Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2293
Homebrew Digest Friday, December 20 1996 Volume 02 : Number 013
Procedures:
To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew@aob.org>
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo@aob.org>
with the text "unsubscribe <your email address>" in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
<majordomo@aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
body. This will return a list of all subscribers. Search this
list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
(including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin@softsolut.com>
with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
the problem.
1 HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE YOURSELF FROM THE LIST
2 SG and no-sparge
3 Saison Recipe
4 malty beer,
5 malty beer,
6 RE: Improving your beers, my .02 (George De Piro)
7 Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #12
8 SG Errors
9 bottling in plastic soda bottles
10 Decoction in oven
11 La Chouffe question
12 Re:Suspended particles and liquid density
13 RE: Dry Hopping (George De Piro)
14 Dyes in Nylon Pantyhose Hop Bags
15 Brown Sugar Priming
16 Density Measurements
17 Sparge/Nosparge
18 Re: A question for the Metallurgists
19 sparge water T
20 re: carboy caps
21 No-Sparge and First Wort Hopping
22 Lambic yeash blend
23 no sparge/small beers
24 Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #11
25 small infections in beer
26 Re: Need Instructions to get #8 and #9
27 Bottle Filling (Counter Pressure and Otherwise(
28 Points per pound per gallon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:10:06 -0700 (MST)
From: Adrian Goins <monachus@softsolut.com>
Subject: HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE YOURSELF FROM THE LIST
Please pay attention. Recently, the horde of mail filling up the
list-owner's box has been from people attempting to remove themselves and
then getting really upset when the keep getting the digest.
The list-owner is not here to administer your every need. The software
has features which will do that for you if you simply follow the
appropriate procedures.
To wit:
If you want to unsubscribe yourself from the list, send a message to
<majordomo@aob.org> with the text "unsubscribe <listname> <your email
address>" in the body, NOT IN THE SUBJECT. The subject field is ignored
by the listserver.
Example: Bob is a subscribed to homebrew, the list (NOT THE DIGEST) and
wants to unsubscribe. He sends his message to <majordomo@aob.org> with
the following in the body:
unsubscribe homebrew bob@bobsdomain.com
This takes him off of the list. If Bob is subscribed to the digest, he
would type:
unsubscribe homebrew-digest bob@bobsdomain.com
Now...Bob's mail program doesn't put just "bob@bobsdomain.com" in the
header of his messages. It puts "Robert Subscriber <bob@bobsdomain.com>"
instead. If Bob tries to put only bob@bobsdomain.com in his unsubscribe
message, it will bounce and fail, and bob will get really upset and yell
at the list-owner for running stupid software. When Bob subscribed to the
list, he received a message from majordomo which told him to do a couple
of things:
a. save this message so you can refer to it later
b. use your complete address, exactly as follows: (and then it quotes
the address)
So. Bob needs to type:
unsubscribe homebrew-digest Robert Subscriber <bob@bobsdomain.com>
in order to find true happiness.
Now...let's say that Bob unsubscribed several months ago and is REALLY
UPSET THAT THIS #$$&!@! DIGEST IS STILL COMING TO HIS BOX! This is
because after the old listserver broke, the only list we could resurrect
was a backup copy from September. As such, it was not the most current,
and we apologize. Bob tries to unsubscribe, but it doesn't work, so he
pulls out all his hair and mailbombs the listserver.
All he has to do is this:
Send a message to <majordomo@aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest"
in the body of the message (or "who homebrew" if you're on the list only).
This will return a list of ALL SUBSCRIBERS. Bob has only to look through
this list (and any word processor can help by using Find or Search) to
find whatever address he's still receiving mail from, and send his
"unsubscribe" message with THAT ADDRESS, EXACTLY AS IT APPEARS, USING ALL
OF THE TEXT ON THAT LINE.
If, after exhausting all of these options, Mr. Subscriber still can't
get off of the list, only THEN should he send a message to
admin@softsolut.com or root@aob.org, or owner-homebrew-digest@aob.org
requesting assistance.
The AOB does not pay someone to babysit the listserver all day long. If
it is used in accordance with its own rules and procedures (just like any
other piece of software - do you yell at MS Word because it can't hear
your voice when you tell it what to type??), it will work just fine.
Periodically, myself or a staff member from the AOB goes through the
mailbox and tries to delete as many of the names as possible from people
who can't seem to unsubscribe themselves, but this is done on our OWN
time, and not on the time of the company.
If any of you would like to pay me my consulting fee, I will gladly
babysit the listserver 10 hours a day and see to it that all of your
options and percs and services are fulfilled to your every desire. Until
then, please understand that I am doing everything that I am able to do
under the limitations of my contract and my employer, and that anything
else (including this message to try and make your lives easier) is done
solely on my own time because I want your digest to work.
Your patience, tolerance, and understanding is appreciated.
Adrian Goins
System Administrator - Internaut
100% Software Solutions, Inc.
http://www.softsolut.com 303-689-0100 voice
http://uls.softsolut.com 303-891-4507 pager
**Please use the PGP key available from "finger admin@softsolut.com"**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 1996 06:57:49 -0600
From: DICK KUZARA <DICK_KUZARA@itd.sterling.com>
Subject: SG and no-sparge
Subject: Time: 6:59
OFFICE MEMO SG and no-sparge Date: 12/20/96
Concerning particles in suspension affecting SG readings:
I feel that particles which are significantly lighter than wort will quickly
float to the top and those significantly heavier will settle to the bottom so
that particles similar to wort density will stay in suspension for a period of
time. Hence, the primary density measuring portion of the hydrometer (the
larger "fat" area) hopefully floating somewhere between the top and bottom of
the wort, is not significantly affected by suspended particles.
Concerning no-sparge techniques providing a more "malty" flavor:
One can possibly draw a parallel between this and brewing coffee. At work I
frequently "rob" the pot by getting a cup of coffee early in the process of
the hot water falling through the grounds and filling the pot below. This cup
is very strong and well flavored in my opinion. Now, maybe someone would like
to run a crude test by drawing off a early strong few ounces of coffee and
then collecting a normal cup of coffee after the whole pot is filled. Then
incrementally dilute the strong cup of coffee with hot water while tasting and
trying and achieve the taste of the normal cup. I venture to say that the
strong cup will never match the taste of the normal cup but will go from a
stronger taste to a weaker taste without ever duplicating the normal cup
taste. Confusing? Hence, early sparge runnings, diluted, may never taste
like a full sparge?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:28:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Shannon Cates <scates@college.antioch.edu>
Subject: Saison Recipe
I would really appreciate ideas for a Saison (all-grain, 5 gallons).
Unfortunately, I don't have access to Web sites, so please don't refer me
in that direction. Thanks in advance for your help, and happy holidays.
- --Shannon Cates, Springfield, OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:27:59 cst
From: bill-giffin@juno.com (Bill Giffin)
Subject: malty beer,
Good morning all,
With all the talk about no-sparge brewing to creat malt charactor, one
thing comes to mind. If you want a really malty beer back off on the
hops. You can have either a very malty beer or a very hoppy beer but it
is very difficult to have both in the same beer
Good morning,
>>Al K says:
I personally, have used the Corona, PhilMill
and both the adjustable and non-adjustable MaltMills and feel that the
rollermills are far, far superior to the Corona. I prefer the adjustable
MaltMill over the PhilMill primarily because of throughput, less
cranking,
and much less airborne dust.
>>
I am not sure how the available roller mills are far, far superior to the
Corona. I have conducted screen tests on all of the mills; PhilMil,
MaltMills,Corona; and the Corona when properly adjusted provided the best
crush. I have heard complains of the husk being broken up with the
Corona and this is true if the mill is not set up properly. When the
mill is set up properly the husks for the most part are whole and
provide a good filter bed in the lauter tun.
Al complains about the cranking of the Phil's Mill. When you use an 1/2"
electric drill cranking is a breeze.
Many of the faults that have been attributed to the Corona mill are not
the mills fault but rather the lack of skill to process the crushed malt.
Al how did you evaluate the mills by here say and lack of good procedure?
Bill Giffin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:27:59 cst
From: Bill Giffin <bill-giffin@juno.com>
Subject: malty beer,
Good morning all,
With all the talk about no-sparge brewing to creat malt charactor, one
thing comes to mind. If you want a really malty beer back off on the
hops. You can have either a very malty beer or a very hoppy beer but it
is very difficult to have both in the same beer
Good morning,
>>Al K says:
I personally, have used the Corona, PhilMill
and both the adjustable and non-adjustable MaltMills and feel that the
rollermills are far, far superior to the Corona. I prefer the adjustable
MaltMill over the PhilMill primarily because of throughput, less
cranking,
and much less airborne dust.
>>
I am not sure how the available roller mills are far, far superior to the
Corona. I have conducted screen tests on all of the mills; PhilMil,
MaltMills,Corona; and the Corona when properly adjusted provided the best
crush. I have heard complains of the husk being broken up with the
Corona and this is true if the mill is not set up properly. When the
mill is set up properly the husks for the most part are whole and
provide a good filter bed in the lauter tun.
Al complains about the cranking of the Phil's Mill. When you use an 1/2"
electric drill cranking is a breeze.
Many of the faults that have been attributed to the Corona mill are not
the mills fault but rather the lack of skill to process the crushed malt.
Al how did you evaluate the mills by here say and lack of good procedure?
Bill Giffin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:37:47 -0800
From: George De Piro <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: RE: Improving your beers, my .02 (George De Piro)
Ho Ho Ho!
Chuck asks how to improve his all grain brews. My feeling is that the
single most important thing a homebrewer can do is to pitch adequate
amounts of yeast. I believe in aeration as well, but this is more
debatable. I don't believe that anybody would disagree with pitching
as much yeast as possible.
The one quart starter Chuck uses is better than some, but not nearly
optimal. I get upset if my lag time is more than 2-3 hours. To
achieve this you must pitch a ton of yeast. Repitching from a
previous batch is a great way to do this, and is essential for quality
high-gravity beers (and damn useful for lagers, too).
Think about most of the homebrew you taste at contests and club
meetings. What are the most common flaws? Excessive esters is a
common problem, and stuck fermentations are often a complaint here and
in other forums. Both of these problems can be eliminated by pitching
a lot of yeast.
Aeration is also key, especially because few of us find it practical
to pitch proper amounts of yeast for every single batch we do.
Adequate aeration in this case will reduce unwanted esters and prevent
the dreaded stuck ferment.
Just my opinion, and Chuck only asked for the ONE most important
factor in improving homebrew.
Have a great Holiday Season everybody! I wish you all health and
happy brewing in the New Year!
Have Fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:45:55 cst
From: bill-giffin@juno.com (Bill Giffin)
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #12
Good morning,
>> Adrian Goins said:
Your demeanor was both unprofessional and unproductive. You failed to
identify yourself or any means by which I could return your call. In
addition to being excessively profane, you failed to even explain what
the
problem was, nor did you ever page me, as you had claimed.
<<
The HBD is part of a hobby not a professional or productive endeavor. We
use the HBD to discuss our interests and in part to forget the
drudgery of our normal workday to relieve stress, to have fun and to gain
a bit of information. When it doesn't work we become just slightly
unkind to those we feel have taken away our sanction, the place to
escape.
Our language is being destroyed by those who expect everyone to be
politically correct. If we were sitting about a large table in a pub
drinking beer would we worry if we told someone to go to Hell? Not with
the bunch of folks I drink with.
The discontent that the AOB generated will take some time to be overcome.
Until the HBD makes it to its new home those of you who are providing
services have been lumped with the AOB. Perhaps you don't deserve
profane remarks directed at you, but I doubt that they were personal.
The AOB has to learn that we enjoy the hobby and the AOB/AHA seems to be
going out of their way to control the hobby and have their own way. When
the AOB can't have their own way as a petulant child they pick up their
marbles and run home to mother. Isn't this what happened with the
B.J.C.P and the HBD? Where is the wonderful new judging program, or
should I say beer evaluation program, that the AHA promised us they would
start. I have to assume that it is out there in never, never land with
so many of the things that we have been promised by the AOB/AHA
Bill Giffin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 09:11:00 -0600
From: BRIAN WURST <brian.wurst@aquila.com>
Subject: SG Errors
>From: "Mike Latham"<Mike_Latham@majiq.com>
>By definition, anything added to the wort will increase its specific
>gravity. The definition of specific gravity being the weight of the
>"system" divided by the weight of an equal volume (as the "system") of
<snipped for brevity>
Forget the "system" stuff...the def. of SG is the ratio of its density
to that of water (_General Chemistry_ by Siebring & Schaff, Wadsworth
Pub. Co., 1980; also any CRC handbook)...most (can't say all, tho its
close) brewers measure specific gravity by floating an instrument
(hydrometer) of a certain mass and volume in the beer/wort. The density
of the liquid will float the hydrometer to a level where:
(mass of hydrometer)/(volume of hydrometer submerged)=SG of solution.
Rocks/trub floating around in there are not dissolved and therefore do
not add to the specific gravity. _However_, if you measure specific
gravity by taking a known volume and weighing it (like Mike describes),
then the trub and other suspended materials add in and throw the SG
reading off.
Also, Al K. writes:
>I used to think this too (i.e. pebbles in the river don't affect the
>water's SG), but in my experience, there *is* a significant effect.
>Try this: next time you brew, save 16 oz of trub-laden wort from the
>bottom of the kettle. Measure the SG when it's murky. Let it
>settle and measure it again. I did this and there was a pretty big
>difference. I don't know which bit of science proves this is true,
>but in practice, it is.
The effect you notice is probably due to temperature differences from
the initital measurement and the settled measurement as the hydrometer,
hydrometer jar and beer/wort all reach temperature equilibrium with the
room.
Try this experiment...pour a cup of table sugar into a quart of cool
water _without_ stirring so as not to dissolve the whole sugar charge.
take a liquid sample and measure the SG. Now stir thoroughly to
dissolve all the sugar, sample and measure the SG. It will now be
higher.
Conclusion: If it isn't dissolved, then it does not contribute to the
SG reading on a hydrometer.
Have a Happy Holiday!
Brian Wurst (brian.wurst@aquila.com)
"What else floats in water?"
"Very small rocks?" - Monty Python and The Holy Grail
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:02:52 -0800
From: Douglas A Moller <damoller@odin.thor.net>
Subject: bottling in plastic soda bottles
I need help on using 2 liter plastic bottles. Do I need to add
additional carbonating sugars, are there any problems I need to know
about. I will give these bottles of beer to friends, its better than
doing it in small bottles I'll never get back.
Douglas Alan Moller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:55:44 -0800 (PST)
From: jwc@med.unc.edu
Subject: Decoction in oven
Has anyone ever pulled their decoction and put the pan in the oven at
212F instead of boiling it? It seems like scorching would not be a
problem. Is there something the boil does the heat from the oven
wouldn't do? Just wondering.
John in Chapel Hill, NC
jwc@med.unc.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 07:33:17 -0800
From: Dave Mercer <dmercer@path.org>
Subject: La Chouffe question
Last month I brewed a lightly spiced Belgian ale using a fairly large
starter of La Chouffe yeast cultured from a bottle. (By large, I'd guess
maybe 300ml of slurry - I built up a 1.75L starter and then continued to
feed it by draining and replacing wort for about three weeks.) Grain bill
was mostly pils with a little Munich and a pound of candi sugar. Spiced with
coriander. It fermented for one week at 70F, and then slowly dropped to 62F
for four weeks (this drop wasn't exactly planned - I went out of town for
three weeks and lowered the thermostat, which dropped the temp in my
basement). I'd like to bottle this weekend. My question: There is a
noticable sulphury note to the odor from the airlock, not as pronounced as
during that first week, but still there. Is this normal for this yeast?
Should I wait until it goes away to bottle? Is my beer ruined (TM)?
Dave in Seattle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 07:56:48 -0800
From: Philip Hofstrand <philiph@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re:Suspended particles and liquid density
In HBD V2 #11, I wrote:
>Particles in suspension will not affect the density of the suspending
>>liquid, and thus will have no effect on specific gravity. This applies to
>>trub and pelleted hop particles. If you let these particles settle out,
>>your SG reading will be the same as if you did not.
Well, the 'cancel' feature couldn't save me here, as it took me two days to
figure this one out. After careful consideration, some experiments with
suspended cornstarch, and a little friendly persuasion from Bill Macher, I
hereby rescind and recant my previous assertion, and extend my apologies to
John Palmer. A hydrometer does not measure the density of the suspending
liquid, but rather the density of whatever it displaces, including
particles in suspension. The significance of this in practical brewing
terms will be left as an exercise to the reader. We now return you to the
digest in progress.
Until next time,
Phil
- --
Philip Hofstrand <philiph@u.washington.edu>, Seattle, WA
In taberna quando sumus, non curamus quid sit humus
When we are in the tavern, we spare no thought for the grave
--Carl Orff, "Carmina Burana"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:58:03 -0800
From: George De Piro <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: RE: Dry Hopping (George De Piro)
Hi all, and Ho Ho Ho again!
Al K. writes that he dry hops in the primary. I want to ask two
things about this:
1. Do you worry about infection? As has been recently pointed out,
there are various wort loving microflora on the hops. They don't
survive well in beer, but in unfermented wort, they could be quite
happy.
2. Do you find that the aroma survives the fermentation? The massive
CO2 formation during the primary would scrub out most other volatiles.
I guess that you are happy with the results you're getting, but I
wonder if you could get the same effect with less dry hops if you put
them in the secondary.
On an unrelated topic, if people put their names in the subject line,
it makes it much easier to see who's posting. Until the Guardians of
the Digest work out the kinks, it would be nice if we all did that.
Just my .02.
Again, Happy Holidays, and Have Fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:22:03 -0600
From: rob moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Subject: Dyes in Nylon Pantyhose Hop Bags
>From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas@lucent.com>
>Didn't someone post a year ago or so, that the dyes in pantyhose can come
>out of them?
Al is correct, there are dyes involved, but they can be done in by
steeping in boiling water, wrung out, and re-steeping in another batch of
boiling water. You will see the extracted dyes in the water, and the nylon
changes to a sort of pink color. They work great and when the beer is moved
to serving, I just throw the whole thing into the dumpster and have no
hassles with cleaning and reusing a more traditional hop bag. They are also
very inexpensive. I have a call into the tech side of Kayser Roth on this
subject and will post any info I receive from them.
Jethro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:11:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Ward <paulw@doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Brown Sugar Priming
Just a quick question...
Say someone wanted to try priming with light brown sugar instead of
his normal corn sugar (for a 5 US gal batch), what would be a good
amount to add for 'normal' carbonation?
The thought is to get just a taste of that molasses/brown sugar
flavor in an IPA. I realize brown sugar isn't as fermentable as corn
sugar, so I want to find that happy balance between insufficient
bubbles and drying off the ceiling.
Anyone on this digest ever use BS for priming?
Paul
- --
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what of humanitarians?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 13:48 EST
From: eric fouch <S=eric_fouch%S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021+pefouch%Steelcase-Inc@mcimail.com>
Subject: Density Measurements
Date: Friday, 20 December 1996 1:45pm ET
To: STC012.HOMEBRE1@STC010.SNADS
From: Eric.Fouch@STC001
Subject: Density Measurements
In-Reply-To: The letter of Friday, 20 December 1996 2:14am ET
Seasons Greetings
To add my $.02 to the density vs. particulate discussion, I would agree that
theoretically, a stone in a pond adds to the SG of the pond, and suspended
hops, yeast and trub add to the SG of the contents of the hydrometer vessel.
However, none of these particles are a part of the solution: If you weighed
the empty vessel, then reweighed it with the hops, trub, etc. and divided the
weight by the volume, you would have the SG of the contents of the vessel.
Hydrometers only measure the SG of the solution. Hops and trub being
insoluble in the beer (or at least beyond its' saturation point) cannot
contribute to the SG as measured with a hydrometer.
That being said, has anybody tried isolating and/or culturing yeast from a
bottle of Widmer Bros Hefeweizen? Cool web page, too (www.widmer.com).
They claim secrecy about their "special" yeast. Anybody know what they use?
Eric Fouch
Enlightenment Specialist
Bent Dick Yactobrewery
Kentwood, MI
Overheard in a dirty old mans microbrewery: "How do you like my head
retention?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 13:13:32 CST
From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Subject: Sparge/Nosparge
I am thinking of trying a nosparge experiment over the holidays if I get time.
My problem is making two different beers varying only the sparging.
I don't seem to have much luck doing things again. I don't even seem
to do something similar. What I plan on doing to try to have a legitimate
comparison is to mash and then drain all the liquid to a bucket.
Then I will fill the mash tun with hot water, stir, recirculate until
clear again, and sparge. I will then take a portion of the unsparged runnings
and mix it with the sparged and add water to the unsparged to come up with
equal volumes of the same SG. I think the mixed wort (sparged and unsparged)
batch should be equivalent to a regularly sparged batch.
I have calculated the following:
If:
Vu = volume of unsparged runnings
SGu = SG-1 of unsparged runnings
Pu = total points of unsparged runnings (Vu*SGu)
Vs = volume of sparged runnings
SGs = SG-1 of sparged runnings
Ps = total points of usparged runnings (Vs*SGs)
F = Fraction of Vu to mix with Vs
Vw = volume of water to add to Vu
Vm = volume of mixed sparged runnings and fraction of unsparged
Vd = volume of remaining unsparged runnings diluted by Vw
then:
Pu - F*Pu = F*Pu + Ps
and
F = .5 - Ps/(2*Pu)
Vm = Vs + F*Vu
Vd = Vu*(1-F) + Vw
Vw = 2*F*Vu + Vs - Vu
Vd should equal Vm.
Both batches should be of equal volume with the same OG. Ideally, these
would be cooked exactly the same (as near as possible) with the same amounts
of carefully measured hops. The hard part might be coming up with equal
amounts of the same yeast for each and aerating the same. I am going to
try to get everything as close to the same as I can. After they are through
and aged a blind testing would be in order. Probably several testings on
different days would be best (that is the fun part). This experiment has
all of a sudden gone from being tedious to exciting!
If anyone sees any flaws in my theory, please let me know.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@imtn.dsccc.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:18:19 PST
From: Joseph Kral <kral@hpljlk.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: A question for the Metallurgists
> Subject: A question for the Metallurgists
>
> First, the question:
> Will a 50 liter pot made of thin 304 stainless change (significantly) in
> volume over temperature?
>
No. Its easy to calculate, but today, I'm to lazy to do so. Also, thick or
thin walls won't change anything. Aluminum will expand considerably more than
stainless, but still insignificant in terms of volume.
- --
Joseph Kral
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
kral@hpljlk.hpl.hp.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:45 -0600
From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876@sl1001.mdc.com>
Subject: sparge water T
collective homebrew conscience:
can elevated sparge water temperatures cause starch to be dissolved into
the wort? i have a clarity problem that i've not had before this year, and
one of the changes i made was monitoring the grain bed temp instead of the
sparge tank temp, which lately has been up around 180 F. the grain bed T
usually does not exceed 160 F during the sparge. but i can't explain this
haziness in the fermenters i've seen lately and am wondering if i should
get the sparge water T back down 10 degrees or so. i've noticed in a couple
of beers that have fermented out this fall that in the secondaries there is
evidence of a lot of non-yeast sediment. usually my secondaries don't have
much other than yeast at the bottom, but i'm seeing more stuff down there
this year. i'm wondering if the elevated sparge temps are extracting something
into the sweet wort that is causing the haze and excess sediment.
brew hard,
mark bayer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 15:05:01 +0000
From: Mark Warrington <warringt@erols.com>
Subject: re: carboy caps
In HBD V2 #
"C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net> wrote:
>Subject: re: two hole stoppers
>
>There was a post pondering what the second hole in those orange carboy caps
>are for. I use such caps for racking. The racking cane goes in the larger
>hole and you blow into the second hole (or use a low pressure pump if you're
>anal) to pressurize the carboy and start the siphon by forcing brew up and
>out the racking cane.
>
>It's sure nice to have the HBD back!
<snip>
You can also pressurize through that hole with your CO2 if you are so
equipped! Just keep the pressure WAY down low! I use a piece of ss
tubing with a hole drilled in the side that I put my thumb over when I
am pushing the beer and let go to stop the process.
Mark Warrington
Tri-State Brewers
Rockland, Delaware
http://alpha.rollanet.org/~tristate/welcome.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 15:02:00 -0600
From: "Sparks, Andrew" <SPARKSA@tyson.com>
Subject: No-Sparge and First Wort Hopping
- --Boundary (ID p1wAVdpcIwNQOZbCYFzQKg)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
I have been following both threads for some time and was
wondering if I could combined both techniques, more malt flavor
and great hop flavor and aroma, I'm all over that!
To combined both methods I plan to do the following:
Take .50 oz EKG pellets, it's what I have, and add them to
a jar with some warm water to help them swell and break up.
Then using 33% more pale ale malt than normal, mix my
hop paste into the mash and hold the temp at 155 until
conversion is complete. Then sparge, oh I mean drain
the mash tun into my kettle. Boil as usual.
My thinking is that the having the hops in the mash would
keep them at around the same temperature as the FWH
technique. It might even keep them there longer and I
won't have to remove them when I add my bittering hops.
I think I remember some posts saying that they remove the
FWH hops after sparging onto them.
I'm I completely mad, will the hops cause me other problems
in the mash? Is there any reason not to give this a try?
One last thing...
Thanks to everyone who contributes to this digest,
I have learned so much here, it has been an indispensable
brewing tool.
Merry Christmas & Hoppy New Year
Andy Sparks
sparksa@tyson.com
- --Boundary (ID p1wAVdpcIwNQOZbCYFzQKg)
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Hello,
A file called Winmail.dat was attached to this message by MsMail / Ex=
change.=20
It is used by Microsoft Mail to determine the order in which attachme=
nts=20
appeared. Since this Mime attachment may not apply to your Electroni=
c=20
Mail system, and since it cannot be removed, we have replaced it with=
this
notice. =20
Thank you,
The Tysonet Postmaster
Please feel free to send your comments to: Postmaster@tyson.com
- --Boundary (ID p1wAVdpcIwNQOZbCYFzQKg)--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:24:17 -0500
From: "Alexander S. MacGillivray RN" <alex@wooddimensions.com>
Subject: Lambic yeash blend
I'm going to be brewing by first batch of lambic and I picked
up some Wyeast 3278 Belgian lambic blend. My question is, should I use
the Wyeast in the primary fermentation or should I be using it in the
secondary using some dry yeast in the primary.
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:06 -0600
From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876@sl1001.mdc.com>
Subject: no sparge/small beers
collective homebrew conscience:
recently the no sparge discussion has raised a question in my mind. the idea
that there exists something in the spargings that "counteracts" the maltiness
in the recirculated first wort makes me wonder about small beers made from
second runnings. since they don't have the benefit of having the superior
"maltiness" of the first recirculated wort, and all the bad things that
"counteract" malty flavors, these beers must be very devoid of malt flavor.
i have never made a small beer from the second runnings of a barley wine or
other high gravity style. has anybody out there made one? if so, was it
clearly inferior in terms of malt flavor?
brew hard,
mark bayer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 02:14:42 -0500
From: "Mitch Hogg" <mhogg@myna.com>
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #11
Dave Bradley writes:
>Hello Fellow Brewer/sters-
>
>If you have used the Yeast Labs "Dusseldorf Alt" yeast (?A06?), have
>you had difficulty getting the beer to clear? I probably am at the
>mercy of a yeast which wants colder lagering to clarify. Alt yeast.
>It seemed like a good idea at the time, use an Alt yeast to give my
>pale ale (not American) a good malty and grainy-spicy flavor.
>Please let me know if you have achieved good flocculation with this
>yeast _without_ resorting to lagering below 45F.
Dave: I have used the Yeast Labs Dusseldorf yeast once, and I didn't
experience any problems with it clearing. I hasten to add, however, that
this probably has less to do with the yeast itself (or my brewing
techniques, for that matter) than sheer laziness on my part. You see, I let
the beer sit in the secondary for well over a month before I had a chance
to bottle it. In fact, the beer looked so clear at bottling time that I
purposely siphoned a bit of the slurry into my bottling bucket, just to
make sure the batch would carbonate properly in the bottle. So the good
news is that the yeast will fall out at room temperature, but the bad news
is that it may take a while. If you haven't got the time (or the lack of
motivation to bottle) that I had, you may want to hustle it along with
isinglass or the fining of your choice, but refrigeration is probably not
necessary.
Hope this helps,
Mitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:01:33 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: small infections in beer
Those of us that have taken shortcuts in sanitizing as sucking to start
siphons, rinsing with tap water, pouring bucket to bucket to aerate,
adding tap water to top off beer, fishing out dropped implements from
cooled wort with our fingers, etc., may claim to not have infected beer
in that we had to dump it, ropey strings of things grew in our beer, or
gushers.
Infected beer may be only a small infection that gives a faint phenol
or bandaide or electrical insulation smell, detectable only when
concentrating as in beer judging. It may appear only after a long
storage period.
The issue isn't whether shortcut techniques cause infections, they do;
rather, it is whether your beer is too infected for your purposes.
Yes, I suck, fish, pour and committ other sins. I don't recommend them
to other brewers. I've been lucky to have only very small infections so
far.
By the way, I've purchased some 160 proof vodka which I suck thru
hoses, and dip hose ends into to sterilize. I also wet down carbouy
stoppers before lifting these out. Works great but burns like hell in
the mouth.
Cheers....jim booth, lansing, mi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:26:40 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Need Instructions to get #8 and #9
If you've got a web browser, go to
http://realbeer.com/spencer
then follow the link to "Archive sites" and look for the line
beginning "I also keep...". Click on "Homebrew Digest", then on
"1996". Wait a while. :-) Then look for V2.0008 or whatever.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 96 21:33:08 EST
From: Rick Walton <70410.1112@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Bottle Filling (Counter Pressure and Otherwise(
Greetings likeminded (somewhat, anyway) conferees,
In number 11, J. Varady submitted a jingle that is
worth repeating. I sang it to my wife (ala Julie Andrews) and
she, not a drinker of any kind, loved it.
For those of you who missed it.
"
DO RE MI DRINK, by Homer J. Simpson.
DO...... the stuff... that buys me beer...
RAY..... the guy that sells me beer...
ME...... the guy... who drinks the beer,
FAR..... a long long long way to get beer...
SO...... I'll have another beer...
LA...... I'll have another beer...
TEA..... no thanks, I'm drinking beer... That will bring us back
to...
*picture of Homer looking into an emtpy beer glass*
D'OH!!!
"
I've been waiting for my que,
and it's counter pressure bottle filling, really, just bottle filling. I am
perplexed
by this problem now addressed by Mr Gladden and most recently by Orville
Deutchman. I do not often prime and bottle, being much more interested
in force carbonation and the clearer, more distributable beer it produces.
Believe
it or not, I actually will sometimes drink this stuff out of the bottle and when
bottom goes up yeast is all over and the cloudy mess is no longer fun for myself
and others to drink. So on and so forth.
I never liked the idea of counter pressure bottle filling as it was always too
expensive
and if not expensive, then cumbersome. So I was once talking with a friend who
had
toured a brewery in Texas and he said they cooled the beer way down and then
just poured into the bottles. It was his impression that counter-pressure was
not involved.
He was talking my game.
So, armed with a long thin tube inserted tightly into a tap, I just poured neer
freezing beer
into refrigerated bottles. The results were varied, but when it worked, it was
as simple as
it sounds - 10 or 15 seconds per bottle and then on to the next. I would
sometimes do
5 gallons at a time, before capping the bottles. When things were going well,
the already-filled bottles would just sit there and NOT FOAM, patiently waiting
to be capped. When things went well, the beer was wonderfully carbonated, clear
and
had very little sediment so that bottoms up was not a problem.
When things went well... If the carbonation isn't just right, the beer cold
enough, the bottles
cool and happy and Bacchus smiling, it is as good as it sounds. That's about
60% of the
time. The rest of the time I'm foaming at the bottle.
So, do you know? A) How DO the pros do it? B) Is there an easy way to up my
60% hit
rate? As elaborate as have been some of my efforts at brewing, I'm still
somewhat of
a minimalist and I really do bawk at counter-pressure techniques. Comments?
Rick Walton
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Dec 96 21:42:34 EST
From: Rick Walton <70410.1112@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Points per pound per gallon
Dear Everyone,
Would someone please explain what 'points per pound per gallon'
actually is? I know it has something to do with how much extract
you can get from different malts, but how is it related to specific gravity
and where do you get these numbers from?
Rick Walton
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest V2 #13
*****************************
