Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1741
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/05/26 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1741 Fri 26 May 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Mercury and SCIENCE (Gary Plank)
Re: Confused Aussies (Jeff Frane)
Boston Area Homebrewers - Next Wort Processor Meeting (Timothy J. Dalton - Ein Prosit der Gemutlichkeit)
Bad News Bungs on Minikeg (dsanderson)
Yeast for Wheat Beers (Bunning W Maj ACC/DOTE)
Trub Removal (John Heck)
yeast strains (Darren Robert Gergle)
Safe Houses (Russell Mast)
gas mix ("Dale L. Orth")
Sam Adams Extract Recipe (Mark Kempisty - 957-8365)
Refrigerating wort (Stephen Schryburt)
FW: Returned mail: Host unknown ("Ellsworth, Brian")
Some mercury details ("Dave Bradley::IC742::6-2556")
plastic carboys (Nigel Townsend)
Kegging question (SMKRANZ)
Open fermentation (Bill Rucker)
Corn Sugar ("Philip Gravel")
Cost/Starters/Extracts (Elde)
mutating yeast (Lenny Garfinkel)
re: Styles & Creativity (Gerald_Wirtz)
Piper's stand ("Lee C. Bussy")
Speltsbier: who's done it? (mark evans)
Trapist beer recipes. (Daniel Faucher)
Grain bed as a filter (Sandy Cockerham__Mc625__6-0412)
Generations of yeast (Jim Busch)
CONFIG (Marc Faubert)
ARMSTRONG KITS (Ian Bishop)
******************************************************************
* POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
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.
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
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:07:38 -0500
From: plankg@dgabby.mfldclin.edu (Gary Plank)
Subject: Mercury and SCIENCE
From: plankg Wed May 24, 1995 -- 10:09:45 AM
To: homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com~@
In HBD 1737 DocsBrew writes:
> Whether the ADA says so or not, lots of research has shown dental amalgams
> to be quite toxic.
This has been a topic of considerable debate for a number of years. A
Medline search of the medical literature since 1990 yielded the following
recent citation, among others:
| TI: Amalgam tooth fillings and man's mercury burden.
& AU: Halbach-S
& AD: Institute of Toxicology, GSF-Research Center for Environment and
Health,
& Oberschleissheim, Germany.
& SO: Hum-Exp-Toxicol. 1994 Jul; 13(7): 496-501
& ISSN: 0960-3271
& PY: 1994
& LA: ENGLISH
& CP: ENGLAND
AB: Next to nutrition, amalgam fillings represent the main source for
exposure of the general population to mercury. Toxicological considerations
focus on the dose of mercury resulting from such exposure. Various
approaches to estimate this dose are reviewed. Introducing the dose into the
known toxicokinetic model for mercury, tissue and blood and urine
concentrations related to mercury release from the fillings can be
predicted. These agree well with autopsy and in vivo observations. An
assessment of the health hazard for individuals with amalgam fillings shows
that the combined mercury intake from food and amalgam does not exceed the
acceptable daily intake. In addition, blood and urine mercury concentrations
of amalgam bearers are below one tenth of the critical values associated
with the onset of early symptoms or of subclinical effects attributable to
mercury.
.....The Toxicologists have spoken.....
> Many dentists are refusing to use them, and many patients are having them
> removed.
With what results??? Do the insane suddenly become sane upon removal
of amalgam?? Do leukocyte counts and tumor necrosis factor levels return
to population normals?? (Did you ever notice that whenever 60 minutes
presents a topic within YOUR area of expertice you find the information
"somewhat less than factual"?)
> Remember that textbooks are for reference, and don't always reflect real
> life. Numbers are fine, but don't believe everything you read.
What does this mean, "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"
are we to throw away scientific method and simply believe that which can be
found which will corroborate our pre-existing opinions?
> Doc.
>
> "Chiropractic, Like Gravity, Works Whether You Believe In It Or Not."
And mercury containing dental amalgams are toxic "whether we believe it or
not." PLEASE, cite the literature or provide us with the data, don't just
play upon fears and unfounded rumors.
> Now, let's quit playing with mercury, and let's put this thread to bed.
I concur, as long as I get the last word!! <G>
Gary
__________________________________________________________________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition
from mediocre minds" Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Frane <gummitch@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Confused Aussies
Alan from Adelaide wrote:
> Subject: Corn sugar/To boil or not to boil/Two Dogs
>
> American 'corn sugar' seems to be exactly the same as what we in Australia
> know as 'white
> sugar'/'table sugar'/'sucrose' -- in other words, that white crystalline
> stuff that you can use to sweeten your coffee.
No, "corn sugar" is dextrose, not sucrose. Just like in Oz, our sucrose
is derived from cane *or* like the Europeans, from beets. Sugar beets
are a big crop in California.
Andy Walsh, also from Oz, wrote:
>
> Subject: irish moss
>
> Matt Melton reckons Irish Moss and gelatin are useless. Fair enough;
> I must admit I often wonder whether the ritual irish moss sprinkle actually
> achieves anything worthwhile. Sometimes I forget but still get clear beer.
> I do find, however, that gelatin helps yeast to settle out faster. I guess
> if you're keeping the beer cool in a secondary for 3 weeks that provides
> ample time to drop the yeast out. I'm just not that patient!
>
> The trouble with the irish moss question, is that everyone has
> their own opinion based on subjective criteria. How can
> you really be sure it works unless you do some sort of scientific
> test? Do you grind it up? Do you rehydrate? When do you add it to
> the boil? I don't think many of us would be keen to do the
> work necessary to really answer these questions.
>
The scientific work has already been done, and was actually circulated
on the net a year or so ago. George Fix did the research, and
determined optimal amounts for Irish Moss. The reason most people "have
their own opinion" has been that *all* the homebrewing texts called for
amounts of Irish Moss too insignificant to make a contribution.
George's research determined that the flakes were actually superior to
the powder, and that the correct amount is roughly 1-1/2 tsp. in 5
gallons. Although the paper didn't include the process of rehydration,
George's recommendation is to do so.
My own anecdotal evidence in favor of Irish Moss is overwhelming -- I
wouldn't make a beer without it.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 12:08:32 EDT
From: Timothy J. Dalton - Ein Prosit der Gemutlichkeit <dalton@subpac.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Boston Area Homebrewers - Next Wort Processor Meeting
Attention Boston Area Homebrewers.
The next meeting of the Mighty Boston Wort Processors will be held on Friday,
June 2nd, 1995. If you are interested in attending, please email me for
directions and more information.
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 12:46:28 EST
From: dsanderson@msgate.CV.COM
Subject: Bad News Bungs on Minikeg
I just bought my first FULL Minikeg of a German beer named Warsteiner
motivated out of curiosity and an expectation of reusing the can.
This isn't about the beer or the Minikeg. It's about the Bung which was
a bugger to get out. It's made of rubber molded around nylon with 8
exposed lands that spring out and lock after clearing the rim. Clearly
tamper resistant and not intended for reuse.
I got it by tearing off the top brim, pushing it in and pulling it out
sideways but the rim of the can was somewhat deformed in the process.
Is this typical of full Minikegs and does anyone any decent techniques
for removal. Or should I just slice off the rubber brim, push it in and
stop worrying?
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 11:35:00 +6
From: Bunning W Maj ACC/DOTE <bunningw@ns.acc.af.mil>
Subject: Yeast for Wheat Beers
Bob Sinnema wrote:
I'm planning to make a blueberry-wheat beer and am curious about yeasts
that others have used when making wheat-based fruit beers. There would
seem to be little advantage to using a weizen yeast since one is not
looking for the unique clove/banana/spice aroma of a weizen. Nevertheless,
most of the recipes I've seen call for weizen yeast. So tell me, why
shouldn't I use a garden variety ale yeast?
Jeff Guillet wrote:
I'm in the process of making a clone of Pyramid's Apricot Hefeweizen. I
used Wyeast #1338 European because of it's low attenuation. This should
make for a slightly sweeter beer which lends itself to the fruit flavor.
I find that most of the actual fruit essence comes from aroma, not
flavor so you don't want the yeast's characteristics to compete. You do
want some residual sweetness in your wheat beer, however.
I think the kind of yeast chosen should emulate the type of beer you are
trying to brew. If you are making a specific type of beer (a porter say)
with a fruit component, then use the yeast for that style. If you are
trying to produce a lambic style (the original fruit beer) without all the
hassle of special yeast strains, try a Belgian ale yeast. If however, you
are trying to emulate an American-style fruit beer (usually wheat based),
try a neutral ale yeast (like WYeast American Ale), or for a hint of wheat
beer taste, BrewTeks American White.
Bill Bunning <<bunningw@hqaccdo.langley.af.mil>>
Member of the Mile High Beer Club
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 13:32:40 EDT
From: jkh@meaddata.com (John Heck)
Subject: Trub Removal
After I started to use a wort cooler last year
I was faced with the problem of a large mass of
cold break material. It was a large volume of
very powdery white material which did not settle
well at all. I wrestled with the concept of just
ignoring it as it was, after all, dissolved in
the wort prior to my using a cooling technique
and I couldn't tell if it affected the flavor or
not. Aesthetically, however, it was intolerable
so I have tried to come up with a way to remove
it *without* losing a lot of wort. After many ex-
periments and much brainstorming I arrived at a
method which seems to work well, is simple, and
is efficient. After I have cooled my wort I rack
it to a carboy and allow it to settle overnight.
Then I carefully siphon off the top, clear layer
of wort into the fermenter. At that point I aerate
and pitch. I then arrange a special funnel arran-
gement which I constructed from one half of a 5
gallon plastic carboy, used for bottled water. I
then stuff some window screen in the neck of the
carboy, for support, and lay a doubly folded,
cheesecloth hopsbag over the screen. Pour in the
remaining wort, trub and all(including pellet hops
remains) and let it drip out overnight. All the
wort will filter out given time. I then re-boil
the filtered wort, cool it, and pour it into the
fermenter.
Although this is not really a simple process it
has the virtue of working well. If care is taken
with sanitation the delay in pitching is not
really a problem. You can prove this to yourself
by making a small fermenter from a gallon jug and
a lock and introducing some wort to it in the
normal way without pitching. I can do this without
experiencing any microflora growth for many weeks,
especially with high gravity worts where the os-
motic pressure *may* be enough to discourage some
organisms.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:59:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Darren Robert Gergle <dgergle@umich.edu>
Subject: yeast strains
anybody know of any good documentation on yeast strains and the
differences in many different types of yeast available to us
homebrewers. so far i've only found the basic intro stuff, and the
hyper-technical. looking for something in the middle. thanks,
-d
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:18:06 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Safe Houses
> Subject: Re: drinking water safe hoses?
When I first read that, I thought it said something about "safe-houses".
> From: BierDude@aol.com
> Subject: Yeast starter/Lurking
> My question is - at the 4 hour mark there is alot of sediment at the bottom
> of the bottle. When I pitch - do shake the bottle to resuspend the sediment
> or not??
I always tried to get the sediment in there as well. Certainly, in the
solution there is a lot of yeast, and in the sediment there is other stuff,
but I'd go ahead with the whole thing.
> BTW - Now that I have posted, can I go back to just lurking? There is some
> perverse (voyeuristic) joy in just stay out here and lurking.
I've always found lurking about as exciting as drinking in moderation. It's
okay, if you like that sort of thing.
> From: akeig@library.adelaide.edu.au (Alan Keig)
> Subject: Corn sugar/To boil or not to boil/Two Dogs
> American 'corn sugar' seems to be exactly the same as what we in Australia
> know as 'white
> sugar'/'table sugar'/'sucrose' -- in other words, that white crystalline
> stuff that you can use to sweeten your coffee.
Nope, that's what we call "white sugar" or "cane sugar". (I've read that
most "cane sugar" in the US actually comes from beets, but is still labelled
"cane". Go figure.)
Corn sugar = dextrose, made from maize/corn.
> I actually use Dextrose [often called 'Brewers' Sugar in Australia]
We call it that, too. And one other name, candy related, I think.
-R
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:46:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dale L. Orth" <orth@post.its.mcw.edu>
Subject: gas mix
I don't have a corny kegging system, but I am curious as to how these gas
mixes work. Nitrogen in a gas tank remains a gas (at least I think it
does) whereas carbon dioxide is a liquid/gas mix depending on temperature
and pressure. How in the world is it predictable what the mix coming out
will be?!? It seems as long as there was enough carbon dioxide to have
some as liquid the mixture percentages would depend only on temperature
and total pressure. Anyone care to straighten out my understanding of
this? I know it works, because I love the creaminess as much as anyone
else!
Dale L. Orth
orth@post.its.mcw.edu
Chemistry & Physics Departments
Wisconsin Lutheran College
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:53:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Kempisty - 957-8365 <MKEMPISTY@gic.GI.COM>
Subject: Sam Adams Extract Recipe
Whoops, sent this without any comment. Let's try again.
An issue or two ago Dave Peterson asked for a Sam Adams recipe. Well,
here is one. I have not tried it exactly. But I did make one with
Williamette hops and Laaglander amber extract. I did note that the
taste was similar to Sam Adams.
SAMUAL ADAMS TASTE-ALIKE LAGER
1 Can Munton & Fison Hopped Premium malt extract (3 lbs 5 oz)
2 lbs Amber dried malt extract
1 oz Halleutaur hops (plug OK) 40 minute boil
1 oz Tettinger hops (plug OK) 10 minute finish
1 pkg Munton & Fison homebrew yeast (normally included with M & F extract kit)
Boil in 2 gallons of water. Sparge into 3 gallons of cold water. Ferment in
primary fermenter for four days. Ferment in secondary for six to ten days.
- -- Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 16:31:04 -0400
From: av257@freenet.carleton.ca (Stephen Schryburt)
Subject: Refrigerating wort
Dear fellow brewers,
I would like to preserve a five gallon volume of wort for
fermentation at a later date.
I have read about a technique in one of CP's books to
preserve a small volume of sterile wort in a capped,
refrigerated beer bottle. The wort is later used to prime
the beer for carbonating without adding sugar. The wort
can also be used to propagate yeast. There is no mention
of how long the wort will keep refrigerated.
I would like to use a food grade five gallon bucket (the type
that is often used as a primary) to contain the wort. There
will be an air-space of about three inches between the surface
of the wort and the lid. The mash will be a full grain step-infusion.
I have had success in the past refrigerating ten gallons of wort in
a grief, but it was only for twenty four hours and the mash was
made from concentrate.
Now a few questions:
Do you think the airspace in the bucket could be a problem for
contamination? Should I flush the air out with CO2?
Would I have to re-aerate the wort before fermentation or could
I just pitch the yeast when it reaches room temperature?
Would it be better to freeze it or would that deteriorate the wort?
What types of deterioration would the wort likely undergo if it
was refrigerated for an extended period? (hop aroma, etc.)
Thanks in advance for any advice.
- --
Stephen av257@freenet.carleton.ca
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1995 16:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ellsworth, Brian" <ELLSWORB@osc2.otis.utc.com>
Subject: FW: Returned mail: Host unknown
Alan asked about boiling kits.
I tried to send this reply to Allen's email address directly, but for some
reason my mail server couldn't fine his. After a couple of minor edits i'll
risk embarrassment and possibly even harassment and post the reply I tried
to send to him......
I'm an extract brewer too. Your sugar discussion was interesting, but I must
admit that i've never used any type of sugar in my brews. Perhaps some dried
malt extract once in a while, but never sugar. For sugar or rice beer, it's
easier to just go down to the liquor store. For the homebrew, the preferred
recipe would typically call for 6-7 lbs of canned malt extract, and about a
pound to 1.5 pounds of crystal or some other specialty grain. If you want to
try to boosting the SG a bit, for fun, add 2 to 4 cups of dried malt. (4
cups and things are getting pretty heavy!! :)
I boil. Always. BUT, I also use a fairly large quantity of hops. Mostly
pellets for flavoring and bitterness and dry hopping some leaf for aroma. If
you are using a pre-hopped kit and not adding any of your own hops defiantly
DON'T boil it. Boiling the pre-hopped kit will reduce the aroma
significantly, and probably increase the bitterness and reduce flavor.
(gees, this is going on hbd.... should I be calling that wonderful aroma
'the-hop-nose'? At least I didn't call it smell :)
Just my opinion, but you are missing out if you stick to the pre-hopped
kits. Hops are relatively cheep, and developing a schedule for bittering,
flavor and aroma hopping is half the fun.
I have found that in order to get good performance from my hops a 60 to 90
min boil is required. Without a good full rolling boil, the full bitterness
does seem to be achieved. My last batch used about 5 or 6 oz of a variety of
hop pellets distributed into the boiling wort from the 60 min mark up until
the last 2 mins. I put in about 1/4 oz at a time, and basically just keep
sprinkling them in for the whole hour. (By now some of the more refined
HBers are saying "my god, what an animal!", oh well, it's good for 'em :)
One other hint. If you start using hops, try not to let the SG get too high
during the boil. I found out the hard way that if you use at least one
gallon of water for each 3.3lbs of canned malt extract you'll get reasonable
results from your hops. If the mix gets much 'thicker', the hops utilization
goes down. My boil volume is typically 4 gallons or more.
Another note: If you are dumping hot wort directly into the fermentor you
may get some strange flavors or smells. (and they really are smells this
time!) Make a chiller of one type or another. A simple suggestion is to use
about 20 feet of 3/8 copper tubing bent around and around in a circle as an
immersion chiller. It works great. My setup can bring the wort from 200 degs
F down to 75 or 80F in about 40 mins. THEN dump it through a BIG sanitized
strainer into the fermenter. 70% to 80% of the hop mess is filtered out, and
the mix is ready for the yeast.
You might find that you'll start racking into a second stage of fermentation
when you start using hops.... The hops and any trub from the specialty
grains you use will be left behind when you rack. Let the first stage go a
week or so, depending on temp, yeast activity and convenience. Then rack it
to the secondary. A glass carboy is a good choice for the secondary. I'd
stay away from prolonged storage in plastic.
Back into the woodwork with the rest of the extract brewers! Please, please
master(-brewers), don't beat me...
-be
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 16:58:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dave Bradley::IC742::6-2556" <BRADLEY_DAVID_A@Lilly.com>
Subject: Some mercury details
Heavy Metals:
In response to the continuing mercury thread, and at risk of dropping
my AI score even lower, let me first apologize for not checking
the logic in a post I made several weeks ago about Hg's toxicity.
And thanks to Domenick for succinctly noting there is an obvious
error in the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for mercury. I
apologize for not having checked this normally accurate (legally
required) info before passing it on to the Collective of the HBD!
Shoot me now...
(missed! I go on to detail...)
Mercury toxicity continues to be a topic on the digest. ITS TOXIC!
Believe this. It is the truth. However, it is NOT A POTENT TOXIN.
After my last post, I checked this Q more closely. Mercury is toxic
just as most transition metals are. In fact, the toxicity data
from the Merck Index, from a variety of MSDS sources (OHS Inc.,
Cutin-Matheson Scientific, Aldrich), from the Handbook of Chemical
Hazards, among others, describing such toxicity in detail reveals
that mercury's toxic symptoms closely resemble the toxicity of
many metals, including lead, zinc, cadmium, aluminum, and tin.
I'M NOT SAYING THESE ARE ALL EQUALLY TOXIC...
Some of these we avoid while others we don't. Exposure guidelines given
for these metals (above sources) reflect what we intuitively know.
Here are some elements and their TLV's and PEL's (*):
_Metal_ _TLV_ _PEL_ (in mg per cubic meter)
Aluminum 10.0 -----
Iron 5.0 10.0
Tin 2.0 ----- Note: metal dust
Copper 1.0 ----- inhalation is the
Arsenic 0.20 0.010 cause for some of
Lead 0.15 0.050 these toxicities,
Mercury 0.05 0.100 versus ingestion!
Cadmium 0.05 0.005 (!)
(*- Threshold Limit Values are provided by the American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Permissible Exposure Limits are established by OSHA. All numbers
are time-weighted average limits for a 40 hour work week. The
OSHA PEL's are enforceable by law.)
What the heck does this matter? Yes indeed. My thinking led me to
consider that if everyone agrees ("shields up Captn!") lead solder is
NOT to be used to sweat copper joints in, say, one's lauter tun, how
much sense does it make to use an amalgamated kettle? The answer lies
in the physical properties of mercury as well as the type of exposure...
The physical properties of elemental mercury make it insoluble in all but
strong acids (ie nitric) at room temperature. When heated in weak acid
(beer),it is simply unknown to what extent mercury may be extracted.
However, much less soluble yet are amalgams with iron, zinc, gold,
etc. The issue is acute versus chronic exposure. The tiny amounts
leachable into a single batch of brew are certainly WELL below the
quantities OSHA/ACGIH say are "OK" for 40 hours/week (ie chronic)
exposure. And I don't even drink 5 gallons of beer/week (do I?)!
And the quantities needed to qualify for acute exposure could only
be met by drinking a large thermometer's worth of the stuff, so its
not an issue in this discussion.
Towards explaining the unknown, science teaches us to extrapolate from what's
known. In this case, my belief is that mercury in a kettle (or my
teeth) is tightly bound via an amalgam and will not appreciably leach
into the wort (or beer), even during the boil. I wouldn't have said
this earlier, but I do now after reviewing the data.
Sorry if my earlier note scared you mercury users! I will not use mercury
in the lab or at home if I can help it. Others have said the same.
Avoid it and there's no problem :-)! Now that the AI Police have
come knocking on my EtherNet card, sorry for the BW. Use this
data to guide you into your PERSONAL comfort zone w/ mercury,
lead, whatever.
db
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>THESE OPINIONS ARE MINE ALONE AND DO NOT<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>REFLECT THOSE OF ELI LILLY AND CO.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From: BRADLEY DAVID A (MCVAX0::RC65036)
To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com")
cc: BRADLEY DAVID A (MCVAX0::RC65036)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 09:36:19 +1000
From: nigelt@delm.tas.gov.au (Nigel Townsend)
Subject: plastic carboys
Mark Evans asked several days ago about using plastic carboys as primary
fermenters. Except for Harry's brief omments on 16 May 1995, there doesnt
appear to have been an answer. My father and I have been brewing beer in
plastic fermenters for around 30 years without any recent problem relating
to the plastic or the shape. The fermenters are dustbin (garbage can?)
shaped. My father uses open brewing techniques, I prefer closed lids and
airlocks.
My father had problems with some early fermenters as he really was using
plastic dustbins and he found the dark coloured ones imparted strange
flavours to the beer, but he soon moved onto a source of food grade
plastic.
I use plastic for primary and secondary fermenters without obvious
oxidation problems. My personal (not technically qualified) opinion is
that the brew is not in there long enough for the oxygen permeablity to be
a significant problem. I even use a plastic keg to store the beer for
serving. As a slow drinker the 5 gallons can sit there for several months
pressurised with Co2. I have not noticed any oxidation flavours. However,
I use it only for ales as I bottle lagers.
Plastic fermenters and kegs are commonly used in UK and in Australia. I
understand that many people here use steel containers for the keg as they
prefer higher pressures for their beer (mainly lager style presentation).
hope this is useful
Nigel from Tasmania, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 20:41:01 -0400
From: SMKRANZ@aol.com
Subject: Kegging question
Terry McGravey wrote:
>My kegs are kept in a fridge and are fed by the CO2 tank which is >outside
the fridge (to prevent moisture in the regulator and leave >enough room for 2
kegs in the fridge).
I don't keg now, but am inching closer to doing so (once I can justify or
rationalize the initial cost to my ever-loving but not-quite-as-
understanding-as-she-used-to-be wife). The current issue of Zymurgy had a
nice introductory article about kegging, but did not answer one question: is
it ok to keep the CO2 tank in the fridge with the kegs or does it need to be
kept at room temp.? What if any are the problems and/or dangers of doing so?
If *really* necessary I could probably run the gas line through the side of
the spare fridge, but would prefer not to. The HBD is great, and I look
forward to help on this from keggers.
Thanks,
Steve Kranz
smkranz@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 21:06:22 EDT
From: brewzer@peanut.mv.com (Bill Rucker)
Subject: Open fermentation
To all,
My homebrew club is having a a topic discussion on open fermentation
and related topic, cleanliness at our next meeting. I have downloaded
the paper by Jim Busch on Open Fermentation. It gives me a great
place to start but I would like to hear from some others who
have experience using open fermentation or even some more info
from Jim himself.
Also awhile back there was a comment about homebrewers being too
cautious about cleanliness. I would like to hear some other opinions
and facts from those who care to comment, especially from those who
would lose the most from not being cautious enough, professional
brewers.
Our club is new and there are a large number of beginners with
questions about the level of sanitization necessary to create good
beer. I am intrigued by the thought of open fermentation and as these
topics are somewhat interrelated I thought they would go well
together.
Private Email or digest response is welcome.
Bill Rucker
brewzer@peanut.mv.com ruckewg@naesco.com
Homebrew, beer in it's purest form.
BREW ON!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 22:28:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Philip Gravel" <pgravel@mcs.com>
Subject: Corn Sugar
===> Alan Keig writes about corn sugar:
>American 'corn sugar' seems to be exactly the same as what we in Australia
>know as 'white sugar'/'table sugar'/'sucrose' -- in other words, that white
>crystalline stuff that you can use to sweeten your coffee. Australians
>(and English) use the word 'corn' to mean 'wheat' where Americans use it in
>the American Indian Maize sense. So, American corn sugar is Maize (corn)
>sugar (fermentable), or sucrose. In Australia, sucrose is derived from
>sugar cane, rather than maize, and I believe that in Europe they use sugar
>beet to produce the same product.
Not quite. Some terminology need to be corrected, at least as we use it
here in the States. Corn sugar is *not* table sugar or sucrose. We use
the following terms:
Table sugar = cane or beet sugar = sucrose
Corn sugar = glucose aka dextrose
Thus, we use the same terminology here in the States as you do in Australia
for table sugar/sucrose. That is *not* corn sugar. Corn sugar (derived
from maize) is composed of glucose otherwise known as dextrose. Glucose is
a monosaccharide. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of one glucose and one
fructose.
On another note... Sucrose is dextrorotatory -- it turns polarized
light to the right. When heated with a mild acid, sucrose is hydrolyzed
to glucose and fructose. Glucose is dextrorotatory whereas fructose is
levorotatory (turns polarized light to the left). Since fructose is more
levorotatory than glucose is dextrorotatory, the overall mixture is levo-
rotatory. Hence, when sucrose is hydrolyzed by heating with mild acid
it is inverted from dextrorotatory to levorotatory. Hence the name 'invert
sugar' for hydrolyzed sucrose.
- --
Phil
_____________________________________________________________
Philip Gravel Lisle, Illinois pgravel@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 00:47:48 -0400
From: Elde@aol.com
Subject: Cost/Starters/Extracts
On Costs;
>>deteriorate, resulting in a 220v arc. At $20-30 a pop for
>>burners, plus the $27 for the receptacle, this got pricey
Over a three year period? That's not bad. Bet most people
spend more/year on brew gadgets.
IMHO, homebrewers spend to much time worrying about
relatively minor amounts of $$. (Witness the heroic efforts
expended to reculture yeast.)
On Starters;
>>My question is - at the 4 hour mark there is alot of
>>sediment at the bottom of the bottle. When I pitch - do
>>shake the bottle to resuspend the sediment or not??
I shake and pitch... it's the cells at the bottom that you
want.
On Extract Brewers;
From: akeig@library.adelaide.edu.au (Alan Keig)
>>Thanks to Ruth Hegelson and Kirk Fleming, I can now admit
>>to being -only- an extract brewer, but I make great use of
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
>>I feel that far too many people look down on extract
>>brewers -- even many extract brewers appologize for being
>>extract brewers.
Amen! The situation here is such that we (local begining
extract brewers) are considering forming our OWN club. The
local all grainers are not too keen on us.... Which is sad
because of the experience not available to us.
On Boiling;
>>Does anyone have any thoughts on whether to boil the wort
>>or not, and if so, for how long? Since the extract that I
>>use has, I guess, already been through all those arcane
>>mashing and steeping procedures that I read about in HBD,
>>I wouldn't imagine that boiling would do anything useful,
>>but I'd be grateful for any feedback.
Boil Away! For at least an hour. Yes the extract has
already been mashed.. But it has not been boiled. While we
do not need to reduce volume, (as sometimes needed with all
grain), we still need to get the 'break', etc.. (And if
hopping your own, how are you going to extract the bitter
without the boil?)
On Stupid Aeration Tricks;
Ok, Ok, mea culpa. Whipping the hot starter *seemed* like a
good idea....
Derek
A *proud* extract brewer.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 13:08:16 +0300 (IDT)
From: Lenny Garfinkel <lenny@zeus.datasrv.co.il>
Subject: mutating yeast
David Boe writes:
Bill also says he was on the 14th generation of yeast in that particular
batch. This also flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of only
repitching yeast 3 generations. I believe that if one has the capability of
keeping things sterile he/she can get many more generations from a single
starter. I often hear it claimed that there is a possibility of the yeast
mutating but I find it hard to believe that yeast is any more likely to
mutate in a carboy than in a petri dish. I do, however, agree it *is* less
likely to get *contaminated* in a laboratory than in your kitchen. A yeast
lab (generic sense) is also capable of analyzing the yeast to ensure the
strain is correct and not contaminated. Am I way off base here?
David Boe
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
DCB2@pge.com
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
First, yeast sitting on a petri dish are not likely to mutate. Mutations
occur primarily during growth. If one yeast cell in a colony on a
petri dish mutated, you would not notice it UNLESS the mutation conferred
some advantage to the cell. Anyone who grows microorganisms for a living
knows that if you want to make sure that each batch is the same as the
last, your best bet is to go back to the original petri dish, and pick a
fresh colony. Never pass your cells from one culture to another.
However, making beer does not have the rigorous requirements present in
the pharmaceutical industry and as long as the beer made by passing
cultures from one fermentation to the next meets your standards, why not
do it? Especially if it means getting your fermentation going almost
immediately, which is insurance against some other nasty bug taking over
your wort.
Second, David assumes that a yeast lab has the capability of testing the
yeast to make sure that it is not contaminated and has not changed. It is
true that one can easily test for contamination. However, testing for
subtle changes in other characteristics can only be done by doing
fermentations just like you do at home. Yeasts are described as giving a
drier finish, a fruity taste, etc. You can test these at home. A good
lab can quantitate biochemically several factors which may contribute to
these characteristics, but the increase or decrease in the level of a
particular ester is not necessarily due to a mutation, nor does it
necessarily correlate with any of the subjective taste characteristics
for which we value certain yeast strains.
Now that we are on the subject of mutations, I'd like to hear from anyone
who knows how the professionals select their yeast for certain traits. I
mentioned above that mutations will only show themselves if they give
some selective advantage to the mutated cells. Otherwise, they will grow
at the same rate as the rest of the cells. Now, here in Israel, we have
HOT summers. I tried brewing last summer with wet towels around my
bucket fermentor with ok results. But it's a hassle. I am currently
brewing a batch with Cooper's yeast (thanks to Andy Walsh in Australia
for the suggestion and the yeast-thanks, Andy!). We had a couple days
this week where the temp was 30C in the house. The fermentation went
just fine. I would like to keep passing the yeast from batch to batch
and hopefully select a strain which is even happier at higher
temperatures than the Coopers. Yeast which had mutated would be more
prevalent since they are better able to grow at higher temps (selective
advantage). Any comments?
Lenny Garfinkel
p.s. I also happen to grow yeast in my lab for experiments unrelated to
beer (!). They are happiest at 30C, although I should point out that we
grow them aerobically.
_______________________________________________________________
Dr. Leonard Garfinkel | Internet: lenny@zeus.datasrv.co.il
Bio-Technology General | Office Phone: 972-8-381256
Kiryat Weizmann | Home Phone: 972-8-451505
Rehovot, Israel | FAX: 972-8-409041
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 7:41 EDT
From: Gerald_Wirtz@vos.stratus.com
Subject: re: Styles & Creativity
Excellent article that I FULLY agree with! I brew beer that I like not
really caring what it's style is.
A few years ago I was involved with a club that ONLY brewed to style -
these folks were obsessed with trying to create one style or other. With every
meeting being a contest to see who could brew to the 'style of the month' - I
hated it. My beers never fit into their styles, and thus I never fit into
their club.
Now I'm part of a club that just enjoys beer - anykind of beer. We all
kinda brew our OWN styles and we enjoy them all. Isn't this what brewing
beer is all about?
If I was to open my own brewery I wouldn't brew a beer and say 'It's
just like SA, or Pete's' - NO, I'd say here's my style of amber, or brown, or
whatever. And then you style-makers would be trying to copy me.
Joe Wirtz - Future owner of 'Tiggers Tail Brewery'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 07:19:44 +0000
From: "Lee C. Bussy" <leeb@southwind.net>
Subject: Piper's stand
I just know I'm going to be shown in the minority on this one but
here goes anyway. Flames will be silently ignored (a new trick I'm
trying).
Sam Piper's comments were not new and certainly not unique but widely
believed and felt by a significant number of homebrewers.
Who made the styles? Commercial brewers, true enough. I dissagree
heartily with the comment about the recipes being developed out of
economic considerations. You think Thomas Hardy's is a cheap beer to
make? American Lagers for the most part yes, European brews are less
likely to be brewed or changed for that matter in order to save
money. In that market they would loose their asses if they put out a
sub-standard beer.
About the comments about judging and judging to style. If you are a
homebrewer and love homebrewed beer but will not or at least have not
brewed one to style then fine. It does not make you less the brewer.
However, if you want to compete and/or be judged then there simply
must be a standard to compete with/be judged against. There is a
growing practice in the HB competition community to acnowledge the
vast diversity of Homebrew and provide a "No Commercial Equivalent"
style to provide for this. This allows *any* beer to be entered but
without standards it becomes nothing more than a popularity contest.
It does provide feedback for the brewer though which I suppose is the
idea of competitions anyway.
Anyway, the reason for this rather lengthy post was to make one
point..... Homebrewers don't need the support of the commercial world
to justify their efforts. Many a homebrew that was simply divine
defied any attempts at classification. These are meant to be
enjoyed. If you are of the other type of brewer, one who enjoys the
challenge of conformity to style, then competitions provide valuable
feedback.
It's not perfect but it's better than anarchy.
- --
-Lee Bussy | Screaming on the Internet with |
leeb@southwind.net | Windows 95!!!! 32 Bit made simple! |
Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb |
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 07:42:53 -0600
From: mark evans<evanms@lcac1.loras.edu>
Subject: Speltsbier: who's done it?
Collective wisdom: I'm in the middle of my Belgian brewing frenzy (saion...
white... ) and I am planning to brew a speltsbier that was featured in a
recent issue of Zymurgy (love those quirky brews with wacky grains... and
belgian yeasts). My question is: has anyone brewed this or any beer using
the spelt grain. I am especially interested in the 17th century dutch
speltsbier that was sketched out. I noted that they breewed it and served
it very 'green' from a keg. I want to hear any opinion/reactions to the
brew after it was allowed to age a bit.
********************************
also... a general observation on the digest of late: are we not having fun
anymore? have we lost our adventuresome spirit? Posts seem to have gotten
dull and technical (for the most part). Is it the fear of getting booted?
Will I get booted for expressing an opinion? :^) Stay tuned for more...
brewfully, mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 10:33 EDT
From: dfaucher@miranda.com (Daniel Faucher)
Subject: Trapist beer recipes.
Hi, guys
I'm searching some good Trapist or "Abbayes" beer recipes. If you
have good recipes, please post it to the Digest.
I'll wait for it...
Thanks
Dan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 08:22:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Sandy Cockerham__Mc625__6-0412 <COCKERHAM_SANDRA_L@Lilly.com>
Subject: Grain bed as a filter
Hi fellow brewers,
I have used the grain bed successfully as a filter. Last year I made a
pumpkin beer with canned pumpkin. I had heard the horror stories of thick
sludge in the bottom of the fermenter. My beer was only a partial mash,
about 5 or 6 lbs. in my 5 gal. Gott jug (I used a trimmed-to-fit colander
as a false bottom.) Anyway, I put the foundation water in, added the grain,
then added the pumpkin in the rest of the mash water and added it in on top
of the grain. Result--no sludge and a very good beer. In fact I just may
have to make that Pumpkin Dunkle Weizenbock again soon....
Sandy C.
From: COCKERHAM SANDRA L (MCVAX0::RX31852)
To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com")
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 09:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Generations of yeast
David writes:
<Bill also says he was on the 14th generation of yeast in that particular
<batch. This also flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of only
<repitching yeast 3 generations.
Conventional wisdom of homebrewers is around 3 times. This is due to
the difficulty of storing and maintaining non infected/wild yeast slurry
in most homebreweries. Professionally, there is a rule of thumb to
repitch 6 generations for lager yeast and as many as you want for ale
yeast. Note this is a generation, so in most micros the same gen will
be used to start many tanks. I know of ale breweries on the 200th gen
of the same ale yeast.
Jim Busch
"DE HOPPEDUIVEL DRINKT MET ZWIER 'T GEZONDE BLOND HOPPEBIER!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 10:36:00 -0400
From: marc.faubert@canrem.com (Marc Faubert)
Subject: CONFIG
DROP 6611
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 00:01:13 EST
From: ibishop@tanus.oz.au (Ian Bishop)
Subject: ARMSTRONG KITS
Just a little line for the resident kit brewers (I know, I know, I
should be more creative, but in Mount Isa, the temperatures favour very
estery beers and I don't want to risk high-cost failures) that the
Arnstrong line of kits seem to be really good in terms of final product.
I have had one in the bottle for a couple of weeks and it is starting to
taste wonderful.
One hint with the Lager kit. Mix the pre-supplied yeast, with a packet
of Wander yeast and rehydrate. I used no finings but you can dring this
brew directly from the bottle because the sediment has stuck perfectly
to the bottoms!
Go on, 'ave another 'omebrew!
- --------------------------------------------------------------
>From the desk of Ian Bishop - The Mad Muso of Mount Isa, Aust.
Please Direct All Flames to \DEV\NUL or 0:0/0 - Thanks!!
All Real Replies to IBISHOP@TANUS.OZ.AU or 3:640/706
- --------------------------------------------------------------
- ---
* RM 1.3 A1824 * "Bother," said Pooh, as he received his Compuserve bill.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1741, 05/26/95
*************************************
-------
