Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1907
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/12/12 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1907 Tue 12 December 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
malt (Michael McGuire)
Avoiding Set Mashes ("Manning Martin MP")
re: set mashes (ed.lingel)
CF Wort Chiller plans (blacksab)
Re: CO2 in solution (SLGibson71)
Frozen Wort (Robert Brown)
Re:PH and SG of sparge (Robert Bush)
Re: Split decoction mash mess (Steve Alexander)
Sparge, quality (quality) (Russell Mast)
DMS/Durst (Jim Busch)
Solution for same-subject post gluts? ("Dave Draper")
Looking for Hop Jewelry (Larry McCloskey)
Stout & then some! (cmcgee)
Yeast FAQ-It's time for an update (Patrick Weix)
Lambic Digest adress/Spec for types of beer (DejNik)
Beer caps/steam hardware/antique mills (Merino Lithographics)
Sparge water heater (C.D. Pritchard)
Filtering... (pbabcock)
Soda kegs... (pbabcock)
******************************************************************
* 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: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 12:08:41 -0600
From: mcguire@hvsun40.mdc.com (Michael McGuire)
Subject: malt
Hi all,
I was wondering what the netwisdom's opinion on Pauls pale malt from Suffex(sp?)
County
England. Is this a British or Scottish malt/Maltster? Do people generally feel
it is better, worse, or equivelent to Mutton & Fison, Otter Maris, or ??.
Can someone name some Sottish Maltsters??
Pilsner malts:
What is the concensius of D-C pilsen malt?
How about the Ureks pilsner malt??
Is there any other brands that are available in the US??
I'd like to see more discussion in general on malts because it is the bases
for all beers. Obviously, choosing the best malt for the style/type of bier
is important as using the right hops, water treatment, and yeast!
If this is all summerized somewere in print or webland please let me know!
Thanks in Advance
Michael
------------------------------
Date: 8 Dec 1995 13:24:15 U
From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp@mcst.ae.ge.com>
Subject: Avoiding Set Mashes
Al K. said:
>A few days ago someone blamed a set mash on too much water in the >tun
"compacting the grain bed." I don't believe this to be true either. >I'm
going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that the most >common cause
for a set mash is too fine a crush, where the husks are >overly pulverized.
I agree, and would add that with grain mills such as the Corona and its ilk,
it takes some experience to grind the grain fine enough to get a decent
yield, yet not so fine as to cause run-off problems.
Regarding the mash being too loose (too thin, or too much water) causing a
problem, I think that in fact the opposite is often true. I know several
people who used to have problems with stuck mashes. After observing their
technique, I advised them to 1) increase their mash water to the usual 1.2 -
1.4 qt/lb, 2) be sure to underlet if the mash is transferred to a separate
lauter tun, and 3) be sure to give the mash a good stir (and let it resettle)
before starting to lauter (credit to Noonan, Brewing Lager Beer). The
problems went away for good, even for grain bills with substantial wheat and
wheat malt content.
At the time, people were mostly just adding water to a cooler full of dry
grain until it looked right, and what looked right to them was really a very
stiff mash. An adequate volume of liquid gives the particles a chance to
separate, and then to settle into an effective filter bed.
MPM
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 10:44:07 PST
From: ed.lingel@bangate1.TEK.COM
Subject: re: set mashes
Al Korzonas writes:
>As an exercise, I pose this question: Have any of you had a set mash
>(stuck runoff) while using a non-adjustable (one less variable) JSP
>MaltMill(tm) on an all-barleymalt mash? My guess is no.
I have (using a homemade Easymasher). The mash consisted of about
18 lbs of grain (pale malt, crystal, etc) in a 5 gallon kettle. The
kettle was VERY full, and I probably didn't use as much foundation
water as I should have. The last few batches I've made have been
smaller beers and I've used more foundation water and haven't had a
stuck mash since.
Ed Lingel, Portland OR
ed.lingel@tek.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 14:19:14 -0600
From: blacksab@siu.edu
Subject: CF Wort Chiller plans
Ron Moucka asked about CF wort-chiller design. I just built one and I am
extremely pleased with the results. Here's what I did:
1. ~45 feet 3/8-in copper tubing
2. ~45 feet 3/4-in I.D. commercial/contractor hose
3. modified/homemade Phil Phittings(tm)
The first thing I would suggest is to either buy outright the Phil
Phittings, or at least go to a shop and look real carefully at them to see
how they work. They are very well made, and are a whole lot easier than
re-inventing the wheel like I did. If you make your own, you might want to
increase the size somewhat (to accomodate the larger hose size) and replace
the compression fitting that holds the tubing with a sweat on (I'll explain
this later). So, here's how I made mine:
-----------------------------------\ (2)
\------------\ (3)
\-----------------
(1) 3/4-in 1/2-in 3/8-in
/-----------------
/------------/
-------------| |---------/
| |
| 3/4-in |
| |
(4)
1. This is where the hose is attached. You will need to extend this so there
is room for a hose clamp and to make this section stronger, so sweat on a
short piece of 3/4-in copper pipe. Over this I added a copper coupling with
the stops filed out to thicken the metal and to make a tighter fit with the
hose. IOW, the extension is double thick, the coupling slips over the copper
pipe and butts up against the copper tee.
2. The tee reduces here. The tee I used was a 3/4-in x 1/2-in reducing tee.
To this I added a short piece of 1/2-in copper pipe and a 1/2-in to 3/8-in
reducer with the stops filed out so the chiller tubing will be able to pass
completely thru.
3. Since the stops have been filed out, the 3/8-in chiller tubing passes all
the way thru and is solderd in place. I did this to avoid a compression
fitting here. I hate compression fittings, they invariably leak. Besides, if
you do a good job, it looks REAL nice. You get extra points for neatness :-)
4. This is the other 3/4-in leg. To this I added a 3/4-in to 1/2-in reducer,
a short piece of 1/2-in copper pipe and a brass male hose fitting. If you
look hard for them, there is such an animal. It's simply a 1/2-in sweat-on
with male hose threads.
That's pretty much it, and of course, you'll have to make two of them.
Now, once these are made, uncoil the hose in the back yard, cut the fittings
off both ends and feed the copper thru. The straighter the hose, the easier
this will be. Be sure to leave plenty of copper tubing sticking out both
ends (more on this later). I them coiled this around a budwizer keg by
rolling the keg over the hose. Try to keep it very neat, and have the hose
lay on the keg in a single thickness like wire on a spool. Do not remove the
keg.
Now it gets kinda tricky. I made some wooden "clamps" out of 1 x 2 pine that
look like this:
|---------------------------------------------|
|-----------|----------------------|----------| Note that this is
| wood | Hose goes here | wood | sitting side-ways,
|-----------|----------------------|----------| in use, it will form
|---------------------------------------------| a vertical leg.
Make 4 or 5 of these, but do it in such a way that the hose ALWAYS slopes
downwards around the spiral. IOW, the short pieces of wood will be different
sizes.
Carefully remove the hose from the keg and place these clamps on the spiral
one at a time to hold it together. I used sheet-rock screws into the small
pieces of wood. You might want to pre-drill to avoid splitting the wood. Be
prepared to do a lot of swearing getting the first two legs in place, and
some extra hands would be a god-send. The chiller should now be fairly
rigid, and stand on it's own legs. Across the tops of two opposite legs,
dill a 1-in hole and insert a dowel for a handle, just like a tool-tote.
Now you can solder on one of the copper fittings. The second one needs to be
soldered on in such a way that the finished in-let and out-let will work
with your set-up. On mine, I aligned the two male hose fittings
perpendicular to the ground. You might want to configure yours differently.
Now, remember the 3/8-in tubing that I said to keep long? I had you do this
so you can customize to your particular set-up. You could cut them fairly
short and attatch braided hose to them, which is what I did; or you could
use flare fittings, which is what I'm going to change to.
I attach the wort-out to a pump (this is to avoid HSA) and voila!
One final note: There is no reason that the chiller NEEDS to be a spiral
like this. One could, for example set it up as a very long pipe if your
boiling kettle and fermenters were in different rooms. Just be sure it will
drain. This might be particularly nice if you brew on an upper floor and
ferment in the basement.
Please feel free to e-mail me if any of this doesn't make sense, and I'll
post corrections later.
- --Harlan.
============================================================================
Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can
<blacksab@siu.edu> To justify God's ways to man.
--A.E. Houseman
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:57:42 -0500
From: SLGibson71@aol.com
Subject: Re: CO2 in solution
I am a new comer to HBD. This is my first post, but here's my
$0.02.
Algis Korzonas writes:
>>As for Kelly's assertion that "The newly produced CO2 is
>produced_in solution_..." I think that it is possible that it is
>not. Note that when you bottle the beer, it already contains as
>much CO2 as it can in solution at whatever temperature it was
>fermenting. It will lose a bit of dissolved CO2 during
>siphoning because of the partial vacuum just past the peak of
the siphon setup. However, as the CO2 gets produced, the CO2
>would have to go somewhere and it can't so that pressure would
>increase. It is this increase in pressure that causes more CO2
>to go into solution in the beer. Where the pressure builds is
>an odd question because liquids are incompressible, for the most
>part, right? Time to hand off to the physicists...
Sorry, this statement simply cannot be completely correct. Let's
see if I can explain why.
The CO2 must be produced in solution. Where are the yeast? In
solution. They are part of the solution. I think the real question here is
will the liquid take up any more CO2? I do not think siphoning would cause
the lose
of dissolved CO2, but any agitation, such as liquid splashing
into glass on transfer would cause lose of dissolved CO2. I
think the partial vacuum would only cause the liquid to become
these dense, but the change is so small it is negligible. The
priming sugar will replenish the lost dissolved CO2 causing
saturation, then the undissolved CO2 will rise to the headspace
and eventually cause a growth in pressure, but this takes time.
A good way at looking at fermentation, is to picture the entire
process as the half-life of a nuclear molecule: very violent and
active at first and slowly over time becomes dormant. The time
just before priming can be considered the dormant stage of your
nuclear molecule. When you add your priming sugar, the so called
half-life process starts again, but at a fraction of the scale.
The concentration of fermentable sugar is very,very low
considering the amount of liquid and the amount of sugar added to
it.
Since there is very little sugar to eat, the yeast will not be
extremely active, and as time goes by there will be even less
sugar to eat so they must slow their metabolism down accordingly.
The concentration of fermentable sugars is directly proportional
to the metabolism and rates of division among the yeast present.
High concentration=high activity, Low concentration=low
activity. This is why the aging process takes time. It takes
longer for low activity yeast to eat the very small amounts of
sugar that are still left.
As far as the CO2 in the headspace coming back into solution,
there is some transfer of CO2 molecules back and forth between
air and liquid but the overall concentration remains constant.
Let's just say that for every CO2 molecule that goes back into
solution, there must be another molecule leaving solution. The
pressure caused by the CO2 in the air space will not change the
concentration of the dissolved CO2, but it will change the
density of the beer until the cap is removed.
Finally, liquids are compressable. Just ask any scuba diver. A
defined amount of liquid will change density but not
concentration. Notice that I say a defined amount, because for
example, a cubic foot of water at the bottom of a lake would be
more dense and more concentrated than a cubic foot at the top
because there is simply more water molecules packed into the
cubic foot at depth.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 15:11:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Brown <rbrown00@uoguelph.ca>
Subject: Frozen Wort
HBDers,
Can you freeze wort? Obviously you can but are their any bad side
effects to doing this. Has anyone done this?
Why would I want to freeze wort, either before or after boiling you ask?
Here are some of my ideas:
1) Just thaw and reboil as a starter media for next batch.
2) Save to carbonate with later.
3) Mash and collect an extra gallon or so for a mash-extract batch later.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject?
I would rather freeze than refrigerate if possible as the kitchen fridge
harbours a rather determined yeastie that will ferment that forgotten half
glass of orange juice despite the frost that accumulates on the veggies.
TIA, Rob
Regarding that wild yeast in my fridge, anythoughts on harnessing it as a
potential "Guelph lambic" yeast or should I just ignore or destroy it? I
suppose I could go to the trouble of finding out what genus and species
it is but that sounds like a lot of work and favours to call in. And
yes I know fermenting with an unknown yeast isn't the safest idea but
where do you think our brewing ancestors got their yeast from, Smack
packs :). It would probably make a lousy beer (or whatever), has anyone
tried this?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 21:26:57 +0100
From: bush@shbf.se (Robert Bush)
Subject: Re:PH and SG of sparge
"Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER@NRC.CA> wrote in #1904:
>Well I understand the concepts of stopping the sparge at SG 1.010,
>(this keeps the sugar content of the wort high enough), and stopping
>at a PH of 5.5 - 6.0 (this stops excess tannin extraction from the grains)
>But how do you measure these?
>
>The runnings are at about 75 deg. C. There would have to be a
>significant correction factor added to any SG reading taken with a
>hydrometer. Is this the procedure followed? What is the correction
>factor?
Here are correction tables for hydrometers that a friend gave me. I don't
know their scientific value but they work with my
cheapo-so-so-calibrated-home-use hydrometer (the first one is for 20 degree
C hydrometers):
Temp (C) Correction
4-10 -2
11-17 -1
18-22 0
23-26 +1
27-29 +2
30-32 +3
33-35 +4
36-38 +5
39-41 +6
42-44 +7
45-47 +8
etc.
This next one is for hydrometers calibrated at 15.6 C:
Temp (C) Correction
4-12 -1
13-18 0
19-23 +1
24-27 +2
28-30 +3
31-33 +4
34-36 +5
37-39 +6
40-41 +7
etc.
It would be a lot easier to have a formula for this. Anyone for maths out there?
Another tip is to take a sample and cool it to the right temperature and
then read it.
Wassail!
====================================
= Robert Bush, Eskilstuna, SWEDEN =
= E-mail: bush@shbf.se =
====================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 15:31:59 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Split decoction mash mess
In Homebrew Digest #1904 (December 08, 1995), Mark A. Melton writes:
>that this destroys the enzymes. However, where does it say that the enzymes
>are mostly in the liquor? If it does I have missed it (obviously).
In the late 1800's when enzymes isolation was in it's infancy, a French
scientist (sorry I don't recall the name) determined that 'maltase'
(as the enzymes were then called) was isolated in the albumin
(soluable protein) portion. This is standard info in the scientific
literature, but I can't really say where this fact is brought out in
homebrewing literature. I'd check out G. Fix 'Brewing Science' and
Greg Noonan 'Brewing Lager Beers' - very probably in the first, likely
in the second. Many homebrewing books don't discuss decoction at any
length and so the topic simply never comes up. I think that even
Miller's TCHBoHB is deficient here.
>There is one point that might be of interest: using the first- runnings
>sp. gr. with the original volume of mash liquor instead of the final
>volume after sparging with the final sp. gr. to calculate E.R. As usually
>calculated the E.R. includes both the effect of mash-conversion
>efficiency and the effect of extraction efficiency. I think there might
>be some merit in knowing what the conversion efficiency is independent of
>the extraction, and the way I did it should give that, n'ext-ce pas?
>Mark A. Melton
Extraction rate is a measure of what was take out of the grain as
soluable material - that is what was *extracted*. Extraction
efficiency (as measured at breweries) is just the percentage of the
grist mass that ends up in the wort (runs around 70%). Homebrew
efficiencies are based on some estimated maximum extraction rates for
various grain types so 37pt/#/gal of pale ale malt really represents
something around 70% mass extraction. I personally prefer to measure
SG just before pitching so that I don't measure the effects of the hot
and cold break material. I'm interested in usable extraction, not the
break material. The idea is that excess mass of the wort (from a Brix
or Plato table, or just from SG points times volume) *IS* the
extracted mass from the grist. Once the wort is seprated from the
grist we can accurately measure the volume and SG, and thus calculate
the extracted mass.
Every measure of SG after the beginning of the mash, including your
first running SG (FR_SG) measure, measures effects of mash conversion
and extraction since the mash makes insoluable proteins and
carbohydrates soluable, increasing the SG.
Greg Noonan, in the book above, suggests drying the used grist in an
oven and weighing it, which is also a valid technique. His notion is
the mass_in - mass_out equals extracted mass. This is a very sound
and direct measure, tho a PITA to implement.
I don't see that measuring first runnings SG multiplied by infusion
volume gives a number with any perceptable value. FR_SG allows the
calculation of the extracted mass per unit volume of the 'free' liquid
in the mash, but we have no means of measuring volume of 'free' liquid
in the mash - it's certainly not the same as the infusion volume -
some has evaporated, a lot had been absorbed in the grist. A final
wort SG measurement measures the 'free' liquid extracted mass plus the
soluable mass which is sparged/washed from the grist. With some
correction factors and estimations for lost liquid volume you might be
able to say something about how much of the soluable material(extract)
is in solution in the mash-tun versus how much is freed by sparging,
but I'm not sure what the value is. Stirring the mash vigorously
would probably effect the figure.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:50:08 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Sparge, quality (quality)
> From: "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER@NRC.CA>
> Subject: PH and SG of sparge
> Well I understand the concepts of stopping the sparge at SG 1.010,
> (this keeps the sugar content of the wort high enough), and stopping
> at a PH of 5.5 - 6.0 (this stops excess tannin extraction from the grains)
> But how do you measure these?
I measure them by tasting the spargate. The last several batches, that's
literally all I've done. If it still tastes sweet, or has desirable specialty
grain flavors, I'll keep sparging. If it tastes astringent and tanninny
(of or pertaining to tannins), I stop sparging. Simple as that. btw, tannins
will leave the back of your mouth dry, like tea does. You want that in tea,
but not in beers. (Except for some Belgian styles.)
I think I'm just going to write (EfsBs) from now on. It seems like there's an
exception to most any brewing rule, and it's usually some Belgian style.
Seriously, though, I think tasting the spargate is a better measure than any
papers or hydrometers. You're making this stuff to drink, right? So drink it
to make it. (It's also very yummy, just put a coffee cup under the spigot
and sip between homebrews..)
> From: Craig Amundsen <amundsen@biosci.cbs.umn.edu>
> Subject: Quality
> Budmilloormolatts
I believe that's Budmolmilloorlatts, but I might be mistaken.
> From: "BATLAN -D1FKV0W" <D1FKV0W@BATLAN.BELL-ATL.COM>
> Subject: REPLY (SHORT, COGENT ;-)) TO "QUALITY (LONG, RAMB
> Thus, when I underhopped my English Pale Ale, I got a brew that lots
> of people liked, but it was a low-quality product, because it did not
> conform to the specifications for an English Pale Ale. If my intent
> had been to redefine English Pale Ale, and I had succeeded, then my
> effort would have been a quality product.
Very interesting. I like the idea. However, it relies on you intentions a
bit more than I think it needs to. Someone in pricate e-mail (who may have
since posted) mentioned that they think quality is defined by the "care and
effort" put into production. Again, I think that may be necessary, but not
sufficient for quality.
I think that there is something about a finished product which can be called
a level of quality that is independant from the production process and the
intentions of the producer. I don't think that products have a single
property called "quality" the same way an object can have a property of "mass",
but I think that a better definition of quality should rely on properties of
the products themselves, rather than the intention or actions of the producer.
> > (Notice that one argument about brew categories says we should
> > just drop them and judge the "excellence" of beers. ...)
>
> Excellence? Judged against what standard?
This was a long running argument about a month ago. The idea was that you
could greatly loosen, or completely drop, the standards by which you could
judge beer, and just rate them on how "yummy" they are. That's how I do it
for myself, but I don't think it's a good idea for competetions. If we don't
hush up about this soon, that thread will reignite....
> "Oh!" Pete tastes some more. "It's pretty good black raspberry."
Cool story. I think that's applicable to the idea of multiple standards
for quality. (eg. Any beer at all is a piss-poor automobile, and vice
versa.) Also, the fact remains, regardless of what a bad chocolate it was,
it might have been a mediocre black rasberry or a fantastic one.
If you screw up when making an IPA so seriously you end up with a brown ale,
you might still have a great brown ale. Your procedures were clearly of low
quality, but the final product might, by chance, end up of high quality.
> From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
> I searched the archives unsuccessfully for a source for zip lock oxygen
> barrier bags. Does anyone know of a source?
Surely your homebrew supply stores that use these must get them from somewhere.
Maybe they'd know.
> From: "William G. Rucker" <ruckewg@naesco.com>
> Far be it from me to tell you (the collective you) what not to buy and
> why, but most importantly, don't tell me what I should and should not
> buy based on your opinions.
Far be it from me to tell you what to post and what not to post and why, but
most importantly, don't tell me what I should or should not tell other people
to do based on your opinions.
Seriously, if -you- think that -I- will benefit by changing my purchasing
practices, I WANT you to tell me what I should and should not buy. I may
not follow your advice, but if it can benefit me, I want to hear it.
You not only have the right to tell me what you think is best for me, you have
a duty to do so. You don't have the right to coerce me, however, but that
is a different matter entirely.
-R
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 16:38:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: DMS/Durst
The other day.... the question was how to increase DMS.
<Apparently this technique IS being used by one brewpub or micro. Another
<suggestion was to use Durst malt (German??).
While German Pils malt can lead to higher levels of DMS compared to pale
ale malt the beers Ive had made from Durst malt have been excellent with
no noticable DMS. Granted, this was at a brewpub that was using a very
expensive Bavarian brewhouse, but none of the beers had strong DMS levels.
The fact that a malt can lead to DMS doesnt mean it will.
<WIW, I am now in the process of trying my first "open" fermentation. I
<used Wyeast's Irish ale yeast for this 10 gal stout, and it fermented like
<gangbusters, the way it always does. I just aerated in the boiling keg,
<pitched the yeast and covered the top of the keg with a towel to keep the
<beasties out.
I hope you removed the hot break and cleaned and santized the brewpot
before using it as a fermenter! Im all for open ferments but you have to
remove hot break if you want to make clean and stable beers.
<1) How does Belgian pale ale differ from American? I find lots of info on
<British vs. American, but not Belgian. Can I use it as a base, or is the
<enzyme count too low? Any info would be appreciated.
Treat it as British pale ale malt. I dont know of any American pale ale malt,
there is a lot of American 2 row malt..... use it as base malt it works
fine.
Good brewing,
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 08:53:57 +10
From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper@mq.edu.au>
Subject: Solution for same-subject post gluts?
Dear Friends, in #1903, Eric Miller wrote:
"Seems like there have been a lot of posts saying almost exactly the same
thing lately (re: Stopper in Carboy, Koch/Maytag, Propane). Please think
about whether you're contributing something new before posting."
One thing that has occurred to me more than once lately is
reawakened by this. If part of the automagical response we all get
when posting were to include the subject lines to all the posts in
the queue at the time the submission is added to the queue, the
poster could judge immediately whether the post they just sent off is
redundant, and could cancel it if so. For example, my immediately
previous post on stove mashing was not so earth-shatteringly
original, and had I known that so many other stove/oven-mash posts
were in the queue I would have canceled it.
So how about it--I reckon it would not take a huge amount of
additional programming, and the potential benefit would be worth it.
Rob, if you're listening, can this be done?
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"We [HBDers] are like the Borg" ---Chris Geden
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
Email: david.draper@mq.edu.au Home page: http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper
...I'm not from here, I just live here...
------------------------------
Date: 08 Dec 95 18:06:16 EST
From: Larry McCloskey <74557.1102@compuserve.com>
Subject: Looking for Hop Jewelry
I've been looking for some hop-related jewelry (especially earrings) to give
as a Christmas present, but haven't been able to locate anything yet. If
anybody knows of a source for such a thing, I'd appreciate the info.
Thanks, Larry McCloskey
74557.1102@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 23:51:26 -0500
From: cmcgee@hom.net (cmcgee)
Subject: Stout & then some!
OK, folks, I have brewed many a brew, but this is the heaviest of all of
my attempts, and also the least beerlike. I'm not saying (NEVER!) that
stout is not beer, but this stuff was pretty far beyond stout...
This is a partial grain/kit brew. I am posting the recipe that I
used: a minimally time-intensive 1-stage mash for the grains. This is NOT
optimal, but it is fast! Read on if you want an 18% alcohol Get-A-Spoon
type beer:
Using a single stage mashing process: (more if you're a more manly
brewer that I!):
1 lb lt (adds alcohol)
1 lb chocolate (has cool name)
1 lb black (is MMMMMMMM!)
Next:
Boil your grain extract, 5 lbs dried extract, 5 lbs honey, 2 lbs
corn sugar, 1/2 oz Hallertau (low hops to comp. for high malt bitternes), &
12oz Hershey's Cocoa (powdered baker's chocolate; add more to taste)
Add your favorite water hardener if necessary (I use CaCO2), boil
15+ mins.
Add flavor hops & a Cooper's Miner's Stout kit
Boil 10 mins.
Remove from heat; steep aroma hops
OG 1.104 !!!
Pitch ale yeast
Be sure to use a large-gague blowoff (NO AIRLOCKS!) & weight down
the lid of your fermenter. this recipe has blown off my entire f. lid
twice!
When fermentation stops, pitch champagne yeast.
Mine fermented about 7 days w/ ale yeast, then about 14 days
w/champagne yeast
Racked into secondary
Fermented about 7 days more- aged in bulk 2-3 mos.
YUM! (lite beer drinkers need not apply!)
- --This is NOT a traditional beer style. It is far stouter than an Imperial
stout, and is intended only for the stout fanatics and the adventerous.
This is my own made-up-from-scratch recipe, and I call it my "Kitchen Sink
Stout".
If you try it and hate it, you've been warned.
If you try it and like it, you're an official member of the Wild
Dog StoutAholics Club- please Email me- If you can one-up my recipe with
one that you have really made and enjoyed that is stouter than this, I want
to make a batch!!!
Cheers! -cmcgee@hom.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 23:24:17 -0800 (PST)
From: weix@netcom.com (Patrick Weix)
Subject: Yeast FAQ-It's time for an update
Dear All,
This is the yeast faq editor returning after a long absence from the
lists. I finished my PhD, and I am done with the first half of the
third year of medical school. I would like to update the yeast faq to
reflect the new strains beign put out by Wyeast and any one
else. Would anyone having info on strains not covered in the old
version on the yeast faq please e-mail me? TIA.
Secondly, the rest of with medical school and a residency coming up, I
will not be able to keep up with all the many yeast strains that are
likely to come out in the next few years. In light of that fact, I
would like to propose that the yeast faq be split into two sections: a
yeast-tech.faq, for yeast techniques, and a yeast-strain.faq, for info
on various yeast strains. The yeast strain faq could either be edited
either jointly with me or by someone else entirely,i.e. by someone
with more time to test various strains and with more exposure to
public opinion of the various strains. Another option would be to
prepare updates of all the yeast strains to come out in the previos
few months or so an upload those periodically. The techniques do not
change that much, and I think they can stand pretty much as they are
(if you beg to differ, please e-mail me).
Please e-mail me and let me know what you think. I'm going to do
something, so you might as well have a say.
Patrick
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 02:48:26 -0500
From: DejNik@aol.com
Subject: Lambic Digest adress/Spec for types of beer
Hi
Someone asked for the adress of Lambic digest here it is:
Lambic-request@lance.colostate.edu
Lambic@lance.colostate.edu
Also, does anyone now where I can get specifications for different styles of
beer, like
O.G, F.G ranges, color, bitterness etc.
Thank you all !
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 20:33:25 +1000
From: merino@cynergy.com.au (Merino Lithographics)
Subject: Beer caps/steam hardware/antique mills
Curt speaker posted,
>Does anyone know of a company that will custom print beer caps for
>homebrewers? I have a coworker who's brother brews and is interested in
>getting some caps made special for his brews. A review of back issues of
>ZYMURGY and BARLEYCORN failed to uncover anything like this.
As a printer, I'd better support my industry. In your Yellow Pages under
"promotional printers" there should be some adds for "pad" printers. These
guys use small hand fed machines that use an itaglio process and a special
fine rubber pad to transfer the ink to irregular surfaces. They have special
etching inks that will adhere to any surface. They can even print full
process colour designs. You can reduce the setup cost by offering to make
the plaster of paris casts for putting the caps on top of. They need some
sort of holder for what they print. These are the people who print pens,
bottle openers and all those things you wondered how they got the image on.
Chris Weirup posted.
>I have been very interested in the recent thread about pressure cookers as
>steam generators for mashing. I definitely would like to pursue this
>option for my Gott setup.
>My question is this: where can I go to get the proper hardware installed
>on the pressure cooker? I don't have the tools to thread or install values
>and whatever in the cooker, let alone the knowledge.
You can buy SS tube at most plumbers supplies or SS merchants. You can
spiral coil it by wrapping it around a cone (a woodturner will make this)
and then flattening it. If you buy a cast aluminium cooker, you will also
need some sort of through wall gasketed fittings. With the more expensive SS
cookers, welding by someone with a TIG welder is a cheap option. TIG will
ensure the welding process doesn't retemper any steel and weaken it. Outlets
for steam should be through the body of the cooker, not the lid. However
they should terminate close to the top of the inside of the cooker to be
well clear of the water. I repeat, DON"T TOUCH THE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE!
For fitting any plumber should do, pipes are their trade. Don't be affraid
of wandering in and asking advice before you buy the parts. I always do,
people love to talk about their trade. (see above) Yours will be a small
nusiance job but interesting to them if you do the running around to buy the
parts they don't have like SS ball valves.
Old technology.
I recently wanted to upgrade my mill and thought of building a full micro
scale model which I'll need later anyway. However a chance meeting with some
antique machinery enthusiasts turned up gold. These people have an amazing
assortment of old things that they restore, sell and swap. It is very easy
to find a 100+ year old cast iron grain mill with beautifully scrolled
handle wheel, all in working order. Mine cost A$120, peanuts for a useful
thing of beauty. The owner was tickled pink that it was going back to work.
It now sits in my garage next to my 110 year old letterpress that prints my
labels.
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 95 08:11 EST
From: cdp@chattanooga.net (C.D. Pritchard)
Subject: Sparge water heater
I'm pondering fitting a 5 gallon polyethylene pail with a hot water heater
element for use as a sparge water tank. 1500 W low heat density element
fastened to a hole in side of pail with a 1.25" electrical locknut and some
o-rings or gaskets. The pail is insulated but a 4" diameter hole will be
made in the stuff where the element goes through. Even tho' I plan on using
a diode to reduce the element power to 750 W, I'm concerned that the base of
the element may melt/deform the plastic.
If anyone's been down this sorta road ahead of me, I'd sure like to hear how
it turned out. TIA!
Hoppy Holidays!
C.D. Pritchard cdp@chattanooga.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 10:19:04 EST
From: pbabcock@e-mail.com
Subject: Filtering...
Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock@e-mail.com
Bronco Plant Vehicle Team - Body Construction Assembly Engineer
Subject: Filtering...
/internet
/to bu182@freenet.toronto.on.ca
/end
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager!
In HBD # 1905, Mitch Hogg asks about filtering homebrew...
First, yes. A wine filter is acceptable for filtering beer. I use a 'Hexter',
the very filter that Dan Listermann is purported to be investigating for
marketing as a homebrew filter (True, Dan? If you need info from a user, feel
free to e-mail).
However, it is fairly pointless to filter a beer destined for bottle
conditioning, unless you have extreme haze problems with the beer (not your
problem as statedin your post). The very act of bottle conditioning
contributes to the sediment you are trying to avoid. Though you may notice
*less* in a beer that has been filtered prior to conditioning, it will still
be there by the nature of the process.
Also, the filter requires a means to force the beer through. With most
filters, gravity is wholly inadequate. A means of pressurization is required.
Most filter from kegged beer; keg to keg.
If you do choose (and figure out how) to filter your beer destined for bottle
conditioning, do so from the secondary to the bottling bucket. Whether or not
you will be required to pitch fresh yeast is dependent on the size of your
filter, but no matter the size, count on some reduction of yeast count as the
haze and trub particles will buid up on the filter element and augment its
ability to 'strain' yeast from the beer. I would recommend adding bottling
yeast based on this - just to be 'on the safe side', but I again assert that
filtering prior to bottling to reduce sediment is pretty much a waste of time
and beer when bottle conditioning.
Another desparation post. Replies, flames, and comments to
pbabcock@oeonline.com, please!
IYWIDRTYMJFDIY
Best regards,
Patrick G. Babcock Michigan Truck Plant PVT Office
(313)46-70842 (V) -70843 (F) 38303 Michigan Wayne,MI 48184
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 12:07:03 EST
From: pbabcock@e-mail.com
Subject: Soda kegs...
Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock@e-mail.com
Bronco Plant Vehicle Team - Body Construction Assembly Engineer
Subject: Soda kegs...
/internet
/to mwilliams@ahsr.org
/end
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager!
Also, in HBD #1905 Matt Williams asks for opinions regarding pin vs ball-lock
soda kegs...
It's not so much which one is better, it's more what are the differences.
The pin-lock type - Coke - tend to be taller canisters. Also, the disconnects
are much taller as well. They also appear to be more durable, but I can't
substantiate that. The ball-lock - Pepsi - are shorter, but marginally wider.
The disconnects do not stand as tall above the keg, either.
Another point to consider is that the disconnect fittings on the pin-lock type
require that you either buy or make a slotted socket in order to remove them
for maintenance. The pin-lock type do not suffer from this impediment.
These observations are based on a side-by-side comparison between my ball-lock
kegs (13 units) and several brew-bud's pin-lock kegs. As with anything,
YMMV...
Ok, ok! I'll stop posting from here and wait til I get home. Once again, any
comments, flames, replies to pbabcock@oeonline.com, please!
IYWIDRTYMJFDIY
Best regards,
Patrick G. Babcock Michigan Truck Plant PVT Office
(313)46-70842 (V) -70843 (F) 38303 Michigan Wayne,MI 48184
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1907, 12/12/95
*************************************
-------
