Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1764
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/06/24 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1764 Sat 24 June 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Brown Rye Ale recipe (Jacob Galley)
FG, proteins, a propos Christoffel Blond (Robert Lauriston)
Fridge vs Freezer (Pat Loughery)
Real Ale Festival (Martin Wilde)
food grade sealant/caulk/silicone? (Netromancr)
Late Malto- (ppatino)
Burton 1 - Part 1 (A. J. deLange)
Burton 1 - Part 2 (A. J. deLange)
Chris "Barny" Barnhart returned mail (Robert Brown)
Third Coast Old Ale Yeast (nr706)
water treatment (Spliffo)
Searching past HBD via WWW (Rich Hampo)
Not many micros here in the Bible belt! (Brian Pickerill)
New to Homebrewing (Jeffrey Johnson)
re: collapsing kraeusen (Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna)
Hop Plugs (Norman C. Pyle)
Re: Re: Water Woes HBD #1758 (Art Steinmetz)
dropping vs aeration (Btalk)
Re: Stuck fermentation and amylase (harry)
Blank Mail Note (Tom_Tills.wbst214)
slow yeast? (Bryan L. Gros)
Hop Vines Out of Control ("Glyn Crossno")
Phil's self starting siphon (HT-MS)" <mkempisty@gic.gi.com>
Japan Behind Alien Brewer Scare ("Palmer.John")
Amateur Questions ("Lawson, Eric")
Water Woes Revisited/Water series (Chris Barnhart)
RIMS (Eamonn McKernan)
Re: Malt profile (Jim Dipalma)
******************************************************************
* 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: Thu, 22 Jun 95 14:33:49 CDT
From: Jacob Galley <gal2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Brown Rye Ale recipe
Okay, folks, my friend Russ has been forwarding me the last few
requests for rye beer recipes (since I don't subscribe to HBD
anymore). So now I've finally brought my brew-log in to work so I can
share my recipe with you. The inspiration for this recipe is the
recipe for Brown Ale in the back of Dave Miller's book. The rye
flavor is prominent, even with this small amount of rye. I think that
more than two pounds would be overpowering in this style. (Maybe more
in a stout??)
BROWN RYE ALE
Mash at ~142^F for 90 minutes:
5 lbs Mild Ale Malt (Munton & Fison)
1.5 lbs Rye Flakes (in the bulk section of your health food store)
8 oz Cara-Munich (DeWolf-Cosyns)
3 oz Roasted Barley (DeWolf-Cosyns)
The three times I've made this, the mash temperature has always been
on the low side. The beer came out great every time, so I'm not worried.
Sparge as usual.
Boil wort for 60 minutes with:
1 lb of Sucanat (evaporated cane juice, ie. natural brown sugar)
2.0 oz = 8.0 AAU Fuggles (60 min)
1.5 oz = 5.2 AAU Spalt (10 min)
Chill as usual. The original gravity comes to 1.048 (for 5 gallons).
Pitch London Ale or German Ale Wyeast. Actually, I'm going to try the
California Steam/Lager yeast next time. It sounds like the steamy
esters would complement the rye flavor quite nicely.
Have fun,
Jake.
Stand up and use your ears like a man! <-- Charles Ives
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 13:44:20 -0700
From: robtrish@noif.ncp.bc.ca (Robert Lauriston)
Subject: FG, proteins, a propos Christoffel Blond
Fellow members of the Virtual Homebrew Club,
What's the effect of the proteins in beer on gravity? The more the higher?
Spencer Thomas (spencer@umich.edu) caught something in a post of mine that
didn't jive for him. I wrote, about Christoffel Blond, "Michael Jackson's
Beer Companion says "all-malt, firm-bodied, extremely dry, a truly
assertive pilsener"
"didn't Al K mention that Laaglander extract has lots of unfermentables?
That might give the body." Spencer replied in # 1762: >Nope.
It would give undesirable sweetness. Note "extremely dry". You want high
attenuation (e.g., low FG); the body more likely comes from short peptide
chains (e.g., degraded proteins).
I don't know what is in Laaglander, so it may give sweetness. But in the
quest for accuracy and Truth (knowing that Beauty and Wisdom are out of my
reach) I have some theoretical followups:
Some sugars are sweet, some aren't. Some unfermentables are sugars, some
aren't (e.g. short peptide chains, degraded proteins). Some body comes from
proteins, some doesn't (e.g. diacetyl, though not in Christoffel). Some
perceived dryness comes from low FG, some doesn't. For example, wouldn't
high bitterness create an overall sensation of dryness?
Is it correct to say that an "extremely dry" beer has a low FG?
Rob Lauriston, The Low Overhead Brewery (Hoist 'em between the joists)
Vernon, British Columbia <robtrish@noif.ncp.bc.ca>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 16:44 PDT
From: patl@isc-br.isc-br.com (Pat Loughery)
Subject: Fridge vs Freezer
I'm a fairly new brewer still, and am looking at a kegging system. My
question is about fridges and freezers. I have access to an upright
freezer, a 1-door type, which needs a new motor. Is there any reason to
choose a fridge over a freezer for a garage-kept brewcooler, except that
it's nice to have a separate fridge/freezer section so that you can store
your hops in the freezer part?
Thanks!
- ---
Pat Loughery (patl@mom.isc-br.com) http://mom.isc-br.com/~patl/
Somewhere in the wilds of Northern ID
'91 VFR750, '82 R100RS, '6? Duc bits, '49 Dodge, '93 Yellow Lab
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 15:07:00 PDT
From: Martin Wilde <Martin_Wilde@ccm.jf.intel.com>
Subject: Real Ale Festival
Is the Real Ale Festival still planned for this October in Chicago?
I have not heard anything since last year...
thanks
Martin Wilde
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 20:00:20 -0400
From: Netromancr@aol.com
Subject: food grade sealant/caulk/silicone?
the subject says it all...
i haven't been active on this list in a while, so forgive me if this subject
came up recently.
I need to seal up a very old cider barrel which is now to be used to collect
rain water for my hop garden. Suggested sources/brands/types?
thanks in advance
george (ty) tempel
g.tempel@xpedite.com
dosgatos@injersey.com
netromancr@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 20:32:03 EDT
From: ppatino <PPATINO@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Late Malto-
Hi Folks! I currently have a Barleywine in my fermenter. I began with an O.G.
of 1.108. My Ale yeast (Wyeast ESB) pooped out at a S.G. of 1.040. I have ju
st pitched some of Wyeast's Pasteur Champaign yeast into it. Despite the high
O.G., I am a bit concerned about the F.G. being a bit low. I thought that one
way to bring the body up a bit would be to add a few ounces of maltodextrine to
the solution of DME that I normally boil up at bottling time; my intuition bein
g that this might boost the body without the danger of overcarbonating. Has
anyone out there tried this, or heard of anyone who has?
TIA - Paul Patino
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 17:53:18 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Burton 1 - Part 1
Burton 1
This is the first in what may be a series of posts on the formulation
of waters similar to those of famous brewing cities of the world. They
are based on ion concentration profiles given by Dave Draper in
his post in #1704 (10 April 95). See my recent post "Water Series" for
explanatory material. Quick reminders: all ion concentrations and
salt quantities are in ppm which is the same as mg/l. The water to
which the salts are added is assumed to be ION FREE (i.e. it is
DISTILLED WATER or REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER).
As this is the first in the series it is much longer than subsequent
ones should be.
What we will do in this series is present a few formulations for each
water type listed in the original post of 10 April. A formulation
gives the amounts of salts and acids which are to be added to ion
free water to approximate a desired ionic profile. Hydrochloric and
sulfuric acid are used both to control pH and adjust, respectively,
chloride and sulfate ion concentrations. We sometimes also employ what
we call an "external" acid (for lack of a better term) i.e. an acid in
addition to the hydrochloric and sulfuric acids. External
acid aids in setting the desired pH and it does this by supplying
hydronium ions to convert carbonate to bicarbonate thus allowing
more carbonate to dissolve. Its use also makes the other acids available
mostly for sulfate and chloride adjustment and thus often results in
a more accurate approximation to the ion profile. But it also introduces
another cation such as lactic or phosphoric.
Our goal is to provide a simple formulation (i.e. one that only uses
a few salts) at pH 7 without the use of external acid. We regard such
a formulation as the most natural one as it contains
only the ions in the specification and it is at what we assume to be the
natural pH of the water being imitated. pH 7 is a good guess for the pH
of a brewing water, especially one that is heavy in both carbonate and
calcium. Burton is actually one of the few cities for which we have pH
information. Terry Foster, in his "Pale Ale" monograph states that Burton
water is at pH 7.0 - 7.2.
Where we cannot meet our accuracy desires (rms % error less than 10%,
maximum error in any salt concentration less that 15%) we will first
try adding additional salts and then external acid in an attempt to
improve the synthesis. Finally we will try formulations at pH 6.38
which often improves accuracy because calcium and carbonate levels
are set more by the errors in their concentrations than by saturation
considerations. We will usually present a couple of these trial
formulations.
A water that is synthesized simply at pH 7 without acid is an "easy"
water. One that requires pH 6.38, all salts and external acid is a
"difficult" one
The specification for Burton 1 was taken from V1 p206 of
Malting and Brewing Science; Briggs, et al. They list bicarbonate as
280 ppm of which 5 must have escaped as CO2 on the trip to Sydney and
back because Dave's post lists 275. We will use 280. This is a
"dfficult" water. It cannot be synthesized to our accuracy desires
with a subset of the salts. A formulation with a full set of salts and
no external acid is:
Formulation I
n: 752428 Temp: 0.000863 Energy (rms %): 10.004655
Burton 1
ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 268.000 228.116 -14.88 NaCl 31.965
Mg 62.000 59.989 -3.24 Na2CO3.10H2O 191.885
Na 54.000 53.039 -1.78 CaCL2 20.757
K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 639.599
CO3 280.000 237.790 -15.08 CaCO3 179.140
SO4 638.000 691.881 8.45 MgCL2 0.167
CL 36.000 36.323 0.90 MgCO3 126.566
H 4.726 4.726 0.00 KCl 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 29.767
0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 237.644
0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 226.836
0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 3.654
Carbonic: 0.7661 Bicarbonate: 3.1936 Carbonate: 0.001529 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 4.7257 Sulfuric Hydronium: 4.6255
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1002 mEq
H2SO4 perturbed. HCl adjusted to maintain pH 7.00
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 3.06E-09
Alkalinity: 3.16 mEq; 157.78 ppm as CaCO3.
Temporary hardness: 7.92 mEq; 396.12 ppm as CaCO3
Permanent hardness: 8.39 mEq; 419.70 ppm as CaCO3
This formulation is just a shade over our accuracy limits and we had
to tweak the weight on the calcium ion error to balance the error
between calcim and carbonate (Ca weight: 1.75 all others: 1). Note that
the water is saturated (the CaCO3 ion product is equal to the
solubility product) and that even so we have 15% less calcium
and carbonate than desired.
Addition of external acid improves the rms accuracy of the synthesis
only a couple of percent:
Formulation II
n: 743437 Temp: 0.000952 Energy (rms %): 8.009748
Burton 1
ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 268.000 227.737 -15.02 NaCl 6.916
Mg 62.000 62.064 0.10 Na2CO3.10H2O 316.674
Na 54.000 53.897 -0.19 CaCL2 12.956
K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 638.669
CO3 280.000 238.181 -14.94 CaCO3 185.769
SO4 638.000 641.343 0.52 MgCL2 22.809
CL 36.000 35.980 -0.06 MgCO3 84.757
H 4.734 3.488 -26.31 KCl 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 0.910
0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 322.273
0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 162.026
0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 6.715
Carbonic: 0.7673 Bicarbonate: 3.1988 Carbonate: 0.001531 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 4.7335 Sulfuric Hydronium: 3.3040
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1841 mEq
1.2454 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 7.00
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 3.06E-09
Alkalinity: 3.16 mEq; 158.04 ppm as CaCO3.
Temporary hardness: 7.94 mEq; 396.77 ppm as CaCO3
Permanent hardness: 8.53 mEq; 426.63 ppm as CaCO3
- MORE -
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 17:53:27 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Burton 1 - Part 2
Note that all the improvement is in the sodium and magnesium errors.
The fact that it is hard to get the specified level
of calcium and carbonate into solution at what we know to be close to
the actual pH of Burton water makes us a little suspicious of this
spec. Knocking 15% off the specs for these two ions would make a better
approximation possible.The Burton 2 spec is 30% lower in carbonate and,
as we will see in the next post, it is an "easy" water.
Following the planned progression we now try full salts, pH 6.38 but
with no external acid:
Formulation III
n: 790000 Temp: 0.000948 Energy (rms %): 7.993754
Burton 1
ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 268.000 229.714 -14.29 NaCl 11.185
Mg 62.000 58.708 -5.31 Na2CO3.10H2O 10.194
Na 54.000 52.836 -2.16 CaCL2 8.951
K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 494.837
CO3 280.000 288.092 2.89 CaCO3 277.929
SO4 638.000 728.282 14.15 MgCL2 11.478
CL 36.000 36.481 1.34 MgCO3 167.540
H 7.198 7.198 0.00 KCl 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 144.589
0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 75.608
0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 331.654
0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 15.877
Carbonic: 2.3994 Bicarbonate: 2.3994 Carbonate: 0.000275 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 7.1983 Sulfuric Hydronium: 6.7629
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.4354 mEq
H2SO4 perturbed. HCl adjusted to maintain pH 6.38
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.58E-09 MgCO3: 5.51E-10
Alkalinity: 2.35 mEq; 117.51 ppm as CaCO3.
Temporary hardness: 9.60 mEq; 479.91 ppm as CaCO3
Permanent hardness: 6.69 mEq; 334.62 ppm as CaCO3
This formulation provides no appreciable improvement over Formulation II.
As a final formulation for Burton 1 we offer the following which is
synthesized for pH 6.38 with the full set of salts and external
acid:
Formulation IV
n: 760000 Temp: 0.000991 Energy (rms %): 0.028369
Burton 1
ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 268.000 267.992 0.00 NaCl 45.052
Mg 62.000 61.988 -0.02 Na2CO3.10H2O 112.653
Na 54.000 53.987 -0.02 CaCL2 2.335
K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 662.731
CO3 280.000 279.837 -0.06 CaCO3 281.886
SO4 638.000 638.152 0.02 MgCL2 1.309
CL 36.000 35.990 -0.03 MgCO3 122.415
H 6.992 2.803 -59.91 KCl 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 56.126
0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 267.083
0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 128.900
0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 6.378
Carbonic: 2.3307 Bicarbonate: 2.3307 Carbonate: 0.000268 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 6.9920 Sulfuric Hydronium: 2.6285
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1749 mEq
4.1887 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 6.38
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.79E-09 MgCO3: 5.35E-10
Alkalinity: 2.28 mEq; 114.15 ppm as CaCO3.
Temporary hardness: 9.32 mEq; 466.16 ppm as CaCO3
Permanent hardness: 9.15 mEq; 457.37 ppm as CaCO3
This formulation obviously gives excellent agreement for all ions. Note
that the alkalinity of the pH 6.38 formulation is around 115 whereas
for the pH 7 formulations it was around 158. If you think of formulation
at reduced pH and acid addition as part of compensation for high alkalinity
you will have no objection to the use of these techniques for the sake of
an accurate ion profile. If, on the other hand, you don't want to add acid
or are fearful of overly low mash pH resulting from water at 6.38 then you
will use Formulation II or, better, still use the Burton 2 profile for your
Burton Ales.
Please e-mail me if you like this and want to see more. I have already done
Burton 2 and will post it but will terminate after that if there is no demand.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 22:07:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Brown <rbrown00@uoguelph.ca>
Subject: Chris "Barny" Barnhart returned mail
So how do I e-mail you and not get bounced. Even my fool proof "Reply"
feature has failed me. Drop me a line.
<rbrown00@uoguelph.ca> Rob
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 02:19 CDT
From: nr706@mcs.com
Subject: Third Coast Old Ale Yeast
To the collective wisdom:
I just made a starter from the dregs of a Third Coast Old Ale from Kalamzoo
Brewing. Does anyone know what I have? Does this yeast have an equivalent
in the Wyeast line? Any info appreciated.
Tom Keith
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:49:41 EDT
From: uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
Subject: O2 Dissolution
I've read a lot about the value of adding oxygen to the wort before pitching.
I'd like to throw out an idea about the most efficient way to do this if you're
already kegging and force carbonating. How about pressurizing the keg with
oxygen through the same line that you run CO2 through? I don't know how much
dissolves in what period of time at what temperatures, but surely you'd get more
dissolved than bubbling ambient atmosphere (only 16% O2, and mostly nitrogen)
through the wort. O2 is readily available for/from welders (is welding O2
sterile?) home medical supply services supply small portable bottles , doctors,
dentists, EMT's, chemical labs etc. have access to large cylinders. How
desireable is extra oxygen during fermentation? Is there an optimum
concentration? Is there a point of diminishing return?
Wallie Meisner
uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
Subject: Surplus SS 60's
As long as I'm here... Since selling stainless steel containers is not my
occupation, I've decided that this post is a service to fellow brewmeisters and
NOT "crass commercialism" I hope y'all agree. I have some 60-gallon stainless
containers, about 20" wide and 5' tall with one 2" opening in the top. They are
unused and I have to get rid of them. The scrap yard will give me $150.00 each.
I'd sooner ship them to a brewer who could use them for good purpose. If you're
interested enough to meet the scap-yard price, let me know, and give me an
address so I can get a freight rate quote (I get great freight rates). If you
want technical details, drawings, etc, let me know that too. I can probably wait
a month or so before I absolutely have to move them. (I've got one 250 gallon w/
a 22" manway in the top as well, but I expect that that's too big for a
homebrewer?).
Wallie Meisner
uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:56:35 -0400
From: Spliffo@aol.com
Subject: water treatment
Just
thought I'd add my 2 cents worth on the water treatment issue. As in any
trade some know a lot more than others and are up to date on the latest
technology. Most qualified water treatment specialists will take a water
sample, no charge, have it analyzed, design a proper system according to what
you need, and give you an estimate of cost.
Get as many opinions as you can. It's quite interesting seeing the
differences! Maintenance costs and longevity are a factor, depending on the
chemistry of the water. For example, how long would a reverse osmosis
membrane last. They stopped giving those away a while ago!
For what it's worth!!!
I enjoy a good beer, don't have any equipment, never brewed a batch in
my life, but sure would like to start! Any tips, advice, or info out there
from the World of Brewing?!!! E-mail or HBD is fine!!
Thanks in advance!!!
If only beer would flow thru phone lines!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:42:38 -0400
From: captain@vulcan.srl.ford.com (Rich Hampo)
Subject: Searching past HBD via WWW
Hi gang,
I just found something really cool (in my quest for Gott info).
Off of Spencer's Beer page, there is a link to a WWW page called
"Thread Searches of Brewing Mailing Lists". This WWW page lets you
search the HBD, Judge, Lambic, and Mead Digest back issues for keywords.
You just select which digest, pick a year, and type in a keyword
or two and voila! A complete document with all occurrances of the
keyword you wanted. Check it out at
http://guraldi.itn.med.umich.edu/cgi-bin/dothread
BTW, Thanks to all who replied with cooler info!
Richard Hampo
Ford Research Lab
H & H Brewing Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 09:15:52 -0600
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: Not many micros here in the Bible belt!
Jim Busch said:
>You've *obviously* not tried to open a microbrewery!!!
Not yet Jim. Gotta get the homebrewing down first. ;-)
BTW, I am not advocating that more stupid fed or state regulations
be put on micros. Spencer told me what some of his friends went
through to open their micro, so have some idea of what's required
now. It is a lot, but it's not too surprising, IMHO. Maybe I have
a different perspective living here in the "Bible belt".
I actually was cited for child abuse because I allowed my four
year old to take a sip of homebrew! SIPPING it mind you--not
allowing him to really swallow any of it. It was quickly
dismissed and didn't get in the paper or anything, but you can't
imagine how upset I was. I wonder what the Europeans would say
about THAT!
- --Brian K. Pickerill <00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Munice, IN
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 95 10:22:13 EDT
From: Jeffrey Johnson <76416.3306@compuserve.com>
Subject: New to Homebrewing
Hello All,
Capt. Kirk says:
<< and I want to prevent airborne cat dander or
other 'stuff' from getting in the beer (dead bats, for example).>>
I also have cats who love to "investigate" any brewing activities that I do. I
love 'em but what pests!
re: dead bats...what a name for a beer...Dead Bat Brew.
I'm very new to homebrewing (one batch just bottled) and I'm planning a
all-extract Pale Ale for my next batch this weekend. I've been lurking around
the digest for some time, and I think there is not a better compendium (sp.?) of
brewing lore around. Thanks to all. and especially to Rob Gerdner.
Hoppy Brewing,
Jeff
Atlanta, GA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 10:21:08 EST
From: Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna@relay.com
Subject: re: collapsing kraeusen
Foamus Wortus Collapsus
:-)
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 8:52:28 MDT
From: Norman C. Pyle <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Subject: Hop Plugs
Russ Brodeur asks about hop plugs:
>I contacted one of the hop houses on the west coast, and inquired about
>availability of plugs, since I personally prefer them. I was told they were
>of inferior quality to both whole and pellet hops.
>
>Is this true??
This is likely true of domestic (U.S.) hops. I'm told that there is no
commercial "hop plugging" outfit in the U.S. So to get hop plugs of domestic
varieties they are shipped to Europe (U.K., likely) and plugged. Then, sent
back to the states. It wouldn't surprise me that these hops would be
inferior to fresh whole hops or even pellets made from fresh hops.
Cheers,
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 18:17:46 EDT
From: (Art Steinmetz)
Subject: Re: Re: Water Woes HBD #1758
It occured to me I may not have made clear what was the test and what was the
control in the previous post on this topic. Indulge me in a recap.
Control Batch: Water: Pre-treated water w/ 350ppm total dissolved solids and
pH 8.0. Treated by boiling and racking off substantial precip. Recipe: IPA
with 75% Breiss Klages. No dark grains. 40/60/70 deg C. mash. 20 minutes each
step. Starch test negative after last step. OG 1.060.
Test Batch: Water: Pre-treated water from ion-exchange water softener (salt
used to replace calcium with sodium) Treated by boiling. No precipiate (none
expected). Recipe: Same as above. Starch test still positive 45 minutes into
last step. Sparged anyway. OG 1.058.
Side by side taste tests tainted by different yeast pitching rates.
Conclusion: Softening my high-temporary-hardness base water resulted in severe
enzyme impairment. Is this what's predicted? Folks just say it's bad without
saying why.
Next I-gotta-learn-the-hard-way experiment: Dark grains will lower the pH of
the mash and can be used in hard water situtions to ensure good extraction
rates. So they say. I plan to use untreated water and compare extraction
rates of recipes that differ only in the pct. of dark grains. Advice please:
Will swapping light crystal for dark crystal be a good way to do this? Thanks.
- -- Art
asteinm@pipeline.com
76044,3204@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:28:45 -0400
From: Btalk@aol.com
Subject: dropping vs aeration
I thought that the 'dropping' thread from a few months ago made it clear that
it referred to racking early with minimal aeration.
At least that was the way I understood it.
(DId this evolve out of the recent question by someone who wanted to dump
into secondary using a funnel?)
The whole dropping idea intrigued me so much that I've done it recently with
a Strong Scotch Ale and also an IPA.
Both were fermented with Wyeast ESB, which is supposed to be one of the
highly flocculant yeasts that can stand to be 'roused' a little.
Rousing the yeast was not my primary objective. What I was really after was
the second result of dropping, which is to increase the level of diacetyl.
The Scotch Ale was racked earlier than the IPA in order to get the medium to
high diacetyl level as described in the style guideline.
At first I thought this had worked too well since I'm not used to alot of
diacetyl in my own brews, but I think it is within the guidelines.
I'll see how it does in a contest.
BTW, rousing yeast doesn't imply aeration. The yeast just needs to get back
in suspension to finish its job.
Later,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk@aol.com>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:35:21 -0400
From: hbush@pppl.gov (harry)
Subject: Re: Stuck fermentation and amylase
Keith Royster asks about my "stuck-ferment-fixing-drug-of-choice", amylase:
>So I guess my first question is, why did
>it work? I understand basically that amylase is an enzyme for
>breaking down larger sugars into smaller ones. Does this imply that my DME
>was >under modified by the manufacturer?
I don't think under modified is the term. Maybe under converted? But you've
got the idea- lots of unfermentable carbos. I (and many others who've
posted to the HBD) have had this experience with DME.
> Also, over a week later (maybe 2 weeks), small bubbles continued to rise as
>if >the fermentation now would not stop.... I'm not worried about
>exploding bottles later because I plan on kegging, but what might be
>happening here?
Amylase enzymes work best at mashing temperatures. They also work (as
you've discovered) at room temp, albeit S-L-O-W-L-Y. I have an IPA (made
with DME) that was stuck at 1.038. Two months ago, I tossed in amylase and
its STILL bubbling. My latest S.G. reading was a week ago at 1.016, a 4
point drop from the previous week. I think I'm getting my patience from the
fact the I'd given up on the batch entirely before I put in the amylase.
Now I'm just happy that I've saved it. Most likely your lowering of the
temp. stopped the fermentation with a combination of yeast shock plus
amylase inhibition ( I assume that amylase works slower the lower the temp.
is).
A good source of amylase info. has been put together for us by Kevin Hass
(thanks, Kevin) and can be ftp'd from
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer/docs/using_enzymes.Z
Harry
.................................................................
"But what does it all mean?"- Flakey Foont
"Don't mean sh*t"- Mr. Natural
..................................................................
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:50:33 PDT
From: Tom_Tills.wbst214@xerox.com
Subject: Blank Mail Note
IN HBD 1762, Al says:
>Aldehydes would be my biggest concern. Remember how bad frat party beer
>tasted the next morning? That's aldehydes from the air you pumped into
>The keg the night before.
Acutally, I remember the beer tasting pretty bad the night of the party, but
that's cuz our Frat rarely had anything better than Milwaukee's Best. ; )
TNT
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 09:16:37 -0700
From: bgros@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Bryan L. Gros)
Subject: slow yeast?
>From: Andrew McGowan <AMCGOWAN@WPO.HCC.COM>
>
>Is 1084 Irish Stout a slow yeast? The smack pack was 45 days
>old and took 36 hours to swell moderately. Other yeasts I've
>used were ready to burst at 20 hrs. Also, the starters were not
>
Andrew and others:
What was the date on your Wyeast pack? I noticed packs with dates within
a week or two of smacking it work much faster than packs with dates two
months or so old. I never noticed a problem with the older yeasts, just
that they swelled much slower.
Always check the dates when you buy yeast.
- Bryan
bgros@mindseye.berkeley.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:25:46 CST
From: "Glyn Crossno" <CROSSNO@novell2.tn.cubic.com>
Subject: Hop Vines Out of Control
>What to do with vines growing off of the main vine(s)?
Private E-mail replies:
2 - Let them go!
1- Cut IF they get in the way of the main vine(s)
I've dropped a bunch of new vertical lines for the offshoots to
climb.
Glyn Crossno
Recycle the BS, put it around your hops!
Crossno@novell2.tn.cubic.com
"To make the Fates laugh, tell them you have a plan."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 12:57:00 PDT
From: "Kempisty, Mark (HT-MS)" <mkempisty@gic.gi.com>
Subject: Phil's self starting siphon
Being a bit of a gadget lover but fortunetely not buying everything I
see, I have seen things that are functionally similar to the Phils
(tm) sipon starter thingy.
I have seen ones for fish-tanks and gasoline. They go on the end of
a tube and you jiggle the who thing up and down several times to pump
the water over the top of the siphon. Gravity then does the rest and
the siphon's suction holds the valve open.
If I remember correctly. the aquarium one was for 1/2" diameter
tubing. But it has been a long time since I have looked for one.
I pulled out my bottle filler last night. If I was to pull off the
spring, I suspect it might serve the same purpose. I also remember
seeing bottle fillers without any springs in my favorite homebrew
shop. Those would just use gravity and the weight of the beer in the
filler tube to hold them shut.
The only down side to using these (provided they seal well enough to
work) is the small diameter of their opeings. It would be pretty
easy to plug them up with trub, break or hops.
Happy brewing
Mark
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 1995 10:03:06 U
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer@ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Subject: Japan Behind Alien Brewer Scare
(JP) Last week, Capt. Kirk Fleming reported an unusual sighting in the krausen
and yeast of his open fermentation. The krausen was partioning itself into
distinct quadrants, which at first glance resembled a Bow Tie.
Analysis of the patterns revealed a probable connection to the so-called "Crop
Circles" of Britain, North America and Australia. From this evidence it was
deduced that the Aliens, thought to be responsible for these circles, were in
fact brewers trying to contact the home brewing community with special yeast
strains. The yeast was codenamed Stardust and the aliens were theorized to be
from the Vegan star group. This quickly led to a BATF probe of the Stardust
Hotel in Las Vegs, which denied having any connection to the incident. Several
bottles of beer were confiscated for evidence.
Further investigation revealed that the Fleming Fermenter had foamed into a new
pattern. Capt. Kirk issued the following statement:
>Now, although I think John P was a bit out-of-line with his cut about
>naming the yeast Stardust, I agreed with his suggestion that there may
>be an attempt being made to communicate. Therefore, I wired the
>fermenter to my satellite dish and it trained on NGC 5139. Now, gummygoo
>coalescing on the surface of the current batch is clearly forming the
>pattern of a star group which I simply have not yet identified. This
>is scaring the hell out of me.
Upon consultation with astronomers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, CA, the star pattern was FAX'd out for identification. An ASCII
representation is shown below:
*
* * *
* \ /
*
The cluster was discussed during a noontime meeting between several leading
aerospace officials. At the conclusion of the meeting, several officials
identified the star cluster upon returning to the parking lot. As a result of
their work, the entire Fermenter Fiasco has been revealed to be the latest
advertizing campaign of the Subaru Corporation.
*****
John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-SSD M&P
johnj@primenet.com Huntington Beach, California
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:41:00 PDT
From: "Lawson, Eric" <lawson@elmo.rff.org>
Subject: Amateur Questions
Hello,
I am new to homebrewing in general and HBD in specific. I have completed 4
batches (3 successfully) and tried my hand at mashing on the last batch. I
must say that homebrewing has done wonders for my palate (my wife now refers
to me as a "beer snob").
I also enjoy the articles in HBD, but am amazed at the amount of expertise
that you all have in the art of brewing. Some of the conversations go right
over my head, which never lasts long enough but that's another problem. At
the risk of sounding naive, I'd like to pose a few questions that I hope
will help bring me and other rookies up to speed.
1) What is the benefit of splitting the fermentation into two
steps--primary and secondary?
2) What do the terms "decoction" and "racking" mean? I have an
introductory book by Williams, but I haven't come across these terms.
3) I have had a consistent problem with weak head, or as Mark Schmitt
suggested, a loss of persistence. Do I simply need to add more sugar when
priming, or should I look elsewhere in the process?
I'm sure I'll have more basic questions later, but these should do for now.
Ric Lawson
Resources For the Future
Washington, DC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 12:54:42 CDT
From: Chris Barnhart <cbarnhar@ria-emh2.army.mil>
Subject: Water Woes Revisited/Water series
A few days back I posted about my water woes. Thanks to those
that posted advice on how to properly deal with it. Thought I'd
post those insights.
Everyone unanimously agreed I need to reduce the iron content
of the water. I have installed a taste/odor/rust/sedimement
filter to accomplish that. Also, ion exchange softened water
is a poor choice for brewing. The water softener works by
exchanging sodium for calcium and magnesium (other?) ions.
Sodium is poisonous to yeast and makes for harsh tasting beer
when found at higher concentrations. I'll draw all my water
off ahead of the softener and treat it myself.
The hardness can be dealt with by boiling my water and
decanting off the percipitate. This reduces the levels of
bicarbonate. From what I understand, the reduction of
temporary hardness is limited to the amount of free calcium/
magnesium available to combine with bicarbonate and the
soluability of the salts produced: 20ppm for calcium carbonate
and 300ppm for magnesium carbonate.
Question: Would adding more calcium before the boil
and decant, say in the form of Gypsum (I can stand the sulfate),
help carry away more bicarbonate? I ask because my calcium
levels (98ppm) are rather low versus the alkalinity (239ppm).
Bicarbonate is a strong buffer. It is important to reduce
the buffering capacity of the water to allow simple infusion
mashes to acidify to the proper pH. When brewing dark beers,
dark malts help to overcome the bicarbonate buffering and acidify
the mash due to thier natural acidity. Additional calcium
may be required to stimulate enzyme production, insure proper
yeast nutrition, etc.
There's a lot more that could be added to this discussion
but I'd better cut it off here. Any corrections/insights
appreciated.
A.J. - I vote yes for continuing the water series.
Barny
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:21:46 -0400
From: eamonn@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca (Eamonn McKernan)
Subject: RIMS
Okay folks, I've been testing the now leakproof new RIMS. Before plugging it
into the computer, I wanted to run a few tests. So right now I have an on/off
switch for the heater (yes on and off are labeled on the switch :> ), and
variable speed control as Morris described in the '92 (?) Zymurgy special
issue. I was wondering if any RIMS owners out there noticed hot patches on the
outside of the heating chamber? I found after 10 minutes of heating 4 gal
of water from 17 - 27 Celcius (1 Degree per min ~= 1.2KW heat. 2 degree Temp
rise upon exiting heating chamber => 2 gal/minute flow rate approximately )
that VERY hot patches developed on the top side of the 1 1/2" copper heating
chamber (flow enters and leaves from the bottom through 1/2" copper pipe).
I mean burning hot patches about 3" long along the top of the pipe. Their
location varied with pump speed.
Is this normal? My heat input and flow rate are standard. I can crank
up the flow some more, but don't really want super high pressure hot fluids
whipping around. I'm worried because my soldered joints might melt if a hot
patch developed in their vicinity (not too likely, but still possible), as well
as possible scorching. Clearly the heat is not mixing well throughout the
flowing fluid.
I don't know if this is relevant or not, but the heater is oriented
horizontally, as opposed to vertically. If anything, I'd expect these hot areas
to be on the bottom, where the heater could be resting on the pipe. Though
the fact that flow enters and leaves through the bottom could be the real
source of my problem, as fluid is not forced upwards.
Comments?
Thanks for the washing info Domenick!
And Norm, is sitting in my room drinking supposed to be PUNISHMENT for being
so stupid about hop storage? Hey, I'll give it a try since you think it
might help my beer out!
Eamonn McKernan
eamonn@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:43:37 EDT
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: Re: Malt profile
Hi All,
Picking up the thread on liquid yeast packs that are slow to swell:
About a month ago, I set out to brew a porter, and discovered to my
horror that I had used my last slant of Wyeast 1084 without reculturing.
I bought a fresh package from the local homebrew supplier that was only
about a month old, and smacked the pack. Three days later, nothing, the
pack showed no sign of swelling. Since my planned brewday was quickly
approaching, I gave up on waiting for the pack to swell, and simply
pitched its contents into 6 oz of sterile wort.
About 7 hours later, the starter wort was fermenting vigorously!!
I stepped the culture up to a 1/2 gallon starter, and two days later
brewed 11 gallons of porter. The fermentation was fine, started quickly,
good attenuation, etc.
My experience with Wyeast packs has been that the date code has little
or no bearing on how long it takes the yeast to activate. I've had 9
month old packages swell up in 2 days, 1 month old packages fail to
swell at all.
I don't have any idea what sort of "nutrients" Wyeast puts in these
packages, but in the future I'm not going to bother waiting for them
to swell. I'm just going to smack the pack, and pitch directly into
my starter.
**********************************************************
In HBD#1763, Nir Navot asks:
>I just bought some Munton & Fison malt and received with it the analysis
>certificate. Can you help me understand what these names & figures signify
>and how they might affect the way I treat this malt and the types of beer I
>can use it for?
>Here is the analysis:
>Coarse/Fine Difference % 0.10
This is the fine/coarse grind extract difference, a measure of the degree
of starch modification. The lower this number is, the higher the degree of
starch modification. A reading of 0.10 indicates *extreme* modification, so
much so that I wonder if this is a typo.
>Colour EBC units 25 mm Cell 3.00
EBC stands for, I believe, European Brewing Congress. It's a measure of
how much color the malt will contribute. My understanding is that the
method used to obtain this measurement is completely different from that
used to obtain degrees Lovibond, and thus there is no direct way of
converting between the two systems. However, an EBC rating of 3 means
wort produced from this malt would be quite pale.
>Kolbach Index 43.70
The Kolbach is the ratio of the percentage of wort nitrogen to malt nitrogen.
It is commonly used to express the extent of protein modification. Anything
over 40 is considered highly modified.
>Diastatic power w.k. units =BAL 258
Not sure about the "BAL" units, I usually see this expressed in degrees
Litner. If these units are the same, then 258 is very high. The mash should
convert quickly, and a high percantage of unmalted adjuncts can be used.
>Total protein d.w. % 10.30
This one is self explanatory, the percentage of protein. 10.3 is fairly low,
it indicates this malt should be mashed without a protein rest.
In summary, what you have is a malt with a high degree of both starch and
protein modification. It should convert readily with a single infusion mash,
and has enough diastatic power to convert unmalted adjuncts as well. It
should provide good extraction, and produce a very pale colored wort.
Hope this helps,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1764, 06/24/95
*************************************
-------
