Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1740
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/05/25 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1740 Thu 25 May 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Styles and Creativity by Sam Piper (part II) (dhvanvalkenburg)
RE: recirculation, Irish moss (Jim Dipalma)
RE: PICO Brewing System ("Babinec, Tony")
grain bed as filter (Btalk)
L.I. Brewpub (Maura Kate Kilgore)
RE: Temp. characteristics of rubber (harry)
Re:RE: Rusty conv. Keg, old water (harry)
New Bottle Washer (Randy Erickson)
RE: Stuck ferments (P Brooks)
S. Piper's remarks (Alan P. Van Dyke)
Grain Bed, part II (Craig Amundsen)
wheat, body, filterbeds (Robert Lauriston/Patricia Bennett)
SS keg (barber eric stephen)
Drinking Water Safe Hoses (Howard O. Partridge)
Re: Full Sail IPA hops (David Ashley)
Pitching Rates (DCB2)
CO2_Regulator_Out_to_Lunch (Terence McGravey {91942})
husks, particles, and the grain bed (Lance Stronk)
Re> N2/O2 mix ("Thomas A. Wideman")
Re: Electric stovetop brewing ("WEISEL, KARL R")
BarKeeper's Friend ("Timothy P. Laatsch)
Koch in Kuffs (mdemers)
fining agents ("Keith Royster")
Mercury (Paul Sovcik)
High Gravity Brews (Norman Pyle)
Extract and Extract Brewers HBD#1739 (G. Garnett)
Yeast for fruit beers (FLATTER)
A Purple Heart for Homebrewing? (harry)
Burnt-out electric burners (Erik Speckman)
******************************************************************
* 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: Tue, 23 May 95 08:09:55 PST
From: dhvanvalkenburg@CCGATE.HAC.COM
Subject: Styles and Creativity by Sam Piper (part II)
Styles & Creativity(part II), by Sam Piper-------
Continued from previous HBD
-------------------------------------------------------------
How did the "standard come to be in the first place? I would argue
that the basis of any beverage-of any food, for that matter, is the
attempt to make something good with the ingredients at hand. It's that
simple. And When you can make something really good, and keep the
price down, you've got a product. And when that product begins to be
copied, you've got a "standard". It's flattering to the first maker,
but not to the second!
Can you imagine a master chef in any restaurant in the world who wants
his Veal Florentine to be exactly like James Beard's ... or anyone
else's? Hell no. It had better be different, it had better be
excellent, and any gourmet should be prepared to appreciate both
dimensions of the dish!
The problem with judging and standards is what I call the American way
of success death. Because rooted in a standard is the expectation of
replication, o loss of individuality, of mass production for mass
consumption by the masses of consumers. It's great for commodities,
car parts and anything to do with manufacturing or repair. But in the
world of arts and appreciation, a standard has to define a level of
quality, not limiting characteristics.
And where in all this is the role of education? Where is the
responsibility to teach a beer maker to joyfully make his or her own
unique beer? or even more important, where is the responsibility to
teach the beer consumer to look for taste, to look for what is pleasing
and gratifying, and to define those terms by experience of tasting the
beer at hand and not by how closely that beer tastes like another?
I am just sick of contest judges who fault stout beers for not tasting
exactly like Guiness.
The more we succumb to beer style standards, the less room there is
for the individual, be that person a consumer, a brewer, or a business
man. But there's still hope for the mass product junkie. I hear
McDonald's will put in little syrup breweries so we can all have fresh
McBeer to go with the McBurger du Jour. For a quality dining
experience!
Sam Piper
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Private responses may be sent to: dhvanvalkenburg@ccgate.hac.com
Don Van Valkenburg
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 11:15:10 EDT
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: RE: recirculation, Irish moss
Hi All,
In HBD#1736, Lance Stronk asks:
>What difference does it make whether it takes 1 quart to
>get clear runoff or 5 gallons to get clear runoff?
During recirculation, the typical homebrewer collects wort in a saucepan or
some such, and adds it back to the top of the lauter tun. There is some
splashing of the wort inherent in this process, which causes both heat
loss and HSA. The less recirculation required to achieve acceptable
clarity of the runoff, the less severe the heat loss, and the less likely
to incur HSA problems.
I think you're looking at this from the perspective of a RIMS user,
someone who typically recirculates wort via a pump through a closed,
insulated plumbing system. From this perspective, additional recirculation
is not a big deal, the insulated plumbing minimizes the heat loss, and
if the RIMS system is designed correctly, it should not splash the wort
around.
*****************************************************************
Mark A. Melton writes:
>In 39 years of home brewing, I have found that neither IM nor gelatin have
>helped clarify the resulting beer.
This is totally contrary to my experience with both Irish moss and gelatin.
Could you post some of the details of your procedures? How do you prepare
them, and at what point during your process do you add them???
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 10:44:00 cdt
From: "Babinec, Tony" <tony@spss.com>
Subject: RE: PICO Brewing System
The following note describes our experiences with the pico
system. Usual disclaimers apply: We have no financial
interest in pico system. I am responding to private e-mail,
but thought the post would be of interest to hbd.
I went in on a full pico system with Steve Hamburg. We have
had the system for about 1.5 years. You can brew with the
pico system by yourself, but it's nice to have another brewer
around as well as split the cost between two or more people.
We bought the system to be able to brew half-barrel batches.
Typically, we split the hopped wort into 3 carboys and pitch
with different yeasts. You can also do parti-gyle brewing
wherein you get a 1st runnings strong beer and one or two
weaker beers.
The full system cost us around $1100. With the full system,
you get three interchangeable kegs:
Keg #1 -- Hot water tank
Keg #2 -- Mash/lauter tun
Keg #3 -- Boil Kettle
All kegs have a ball-valve spigot (I think that's what it's
called) and thermometer wells. For Kegs #2 and #3, you
should purchase false bottoms. In keg #2, the false bottom
becomes the ground for the grain bed, and in keg #3 it serves
as a screen for the hops.
We also bought the electric pumps. There has been some
traffic on HBD about these, and our experience has been
similar. Namely, these pumps are just adequate to getting the
job done. We find that if you "start the siphon" by keeping an
empty pot nearby, once you establish flow in the pump it will
then lift the liquid to the top of the keg. In the absence of
pumps, you would need some sort of tower system to use
gravity to transfer between kettles, and how would you
circulate within a kettle? We have seen some extraordinary
homebrew setups that make use of pumps found at American
Science Surplus, so that remains an alternative.
We employ pumping in the following ways:
Keg #1 to Keg #2 -- UNDERLET hot water from the hot water
tank to the mash/lauter tank.
Keg #2 -- RECIRCULATE mash liquor at mash out.
Keg #1 to Keg #2 -- SPARGE by sprinkling water over the
grain.
Keg #2 to Keg #3 -- TRANSFER sweet wort to boil kettle.
Keg #3 -- RECIRCULATE hopped wort while chilling. This
turned out to be an unanticipated boon to our brewing. You
can make multiple hop additions, including late additions. At
end of boil, recirculate the hopped wort while chilling. The
hops form a hop back and filter some of the break from the
wort.
Keg #3 -- RACK the beer to carboys. This is easy. You get
nice, aerated hopped wort.
Other things you get with the system include tubing and
connections for propane tanks, 3 burners, hoses,
thermometers, clips, stir paddle, and immersion wort chiller.
Steve and I had both been using "cajun cooker" type burners in
our own setups, and much prefer them to stovetop brewing, so
we didn't think long before deciding to get 3 with this system.
There is more prep work before brewing as well as cleanup
after brewing, but the brewing itself takes about the same time
as a 5-gallon batch. We have made very good beers with the
system as well as learned a lot about yeast flavor profiles. The
extract efficiency is about 85-6%, which is higher than on my
5-gallon homebrew system. We can calculate recipes out and
pretty much hit target gravity.
Drawbacks are:
- Again, pumps are barely adequate. However, what is your
best alternative to them?
- Micromanaging the mash temperature takes some learning.
You are much better off calculating your strike water
temperature so that upon underletting you attain your desired
temperature. If the temperature at which the mash settles is
too low, the mash seems to resist rapid temperature boosting
via the mash kettle burner. You're probably better off striking
the mash with more hot water to attain the temperature boost.
On balance, the pluses outweigh the minuses. The kettle
modifications are reasonably well designed and well executed.
If you set out to have a welder modify your kegs for you, you
have the problem that most welders are not brewers and vice
versa. I've seen some poorly designed and executed kettle
modifications as a result. It was convenient for us that the pico
guys figured out a workable system.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 12:00:16 -0400
From: Btalk@aol.com
Subject: grain bed as filter
Kirk Fleming asks about particle distribution in a grain bed after sparging
is finished.
I haven't sectioned my grainbed, though I have let may bucket lauter tun sit
outside overnight in winter so it freezes and the grain comes out as one big
plug.
I had never stopped to examine it closely but the stuff on the bottom of the
grain bed appeared coarser.
I have noticed a fine particle buildup on the top after recirc.
It seems to vary with recipe and assortment of grains in the mash and is
there after the bed is drained.
In my experience, it seems that the grain bed does indeed act as a filter.
Regards,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk@aol.com>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 12:16:06 -0400
From: maura@ljextra.com (Maura Kate Kilgore)
Subject: L.I. Brewpub
Rick Gontarek asked:
I will be at Cold Spring Harbor for 5 days starting on the 23rd, and would
be interested in hearing of any cool places to visit while I'm out there.
I hear there's a new brewpub out there...anybody have any details?
The brewpub is called the Long Island Brewing Company. It is located on
Jericho Tpke. (Rte 25) in Syosset (not far from Cold Spring Harbor). The
beer was pretty good, the prices were reasonable, and we really enjoyed the
atmosphere. But be warned, weekend nights it is jam-packed. There are a
few beer bars that I hear advertised as well (Croxley's Ale House, e.g.) but
I have not been yet. Enjoy!!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:56:16 -0400
From: hbush@pppl.gov (harry)
Subject: RE: Temp. characteristics of rubber
Mark Peacock asked about rubber gaskets: Neoprene has a service temp
of up to 250=B0F. Sounds OK for a boil. Hypalon, a more modern synthetic
rubber, is good to 350=B0F. This came from my neighbor's materials textbook,
so it's probably a slight bit more credible than hearsay.
Harry
..............................................
"If it bleeds, we can kill it!"- Arnold S.
..............................................
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 14:13:01 -0400
From: hbush@pppl.gov (harry)
Subject: Re:RE: Rusty conv. Keg, old water
On Keg cleaning: Generally, the reason why stainless tends to rust
after wire wheeling it is because you didn't use a stainless wire brush.
This leaves some non-stainless material imbedded in the surface, acting as
a source of future rusting. A stainless wire wheel should be OK, but I
have had some decent luck with ZUD cleanser. Try that first.
Harry
..............................................
"If it bleeds, we can kill it!"- Arnold S.
..............................................
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 95 14:09:39 EDT
From: Randy Erickson <74763.2312@compuserve.com>
Subject: New Bottle Washer
Just received my new Fermenthaus washer in the mail yesterday, and it appears to
be just what I've been wanting. I had to run out to the garage and test it out
on a few empties. Works great! This is the kind where the operating valve is
near the faucet end, before the pressure is increased by the small diameter tube
(Lots of pictures in Zymurgy).
Benefits: 1) NO pipe hammer. None. Now I can brew into the wee hours without
waking up the SO on the opposite side of the house. :-)
2) The operating level completely surrounds the washer tube. No chance of
getting the damn thing stuck inside the carboy (Like I seem to do at least twice
per wash these days).
3) Since the outlet tube is completely open, it should work very well for
rinsing siphon hoses.
Down side? Costs about $20.
For the record, no connection, no personal profit motivation, just a satisfied
..., blah, blah, blah -- Randy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 12:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: P Brooks <pbrooks@rig.rain.com>
Subject: RE: Stuck ferments
In HBD #1738 Andy Walsh was overseen to say:
> I rarely get a stuck fermentation, but whenever I try
> and make a tripel I get one! I recently made a tripel
> that stuck at 1.040 after starting at 1.090. I believe that
[snip]
> Any suggestions are welcome.
On my last Strong Ale, which started around 1.088 I had a similar
problem. I was using Wyeast 1098, and hadn't had the time before
brewing to make a really good size starter - so when it sort of
petered out, I just made another starter, treating it like a
1.040-ish beer and tossed it in. Fermentation wasn't as vigorous the
second time around, but it worked out fine and brought it down to
around 1.020 (which was were I expected). As always YMMV, but I just
figured my yeasties got a bit worn and over worked and needed
replacements.
ciao,
pb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 15:27:36 -0700
From: alan@mail.utexas.edu (Alan P. Van Dyke)
Subject: S. Piper's remarks
Viva Sam Piper!
Alan Van Dyke Austin, TX
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 17:36:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Craig Amundsen <amundsen@biosci.cbs.umn.edu>
Subject: Grain Bed, part II
Hi -
I'm home now with the _The Practical Brewer_ in front of me. Here's what the
Master Brewers Association of the Americas has to say on grain beds:
A properly established filter bed should consist of a thin
layer of dough-like fines immediately on the plates with a
thick layer of endosperm particles of gradually increasing size
becoming a layer of larger endosperm particles with husk particles
adhering, and finally a top layer of large husk particles. In an
undisturbed mash, the husk layer will be covered with a thin
layer of gelatinous material and above that the clearing wort
with a few floating acrospires. There would also be some
"underdough" beneath the false bottom. One of the objectives of
wort circulation and initial operations of the lautering machine
is to pull the underdough from beneath the plates and transport
it to the top of the grain bed and redistribute it down through
the classifying particles. During this and subsequent lautering
processes, it is important that the lautering knives be operated
in a manner that the dough layer immediately above the plates is
not disturbed. The knives should, however, be kept operating at
or just below the interface between the wort and the grain bed to
keep the gelatinous layer from sealing the bed.
page 90 of _The Practical Brewer_
Copyright 1977
The Master Brewers Association of the Americas
So with the caveat (sp?) of "an undisturbed mash", the husks are actually the
top layer of the grain bed during the sparge. I quoted the whole paragraph
because I thought it was a sinister way to re-introduce the "knife the grain
bed during the sparge" thread ;^) It also brought up what could be a reason
for some stuck sparges: to little agitation of the top of the bed during
water additions lets the gelatinous ( = protein (can you say wheat?)) layer
seal the bed and no water flows. Craig's stuck sparge advice of the day:
if you have a stuck sparge, as a first attempt at fixing it, give the top
couple of inches of the grain bed a quick stir with a spoon or knife. It
might work.
- Craig and his big .sig
- --
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Craig Amundsen | DILBERT - Sometimes I wonder if it's ethical |
| amundsen@biosci.cbs.umn.edu | to do these genetic experiments. But |
| (612) 624-2704 | I rationalize it because it will |
| 250 Biological Sciences | improve the quality of life. |
| 1445 Gortner Avenue | DOGBERT - What are you making? |
| Saint Paul, MN 55108 | DILBERT - Skunkopotamus. |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 15:57:06 -0700
From: robtrish@noif.ncp.bc.ca (Robert Lauriston/Patricia Bennett)
Subject: wheat, body, filterbeds
to Dan Pack, R. James Ray and Frank Caico,
Re wheat malt and beers beers
- -- Beers made with a combination of wheat malt and pale barley malt re often
perceived as being lighter in body than an all pale malt beer made with the
same yeast. A certain 'tartness' is also often perceived. This is based on
my experience making a wheat beer in a large micro and hearing peoples'
reactions. The beer was filtered and this can reduce the perceived body. A
'regular' ale yeast was used; i.e. not a lactic or phenolic producer. The
morale is that biochemistry does not dictate perception absolutely.
- -- Wheat in any form is a foam-builder for a given set of 'downstream'
process conditions.
- -- There is a discussion of wheat malt in Eric Warners book "Wheat beer".
Ken Willing was asking about perceived mouthfeel. While the 'protein
factor' is key, there are other considerations. The buttery-ness of
diacetyl increases the perceived body. Any acidity would tend to decrease
the perception of body. Anyone care to add to this list of complicating
factors?
Kirk Flemming asked about filterbeds and recirculation. I don't think, "
the husks fall to the bottom of the grain bed", but the initial cloudy wort
results from the smaller particles travelling around the husk and any other
large particles at the bottom of the mash and then through the screen. If
you did turn out your grainbed upside down and looked at the bottom, I think
you'll see mostly husks, but the so-called filterbed is not very deep. In
contrast, I'm sure most grain brewers have seen the grey pasty stuff that
forms on the top of sparged grains and that definitely wouldn't stay on the
bottom (though there may be fines under the screen.)
Mark A. Melton wrote, "It is a waste of time to use Irish moss, and worse
than nothing to use gelatin." Mr. Melton's experiences are not widely
shared. There are effective methods of using these materials. Note Tim
Laatsch's praise of gelatin and IM in the same digest. See HBD 1737 for Tim
Field's summary concerning Irish Moss. In contrast to Mr. Melton's
practice, it would be more common to use gelatin at least half a day before
bottling in order to leave behind the gelatin and the material it helps to
precipitate.
- rob lauriston <robtrish@noif.ncp.bc.ca>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 19:23:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: barber eric stephen <barber_e@einstein.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: SS keg
I just got a 5 gal. SS keg that is a hazardous
material container from Europe. I want to put beer
in it of course, and am wondering how much pressure
it must handle. The seems are TIG welded apparently
and look very strong. The wall of the cotainer seems
kind of thin, but I do not care if it bulges
Is it more predictable to "artificially"
cabonate the beer, or should I prime with sugar,
like I do in bottles. I have the specs. on this
container, and am basically trying to avoid an
exploding beer bomb in my aging closet.
I also have to tap this sucker some how. I realy want
to hook it up to a CO2 system, to propel my beer
into my mug, or mouth depending on the situation.
It has a 2" standard threaded hole in the top, and I
have a SS, and plastic (HDPE) bung for the container.
Are there any kegging experts that want to answer my
trivial questions. Any and all info. will be much
appreciated, private e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 22:27:38 -0400
From: ae953@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Howard O. Partridge)
Subject: Drinking Water Safe Hoses
In Digest #1737 Steve Peters asks about drinking water safe hoses
These are available at any camping supply store or RV sales
location. They are used by us RVers to supply our drinking water
from the faucets in campgrounds. They impart no taste and are
colored white to distinguish them from garden hoses. They come
in lengths of 25 or 50 feet.
Hope this helps.
Howie Partridge###
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 14:14:00 GMT
From: david.ashley@wwwhbbs.com (David Ashley)
Subject: Re: Full Sail IPA hops
In reply to: ai752@lafn.org (Tom Lahue)
Subject: Full Sail IPA - Hops
Tom Lahue asked this question:
>I recently had a pint of Full Sail IPA and would like to try to
>duplicate the hop flavor and bittering. Anyone in Oregon or Washington
>know any info on how this beer is hopped?
>Thanks,
>Tom
Howdy, Tom;
I'm not sure if this will help or not, but here goes a stab:
In front of me on my desk is a tasting tray mat from Full Sail Brewing
which lists malts and hops for several of their ales. Unfortunately,
their excellent IPA isn't listed, but the Golden and Amber are. Perhaps
what those hops are will help you come up with an idea, okay? Here's
what it says:
"Full Sail Golden Ale A medium-bodied, 12-degree Plato ale brewed with
two-row Pale, Crystal, and Dextrin barley malts. This beer is
well-hopped with Mt. Hood and Tettnanger hops from the Pacific
Northwest. A crisp, aromatic beer with a well balanced, mild sweetness
which finishes dry and refreshing. Excellent with hot and spicy
cuisine. ABW: 3.5%"
"Full Sail Amber Ale A rich, full-bodied 14.5-degree Plato ale brewed
with two-row Pale, Crystal and Chocolate barley malts, producing a
delicate butterscotch profile. This beer is well hopped with Cascade
and Mt. Hood hops to finely balance the malty sweetness; finishes with
the tang of spicy floral hops. ABW: 4.8%"
It goes on to say that their Main Sail Stout is hopped with Willamettes.
Hope this helps--->
- --DAsh Foggy Day Ales & Porter, Homebrew Walla Walla, WA
Home of Jumpin' Java Porter
=========================================================================
"All in all, it's just another -beer- in the Wall!" P. Floyd
=========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 1:18:39 PDT
From: DCB2%OPS%DCPP@bangate.pge.com
Subject: Pitching Rates
In HBD #1735/7 Pitching rates for yeast was being discussed.
I recently had the pleasure of assisting with a batch of Ale that was brewed
at the "Covany Brewing Company" Although I have no formal affiliation with
the place other than as a customer I do have a great deal of respect for Bill
Kimbrel, the brewer. Anyway, Bill pitches 5 gallons of thick slurry for a 15
bbl batch. Bill usually sluices the yeast from the bottom of his conical
fermenter using a sterile hose. Now this isn't just cloudy beer it's a yeast
slurry similar to what you see sitting at the bottom of your secondary
fermenter when the yeast drops (he also dumps any nasty looking trub before
transfering the yeast). I had saved the yeast slurry from the secondary of
my last Flemish ale in a mason jar and was interested in re-pitching it in my
Old Brun Vrucht (sp?) so I did a little math to figure out how many ounces of
yeast concentrate to pitch. My figures came out to 6.8 oz of yeast!! I was
flabbergasted because before, when I had made starters, I pitched the culture
into 2 cups of wort and was lucky to end up with 1-2 oz ofreal yeast in the
bottom of the 22 oz starter bottle. Anyway, I looked at my mason jar and
judged it to have about 6 oz of yeast of yeast on the bottom so I swirled the
bottle gently to get the yeast back into solution and pitched the whole works
(this was about 6pm).
The result was astonishing, By the next morning I was in high krausen with a
very active ferment. By the second day the krausen had started to drop. I
racked to the secondary the third day (a day earlier than normal) because the
yeast was beginning to drop and added the cherries (ran 'em through a blender
first). Two more days of fermentation after the cherry addition and my yeast
dropped. I haven't bottled yet or pulled a FG but everything looks normal.
BTW The yeast was at refrigerator temperatures when I pitched it (Yeah, I
spaced that one) but it didn't seem to hurt it. Either I was lucky or the
Trapist ale yeast is tougher than I thought.
Incidentally Bill swears by American Ale Yeast and claims that it ferments
out more quickly than other yeast but after adjusting my pitching amounts I'm
beginning to think that the amount of yeast pitched is a bigger factor in the
speed of fermentation than the type of yeast pitched.
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 06:36:03 -0400
From: Terence McGravey {91942} <tpm@swl.msd.ray.com>
Subject: CO2_Regulator_Out_to_Lunch
Greetings,
I performed an experiment last night which proves to me that
my CO2 regulator is not working properly. I got one of my kegs
and filled it 1/4 of the way up with water, applied 8 lbs of
pressure. The keg filled with 8 lbs and stopped - for the
moment. I came back an hour later and the regulator showed 10 lbs.
I left it over night and the regulator showed 14 lbs in the morning.
Hmmm, I wonder if Superior products would send me a new one and
let me hold onto this one until it arrives. It's worth a shot !
**********************************************************
Terry McGravey |
Methuen, Mass. | "TO BREW...AND TO SERVE"
tpm@swl.msd.ray.com |
**********************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1995 08:09:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Lance Stronk <S29033%22681@utrcgw.utc.com>
Subject: husks, particles, and the grain bed
Kirk writes:
> I'd like to hear your comments on these issues...as well on one more:
>
> I think everyone's heard the story: the husks fall to the bottom of the
> grain bed and provide a filter bed that small particles get trapped in.
> Is this another Momism? Has anyone allowed the grain bed to drain for
> several hours, then actually attemped to section it and look at the
> particle size distribution? Do I have the Momism wrong, or is it just
> me that has never seen any evidence of such a distribution?
To which Jim responds:
>It does occur. It is in a continuum between the top and bottom, as the
>bed gets deeper, a higher propartion of the bed is composed of husks.
>Dig a vertical shaft in the the lauter tun after lautering and this can
>be observed. It is a greater phenomenon in a looser grain bed, where the
>husks can be forced down easier.
And Craig also responds to Kirk's post:
>Here's my $0.02 (mmmm! copper...). It's been a while since I read this part
>of _The Practical Brewer_. Those guys at the Master Brewers Association of the
>Americas really have examined a cross section of a grain bed. As I recall, the
>husks are actually at the top of the lauter tun after everything settles out.
>All the other gunk is more dense than the husks and sinks faster. This implies
>that a certain amount of recirculation is required in order to let the husks
>do their filter thing on the small particles that make it through the false
>bottom or manifold.
To which I respond; AM I GOING CRAZY OR WHAT??????
The husks *fall* or are *forced down* to the bottom of the grain bed? How? Is
this some kind of phenomenon that I have never seen before? I have to agree
with Craig on this one guys.
When I mash, I recirculate and heat using a RIMS. After mashing and sparging,
what I see on the TOP of the grain bed is a layer of stuff that is fine
(looks like flour). I was told by an local microbrewery apprentice brewer (a
master brewers slave ;^) ) that this is exactly what is supposed to happen,
i.e. the smaller particles get trapped at the top of the grain bed by the filter
action of the grain bed. And if the small particles get trapped at the top of
the grain bed (as I have witnessed on every batch) then how can a husk go to
the bottom of the grain bed if it is physically larger than a particle of malt
flour??
>I hope I remembered correctly; if not I'm sure I'll hear about it.
Brew a batch of all-grain Craig, have a homebrew, and look in the top of your
lautertun - You'll remember.
Lance Stronk
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 95 08:15:16 EDT
From: "Thomas A. Wideman" <75710.1511@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re> N2/O2 mix
>>>If your normal (100% CO2) pressure is 12 psi for your line
>>>length/diameter, and you are using 75% N2 / 25% CO2 mix, then
>>>you want to use 48 psi. To your beer, this will look like
>>>12 psi of CO2 and the beer will stay carbonated.
Hmmm. Well, yes, to your beer, the partial pressure of CO2 would look
like 12 psi, but to your walls, it would look like... "INCOMING!!!"
Wouldn't 48 psi of _any_ gas shoot the beer from here to way over
there? Or am I missing something?
Tom Wideman
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 95 08:32:59 EDT
From: "WEISEL, KARL R" <WEISEL@rcsteam5.mhs.compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Electric stovetop brewing
Seems how the electric stove thread is still going on I figured I'd
chime in with a data point I've found usefull. I've been mashing &
boiling on my E-stove 4 years now, and have replaced the burner once.
I normaly use a 10 gal SS, it only covers one coil. The burner is
rated at 2200 W and my general rule of thumb is to expect a heat
rise of 10 Deg F per gal per min.
So for example if my sparge outlet is at 150 F, 7 gal total, and I want
a boil, I should expect about 42 min [(210-150)/10 * 7.] This estimate
is most usefull during mash temp steps, and to know how soon the
infusion & sparge water needs to get on the stove. The rise rate needs
a minute or two to get going, and falls off somewhat near a boil, but
is rather repeatable for me at normal mashing temps.
I do have a propane burner for larger batches, but moving stuff up/down
the stairs from the basement to front porch is a drag, and not possible
in January here in Cleveland! I know propane is bad indoors, but is a
burner converted to natural gas OK ? I do have a kitchen style exhaust
hood over the basement stove (200 CFM out the dryer vent) How do
all you RIMS / larger batch folks do your boils if indoors. How do you
vent the combustion fumes? should I get a Canary? (my cats would LOVE
that!)
Karl - Cleveland, Oh. weisel@rcsteam5.mhs.CompuServe.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:14:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy P. Laatsch <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>" <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>
Subject: BarKeeper's Friend
Hey everyone,
Thought I would pass along a little cleaning tip and maybe draw some opinions
about it in the process. I have been using Barkeeper's Friend to clean any
and all metal objects in my brewing operation. BKF is a mild abrasive powder
with oxalic acid. It's recommended for cleaning stainless and copper and the
stuff works GREAT! It takes off lime deposits, beerstone, and copper
oxidation, and handles just about any other tough metal cleaning job without
being too harsh (IMHO). I heartily recommend it and thank my mother-in-law
for clueing me in. As always, no affiliation, blah, blah, blah. I bought it
at the local supermarket. Buy it---and enjoy!
Bones
*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
| Timothy Laatsch |email: laatsch@kbs.msu.edu | Aspiring |
| Graduate Student |phone: 616-671-2329 | All-Grain |
| Michigan State University |fax: 616-671-2104 | Homebrewer |
| Kalamazoo, MI | ;^) | & Scientist |
*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 09:48:44 EST
From: mdemers@ccmailpc.ctron.com
Subject: Koch in Kuffs
Picked this up off the New England Beer Club Digest. Thought some of
the Koch bashers might enjoy this.
Mike Demers
______________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 23:02:00 EDT
From: bob@rsi.com (Bob Gorman)
Subject: Koch in Cuffs
From the Boston TAB, May 23 - May 29, 1995, page 31B:
"Bottled up
Jim Koch, the usually pleasant [Hah!] owner of the Sam Adams empire,
was hauled away in handcuffs last Saturday afternoon after a
confrontation with security officers. At the World Trade Center for
the Boston Brewer's Festival, Koch was approached by guards after they
found out his 14-year-old son, Charlie, was serving beer. Words were
exchanged and Koch led off wearing the steel."
(Julie Berstein, 617/433-8244)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 10:10:59 EST
From: "Keith Royster" <Royster@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: fining agents
I have noticed a few discussions lately on different fining agents
and their effectiveness. I have also noticed that people referring
to Irish Moss and Gelatin as usefull in eliminating (chill) haze.
Correct me if I'm wrong (like you wouldn't anyway ;-)) but it has
been my understanding that IM is for helping the hot/cold break to
coagulate and settle out (does this have any effect on haze?);
gelatin is used mostly in kegs to help the yeast settle out; and haze
(chill haze especially) is reduced with polyclar. Don't they each
have different uses?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 09:03:24 CDT
From: Paul Sovcik <U18183@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
Subject: Mercury
One more clarification on the mercury thread...
Mercury is extremely poisonous in any salt form or organic forms. It can also
be toxic in its elemental form when it is aerosolized (even in minute amounts
over long periods of time).
However, in the elemental form (i.e. the mercury that you find in thermometers)
mercury is not very toxic. In fact, there are reports of persons attempting
suicide by swallowing the mercury in a few thermometers and having no obvious
toxicity. Still, caution is needed when handling elemental mercury since the
presence of trace contaminants may be a possibility. Remember, some organic
mercury compounds can be absorbed through the skin.
Toxicologically yours,
-Paul
Paul Sovcik, PharmD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 8:17:05 MDT
From: Norman Pyle <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Subject: High Gravity Brews
Chris Kagy asks:
> What is it that prompts brewers to use only the first runings of a mash to
>make a strong beer? Does it have to do with the tannins that would be
>extracted during sparging? I'm ready and willing to be educated... <g>
I can answer this one from personal experience. If you are making a high
gravity beer, you need a high gravity wort. There are three ways to get
this high gravity wort.
The first method is to collect first runnings, or perhaps "early runnings".
You collect only high gravity wort, boil it, hop it, ferment it, and you
have a big beer. You throw away the lower gravity runnings, or make a small
beer from them. The double session takes almost double the time for me, so
unless you have parallel kettles, chillers, etc., this is an added
consideration.
The second method is the standard method of making beer. Collect all of the
runnings, and then boil the volume down until it is at the proper gravity. I
did this once and got a nice barley wine from it. The boil only took 8 hours
to go from 13 gallons down to 6. This leads me to the third method, and the
one I would take the next time.
The third method is a partial mash, adding a considerable amount of malt
extract. The reason for doing this is to get the gravity up without having
to boil your wort all weekend. Calculate the points you'd get from the mash
planning on a volume about 20% over your fermentation volume. Add to it
enough extract to get this wort up to your goal gravity, and add this amount.
Boil, hop, ferment, and you have your high gravity beer without an abnormal
investment of time and/or money.
Cheers,
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 10:30:15 -0400
From: ggarnett@qrc.com (G. Garnett)
Subject: Extract and Extract Brewers HBD#1739
In HBD#1739, korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) wrote:
>Guy writes:
>>Having a wort with too high a proportion of unfermentables is only one
>>cause of stuck ferments (and, I should note, one cause which does
>>_not_ apply to extract brewers!).
>
>Absolutely not. Selection of extract (e.g. Laaglander is very high in
>unfermentables) _is_ under the control of the extract brewer and as such
>_does_ apply. Also, crystal malts add unfermentables and their additions
>are certainly under the control of extract brewers.
Good point, and one that brings me to a subject I thought I'd ask the HBD:
What do we (collectively) know about the available extracts. There sure are
a lot of them, and I've often wondered what the difference between the various
brands and types is. In many cases, all the manufactuer tells us is "light",
"amber" or "dark", but clearly all light extracts aren't created equal. Is
there an extract FAQ, or even just a list of the commonly-available types
and their approximate compositions?
It would be nice to have a little more knowledge about what to expect when
selecting extracts; rather than trying to figure it out through hindsight
and guesswork.
>I feel that far too
>many people look down on extract brewers -- even many extract brewers
>appologize for being extract brewers. [...] Although
>there are a few limitations, there is no shame in brewing with extract!
Thanks, Al - perhaps some of us (myself included, I suppose) needed to
hear that. I'm an extract-plus-specialty-grain brewer of relatively
short experience; and yes, I have been known to preface my posts with
disclaimers to that effect.
However, one of the things that rubbed me the wrong way about
the post to which I repied originally was that the poster didn't even
consider extract brewers - despite that the thread to which he was
ostensibly contributing was about a stuck fermentation in extract-only
batches!
Guy Garnett - ggarnett@qrc.com
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hakuna Matata and Have a Homebrew!
Standard disclaimers apply
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 10:07:46 -0640
From: FLATTER%MHS@mhs.rose-hulman.edu
Subject: Yeast for fruit 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.
- --------------
Jeff Guillet replied:
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 used Wyeast 2565 (Koelsh) yeast in my last two fruit beers. I made a
raspberry from two cans of wheat extract plus 4 oz. of raspberry
concentrate at bottling. When I racked it off, I siphoned the makings of
a banana beer in on top. The raspberry is light and clean now that the
tannins I added have mellowed out. The verdict is still out on the
banana. The guys in our brew club seemed to like it more because it's
something different, out of the ordinary. It also has a clean finish in
spite of the all malt recipe. Neither recipe used much hops so I can't
say how the yeast would effect bitterness. From the two times I've used
it, Wyeast 2565 works quite well for fruit beers.
- --------------
Neil Flatter Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Chemistry - Math (CMA) Department of Chemistry Stockroom Manager
Novell Supervisor 5500 Wabash Avenue 73
(812) 877 - 8316 Terre Haute, IN 47803-3999
FAX: 877 - 3198 Flatter@Rose-Hulman.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:36:00 -0400
From: hbush@pppl.gov (harry)
Subject: A Purple Heart for Homebrewing?
I broke my thermometer while mashing and got Mercury poisoning. I
blew off my right arm (lucky I'm lefty) with an exploding Mini-keg. I'm
half brain dead from propane burner-induced CO poisoning. The remaining
half of my brain has gone schizo from lead poisoning because I decant my
brew from crystal vessels. I've been refused life insurance because
homebrewing is listed as a "dangerous" hobby. I'm applying for veteran's
benefits.
Enough of that, my real question is: Is my beer ruined?........
Harry
..............................................
"If it bleeds, we can kill it!"- Arnold S.
..............................................
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:04:45 -0700
From: especkma@halcyon.com (Erik Speckman)
Subject: Burnt-out electric burners
Dave Hensley related his experience brewing on a an electric stove with a
big pot over two burners. He has had to replace a number of burners at
$30/ each.
I thought I would mention that there are "canning elements" available for
some electric stoves. LAst spring I was calling around and found one for
the Roper range in my apartment for $79.
It is somewhat higher wattage and it sits further above the stovetop to
avoid heat build-up. I think it also comes with a new rheostat.
I haven't bought one, but I am still considering one to go with the new pot
I am planning on getting. I would rather get a propane burner if I am
going to spend that kind of money, but it isn't practical in my apartment.
My biggest concern is that it give me MORE POWER. If I remember right, it
is 2600 wats, but I have no idea what the average large electric burner
puts out.
Anyone.
____________________________________________________________________________
Erik Speckman Seattle,Washington
especkma@reed.edu especkma@halcyon.com
G o o d B r a i n D o e s n ' t S u c k
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1740, 05/25/95
*************************************
-------
