Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1873
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/11/02 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1873 Thu 02 November 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Everything 3/3 (Russell Mast)
Responses to foam@bottling? (Todd W. Roat)
CHRISTMAS ALE (PERSAND)
bleach vs iodophor (Dan Sherman)
Wyeast 1056 problems ("Robert Marshall")
Re: White Spots (Ron Olko )
Bulging cans (Staff) <b.j.craven@psych.stir.ac.uk>
RE Sept 1056 - a point of clarification (Tim Fields)
RTP Update (Jim Grady)
Delayed fermentation (Mike Otten (Back Office))
re: Secondary Fermentation (Eric W. Miller)
Sweet Gale (again) (Tim Fields)
kettles (DONBREW)
Re: Carmelized Mashes (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Secondary Fermentation (John DeCarlo )
Increasing Gott insulation ("David C. Rinker")
Airlock Flooid. (Russell Mast)
Toasting Grains / 2ndary Pros ("Palmer.John")
False Bottoms and Sightglasses--Had Enough Yet? (Kirk R Fleming)
mead ("James Giacalone")
Bruheat (Danny Mastre)
I Gott Troubles... (Russell Mast)
Building Yeast Volume (Phil Brushaber)
HB Flea Market/Expanded Service/Correspondence ("Pat Babcock")
Sierra yeast ("A. Sturdivant \"Sturdy\" McKee")
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! November 5 thru November 11: The digest
!!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if
!!! you make any requests during this time
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
******************************************************************
* 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.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.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@hpfcmgw.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@alpha.rollanet.org
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: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:52:06 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Everything 3/3
Your article sent to homebrew is being rejected. The reason:
--Contains line(s) greater than 80 chars in length --
Pure evil, it is.
> From: dludwig@ameritel.net
> Subject: Wheat Beer Yeast Question
3056 is okay. 3068 is better. Those are opinions (mine) not facts.
> From: MClarke950@aol.com
> Subject: RE: Washed yeast, Bleach, Ring-around-the-collar
> I believe Don might be right because of the white spots, but bottle neck
> rings sometimes occur when priming with DME instead of corn sugar.
Or brewing without a chiller.
Blowoff hoses - I prefer to put a 5 gallon batch in a 6.5 gallon carboy, and
collect the evil gunk on the sides where it will stick. I've used a blowoff
now and then, depending on volume of beer and size of primary. Never really
noticed a significant pattern of difference in the final products.
Charlie S. asks :
> 2/ I can drink 2 litres of a very good beer and enjoy myself. Another
occasion,
> 1 bottle of a different very good beer will make me violently ill the
next day.
> I would love to scientifically define the hidden quality that my body is a
> litmus test for? Quality has other dimensions we now ignore.
Sounds like you're extra sensitive to fusel alcohols or perhaps allergic to
a byproduct of a strain of yeast. Is there a pattern to which beers hurt and
which don't? I've found that one or two bottle-conditioned beers will make
a big diffference regardless of what else I might drink. I assume that's
due to the B-vitamins in the yeast.
> 3/ The Australian Ad Agencies ... awards were a false
> standard of excellence for the real world of selling things.
Or to the real world of convincing the decision-makers of big companies.
Big companies pull an ad if they dislike it, or if they -think- it's not
selling. Sometimes they base it on solid research, more often it's whim.
> I would love to see the craft brewing industry challenge wine in the fine
> drinking market. To do that requires an emphasis on Quality Assurance,
> development and marketing.
Perhaps, but there also needs to be a renaissance in pulic attitudes towards
beer. In private e-mail, someone and I (was it Ken? I forget) were remarking
about how we know many people who easily shell out $20 for a bottle of wine
but look at us like we have three heads when we talk of buying a $4 or $5
bottle of beer. Regular people understand how anyone would want to drink a
good wine, even if they don't care to themselves. People talk about a "fine
wine" all the time, but you only hear about "fine beer" in ads - usually for
crap beer(tm).
> From: Jay Welther <helpsw@intersurf.com>
> Subject: Re: How to use spent grains...
> I tried making cereal once.
Ooh. Whoah. I've occasionally munched on them. What you need to do is
grind those husks and hulls to where they are no longer problematically
large. Maybe. Just toss'em in the blender.
> The family didn't agree. No one even wanted to try it and I determined that
> the beers I drank while brewing must have affected my judgement the night
> before.
I'm picturing this great family scene here, everyone gathered around the
breakfast table...
> From: "William D. Knudson" <71764.203@compuserve.com>
> Subject: American Lager
> I'm sorry but I take exception to this kind of big three bashing.
I think it's biting the hand that funds you, and therefore innappropriate.
At the same time, it's aesthetically correct - those beers aren't made for
quality, they're made for consistency.
> So how can AOB ignore their niche?
The same way the big three generally ignore the idea of making good beer.
It seems they will be joining the craft brewing market soon, at least A-B is.
Great, welcome to it. It's about time. I have no problem giving them awards.
> SA won again. Good beer, but come on. Ken says "...Give'm medals to adorn
> corporate headquarters", different tactic - same result, no?
Yep.
> What do you do when you're in BF Egypt and all
> that they sell is that stuff?
Drink water? (I know, it's very dangerous in large quantities, so take it
easy on that stuff.)
> They're here to stay, and I don't
> understand why their presence irritates so many.
I'm mostly annoyed when good beer gets mistaken for their stuff. I love beer.
If I say this freely, people think I drive a pick-up truck with an old hound
dog in the back and a gun rack and I watch football games and pinch the butts
of women I've never met. (No offense to anyone who does this stuff, except
the butt thing, that's rude, shame on y'all.)
Ich kann besser Deutsch lesen, wenn Bill etwas Bier getrunken hat,
> From: WALZENBREW@aol.com
> Subject: Chlorine Bleach
>
> On the subject of bleach: It's still the BEST and MOST ECONOMICAL sanitizer
> for general purpose use in the home brewery.
Well, I use it, and it's good enough, but I don't think it's the "best".
Most economical, yeah, probably.
> Bleach also rinses off most equipment with warm water...
Spank me if I'm wrong, but I've read several times that it rinses off just
as well with cold water.
> this only becomes a disadvantage if the bacteriological content of
> your water is suspect
>From the hot water tap? You betcha baby. That water's only good for bathing.
> Bleach is also an excellent cleaner and dissolves organic matter,
This is true - makes carboy cleaning very easy.
> Disadvantages of bleach are....
For me, the main disadvantage is that it requires a lot of rinsing. (Yes,
I tried warm water before I read how spooky most water heaters are, and it
didn't speed up that I noticed.) Just a wee bit of bleach can give a nasty
taste to any batch.
> If you use too much bleach it
> won't work as well - "too much" is when it feels slippery between your
> fingers - you need to add more water.
Brings to mind another disadvantage. That slippery, soapy feeling happens
because the bleach is turning the oils in your skin into soap. Result -
skin problems. (Yeah, you're skin will be clean, but it can be pretty painful
later. Rinse your hands. If you splash bleach, rinse anywhere you think
it fell.
No, Greg, I like bleach okay, but I don't fault those who don't use it. It
also is supposedly very destructive to the environment. (That should make
it appeal that much more to certain people, of course...)
> From: WALZENBREW@aol.com
> Subject: Mushroom Corks
>
> Is there anything on the market that enables you to insert corks 1/2 way into
> champagne or used lambic bottles? Tried doing this by hand with corks soaked
> in boiling water and about 1/2 of them ripped apart in the process - a royal
> pain. Want to put up a Flanders Brown in wine/Belgian bottles with corks,
> but it's proving to be a lot of trouble - and I hate the thought of using
> those plastic mushroom corks!
Heh heh. Here's the trick - you put the cork in all the way, and then have it
come out part way. You need a little dissolved CO2 in the beer to come out
of solution. I usuall just give it a little shake. If you ferment below room
temp, it's easier, because the CO2 will come out as the bottle warms. You
need to put the cage on before it seriously starts rising.
-R
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 17:51:08 -0500
From: troat@one.net (Todd W. Roat)
Subject: Responses to foam@bottling?
Greetings: thanks for the flood of responses to my asking about my first
heavy foaming experience during bottling. Responses below seem to reflect
the main themes of most responses:
>Was the beer in the secondary cold? Were the bottles warm? Cold beer
>holds more CO2. Warming (or agitating) it can bring the CO2 out of solution
No, but good thought. Both beer and bottles were room temp. Maintained, I
think, a slow, quiet bottling method.
>My guess would be that maybe your fermentation hadn't really
>stopped entirely. You don't say how long it had
>been in primary or secondary or what the gravities were, so I can only
>guess here. Usually a beer out of secondary is relatively non-foaming.
OG = 1.060; FG = 1.012. These two gravities are typical of my beers, which
to date have not behaved so at bottling. However, I'll try and get the FG
lower next time to see if I "foam" at bottling (actually my beers, not me).
>I experienced just this on my first brew of this year; an all-grain Brown
>I don't know why this happened. (Gary McCarthy comforts)
Glad to see Im not alone Gary :^)
>The only time I saw this was making a weizen, where I added more than the
>usual priming amount and then was called away by a crying child for half an
>hour. My theory was that the priming fermentation had started already, and
>was foaming away in the bottles.
Good theory, but luckily I have no such baby distractions ("YET" my wife
hastily exclaims - Gulp!) I bottled ASAP after mixing priming sugar;
although I cant be sure I didnt add a little too much sugar as my method of
measure is "eyeballing."
Sorry about the bandwidth but several responders wanted to know what I
learned. Thanks for all the input. Response Morals: 1) seems to happens to
alot of people now and again, 2) "sh*t" happens, 3) some things are better
left unknown, 4) RDWHAHB, and 5) place suspect bottles near drain...just in
case. Will incorporate all responses into future bottling adventures.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 20:40:06 -0500
From: PERSAND@aol.com
Subject: CHRISTMAS ALE
I'm formulating a Christmas Ale using various spices, etc. My question is
this:
I'm adding the rind of several oranges. Would there be any detrimental
effect to the
batch if I added all of the orange juice to the boil? It's an extract batch
with a starting gravity around 1.060 but I don't know if the added acid will
hurt the fermentation, taste etc.
I'm going to pitch wyeast 3056-weissen-might get some clove aroma?
An Ale I made last year had about 1 'square' of bakers chocolate. I didn't
find that
it hurt the head retention. I finished the last bottle yesterday and only
wish that I
would start this seasonal ale many months earlier! The flavors REALLY
mellowed and made a fantastic winter brew!
I'm planning to add whole cardomon to this batch. Any idea on how much?
(of course from an earlier thread-cardomon should be added to every brew! ;
) )
TIA for any help!
I forget who asked this but: Concerning bottling a batch which had a LOT of
carbonation and almost made capping difficult, I have had a few batches like
this but have never had any problems with bottle bombs or over-carbonation
when opened. Beer tasted just fine. Hope this helps.
Paul Rybak
Brewing in Morris, IL since 1990
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 18:56:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Sherman <dsherman@sdcc3.ucsd.edu>
Subject: bleach vs iodophor
In HBD #1870, Greg Walz compared iodophor and bleach, and stated:
>(with Iodaphors you can air-dry without rinsing, but
>Iodaphor is about six times as expensive as bleach)
I disagree. If you use 3/4 cup of bleach per 5 gallons, you can make
about 110 gal. of sanitizer per gallon of bleach (about $3). From many
homebrew shops, you can buy 1L of iodophor for about $10. Using a
concentration of 25ppm, you can make about 350 gal. of sanitizer (for
$10). That seems about equivalent to me.
Dan Sherman
San Diego, CA
dsherman@ucsd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 19:58:18 +0000
From: "Robert Marshall" <robertjm@hooked.net>
Subject: Wyeast 1056 problems
After being concerned by "funny" tastes in my starter, I called
Wyeast labs the other day.
They were very cordial about it and claimed that I was the first
person to call about problems with this strain. I had explained to
her about the thread that had been going on here in HBD and that I
was concerned.
Since this was my first attempt at a starter, I didn't know if
perhaps I had done something wrong.
She said that they had had a probelm with another strain, but had
called all the dealers who had bought the infected shipment.
FWIW, I ended up throwing away my starter and buying a Wyeast British
Ale yeast packet to use. That tastes much better than the American
yeast and I've decided that there must have been something wrong with
mine. The packet swell wasn't as fast as usual and the Kreusen looked
more like soap bubbles than beer foam.
BTW: the lot date was 9/20/95.
I've sworn off the American Strain for awhile.
Later,
Later,
Robert Marshall
robertjm@hooked.net
homepage: http://www.hooked.net/users/robertjm
- ----------------------------------------------
"In Belgium, the magistrate has the dignity
of a prince, but by Bacchus, it is true
that the brewer is king."
Emile Verhaeren (1855-1916)
Flemish writer
- ------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 20:17:55 -0800
From: captron1@ix.netcom.com (Ron Olko )
Subject: Re: White Spots
Greetings All,
Just a quick note in response to a posting I remember seeing in HBD
1860 or so about white spots experienced in the necks of bottles. I
have also experienced this using EDME dry Ale yeast in a batch of Cream
Ale that I brewed in May of this year. I had chalked it up to poor
sanitation, however maybe we are seeing a trend here. One reader also
posted that he had poured his batch down the drain without even a
curious taste test.... Well in my case I have to report that there is
no discernable "off flavor" that I nor any of my beer tasting friends
have noticed. If it is a wild yeast infection, it is not one that will
desroy your batch, at least not in the drinkability department. Be
advised though that I had very tiny spots with little to no ring, if
you experienced something different you might have some "off" flavors.
P.S. I'm looking for some good all grain "Guiness clone" recipies if
anyone would care to post them publicly or e-mail me I'd appreciate it
TIA..
Ron Olko
Netcom E-Mail address: captron@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:47:24 GMT
From: Ben Craven (Staff) <b.j.craven@psych.stir.ac.uk>
Subject: Bulging cans
bean@seattle.email.net wrote about the possibility of botulism from
bulging cans. In the context of brewing this won't be a problem:
the botulism toxin is fragile and will be destroyed by 10 minutes'
boiling.
(For information: according to a book on the chemistry of food that
I read [from which I got the above] the lethal dose of botulinus
toxin ingested orally is one microgram. The toxin is poorly
absorbed by the gut, so if you were to inject it into the blood,
the dose would be a thousand times less! These quantities are small
not only in absolute terms but also in relation to the capacity of
the bugs to produce the toxin).
Ben Craven
Stirling
UK
------------------------------
Date: 31 Oct 95 06:57:28 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE Sept 1056 - a point of clarification
In #1870, Jack ("MSG Richard Smith" <QR1661@trotter.USMA.EDU) posts a
summary of feedback to his query re Sept batches of 1056:
>This is a follow-up to my original posting in HB1859 re a problem with Wyeast
1056.
>I received the following private responses with results as follows:
>
> 2 stated no problems with 1056 although one noted a an odd
> looking yeast cake after racking off the primary and sub-
> sequent problems with re-pitching.
>
> 1 stated that the starter smelled funny, but pitched anyway.
>
> 8 stated problems with either the starter
> or the batch and discarded same.
>
> In addition I have noted several public responses on
> the HBD since with varying but more-negative-than-not
> results.
>
>I have been away, and so have yet to contact Wyeast for any
>information.
>
>Take these results for what they are worth. For me, I won't
>use 1056 for awhile. Thanks to all who have responded.
I am in the group "8 stated problems with either the starter or the batch
and discarded same". My specific "problem" was that my starter fermented
slowly and weakly. No off-aromas. I mail-ordered this particular smak
pack, and it traveled via UPS to me in VA from NC, subject to unknown
temperatures (probably HOT) and handling practices. Further, I did not
brew with it till October, and it was dated early Sept (I did refrigerate
it). Based on the uncharacteristically slow starter ferment, I elected to
toss it rather than risk 5 gal of beer.
Given the shipping conditions and the fact that the smak pack was a
little over a month old when I used it, I cannot in good conscience blame
*my* specific problem on the manufacturing process. Too many other
factors could have produced the same results. It is apparent from the
feedback Jack received that over 11 people had some level of problem with
a Sept 1056 yeast batch, and perhaps there is something funky about their
smak packs - I just don't think my experience should be used to evaluate
theirs. I've brewed about 20 batches of beer with Wyeast yeasts, and this
is the first smak pack I ever experienced a "problem" with. Overall, I
am a very happy Wyeast customer and will continue using their products -
including 1056.
No affiliation, kickbacks, free yeast, etc. etc.
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
timfields@aol.com (weekends)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 07:45:20 -0500
From: Jim Grady <grady@hpangrx.an.hp.com>
Subject: RTP Update
Last August I posted that I had found a new yeast brand called RTP
(Ready-To-Pitch) that boasts 5 billion viable yeast cells & ready to
pitch into your fermenter. I have used it twice and here are my
results:
1. The first batch was an extract based pale ale. About 10 gal of 1.040
wort. Since I was making a 10 gal batch, I pitched it into 2 qts of
starter the day before. Fermented at ~67^F. Both the starter and
the wort took off. I used RTP "English Bitter Ale" (or something
like that).
2. Last Thursday night, Curt Freeman and I made 12 gal of extract based
Christmas Ale. We each pitched a different yeast; he used the RTP
Belgian Ale & I used the RTP Acme Ale. We pitched directly into the
fermenter (no starter this time) at 8:00 pm on Thursday. Tuesday
morning, there is only a couple of mm of kraeusen! A rather slow
start! There are some extenuating circumstances:
a. The O.G. is higher, about 1.064, so I should expect to pitch
more yeasties,
b. Each yeast vial was pitched into 6 gal, not 5, &
c. We added 10 oz of ginger and other spices at knock out. I
have noticed slower starts with ginger in the past.
Given a. & b. above, & Jeff Benjamin's post in HBD 1829, I should
have pitched 350 billion viable cells so it is no wonder that I am
off to a slow start. (Too bad I did not calculate this BEFORE I had
trouble!) I have attached Jeff's post.
My conclusion is that RTP is best pitched into a starter. This is still
faster than the Wyeast "smack-pack" but does not save you from making a
starter. Given that it is only marginally more expensive, I will most
likely use it again since it saves a step or two.
- --
Jim Grady | If your project requires only one
grady@an.hp.com | trip to the hardware store, you
Hewlett-Packard Medical Products Group | bought too much.
Andover, MA |
Here is the pertinent part of the Jeff Benjamin's post:
> HOMEBREW Digest #1829 Tue 12 September 1995
>
> From: Jeff Benjamin <benji@hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
> Subject: Pitching rates
>
> . . . [snip] . . .
>
> Here's some information I got from Jeff Lebesch, the man behind New
> Belgium Brewing. It's from a handout he had at a talk he gave to the
> local brew club a few years back:
>
> "Most references recommend a minimum pitching rate of 10 million yeast
> cells per milli-liter of wort, plus another 1 million cells/ml for every
> 0.004 gravity increase above 1.040. ...The 10...15 million cells/ml
> rate is easily achieved by adding 5 ml of thick yeast slurry per liter
> of wort. For ales, sometimes you can go as low as 3 ml/l, and for low
> temperature lager fermentations 10 ml/l is suggested.
>
> . . . [snip] . . .
> - --
> Jeff Benjamin benji@fc.hp.com
> Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
> "Think! It ain't illegal yet." -- George Clinton
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 08:00:01 EST
From: motten@maestro.fcmc.COM (Mike Otten (Back Office))
Subject: Delayed fermentation
This weekend I brewed my third batch since I bought my beer kit, and
the first using ingredients other that 100% extract. Due to the long
time I have waited in the past to pitch (7 or 8 hours), I boiled 3
gallons of water on Saturday and tossed it in the primary fermenter and
put it in my beer fridge overnight. This brought the temp. down to
about 40-45F. On Sunday, I brewed and, using my handy dandy wort
chiller (constructed on Saturday evening), chilled the wort down to 95F
in about 15 minutes. I know I could have gotten it much cooler, but I
knew that I would be adding it to the 3 gallons of cold water. Well,
you guessed it, after combining the wort with the cold water, the
temperature was about 52F. I put the fermenter near the oil burner,
hoping to get the temp. up a bit, but that took to long. Once it was
up to 60F, I checked the specific gravity, and pitched 1 package of
lager Wyeast. Now, 36 hours later, I have not seen one bubble work its
way up through the airlock. Do I need to pitch more Wyeast? Should I
attempt to raise the temp. of the wort to 70 or 75F to get the yeasties
boogieing? Should I just let it be and hope for the best?
Private e-mail is fine.
TIA,
Mike "motten@fcmc.com"
"Prosit"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:17:36 -0500
From: ac051@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller)
Subject: re: Secondary Fermentation
In HBD #1871, Mitch Hogg <bu182@freenet.toronto.on.ca> discusses the pros
and cons of secondary fermentation. Under pros, he lists:
> 5) Aeration
Bill, I think you're confusing normal racking with dropping here. You
mention that your beer is fermented out before you rack to the secondary.
All you'll buy by aerating at this point is oxidized beer.
The dropping thread concerned racking of green beer while fermentation
is active (...and aerating). I think the idea here is to give the active
yeast a kick start to ensure a healthy fermentation. The yeast stops
anaerobic fermentation for a bit and enters the aerobic growth phase,
producing some off flavors that will be blown out when the oxygen is
consumed and the yeast gets back to fermenting. Since the beer is racked
out from under the majority of the yeast kraeusen, there is less yeast
available to reduce the diacetyl level later in fermentation, leading
to a slight buttery flavor in the finished product.
Keep up the brewing and practice those double axel diacetyl drops :)
Eric Miller
Newport, RI
------------------------------
Date: 31 Oct 95 08:29:27 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sweet Gale (again)
Hello All,
I recall a recent poster asking about the taste of Sweet Gale. I found
nada via HBD archive search re taste, so apparently this question was not
answered via post. Did anyone receive an offline reply as to what Sweet
Gale tastes like?
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
timfields@aol.com (weekends)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:50:56 -0500
From: DONBREW@aol.com
Subject: kettles
Phil sez:
>I am not using this as a mash/lauter tun, just a boiler, so I got the
>basic kettle plus a stainless steel drain and a brass spigot. SABCO
>installs the drain hole as low as feasible on the bottom outside edge of
>the keg. However this still has about 1 - 1.5 gallons of wort remaining
>in the keg after it is drained.
>
I have done something that I have never heard anybody discuss. I use a
Sanke keg for a boiler, one hole for an electric heating element one hole for
a boiler drain. Inside the keg I fashioned a 1/2 inch copper tube with holes
on the bottom (manifold) connected to the inside of the drain. Now the
unusual part, I used my 3 LB. hammer to invert the bottom bulge of the keg,
giving me a high spot in the middle and a low spot all around the bottom for
the manifold to sit in. This works great when I use whole hops, no need to
whirlpool the hops act as a filter. Does not work so well with hop pellets,
however I usually contrive to use an oz. or two of whole hops. I usually
only leave a few oz. of wort behind, that being soaked into the hops.
I don't know why nobody else has ever mentioned popping the bottom of the
keg inward, maybe there is some perceived reason not to. After about a year
of weekly use I have seen no evidence of cracks or corrosion. Also it occurs
to me that the inverted bottom would give a better heating profile when using
a propane flame.
Don
DONBREW@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:25:56 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Carmelized Mashes
On the heating under a false bottom thread:
I've used the pico-Brewery (pico-Brewing Systems, Ypsilanti, MI -- no
affiliation, but the owners are friends) many times. It's got a false
bottom in a 1/2-barrel keg, with about 1 gallon of dead space
underneath, and pumped recirculation from the bottom center of the
keg. I've never had trouble with "burning" my beer in it. Maybe the
larger "dead" space is the key -- it provides more thermal mass and
room for some circulation patterns to build up, so that any little bit
of wort is not in contact with the hot bottom for very long.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 09:39:56 EST
From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo@homebrew.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Secondary Fermentation
Mitch Hogg writes:
>whilst the pros are:
>5) Aeration
Actually, this should be a Con. See below. Plus, you forgot the main one
for me:
6) You can put off bottling a week to several months without hurting the
beer. Try leaving the beer in your primary for three months sometime.
and
7) The beer settles more, resulting in greatly reduced sediment getting into
the bottle. I used to have to decant my beer from the bottle before
routinely aging for a month in the secondary. No longer.
>Ditto for 5). Works for me, but if others want to open up the
>to-splash-or-not-to-splash debate again, I'll be happy to listen to
>reason (or, as is most likely, reasons. A lot of 'em; mostly
>contradictory).
Yow! Write 1000 times on your beer labels: Aeration is Bad! OK, that
oversimplifies, since your yeast needs oxygen at reproduction time. In
general, aerating after fermentation is complete or mostly complete (as is
the case when racking to the secondary) will cause problems, possibly
including increased diacetyl, sherry flavors, wet cardboard flavors, rapid
staling, etc.
John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:47:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "David C. Rinker" <dcrink@widomaker.com>
Subject: Increasing Gott insulation
Hi,
Actually, I don't have a Gott but a "baby" Gott (5 gal.) which I plan to
use for mashing and lautering. Last night I just finished fitting a
valve assembly through the old spigot hole and decided to give it a test
run. I was dissappointed at the results and would greatly appreciate any
advice you all might have.
My new spigot consistes essentally of a 3/8" copper tube fitted through a
rubber stopper which is in turn fitted through the cooler's original
gasket. I then uses compression fittings on either end of the copper
tube, one which will recieve an EZMasher and the other which has a 1/4"
ball valve (steel). Now, it was only after I assembled this whole device
that "radiator" began flashing in my brain--was I going to assit the mash
in cooling??
So I conducted a very hasy experiment last night, one whose results
caused me to loose much subsequent sleep. I boiled 2 qts. H2O, placed it
in the cooler, inserted a dairy thermometer and closed the lid for about
5 min. to let the system reach an equalibrium (BTW room temp was around
70F). Then I read the temp. (162F), waited 45 min and read it again
(144F). During this time I detected two distinct points of signifigant
heat loss, the spigot and the lid. I also realize that I exaggerated the
results by using such a small volume of water.
So here are my questions:
1)Should I replace my spigot assembly with something less
conductive to heat? (What do you other Gott people do?)
2)Are there any good ways of insulating the lid? I would be neat
to spray some foam insulatin in there.
3)How can I monitor the temp inside the cooler w/o opening the lid?
Sorry for the length and apologies if this info. has been
rehashed--private replies welcome.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:01:53 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Airlock Flooid.
> From: Mitch Hogg <bu182@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
> "how much oxygen can one safely dissolve in the
> double-axel beta amylase rest of a mason jar full of dog-show judges"
You could probably get away with 14-20 PPM, but I'd try to keep it under 10
to be safe.
> From: dludwig@ameritel.net
> Subject: Airlock Fluid
>
> Ken Koupal asked about what to put in your airlock. Use clorox at around 1/4
> cup to 5 gal (ala papazian). If you sanitize with this, you should have
> plenty around. If you have an algae problem, you're probably getting too
> much sunlight.Keep it dark around your fermenter.
I strongly recommend against putting bleach in the airlock. Sometimes, your
airlock will suck in the airlock fluid, especially early in the fermentation
when the temperature is fluctuating. Just a tiny bit of bleach in your beer
can make your beer taste like powdered steel. Algae, on the other hand, can't
do a whole lot, and a touch of vodka in your beer isn't going to hurt anything.
I just use cool, clear water. If a little of this gets sucked in, it really
won't hurt much.
-R
------------------------------
Date: 31 Oct 1995 08:08:43 U
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer@ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Subject: Toasting Grains / 2ndary Pros
Hi Gang,
This past weekend I carried out a series of Toasts in my gas oven with digital
temperature display. I was interested in comparing the results of two recent
articles on Grain Toasting - one by Jeff Frane in BYO for Brown Ales, the other
in the recent Zymurgy special Issue on Grain. (If we ever needed a Mashing FAQ,
that issue is it)
Jeff states to toast the 2 row base malt for an hour at 275F, then 30 minutes
at 350F.
Zymurgy (sorry, forgot to remember the authors name) states to toast at 350F
for 10, 20 - 40, 50-70 minutes, depending on the degree of toast desired.
Oh, the grain was toasted in aluminum pie tins on the middle rack at about a
half inch deep. I used three pie tins with about 5 oz in each pan. 1 pan was
inserted for the hour at 275, then the oven was raised to 350 and the other two
pans were added. The home toastings were compared to year old Hugh Baird Brown
Malt which has been stored in a plastic bag in a sealed 5 gal bucket in the
garage. I stirred the malt from time to time during the toasting. Here are the
grain chewing/tasting results:
Jeff's Pan at 275F for 1 hour: Good light Grape-Nuts cereal taste. Kitchen
smelled great.
350F for 10 min.: Pretty much the same Grape Nuts taste.
Jeff's at 15 min: Hearty Grape-Nuts Taste, very pleasant odor.
350 for 30 min: Hearty Grape-Nuts, but not as good a flavor as Jeffs, rough
edge.
Jeffs at 30 minutes (done): Ah-ha! Brown Malt, but fresher tasting. Same bitter
taste as the Brown but without quite the harshness. Slightly lighter average
color.
350 for 60 minutes: Basically identical to the Hugh Baird Brown Malt.
Overall, the comparison of the two methods is about what you would expect, if
you do it slow, you have a higher quality product. The hotter/faster yielded
much the same flavors, but the quality of the flavor was slightly (but
noticeably) different.
I have used Brown Malt in some high gravity Porters at 2.5 lbs for 11 gallons
that took 3 months of conditioning to become "pretty good" but after 6 months
became wonderful. It takes a while for the toasted bitter edge to come off.
***
Mitch talks about the Pros and Cons of Secondary Fermenters:
#5 on Pros threw me. I agreed with everything up until then. I guess you use
the British "Dropping" Technique, though as I remember, Dropping is supposed to
be done During primary fermentation while it is still actively bubbling.
I almost always primary in the 6.5 gal carboy w/airlock for a week, rack as the
krausen in falling back in, getting it away from the hop resin goo, and most of
my beers will sit in the secondary for several weeks until I can find time to
keg them. When I bottled, I did the same things but usually primed and bottled
within three weeks in the secondary after the beer had cleared.
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: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:05:34 -0700
From: flemingk@usa.net (Kirk R Fleming)
Subject: False Bottoms and Sightglasses--Had Enough Yet?
In #1871 Don Put <dput@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote:
> [I] designed and built a false bottom out of a piece of copper plate
> I found at a scrap yard, and conformed the false bottom to the contour
> of the tun (Sankey keg) until there was about 3/8" of dead space
> underneath. <snip> What do you think happened? Yeah, you got it.
> Even with the mash mixer going the whole time, the sugars under the
> false bottom carmelized, then scorched into a solid, black mess.
Yes, this is what I'd expect. My original false bottom was supported at
a point approx 2" above the bottom ring weld on the Sankey. This left
about 3 gal or so of wort below the false bottom. Under no conditions
of flame or recirc rate did we ever see any hint of scorching.
The second design I'm using now is about 1" smaller in dia than the
first, with the false bottom supported about 1/2" below the ring weld.
This leaves about 3 quarts of liquid below the false bottom. During one
brew we were able to scorch in a small area of the heating pan--about
3 square inches in area.
This makes sense, I think. With a given flow rate out of the keg, some
given amount of energy can be taken off the heating pan by the liquid.
If that energy removal isn't equal to the input, the excess has to go
somewhere. I assume heat transfer upward thru the false bottom and thru
the wort/grain matrix is inhibited--the false bottom itself doesn't do
much, but heat transfer thru the grain/wort mix is probably a lot less
than thru wort alone (intuitive speculation). If so, then it's the
liquid below the false bottom that has to take up most of the energy--
the grain bed just doesn't take it up well. Based on this intuition
(which, as always, can be absolutely wrong), a larger volume of wort
is needed under the false bottom to provide adequate thermal mass.
Of course, if flow off the pan were high enough, you could live with as
small a volume under the false bottom as you please. But, flow is
limited by the grain bed and false bottom design. You can only get
so much flow thru these barriers and there is no more. For my false
bottom design, pump capacity, and burner output, I can get prevent
scorching and still get a 1-2F per minute temperature ramp with the
false bottom placed 1/2" below the location of the bottom chine weld.
Again, this is about 3 quarts volume below the false bottom.
Regardless of your design, if you use recirculation rather than stirring
then I recommend a false bottom diameter no smaller mine: about 14.5".
If I build another one it will be 14.75" exactly, which will still
allow it to remain below the side outlet pipe, which penetrates the
keg just about the chine weld.
In the same HBD "bill (w.r.) crick" <crick@bnr.ca> asked why a sight
glass on a kettle. I wanted one so I could get better wort volume
measurements for extraction calculations and reduction rate
measurements. By reducing volume measurement errors the goal was to
be able to both final volume and gravity targets at the end of a boil.
In this context "sightglass" is used to me the sight tube mounted on
the side of the keg, not to mean a surface mounted viewing window,
which is also called a sight glass.
KRF Colorado Springs
- ------------------------------------------------------
"We can help the cause of pale ale both by drinking it
and brewing it as much as possible." Terry Foster
- ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 9:09:14 MST
From: "James Giacalone" <JGiacalone@vines.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: mead
Thanks to everyone that responded to my post
regarding "white spots" in my mead. It turned
out that it was beeswax as S. Cox and others suggested.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:26:21 -0600
From: Danny Mastre <dmastre@bcbsnd.com>
Subject: Bruheat
I have seen a Mash/Tun-Boiler called a Bruheat. Was wondering if anyone
has used this or seen it used before. It looked kind of interesting.
tia danny
Danny Mastre dmastre@bcbsnd.com
Blue Cross Blue Shield of ND
701-277-2436
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:47:03 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: I Gott Troubles...
When cleaning out my 5 gallon Gott the other day, I noticed that something
that looked and smelled like watery wort kept appearing seemingly from
nowhere. I finally tracked it down to the hole where the spigot was.
In order to use my phalse bottom with the Gott, I removed the entire spigot
apparatus, and I use a rubber stopper in there with a hose running through
it. (I think it's a #5.) Anyway, when you remove the entire spigot apparatus,
including the gasket, you sort of expose the "insulation" layer of the Gott,
you can see the fiberglass or whatever's in there. I never really gave it
much thought, I guess I figured the rubber stopper would cover it up well
enough, or that it was pretty well-sealed.
Well, it's not. I've never noticed this before, and the wort we took out
of it when we mashed on Saturday seemed just fine. (Didn't taste like the
previous batch got in there, for instance.) I'm not sure why it did happen
this time and didn't happen before.
Either way, I now have some wort between my Gott. Like, in the area between
the inside wall and the outside wall. Rinsing has proven very, very difficult.
I intend to seal off the edge of the hole with epoxy or something similar
very soon. (Any suggestions?) But, in the meantime, I suspect that various
molds and/or bacteria and/or demonic entities from the nether plane are
currently grosing in the wort. What should I do? Just seal them in there?
Try to rip the sucker open so I can get to it to the "inside" to clean it?
I'm in a quandry.
Any help in the matter is greatly appreciated.
-R
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 07:58:00 -0600
From: phil.brushaber@lunatic.com (Phil Brushaber)
Subject: Building Yeast Volume
I've been brewing for about four years, but still have a pretty basic
question. Can you build yeast volume with successive feedings in a one
gallon jug.
I am going to brew a batch about a month from now where I want a large
vloume of yeast. My plan was to pitch up to one gallon, let the starter
brew out, pour off the spent beer, feed the yeast, etc. until December.
Do successive feedings increase the volume of yeast, or with each
feeding does the yeast grow only to the volume needed for one gallon? If
so stepping up might work, while successive feedings might not.
Thoughts?
- ----
The Lunatic Fringe * Richardson, TX * 214-235-5288 * Home Of FringeNet
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:01:40 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: HB Flea Market/Expanded Service/Correspondence
After about seven requests having 'send list' (less the quotes, of
course) in the BODY of the note rather than on the SUBJECT LINE as
directed, I tired of manually forwarding the list, and deleted the
remainin ~23 incorrect requests. If you requested the list, but did
not receive it, please try again, but put 'send list' (less the
quotes, of course) in the SUBJECT LINE.
EXPANDED SERVICE...
Since this seems to work so well, I've added another script to echo
the HBD Grain Summary that I was passing out around April or May of
this year (Think it was compiled by Jim Busch, sent to me by Jim
Dipalma). Anyway, if you missed out, lost yours, or just want to try
it, send me a note with 'send summary' (less the quotes, of course.
This is getting repetitive...) in the SUBJECT LINE.
Also, since the echo is set up to read your note, prepare your copy
then delete your note (takes a mere drop in the bucket of time), I
never see any comments you may include in your note. Any
correspondence sent me with either 'send list' or 'send summary'
(less the quotes, blah, blah) will not be read by human eyes.
If any visitors to my homepage spot other documents I have there
suitable for an echo, I'm open to it (so far, anyway).
See ya!
-P
Pat Babcock | "Beer is my obsession, and I'm late for
President, Brew-Master | therapy..." -PGB
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
Visit the Homebrew Flea Market via http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 09:54:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "A. Sturdivant \"Sturdy\" McKee" <sturdy@itsa.ucsf.EDU>
Subject: Sierra yeast
To the collective wisdom:
Has anyone tried using Sierra Nevada's yeast in any of their beers? I've
made three attempts using either the sediment from the porter and/or the
pale ale by putting them in a starter and pitching appropriately. My
problem is, all three batches, though differing styles, have a somewhat
similar, astringent flavor. I initially thought it must be something
else I'm doing, but I've gone back to purchased yeast and fixed the problem.
Anyone else out there have similar results, or is this just a coincidence?
TIA,
Sturdy
sturdy@itsa.ucsf.edu
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1873, 11/02/95
*************************************
-------
