Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1971
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/02/28 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1971 Wed 28 February 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Info Request: RIMS Temp Controller (Stan Gregory)
Competition announcement (Mark Taratoot)
Q: Dextrinous Worts, Adding body (Derek Lyons)
Stuck Fermentation (liquori)
Hop Tea (Imakebeer)
Keg Priming / Old Starter (Clay Crenshaw)
Conservation of Mass-Energy (John W. Braue, III)
Mash Questions (Chuck)
Going to Gettysburg ("Richard Smith")
Scorching Unnecessary (RUSt1d?)
Water/Chillers/Special B/Water (A. J. deLange)
re: It's not beer (PVanslyke)
Brettanomyces Imperial Stout (Delano Dugarm)
High FG (Jim Busch)
Spent grains bread (Jeff Renner)
Kegging 101 - gas leak (Dan.Nelson)
Lagering--time and S.G.? (Tam Thompson)
Special B is 220 L (Tam Thompson)
Canning revisited ("Kirk Harralson")
Re: The Brewer's Companion (Tom Fitzpatrick)
flour layer in lauter (Rob Lauriston)
Re: Adding cold water to brewpot? (Derek Lyons)
Chillers ("Manning Martin MP")
Re: Questions on Zymurgy CF chiller test (Bill Pemberton)
Re: Water-Brita Filters (Mike Uchima)
Kind of a contest in Austin, TX ("Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM")
RE: low gravity (BOBKATPOND)
Cheap Hop Back (Bob McCowan)
******************************************************************
* 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, 26 Feb 1996 20:46:39 -0500
From: Stan Gregory <cn1428@coastalnet.com>
Subject: Info Request: RIMS Temp Controller
Does anyone have firsthand experience with BrewCraft, Ltd's RIMS controller
and heat probes? Is this the same unit diagrammed in Rodney Morris' 1992
Zymurgy article?
Have just finished building my RIMS unit (copper tubes, low-density heating
element and Little Giant TE-3 MD-HC pump). Want to add a temp controller ASAP.
Any thoughts/suggestions much appreciated. E-mail is fine. Will post summary
of responses if any. Thanks for your help.
Stan Gregory
cn1428@coastalnet.com
Jacksonville, NC
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:27:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Taratoot <taratoot@PEAK.ORG>
Subject: Competition announcement
Heart of the Valley Homebrewers Present:
The 14th Annual Oregon Homebrew Competition and Festival
At the Oregon Trader Brewery
140 Hill Street, NE
Albany, Oregon 97321
(Off Street Parking Available)
Saturday, May 11th, 1996 From 11 am to 5 pm
JUDGING FOR THE 24 RECOGNIZED AHA BEER STYLES PLUS
ALL THREE MEAD CATEGORIES
The Heart of the Valley Homebrewers invite you to participate in the
fourteenth annual homebrew competition and festival, the longest running
event of its kind in Oregon. The focus of the event will be a judging of
homebrewed beer sanctioned by the American Homebrewers Association (AHA)
and the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP). In addition, the club
will host a festival to promote awareness and knowledge of various beer
styles, provide opportunities to share information about the homebrewing
craft, and encourage interaction between homebrewers in a social
atmosphere. This years activities will include several displays, a
raffle, food concessions, and the opportunity to meet and talk with some
of the best and most experienced homebrewers anywhere!
Entry fee is $5.00. This year there will be no entries accepted the day
of the competition. Entries may be mailed directly to or dropped off at
the festival site or dropped off at one of our remote pick up sites. We
are also offering on-line entry and judge registration.
Special guest speaker: The world renowned
Fred Eckhardt
Complete details, entry requirements, rules, drop-off site locations, and
directions to the festival are available at our web site:
http://www.peak.org/~taratoot/fest.html
or contact Lee Smith at (541)926-2286
or
Mark Taratoot at (taratoot@peak.org)
- --
Mark Taratoot "...though my problems are meaningless,
taratoot@peak.org that don't make them go away."
-Neil Young
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:11:22 -0800
From: Derek Lyons <elde@hurricane.net>
Subject: Q: Dextrinous Worts, Adding body
Is a dextrinious wort sweeter or simply has more body? (I'm an
extract/steep brewer, trying to add body to my Porter recipe.)
Derek
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 22:38:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: liquori@ACC.FAU.EDU
Subject: Stuck Fermentation
Dear Collective,
First I want to thank everyone who reassured me that sticking my
arm in my beer wasn't the worst thing to do. Now I have a new problem.
I brewed a Harpoon Winter Warmer clone (from Cat's Meow). The OG
was 1.061. Four days later the gravity was 1.039. Last night I transferred
from the primary (it was in the primary for a week) to the secondary.
The gravity was 1.036.
There has been no activity in the fermentation lock over the last
twenty-four
hours. I do not know what the terminal gravity should be, but I know this
is too high. I am assuming the stuck fermentation is due to the fact that
I did not aerate the wort (this is only my second batch and I'm still
catching on). I pitched a liquid Wyeast (British ale #1028). On my first
batch the fermentation was also stuck so I added some priming sugar to
the primary. This dropped the gravity very little, but left the beer with
a very cidery taste.
Any suggestions for getting the fermentation going again? Is this
actually no problem and the process is just EXTREMELY slow?
Thanks in advance...Kevin...liquori@acc.fau.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 01:22:23 -0500
From: Imakebeer@aol.com
Subject: Hop Tea
A friend and I plan to give a presentation on hops to our homebrew club next
month. We want to use hops of both high and low alpha acids and show their
characteristics when used for bittering, flavor and aroma. We plan on using
hop tea's to do this.
Has anyone done this with any success? If so, do you have a recipe for making
the tea's?
Private e-mail O.K. I'll post a summary.
Cheers,
Robert Hops
Barley Literates
imakebeer@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:35:02 -0500
From: ccrenshaw@mail.utexas.edu (Clay Crenshaw)
Subject: Keg Priming / Old Starter
Hello Everyone.
Can anyone give me a good reason to naturally carbonate beer in a corny keg
rather than simply force-carbonating it? Does the method of carbonation
affect the character of the final product at all?
Also, I have a ~12oz starter of Wyeast London Ale that's been in my
refrigerator for around a month. Is it worth saving, and if so, what would
be the best way to go about doing this?
Thoroughly enjoying this newsgroup,
Clay
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jazz is not dead...it just smells funny" -Frank Zappa
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:15:17
From: braue@ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: Conservation of Mass-Energy
CASteveB@aol.com writes:
>Last Sunday (18 Feb) I brewed an American Pale Ale. I used 6 lbs. Light DME
>as well as some steeped specialty grains. For a 5 gal batch, this should
>have yielded a SG of approximately 1.050 (Assuming 1.042 for the DME). After
>it was in the fermenter I took a SG reading and it was 1.026! (It also tasted
>incredibly bitter, which I think would make sense if the SG was half of what
>I was shooting for.) After a little contemplation that night I decided that
>first thing in the morning I would boil up some more DME, put it in another
>fermenter, and rack as much as I could out of the first fermenter into the
>new one. Since I got half of what I wanted the first time, I used another 6
>lbs. DME with 1 gal of water (as little water as I thought would work) the
>second time. Everything went well and I got most of the first batch into the
>second fermenter (as well as a *really* clear wort because of all the trub
>that settled overnight). I took another reading and the SG was 1.080! I
>could see it being a little higher than the 1.050 I was origanally hoping
>for, but not that high. It has been fermenting very well throughout the
>week, and I will rack to the secondary sometime this week. Where did I mess
>up? Do you think this will turn out to be O.K. even though not exactly what
>I was hoping for?
You have demonstrated the law of conservation of mass-energy. The
6 lbs. of light DME that you added at first did in fact remain in
the fermenter; the initial low OG reading may well have been due
to inadequate mixing (if you boiled a concentrated wort and diluted
it with water; that point isn't clear), misuse of the hydrometer,
or some cause that can't be diagnosed at the end of a modem. Then,
when you added the second 6 lb. dose, the OG shot up to its final
incredible figure (which still sounds a little low; I'd expect it
to be in the 1.095 - 1.100 range. Calibrate your hydrometer on
plain water).
Of course, the final result is not going to be, stylistically,
anything like a pale ale; it's going to be more like a barleywine
or an imperial stout (but probably won't be too close to those
either, since the rest of your ingredients are going to be
oriented towards a pale ale). However, it ought to be eminently
drinkable anyway, and you may actually decide that you like it
better than the intended brew.
Moral: measure carefully, mix thoroughly, and ensure that your
hydrometer is calibrated correctly. If you still don't get the
right answer, assume that you did anyway. Brewing is technology
and art, not science; it's perfectly alright to fudge the data if
that gives a better result.
- --
John W. Braue, III braue@ratsnest.win.net
john.braue@berlinwall.org
"The water of England is not drinkable"
- -- Elizabeth of York in a letter to the Infanta Catalina of Aragon
I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:30:08 -0500
From: pittprog@usaor.net (Chuck)
Subject: Mash Questions
Dear Collective,
First time poster, long time lurker.
Forgive me for I have sinned. Over the weekend, due
to equipment problems, procedure problems, etc.
I didn't relax, and I worried. I was making Charlie's
un-american recipe that calls for:
1 lbs rice
5 lbs 6 row-high enzyme.
After the prescribed mash schedule, I did
a starch test and noticed that all the starch was not
converted. I let it rest for another 15 minutes (at 158F)
and still all the starch had not converted. Another 15 minutes
and still nothing. I ASSuME that this was due to the
fact that I was using a 2-row instead of a 6-row?
What is the consensus?
Additionally, I have noticed that in my all grain batches
I get little or no hot break compared to my extract batches
which get plenty. Is there a reason for this?
Thanks for the support!!
Bob
...Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Brewday!
- --
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 07:42:09 EST
From: "Richard Smith" <QR1661@trotter.USMA.EDU>
Subject: Going to Gettysburg
Greetings,
In April I will be traveling to Gettysburg for a few days. Does anyone
know of any Brewpubs or Micros in the vicinity?
TIA-
Jack in West Point
*******************************************************************
Richard J. Smith
qr1661@trotter.usma.edu
72154.516@compuserve.com
*******************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:42:32 -0500
From: RUSt1d? <rust1d@swamp.li.com>
Subject: Scorching Unnecessary
>>>I hesitate to reprint this recipe, and forgive me, but I feel it
>>>necessary as justification for what follows ...
....
>>>First, John, this is a beer list. I am not a beer snob but your recipe is
>>>not for beer. It appears to be a lightly flavored alcoholic solution, not
>>>unlike Zima, though you do mention hops. My guess is that its primary
>>>function is the production of cheap, non-lethal, drunkedness.
....
>>>the operative adjective here is "better". This list is the antithesis to
>>>the cane sugar, molasses, and baker's yeast type beers of prohibition
>>>of which yours is a modern example.
>>>
>>>You have been making this for twenty years with "considerable success". I
>>>am curious as to the definition of success in this case.
>>>
>>>Domenick Venezia
>>>Seattle, WA
>>>venezia@zgi.com
Why all the flames Dom? Can't we all just brew along?
John Varady
Boneyard Brewing - Get R.I.P.'ed
"Piss off and scroll down for crissakes. The post was just fine" - Jim Busch
**************************
** rust1d@li.com **
** John Nicholas Varady **
** Eve Courtney Hoyt **
**************************
http://www.netaxs.com/people/vectorsys/index.html
Boneyard Brewing - Get R.I.P.'ed.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:22:18 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Water/Chillers/Special B/Water
In #1970 Steve asks about his water: "pH: 7.3 - 7.7; Hardness: 480 mg/l as
CaC03; SO4: 10 ppm; Cl: 6 ppm; Na: 4.69 ppm." for extact brewing. Don't
worry.While that level of hardness is doubtless accompanied by about 400
ppm alkalinity (since chloride and sulfate are low) which is a lot there
should be no problem in extract brewing. I suppose there is a chance at
that level that the yeast might have a problem getting the pH of the
fermenting wort down as low as they like. This water is doubtless a
candidate for softening/dealkalinazation by boiling which should drop a
fair amount of the carbonate (and the calcium/magnesium too). The sulfate
is too low for english ales which require more for authentic hop character.
Steve also mentions that he uses a "charcoal" filter. As I have noted
before some of the small "charcoal"filters, such as the Brita, are charcoal
AND ion echange filters which remove not only chlorine but also most of the
ions in the water.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In the same number Mark Schmitt asked about interpretation of the wort
chiller comparisons in the latest Zymurgy. This is my opinion but I use the
Q number for comparison. If the chiller is provided a coolant flow greater
than or equal Q and the wort flow is less than Q/5 the wort will exit the
chiller within 3 degrees F of the coolant temperature for any wort entrance
temperature up to 212F. Thus I call the Q the "size" of the chiller. Thus I
think the Heart's chiller (I don't have the article in front of me) had a Q
near 100 and it will, thus, cool 20 gallons per hour to within 3 degrees of
the water temp if it is supplied 100 gph cooling water.
The reason for the development of the Q factor is that the actual
performace of a chiller is a function of coolant flow, wort flow rates,
coolant entry temp, and wort entry temperature, i.e. complex. There are
curves which plot allowable wort and coolant flow rates normalized by Q and
parametric in chiller efficiency. The Q; Q/5 point lepas off the page at
you. Performance increases only a little bit if the flow rate is increased
above Q. This means wasting more water for little benefit in chilling.
Similarly decreasing the wort flow doesn't improve things much, it takes
longer to cool a given volume, and, again, cooling water is wasted.
Conversely, dropping the coolant flow rate below Q or increasing the wort
flow rate above Q/5 will result in a sharp drop in performace (but there is
a little leeway). Thus the chiller should be operated at Q; Q/5. The
problem is that we often don't have the luxury of being able to set flow
rates in home brewing. The garden bib will certainly supply 100 gph but
more probably 250-300. This can be regulated by closing the valve but how
do you measure the rate? Flow meters are, of course, available from many
sources (Cole Parmer, Grainger) but they are a nuisance to install and cost
money. In many situations, cooling water is plentiful and is not "wasted"
if, for example, it is sent to the garden (but don't forget the water meter
if you are on a municipal supply).
Wort flow is more difficult to control as we are usually at the mercy of
gravity. The only away around this is a pump, valve and another flow meter
(more expense). The pump must be able to handle hot, acid wort (read about
$130 for a 1/25 HP magnetic coupled job) and the flow meters WILL clog up
with hop bits and cold trub.
As for the interior design of the Hart's, I am curious too. A larger inner
tube means a smaller ratio of surface area through which heat may pass to
volume of wort enclosed so the trick is to increase the heat transfer per
unit area. In the Stolting chiller this is done by affixing fins to the
outside of the tube. Perhaps the Hart does the same.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Same number; Jim Cave asked about malt specs but I'm not sure whether he
wanted them for Special B or Caramunich (both from DeW-C) so here are the
analyses for a lot of each:
Caramunich Special-B
Bushel Wt (Lbs) 41.5 43.5
% On 7/64" Screen 80.1 47.8
% On 6/64" Screen 14.8 37.4
% On 5/64" Screen 4.4 13.2
% Thru 5/64" Screen 0.7 1.6
Moisture, % 5.0 3.8
Extract, Fine Grind, As Is, % 72.1 66.3
Extract, Fine Grind, Dry Basis, % 75.9 68.9
Conversion Time, Minutes 15-20 15-20
Odor of Mash Aromatic Aromatic
Speed of Filtration Slow Slow
Lab. Wort Color, Lov. 72 221
Degree of Clarity, Visual Dark Dark
Total Protein, Dry Basis, % 11.19 10.43
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Don Walsh asks about Brita filters. They are indeed anion/cation exchangers
with a carbon filter and a smidgeon of, I believe, a silver salt to prevent
growth of bacteria in the filtered water. An ideal cation/anion exchanger
will produce water which is virtually ion free. These are often used in
laboratories where they produce water with resistances of 15 megohms/cm.
The Brita need not do so good a job and I don't know how effective they
actually are. I guess I'll just have to buy one and check it out.
Given that they remove all the ions, the pH of the resulting water would be
7.00. If the pH is other than 7.00 that means there are ions present. The
usual suspect, as I said before, is bicarbonate which comes from carbon
dioxide in the air. It takes a while for this to dissolve but the pH pretty
quickly starts to make it's way towards about 5.6. Boiling will drive the
CO2 off and the pH then returns to where it was. Thus, if the Brita removes
all ions, you might expect the pH of output water to be in the high 6's but
on boiling and cooling, by whatever method, the pH should return to 7.00.
The fact that Don's did not means that a) the basic assumption is wrong
(i.e. the output water is not pure) b) the boiling process introduced
something or c) the pH measurements were in error.
WRT a) the Brita is not supposed to produce lab water. It may therefore,
not get everything (such as perhaps silica). Someone suggested here (I
think) that organic acids used in the preparation of the charcoal might be
present in the Brita output. WRT b) very clean glassware would have to be
used and even then would introduce some sodium and silica. Only very small
amounts of ions ( < E-7 equivalents) are necessary to effect pH shifts of
these magnitudes). WRT c) a good stable electrode, fresh, accurate buffers
and good technique are necessary for accurate measurements in very dilute
solutions as ionic strength is low. I have seen even high quality
electrodes behave very strangely in water of high purity.
I could understand a lower pH with gradual cooling (allow CO2 to dissolve)
as opposed to force cooling, but not the other way around as reported.
Consider me equally puzzled by that one.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:30:28 -0500
From: PVanslyke@aol.com
Subject: re: It's not beer
John Carey's recipe seems to have all the requisite ingredients, that isx
malt (two kinds no less), sugar, and hops.
Domenick - think decafe
Paul VanSlyke >>> Brewing and relaxing in Deposit,NY
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 13:55:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: Delano Dugarm <ADUGARM@worldbank.org>
Subject: Brettanomyces Imperial Stout
I've always been intrigued by the reference in Wahl and
Henius to Brettanomyces secondary fermentation in traditional old
ales and porters. They imply that this was the reason that these
beers were aged so long in wooden casks. I have read that Strong
Suffolk is still made this way, but I have never had this beer.
Last fall I brewed an imperial stout. When it came time
to bottle, I learned that Scott Bickham was building up a
Brettanomyces culture, and got 35 ml of the culture from him. I
primed the beer and bottled four gallons, then drained the last
gallon into a one-gallon cider jug, added the Brettanomyces
culture, and put an air lock on the jug. There was some
fermentation evident for a week or so, then nothing. I left the
beer in the jug for four and a half months.
A few weeks ago my curiousity got the better of me. I
racked the beer into a keg and force-carbonated it.
What did it taste like? The base beer had some problems
both in recipe formulation (it included roasted rye) and in
fermentation (phenols and esters from over-active fermentation),
but was reasonably in style. Oddly, some judges have found it to
have a slightly horsey nose, though it never got near the Brett.
The Bret beer was drier, and sour. It had a definite
horsey, goaty nose. The dryness made the beer less drinkable,
but this beer seemed to be an excellent aperitif in small
quantities. I say 'seems' because I made the mistake of taking
this beer to a brew club meeting and it was quickly consumed.
I want to try this again, but perhaps with a strong,
bitter, lighter ale. Without roasted rye.
The only negative was that I became paranoid after
speaking to Scott Bickham about Brettanomyces
cross-contamination and threw out or heavily sanitized everything
that came in contact with the Brett Imperial Stout.
Delano DuGarm
adugarm@worldbank.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:39:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: High FG
Kelly and Lorne ask about high FGs:
<I'm generally very pleased with the results of my work, but the terminal
<gravity is not as low as sources indicate that it should be. This applies
<to both low (150F) and high (157F) starch-conversion temperatures.
<However, Kelly, I do use yeast starters (20 fluid oz. for ales, 30 fluid
<oz. for lagers). So, if there is a common cause of our shared frustration,
<I don't think that increasing the volume of yeast will bring down the T.G.
<in your finished beers.
<Perhaps someone else can shed some light .
Id bet its not enough oxygen. People think they can just shake a nearly
full carboy and that will provide enough O2, but I am suspecious of this.
Try this: sanatize two plastic buckets. Pour the cool wort between
the buckets 5-6 times from a height of about 2-3 feet. See if the ferment
is better, and always use a starter. Or try the air pump method.
Jim Busch
Colesville, Md
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 09:42:16 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Spent grains bread
Alan Folaom asked in HBD 1970 about spent grains bread:
John Palmer posted my recipe from a few years ago on his page at
http://www.primenet.com/~johnj/index.html
I think it's under the "more brewing files" link. If you don't have web
access, I can send it to you. It starts with my critique of an earlier
posted recipe, then gives my standard bread recipe that I teach my bread
classes, then general instructions for additions and substitutions and
finally my guess at specifically how to use spent grains.
I finally tried making a batch recently (from a mostly Munich alt), and
found that, contrary to my expectations, the cellulose of the husks
greatly softened with the ferment and bake. I *wasn"t* picking them out
from my teeth the way I do if I just taste some raw spent grains, or
some spent grain cookies I have had. I used some last runnings @ ~1.006
instead of water. It added to the maltiness of the bread. I also used
a sourdough starter rather than cultured yeast. All in all, I was quite
pleased. I did find that I had underestimated the amount of liquid
remaining in the grains and had to add extra flour to get the proper
consistency dough, but that happens all the time with substitutions and
additions.
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:45:33 -0600
From: nelson@muck.isgs.uiuc.edu (Dan.Nelson)
Subject: Kegging 101 - gas leak
Howdy Brewers:
I just kegged for the first time and the world is a creamier, foamier,
heady-er place. It's a beautiful thing. I'm having one problem, though,
which is is getting a perfect seal around the lid of the keg. It's a
5 gal. ball-lock corney, reconditioned, new gaskets, in very nice shape.
When force carbonating at pressures of 8-9 psi and greater there is no
apparent leakage, but at dispensing pressure (about 5 psi) there is
significant gas leakage around to oval lid. Thinking I had a bad O-ring
or micro-fissure in the lid itself, I replaced both. Same problem,
same spot. With both lid & O-ring assemblies, the leak occurs right
at the point where the long axis of the oval intersects the perimeter.
I cannot detect any deformities in the steel top of the keg. I can feel
a little roughness just under the rim of the opening, where the O-ring is
seated, but I scrubbed and scrubbed and can't get rid of it, so I assume
it is part of the keg and not a residue. I don't know what to try next.
Any suggestions?
Thanks, Dan Nelson, Boy Brewologist
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:47:03 -0600
From: Tamth@mail.utexas.edu (Tam Thompson)
Subject: Lagering--time and S.G.?
Hi everyone!
This is my first posting here, although I've been homebrewing in Austin, Texas
for 5.5 years. I used to teach it for Univ. of Texas Informal Classes.
I'm a bit embarrassed to have to ask this, but I'm unclear about how
long you need to lager things. I'd always used 2 months as a rule
of thumb, except for bocks (traditional, not American or Texas) and
Dbocks, which take 3 months. Lately, however, I've been thinking that
the length of time required for lagering is probably related to the original
gravity. A Dbock, at OG 1.075+, or bock, at 1.065-1.075, requires 3 months.
Lagers beers with lighter gravities require 2 months. Right now, I am
fermenting a summer Vienna, OG 1.045, and an organic ginger-pepper honey
lager, OG 1.040. They will be ready to lager in a week-and-a-half. I'm
thinking that gravities below 1.045 could be lagered at around 32-34 F for,
say, 6 weeks.
I'd be very interested in anyone's thoughts on this. My background is not,
repeat, not, in chemistry---I'm a Ph.D. candidate in Mechanical Engineering,
in mech. systems in design. I'm also a lady.
See y'all,
Tam Thompson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:50:46 -0600
From: Tamth@mail.utexas.edu (Tam Thompson)
Subject: Special B is 220 L
We get Special B down here in Austin at Austin Homebrew Supply, my first-and-
only-choice in town. (I also love DeFalco's in Houston.) It is listed as 220 L.
I believe the 6% guideline sounds about right. For a 5- or 6-gallon batch,
1 lb. of Special B would be the absolute max.
Hope this helps!
Tam Thompson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 10:11:42 EST
From: "Kirk Harralson" <kwh@smtpgwy.roadnet.ups.com>
Subject: Canning revisited
Alec Saunders writes:
>On a related topic, a while ago there was some discussion about canning
>starters (I used to use one of my canned starters for "krausening" when
>I did this). Someone commented that they were worried about botulism in
>a canned starter, which is why they didn't do this. <snip>
I think you may be referring to my post in HBD 1668, March 1, 1995 (almost a
year to the day!). In researching canning techniques, several well-respected
books made the difference between low-acid foods and high-acid foods. I think
the cutoff point is ph 4.6. I had measured my wort's ph at about 5.3, which put
it in the low-acid category, which, according to the books, requires pressure
canning.
>Long answer: Botulism is a toxin produced by the bacteria Clostridium
>Botulinum. Simply boiling the wort kills any bacteria which might be
>present, and also destroys the toxin. And, from the "Health Protection
>Branch, Botulism Reference Centre" at the Government of Canada --
>"Canned fruits, jams and jellies, and pickles and relishes do not cause
>botulism; high concentrations of acid, salt, or sugar prevent the growth
>of botulinum bacteria". I would guess that the heat of canning combined
>with the fact that wort is basically sugary water is enough to deal with
>those little botulism bacterias...
The actual problem, as I understand it, is that the botulism spores can
withstand boiling temperatures, and carry over into the finished product. Some
time after I posted this article, I read in Miller's book that the bacteria or
spores could not live in beer wort anyway, which coincides with what you quote.
Several people sent me mail that they had used regular canning procedures for
years, with no problems. Being incredibly anal retentive, I reached a
compromise of adding acid to prepared wort to bring the ph down to 4.6 (a very
small adjustment), and treat like a high-acid juice, requiring only a boiling
water treatment. My yeast seem to love it, and it cannot be detected in the
final product. I use the procedures as described in the Ball canning book (same
people that make the jars). This is a very good resource, and is probably
available in most public libraries.
Good luck!
Kirk Harralson
Bel Air, Maryland
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:21:21 -0600 (CST)
From: fitz@fasicsv.fnal.gov (Tom Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: The Brewer's Companion
D & S Painter wrote :
> I now have a quick question for anyone who has purchased or has been in
> contact with Randy Mosher's book The Brewer's Companion; could you
> please give me a review on this book.
Mark writes:
>>I picked up this book last year and after reading it I wasn't all that
>>excited about it and sorry that I spent $20 for it. I have found David
>>Miller's new book much more interesting and a better use of my money.
I have to strongly disagree; Are we comparing Randy Mosher's book to
Millers' "Brewing the World's Great Beers" ???
To me, there is no comparison. Miller's book is geared toward the
beginner and you'll outgrow it in a very short time. Miller's writing
style is very drab and not at all interesting. Mosher is much more of
a "writer" with interesting historical facts and style related info.
>>There are many pages dedicated to logging ones brew session.
People complain about the brewing log section of Mosher's book as a
waste, but you can tear it out if you don't like it and it still has
MUCH more useful information than Miller's book. Miller wastes many
pages glossing over topics such as filtering and kegging that really
can't be adequately covered in a beginner's book. Also, after the
beginners stage, you can throw out all the pages dedicated to recipes.
Some of these recipes seem dubious at best, and I wonder whether he
really ever made beer with these recipes.
>>For me TBC has about 20 pages of usefull information. Much of it seems
>>to be targeted towards someone that doesn't have an online brewlog or
>>notebook.
Again, I have to disagree. The majority of homebrewers DO NOT have an
online brewing log or calculator program. The Brewer's Companion has
many useful sections on water treatment, enzyme activity, hop varieties
and IBU calculations, clarifying agents, extract potential, etc.
I even used parts of Mosher's book to study for the bjcp exam. It
presents some very technical info in an approachable manner.
I frequently reference Mosher's book when I can't remember a certain
detail, but I haven't even opened Miller's book recently, In fact,
I'm not sure where it is ...
Bob writes:
>I have the first edition of this book and it does indeed have a lot of
>charts, and other detailed information. However, the book is full of
>errors. For instance, a page will end in the middle of a paragraph, and
>the next page is a chart of some sort. Unfortunately the rest of the
>paragraph does not turn up on the following page, or anywhere else in the
>book, for that matter.
>A number of the charts seem inconsistent, possibly they are mislabeled.
>There is some good information in the book, but it is so error prone that
>it's hard to figure out what to trust. How this book got past even a
>cursory proofreading is beyond me. Hopefully it's improved with the
>second edition.
>Bob
>Bob McCowan
Yes, the first edition has some glaring errors. Just get the latest edition.
You can save a few bucks now for a book you won't use later, or buy
a useful reference manual/log book that will serve you better longer.
Of course, this is all my opinion and personal preference.
Good Brewing,
Tom Fitzpatrick
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 07:33 PST
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: flour layer in lauter
In HBD# 1967, nealc@selway.umt.edu (Neal Christensen) asked about the
doughy layer that didn't appear in his new lauter tun:
>... But I did not end up with a 'flour' layer on the
>top of the spent grains as I did with my old lauter tun. I think this may
>be due to not having enough sparge water covering the bed while sparging.
>What do you all think? Do you usually end up with a stratified layer of
>fine grayish gunk on top of the grain? Is this desirable? What may I have
>done this time that prevented its formation?
This is sometimes called 'top-dough' or by the German word 'tieg'
(prounounced 'teague' ;-) which means dough or paste. Handy word just
'cause it's shorter.
There is no advantage to having this layer appear on the top of the mash.
In fact, it can be a disadvantage. Because the layer is so gluey, the
sparge water can have difficulty penetrating it. The layer can even act
like a piston and compact the whole bed, slowing the run-off to nil. I had
this happen once on a 10 Hl system. This is a good reason to stir up the
very top of the mash during lautering, so that the doughy stuff is
distributed among the larger particles, rather than in an impermeable layer.
The stirring also counter-acts channelling. OTOH, if there aren't any
problems in run-off, then the appearance of the layer is certainly nothing
to worry about.
If you have quite a thin mash, then the large particles settle faster than
the fine ones and you are more likely to see this stuff appear. In a thick
mash, everything stays mixed up together. So the lack of sparge water on
the top of Neal's mash may be the reason why he didn't see it this time
around. Also, the small particles which make the run-off cloudy contribute
to the tieg, so the more you have to recirculate, the more likely you might
be to get this layer. So, Neal, maybe your fancy new LT has a better screen
that sets up a filterbed sooner, sucking less of the fines from the bottom?
- Rob L.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:25:51 GMT
From: elde@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons)
Subject: Re: Adding cold water to brewpot?
charlesd@nando.net (charlesd) wrote:
>A quick question for the collective:
> I've recently purchased an 8.25 gallon pot and constructed an immersion
>wort chiller in anticipation of going to a full 5-gallon boil. The
>problem is that my poor old stove simply can't boil that volume of
>water. So, while I try to convince my significant other that the 170K BTU
>King Cooker is _really_ worth spending $60 on, is there any problem with
>adding cold water to about 3 gallons of boiling wort to bring the total
>volume up to 5 gallons and then cooling to pitching temp using the
>sanitized wort chiller?
Boil the 3 gallons *first* and set it aside to cool. (Overnight?)
That way it's sterile and the chlorine is gone. You should be OK
doing it this way.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Feb 1996 11:48:32 U
From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp@mcst.ae.ge.com>
Subject: Chillers
Mark G. Schmitt Wrote:
>Could someone help me understand the test results from Zymurgy's counterflow
>wort chiller evaluation? Perhaps I don't know what the authors mean by
*Time >To Cool 5 Gal* of wort. To me this implies the time it takes for 5
gal of wort >to gravitate through the inside copper tube. If so, then why
does it takes 20+ >min to go through 25' of 3/8 OD tubing but only 12+ to
traverse 50'?
Easy. A typographical error.
>Are not the Brewers Resource model and the 25' Listermann model identical
>except for the garden hose?
Yes. The BR chiller uses Phil's Phittings.
>Then how come the wort flow is 19.7 gal/hr for the former but 14.9
>gal/hr for the latter?
See abvove.
>I was a little suprised to note that the extra 25' of
>tubing in the second Listermann chiller only dropped the wort temp by one
>additional degree to 64F even though the coolent temperature is 52F.
This is a fact of heat exchanger design. After the temperature differential
gets low enough, increasing the heat transfer area gives little return. For
this type of chiller, 25' seems to be about right, so don't waste money on
extra tubing.
>Finally, is the key to CF design a large diameter inner tube as in the
Heart's >chiller?
Nope. The Heart chiller must have fins in the coolant passage, on the
outside of the inner tube, which greatly increase heat transfer area for a
given length. I'm pretty sure this is an off-the-shelf, general purpose heat
exchanger unit that Heart's is re-selling.
MPM
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:12:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Pemberton <wfp5p@tigger.itc.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions on Zymurgy CF chiller test
Mark G. Schmitt asks about the Zymurgy counterflow chiller article....
I was also puzzled by the results in this article. I have a homemade 20
foot chiller using 3/8 OD and a garden hose. It's works at about 1 gallon a
minute, but I use about a 15 foot drop for my chilling setup (from a deck to
the basement).
I've also got very high water pressure, so I get very good cooling.
I think these factors are a big part of your chiller decisions. In my case,
a smaller chiller works great.
- --
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:08:04 -0600
From: uchima@fncrd8.fnal.gov (Mike Uchima)
Subject: Re: Water-Brita Filters
ArnoldWa@aol.com asks:
> I was not aware that the Brita is more than a carbon filter. Does it
> completely remove all the ions (i.e. 0 ppm Ca, etc.)?
Working from memory here, I believe the box said that the filter cartridge
also contains "ion exchange resin". If I'm not mistaken, this is the same sort
of thing that is used in home water softeners, and would replace some of the
"hard" ions (e.g. Ca) with sodium ions.
- -- Mike Uchima
- -- uchima@fnal.gov
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 10:25:00 PST
From: "Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM" <GoodaleD@hood-03.army.mil>
Subject: Kind of a contest in Austin, TX
Dear Collective,
While tooling around Austin, I went to the
Central market HEB. They are having a contest
called the "Best Bock on the Block". I picked up
an entry form at the information desk. There don't
seem to be any rules other than it must be brewed
by a nonprofessional (home brewer). The contest
requires you to bring a bottle of Bock to there on
9 March 1996. Thats it.
Daniel Goodale
Biohazard Brewing Company
Sure its gonna kill ya, but who wants to live forever
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:28:27 -0500
From: BOBKATPOND@aol.com
Subject: RE: low gravity
In HBD 1970 Steve writes:
Last Sunday (18 Feb) I brewed an American Pale Ale. I used 6 lbs. Light DME
as well as some steeped specialty grains. For a 5 gal batch, this should
have yielded a SG of approximately 1.050 (Assuming 1.042 for the DME). After
it was in the fermenter I took a SG reading and it was 1.026!
You didn't say if you did a full 5 gallon boil or if you did a partial boil
and diluted it with cold water. I would gues you did the later. This
happened
to me once. The concentrated wort and the water didn't get mixed up well
before you took your sample to read the gravity. If you had shaken it up and
rechecked, I'd bet it would have been closer to what you had wanted. At any
rate you will be OK, but end up with a strong beer that may be a little under
hopped, but certainly drinkable.:-)
Bob Morris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:35:05 -0500
From: Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan@cfrp.varian.com>
Subject: Cheap Hop Back
I made a really simple hopback this weekend, out of components that many
brewers have lying around the house. It was easy and fun. Here's how I
made it:
Take one of those big strainer funnels and stick a size 6 1/2 rubber stopper
in the neck. Fit the 3/8 copper tubing from your CF wort chiller into the
hole in the stopper; pull the stopper in tight. Check for leaks with water.
Shove a stainless or copper scrub pad into the neck of the funnel above the
stopper; this should prevent hops from clogging the chiller. Direct the hot
wort flow into the funnel, adjusting the flow rate to keep the level in the
funnel constant, slightly above the tube from the wort kettle. The wort
flows through the hops, and immediately goes into the chiller, (hopefully)
minimizing loss of aromatics.
Simple, easy and cheap. There were no clogging problems, and adjusting the
level was not a problem, since the flow through the chiller is slower than
the wide-open flow out of the kettle; just adjust the kettle output valve.
It's an open hopback and could be susceptible to HSA, but keeping the level
above the bottom of the kettle tube should minimize HSA. Of course you need
to watch it to keep the level OK.
I can't say whether it makes a difference in the beer because 1) the beer I
brewed won't be ready for a couple of weeks and 2) I don't have a control
batch, so maybe any changes I detect will be due to something else.
BTW, the funnel is also an easy way to run cleaner, sanitizer or boiling
water through the chiller.
Bob
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1971, 02/28/96
*************************************
-------
