Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1997
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/03/29 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1997 Fri 29 March 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Taking the all grain plunge (Matt_K)
Stinky Yeast! (Bill Rust)
Iodophor/Thanks ("Christopher M. Goll")
Re: Cleaning chemicals (hollen)
Foam Control, Head, Wet Towel Trick, Oak, Malt Types (TimSechler)
Refined Sugar and Belgian Trippels. (Russell Mast)
false bottom questions (Rob Emenecker)
RE: Filtering and yeast size (Ted Sadler/VENTANA)
Easy All-Grain (KennyEddy)
A New Glad Plaid Clad Lad... (pbabcock.ford)
Re:Filtering, cont. (Tom Fitzpatrick)
all grain (Wallinger)
Hops Toxicity in Dogs ("Rick Creighton")
Non-alcohol Heresy?? (Jim Mitchell)
Re: 10 gallon recipes (Jim Dipalma)
Easy way out (Dave Corio)
Real Beer (Eric Miller)
Re: Munich Helles Stinks (Jim Dipalma)
Heineken Special Dark Recipe Request ("Stephen Palmer")
bottle labels (lheavner)
RE:> more on DMS and yeast/ first wort hopping (Jeff)
plaid-tosis cure may be worse than disease! (Greg Potts)
translucent floaties/re:all-grain/convince me (Jerry Cunningham)
******************************************************************
* 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: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:48:00 est
From: Matt_K@ceo.sts-systems.ca
Subject: Taking the all grain plunge
Greetings everyone
I have a quick hint of those of you who are thinkig about going all
grain, but worry about it.
What got me hooked was a friend of mine. He volunteered to come to my
house, bring any equipment I didn't have and show me how to do this
thing. In return, I supplied food and beer. This worked like a
charm. I couldn't believe how easy, and fun all grain was and I
didn't have to worry. I've since done this to someone else, who also
became a convert.
Matt
in Montreal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10:09:56 -0500
From: Bill Rust <wrust@csc.com>
Subject: Stinky Yeast!
Greeting Brewers,
Barry Blakeley asks in HBD #1995:
> I recently brewed a Munich Helles (or as close as I can get using
> extracts), and I noticed a rotten odor coming through the airlock. I
> used 6.3lb extract, some steeping grains and Wyeast 2308 Munich Lager.
> The yeast was 5 months old (I'll never buy yeast again without
> checking the date).
Relax. Don't worry. (remember?) WYeast 2308 is supposed to be stinky, at
least at first. It then settles down to a delicious, round, full bodied
flavor that is great with helles and other all malt German lagers. The odor
is less pronounced if you lager at lower temps, but it is still very
noticable. It takes about 3-4 weeks after secondary for the aroma to
mellow, then drink up! This is a fabulous yeast! It is one of my favorites.
Cheers.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rust, Master Brewer |
Jack Pine Savage Brewery | The Brew Cru
Shiloh, IL (NACE) | 'Get Off Your Dead Ass and Brew!'
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:25:50 -0500
From: "Christopher M. Goll" <cgoll@cc-mail.pica.army.mil>
Subject: Iodophor/Thanks
Hello all,
Thanks to all who responded to my keg deadspace problem; It is truly
amazing how quickly and plentifully the advice flows in after a post.
Three responses said it should work, with one caveat: spheres still
present a void volume of 30-40%. Interestingly, most people bypassed
my question and suggested modifying the manifold system to get a
siphon effect, followed by two folks who suggested beating the keg
bottom to remove the dome (John Palmer: Is this a good idea?); and
one person said to live with the loss of wort. Again, thank you all!
I have another idea to toss to the collective for critique:
From recent HBD traffic, we seem to agree on approximately 12.5 ppm
iodine (1/2 oz iodophor in 5 gal) as a good sanitizing level.
However, trying to _accurately_ pour out 1/2 an ounce from a five oz
bottle (the size available at my local brew store) is a PITA, leading
me to add at least 3/4 oz to "make sure I've got it covered." While
my iodophor usage is not driving me to the poorhouse, it does seem
like a waste.
So, what if I were to add the 5 oz of iodophor to 35 oz of distilled
water, and then used 4 oz (1/2 cup) of that mixture per five gallons?
This would be easier to measure, and not lead to wasted iodophor. Any
flaws in my logic?
Also, what is the consensus on contact time. The bottle says a few
minutes, but I've read posts that seem to indicate much longer. Is
this just overkill?
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 08:38:01 PST
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: Cleaning chemicals
>>>>> "Wayne" == SandBrew <SandBrew@aol.com> writes:
Wayne> Hi there. In an earlier posting, I recomended some cleaning
Wayne> chemicals produced by a company out here in Denver called Five
Wayne> Star. In particular, a compound called PBW is IMHO the best
Wayne> alkaline cleaner on the market. It appears that I am not
Wayne> alone. I have gotten a copy of a letter from George Fix to Five
Wayne> Star in which he states: "...I have decided in my own personal
Wayne> brewing to completely switch from a caustic based cleaner to
Wayne> your product, and a similar conclusion was reached in the two
Wayne> commercial operations (for which he consults for).
Upon Wayne's recommendation in his original posting, I obtained a pail
of PBW, 35 lbs. for about $40 plust $30 shipping to CA made it come to
about $2 per pound. I have been using it for about 6 months now and
have put it to what I consider to be the worst case test several times
and it comes through with flying colors.
I ferment in corny kegs and as such, the top 3 inches of the inside of
the keg is covered in a dried layer of krausen. In the past, this
required a soak in hot CTSP solution followed by vigorous brushing
with a nylon pot brush to remove. With the PBW product, I use 1/8
cup of PBW per gallon of 140F water and let stand for 1/2 to 1 hour.
A final rinse of hot water is all that is necessary, no scrubbing at
all.
As for safety, when I did not yet know that scrubbing was unnecessary,
I was sticking my arm down in the keg to scrub. This ends up getting
the PBW solution all over my forearm. After about 15 minutes of
leaving it on my skin, I finally rinsed it off. Noticed no adverse
effects whatsoever at the 1/8 cup per gallon concentration.
The only downside I have to report is that one of my friends who owns
a microbrewery and has begun using PBW is reluctant to use it for CIP
because he has noticed that it sometimes does not dissolve
completely. He is making up a solution and using it for manual
application and is very happey with it.
Like Wayne and George Fix, I have no affiliation with FiveStar other
than as a satisfied customer.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:40:08 -0500
From: TimSechler@aol.com
Subject: Foam Control, Head, Wet Towel Trick, Oak, Malt Types
Since I haven't seen a response (I'm about a week behind) to Paul Lambie's
query on the product called "Foam Control" in #1980, you've forced me into my
first posting to the HBD. The ad (in the Hop Tech catalog -- no, I have no
connection with them, except sending them a few bucks one time) say that
1-tsp of this stuff added with the yeast at pitching will keep the head
formed during fermentaiton from ever getting more than 1/2-inch thick. Thus,
no blow-off. The ad further claims that the product will make better head on
your finished beer because "more head-forming compounds are retained in the
beer and not lost during fermentation." The product supposedly will have
"lost its effectiveness and settled out," by bottling time and not limit the
head formed in the glass.
Well, all of that sounded pretty good to me, so I tried the stuff. (A quick
history: I've been extract brewing for about 1.5 years -- now on my 20th
batch -- the last three being partial mashes -- Always used liquid yeast with
starters -- and I use a 6.5-gal. glass carboy for a primary fermenter.) I've
used Foam Control in 9 batches. (The stuff smells a lot like Physo-Derm (sp?)
- --the skin cleaner.) The results? (the envelope, please...) The stuff works,
however. . . Yes, it almost always keeps the foam level down to an inch or
two. The only time I've had blow-off using the stuff was with a big stout --
and then it was minimal. Now the "however" part -- I've noticed no increase
in head or head retention in my brews. That was what I was hoping for -- but
it hasn't worked that way for me.
So, Paul, can you use it in a 5-gal. Carboy? Yeah, probably, but I would
still watch it for some blow-off.
Getting a decent head on my beer has always been a problem. I've read
Miller's and Papizian's books, trotted out the usual suspects, but I usually
end up with lousy head. The exception being my American Cream Ale, which has
a pound of Cara-Pils malt in it -- any connection there?
I decided not to use Foam Control in my last batch (India Pale Ale). Let me
tell about my latest discovery! (BONNNGGG, LIGHTBULB, Duhhh) I put my primary
carboy into an oversized plastic punch bowel, draped it with a dark-colored
towel, and poured water over it. The temperature hovered in the mid to low
60s throughout fermentation. I was thrilled! I've usually had to live with
temps in the 70s. There was very little blow-off with this batch. A product
of the lower temperature? I don't know, but I plan to continue using the wet
towel trick.
On the oak in beer thread. . . (no, I haven't had time to look up what was
written about this months ago, but why let that stop me?) This is my second
IPA. In my first batch I used 4 oz. of oak chips, purchased from my Home
Brew shop (steamed 15-min. and then baked at 350F for 15-min. and added for 2
days to the secondary). I think it was too much. The beer had, how to
describe it, a very caramelly, not all that oaky taste to it. Not all that
appealing. I cut it down to 0.5 ounces in this batch. Results are not in yet.
I would appreciate all further explanations about basic malt types and their
proper uses. I read and read, but it sinks in slowly. 6-row, 2-row, lager,
pale, modifictions, enzymes, arghhh! Come on now, a simple yes, no, maybe
about Klages. Do you use a protein rest?
Thanks
Tim Sechler
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:06:49 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Refined Sugar and Belgian Trippels.
All Korzonas disputes my brewing prowess thusly :
> Russel writes, quoting Richard:
> >> - AVOID adding large amounts of corn sugar to the recipe.
>
> >I'd say avoid adding -any- at all, except to prime the bottles for
> >carbonation.
>
> Well, I disagree.
Actually, Richard's comment was either to a new brewer seeking first-batch
advice or to someone who was looking to brew an ale light in color but
with decent flavor. On that, I'm certain you'd agree.
> ...a beer like Duvel...Tripels and Dubbels...
I think, in general, not adding any is a good rule, just like, in general,
avoiding tannin extraction from the mash is a good rule. For any rule, there
is an exception. For beer rules, that exception is usually from Belgium.
(eg. don't let wild yeast and bacteria infect your beer, use fresh hops,
don't boil longer than 6 or 7 hours, don't ferment above 80 F. There are
more.)
If you're looking to brew a specific style, then there will be times to change
your usual procedures. However, for most styles, several general rules will
get you a long way. If you make a half-decent Pale Ale (or Bock or Stout or
Weizen or most any style), and then toss in a pound or two of corn sugar,
you'll be making mediocre Pale Ale (etc), not "a cross between a Pale Ale and
a Belgian Trippel".
> The problem is when
> you use 4 pounds of sugar and 3.3 pounds of malt extract -- that will make
> sorry-tasting beer!
That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid here. Even 1 lb of sugar and 3.3 lb
of extract will be worse than just the 3.3 lbs alone, if you're doing a
relatively normal style.
So, unless you're pretty sure what you're doing, don't add purified sugar to
your beer, if you want good-tasting beer.
I know a lot of people here have been brewing for a long time and are looking
for very in-depth information about advanced techniques and esoteric styles.
But, I think a large proportion of the readers want basic advice for brewing
their first few batches. If you are in this category - don't add corn sugar
to your beer, ever, except to prime the bottles. If you're not, you already
KNOW not to listen to what just one poster on HBD says about anything anyway.
-Russell Mast
copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 14:15:17 PST
From: Rob Emenecker <remenecker@cadmus.com>
Subject: false bottom questions
Hello all!
This past Saturday I did my first all-grain brew. All-in-all I was quite
pleased with the process. There was one area, however, that proved to be
rather frustrating. For a lauter tun I am using 5-gallon food grade buckets
with a false bottom (ala Phil). The damn thang keep raising up on me as I
was adding foundation water. Even upon laddling the mash into my tun it was
still "bobbing" up from the bottom. As a result I had to recirculate nearly
TWO GALLONS OF WORT. No, that is not a typo. Husk and grain particles would
routinely flow into the drain hose and lodge themselves behind the hose
clamp. To free them, I would have to open the clamp all of the way. This
"lodge and open" process was repeated 8 or 9 times before I was confident
that no more draff materials would lodge in the drain hose.
ANY SUGGESTIONS?!?!?!!?!?
- --Rob
****************************************************************************
| (remenecker@cadmus.com) | (RobEmnckr@aol.com) |
| Cadmus Journal Services, Inc. | Brewery Manager, Standing Rock Brewery |
| Linthicum, Maryland 21090 | Proud Purveyors of "Hairy Dog Homebrew"! |
| 410-691-6454 / 684-2793 (fax) | (410) 859-9169 (voice only) |
****************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 27 Mar 96 14:31:27 EDT
From: Ted Sadler/VENTANA <Ted_Sadler/VENTANA.ITP@lgate.vmedia.com>
Subject: RE: Filtering and yeast size
I have no idea how big (or small since we're in the micron range) yeast is but
I have friend who is doing graduate work on
" the molecular basis of inositol transport and production in brewer's/baker's
yeast " so I asked her. Here's her response:
I don't have the ref at hand, so I can't quote you a page number.
However, I know from microscopy that I've been doing that haploid yeast
(one copy of genome) are 4-6 microns and diploid yeast (2 copies of
genome) are about 8-10 microns. Depending on the strains, maybe if you
have some wierd copy of certain genes, haploids can get to be weird huge
ballons of >10 microns. This is unusual. A diploid yeast has the ability
to form spores if put in adverse conditions. The individual spores may be
smaller than 6 microns, but I'm not sure.
If anyone wants to get _really_ serious about yeast, try the Saccharomyces
Genome Database at:
http://genome-www.stanford.edu/Saccharomyces/
My favorite quote from one of the links off this page, "Hey, this stuff makes
bread and beer! Why work with anything else?"
TFTB,
TS
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:16:08 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Easy All-Grain
A recent thread debates the merits of all-grain brewing versus the extra
equipment and difficulty. Before I built my Electric Brewery, I made several
all-grain batches using the "concentrated-wort" approach, in my kitchen, on
the stovetop. In this approach, I made three gallons of concentrated wort,
so after I collect the wort it's just like extract brewing. The only extra
equipment this required was a mash/lauter tun and another stockpot for sparge
water. I made the mash/lauter tun from a 5-gallon beverage cooler (Coleman
Drinking Water 5 -- about $15 on sale). I made a lautering manifold from
copper pipe as follows. Take a length of 1/2" copper pipe (not refigerator
tubing) and cut six pieces 2-3/8" and two pieces 5-1/2". Also get four
elbows, 3 tees, and a 45-degree fitting. Soak in hot soapy water for an
hour; scrub clean, rinse well, dry. Assemble (press-fit) as shown:
_ _
| ---------------- | (Elbows)
| | | |
| |
| |
| |
| |_ _| |
| _------------_ | (Tees)
| | | |
| |
| |
| |
| | _____ | |
|_------_ _-----_|
|_|
| | (45-deg fitting)
|_|/
With a hand drill or drill press, drill 3/32" diameter holes along the tubing
every 1/4". Drill all the way through the tubing. Disassemble. Using a
piece of dowel or other similar tool, "scrape off" burrs from the inside of
the tubing segments, and file off any on the outside as well.
Remove the spigot from the cooler and replace with a 1/2" female pipe inlet
by 3/8" compression outlet plastic "angle stop valve" (about $5 at Builder's
Square). To mount the valve you'll need to install a 5/8" compression by
1/2" male pipe thread brass fitting adapter and a 3/4" ID rubber washer from
the inside; screw the valve onto the 1/2" threads from the outside (you'll
have to enlarge the hole in the outer shell slightly). Don't overtighten;
use pipe thread tape. Discard the 5/8" compression nut and sleeve.
The lauter manifold attaches to the fitting with a short length of 5/8" OD x
1/2" ID vinyl tubing. The tubing will fit inside both the manifold and the
brass fitting. It's a loose fit but is adequate to prevent grain form
getting through. Adjust the tee and 45-deg fitting near the valve so that
the 45-deg fitting sits in the "well". Everything should line up nicely.
Lay a piece of 8 holes per inch nylon needlepoint mesh over the assembly.
The mesh is cut to the size of the inside of the cooler. It protects the
manifold while stirring in the strike water, and provides a more even "false
bottom" effect. Fill the mash tun with water and check for a leaky fitting.
For a sparge distributor, I ran two 1/4" dowels parallel through a 1.4-qt
Rubbermaid plastic storage bowl, so the bowl is suspended over the grain with
the dowels straddling the cooler rim. I drilled several 1/8" holes around
the edge of the bottom:
======|=======|=======
| |
\-------/
To make the wort to the correct gravity, I assume a *65% efficiency* in
recipe formulation. This gives me the high-gravity wort needed for
small-volume boiling. I sparge only the first three gallons of wort; when I
add enough water to make a five gallon batch after brewing, the gravity is
about right. Only once did I fall significantly short; I added 1/2 lb pale
extract to the boil make up the difference. Once 3 gallons is sparged, take
a sample, cool, and measure the gravity. Ideally it should be 5/3 times the
recipe gravity. So if you want a 1.045 batch, your wort needs to be 5/3
times 45 or 1.075.
Place the crushed grain in the cooler over the mesh and manifold. Add hot
water to obtain the correct mash thickness and temperature. At 1.3 quarts
per pound (single-infusion), I assume a 17-degree drop in temperature once
everything settles. Check the pH with test strips; if it's above 5.5 add a
little gypsum; if it's below 5.0, add a little chalk. A little means a
little; 1/4 to 1/2 tsp at a time for starters. Don't go much over 1 tsp of
either. As long as your water isn't very soft, you shouldn't have to do much
adjustment at all. Stir well; lock the cover on. Allow 45-60 minutes to
convert. You can do a starch test but most of today's base pale malt converts
quickly; all my mashes have been complete in this period. During this time
heat up 4 gallons of water to 170 - 175 degrees in your spare stockpot.
After conversion: unlock & remove the cooler lid. Attach a length of "supply
feed" tube to the valve (available where you buy the valve). It should be
long enough to reach about 1/2" from the bottom of your kettle. Open the
valve about 1/3 of the way; collect about a quart of wort. Shut off the
valve and dump this wort carefully back into the mash tun. Repeat several
times until the wort is relatively clear and free of "chunks". Then allow
the wort to keep running into the kettle (valve still 1/3 open -- it'll be
slow!). Add your "first-wort" hops now! Place the bowl over the cooler, and
add hot water to the bowl as needed to keep 1/2" or so of water on top of the
grain as the wort drains. I use a small plastic pitcher to carefully scoop
hot water from the pot, and pour it into the bowl. When you've collected 3
gallons, shut off the valve, and continue as if it's an extract brew session.
If the bug bites you, you can still use this mash/lauter tun in a more
elaborate full-volume all-grain setup. I'm still using this mash/lauter tun
in the Electric Brewery; I get about 80-85% extraction.
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:50:46 EST
From: pbabcock.ford@e-mail.com
Subject: A New Glad Plaid Clad Lad...
Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock.ford@e-mail.com
Bronco Plant Vehicle Team - Body Construction Assembly Engineer
Subject: A New Glad Plaid Clad Lad...
Greetings Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
In an effort to validate the veracity of previous revelations relating to
"Plaid-tosis", as so aptly named, I have dressed a fermenter in plaid boxers,
plaid shirt, tuke, and corduroys.
Fermentation immediately ceased; however, the fermenter has been slowly moving
across the basement floor in the general direction of the stairs. It would
appear that it is also growing a beard.
I have opted to allow this activity to continue in the interests of science;
however, just to be safe, I have mounted a closed circuit TV camera and have
barricaded the basement door against this phenomena.
Unfortunately, our laundry room is also in the basement... I will report back
to the digest to relate any further developments with both the fermenter and
the putrifying pile of laundry.
Pat Babcock pbabcock@oeonline.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:34:18 -0600 (CST)
From: fitz@fasicsv.fnal.gov (Tom Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re:Filtering, cont.
I wrote:
<I also would like
<to point out that filtering at the 3-5 micron level produces clear
<but not brilliant beer. There is no comparison in clarity between a
< .5 micron filtered and a 5 micron filtered beer.
Jim answers:
>This is true in some cases. This is where you have to differentiate
>between haze and yeast turbidity. Haze can be reduced through different
>methods than filtration, and the success of this will vary with the
>brewhouse, raw materials and fermentation methods. This is an area
>where trub formation and removal is essential. My preference is to
>remove yeast with a filter or by aging/cold conditioning and deal with
>haze seperately.
A point well taken. If I can use a more coarse filter and end up with
similar results, this may be more desirable. That brings to mind
another question. How does filtering affect biological stability?
A polish filter (5 micron) definitely leaves some yeast in the finished
product, which is desirable as yeast offers some biological stability.
A finer filter (1 micron) might remove all the yeast, but leave some
bacteria behind, free to do their dirty work. Sterile filtering (.22 micron)
would presumably produce a stable product. I ask this question with the
experience of having some filtered beers turn buttery and/or sour after
sitting in the keg for extended periods (> 2 months). I know, the solution
is to drink up!
Jim writes on p. 26 of Jan/Feb '96 BT:
"Although filtration can do an adequate job of removing much or the perm-
anent haze, it can remove little of the chill haze."
I assume you're talking about 3-5 micron levels here? I don't get any
chill haze when filtering to .5 microns.
Jim:
>Thats why Im a fan of the ~$5 disposable versions sold by Crystal Clear.
>The price per use is higher than the reusable ones but the ease of use
>and numerous pore sizes available are attractive. It is also more cost
>effective as your brewlength increases. If Im filtering 1 BBL of beer
>through a $5 filter and spending no time cleaning, then Im ahead of
>the game over a $35 filter that will take me 30 minutes each time I
>have to use it to clean (not to mention that you could never push
>1 BBl of beer through a .5 or 1 micron resuable cart without backflushing).
But for most homebrewers, $5 to filter 5 or even 10 gallons is *very*
expensive. I use a 20" filter cartridge setup (as compared to the common
10" variety) and can filter 10 gallons without any backflushing. I don't
know about 31 gallons, though! The 20" setup is a bit more expensive
initially (cartridges ~ $54), but mine are still going strong after
more than 100 gallons.
Jim writes on p. 27 of BT:
"Filters must be sanitized before use."
and after sanitizing ... "reassemble the parts and backflush the filter
with hot water, forcing the water in through the BEER OUT side."
What do you use for sanitizing? I store mine in a light sodium hydroxide
solution and sanitize with a light bleach solution. I'm reluctant to
use iodophor for fear of staining my nice, bright white cartridge.
Some caution should be taken when backflushing a pleated cartridge.
If you hook it up to your water supply and crank up the hot water, you
run the risk of collapsing your filter, rendering it useless. This can
also be done while filtering. If the beer flow through your cartridge
slows to a trickle, the temptation is to keep dialing up the pressure.
Above 20 psi differential across the filter is very risky. I have to
admit my first 10" 1 micron cartridge collapsed at about 30psi during
a particularly frustrating filtering session. Of course, I hadn't
cold conditioned the beer and it was very cloudy ... an early learning
experience.
Al K. writes:
>You also have to consider the pressure at which you are forcing the
>beer through the filter. If you use too much pressure, you will push
>yeast through a filter with a pore size smaller than a yeast cell. Ed
>Busch, at the AHA Nationals a few years ago, talked about filtering and
>used a plastic bag partially filled with water as an example of a yeast
>cell. You can imagine how a bag partially filled plastic bag of water
>could fit through a hole much smaller than the actual bag dimensions, no?
>What I'm saying here is that if you force the beer through the filter
>at high pressure, you can push through yeast, protein, etc. making your
>0.5 micron filter act more like a 3 micron filter. I'm not saying that
>this is what you're doing, Tom, but just bringing this up as a related
>point. It would explain why you don't get significant body loss from
>filtering at 0.5 microns.
I use a differential pressure of 3-5 psi; the "sending" keg is hooked up
at about 18psi and the "receiving" keg is held fairly constant at 13-15psi
by using a needle valve and pressure gauge on the GAS IN side. I doubt
that this theory applies in this case. Also, it seems more likely that
filtering at high pressure would just damage the filter, possibly creating
"holes" in the filter larger than the rated size. Also, I make sure to
initially pressurize the filter "gently" at about 3-5 psi without the
receiving keg attached. If you slam the 18psi beer into the filter, you
run the risk of "blinding" it with a big slug of yeast from your sending
keg. For this reason, I have a set of "secondary" kegs with about 1/2"
cut off the down tube. Even if you don't filter this idea is nice since
it leaves the sediment on the bottom. Only a half-pint or so is lost.
Tom Fitzpatrick
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:26:41 -0600
From: Wallinger <wawa@datasync.com>
Subject: all grain
jeremy asks about all grain brewing. i thought i'd relate my experience...
i now know what the 'relax, don't worry, have a homebrew' refers to - all grain
brewing! i too was intimidated by all the information, but it is almost as easy
as extract. you can get as detailed as you want, but you don't have to. for
example, i never worry about ph.
i bought two 10 gal gott coolers for about $30 each - one for the sparge water
and one for the grain. i designed the guts for the lauter tun from commercially
(kmart and local hardware store) available equipment for about $30. my wife
then bought me a 15 gal pot and a cajun cooker to brew outside, and it has
been a very nice change. That setup will run you $150.
BUT, don't despair. you can try all grain by finding a two food-grade plastic
buckets, drill a ton of holes in the bottom of one and slip it into the other.
drill a hole just big enough in the side of the bottom (outer) bucket for a
piece of tubing to fit snuggly in. for less than $10 you're in business. this
is how i did my first one. i was sold on the process and decided to
upgrade the equipment, but that is by no means necessary.
wade wallinger
pascagoula, mississippi
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 17:36:27 EST
From: "Rick Creighton" <rcreighton@smtpinet.aspensys.com>
Subject: Hops Toxicity in Dogs
To all my home-brewing friends out there, I have this VERY important bulletin.
In this month's BarleyCorn (March '96, p4), there is a letter to the "Beer Geek"
about hops toxicity in domesticated animals, especially dogs.
It seems that hops (even hops that have been thoroughly boiled and sparged)
contain some chemicals that are extremely toxic to dogs and sometimes cats.
The reaction is called "malignant hyperthermia", which is an uncontrollable
fever, and can be terminal in just a few hours after injesting the hops.
Treatment is almost never effective, since vets still aren't sure what
causes this.
So if you use hops in your brews, and have pets (or neighbors with pets)
you should dispose of your hops in a way that will make them inaccessable
to your pets. This can apparently effect cats, horses and some other
domestic animals too.
Please spread this around to anyone you know who brews.
The dog you save could be your own...
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard A. Creighton | e:mail: rcreighton@aspensys.com |
| Member, HTML Writer's Guild | WWW: http://www.his.com/~emerald7 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:22:07 -0800
From: jmitche@ix.netcom.com (Jim Mitchell)
Subject: Non-alcohol Heresy??
I'm new to this list and have truly enjoyed the exchange - knowledgible
and humorous.
Years ago, I produced some good extract homebrews but divorce, lack of
space, et al, drew that chapter to a close.
Now I'm interested in producing a good non-alcohol homebrew. The guys
on CI$ weren't much help. Talked in vague generalities, referred to
hifh-tech methods, etc.
The US offerings are dreadful - tastes boiled. Some of the European
recipies, are quite good.
Can anyone help?
Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 16:12:18 EST
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: Re: 10 gallon recipes
Hi All,
In HBD#1995, Paul Lambie writes:
>I've been brewing 5 gallon all-grain recipes and plan to try a 10 gallon
>batch this weekend. Jim Dipalma recently wrote that scaling up from
>5 to 10 gallons is not linear particularly with regard to darker specialty
>malts and recommended multiplying by a factor of 1.5 for these grains.
>Hop utilization also changes with batch size - is there a significant
>difference in utilization between 5 and 10 gallons so that adjustments
>in hops need to be made? Any other suggestions for increasing my batch
>size to 10 gallons? Any experiences or references would be appreciated.
A couple of people have asked about this, so I thought I would relate
my experiences scaling up from 5 to 10 gallon batches.
I started with the obvious approach of doubling all the ingredients in
my 5 gallon recipes, base malt, specialty malts, hops, everything. For the
first batch, I brewed a simple English-style pale ale. My 5 gallon recipe
called for 9# of pale malt, 0.5# 60L crystal. Doubling to 18# pale and 1#
crystal, I overshot the target gravity by about 6 points. When I ran the
extraction numbers, I found that I got over 33 pts/#/gal. My usual
extraction for a single infusion mash is ~31.5 pts/#/gal. While I was
surprised at this at first, over the past 1.5 - 2 years and 30-odd 10
gallon batches, the increase in extraction has been consistent. The height
of the grainbed is just about double, and since I sparge at the same rate,
the sparge takes twice as long. If I had to guess at the cause, it would be
one of those two things. What I do now is double the base malt, then subtract
1-2 pounds, and pretty much hit the target gravity. YMMV.
Regarding hop utilization, anyone who's followed the threads on HBD on
this topic knows that hop utilization is a very difficult thing to nail down.
There are simply too many factors that impact hop utilization (water chemistry,
yeast strain, kettle geometry, vigor of the boil, etc, etc) that vary from
one homebrewery to the next. Theoretically, boiling a larger volume of wort
should increase utilization. However, I simply doubled the amount of hops
used, and that worked, I haven't had any under or over-hopped batches.
With regards to scaling up the darker specialty malts, chocolate, roasted
barley, etc., this is one aspect of brewing 10 gallon batches where simply
doubling the amount used in 5 gallon batches *won't* get you in the ballpark.
The first 10 gallon batch of porter I brewed, I doubled the dark roasted
malts, and the beer came out very dark, very dry, very roasty, more like a
dry stout than a porter. This past fall, I brewed my first 10 gallon
batch of dry stout. I use 1# of roasted barley in 5 gallons of dry stout.
Since I already knew that doubling the amount to 2# would be overkill, I used
1.5# instead, and the beer still came out *very* sharp, roasty. A few people
who tasted it a club meeting asked me if I'd put coffee in it!! I don't know
why these malts don't scale up in a linear fashion, but it's happened
consistently, I'm still tweaking my porter, stout, and brown ale recipes. I
should mention that I add dark malts at mashout, I don't mash them. Again, if
you mash your dark malts, YMMV.
The best general advice I can give to those in the process of scaling up
to 10 gallon batches is to keep careful notes, especially as regards the
hop additions, and be prepared to do some tweaking.
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:18:52 -0600
From: Dave Corio <dcorio@inav.net>
Subject: Easy way out
First, many thanks for all the response & help with bottle washing!
Now for the REAL stupid question! Got lazy & tried the easy brew method
(basically "instant beer") and was quite surprised. I ran off a batch of
"John Bull Premium" and it really tastes "funny". It's not the hoppy
flavor I encountered on my first tries at "real" beer (especially that
first batch that I forgot to strain) but more like a sour/bitter "funny"
taste. My question is has anyone brewed this brand before & what were
the results? (yes, I know I should do it the proper way) I followed
directions completely, and cleanliness has never been a problem. I now
have a second batch of the same brand (different type of beer) in the
fermenter, and the odor coming out of the airlock has the same sour-type
smell to it. Anyone have any experience with John Bull, and is this just
the way their beer tastes? Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 20:45:48 -0700
From: Eric Miller <emiller@mail.bbsnet.com>
Subject: Real Beer
>From Newsweek's "Perspectives" section:
>"Now bring me a real beer." Montana rancher Robert Mead Jr., who allegedly
>took two men hostage inside a bar and fatally shot a policeman after
>complaining loudly about the quality of his beverage.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 10:27:31 EST
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: Re: Munich Helles Stinks
Hi All,
In HBD#1995, Barry Blakeley asks:
> I recently brewed a Munich Helles (or as close as I can get using
>extracts), and I noticed a rotten odor coming through the airlock. I
>used 6.3lb extract, some steeping grains and Wyeast 2308 Munich Lager.
>It fermented at 60-75'F.
The fermentation temperature is the problem. 2308 is notoriously temperature
sensitive. Pitch it above 50F, and it throws a ton of diacetyl. Ferment
it above 50F, and it produces a lot of esters. I've had some success with
this yeast, pitching and fermenting at ~46F.
Regarding the rotten odor, this yeast does produce a fair amount of
hydrogen sulfide (smells like rotten eggs) early in primary fermentation,
even when pitched and fermented at the right temperature. This odor does
fade after some lagering.
If you don't have lagering facilities that provide precise temperature
control, i.e., dedicated fridge and external controller, you should probably
stay away from the 2308 yeast. The Wyeast 2112 California Common and the
2007 Pilsner yeast will give you pretty good results with temperatures as
high as the low 60sF. I don't know of any lager yeast that won't have
problems at 75F, though.
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:51:13 EST
From: "Stephen Palmer" <uscgsynd@ibmmail.com>
Subject: Heineken Special Dark Recipe Request
I'm going to brew a batch of beer for a friend, and his prefered bread is
Heineken Special Dark. Does anyone out there have a recipie that would
approximate this? Private E-Mail is fine...
Stephen L. Palmer
uscgsynd@ibmmail.com - Columbia Gulf, Houston TX
elrond@helix.xiii.com - Home
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:01:16 -0600
From: lheavner@tcmail.frco.com
Subject: bottle labels
Greetings,
I want to make a label for a bottle of bitter I plan to give to a
friend for his 40th B'day. I've never bothered to make labels before.
I have a good color printer and a pentium pc and a wife who already
makes mailing labels and stuff. I guess what I am looking for is:
1) recommended freeware for making bottle labels
2) creative ideas for an "Old Fart Ale" label or something with an
over the hill theme.
3) nice color artwork
Private email responses are probably most appropriate.
TIA
Lou Heavner
<lheavner@frmail.frco.com>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:40:19 -0500
From: mcnallyg@in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: RE:> more on DMS and yeast/ first wort hopping
In HBD #1996 Andy Walsh says:
<snip>
>There were actually *two* articles in that Brauwelt on FWH. The other was on
>when to add your hops to your lagers for best results ("How the chemical
>characteristics of Tettnanger hops change during beer brewing" M. Mitter).
>Whirlpool hopping was a definite no-no (similar to soak hopping). FWH won
>narrowly from an addition 15 minutes before end of boil. "The result would give
>rise to the conclusion that a certain boiling time is important at least for
>some hop oil components so that they might oxidise or be expelled completely".
>(Dry hopping was not covered in this analysis).
<snip>
The statement "Whirlpool hopping was a definite no-no (similar to soak
hopping)" has me somewhat concerned since I typically add my aroma hops between
the end of the boil and the start of chilling (with an immersion chiller).
Is this practice generally frowned upon or only when brewing lagers?
Anyone have any comments on the pros and cons of this type of hop addition for
brewing ales?
Private email is OK, and I'll post a summary.
Hoppy brewing,
Jeff
==============================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 841-7210 x152
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 841-7250
Launcher Technology & Analysis Branch email: mcnallyg@in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2
Newport, RI 02841-1708
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:14:22 +0100
From: gpotts@tube.com (Greg Potts)
Subject: plaid-tosis cure may be worse than disease!
>On 19 March, Daniel Goodale, "Sure its gonna kill ya, but who wants
>to live forever?" of "The Biohazard Brewing Company" wrote:
>
>>My old plaid boxer shorts are causing "plaid-tosis" in my yeast...
>>can [they be revived] by burning the shorts in front of the carboy?
>
>Here's a question back at you Daniel - could it hurt?
Well, not as long as he remembers to take them off first!
gpotts@tube.com
100 Mhz Power Computing 1Gb/16MB/4xCD
Why do we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:18:17 -0500
From: Jerry Cunningham <gcunning@Census.GOV>
Subject: translucent floaties/re:all-grain/convince me
Last night I went to try my India Pale Ale, and I noticed little translucent
floatie things in _all_ of my bottles. I've never seen this before in ~3
years of brewing. They are very small, maybe a square millimeter or so, more
at the bottom of the bottle than the top. They're kinda shaped like flakes,
it almost looks like cold-break. This beer was clear two weeks ago when I
bottled it, from what I remember. Can anybody give me a clue as what this
is? The beer _tasted_ great (to me), just looks kinda funky with that stuff
floating around in it (although, when I cooled the beer the chill haze made
it hard to see the floaties!). The beer is all-grain - 12 lbs. pale, 1 lb.
Munich, .5 lb. Carapils, .5 lb. 44 crystal; single infusion @155F; hopped to
~55-60 IBU's; 2nd generation 1056; fermented ~65F, OG 1072 FG 1016;
dry-hopped (though I'm pretty sure the floaties aren't hops). Thanks for any
clues! (Don't worry Russell, I'm not gonna dump it - I'm still gagging down
a Belgian double I made 1.5 years ago, less than six to go!).
======================
re: grain/convince me
Not that anyone will take advice from me after reading the first part of my
post, but... You can make great beers from extract. Period. But - it's like
a chef that makes fantastic dishes from only one chapter of a cook book.
When you go all-grain you get all the other chapters.
- Jerry
ps This just in: Miller Brewing Co. is offering 1 FREE pound of Hop Hearts,
get your applications in now!!
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1997, 03/29/96
*************************************
-------
