Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2159
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/08/24 PDT
Homebrew Digest Sunday, 25 August 1996 Number 2159
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Message Status ("MCI Mail X.400 Service")
More Pointy Headed Books (Rob Moline)
summer beer cooling (bob rogers)
Forced carbonation ("CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865")
The German Reinheitsgebot. (Geoff Bagley)
Brewpub Development Services (ROCHW@aol.com)
lowering fermentation temps (Annetmark@aol.com)
<GGRE461@ecy.wa.gov> ((Ken ))
Re: Discarding Trub ((Geoff Scott))
Mash Temp, bleach ("David R. Burley")
copper fermenter, plus others Part 1 ("David R. Burley")
Copper fermenter, fruit beers, smoke, etc Part 2 ("David R. Burley")
Re: I Wish Irish Moss Worked ("Keith Royster")
Re: wild yeast troubles (Joe Rolfe)
Shipping Wyeast UPS Ground ("Clifford A. Hicks")
ring around the collar (Dan)
bleach heresy ((William S Jones))
Priming Sugar ("Edward B. Kent")
Ian's Band-Aid Brew (KennyEddy@aol.com)
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew@aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.
Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
info@aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.
ARCHIVES:
At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp. Also
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo@aob.org by e-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MCI Mail X.400 Service" <POSTMASTER@mcimail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 19:27 EST
Subject: Message Status
DELIVERY NOTICE
Referencing: Message id: 41960824002314/0003765414DC3EM
Subject: Homebrew Digest
Your Message To: C=US
A=MCI
P=Steelcase-Inc
S=dda=id=stc021.efouch
DDA=id=stc021.efouch
could not be delivered to this recipient.
Reason: Unable to transfer.
Diagnostic: Content syntax error.
This non-delivery notice generated: SAT AUG 24, 1996 0:27 am GMT
------------------------------
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:03:50 -0500
Subject: More Pointy Headed Books
More Pointy-Headed Books- These are undoubtedly well known to the
more experienced brewers, but I didn't see them mentioned in Andy W's post,
so I'll just post the info you need to get them. They are OLD books,
re-printed over successive years, but remain worthy, and being old books are
not as expensive as others.
- "The Practical Brewer," Harold Broderick, editor, Master Brewers
Association of America, Madison, Wisconsin. The volume I have is the 10th
printing from 1993. The original copyright date is 1977. 475 pages inclusive
of references and index. Quite comprehensive for a single volume tome,
focusing mainly on lager brewing as it (seems to me) is intended for
pre-Craft Revolution brewers in training for the majors. Don't know the
price, as this one was given to me, but when the LAB was set up, the
consultant charged 25 or 30 bucks for the copies that the original brewers got.
- "A Textbook of Brewing," DeClerck, Siebel Institute of Technology,
1st English translation 1957, some 10 years past it's original publication
date. Volume 1-587 pages, Volume 2-? pages. Most recent re-print 1994. The
cost was 65 bucks to a recent grad of Siebel, for both volumes, I believe,
but I don't know if that was a special price only for Siebel folk. Volume 1
concentrates on brewing, while Volume 2 details analysis and the such.
Cheers!
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company
Manhattan, Kansas
"The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about
beer!"
------------------------------
From: bob rogers <bob@carol.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:30:00 -0400
Subject: summer beer cooling
ken says
>> in the summer I have difficulty getting
>> the wort much below 85F, even with a prechiller.
for my last batch after i got the beer to 85F using the 82F tap water
through my chiller, i put a gallon of water in the sink and a couple trays
of ice cubes. then i stuck a funnel into the tube going into the chiller and
recycled the ice water with a plastic cup. after about 10 minutes the beer
was down to 65F. don't delay at this point, because the wort will start to
warm to room temperature.
bob -- brewing in the heart of the bible belt
bob rogers bob@carol.net
------------------------------
From: "CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865" <CHUDSON@mozart.unm.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 21:42:32 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Forced carbonation
Greetings to the collective!
I am dire need of a counter pressure bottle filler and I am hoping that the
collective can point me in the right direction to find one. Private e-mail is
fine and I then can post all the reply's.
TIA
Chuck Hudson
chudson@mozart.unm.edu
------------------------------
From: Geoff Bagley <geoff@gcbagley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:39:01 +0100
Subject: The German Reinheitsgebot.
Though I have been home brewing for over thirty years, I am a newcomer
to this group.
Can anyone tell me whether there has ever been a thread concering the
purity of brewing ingredients such as required by William IV of Bavaria
in the year AD 1516 that "no ingredients other than barley, hops and
water shall be used" (My loose translation.)
He didn't mention the use of yeast, wheat, or finings, but neither did
he mention spices, fruit, sugar, maple syrup, or industrial enzymes.
Apart from commercial brewing, where they are run by accountants, why
put so much junk in your beer?
Good brewing !
Geoff Bagley,
G3FHL.
------------------------------
From: ROCHW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:06:06 -0400
Subject: Brewpub Development Services
Brew pubs are one of the hottest restaurant concepts going today. But, to
develop a successful brew pub takes money, skill and good up-front planning.
If you are thinking about going into the brew pub business, we may be able to
help.
Whitman Lane Associates is a full service consulting and design firm
specifically for the restaurant industry. Our team consists of associated
management consultants, operations professionals, Architects and designers
specializing in all aspects of the hospitality industry.
Brew pubs have become a sub-specialty for us. We have developed several
successful brew pubs throughout the United States.
The scope of services offered by our firm cover all stages of planning for
both existing facilities as well as projects in the planning stages. Our
experience includes all levels of operations, beginning with feasibility and
concept development, continuing through construction and pre-opening planning
and training. For existing operations, our team members can troubleshoot and
analyze problems, developing creative solutions that will restore
profitability.
Here are a few things to keep in mind as you consider your plan:
A typical brew pub costs in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000, including
brewing equipment. If you already have that kind of capital to invest, you've
got a substantial head-start. If you need to raise capital from a bank or
other investors, you'll need a solid business plan that includes a
feasibility/financial study with estimated costs and operating revenue
forecasts, etc. We are experienced at helping individuals develop business
plans for this reason.
Existing restaurants/pubs that can be renovated can often, but don't always,
save you money. We have designers on-staff that can estimate renovations or
new build-ups.
You've probably heard this good ol' rule of success before, but it's true:
the three most important success factors are location, location and location.
A good location with active traffic, parking, and other destinations is
always a key success determinant.
Seek out the competition...are there other pubs in the area? What are their
strengths, weaknesses? What would you do differently? This is all part of a
feasibility study.
If you would like to know more about our services, the successful pubs we
have developed, and how we might be able to help you, E-mail us at
ROCHW@aol.com or call us at 716-473-9196.
Visit our Web site:
http://members.aol.com/rochw/webpage/whitlane.htm
Roch G. Whitman
Whitman Lane Associates
------------------------------
From: Annetmark@aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:46:53 -0400
Subject: lowering fermentation temps
Eric White wrote -
>I ferment in my basement which depending on location, I can achieve temps
>between 58 and 80 F. I figure this range can get me going, but how much
>lower do I need to go to get a decent product? I have heard of some "tricks"
>like a pan of water with a towel for evaporation. Are there others?
and Ian Smith also mentions the need for lower temps (in connection with
phenolic flavors in his beer -
Well, this is definately a repeat - cause I learned about this here in the
HBD, but apparently it can take a little discussion. Here in Miami, August
gets hot & humid! The temp inside the house is generally right below 80 with
air conditioning ( my wife get's cold easily and so the house is kept at a
higher temp than I would generally choose). The temp of my fermenter has
consistantly gone higher than I would like - up into the high mid 70s and
once or twice up into the low mid 80s. This has occasionally contributed some
off flavors that I would really like to eliminate. (by the way - a question -
are these most likely from esters?).
I currently have a batch of Alt in the fermenter and the temps are staying
steady at 68. What I have done is to purchase a Rubbermaid storage box (it
has a snap-on lid that I am not using) from Home Depot (standard disclaimers
with regards to both companies). The dimensions are 19"w x 29"l x 9" h. This
is large enough to easily hold two carboys. I have filled this with 6" of
water, and draped the carboy with a towel (which also keeps light away from
the beer - I later store the bottled beer in closed carboard boxes so
skunking is never a problem).
The next part of the solution is to use 4 plastic gal milk jugs which I fill
with water and put into the freezer. I put two frozen jugs into the water in
the plastic box along with the fermenter. I rotate them with the 2 in the
freezer, changing them in the morning before I go to work and again in the
evening when I get home. Since I would normally go into the brewery at these
times to look in on the beer anyway, it doesn't even entail much extra
effort.
I was concerned with possible temp swings as the ice melted, I know that
wouldn't make the little yeasties happy. But I have one of those stick-on
thermometer strips and so far the temp has held very steady at 68. As this is
the first time I am using this setup, it is still too early to see what
happens to the flavors, but the temp should be low enough to do the trick, at
least for ales. I'm not set up to lager yet, a second refrigerator will have
to be obtained first.
I've seen Ken Schwartz's plans for a insulated foam cooling chamber on Marty
Tippen's Web site - sorry but I don't have the URL handy. This looks like a
great idea, and I plan on building one in the future. But for now, this easy
low-tech & low investment solution seems to be working well. Try it, you may
like it (but then again YMMV).
Mark Tumarkin
The Brewery in the Jungle
annetmark@aol.com
------------------------------
From: kbjohns@escape.com (Ken )
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:02:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: <GGRE461@ecy.wa.gov>
1. I suggest you check the literature. Brewing Techniques did an article on
different drainage systems (tubes, manifolds and false bottoms), last year.
The full false bottom is the most efficient by far in getting good
extraction rates. The size should be the full diameter of the kettle. From
my own brewing experience, The difference beinng about 27 OG pts/lb vs 33
pts per lb.
2. Regarding foundation water. If you recirculate, within reason, it doesn't
make a difference
3. I agree scorching is a matter of heat control
Your hydraulic theories sound impressive but reality is very different
GuyG4@aol.com wrote
>Hydraulically, you've got a choice. The Easymasher (TM) basically is a
>rolled up false bottom, which has the hydraulic benefit of the drain itself
>being in intimate contact with the grain, thus requiring no "foundation
>water" or "pre-saturation". It draws from a point source at the place the
>tube is attached to the screen, so it is essentially a point source drain.
>The false bottom is probably hydraulically the least efficient, as it
>doesn't take advantage of pressure relationships in overlying and
>surrounding saturated grain to move wort, but rather is another point source
>sink, which may draw preferentially from the grain-vessel boundary.
> A manifold tube stuck into the middle as a drain is probably hydraulically
>most efficient, because it draws from each slot, rather than just the point
>of attachment. A circular manifold is much worse, because it induces flow
>along the grain-vessel boundary, and not through the middle of the grain.
>Of course, false bottoms are easier to stir over than manifolds. By far.
>All the above value judgements regarding "best" and "least" efficient are
>personal value judgements, and the actual efficiency difference between them
>is small.
>>2. I am thinking that a false bottom is goint to be the best route to go.
>>What is the optimal size of the false bottom (9, 10, 12 inch). the false
>>bottom will be made of SS.<
>Optimal diameter is a matter of opinion. I personally would minimize
>foundation water and maximize flow through grain (rather than flow along
>grain vessel boundary) by minimizing the area of the false bottom. To see
>what the difference is, try a sensitivity analysis using the equation Q=KIA
>where Q is the discharge you will get, K=Hydraulic conductivity of grain
>(assuming barley, try 3 x 10E-2 cm/sec), I=Height of water column above
>false bottom, and A=Area of false bottom. I haven't done it, but I think
>that can help you choose what diameter makes a difference.
>Optimal spacing of the holes is about 50% mean grain diameter, which is
>about 3/32 I think. Someone else I believe knows better what grain size
>curves are like for optimally crushed barley.
>>3. If I choose to go with a false bottom for both the boiler and the mash
>>tun, is scorching a problem when doughing in and boiling? <
>My experience is that scorching is an issue of over application of heat and
>not stirring enough. Stir more. Turn down your burner a bit, and I think
>the problem will go away.
Ken
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.wp.com/HOSI/pbscat.html
East Coast Brewing supply URL
http://virtumall.com/EastCoastBrewing/ECBMain.html
------------------------------
From: gscott@io.org (Geoff Scott)
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:31:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Discarding Trub
In #2158 Tom Castle, (tmcastle@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> I routinely discard my spent grain after sparging into my compost
> pile
I would recommend sparging straight into the kettle instead the extra step
of putting it through the compost pile.
> ...I added the trub from the primary fermentation into the
> compost pile as well...I think it killed my compost pile
> IS MY COMPOST PILE RUINED?
Given what you told us above, I'd be more concerned about your beer than
the health of your compost. Seriously though folks, my experience as a
draff and trub composter has been positive. My compost pile has never been
exactly sweet smelling so maybe I don't know any better but my pile handles
both.
regards,
Geoff Scott
gscott@io.org
Brewing page http://www.io.org/~gscott
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 11:07:46 EDT
Subject: Mash Temp, bleach
Brewsters:
Mark Bayer is puzzled about a comment regarding temperature effect on the
fermentability ratio of a wort.
Mark you are correct. Within the saccharification temperature range (
140F-158F) increasing temperature decreases the fermentability ratio and more
dextrins remain after fermentation than brews mashed at lower temperatures
exclusively. This is of course for single temperature infusion brews held long
enough to solubilize the starch completely, say an hour or two, depending on
the
temperature. For complex temperature schemes which have several long holds
lower than the saccharification temperature or stiff mash
decoctions, this rule is blurred by the fact that some saccharification can
occur below 140F. It is still true that higher temperatures lead to less
fermentable worts, just that the time/temperature history is important in
determining the actual ratio. Thus a hold at say 140F for a short time followed
by a hold at 158F would
produce a higher fermentability wort than a single hold at 158F. If one were
to hold for a very long time at say 130F up to 90% of the starch would be
converted (M&BS ed 1, p.215) and would be expected to produce a very
fermentable
wort.
So, the temperature/fermentability rule of thumb for single saccharification
temperature mashes is - the higher the temperature during mashing in the
saccharification range, the lower the fermentability and the higher the ratio
of
dextrins. For more complex holds, the ratio of fermentability will increase
over a single hold at any temperature with a lower temperature hold in the
saccharification range added to the scheme.
One can think of temperature rise as a series of short holds at lower
temperatures. Thus, a slower rate of rise to a given saccharification
temperature will produce a more fermentable wort than a faster rate of rise to
that same temperature, given all else is the same.
Rules of thumb are OK for starters, but the kinetics of the various enzymes of
interest to us are complex and can give results which may not exactly be in
line with a simple rule at first glance. It is important to be sure to say "all
else being the same", since many factors can affect fermentability ratios.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray asks about the effects of bleach on taste and bacteria populations, etc.
Ray, bleach does not promote bacteria growth, but it can be a source of off
flavors. I suggest you rinse with the HOTTEST water you can, preferably 180F
that has been boiled. An interesting thing you might want to try is to make use
of the fact that bleach is basically lye ( caustic soda, sodium hydroxide)
solution with chlorine dissolved in it. Your rinse water should have the same
pH coming out as going in if your rinse is effective.. Rinse three times with
the same total amount of water, rather than one big rinse. Remember it does no
good to sterilize with bleach and then rinse with contaminated water. As far as
iodophor goes,- I may get some disagreement here - iodophor is no saint and can
cause off tastes if not properly used and allowed to dissipate. I have had some
really rotten beer from taps which were rinsed in iodine rinses and then not
flushed properly. Use bleach and rinse well with uncontaminated water. If you
have been ok in the past and have not changed your technique, look somewhere
else. How about that overflow tube and fittings? This is an extremely good
place for contaminants and often doesn't get the same care in sterilization
that
the carboy does. If you use a closed fermentation, you must clean everything,
no matter how difficult it may be. All that yeasty, proteinaceous, sugary
deposit from your last brew is perfect for bacteria colonies to grow in and in
the perfect place to contaminate your next fermentation.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 11:07:55 EDT
Subject: copper fermenter, plus others Part 1
DI a!? ayyyyyRyyyyyyyyyyNDI do it gets chewed up.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Blasig of Uruguay ( Hi Jorge!) asks about using a copper tank from a
water
heater as an appropriate fermenter because carboys are not readily available.
I suggest that you be careful of this tank if it is soldered, since it could be
very old and have lead containing solder. This may be unlikely since it is used
in water holding, but I've been to India and used an iodide water treatment on
tap water and gotten a beautiful yellowish precipitate of what I presumed was
lead iodide from the water running through lead pipes.
May I suggest that you do your primary fermentation in an approximately 6
gallon
( 30 liter) white or black polyethylene plastic wastebasket purchased at your
local store and covered with a plastic sheet held down by rubber bands looped
together. This will preclude the need to aereate, will provide room for the
foam at the beginning of the fermentation and can be easily cleaned. I suggest
black or white, since these will be likely food safe pigments made from carbon
black or titanium dioxide. Grey is probably OK also. Other colors are
probably OK as I have a yellow one I used for years since it was easy to see if
it was dirty. The pigments are likely coated with the polyethylene and it is
unlikely they are exposed.. Another source of food grade plastic containers is
restaurants and food prep plants.
Personally, this method is the one I use and I believe it is greatly superior
to
the carboy method for the primary fermentation, since carboys are very
difficult
to clean of hop oils, proteinaceous deposits and yeast as are the overlfow hose
and associated bubbler pan/jar, etc.. Using the carboy or any container with a
small mouth as a primary fermenter sets you up for a good dose of infection
next
fermentation and requires you to aereate as discussed at length here. The
shallow 2-3 ft depth of this waste basket fermenter provides ample opportunity
for natural aereation before the yeast go aerobic. If your copper tank has a
small mouth, you would never know if it was clean, since you couldn't see the
deposits of gunk unless you are superman with x-ray vision.
Once you have completed the primary fermentation about three days to a week,
transfer the beer to any containers you have available, such as gallon jugs,
fill to the bottom of the neck, fit an air lock or cover tightly with plastic
sheeting held in place by a rubber band. Bottle after a week or two when the sg
is steady and the beer is somewhat cleared. I wonder if you can get smooth
sided
( that is without molded indents) carboys at drinking water preparation plants.
You can probably pay a deposit and get the jugs or with the switch over to
plastic as in the US, glass may be readily available for a short time.
I suggest you keep your tank and have it cut off and fitted with handles to
provide an excellent mash tun and/or boiler for your all grain batches, if you
judge that lead is not a problem.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin',
Dave Burley
:
nts,
filtered, bottled and put on plyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 11:07:52 EDT
Subject: Copper fermenter, fruit beers, smoke, etc Part 2
DI a!? ayyyyyRyyyyyyyyyyNDctic enzyme, I always use it. Doug, why
not try putting some of your fruit wine into the beer - it is the same thing
almost. Also tell your friend to do all of his fruit fermentations, using beer
yeast, separate from the beer and combine them in the secondary after pressing
the fruit through a filter cloth and he won't have such a problem. Also try an
unsoaped copper or SS chore boy at the bottom of the racking cane, put thew
cane
inlet inside the chore boy. It works pretty well if you keep the cane inlet
away
from the edge of the chore boy. If he ferments in an open primary, a nylon
screen wire ( boiled in water first) cut to fit the bottom of the fermenter can
be lowered onto the trub and fruit remains and it is easier to filter off the
good stuff.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose if Allen Underdown went to Australia he would be Allen Underdown down
under! '73 KC2LZ
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
I lost the inquirer's name but he asks if there is a difference between various
hardwoods for their taste as smoke producers. The answer is definitely yes. I
use a mixture when smoking various foods and the mixture will depend on the
food. Oak is little rough. White oak is best since red oak is reputed to have a
cat pee taste on occasion, hickory gives a sharper more pungent clean aroma and
beech is somewhat rough to neutral. For red meats I usually use a mixture of
oak and hickory and a small amount of beech. Turkey and chicken, I use mostly
hickory and sometimes a little mesquite for added spice and mystery. Salmon and
darker fish I use fruit woods, like apple, with some hickory. White fish, I
almost never smoke them. Peat is used to smoke malts for whiskey and I suppose
for some Scottish beers, a small amount is added, although I don't have a
direct reference for this. Rauch beers of course use larger amounts of smoked
malt and taste like it. My comment - for most beers and ales be subtle with
smoked malts, use it as a background to add complexity, decrease the hops a
little and increase the FG a little to round out the taste..
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Zurek suggest using a fruit liqueur for producing a fruit beer and wonders how
to determine how much sugar is in the liqueur to make an adjustment. You can
crudely determine this by diluting some of the liqueur quantitatively with
water
( say 4 or 5 to one) and measure the SG. This will give you a rough number. If
you want to be more accurate, adjust for the SG depression due to the alcohol
content. You can get the alcohol content from the bottle label. Not perfect
since the depression correction assumes a pure solution of alcohol, but close
enough. Alternatively, make up a solution with vodka in water to the same
strength in alcohol as the diluted liqueur and take its SG. The difference in
this and the diluted liqueur can be used to calculate very closely the sugar
content from sugar/SG tables.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Voelz asks about carbonic maceration. Since this is a beer digest I'll
be brief, but e-mail me for more info. Carbonic maceration is used with Gamay
grapes ( a clone of Pinot Noir, I believe) in Beaujolais to produce that
fruity,
short lived wine from France available in Nov of the year of growth of the
grapes. CM is a closed fermentation of the whole grapes under carbon dioxide
originally developed with the expectation of preserving grapes, followed by
pressing and fermentation of the juice. The wine is clarified with flocculants,
filtered, bottled and put on planes to be enjoyed very young by ( some) wine
afictionados before year end.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations Papa Rob!
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Ulten asks about brass fittings. Brass is a copper/zinc alloy and bronze is
copper/tin alloy, neither of them have any significant amount of lead beyond
that added for machining properties, about 5%. My hard well water with iron and
carbonate in it will reduce a brass or bronze fitting to sponge in a few short
years and my bath water is bluish from its action on the copper pipe. So, I
think your bigggest worry may be the water, if you have any worry at all.
Brass fittings are normal in a brewery of old. I prefer SS, but wouldn't worry
too much about brass fittings for the limited contact time I assume you will
have. Avoid electrolysis by using plastic or rubber gasketing to insulate the
fittings from dissimilar metals.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Royster asks again about using amylase powder during brewing. I don't
think you need it if you have less than 40% adjuncts. Amylase powder is
sometimes used to thin down adjunct goods during the cooking step to prevent
burning. Maybe you could use it on rice to make sake without the koji ferment
and use the sake yeast from Wyeast.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Despite what Papazian says a ring in the neck of a bottle is not always a sign
of contamination. Others here have suggested organic crud from brewing, among
other things. I am reminded that yeast used in the production of sherry grow
only on the surface and protect the wine from further deterioration. Taste it.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Harrington asks about how to convert his SG to 60F. Multiply the
difference in temperature by 0.00023. Thus the correction to an SG taken at
70F will be (70-60)*0.00023 = +0.0023. Also, it is likely you are suffering
from low line voltage during the summer due to heavy AC use which is why your
compressor in your fridge won't kick over. Ask the electric company to check to
see if your line voltage is in the specified range.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
cb 3
------------------------------
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:33:51 +0500
Subject: Re: I Wish Irish Moss Worked
Kenny Schwartz (KennyEddy@aol.com) asks about Irish Moss and "plugs"
of cotten candy lookin' things in his wort:
> All I know is that in seven all-grain batches, I've FTIM (forgotten
> the Irish Moss) twice and not FTIM five times. Two of seven batches
> failed to clear beyond "hazy" prior to packaging, while five were
> crystal-clear within hours of going into the primary (I use a glass
> carboy so I can see what's goin' on). Can you guess in which two of
> the seven I FTIM?
Hmmm. I've FTIM myself and have not really noticed much difference.
Therefore I usually don't loose much sleep when I realize that I have
FTIM.
> I switched from flakes to powdered IM some time ago, and have seen
> a significant difference in effect.
I didn't realize there was a powdered version. Wonder if I could
just crush my flakes?
> Some hours after the wort is in the carboy, soft
> cotton-candy-lookin' clouds of fluffy material form, leaving
> great-looking see-through wort behind. Once fermentation starts in
> earnest, this all gets churned up, but settles out again after the
> yeast have excused themselves from the table.
And I thought I was the only one seeing this thing! Looks like a
huge loogie coagulating in the middle of your wort. Or maybe a
deformed brain. Ugh!
Actually, I haven't seen this in quite some time in my beers. My
assumption is that this thing is cold-break and that it use to happen
in in my carboy, but now it is getting left behind in the kettle. I
use to see it more when I was brewing extracts along with using
pelletized hops. Now that I use mostly hop plugs & whole hops I
think that they are acting as a filter bed when I siphon my wort
into my carboy and are holding much of the break material behind in
the kettle.
> Should I stir my yeast starter into the wort rather than just
> dumping it (apparently so)?
I'm not sure if this "plug" of break-material floating in your
carboy really is interfering with your fermentation, but stirring in
your yeast better couldn't hurt anything. I usually dump my yeast in
while I'm siphoning from the kettle into my carboy. I also use the
aquarium air pump method at the same time to aerate my wort (no
attempt to sterilize/sanitize the air is made - it's the same air
you'd be using if you just shook your carboy. duh). This tends to
mix the yeast up in the wort very well.
> Is the IM simply clearing out stuff that shouldn't be in there in
> the first place?
It's my understanding the IM either helps the break material to form
or to settle out by attaching itself to the break material, although
I'm not sure if it's hot or cold break. I think it is hot break,
which is why you usually add it in the middle of the boil. Notice
that your wort tries to boil over at the beginning of your boil but
tends to settle down after the first 15 minutes or so. This is
because (as I understand it) the first main part of the hot break has
occured, which removes a lot of large proteins(?) from your wort and
changes the surface tension of the wort (ie bubbles are not as stable
and don't boil over). Adding the IM at this point either helps the
break process to continue, helps to settle the break material that
has already occured, or maybe both. Either way, that is why IM helps
reduce haze - because it helps settle the break material (proteins)
out of your wort. If this break material is getting siphoned over
into your carboy, this may explain the large "plug" of material you
see floating in your carboy.
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina
"Where if the kudzu don't gitcha, the Baptists will!"
mailto:keith.royster@ponyexpress.com
@your.service: http://dezines.com/@your.service
Carolina BrewMasters: http://dezines.com/@your.service/cbm
My RIMS page: http://dezines.com/@your.service/RIMS (rated COOL! by the
Brewery)
------------------------------
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc@shore.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: wild yeast troubles
a recent request on info for determination of wild ones
in a brew from Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>:
several ways to determine,
the easiest way is microscope - wild ones tend to look very different
in most cases than normal top or bottom yeasts although this method is
not 100%, if you look at yours long enough you may be able to see them.
ususally if it is giving off aroma/flavor/overcarb they are easily seen,
most notably is the whitish ring and film at the beer surface.
the problem with this method is that if you can easily see them, you are
in a lot of trouble. sanitization or other process issues need to be solved.
most of the wild ones i have seen are pelicle (sp??) or surface forming. these
are easy to spot look from below the beer to a lite above the beer thru the
glass. under a scope most of the ones i have seen are long sausage like
with odd budding patterns, super atten, very different looking than the
bottom yeast in very poor health. most have tendency to spore, atleast the
ones i have been finding in the plates left around the brewery.
when you check a pitching qty of yeast, medias are the only reasonable (cost
wise) to determine, several media are needed to catch sachr and non-sacrh
wild ones. the medias are not generally available (Siebels has some). The
one i have been trying to get made is SDM because it has a tendency to catch
both types of wild ones with one media (or atleast that is what some texts
have said). To find them with one media, i would do testing before i trust
them just to make sure the media is doing what it is suppose to do. but for
the normal home brewer it is not worth the time.
several companies are producing rapid detection methods - but i am not
familaiar with these for the wild ones. at seibels we had a presenation on
RDM from a company - dont have the name handy - but looked expensive like hell.
wild ones tend to be one of the worst infections in brewers life, next to
pedio and lacto. one cell in a package can cause instability, in a short
time. of course i am refering to non pastuerized beers done the A/B way in
the package(tunnel).
there are alot of sources for these unwanted visitors, atmosphere, grain
dust, un-removed wort deposits, primings, hops, you name it they are there.
some do
not have dramatic effects on beer other do.
good luck
joe
------------------------------
From: "Clifford A. Hicks" <74631.2471@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 12:28:00 EDT
Subject: Shipping Wyeast UPS Ground
On AUG 23, DUFF wrote:
Earlier this week I mail-ordered some Wyeast packets for brewing this
weekend. Because of a terrible misunderstanding between me and the supplier
, they sent them by ground transit (UPS). This means that the yeast will be
spending the weekend in some (non-airconditioned) UPS transit holding
warehouse in northern Texas. I know what the temp range for fermenting ale
yeasts are, and that you SHOULD keep them refrigerated during storage, but
what happens if you don't? Do they go dormant (good thing) or do they
mutate and or die (bad thing)? Are they at all salvageable? Is it one of
those "learning experiences" your mother always told you of? Should I use
open fermenters and windows and hope for a Lambic reaction? I insulted my
own intelligence with this blunder and I need a way out.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
I have been brewing for about 2 years now. I always mailorder my Wyeast packets
and have NEVER had a problem. I of course put them right in the fridge when I
get them (if I don't plan on brewing for awhile) but a few days out of the cold
seems to have no effect. Tough little beasties I suppose.
Just my two cents...........
Cliff Hicks
74631.2471@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: Dan <DJTIM@delphi.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 13:41:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ring around the collar
Mike <uchima@fncrd8.fnal.gov> asked:
h> Could it also be related to the strain of yeast used?
I don't know. I've been using Yeast Labs American Ale. Prior to that I
was using Whitbread dry yeast. Come to think of it none of the dry yeast
batches had the collar. But there have been so many changes in the
recipes I have done from my first batches to now (including the use of
speciality grains) that I was attributing the ring's constituents to the
way I processed the grains and the subsequent wort.
But hey, I am only guessing.
Dan
djtim@delphi.com
"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like most of us have. It's
pretty hard to explain why you are mad even if you are not mad." The
Pink Floyd
'[1;32m== IntJet: QWK, UK & US, Windows, GUI, OLR !!
'[1;35;40m-=> Delphi Internet Jet SST v3.012 - (C) PBE
------------------------------
From: scottjones@juno.com (William S Jones)
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 14:25:54 EDT
Subject: bleach heresy
Ray Robert said:
> promote off flavors and kill yeast. (I found it interesting that I
have
> always sanitized with bleach but only recently had infections, but
he seemed
> nonplussed.) His recommendation was to stay away from bleach
altogether and
> use an iodine based cleaner. (makes sense)
With all due respect to your hb supply guy, it sounds like he was just
trying to make a sale. After all, a thorough rinsing (I usually
triple-rinse with hot water) should do away with any harmful residue.
------------------------------
From: "Edward B. Kent" <75254.3110@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 14:31:51 EDT
Subject: Priming Sugar
I have not yet evolved to whole grain brewing and am still experimenting with
extract brewing. I've made 3 batches so far. The first, an australian lager,
was very clear and well carbonated after bottle conditioning 2 weeks (og 1.045,
fg 1.008, and used 3/4 cup corn sugar for priming). The second, a mixture of
80/20 barley/rice extract and pale ale extract, had some chill haze and was
very
low in carbonation after bottle conditioning (og 1.046, fg 1.010, and used 3/4
cup corn sugar for priming). The third batch is in the secondary right now and
I'd like to get the carbonation right before moving on to try whole grain
brewing. This current batch is an amber ale with a low og (1.032) because the
copper cane I was using on my siphon to my wort chiller clogged in spite of the
chore boy on the end of it and I lost about 1/2 gallon of my 3 gallon extract
boil.
What criteria do you use to increase/decrease the amount of corn sugar used for
priming your homebrew for bottling? Is it original gravity? Type of beer?
Color?
I've been lurking out here a while and have gotten a lot of good info to get me
started - go ahead slam me for extract brewing but I'm taking it slow. Please
reply to my e-mail at 75254.3110@compuserve.com or post it if you think it
would
be helpful to the novices just reading HBD out there.
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:25:22 -0400
Subject: Ian's Band-Aid Brew
Ian Smith asks about the Wild Yeast Infection (WYI) thing:
> Also
> how can I confirm whether it is a WYI or just too high a fermentation temp
?
After I responded to your question with the hi-temp theory, AlK came up with
the WYI suggestion. That jogged my memory...
(insert cheesy harp music and soft-filtered flashback footage)
A bit over a year ago, my wife tried brewing her first batch of beer, a
Scotch Ale (extract + grains) using Wyeast Scottish Ale yeast. We did
everything "right" -- sanitation, process, fermenting in the Fermentation
Chiller at ~68F. Wow -- it tasted like we fermented at 90F!! Feeling that
nothing we did/didn't do in the process realistically would have done this, I
researched the infection end of things. I came across Mosher's Brewer's
Companion, page 195 of the original edition, where there is a chart of
various yeast types and "discussions" thereof. I zoomed in on the discussion
box at the top associated with S. cerevesiae and its variants..."Harmful
strains can cause ***haze*** and off-flavors, especially strong phenolic
flavors." (my emphasis -- KES).
(more harp music & sudden sharp-focus jump to present-day El Paso)
Suddenly your comment about haze registered -- Alas, Delia's Scotch Ale was
hazy for MONTHS in the bottle! And the taste -- whew! Nasty! She was so
disappointed, but then she's recently brewed a wonderful draught-Guiness
clone called Murple Stout which rebuilt her confidence & enthusiasm.
Besides, a 20-minute boil in the Scotch Ale gives bratwurst a nice tang
before tossing them on the grill (NEVER dump a bad batch...).
What caused this? Perhaps, as AlK suggests, summertime air is more likely to
contain such critters, but I've brewed bunches of beer in the summer without
this problem. Personally, I like the Bad Wyeast Pack theory (gets **me** off
the hook), though there's no proving it. Some have said that this particular
Wyeast can be funky, but this was obviously not what Wyeast had in mind, I'm
sure! I've never used it since.
What can you do about it? Perhaps nothing, unless you can do a truly
closed-system process from chilling to pitching. You'd have to guard your
culturing and starter operation too. I guess things like turning off fans &
the A/C, maybe wearing a surgical mask (hoo-boy, Nokomaree will have a field
day with *that* one) during any slant innoculation procedure, and generally
strict adherence to sanitation. There's only so much we mere mortals can do,
I guess.
If it's any consolation, I've not had such a problem before nor since.
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2159
****************************
