Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1388
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 94/04/02 00:35:31
HOMEBREW Digest #1388 Sat 02 April 1994
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
>Re: Regulators for Kegging (William Nichols)
RE: SB# 040194 (GNT_TOX_)
Saving face (GNT_TOX_)
Is Decoction Worth It? (George Kavanagh O/o)
Warming up a fermenter in a cold basement. ("J. Frisbie")
Re: Irish Moss (Jeff Frane)
Re: DWI on the Information Super-highway (John D. Pavao)
RIMS basket case (Bob Jones)
Slow Ferment (BUKOFSKY)
early foam? (Tobey A Nelson)
Competition results (Spencer.W.Thomas)
RE: DWI on the Info Super Hiway (Murray Knudson)
beer recipe formulator (chris campanelli)
The economics of Tumbleweed (Kinney Baughman)
Sterilizing chillers (Kinney Baughman)
Light/Fruit (Keith MacNeal 01-Apr-1994 1247)
(Kinney Baughman)
(Kinney Baughman)
Fridge too small or airlock to large. (Fred Waltman)
The economics of Tumbleweed (Kinney Baughman)
Sanitizing chillers (Kinney Baughman)
beer in huntsville (Chuck Mryglot)
Dryhopping/Copper+Vinegar/fruitSanitation/Oops!/ShortAirlock (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
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.
FAQs, archives and other files 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, 31 Mar 1994 22:30:36
From: bnichols@mlab.win.net (William Nichols)
Subject: >Re: Regulators for Kegging
Dion Hollenbeck quotes Andy
>
>>>>>> "Andy" == GNT TOX <GNT_TOX_%ALLOY.BITNET@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU> writes:
>
>Andy> Question about regulators for kegging. We have this regulator sitting
>Andy> here at work. It was used to dispense argon and is now sitting around
>Andy> doing nothing. It's a rather big one, made for a 2o pound tank. Can
>Andy> it be used to keg homebrew?
>
>Andy> Andy Pastuszak
>
>NO, NO, NO. CO2 in the tank is mostly a liquid with a layer of gas on
>top of it in the "headspace" of the cylinder. As such, it is at a
>pressure of from 600 to 800 psi depending on ambient temperature.
>Argon, like oxygen and other "normal" gases is just compressed into
>the cylinder and does not become liquid. Therefore, you are dealing
>with somewhere in the range of 2000 to 3000 psi.
I disagree Dion, I think that 800 PSI on a 3000 PSI regulator
leaves quite a nice safety factor.
The only thing one has to do is change the CGA fitting on the
regulator to one that will mate with tho top of a CO2 tank (all
sizes are the same)
>Fortunately, trying to use an argon regulator for CO2 will probably
>just result in it not working because there is not enough pressure
>to open the high pressure circuit.
As for the it not working at such a low pressure, a regulator does
not stop dispensing as a tank is emptied, but will empty the tank
to atmospheric pressure.
I was looking for a deal like that when I was setting up a kegging
system, but none were available.
Cheers,
Bill Nichols <bnichols@mlab.win.net)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 08:29 EST
From: <GNT_TOX_%ALLOY.BITNET@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: RE: SB# 040194
If you're as outraged as I am about the senate bill that was in
yesterdays HBD, send E-Mail to Bill Clinton at:
PRESIDENT@WHITEHOUSE.GOV. Go crazy people! I want to be able to read
the HBD AND have a homebrew at the same time!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 09:16 EST
From: <GNT_TOX_%ALLOY.BITNET@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: Saving face
Is it still possible to save face? I posted the president's e-mail
address before I even finished reading the senate bill article. So, I
never got to the April Fools line. Sorry for the waste of bandwith,
but it's just the sort of thing that congress would do. Hell, how
long was homebrewing illegal? Politicians: Shooting them would be
a waste of good bullets. Now, on with a brewing question.
Looking at my homebrew shop I've seen Hallertauer hops that are grown
here in the US and those grown in Germany. US varieties have a AA% of
some 4.6%, while the German varieties have a AAU of 1.5%. Is there a
different perceived aroma or flavor from using American bred versions
of European hops. This would be something interesting to add to the
HOP.FAQ
------------------------------
Date: 1 Apr 1994 09:29:37 -0500
From: George Kavanagh O/o <George.Kavanagh@omail.wang.com>
Subject: Is Decoction Worth It?
I was conversing with a couple of local professional
(microbrewery) brewers today on procedures & such,
and I asked whether they planned to do decoctions
to brew their upcoming pilsner product. I was
intregued by their answer that decoctoions are not
really necessary on a commercial scale, since they
can automatically & precisely control the mash
temp. I opined that some (Noonan) would argue that
a decoction process provides many benefits other
than temp. control (i. e., reduction of the
undesirable mash elements to precipitable
form, etc.). They were unimpressed. They related that
at their alma mater (UC Davis) brewing program they
had been taught by the masters that decoction
methods were introduced in the dark past before
automated temp control was available, and other
claims for its efffects are spurious if not specious
(my adjectives).
( I suspect that decoction methods in commercial brewing
would entail significant expense with (supposedly)
minimal monetart return - perhaps thats why
it is not touted in academe??)
Now, I have followed Noonan's 3 decoction process
several times, and have thought that:
1) it sure is labor intensive (14 hours (from mash in to
pitched wort & mopped floor) for a 5 gallon batch
is a LONG HAUL)
2) the cold break seems to be more voluminous than
that obtained with infusion methods.
3) the product is quite clear & crisp.
However, I have not done proper scientific experiments to
compare decoction vs. infusion methods; so I really do
not have appropiate data to determine if the decoction
methods are worth the trouble.
My question to the HBD:
What is the collective experience of any/all who have
done decoction mashes? Has anyone determined to their
own satisfaction that the decoction process holds
great merit above & beyond simple infusion methods?
Private communications are welcome: I will summarize for
the HBD.
George.Kavanagh@omail.wang.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 09:44:49 -0500
From: "J. Frisbie" <jf@stan.mit.edu>
Subject: Warming up a fermenter in a cold basement.
John Williams <jwilliam@hartford.edu> writes:
I want to brew ales and other warm fermentors in the winter but my
basement is 50 to 55. Does anyone have ideas on how I can heat a
small space to 60 or 65 degrees? I am thinking of something just big
enough to hold a 7 gallon carboy with blow off tube.
I too had this problem. I used an electric blanket. Sunbeam makes
one that is thermostatically controlled. I paid $30 at Sears in the
middle of the coldest January in recent memory. You could probably
get one for much less now that summer is around the corner. It worked
like a charm.
Have fun,
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 06:51:41 -0800 (PST)
From: gummitch@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Irish Moss
Al Korzonas writes:
Irish Moss
>
> It will make your beer clearer if you have chill haze (haze that appears
> only when the beer is chilled). There are ways to reduce the proteins
> and tannins that cause chill haze without Irish Moss and I would suggest
> looking them up in Miller's or Papazian's books before trying Irish Moss.
> Irish Moss is used in the last 15 minutes of the boil and helps proteins
> coagulate, taking them out of solution. The recommended amount is 1/8 to
> 1/2 teaspoon for a 5 gallon batch, depending on how much protein you have
> to start with (too much Irish Moss can make your beer cloudier) and refined,
> flaked IM is much better than powdered and/or unrefined.
>
The recommended amount of Irish Moss is much greater than this!
Recommended quantity for 5 gallons is 1.5 teaspoons (1/2 TABLESPOON).
Papazian, et al's numbers on this are useless. Nor do I see any
evidence that too much IM will make beer cloudier, although it can
apparently interfere with foam stand -- but not in these quantities.
Note that the figure above is for a full-wort boil; I'm beginning to
suspect that the numbers need to be much higher in a concentrated
extract boil.
To stand on the opposite side from Al completely: Irish Moss is God!
The correct use of IM has caused my beers to improve tremendously.
The truth is, I wasn't completely conscious of the haze in my beer (it
looked *pretty* clear) until some comments made on it by George Fix --
the use of IM has made the beers absolutely brilliant. Period.
- --Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 10:20:33 EST
From: pavao@npt.nuwc.navy.mil (John D. Pavao)
Subject: Re: DWI on the Information Super-highway
Is that April fools day legislation?
pavao@ptsws1.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 07:42:09 +0800
From: bjones@novax.llnl.gov (Bob Jones)
Subject: RIMS basket case
I built a RIMS, didn't like it. Anyone interested in a RIMS basket case?
Would be best if you live in the SF Bay area. Yea I know this borders on
adverising, sue me, my post is purely in the name of science and the spirit
of helping someone.
Bob Jones
bjones@novax.llnl.gov
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 10:37:12 -0400 (EST)
From: BUKOFSKY <sjb8052@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Subject: Slow Ferment
Brewers,
I've been having some problems with very slow ferments with liquid
yeasts (greater than 2 weeks for gravities in the 1.050 range). I've been
poring over my brewing procedures, trying to figure out what I do
differently. The best explanation seems to be this: I make a 1.050
starter (32 oz.), into which I pour the contents of the swelled yeast
packet. I then let it sit for 12-24 hours, until the kraeusen on the
starter is large and active, then I pitch. I see very quick starts of
fermentation, but then they slow down for a long, long wait. Should I let
the starter go for a few days and let it ferment out more? Could this be
the problem? Any advice would be helpful, and e-mail is fine.
Thanks,
Scott
No cute comment.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 10:54:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Tobey A Nelson <nelsonto@student.msu.edu>
Subject: early foam?
I am an eager brew neophyte. A pal (who is a slight bit less of a novice) and I
made some IPAs and a porter. Last
week we bottled the IPA (being careful not to add too much sugar!), last night
we bottled the porter. Curiousity got
the best of us and we had to open an IPA, albeit early, just to see what was
happening! We had bottled into grolsch bottles with the flip tops. When I
went to open the bottle, the top just flew right off and foam spewed
everywhere! The beer was very carbonated. My friend tells me that in the
batch of ale he had made, the week-old bottle did the same, but after a couple
of weeks they didn't foam as much. Also, we had opened it warm. Could
someoneplease explain to me how time figures in to lessen the carbonation (does
it go into solution? I don't have a sound memory of chemistry); or is it all
temperature... You can private email me if you like. Thank you! Happy
brewing!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 11:16:55 EST
From: Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu
Subject: Competition results
Anybody have either the Bluebonnet or BOSS competition results?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 08:30:12 PST
From: Murray Knudson <murrayk@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: DWI on the Info Super Hiway
Before this gets totally out of hand....
the context in which I meant the article on "DWI on the info super
hiway" WAS IN THE FORM OF AN APRIL FOOL's JOKE. You wouldn't believe
how much flame I'm getting about being political on HBD.
It seems I've upset some people. For that I'm sorry. What I'm even
more sorry about is the apparent inability of so many happy homebrewers
to not see the humor for the hops, so to speak. My sympathies to all of you.
Oh well, Relax, Don't worry, Have a Homebrew (in your flame retardant
drinking suit of course)
Murrayk@microsoft.com
Where fun is a way of life, not a lost art!!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 09:04 CST
From: akcs.chrisc@vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli)
Subject: beer recipe formulator
Thank you for you interest in the Beer Recipe Formulator.
Yes, this is a form letter. I apologize for it but as you can
imagine I've been swamped lately by questions, movie contracts and
product endorsements.
The Beer Recipe Formulator is a DOS-based program. The system
requirements are MS-DOS v3.3 or better, 640K RAM and a monochrome
monitor. Very little disk space is required. In fact BRF can be
run from a low-density diskette. The current version in
circulation is version 1.1.
The following is a list of sources from which you can obtain a copy
of my software. It should be noted that using options #1 or #2
are relatively inexpensive, if not downright free.
1. The Internet. If you have access to the Internet and can do an
ftp then get a copy of the software from sierra.stanford.edu. This
is the archive site for the Homebrew Digest. An updated copy was
placed there in early March. It's called BRFWARE.something.
2. Your Local Friendly Homebrewing Bulletin Board. If you have a
personal computer, a modem and the appropriate communications
software then you can download my software from a BBS. The file is
called BRFV11.EXE. At 2400 baud the download will take just under
6 minutes. The following is a list of homebrewing BBS's that have
the most recent copies:
HBU BBS Midwest (Illinois) 708-705-7263
HBU BBS Southwest (Texas) 713-923-6418
No Tarmac Brewing (Virginia) 703-525-3715
3. Me. As I already stated, option #1 and #2 are free sources.
I insist that you use them. If all else fails, you can mail me $15
and become a registered user. I will, in turn, mail you a copy of
Beer Recipe Formulator v1.1 on a 5.25 inch diskette and put you on
the mailing list for the next release, version 2.0, when it becomes
available.
chris campanelli
akcs.chrisc@vpnet.chi.il.us
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 12:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject: The economics of Tumbleweed
In reference to the cost of brewing beer at Tumbleweed,
>I agree with this concerning the labor efforts/costs, but I cant follow the
>raw ingredients costs. A domestic 2 row malt runs about $12/50 Lb sack.
Perhaps I should interject at this point. Like Scott said, Tumbleweed is a
small brewery. (BTW. The reason for Scott's trip was to bring us our
brand new 112 gallon brewpot! We had met in this forum and while
discussing other things one day, he mentioned he had this pot and it was
too big for his purposes. We made a trade to our mutual benefit in
addition to making friends and proved once again how brewers are always
ready to come to each other's aid.) Thanks to the new pot, Tumbleweed is
now a 4 bbl. brewery. Though bigger, we're not big by any stretch of the
imagination which means we still buy ingredients at basically wholesale
homebrewing costs. We can only get pale malt at $17.60 a 55 lb. sack.
Plus, it costs us another $13.50 to get it shipped to Boone. That's $31.10
for 55 lbs. of grain (.56/lb.) and there's no way around it for us. We
live in the extreme northwest corner of the NC mountains. This is not your
everyday metropolitan center! :-)
By the time we get our malt extract, it costs us .95 a pound.
>Using a 50Lb sack of domestic per one BBl, an
>extract of around 1.050 can be attained. To do an equivelent using DME
>would require roughly 36 lbs of DME (correct me if Im wrong here). Now,
>Im not up to date on the bulk costs of Alexanders DME, but even at $1
>per Lb, we have a 300% difference in cost. Clearly, Im missing something
>here, Kenny doesnt get good deals on malt, or the 25% difference is
>incorrect.
OK. Plugging in these numbers: approximately 4 sacks of grain for a 4
bbl. brew would cost us $124.40. Our extract costs us $142.50.
Now consider that IF we were mashing, we would have the extra expense of a
mash tun and lauter system in terms of equipment and the extra time and
labor of mashing and sparging the grain. Realistically, given the scale we
operate on, I don't see us getting in and out of grinding, mashing and
sparging that much grain in less than 4 hours. So toss in another $50-80
worth of labor and the difference between all-grain and extract is
eclipsed. Ironically, grain costs us more. That's the cold, hard
economics we had to consider when deciding which path to take.
Some might say, what's 4 hours to take the chance of making a better brew?
Well, that's an extra day in a two brew week. Personally, I have another
life, in fact two other professional lives outside of Tumbleweed. I don't
have an extra day in the week, plain and simple.
I would be the first to admit that we'd have a better chance of brewing
that Godalmightygreatest beer if we were doing all-grain. But with that
possibility comes a whole host of variables that can contribute to brewing
the batch that gets deep-sixed down the drain. (We ditched ONE barrel of
beer last year. You can't afford to screw up when you're brewing
commercially. Money is at stake here. Somebody else's. Not just your
ego.) Town water departments are notorious for playing with the water.
That translates into wildly variable extraction efficiencies. We can more
or less depend on a certain stability of flavor and fermentability with
extracts. So we can produce a beer with some degree of consistency from
batch to batch.
Like Scott said, we cut no other corners in our brewing process. We use
LOTS of hops and we get plenty of hop aroma with our hop backs. This may
sound like heresy to you left-coasters but when Tumbleweed's owner came
back from a trip to Seattle, his main comment on the beers he had was that
there wasn't as much hop character in the beers he tasted out there as we
have in ours. Granted, he didn't try a Liberty Ale on tap. I'd die to get
that kind of hop character in our beers. But I'm not sure the average beer
drinker in Boone, NC would appreciate it.
Which gets to the final point. Our task is to produce a beer that the
local clientele enjoys. And they enjoy our beers. We've been to beer
tastings where the other mega-buck brewpubs were present and our beers
stood on a par with theirs. Heck! Because we're small, we show up with
more varieties of beer than the other guys do! That makes a big impression
on the people who come to those tastings. You're not going to find many 10
to 20 bbl. breweries who are going to experiment with cherry and smoked
porters, raspberry wheat beers or coffee stouts. But we do. All the time.
And our customer's love it. I think that says a lot for a small little
mountain town where 99.9 % of the people have never heard of, much less
tasted, a fruit or smoked beer before.
Believe me, folks, I was as surprised as anyone else when I finally sat
down and crunched the numbers and tried to determine the best of all
possible worlds. A year and a half ago, if you had told me that I'd be
brewing beer at a 1 to 4 barrel brewery, using scavenged cheese and cough
drop pots, stainless steel pressure cooker hop backs, copper-tubing in
garden hose wort chillers, HD polyethelene fermenters on wheels,
fermenting in an old living room with an air-conditioner and kegging in
cornelius kegs, I would have told you that you were off your rocker! BUT,
here we are. We can't brew it fast enough. We're getting regional
attention, been on TV twice, and had dozens of newspaper articles written
about the operation. We have so many people wanting to come to Boone to
check out the operation and pick our brains so they can start up similar
operations that we have had to start charging consulting fees.
Yes, we're proud of what we've been able to do. And just as amazed as anyone
else that it's working.
Kinney Baughman
Head Brewer, Tumblweed
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 12:35:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject: Sterilizing chillers
While I'm at it: As for the subject of sanitizing flow through chillers...
> Disadvantage(s): More difficult to make a work with to some extent.
> Siphoning hot wort, sanitation issues.
Matthew Howell then talks about sanitizing his unique flow-through chiller:
> As far as
> sanitation goes, I have been flushing the chiller with
> boiling water before and after, and I have had no trouble to
> date.
I agree that counter-flow chillers are more difficult to make. Everytime
someone mentions the pros and cons, though, they ALWAYS talk about how
difficult or scary the sanitization of a flow-through chiller is. Once
again, I must point out that this just ain't so.
After a boil, flush with hot water, as Matthew points out. In addition,
I'd recommend siphoning a 10-30 ppm solution of clorox and water (1t. - 1T.
of clorox to a gallon of water) and let soak for about 30 minutes. Drain.
While setting up for the next brew session, siphon another 10-30 ppm.
solution of clorox and water into the chiller and let sit for 30 minutes.
Drain. Then siphon the first bit of boiling hot wort through the chiller
while it's dry until boiling hot wort runs out the end. Collect that wort.
Pour it back into the boiler. Turn on the water and start the chilling of
the wort. As I've said before. If boiling hot wort sterilizes the outside
of an immersion chiller and everyone feels comfortable with that, boiling
hot wort will sterilize the inside of a flow-through chiller and everyone
should feel comfortable with that. I've used flow-through chillers for 13
years now with nary a contamination problem.
Before the flames begin, I'm only addressing the issue of whether flow-
through chillers are difficult to sterilize. They aren't. As for the rest
of the debate: ease and expense of making one vs. the other, more or less
cold break, letting the beer sit on the cold-break, etc. those are other
things to argue about and I'd just as soon not get into all that again.
Like Matthew Harper says, "Whatever floats your boat."
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinney Baughman | Beer is my business and
baughmankr@conrad.appstate.edu | I'm late for work.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 13:00:20 EST
From: Keith MacNeal 01-Apr-1994 1247 <macneal@pate.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Light/Fruit
>Date: 31 Mar 94 23:36:00 GMT
>From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
>Subject: IrishMoss/Beer&Light/GrainBedDepth/Underpitching/DryIce/CherryBeer
>Keith writes:
>>In HBD #1385 Al mentioned that wavelengths of light other than UV can also
>>be harmful to beer. This is the first time I have heard that. Anyone have
>>any more info?
>
>Offhand, it's easy to see that UV is not the only culprit because:
>
>1. UV is not transmitted very well through standard glass, so the bottle
>should be enough protection if UV was the only problem, and
The key here is "not very well". That is why beer doesn't skunk instantly but
over time.
>2. Fluorescent lights will skunk beer as well as sunlight and they don't
>give off much UV (otherwise we would all get nice tans at work, right?
>UV fluorescent lights are made of special glass (quartz?) and you can get
>them for the office -- there have been studies...).
Flourescent lights do radiate in the UV range. That's why anyone handling UV
sensitive materials like photoresist either gets special light bulbs or buys
special shields for the flourescent lights.
>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 16:29 PST
>From: TARVINJ@axe.humboldt.edu
>Subject: fruit beer
>I found and plan to use the following method: add the fruit to the secondary
>fermenter before racking the beer into it and then rack the fruit over the
>beer.
>Anyway, my question is how do I avoid bacterial infection in this process?
>Here are some ideas I have heard/thought of:
>1. crush and pasteurize the fruit at about 170 F for 20-30 minutes
>this will kill a lot of germs but will it kill a lot of the flavor as well?
>
>2. Autoclave it in jars at the lab where I work. But how long and at what
>temperature? And will the lingereing Odo-clave taste get into my beer?
>
>3. pressure cook it in jars. How much water in the pressure cooker? How
>long?
>
>4. Just wash it well and do a lot of praying?
Autoclaving or pressure cooking may cause the pectins to set which could lead
to haziness in the final product. This can be countered by adding pectic
enzyme to the brew. Another method is to give the fruit a sulfite bath. Some
people are allergic to sulfites so for some this isn't an option.
I made a peach ale last summer. I washed and pitted the peaches and then put
them in the freezer. Any fruits with signs of spoilage was discarded. The
freezing helped make mashing the fruit easier. I didn't do any praying, but
counted on the alcohol and hop content of the beer to keep down bacterial
infection. It worked for me.
Keith MacNeal
Digital Equipment Corp.
Hudson, MA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 13:07:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject:
cancel article 04011032.11450
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 13:08:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject:
cancel article 04011029.11333
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 10:12:06 -0800 (PST)
From: waltman@netcom.com (Fred Waltman)
Subject: Fridge too small or airlock to large.
P Doran writes about her airlock not fitting in her small fridge.
I had the same problem. I took a piece of an old racking cane (I seem to be
constanly melting the ends by leaving it too close to the stove!) and
shaped it into and elongated "S". One end goes into the stopper on the
carboy and the airlock goes into the other. This puts the airlock down
around the shoulder of the carboy. I am not so good at ascii graphics, but:
/--\
/ stopper
/
airlock /
\--/
This has worked for me.
Fred Waltman
Culver City Home Brewing Supply Co.
waltman@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 13:12:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject: The economics of Tumbleweed
In reference to the cost of brewing beer at Tumbleweed, Jim Busch remarks:
>I agree with this concerning the labor efforts/costs, but I cant follow the
>raw ingredients costs. A domestic 2 row malt runs about $12/50 Lb sack.
Perhaps I should interject at this point. Like Scott said, Tumbleweed is a
small brewery. (BTW. The reason for Scott's trip was to bring us our
brand new 112 gallon brewpot! We had met in this forum and while
discussing other things one day, he mentioned he had this pot and it was
too big for his purposes. We made a trade to our mutual benefit in
addition to making friends and proved once again how brewers are always
ready to come to each other's aid.) Thanks to the new pot, Tumbleweed is
now a 4 bbl. brewery. Though bigger, we're not big by any stretch of the
imagination which means we still buy ingredients at basically wholesale
homebrewing costs. We can only get pale malt at $17.60 a 55 lb. sack.
Plus, it costs us another $13.50 to get it shipped to Boone. That's $31.10
for 55 lbs. of grain (.56/lb.) and there's no way around it for us. We
live in the extreme northwest corner of the NC mountains. This is not your
everyday metropolitan center! :-)
By the time we get our malt extract, it costs us .95 a pound.
>Using a 50Lb sack of domestic per one BBl, an
>extract of around 1.050 can be attained. To do an equivelent using DME
>would require roughly 36 lbs of DME (correct me if Im wrong here). Now,
>Im not up to date on the bulk costs of Alexanders DME, but even at $1
>per Lb, we have a 300% difference in cost. Clearly, Im missing something
>here, Kenny doesnt get good deals on malt, or the 25% difference is
>incorrect.
OK. Plugging in these numbers: approximately 4 sacks of grain for a 4
bbl. brew would cost us $124.40. Our extract costs us $142.50.
Now consider that IF we were mashing, we would have the extra expense of a
mash tun and lauter system in terms of equipment and the extra time and
labor of mashing and sparging the grain. Realistically, given the scale we
operate on, I don't see us getting in and out of grinding, mashing and
sparging that much grain in less than 4 hours. So toss in another $50-80
worth of labor and the difference between all-grain and extract is
eclipsed. Ironically, grain costs us more. That's the cold, hard
economics we had to consider when deciding which path to take.
Some might say, what's 4 hours to take the chance of making a better brew?
Well, that's an extra day in a two brew week. Personally, I have another
life, in fact two other professional lives outside of Tumbleweed. I don't
have an extra day in the week, plain and simple.
I would be the first to admit that we'd have a better chance of brewing
that Godalmightygreatest beer if we were doing all-grain. But with that
possibility comes a whole host of variables that can contribute to brewing
the batch that gets deep-sixed down the drain. (We ditched ONE barrel of
beer last year. You can't afford to screw up when you're brewing
commercially. Money is at stake here. Somebody else's. Not just your
ego.) Town water departments are notorious for playing with the water.
That translates into wildly variable extraction efficiencies. We can more
or less depend on a certain stability of flavor and fermentability with
extracts. So we can produce a beer with some degree of consistency from
batch to batch.
Like Scott said, we cut no other corners in our brewing process. We use
LOTS of hops and we get plenty of hop aroma with our hop backs. This may
sound like heresy to you left-coasters but when Tumbleweed's owner came
back from a trip to Seattle, his main comment on the beers he had was that
there wasn't as much hop character in the beers he tasted out there as we
have in ours. Granted, he didn't try a Liberty Ale on tap. I'd die to get
that kind of hop character in our beers. But I'm not sure the average beer
drinker in Boone, NC would appreciate it.
Which gets to the final point. Our task is to produce a beer that the
local clientele enjoys. And they enjoy our beers. We've been to beer
tastings where the other mega-buck brewpubs were present and our beers
stood on a par with theirs. Heck! Because we're small, we show up with
more varieties of beer than the other guys do! That makes a big impression
on the people who come to those tastings. You're not going to find many 10
to 20 bbl. breweries who are going to experiment with cherry and smoked
porters, raspberry wheat beers or coffee stouts. But we do. All the time.
And our customer's love it. I think that says a lot for a small little
mountain town where 99.9 % of the people have never heard of, much less
tasted, a fruit or smoked beer before.
Believe me, folks, I was as surprised as anyone else when I finally sat
down and crunched the numbers and tried to determine the best of all
possible worlds. A year and a half ago, if you had told me that I'd be
brewing beer at a 1 to 4 barrel brewery, using scavenged cheese and cough
drop pots, stainless steel pressure cooker hop backs, copper-tubing in
garden hose wort chillers, HD polyethelene fermenters on wheels,
fermenting in an old living room with an air-conditioner and kegging in
cornelius kegs, I would have told you that you were off your rocker! BUT,
here we are. We can't brew it fast enough. We're getting regional
attention, been on TV twice, and had dozens of newspaper articles written
about the operation. We have so many people wanting to come to Boone to
check out the operation and pick our brains so they can start up similar
operations that we have had to start charging consulting fees.
Yes, we're proud of what we've been able to do. And just as amazed as anyone
else that it's working.
Kinney Baughman
Brewer, Tumbleweed
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 13:12:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject: Sanitizing chillers
While I'm at it: As for the subject of sanitizing flow through chillers...
Matthew Harper summarizes as follows:
> Disadvantage(s): More difficult to make a work with to some extent.
> Siphoning hot wort, sanitation issues.
Matthew Howell then talks about sanitizing his unique flow-through chiller:
> As far as
> sanitation goes, I have been flushing the chiller with
> boiling water before and after, and I have had no trouble to
> date.
I agree that counter-flow chillers are more difficult to make. Everytime
someone mentions the pros and cons, though, they ALWAYS talk about how
difficult or scary the sanitization of a flow-through chiller is. Once
again, I must point out that this just ain't so.
After a boil, flush with hot water, as Matthew points out. In addition,
I'd recommend siphoning a 10-30 ppm solution of clorox and water (1t. - 1T.
of clorox to a gallon of water) and let soak for about 30 minutes. Drain.
While setting up for the next brew session, siphon another 10-30 ppm.
solution of clorox and water into the chiller and let sit for 30 minutes.
Drain. Then siphon the first bit of boiling hot wort through the chiller
while it's dry until boiling hot wort runs out the end. Collect that wort.
Pour it back into the boiler. Turn on the water and start the chilling of
the wort. As I've said before. If boiling hot wort sterilizes the outside
of an immersion chiller and everyone feels comfortable with that, boiling
hot wort will sterilize the inside of a flow-through chiller and everyone
should feel comfortable with that. I've used flow-through chillers for 13
years now with nary a contamination problem.
Before the flames begin, I'm only addressing the issue of whether flow-
through chillers are difficult to sterilize. They aren't. As for the rest
of the debate: ease and expense of making one vs. the other, more or less
cold break, letting the beer sit on the cold-break, etc. those are other
things to argue about and I'd just as soon not get into all that again.
Like Matthew Harper says, "Whatever floats your boat".
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinney Baughman | Beer is my business and
baughmankr@conrad.appstate.edu | I'm late for work.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 13:45:01 EST
From: cem@ri.cadre.com (Chuck Mryglot)
Subject: beer in huntsville
Are there any recommended places to drink beer in Huntsville, AL
cem@ri.cadre.com
------------------------------
Date: 1 Apr 94 21:09:00 GMT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Dryhopping/Copper+Vinegar/fruitSanitation/Oops!/ShortAirlock
Dana writes:
>First a quick summary of my process before I pose the ?'s.
>I am an extract brewer using specialty grains for body, flavor, etc. I start
>w/ ~3g. cold water, boil grains, remove, add extract & hops, boil for 1hr.
>Last 15min. add finishing hops. Rack to 3-4g cold water pitch ~70f.
>After 3-6 days rack to secondary for upto 7 days more.
>
>Question--Is dry hopping more appropriate for primary or secondary
>fermentation?
First of all, I keyed on "boil grains." I recommend against that --
it will make your beer quite astringent unless the pH is near 5.0.
Instead, check the temperature and remove the grains when you reach
about 170F. Now, on to your question. For ales, I don't use a
secondary except for fruit beers since they will be in the fermenter
twice as long as a standard ale. Whenever you add the dryhops, in
the primary or the secondary, the key is to wait until the fermentation
is almost over -- a couple of reasons: 1) this is when there is the
maximum alcohol in the beer and the least sugar, reducing the chance
of infection, and 2) evolving CO2 will scrub the hop aroma out of the
beer, so wait till there's little CO2 coming out.
>Question2--If you dry hop in glass carboy(primary or sec.) how do you
>remove the hop cones without aerating the brew?
I don't, I just siphon right out from under them with my orange-tipped
racking cane. A couple of small petal pieces usually make it into the
priming vessel, but they get left behind during bottling.
********
DANIEL writes:
>Essentially, the acidic (as opposed to acetic!) vinegar has the
>potential to leach copper from any copper utensil if there is
>sufficient contact time. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates
I'm quite sure that the material of concern was not the copper, but rather
some copper compound. I can't find the post, but I recall it had some
medieval-sounding common name and I don't believe the chemical name
was given. Could one of you chemists either correct me or confirm that
indeed there is a concern here?
**********
Jay writes:
>Some research in this area has indicated that putting the fruit into the
>wort before fermentation results in a loss of fruit flavors and aroma so
>I found and plan to use the following method: add the fruit to the secondary
>fermenter before racking the beer into it and then rack the fruit over the
>beer.
I agree -- that's what I did and for the same reason, plus the additional
antibacterial effect of the alcohol in the beer.
>Anyway, my question is how do I avoid bacterial infection in this process?
>Here are some ideas I have heard/thought of:
>1. crush and pasteurize the fruit at about 170 F for 20-30 minutes
>this will kill a lot of germs but will it kill a lot of the flavor as well?
Yes and will probably set the pectins leading to a permanent haze.
>2. Autoclave it in jars at the lab where I work. But how long and at what
>temperature? And will the lingereing Odo-clave taste get into my beer?
Same problem as 1.
>3. pressure cook it in jars. How much water in the pressure cooker? How
>long?
Same problem as 1.
>4. Just wash it well and do a lot of praying?
Perhaps, but there are two other possibilities:
1. Use Campden Tablets to sanitize the fruit (although this could give
the beer a sulphury aroma -- I've just read that some brewers do this).
2. Freeze the fruit and then blanch it by dipping in boiling water for
a few seconds -- I did this, figuring that the bacteria would be on the
outside of the fruit and that the frozen center would reduce pectin setting.
The one caveat with this method will affect you -- blanching frozen
raspberries (as I did) or (I assume) blackberries will cause them to turn
to much and you'll lose a lot of juice during the dip. I conceded that
I have to add the blanching water along with the fruit and just dumped
12 pounds of frozen raspberries into a gallon of 212F water (heat off)
and then prayed a lot when I added the whole mess to the secondary.
Indeed, the raspberry beer eventually got overcarbonated (apparently
I did not kill them all), but it took over six months to do so. The
same process workes well for cherries and there was no overcarbonation
even after a year.
*******
I wrote:
>break can be left in the kettle. If you want to let it settle and then go
>to a fourth container, that would be four transfers for your method versus
>one transfer with mine.
Oops! That should have been three transfers. Sorry.
*******
Patricia writes:
>problem is this: while my glass carboy fits quite nicely in the fridge
>on its own, once the airlock is in place (I have a standard airlock,
>approx. 2" high) the combined carboy-airlock unit is about 1.25" to tall
Get a small elbow from the hardware store and stuff it into the stopper.
Attach a blowoff hose to this and stick the other end in a jar, 1/4-filled
with water, under water. This will provide the airlock you desire with
the minimum amount of height.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 14:16:20 -0800
From: Richard B. Webb <rbw1271@appenine.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: Contamination, fruits in brewing, and dry hopping
Users beware of this Infomation Superhighway thing.
I'm sending this again because some of the lines are too long,
and it got rejected and sent back.
The second time, it got rejected because I didn't have a subject line.
I hope it goes through this time...
I just hope that it doesn't appear in the digest more than once!
Please excuse the funny line wraps...
Just a quick note on using fruit in beer/mead/wine or whatever.
You must assume that your beer is already somewhat contaminated.
The trick is to create an environment that discourages the contaminants
from taking over your batch. Happily fermenting yeast will inhibit the
various contaminants from getting a foothold and taking over. Thus a
healthy yeast starter (more than a package of Wyeast) will dominate
the environment of the wort. This happens in two biological strategies:
1) Oxygen is removed in the initial respiration phase of yeast activity.
Therefore all contaminants that require oxygen for growth are retarded
by the lack of oxygen.
2) the pH of the wort is driven down by yeast activity,
thus inhibiting the activity of contaminants that require higher pH levels.
The key to each of these is to ensure that your yeast is pitched in
sufficient quantity to dominate and out-compete the other nasty beasties
that you must assume are in your batch.
The next opportunity to screw up your batch comes with racking to secondary.
Do not splash the liquid when siphoning. The introduction of oxygen can lead
to a variety of nasty things which can take place. If one of the
contaminants in your mix happens to be the bacteria that creates
vinegar, it will consume the alcohol
that you have presumably created for your own consumption, combine it with the
newly added oxygen, and create vinegar. Yum. The living yeast will scavenge out
some of the oxygen, but why take chances? Try to minimize the oxygen introduced
to the wort at this stage.
When I dry hop, I do so in the secondary. After racking, I wait a day or so for
the newly out-gassed CO2 to escape. This gas, being denser than the atmosphere
pre-existing in the carboy at racking, will form a protective layer over
the wort, and pressure force the atmosphere/oxygen out of
the fermentation lock. Then I'm not afraid to risk a certain amount of
contamination which I assume will be introduced by the hops. My best hop aroma
comes when I shake and stir the carboy with the hops inside. In a recent
experiment with dry hopping, three 4 gallon batches of the same wort were
treated with 3 different yeasts. Each member of the experiment dry hopped
1 oz of Fuggles hop flowers to their batch. I shook and stirred mine.
Another thought that a new fermentation took place, but I suspect that
the hop oils in the lupin glands merely formed particles for the
dissolved CO2 to form around. The third experiment dry hopped
the empty carboy, then used the siphoning wort to 'fire hose' the hops.
The ultimate hop aroma and flavor at tasting seemed to decrease in this
order, with the fire hose effect having less aroma than the other methods.
There was no contamination detected. (at the time of the tasting.)
At this very moment (depending on when you read this) I am heating up 13 lbs
of last years strawberries (which until last night were frozen in the
freezer), in order to sterilize them, as well as to break up the fruit
into pieces easier to strain. (I'm not boiling them, but I used to do that.)
I'll cool and strain the pulp and add
it to the primary fermenter (a six gallon plastic fermenter) with 9-12 lbs of
(heated to sterilize) honey and liquid to make 5 gallons. (Along
with 1 tsp yeast nutrient and 2 tsp acid blend) I could have easily
fermented the honey and added the fruit later when racking to
secondary. Perhaps I don't even need to heat the fruit, assuming
that the bacteria inhibiting environment
created by the fermented honey would do the trick. But I don't
trust the advice that I offered above!
I figure better STS, and so I try to pasturize everything.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1388, 04/02/94
*************************************
-------
