the whole, corrected FAQ.
FAQs are the ULTIMATE in signal to noise ratio.
MORE FAQS, WE NEED MORE FAQS! Post away!
-Alan
.------------------------------------.
| Alan Edwards: rush@xanadu.llnl.gov | Huh huh...beer is cool!
| or: Alan-Edwards@llnl.gov | Yeah...hm hm...it doesn't suck.
`------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:38 CDT
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Overcarbonation
>From: Cisco <FRANCISCO@osmo.ccit.arizona.edu>
>Subject: Kegs becoming overcarbonated with time
>if you only drink a pint of beer a day, like I do, your beer will eventually
become overcarbonated because the nice cold temperature at which you dispense
the beer also allows the beer to absorb more CO2 over time. My kegs, I
have two on tap all the time, sit for 4 to 6 weeks and could absorb
quite a bit of CO2. No amount of adjusting CO2 pressure will correct
this to pour properly.
AMEN!
I just posted my frustration on r.c.b. about the problems I am having with my
10 gallon keg which lasts (surprise-surprise) twice as long as the 5 gallon
kegs. I even went down to a 1/8" i.d. tubing which barely trickeled at 12
psi and only three feet long. I concluded that the beer is overcarbonated
and nothing aside from adding a couple gallons of new, unconditioned beer
would allow it to dispense properly.
I have run two 10 gallons batches through this keg and both of them became
impossible to dispense after they got down to the last 3 or 4 gallons.
After reading your article, I replaced the hoses with the original 1/4" i.d.
stuff and reduced the pressure. However, this has problems also because the
seals on Cornelius kegs become unreliable below 10 psi.
I abandoned the nitrogen/CO2 mix because it didn't seem to contribute
anything to the beer and it's real value seemed only useful in high volume
commercial operations but my experience with 10 gallon kegs is forcing me to
rethink it.
The problem with the mix is that you can not force carbonate with it so one
needs to maintain two tanks, one for carbonating and one for dispensing.
This is not the end of the world but is an additional expense and hassle.
Just for the record, I actually ran three batches through the ten gallon keg
and had no problem with the first one but it was an ale and kept at basement
temp. The problem started with the advent of my "lagering room".
I should also point out that I had the problem with a five gallon keg but
thought that I might have overcarbonated it initially. Furthermore, I have
had a keg of sweet stout for months in the "lagering room" and it still
serves properly.
js
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:51 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: lagers/peaches/keg pressure/dry rootbeer/hazy beer/Briess/chill haze
Michael writes:
>I'm currently brewing a lager that has an OG of 1.055. I pitched Wyeast
>#2112 Calofornia liquid lager yeast without making a starter so fermentation
<snip>
>the members of the HBD could answer a couple of questions. Is 11 days too
>long (I'm used to ales finishing in 5 to 7 days), if not, what is normal?
>When should I rack to the secondary and begin lagering?
No, 11 days is not too long. I fermented my last lager two weeks in the
primary at 50F and then racked to a secondary. Two weeks after that, the
temp was then dropped to 45F and the beer was bottled 4 or 5 weeks later
(don't have my notes here). It did take 4 months after bottling for an
off aroma to disppear, but after it did, the beer won a couple of awards.
**********************
Patrick writes:
6) Lambic brewers bake the hops first, would this help here?
Lambiek-style homebrewers bake their hops to artificially age the bitterness
out of them. Real Lambiek brewers use aged hops (2-3 years old).
7) I have seen no reference to a peach beer before, does everyone else
know something that I don't?
Brian and Linda North brewed a spectacular wheat beer with peaches. Alas,
I don't have any details on it.
I would just like to suggest that in general, if you sanitize fruit before
you cut it up, you save yourself a lot of trouble. I theorize that any
wild yeast or bacteria will only be on the OUTSIDE of unblemished fruit.
That's why I choose unblemished fruit (as best I can) and sanitize by
freezing and then blanching (quick dip in near-boiling water).
**************************
Cisco writes:
>I have posted a few articles on calculating dispensing pressure with
>different diameter/length tubing. If you drink 5 gallons of homebrew
>within 2 weeks everything works fine. However, if you only drink a
>pint of beer a day, like I do, your beer will eventually become
>overcarbonated because the nice cold temperature at which you dispense
>the beer also allows the beer to absorb more CO2 over time. My kegs, I
>have two on tap all the time, sit for 4 to 6 weeks and could absorb
>quite a bit of CO2. No amount of adjusting CO2 pressure will correct
>this to pour properly. You could disconnect the CO2 and bleed off
>some of it from the kegs and dispense but it's a real pain bleeding
>off dissolved CO2 - it takes time and patience.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree. If you do the math first and then
choose your hose lengths/widths accordingly, you will not have overcarbonation.
You just must first choose the temperature and the number of volumes you
want in the beer and then choose the pressure, hose lengths, hose diameters
based on the formulas give in HBD back issues and in Dave Millers' very
good article in the 1992 AHA National Conference Proceedings. If your
beer is overcarbonating, the pressure is too high or (as Jack pointed out)
the temperature may be higher than you think.
********************
Jeff asks how to safely sweeten dry rootbeer.
Well, an obvious answer is Lactose, but there are two things you must be
careful of:
1. Lactose may not be fermentable by yeast, but I'm quite sure it's
fermentable by lactobacillus/pediococcus. So, if you have any bacteria
in your batch (which you may have considering how dry the rootbeer turned
out) you will get glass grenades by adding lactose.
2. Lactose is not very sweet. To get the sweetness of a store-bought
rootbeer, you will probably have to add at least a pound, maybe two,
of lactose to 5 gallons of rootbeer.
**************************
Domenick writes:
>I've had 4.5 gallons of beer in the secondary (glass) for 7 days
>with 2 oz of hop pellets and 2 tbsp Polyclar in hot water.
<snip>
>Some of the hops are floating, some laying on the bottom, but there
>is a recycling going on, where hops are sinking from the top and rising
>from the bottom continuously. We're not talking churning here, but an
>obvious low level of activity.
This is why I use whole hops for dryhopping.
>Also the beer does not seem to be clearing appreciably. Usually by this
>time there has been a clarity gradient in the carboy, clearest at top
>fading to cloudier at the bottom. Has something gone horribly wrong? Or
>I am just "worriedly pacing the waiting room"?
Possible reasons for cloudiness:
1. bacterial infection
2. wild yeast that won't flocculate
3. starch haze
4. could be that the backpressure in the airlock was too high and too
much CO2 was dissolved in the beer -- when you added the hops and Polyclar(tm),
you gave the CO2 nucleation sites and it began to come out of solution
(this is probably the least likely, since I couldn't imagine this happening
for 7 days, or could it?)
**********************************
Scott writes (asking about Briess malt):
>1) Does the 2-row or 6-row need a protein rest? I'm told the 6-row doesn't.
> when I bought the 6-row the guy told me it's highly modified.
Briess is quite a bit higher than most malts in Protein level, I, personally,
would give it a protein rest.
>2) Is the 6-row also known as Klages? is the 2-row?
> I've had different homebrew shop owners tell me "it's pale malt" or
> "it's klages"...I'm confused.
Klages is no longer grown in the US. It's replacement is Harrington. Briess
2-row is Harrington. I don't know what the current strain of 6-row is being
grown in the US. I would stick to 2-row if you can. Most have a high-enough
diastatic power for the amount of adjuncts we homebrewers use (almost none)
and the 2-row has a much lower percent weight of husk and higher percent
weight of starch. (I think it may even generally have a lower protein
percentage, but from what I recall of the Briess literature, it was the
same for both their 2-row and 6-row.
>3) Is one of these considered lager malt?
Most US base malts are kilned so lightly that I would consider then a lager
malt.
>4) Does "pale malt" imply malt to be used in pale ales or the Lovibond of
> the malt in question?
It implies slightly warmer kilning temps and thus more color and more
caramelly flavors.
>About Sparging:
>
>1) My last beer used 2-row pale malt (above) and had a chill haze when I
> never had it with the 6-row malt beers. Things I'm considering changing:
>
> * When heating and recirculating first runnings, don't heat first runnings.
> the first runnings have starch and husk particles (doesn't run clear).
> Currently, I've been heating _all_ runnings. I typically heat 3 batches
> of 2 gallong runnings. I've been getting 1.031/lb/gal from the 6-row.
Your extract efficiency is commendable, but I agree that maybe recirculating
the first runnings would decrease the husk material in the boil which would
reduce tannin extraction.
> * acidify sparge water (1/2 tsp. acid blend to get pH=5.2) sometimes
> I acidify the water, but many times forget. (like in the cloudy beer)
YES. Most definately do adjust your sparge water down to the 5.2-5.4 pH
range in the RUNNINGS -- you want the runnings to be around 5.2, not
necessarily the sparge water. High pH sparge water will, indeed, extract
more tannins from your husks.
> * sparge water should be 165F, and not 170F or 180F like in the past.
> (but I usually never got the tannins, just very present malt character.)
Agreed, but a minor point -- 170 is in the ballpark.
> * maybe I should use finings (bentonite/polyclar)... I never had to
> in the past and hate to make things more complicated now.
If you do the rest well, you probably won't have to resort to finings.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1993 20:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nate Clark <NC6967@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject: Peach beer, Brew-Caps, and trub
In the last installment of HBD, Partick S. Paul asked about peach wheat beer:
- > 2.) Should I rack it before I add the pulp?
I have only recently tried a mead, using peaches for flavoring. I added diced
peaches at the end of the boil right after I removed the "wort?" from the heat.
I was trying to sterilize them without releasing the pectin into the mead. I
let the peaches stay in the primary, but when I racked to the secondary (wasn't
using a Brewcap) I removed all of the peaches. This seems to have worked fine.
The mead is still in the secondary but it is crystal clear. The samples I've
managed to steal have been excellent :)
- > 5.) Any thought on a good yeast for this?
Champagne? :)
On to Brewcaps and clean bottling (questions submitted by Scott Wisler):
Yeah, yeast does tend to cling to the sides of the carboy, but for the most part
it drains off, leaving a translucent film around the neck. I haven't noticed
too much getting into the bottle (after all, you do need some yeast in the
bottle). Brew Co. recommends 'twisting' the carboy every so often to loosen
the yeast. The yeast that insists on clinging to the neck usually stays there
through the bottling process, requiring a carboy brush to remove.
Dry hopping is not recommended.
With a Brewcap and the carboy inverted, I empty the blowoff tube of sanitizer.
It acts as an airlock, and I don't want it spilling everywhere. I take the
other tube (the yeast collection tube) and hold the end of it above the level in
the carboy and submerse it in the pot of boiled priming sugar. I open the
valve and the sugar is sucked down into the primary. To mix, I right the
carboy and use the blowoff tube to mix, then invert and bottle. It seems to mix
evenly.
I appologize for my sloppy use of blowoff tube and hose. The blowoff tube is a
sturdy pipe that runs from the neck of the carboy, through the fermenting beer
to the air space between the beer and bottom of the carboy. The blowoff hose
attaches to the blowoff tube. I don't know how often Kinney reads HBD, but I'll
pass on your comments to him.
"troop?"
Around here, we say trub, it rhymes with tub. But you are correct, in true
German, it closely resembles troop. Actually, I was taught to say it like
trip, but while making the i sound, I round my lips and don't move them. Also,
around here (that is, the South) we (me too) have a tendency to hold our vowels
long, which is a no-no (nein-nein?) in German. Anyone could sound halfway
official saying tryoop, like some people make the y sound in music or coupon
(after all, english is a germanic language.)
I look like I'm kissing when I try to say it!
Also, this is from high school german experience, so I will except criticism.
Nate
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 02:16:00 BST
From: r.mcglew3@genie.geis.com
Subject: Scotch in Barrells
Some months ago someone on the net mentioned that they had been given some
barrells of scotch. I'm curious if that person ever got to taste the stuff,
or what he plans on doing with it?
Who will be left to turn out the lights? No-one, they'll just burn out!
Personally, if I was one of the 30% of the GEAE engineers that were laid off
again, I'd quit! (I'm an "alumni" of another GE division).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1993 20:37:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dave Smucker <TWF99@ISUVAX.IASTATE.EDU>
Subject: Wyeat 2112 California
In HBD # 1217 Michael K. Lebar asks about Wyeast 2112
California yeast.
This is a yeast I use a lot for my standard "steam" beer. One
major difference is that I ferment at ale temperatures i. e. the
mid 60ies. I also ferment in 15 gallons batches in a stainless
steel keg and this is not the most ideal fermenter geometry.
Taking in to account these items I still consider Wyeast 2112 to
be a slow fermenter compared to ale yeast. My typical time is
3 weeks and I pitch a large starter. (I start the Wyeast in 1/2
pint which I then pitch in a 5 pint large starter.) I normally
don't go to a secondary because I'm a "Miller" fan and rack off
the trub 12 to 24 hours after pitching.
When to begin lagering? When you get your final SP or at least
very close.
Dave Smucker, Brewing Beer, Not making Jelly!!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 21:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul dArmond <paulf@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Subject: A miscellany of things...
In response to recent questions about blowoff. (oh god! here's something
that EVERYBODY will have an opinion on...)
I have consistantly used bowoff for several years. I find that it gives a
slightly smoother taste. I'm also very sensitive to higher alcohols and
it's my impression that blowoff removes these. My mad friend, the Revernd
Perry 10X Mills uses an open fermenter. We frequently share each other's
beers and I can get a headache from his, but not from mine. Who knows, it
may not have anything at all to do with blowoff, but I think it does...
As regards to exploding carboys, I do think that using the 1" id tube is a
good idea. I had one batch that I added a couple of ounces of pellet hops
to at the end of boil. I filled the carboy too full and the hops floated
up into the neck and plugged it up. I was using a cork with a small
blow-off tube and was concerned that there was no blowoff even though
there there was a lot of visible fermentation. So (you guessed it), I
pulled the cork and poked a bamboo skewer into the compacted hops.
KA-blooey! Instant beer geyser! Beer all over the place and hops stuck
to the ceiling. If I had the sense that Grid gave a goose, I would have
taken it outside.... It was really spectacular. Surprised is hardly the
word for my reaction.
If I had been using a large blow-off tube, I could have run a coat-hanger
through the tube and kept it pointed into a bucket. I don't know how much
pressure a carboy can stand, but there was a lot built up. A slight
scratch or imperfection in the surface of glass can weaken it
tremendously, as anybody who has cut glass will know. So my firm opinion
is that the advice in TCJOHB to use a cork and small diameter blow-off
tube should not be followed. It sure as heck got me into trouble. There
is no drawback to using a larger tube and many advantages.
Charlie P. may sit at the right hand of Grid and be met by adulatory and
worshipping masses everywhere he goes, but he is wrong on this one.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On a less controversial note, the last time I was in the farmer's Co-op I
looked around for idodine for sanitizing. I found this stuff called
"Povidone-Iodine Surgical Scrub 7.5% (titratable iodine 0.75%)." It looks
just like BTF, but it doesn't foam as much when you shake the bottle. The
iodine concentration seems about right for an idophor, but I don't know
what this stuff is. The only active ingredient is the Povidone. The
application seems to be a skin disinfectant for vets. Like when you have
to reach into a cow with both arms up to the shoulder to correct a calf's
presentation during birth. (Don't laugh, it's only funny from a
distance...)
I couldn't find it listed in my ancient Merck Index, but I suspect
"Povidone" is a commercial name. Does anybody have a reference on this
stuff? It's $7/qt., so there is some incentive to find out if it's
usable. Most of the dairy idophor has weird stuff in it like lanolin
(it's used for a teat dip to prevent mastitis), so it probably shouldn't
be used for brewing. Unless, of course, you suffer from chapped lips. :-)
Paul.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1218, 09/03/93
*************************************
-------
