Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1751
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/06/07 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1751 Wed 07 June 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
barrel exper./sherrylike/barrier bags/raspberries/lauter time/oak casks (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
CO2 Regulator Pressure (Larry Bristol )
Brewpubs at the Jersey Shore (Ted Benning)
Wit beer oranges (david lawrence shea)
HOP FRESHNESS ("ED KENDALL 252-3436")
Re: barrel experiment ("Dr. Gillian Grafton")
fruit beer (Larry Lowe)
Re: Forget the Mercury - Leaded Crystal Once Again (McKee Smith)
Did I do something wrong? (Mark Montminy)
trub removal, yeast, liquid level sighting tubes ("Keith Royster")
Re: sanitizing caps (Art Steinmetz)
Glenbrew yeast contains enzymes (kevin)
RE plugged steeping bag/stuck IPA ferment (Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna)
Labatt's buyout (Robin Hanson)
SIGNOFF (POLA_DBD)
Diacetyl / Diacetyl rests ("Lee A. Menegoni")
Muddy trub with gypsum steeped furry monsters in iodophur ("Pat Babcock")
Diacetyl and lagering (Rich Larsen)
sanitizing with bleach-how much and how long? (Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna)
Weizen (Russell Mast)
McMennimin's Hammerhead Ale Clone Recipie (Curiouser and curiouser...)
NYC brewing water (Btalk)
Gluing corny keg bottoms? (D. Kris Rovell-Rixx)
******************************************************************
* 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: 5 Jun 95 15:17:00 -0500
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: barrel exper./sherrylike/barrier bags/raspberries/lauter time/oak casks
Terry writes about an experiment done by Jim Mosser:
>I then sterilized the barrel with a
>blend of sodium metabisulfite and citric acid (following the
>instructions on the package), and re-rinsed the barrel about a half-
>dozen times after that with clean cold tap water.
Sodium metabisulfite solution does not sterilize. It does not even sanitize.
It *inhibits* yeast growth. However, since this was a new, charred barrel,
I don't think there was much in there that wasn't killed by the lye. I just
don't want to have anyone get the idea that you can sterilize with sodium
metabisulfite (aka Campden tablets). On the other hand, once you've put
beer in the barrel, unless you *sanitize* you may get some character from
the previous yeasts/bacteria in subsequent batches (especially if you try
to make a special bitter after making a pseudo-lambik!).
***
Derek writes:
>Recently I ran across a reference, (can't remember where), that stated;
> "beers that undergo a secondary fermentation in the bottle often have port
>or sherry-like notes".
My suspicion is that whoever stated this tasted a rather old bottle of
a bottle-conditioned beer that was in a corked bottle (e.g. Chimay Grand
Reserve) and associated the sherrylike character with the fact that the
beer was refermented in the bottle. In fact, it is the cork closure and
it's oxygen permiability that caused the beer to oxidize a bit and develop
the sherrylike notes. I'm just speculating regarding the source of this
misinformation, but in any case, it is wrong. Note also, that even crown
caps are not 100% oxygen-barrier and given enough age, virtually all beers
will develop some oxidiation.
***
Art writes:
>Most of the heat sealable plastic bags mentioned in the catalog are
>polyethylene, but I don't know if this material an oxygen barrier.
Polyethylene is notorious for being one of the most oxygen-permiable
plastics.
also:
> He said that many of the bags that come with vacuum sealing
>machines (retail version) are often barrier bags. They have a slick or
>slippery feel to them.
I don't recall the wording in the article, but I believe that the
"slick or slippery feel" bags are polyethylene. Compare whatever
bags you suspect may be oxygen-barrier to garden variety sandwich
bags or freezer bags. They are kind of milky and not 100% crystal
clear. These are polyethylene and, as such, not O2-barrier. All the
O2-barrier bags I've seen have been shiny (glassy, polished), both the
metallic and non-metallic bags. Finally, if you can smell hops through
the bags, then they are definately not O2-barrier.
I would recommend going to your local HB supply store and asking them
if you can just buy some O2-barrier bags empty. If they don't have
them, try a couple of mailorder shops.
Finally, Art writes:
>On another note, I tried to reuse some of the barrier grain bags, etc. that my
>supplies from the homebrew store are sold in, and found...
I seriously doubt that any store would bother to use O2-barrier bags for
grain. When it comes to grain, a moisture-barrier is sufficient and
polyethylene bags do just fine for keeping moisture out.
***
Eric writes:
>Add wort and frozen raspberries to AT LEAST a six (6) gallon primary
>fermenter.
CO2 scrubs aromatics out of your beer. To maximize raspberry aroma/flavour,
add it to your beer after the primary (malt) fermentation is over. Also,
if you add fruit at this time, the chances of wild yeast or bacteria from
the skins of the fruit are going to be less likely to make a significant
contribution to your beer. The alcohol and low pH of the beer is a much
less hospitible environment for wild beasties than wort. For more details,
see my article on adding fruit to beer in the last Special Issue of Zymurgy.
Oh yes, I second Eric's concern regarding using a blowoff tube in stead
of an airlock.
***
Richard writes:
>Generally the sparge is completed in about 10 minutes at most.
>
>I've recently read that most sparges take people an hour or more. I wonder,
>do most of you throttle down the valve so that the sparge goes slowly, or do
>the grain beds in other tuns tend to really slow the process? Why are my
>sparges going so fast?
>
>I should add that my extraction generally results in wort that is a bit
>lower than predicted, sometimes by 0.003 to as much as 0.010.
I feel that you *should* throttle-down your runoff and you will get back
at least some of the missing 0.003 to 0.010. Rob Reed posted a few weeks
ago about an experiment he did regarding runoff speed and mashout. There
indeed was an improvement in extract from a slower runoff.
***
writes:
>My conclusion is American white oak kegs provide an affordable alt to
>importing English oak casks at over twice the price.
European oak, and especially Russian oak, impart *far* less flavour to beer
than American oak. Many homebrewers, believing that oak flavour is necessary
for certain styles, use oak chips and/or oak extract to add oak flavour to
styles that don't require it. The only styles of beer that I've tasted that
have had a significant oaky character are Gueuze and Flanders Red (specifically
Rodenbach). What do these have in common? Long (years!) periods of aging in
oak casks. Judging from this, I would venture to guess that India Pale Ales
(the real ones that went by ship to India) might have a *little* oak character,
even if the casks were made from European oak. One other beer that I have
not tasted, but have read that it had an oaky character was Ballentine's.
Not surprizingly, this beer was aged in American oak casks. I have had
several English Bitters from oak (in the UK) and they had no oak character.
Recently, I had a Samuel Smith's Old Brewery Pale Ale (which I reported
in an earlier HBD that it had a woody character when served from an oak
cask at Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese pub in London) from a *bottle*. It had
a similar woody (mahogany, NOT oak) character, in spite of the fact that
the beer never saw wood.
My advice regarding oak casks:
1. If you want oak character, use american oak chips or go ahead and buy
that American oak cask, but store the beer in it for only a very short time
at first.
2. If you are seeking the oxygen permiability of the wood for something like
a plambik, then may I suggest polyethylene for a long primary, then glass
for a secondary (after two or three months) and then American oak chips or
cask years later, just for flavour?
3. If you want to maintain your fermentation cultures in the wood (i.e.
for a plambik), then I think you might as well go for the European oak
cask. Alternatively, you could store them on an American oak staff (some
handrail stock maybe?) which you can use to innoculate your wort. If you
were to store any beer in an American oak cask for three years on a plambik,
I think it would be undrinkable.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 15:50:44 cdt
From: Larry Bristol <larry@bristolpc.bmc.com>
Subject: CO2 Regulator Pressure
Kirk Fleming <flemingk@usa.net> comments:
> Larry suggests the regulator's low press guage indicates the pressure in
> the line at the regulator itself, but not the pressure of the keg to which
> the line is attached. Regardless of any other issue discussed in this
> ongoing thread, I assert there can be only ONE pressure in the entire system
> between the regulator and the keg, regardless of what temperatures any of the
> system components are. My reasoning is this is a static system, and unless
> gas is moving in the line between the keg and the regulator, there is one and
> only one equilibrium pressure for any given regulator setting. If someone
> will explain how this could be otherwise, I'm all ears...er, eyes.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that this is what I said. I'll attempt to clarify
my statement, and simultaneously explain why the pressure on one end of a gas
line can be different than the other. This all started because of a question
concerning the placement of the CO2 bottle and regulator (inside or outside the
fridge). We all know that the amount of CO2 that will dissolve into your beer
depends on both the temperature of the beer and the gas pressure applied to it.
It is important to know how to do this. The question is merely one of how to
interpret the reading on the pressure gauge.
If your CO2 bottle and regulator are placed inside the fridge, then the gas,
bottle, regulator, pressure lines, fittings, kegs, and liquid beer will reach
equilibrium at a uniform temperature and pressure. It will be quite easy to
measure the temperature of the beer, and the pressure gauge on the CO2
regulator (being at the same temperature) accurately reads the CO2 pressure
being applied to the keg. Computing the appropriate pressure to achieve a
target degree of carbonation is relatively easy.
If your CO2 bottle and regulator are placed outside the fridge, however, then
parts of the system will be at one temperature and parts of it will be at
another. The gauge on the regulator tells you the gas pressure at the gauge,
but that does *NOT* give you a (direct) reading on the CO2 being applied to the
keg. This is because the gas at the gauge and keg are at a different
temperatures. However, the system is at equilibrium (gas is not flowing from
one end to the other), and the equivalent pressure can be computed for any
point in the system if we know the temperature at that point and at the gauge.
Have you noticed that the high pressure gauge on a bottle of CO2 at 75F reads
about 850psi, but that the pressure will "drop" to only about 500psi when it is
cooled to 45F? Why is this true? Is there any less CO2 in the bottle? No, it
is because (for CO2) 500psi at 45F is equivalent to 850psi at 75F. This is
simply the effect of the physical laws pertaining to the behavior of gasses.
Play with this hypotechtical - suppose we have one CO2 bottle at 850psi/75F and
another at 500psi/45F and we put a line between them. Will gas flow from one
to the other? No - they are at equilibrium.
Have you noticed that the pressure of the earth's atmosphere drops as one gains
altitude? Shouldn't the higher pressure gasses at sea level rush to "equalize"
the low pressure gas at higher altitudes? Obviously, the force of gravity
prevents the gas from escaping completely. But also observe that in spite of
the differences in pressure, the gasses are actually in a state of equilibrium,
achieved because the temperature also drops as altitude increases.
I'm going on and on about about what I hope is obvious by now. The reading on
a pressure gauge alone simply does not tell you enough about what the gas
inside that system is doing. Gas systems are dependent on both pressure *AND*
temperature, and you must know both in order to know what is happening in the
system. How come CO2 at 17psi/75F does not "flow" to the keg where the CO2 is
only at 10psi/45F? Because these are equivalent pressures. The lower the
temperature, the lower the pressure of the gas.
My original statement was simply this. You have to interpret the pressure
reading on your pressure gauge in relation to the temperature of the gas being
measured. In order to achieve the desired amount of carbonation, if your CO2
is at 45F, you want one pressure, and if it is at 75F, you want another.
Information on how to determine the equivalent pressures is available in almost
any standard text on the behavior of gasses. Whew! :-)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:53:54 -0600 (MDT)
From: Ted Benning <tedben@csn.net>
Subject: Brewpubs at the Jersey Shore
Does anyone know of the existence of any brewpubs at the Jersey Shore
area??? Primarily the Seaside heights area or anywhere else in the
middle/southern portion of the state. I grew up back there and I am
tired of Budweiser and Michelob! Thanks!
Ted Benning Solution Systems Technologies, Inc. 303-442-3686
THE VME VERTICAL MARKET SPECIALISTS
2897 Mapleton Ave., Suite Two, Boulder, CO 80301 tedben@solusys.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 17:29:19 -0500 (EST)
From: david lawrence shea <dshea@indiana.edu>
Subject: Wit beer oranges
I am not going to be able to get the small bitter oranges to brew my Wit
beer later this week, curacao oranges I think they are. Could I use a
combination of sweet orange and lemon or lime peels for the recipe? or
has somebody brewed a good Wit with normal table oranges? I am at my
wit's end (sorry about that). I read the earlier posts by Lee Bussy and
company and learned a lot, thanks guys!! Any suggestions and advice
before I make my first Wit attempt at the end of the week would be
appreciated.
David L. Shea
dshea@nickel.indiana.edu
Indiana University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 11:34:00 JST
From: "ED KENDALL 252-3436" <C375@gollum.sas.mrms.navy.mil>
Subject: HOP FRESHNESS
Hello again,
This time I would like to ask a question about hops. All the hops i
have used previously have had a very strong hop spicy aroma when
received from the supplier. I just got three varieties I have never
used before, Spalt, Saaz and Tettnanger. The Spalt has a
somewhat unpleasant but hoppy odor and it is not very strong.
The Saaz has a very low level earthy/woody smell. The Tettnanger I
received at the same time has a powerful, spicy, hoppy aroma. These
are all pellets. Is what I smell in the Spalt and Saaz normal? If
not, are they useable? TIA
Ed Kendall
Sasebo, Japan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:11:48
From: "Dr. Gillian Grafton" <GRAFTONG@novell2.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: barrel experiment
Nigel Townsend wrote:
<snip>
>The only problem was cloudiness in stormy weather. The publican
>in my local pub said that he had to stop serving the beer whenever
>the weather was stormy as the beer became hazy. He believed that
>the fluctuating air pressures disturbed the materials deposited at the
>bottom of the cask.
>I do not know whether this is a common problem with wooden
>barrels.
It certainly is, and not only with wooden casks, cask conditioned beer
drunk in a thunderstorm is very soupy!
>Perhaps someone in the UK could find out more from companies still
>serving beer in barrels. I am looking out for a small barrel to see if I
>can get a clone like Old Timer!
You should have a look at the UK-homebrew web page:
http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/GraftonG/homebrew.htm
It has a list of cask and beer engine suppliers and also a guide on
how to cask condition your beer.
Gillian
Dr. Gillian Grafton
Department of Immunology
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, UK
Email: GraftonG@novell2.bham.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 5:47:36 CDT
From: Larry Lowe <lnl@apwk01g3.abrfc.noaa.gov>
Subject: fruit beer
Full-Name: Larry Lowe
i had a few questions 3 or 4 weeks ago about strawberry beer. a belated thanks
to all who responded. i finally gat to brew the beer. i added 5 to 6 pounds of
strawberries...suggestions ranged from 2 to 10 pounds with most suggesting ~5.
i am beginning to wish i had listened to the person...sorry forgot the name...
who suggested moderation. the beer has a good flavor except there is too much
strawberry flavor. it pretty much masks the taste of the beer. i should
mention i am talking about the f.g. sample (yes i too drink it). can i expect
this strong flavor to persist or will it lessen with aging? at any rate, it
won't go to waste, but i would prefer a little less strawberry flavor. in other
words this is not a IMBR question.
notes: used 5 - 6 pounds of berries
added the berries after primary..they were heated to near boiling
for 15 min.
left in secondary only 4 days...i am going out of town
tia
- --
from: Larry N. Lowe
NOAA, National Weather Service
Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center
10159 East 11th St, Suite 300
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128-3050
lnl@apwk01g3.abrfc.noaa.gov
Off: (918)832-4109 FAX: (918)832-4101
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:39:09 -0500
From: mcksmith@iadfw.net (McKee Smith)
Subject: Re: Forget the Mercury - Leaded Crystal Once Again
daniel eugene gates wrote:
>One conclusion was that the longer the wine and spirits sat the greater
>the lead levels.
Sounds like we should drink beer, wine and everything else sooner! That's
always good advice.
McKee Smith Email: Mcksmith@iadfw.net
"If all the worlds a stage, then who's got my residual checks?"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 9:49:38 EDT
From: Mark Montminy <markm@dev.cdx.mot.com>
Subject: Did I do something wrong?
In my months of lurking, I've seen this familiar all grain excuse come
up several times, which also happens to be my excuse (time, not
equip).
> I don't see myself going to all grain ever mostly do to the time and
> equipment that seem to go along with what appears to be a great
> undertaking as compared to the 3-4 hours I personally spend now.
To which I've seen several of these replies;
> RE time, however, I have your answer: brew 10 GAL+ all-grain
> batches. 4 hrs for (I assume) 5 Gal extract brew, or 8 hrs for 10
> gal of all-grain brew - samesame! And (just thought of this) only
> one cleanup.
My 2 cents here... you're missing the point. 8 hours is 8 hours,
regardless of the batch size. For me, it's not a question of how much
I can make in a given time, it's the time period.
Now, the real reason I've turned to the all knowing HBD...
I've recently taken the plunge to liquid yeast. While I've always
thought my dry yeast brews were great, I figured I'd see if the liquid
makes the difference people claim.
My 2nd batch using the yeast seems to have stuck. While my method
isn't perfect, I'm trying to use a process that's practical. If it
becomes too much work, I'll just go back to dry, since I'm happy with
it's results and ease of use. What I'm looking for, is did I do
something wrong, or did I just happen to end up with a stuck batch?
My first batch appears to have gone well. After a week long primary
(a little long, that time thing again) I racked. I then poured the
remaining half inch or so into a sanitized 2 liter soda bottle, purged
some air by squeezing, and capped. I stuck this in the fridge for
later re-use.
2 weeks later, I made up a "starter" by boiling up 2 tbl/cup of light
DME in about 6 or 8 cups of water. I cooled this to about 80F, and
poured it into another sanitized 2 liter bottle. I capped, then shook
the heck out of it to aerate. I then swirled up the yeast bottle, and
poured it into the starter, and capped with an airlock. Within a few
hours the airlock was slowly bubbling, nothing major. It seemed to
poop out sometime that night, and never seemed to reach any level of
serious activity.
The starter sat for a total of 48 hours after having the yeast pitched
into it. I pitched the starter (which was almost 2 liters) into the
brew, which was 3lbs light DME, 3lbs amber DME, and various specialty
grains/hops. Pitching temp was about 70F. There was pressure in the
airlock within a few hours, and within about 12 hours (I was sleeping)
it proceded to blow most of the water out of the airlock, then pretty
much stopped, with little to no activity since.
I racked last night (a week later) and the gravity was at 1.032, from
a start of 1.052. While it tasted OK, I expected a much lower gravity
after a week. I'm hoping the racking is going to give it a boost.
So I'm curious if I missed something handling the yeast. I was
cautious to observe good sanitation, though wasn't ar about it. I'm
leaning toward the yeast due to the quiet starter, thinking I
underpitched, but I didn't think underpitching caused stuck ferments,
just increased contamination risks.
The yeast was Wyeast American Ale. It seemed to ferment the 1st batch
great, bottled last night. Tasted a little dry, but very nice, a
brown ale.
- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Motorola ISG (508)261-5684 Email: markm@dev.cdx.mot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The world is coming to an end ... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!!!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:54:40 EST
From: "Keith Royster" <Royster@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: trub removal, yeast, liquid level sighting tubes
Ed Kendall writes asking about trub removal methods.
I have had similar problems trying to pour the wort into the
fermenter through a filter (cheese cloth) and having it plug up from
the tiny trub particles. I finally got it to work when I switched
to whole/plugged hops instead of pellets. I put the cheese cloth
over the primary bucket and then put a collander over that. When I
poured the wort through this, the collander caught the hops and the
hops then acted as a filter bed catching the trub/cold break. The
cheese cloth then caught everthing that the hop bed didn't. Worked
fine. As far as siphoning, I've heard of putting a scrubby pad as a
filter on the end of the siphon tube works, but I have not tried it.
A few comments and questions on yeast:
First, I would like to play devil's advocate on building yeast
starters. It seems that every time you boil up a small batch of wort
and pitch a yeast slurry, which can be many times if starting from a
culture, you are exposing your wort to the air thus significantly
increasing the chances of infection. However, if you pitch only once
into your full batch of beer, and you have practiced good sanitation,
your chances of contamination seem much smaller. Why is the starter
less likely to get infected from X number of yeast cells than the
a full batch is from the same number? Can the yeast 'see' the wort/cell
ratio? Like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate. I have always
made startes, and will continue to do so. Gut instinct says starters
are best, but I'd like to better understand why. Some ideas as to
why are: 1) the yeast can build up levels of alcohol and other
infection inhibitors quicker in a smaller batch, where as
contaminants would have a fighting chance in an underpitched 5gal
batch (in other words, they CAN 'see' the wort/cell ratio; and 2)
the benefits of a quick ferment for flavor (not just outcompeting
contaminants) is worth the relatively small risk of contamination.
Other notes on yeast: I recently brewed a Pale Ale and simply siphoned
it through my chiller onto the sediment of a just tranfered primary
of another Pale Ale (American WYeast #1056). The blowoff tube was
bubbling faster than one/second before I had the garage cleaned up!!!
Four hours later it was a constant stream of CO2 coming out!!
Essentially NO LAG TIME! Everyone should try this at least once if
you are comfortable with your sanitation procedures.
I also recently tasted two identical ESB's, one fermented with dry
yeast, the other with liquid. I've always heard how much better
liquid yeast is and only brewed maybe my first two batches with dry,
but had never compared the difference. I use to think people
possibly exagerated the difference, but not so. There was a definate
difference that even my untrained tongue could notice blind folded.
The analogy of liquid VS dry yeast to bakery-fresh VS store-bought
bread is a good one.
One more quick question. I would like to build a liquid level
sighting tube on the side of my brewing sankey keg. I already have
the fitting welded, but am having trouble finding plastic tubing
that can hold up to the heat, unless I want to spend $45 on about 50
feet from a lab supply catalog, when I only need ~2 feet. I read
about placing a metal tube aver the plastic tube with slits cut
lengthwise so you can see the tubing inside (I think this was Kirk
Flemming's idea, but am not sure). I like this idea, but wonder if
the metal tubing will be enough of a heat barrier / heat sink to
protect 'normal' - hardware type plastic tubing. Any help is
appreciated.
+------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Keith Royster, E.I.T. | The selling of bad beer |
| Environmental Engineer | is a crime against |
| NC-DEHNR / Air Quality | Christian love. |
| (704) 663-1699 | -Law, City of Augsburg, |
| Royster@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us | 13th century |
+------------------------------+-------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 95 22:33:45 EDT
From: (Art Steinmetz)
Subject: Re: sanitizing caps
> From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh@roadnet.ups.com>
> Subject: Smoking grain, dude/sanitizing caps/styles/kits
>
> On sanitation -- I used to boil my bottle caps, but it was a big
> mistake.
I boil my caps, or did, before I started kegging. The only problem I ever had
with liner separation was when I used overrun "contest" caps. You know, peel
off the liner to see if you win a prize. Boiling ruined the lot of them. I
didn't even win anything :-(.
- -- Art
asteinm@pipeline.com
76044,3204@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:18:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: kevin@wheels.aar.com
Subject: Glenbrew yeast contains enzymes
After having seen the results of the big yeast experiment, and
that the Glenbrew yeast fermented down to the lowest FG of all
yeasts tested, that made me wonder if that was the same yeast
mentioned in the yeast.faq.
In the yeast.faq, it has one yeast listed as "Glenbrew Special
Ale Yeast", which it says "contains a special enzyme to obtain
extremely low terminal gravities." I wonder if that is the same
yeast that was used in the yeast experiment? The yeast.faq lists
only one yeast by the name of Glenbrew, and it is this special
ale yeast.
I suspect that the low FG produced by this yeast is not due entirely
to the yeast strain, but also is enhanced by the enzymes that are
packaged with the yeast. I bet this brand of yeast would be a good
candidate to help those with "stuck ferments".
Kevin
- --
Kevin Hass WB0DPN !
! PGP public key by request via email
kevin@wheels.aar.com !
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 95 10:32:18 EST
From: Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna@relay.com
Subject: RE plugged steeping bag/stuck IPA ferment
>From HBD 1750:
Ken asks:
>I have tried to strain the stuff through a
>steeping bag but it plugs up solidly. Very frustrating
I use the same procedure without problems. The straining bag i use is large
enough to fit inside the plastic primary. After adding the wort, I grasp
the top of the bag (sort of like Santa-Claus) and lift about halfway out.
Unplugging it is a matter of grasping the bottom and lifting, thus
"sliding" the trub back and forth inside the bag. The wort strains out
fine. This does open up possibilities for contamination, but I've not had
a problem yet.
Harry discusses his "stuck" ferments:
>Now how does an extract brew achieve such a high level of
>unfermentables?
I recently made an IPA (Papazian Palilalia recipe) and experienced what I
*called* a stuck fermentation. My situation sounds allot like Harry's:
His OG=1064 and stuck at 1038. My OG was 1063 and FG=1025. I used Wyeast
1098 British Ale/pitched slurry from a pint starter; don't know what Harry
used. The recipe targets were OG=1048-1052; FG=1014-1017. The advice I
received made allot of sense *to me*, but I have not "tested" it yet.
Synopsis of the advice: "unfermentables" had nothing to do with the
problem. The OG was too high for the 1098 yeast. The high OG (1063
compared to target of 1050) gave the 1098 yeast more ferementables,
resulting in higher alcohol production, resulting in alcohol levels that
the yeast could not tolerate. In effect, the yeast fermented itself to
death before reaching the target FG (what a way to go).
So, lowering the OG to target levels (reducing the fermentables) should
allow the 1098 yeast to ferment down to the target FG. Alternatively, I
could choose a more alcohol-tolerant yeast and maintain the higher OG.
What do you other brewers think? I now pitch more than a pint slurry
(learned that lesson), but I doubt more yeast would have brought the FG
down to a target of 1015 in this case.
Tim Fields, Relay Technology, Inc., Vienna, VA, USA
Timf@relay.com
"The smell of wet Irish moss is like a trip to the beach" ... James Ray
"Reeb !" ... Cask-Conditioned Cole & Old Speckled Clyde
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:19:36 -0600
From: rhanson@nmsu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Subject: Labatt's buyout
I heard on CNN that Labatt's has been bought out by the largest Belgian
brewery. What brewery is it?
Robin Hanson
Rhanson@nmsu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 11:34:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: POLA_DBD@ACCESS.OECN.OHIO.GOV
Subject: SIGNOFF
SIGNOFF
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 11:08:06 EDT
From: "Lee A. Menegoni" <lmenegoni@nectech.com>
Subject: Diacetyl / Diacetyl rests
A recent discussion of diacetyl production and reduction presented what I
considered to be misleading information, one poster contended that daicetyl
isn't reduced at lagering temps and that is why one does a dacetyl rest,
this is not true.
Diacetyl is produced in the early stages of fermentation and later reduced
by the yeast in the late stages of fermentation. George Fix wrote a fine
article on this topic for Brewing Techniques, refer to it for a detailed
discussion.
Many factors influence the level of diacetyl produced. One of the major
factors is the fermentation temp. A common fault is to pitch into warm
wort to "let the yeast get going". This is a recipe for production of
elevated levels of diacetyl, levels beyond which the yeast can reduce and
is a common reason why lagers have this flavor /aroma flaw.. The yeast
will later reduce the diacetyl to other compounds with higher taste and
aroma thresholds. This reduction too is directly related to temp. One
does a diacetyl rest to hasten the reduction and thus reduce lagering time
by weeks. The yeast will reduce diacetyl at lagering temps, low 30sF, but
at a much slower rate. Personally I do a diacetyl rest at 52-55F for 48
hours after fermenting at 45-47F.
Lee
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 11:41:36 +0000
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Muddy trub with gypsum steeped furry monsters in iodophur
In HBD #1750:
>Andy Walsh gives the treatment necessary to duplicate Adelaide, Au
>tap water:
"1 handful of dirt"
Anyone know a source for imported Australian dirt?!? <G>
>Ed Kendall asks about trub removal...
This is sort of one of those 'religious' things. I recommend *NOT*
removing the trub from the primary. If your aeration practices are
poor, the trub helps supply wort components necessary for the
yeast's activity. I brew both lagers and ales in this manner. I
cannot tell you whether doing so has imparted any particular flavor
components that would not be present had I racked off the sediment
prior to pitching as I've never done it.
In any transfer (and this is applicable to all phases of the brewing
process), don't risk your entire batch by trying do get every
available driblet of beer or wort from the trub. More harm can be
done than good by making herculean effort to regain a few ounces of
liquid from the bottom of the fermentor/settling tank. Jsut for
starters, you can induce infection in the wort or beer, and aerate
the finished beer through such methods.
Just my $.02...
>Sandy Cockerham provides a 'Pumpkin Dunkel Weizenbock' recipe...
Sorry yours is the 'Target Recipe', Sandy - this is not intended as
a flame...
Like many other recipes, this one calls for an amount of gypsum to be
added to the mash water without reference to the base mineral content
of the water to which this was added. I know this comes up every
once in a while, but I'd rather you tell me what ion make up or
regional water supply you're targeting than tell me to add an amount
of gypsum to water you know nothing about. Adding 1T of gypsum to my
brewing water may have a drastically different effect on my attempt
at this brew than it did in yours.
Honestly, I'd like to try this recipe. I'm just leary of the gypsum...
(Flames to i_like_lots_of@calcium_sulfate.in.my.beer please. Pulling
asbestos suit on now...)
>Tim Fields asks about mashing specialty grains for extract brews...
Well, Tim, no easy answer but...
o Any MALTED grain can be steeped to extract some of the malt sugars.
This is nowhere near the sugar potential for that grain had it been
mashed (with possible exception offered to fully modified grains).
o Unmalted grains should be mashed with pale malt to convert starched
to sugar. Pale ale - 'diastaticly powerful', ie has a lot of enzymes
to spare. Including saome pale malt will 'ensure' conversion;
particularly with non-barley grains - wheat, oats, etc.
o Generally speaking, the temperature used by most for 'steeping'
grains is roughly the same temperature most all-grainers use for
mash-out. The enzymes are denatured (de-activated) at these
temperatures; therefor, it is doubtful that your steeping practices
are performing the same function.
> Jeff Stampes asks about sanitary conditions within his sealed
> kegs...
No. As long as the seal remains unbroken, the interior will remain in
the same state you left it. Whether or not this is sanitary is
another issue. In a similar adventure, I had used BEST Iodofur
(pardon if miss-spelled. Can never keep the spelling straight on
that stuff!) to sanitize the wort lines of my CF chiller. The
solution was made to the specifiactions for 25 ppm as I intended to
leave the chiller unused for quite a while (I though a month; ended
up being 6 months). Upon pulling the puppy off its rack for use, I
saw the Iodophur solution was clear (clear hose). No big deal,
right? there were fitting on each end preventing solution from
leaving or air from entering. Well, there was a 'creature'
resembling a dandelion-gone-to-seed evident through the wort line.
This cleaned out real easily, and I resanitized with fresh
Iodophur. The beer I rtan through the chiller is 'flawless' (in
terms of infection, anyway).
To make a short story even longer, I'd recommend resanitizing at
time of use. I can't tell you when the fuzzy white creature popped
into existance in the line, but I know I can't see through stainless
steel. Better safe than sorry, I always say!
And, yow! Where'd you get that sig line? Nyah!
> Speaking of which, Frank Caico asks about making Iodophur
> solution...
I use BEST iodophur. Don't know if there are others and what their
concentrations should be, but I use 0.5 oz in 5 gals with a few
minutes contact time (12.5 PPM). For storage, I use 1 oz in 5 gals
(25 ppm); however, see above.
> Dave Bradley talks about a BT tip in which a jury-rigged milk jug
> is used as a bellows to start siphon.
Cool! If you clean and sanitize the jug carefully, I see no risk!
Watch the foot pump, though! You don't want to start the 'Amazing
Exploding Carboy Thread' again ;-)
"Drink all you want - I'll brew more!"
Patrick (Pat) G. Babcock | "Yup, Kit's (Anderson) a brewer...
President, Brew-Master | What he isn't is a woman." - Dan Hall
and Chief Taste-Tester | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery | at the end of your day as every sentence
pbabcock@oeonline.com | requires proper punctuation." -PGB
SYSOP on The HomeBrew University - Motor City Campus BBS (313)397-9758
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:15:36 -0500
From: rlarsen@squeaky.free.org (Rich Larsen)
Subject: Diacetyl and lagering
CSS2@OAS.PSU.EDU (SPEAKER.CURTIS)
writes to jwolf@smtplink.penril.com :
>Diacetyl is another chemical that will give you
>a butter/butterscotch flavor in beer; lagering at a low temp (<50F) will cause
>the yeast to reabsorb the diacetyl for food.
>
This is incorrect. The cool fermentation results in lower ester production
thus a less fruity, more crisp beer. The diacetyl is reabsorbed when the
temperature is raised up to around 60-70. This is sometimes refered to a
diacetyl rest. Some lager yeasts will require this rest otherwise you'll
wind up with a beer that would taste pretty darn good poured over popcorn.
=> Rich <rlarsen@squeaky.free.org>
________________________________________________________________________
Rich Larsen, Midlothian, IL. Also on HomeBrew University (708) 705-7263
Spice is the varity of life.
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 95 11:51:24 EST
From: Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna@relay.com
Subject: sanitizing with bleach-how much and how long?
I'm considering changing from b-brite-type sanitizers to bleach for
sanitizing my non-plastic brewing equipment, bottles, and caps. (I'm
concerned about bleach aroma remaining in the plastic).
Should be pretty easy to research amounts and soaking times, thought I, so
I pulled CP's New Complete Joy and Dave Miller's Brewing the Worlds Great
Beers off the shelf. I also searched past HBDs via WWW. Suffice to say, the
results differed. Following is a summary of what I found.
For those of you who use bleach, what amounts and soaking times do you
recommend? Yeah, this is a tad retentive, but that's me when it comes to
sanitizing :-)
For bottles and carboys:
method 1: 2 oz.(4 TBS) per 5 gal; soak for 1 hr.
method 2: 2 TBS per 1 gal; no time specified.
For caps:
method 1: solution of 200 ppm, soak for 15 mins
(parts per million? i have no conversion method)
method 2: 1-2 tsp per gal, no time specified.
method 3: 1/3 to 1.5 tsp per 5 gal, soak for 1/2 hr to 1 hr.
If you are good enough to respond, be assured I will post summary of
responses. Thanks!
Tim Fields, Relay Technology, Inc., Vienna, VA, USA
Timf@relay.com
"The smell of wet Irish moss is like a trip to the beach" ... James Ray
"Reeb !" ... Cask-Conditioned Cole & Old Speckled Clyde
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 11:36:47 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Weizen
> From: "Timothy P. Laatsch <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>" <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>
> Subject: Weizen/Wyeast 3056
> A few quick questions: Any special considerations when using Wyeast 3056
> Bavarian Wheat?
I'd push you towards using the Weihenstephan, I forget the number. (3688?)
I've made a couple of fantastic beers with this, and sampled a couple others.
I don't have any firsthand (or firstmouth?) experience with 3056, but I see
no reason not to use the volldelbruckii.
> The recipes I've been able to find seem to be very low in IBUs.
That's the way a traditional Weissbeer is done. One thing I've noticed,
especially if your grain bill is high in wheat (like my 100%), wheat malt
doesn't cover the taste of hops as much as barley malt, so you'll still be
able to detect them a bit, and overhopping will be noticed. If you want to
win prizes, don't overhop a weizen. But, brew it the way you want it. I
will say that my wheat beers have been low hopped and fantastic. Would I
like them as much with more hops? Maybe.
> I was planning to use 0.5 oz.
> Tettnanger at each of 60, 40, and 20 min in the boil (13.5 IBU) and finishing
> with 0.5 oz. Hallertauer. Does this look to be in the ballpark?
Yes, but I wouldn't use any finishing. I used 2 oz. of Hallertau at 60 mins.
and their contribution, while subtle, is detectable. There _is_ a flavor
component left after that length of a boil. Of course, if you do use finishing
hops, and you like the effect, let me know. I'll be in K-zoo a couple times
this summer and might be up for a couple of bottle exchanges.
Of course, I'm just an all-grain brewer, so take all this with a grain of
salt. (And a teaspoon of gypsum.)
-R
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:17:48 -0700
From: ruderman@esca.com (Curiouser and curiouser...)
Subject: McMennimin's Hammerhead Ale Clone Recipie
Hi,
Recently a McMennimins Brewpub openned here in Seattle. I found one of their
ales, Hammerhead Ale, to be truely delightful. A terrific dose of citrusy,
hoppy aroma; a nice red amber colour; and a taste of citrus in the ale to match
the aroma. I assume that the citrus qualities come from the hops (Cascade?).
McMennimins is a chain of brewpubs, originating from the suburbs of Portland,
Ore. I believe.
Does anyone have a clone recipie of Hammerhead ale? I'd like to take a shot at
making such a brew at home.
Thanks!
Robert
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:49:45 -0400
From: Btalk@aol.com
Subject: NYC brewing water
David wonders what is in his water!
Check with the water dep't. It may take a few calls to get to the right
person (lab). Outside of having it te$ted your self, this is the way to go.
I stopped by the city water plant last week and the guys were more than
helpful. They were curious about homebrewing and water.
Surface water supplies here in upstate NY, like the Susquehanna River where
Binghamton gets its water, tend to be moderately hard. It is the well water
here that is very hard while springs can be very soft.
Anyhow, I would -guess- that NYC water would be roughly similar (how's that
for vagueness), incase you can't find out anything else. NYC's water comes
from reservoirs in the Catskills, one reservoir is about 40 miles from here.
I think they all may be a part of the Delaware RIver drainage system.
The water dep't doesn't routinely analyze for all the ions we brewers may be
interested in, but they may get that info in reports done by outside labs.
Binghamton water (ppm): total hardness ranges 50 - 90. This is lower after
heavy rain dilutes the river. Nitrate around 1. Total alkalinity 28-34.
Sulfate around 24. Sodium around 10. Calcium 18. Calcium as CaCO3 111.
I just got this info last Friday, so I haven't had a chance to figure what it
means. Hopefully my water chem text book is stillaround ;)
My 2 cents worth,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk@aol.com>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 14:28:32 EDT
From: D. Kris Rovell-Rixx <rovell@hpana0.an.hp.com>
Subject: Gluing corny keg bottoms?
Anyone know how the hard rubber bottoms of soda kegs are bonded to the
stainless steel of the keg? I recently borrowed a couple of cornelius
pin-lock kegs from a friend. One has a loose base that I need to
rebond to the keg. I'll try epoxy, unless the experts of hbd know of
a better way.
Thanks,
- --
__________________________________________________________________________
Kris Rovell-Rixx rovell@an.hp.com (508)659-2096
__________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1751, 06/07/95
*************************************
-------
