Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2325
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1997/01/24 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #2325 Fri 24 January 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
RE: Beerstones (Russ Brodeur) (Russ Brodeur)
RE: Heineken (Alan Rodgers)
Beerstone (Marc Hugentobler)
CO2, White label/shield ("David R. Burley")
Boston area (Michael Fay)
Kudos (The Holders)
NEW HOME FOR HBD!!! (The HBD Janitors)
Freshman digest/Coffee filters (David C. Harsh)
filtering ("John W. Carpenter")
Mint Stout (Moncsko)
No airstone (LaBorde, Ronald)
Message not deliverable (Administrator_at_ASTBMOUND)
Freshman HBD (korz)
Wyeast 1968/carbonation and autolysis/hard water/force-carb/hop formulas (korz) (korz)
Message not deliverable (Administrator_at_ASTBMOUND)
re:Crisp Marris Otter (Charles Burns)
Yields (Jorge Blasig - IQ)
re: Immersion Chillers and cold break (Charles Burns)
ANd what a nice home it is/New construction and bacteria ("Pat Babcock")
Crisp Malt/stuck sparge (Mike Dowd)
'97 WE Festival of Independent Music,Film,Press,&Beer (aLexd)
Re: Carbonation computation (Hal Davis)
Re: green bottles - why? (Hal Davis)
Yeast Problems (John Hicks)
Yeast Problem Boy (John Hicks)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/hbd/hallofame.html
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: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:38:10 -0500
From: Russ Brodeur <r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com>
Subject: RE: Beerstones (Russ Brodeur)
In HBD V2 [42] Al Korzonas said:
>I've looked through all my brewing texts (especially the pro texts) and
>cannot find a recommended procedure for removing beerstone. Beerstone
>is primarily calcium oxalate, so I was hoping that the chemists on HBD
>could offer a procedure. How do I do it? Acid? Alkali? Solvent?
Al, my CRC handbook shows Ca oxalate as being soluble in acid solution
but insoluble in acetic acid (vinegar). I would suggest using dilute
HCl (Muriatic acid) to remove the beerstone.
TTFN
Russ Brodeur in Franklin, MA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:04:06 -0800
From: Alan Rodgers <alanr@greyware.com>
Subject: RE: Heineken
On Thursday, January 23, 1997 6:58 AM, Jeff =
Renner[SMTP:nerenner@umich.edu] wrote:
> Americans, especially returning GIs, who were thirsty for European =
beer,
> got the first post-war import, Heineken, in green glass. After that, =
green
> bottles acquired a cachet from association with a quality, premium =
import,
> so other importers found that they did better marketing-wise with =
green.
Fascinating -- thanks.
> Of course, Frankenmuth skunked, but you'd
> be amazed how many people associate that flavor/aroma with "import" =
taste.
> I guess that's because skunked Heineken has more character than =
unskunked
> Budmilloors.
If you like that skunky flavor, I guess. (I remember thinking that =
flavor was something they did on purpose when I was young. Made me =
wonder what all those people thought was so good about European beer.)
Got to wonder about the middling-quality American beers that ship in =
green -- Ballantine Ale (not really middling quality); Mickey's; Rolling =
Rock. Maybe somebody could buy these poor folks a clue?
Unless there's a real market for deliberately skunked beer in this =
country. Maybe there is.
- --=20
http://www.sff.net/people/alanr/
news://news.sff.net/sff.people.alan-rodgers
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:24:33 +0000
From: Marc Hugentobler <marhug@MDLS.USU.EDU>
Subject: Beerstone
Al,
>and cannot find a recommended procedure for removing beerstone.
>Beerstone is primarily calcium oxalate, so I was hoping that the
>chemists on HBD could offer a procedure. How do I do it? Acid?
>Alkali? Solvent?
I'll tell you what, I'vee never found anything better than a brand
new 3M scrubby and a little elbow grease. Not exactly chemical but
it cuts through that beerstone like butta!
Good luck,
Marc
:-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
mailto:Marhug@mdls.usu.edu
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jan 97 15:19:57 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: CO2, White label/shield
Brewsters:
Spencer Thomas gives an update on his calculated value for the expected CO2
usage for force carbonation that checks closer to the 3 to 5 kegs per 5#
cylinder of CO2 estimate I was given by the HB store owner.
> CO2 weighs 2 grams per liter, so divide all my numbers by 4. You'll
> get 7-8 kegs from a 5lb bottle of CO2, not 30.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
AlK says:
> Dave writes:
> >British Whitbread White Label ( a discontinued bottle conditioned British
Ale)
>
> I'm not familiar with this beer. Are you sure you don't mean Worthington
> White Shield, which was brewed/owned by Bass just before its demise?
>
It is entirely possible, but that's not how I remember it. It has been nearly
three decades since I drank it and it wasn't that often, staying with the kegged
versions of beers mostly. Was White Shield bottle conditioned? Is it possible
both existed?
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:51:56 -0500
From: Michael Fay <faymi@earlham.edu>
Subject: Boston area
Hi. I'll be moving to Boston late this spring. So I wondered if somebody
could give me a run down on the best brewpubs, bars with good selections,
good suppy stores, store with the best selection of hard to find imports,
and, hell, any good info you feel like sharing. Also, I'm interested in the
industry, so I was thinking of looking for a job at a brewery there to get
a feel for it. Could someone give me a list of addresses of good breweries
that I could contact?
Thanks a lot for any info you could give me....private e-mail would be good.
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 20:08:42 -0800
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
Subject: Kudos
I'd like to take this space as the first poster to the NEW OLD digest,
and thank Pat Babcock, and Karl Lutzen, for getting us back online. I'm
sure a big sigh is to be had by all.
Wayne Holder
Long Beach CA
- --
"contrary to my own opinions, I'm NOT always correct....
at least that's what I think..."
------------------------------
Date: Thur, 23 Jan 1997 00:08:42 -0800
From: The HBD Janitors <janitor@brew.oeonline.com>
Subject: NEW HOME FOR HBD!!!
Welcome to the first digest from the new home for the Homebrew Digest.
As you will notice there is a completely new address for article and
submission requests. To post articles to the Homebrew Digest, use the
following address:
homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
All subscription, unsubscribe (Except for those on BEER-L), article
cancellation and help requests should be mailed to:
homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com
The previous addresses relating to the HBD will be forwarded to this
system for a few weeks, then will be turned off. It's best to memorize
the new address now and start using it as of now.
We have implemented all of Rob Gardner's old features (as well as his
software). You may once again cancel requests as before, and digests
We have re-instated the old Digest numbering sequence, allowing for the V2
digests that were issued through the AOB.
Other than that, you should see no differences in how the system works.
At least we hope not major differences. If you have specific questions
or concerns the janitor address is
janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Pat Babcock (janitor in training)
Karl Lutzen (hacker and remote janitor)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:51:56 -0500
From: David C. Harsh <dharsh@alpha.che.uc.edu>
Subject: Freshman digest/Coffee filters
On the freshman digest-
I doubt this would work. It needs to be made clear that no
question is "too basic" to be asked. If something is beyond you (or
beneath you), page down. I also suspect that there would be subscribers
that would dominate the forum feeling the need to answer (and argue about)
every newbie question. Good thing nothing like that ever happens on the
HBD...
On Coffee Filters-
I bought these coffee filters that say on the bag "fits most Home
Brewers" - They don't really fit me unless I wear them as a hat; under any
circumstances they aren't very stylish. I guess I'm confused. ;)
FWIW
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 17:02:57 EST
From: "John W. Carpenter" <jwc@med.unc.edu>
Subject: filtering
>From: Ed & Laura Hitchcock <ehitchcock@oise.utoronto.ca>
>
>>naturally conditioned. Filtered, force carbonated beer like BudMilloors will
>>likely be flat. ^^^^^^^^
>
> I think this is the key. Filtered beer definitely has fewer proteins
>in solution, and has larger bubbles and poor head retention.
How can you say definitely? Look at Guinness. It's been filtered and it
has a
great head! Don't you agree?
> There's that word filtered again! When you filter it you strip not
>only yeast but proteins as well, reducing the heading properties,
>decreasing viscocity and increasing bubble size.
You shouldn't make blanket statements like that. I use a 5 micron filter,
force carbonate, and don't have any trouble with head retention.
>less head retention, but if I'm wrong, at least it gives us something
>more than annecdotal musing to go on!
>
> Cheers
> ed.
IMHO, I don't think there would be much if any difference. Charlie
Scandrett had a very nice post back in HBD 2183 I think it was. I think
it's worth reposting, so here it is.
John Carpenter, Chapel Hill NC - USA
>>>>>>>
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino@buggs.cynergy.com.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 22:23:55 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Enough Protein?
Chuck Berkins posted,
>you still have to worry about proteins non-specifically
>adsorbing to the filters <SNIP>
>If you have enough protein to be filtered, however, you can just do
>it anyway, because once the filter has adsorbed its fill, it won't eat
any
>more. Does anybody know how much protein is in solution in beer? (I
suppose
>that depends).
Most beers contain 300-1000 ppm total nitrogen, which (when multiplied by
6.25) represents < 1% protein in beer. A very small proportion is FAN, and
another very small proportion > 100,000 MW. The biggest fraction is in the
5,000-12,000 MW range.
It has been experimentally proved that there is about 4-5 times as much
Medium Weight surface active proteins in an all malt, single step infusion
mashed beer to hold an acceptable head.(As long as lipids are low enough)
A
head measuring device and progressive dilution was used to come to this
conclusion. However in decoction with medium modification malts it is a
lot
more critical.(I forget how much excess)
With all malts available in the US and UK it seems practically impossible
using all malt recipes to have too little FAN (amino acids), too much is
more likely. Thus, I can't think of any reason to spend more than ten
minutes between 45C and 55C?(*peptidase* rest) You will already have
enough
FAN, and over-reduction of Medium Weight Proteins is only significant in
this range.
The "protein rest" (I dislike the use of that general term, it is
misleading) in Fix's 40-*60*-70 schedule is at the top end for a
*proteinase* rest and would only reduce High Molecular Weight Proteins to
Medium anyway. I can't see much chance of loss of head or mouth feel
proteins in infusion mashed beers that minimise the 45C-55C time. Lipids
(from fast runoff shallow lauters) are a more likly culprit with head
problems.
The good people at Amicon Tech. (thanks for your research John Carpenter)
say that
> Their 10,000 MWCO(molecular weight cutoff)
>membrane is 10 Angstroms, the 100,000 MWCO is 100 Angstroms....she said
>1 million = 1000 Angstroms or 0.1 microns, and she thought the
>relationship was linear. So.... 10 million MWCO is 1 micron. A 5 micron
>filter would only filter out globular proteins with molecular weights of
>greater than 50 million. That's a pretty big protein, <SNIP>
>about 7-10 microns. So my conclusion is you can filter your beer through
a
>5 micron filter and remove the yeast and any remaining trub and not have
>to worry about filtering out any of the other "flavor" proteins.
The *most* haze forming proteins are of the order of 50,000 plus. The
"MMWP's" of brewing are of the order of 5,000-50,000. These are the
mouthfeel and head retaining proteins, although they overlap with haze
forming ones. Proteins greater than 1,000,000 (HMWP) have no chance of
surviving a 60 minute boil and end up in the trub. (One reason for a
58-60C
rest is to reduce these HWMPs to Medium Weights that could survive the
boil.) Thus with a 5 micron filter, *all* soluble beer protein should pass
through except for "protein binding" to the filter medium itself. (As
Chuck
Burkins pointed out.) Some yeast would also get through 5 microns.
>From Amicon's info above, a 2 micron or even 0.2 micron filter would also
not seem to be a problem. However 0.2 micron sterile filtrations in
breweries reportedly give a thinner mouthfeel although Amicon says
molecular
weights as high as 1,000,000 should sail through? Something doesn't gel
here? I will research this further unless someone has data.
It is interesting to note that the "Ice Beer" technique was partly
directed
at getting tiny icicles to form (nucleate) around all insolubles (yeast,
haze, bacteria) however small, and thus allow sterile filtration at larger
micron ratings, preserving the mouthfeel of larger solubles.
Pastuerisation
with the same filters would give a good beer too, but that cost more and
wasn't as sexy for the marketing department.
At present 5 micron would seem to filter fat yeast, yeast flocs, and
larger
haze flocs. Smaller yeast and *any* soluble protein should pass
through.(As
John Carpenter posted) BTW, this is Fix's preferred filter pore size, he
likes some invisible yeast in his beer. Also, avoiding 45C-55C peptidase
rest, and including a 58-60C proteinase rest will maximise your available
MMWPs.
The relationship between these and dextrins in contribution to mouthfeel
would be interesting to understand fully.
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
<<<<<<<<<<<
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:26:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Moncsko@aol.com
Subject: Mint Stout
I'm about to brew a stout and I've been thinking that maybe a mint flavoring
could be added at secondary to give it a little mint background. Has anybody
tried this with like a cream de mint liquor extract or some cake flavoring?
Any suggestions? I think it would be kinda neat if it's not over done.
Jim Moncsko, Morrisville, NC.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:28:34 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: No airstone
> mark bayer asks:
> by the way, for all you guys using air to aerate, how much foam over do you
> get, typically? just curious.
Well aah, depends on how you aerate.
The first couple times I used a pump and an airstone and it was foam city.
I mean it was the great grandaddy of blowoffs - really a blowout.
Enough of that. Now I simply use my racking cane with no airstone and pump
filtered air. I get big bubbles, but the foam gets about one to two inches
thick and I let it go for about 4 hours.
I haven't taken any measurements on this but my feeling is that 4 hours of
continuous bubbling (with large bubbles from the racking cane) will
sufficiently aerate the wort.
When using the airstone, I had to keep stopping the pump. On for a couple
minutes then off for ten or so minutes. So I am thinking that it's much
easier and probably as good or better without the airstone.
Stand back, here come the comments!! :>)
Happy Brewing
Ron
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 16:24:57 PST
From: Administrator_at_ASTBMOUND@ccmailsmtp.ast.com
Subject: Message not deliverable
Homebrew Digest Thursday, January 23 1997 Volume 02 : Number 044
Procedures:
To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew@aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo@aob.org>
with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo@aob.org>
with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <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 Aeration/kraeusening
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:00:55 +1500
From: Gavin Scarman <scarman@satech.net.au>
Subject: Aeration/kraeusening
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Aeration/kraeusening
>my basement, in the summertime, I CANNOT use room air for aeration of
>wort, else I will get a beer that has a faint clovey character that
>increases over the course of several weeks in the bottle.
Oh, well can I get you to brew me a hefe-weizen then as I can't seem
to get the "clovey" characters I'm after? ;) (been using Yeast Labs
w51, about to try weihenstephen from Wyeast).
- ----------------------------------
http://www.satech.net.au/~scarman
mailto:scarman@satech.net.au
- ----------------------------------
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest V2 #44
*****************************
The following is an attached File item from cc:Mail. It contains
information that had to be encoded to ensure successful transmission
through various mail systems. To decode the file use the UUDECODE
program.
- --------------------------------- Cut Here ---------------------------------
begin 644 RFC822.TXT
M4F5C96EV960Z(&9R;VT@9&EO;GES=7,N86]B+F]R9R!B>2!C8VUA:6QS;71P
M+F%S="YC;VT@*%--5%!,24Y+(%8R+C$Q(%!R95)E;&5A<V4@-"D-"B`@("`[
M(%1H=2P@,C,@2F%N(#DW(#$T.C(P.C4U(%!35`T*4F5T=7)N+5!A=&@Z(#QO
M=VYE<BUH;VUE8G)E=RUD:6=E<W1`9&EO;GES=7,N86]B+F]R9SX-"E)E8V5I
M=F5D.B`H9G)O;2!D:6]N>7-U<T!L;V-A;&AO<W0I(&)Y(&1I;VYY<W5S+F%O
M8BYO<F<@*#@N-RXU+S@N-RXS*2!I9"!/04$P-3<V-R!F;W(@:&]M96)R97<M
M9&EG97-T+6]U=&=O:6YG.R!4:'4L(#(S($IA;B`Q.3DW(#$T.C`W.C4U("TP
M-S`P("A-4U0I#0I$871E.B!4:'4L(#(S($IA;B`Q.3DW(#$T.C`W.C4U("TP
M-S`P("A-4U0I#0I-97-S86=E+4ED.B`\,3DY-S`Q,C,R,3`W+D]!03`U-S8W
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M<W5S+F%O8BYO<F<-"E-U8FIE8W0Z($AO;65B<F5W($1I9V5S="!6,B`C-#0-
M"E)E<&QY+51O.B!H;VUE8G)E=T!D:6]N>7-U<RYA;V(N;W)G#0I396YD97(Z
M(&]W;F5R+6AO;65B<F5W+61I9V5S=$!D:6]N>7-U<RYA;V(N;W)G#0I%<G)O
M<G,M5&\Z(&]W;F5R+6AO;65B<F5W+61I9V5S=$!D:6]N>7-U<RYA;V(N;W)G
4#0I0<F5C961E;F-E.B!B=6QK#0H`
end
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:59:30 -0600 (CST)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Freshman HBD
Before you go starting some Freshman HBD, you should consider who
will be answering the questions asked... I mean, as much as I like to
help out and answer beginners' questions, if not for the discussions
of planispiral chillers, beerstone removal, and anthocyanogens, I don't
know if it could keep my interest. No, this has been proposed before
and the fact is that to keep the interest of all, you have to bore
everyone some of the time. Keep trying to understand the advanced
stuff... you'll be surprised how quickly you get up to speed! It
reminds me of those "improve your vocabulary" offers on TV: once you
learn words like unction, obdurate, and bacchanal, who the heck are you
going to talk to?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:23:27 -0600 (CST)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Wyeast 1968/carbonation and autolysis/hard water/force-carb/hop formulas (korz)
Eric writes:
>Anyway, I've never used Wyeast 1968, although it sounds intriguing. What if
>you pitched to the primary as usual, then when racking to the secondary, allow
>the beer to fall a good foot or so, splashing copiously into the secondary?
>Goes against every brewing fiber of my being, but if it needs the extra
>aeration...
I've used this yeast enough to know it pretty well and I find that it
does not require aeration during fermentation to get decent attenuation,
but it does benefit from rousing. Rousing is where you whip the yeast
back into suspension somehow. We as homebrewers have the advantage over
commercial brewers in this respect because we can simply rock the fermenter
in a circle till the yeast is back in suspension. As long as you keep
the airlock on the fermenter, no oxygen is dissolved into the beer because
the headspace is still all CO2. I rouse the yeast every two days or so
for the week of fermentation.
***
Dave in NH writes:
>I didn't think that the yeasts on the bottom of the fermenter
>were the yeasts that carbonated the finished beer. I thought it
>was the yeasts still in suspension in the finished beer. Not true?
>Aren't the yeasts in the bottom of the fermenter going through
>autolysis?
I agree that it's the yeast in suspension that are creating the carbonation.
When we rack to the priming vessel, we typically leave all the yeast that
has settled in the fermenter, no? That's what I do...
As for autolysis, I think that for most strains we use these days,
healthy yeast doesn't autolyse for months. I have had several beers
in primaries at 63-65F for months and I've had no noticeable autolysis
in any of my beers.
***
Dave B. writes:
>Making your brew water a little harder using calcium sulfate and a little
>magnesium sulfate will improve the perception of bitterness. Try keeping your
>mash at about 50ppm calcium and then add salts later as some of the Brits do.
>Split a batch and add various amount of salts to "calabrate" your brews.
It's not hardness than matters... it's sulfate. Harness is a measure of
(primarily) calcium and magnesium in the water. Yes, the water would be
harder after these additions, but it's the sulphate that accentuates the
bitterness and not the Ca or Mg. Furthermore, watch the Mg levels... too
much will give you the runs.
***
Dave again:
>A couple of private e-mails and a comment here ask how I estimate the cost of
>force carbonation, indicating, but never quite giving me hard numbers, that it
>is actually much less expensive than my estimate of $2-3/ 5 gallon batch.
>
>My estmates on the cost of force carbonation are based on numbers from a brew
>shop owner who told me that a 5# keg will carbonate three to five 5 gallon
>batches. I pay $10/5# cylinder. It has never been an issue with me since I
Assuming you have no leaks and don't use CO2 for purging anything, you will
need between 1.5 and 3 times more CO2 if you force-carbonate than if you
simply dispense. Here's why: when you just dispense, you use up 1 volume
of CO2 for every volume of beer you dispense (it takes 5 "gallons" of CO2
to push out 5 gallons of beer -- the quotes are because a gallon of gas
at 22psi is 2 gallons of gas at 11psi, but if you ignore this, it all works
out anyway, so don't worry about it). Now, to carbonate, you need between
1.5 and 3 volumes of CO2. Remember that the beer will already have between
1 and 2 volumes of CO2 already dissolved in it and you want a final level
of carbonation of about 2 to 4 volumes (depending on style).
Personally, I use my CO2 to push iodophor, water, purge fermenters, CP-fill
bottles, etc., so I can't really say how many 5-gallon batches I get from
my 20# tank, but with all those other uses, I still get at least 10 batches
from 20# and that includes some force-carbonation. Maybe it's 15 or 20
batches... I've never really counted. But let's say you get 20 batches
from your 5# tank without force-carbonation or all the other stuff. Then
you would get roughly 7 to 10 batches if you did force-carbonate.
***
Dave (quoting Michael):
>> If not, then how do you theoretically support the notion that all CO2 isn't
>> equal, other things being equal? What info does CO2 have that lets it know
>> it is either forced or primer-produced?
>
>Michael,
>
>With a PhD in Physical Chemistry I agree with your basic theoretical premise
>that if all is the same, the same output should result.
>
>Question is: How do you know all is the same?
I'll tell you how I know: because I get a beautiful moussy head on my
beer with force-carbonation (if it's appropriate for style).
>It may also be that yeast decomposition products provide a better surface
>active
>group of compounds that somehow affect the size of the bead. As you know, the
>diacetyl rest has several activites - to carbonate the beer, purge undesirable
>volatiles, reduce many compounds chemically and take up all the dissolved
>oxygen. Extending the yeast activity through natural carbonation could bring
>about other chemical changes not found in filtered and force carbonated beer.
>Such chemical changes could affect the chemical compostion and the bubble size
>formation.
Whoa! Who said filtered? I didn't... I force-carbonate *unfiltered* beer.
As for the diacetyl rest, it's primary purpose is to help the yeast re-
absorb diactyl faster than if you simply went from fermentation at 50F
to lagering at 40F. The diacetyl rest has nothing to do with carbonation,
purging undesirable volatiles, dissolved oxygen (what dissolved oxygen --
you simply raise the the temperature of the beer -- no transfer is implied
or needed in the diacetyl rest) and the only compound other than diacetyl
that I could imagine would be re-absorbed might be acetaldehyde. The
only time I naturally carbonate my kegs is when it's important to me to
be able to say "this is cask-conditioned real ale."
>It may also be something as simple as the naturally carbonated beers have more
>yeast in them which acts as nucleation sites producing finer bubbles than the
>relatively cleaner beer which has been filtered and force carbonated, fewer
>nucleation sites and fewer, bigger bubbles.
This may be the most brilliant thing you've posted, Dave. I think it has
real possibilities. We should investigate further. It would explain why
my unfiltered, but force-carbonated, beer has fine carbonation. I've recently
bought a filter, so I can do some side-by-side tests, but remember that
bubble formation is *very* strongly affected by medium-sized protein
content and filtering can (and often does) strip-out these important
proteins.
***
Alex writes:
>3 or more methods of calculating hop utilization are common among
>homebrewers. Personally, I like the Glenn Tinseth formula. It's perhaps
>the most conservative, but works very well for me. Hit the following URL
>for a description: http://realbeer.com/hops/research.html
>
>Mark Garetz, author of the book Using Hops, also has a methodology which
>is described in his book. A less detailed description is available at the
>website for his retail store, at http://www.hoptech.com/uhops.html.
>
>Finally, there's a classic formula in the special hops back issue of
>Zymurgy. It's the most optimistic formula and personally I wouldn't use
>it. Others may disagree.
Right you are... I disagree. For my old system (pretty standard 10 gallon
Polar, 12,000 BTU NG kitchen stove) the Garetz formulas gave me more than
200% of the expected IBUs whereas the Rager formulas (the ones in the 1990
Hops Special Issue that Alex dislikes), plus 10% more hops to compensate
for the hop bags I was using, gave me IBUs that were within 3% of the target
value (as measured by The Siebel Institute of Technology)!
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 17:25:37 PST
From: Administrator_at_ASTBMOUND@ccmailsmtp.ast.com
Subject: Message not deliverable
Homebrew Digest Thursday, January 23 1997 Volume 02 : Number 044
Procedures:
To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew@aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo@aob.org>
with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo@aob.org>
with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <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 Aeration/kraeusening
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:00:55 +1500
From: Gavin Scarman <scarman@satech.net.au>
Subject: Aeration/kraeusening
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Aeration/kraeusening
>my basement, in the summertime, I CANNOT use room air for aeration of
>wort, else I will get a beer that has a faint clovey character that
>increases over the course of several weeks in the bottle.
Oh, well can I get you to brew me a hefe-weizen then as I can't seem
to get the "clovey" characters I'm after? ;) (been using Yeast Labs
w51, about to try weihenstephen from Wyeast).
- ----------------------------------
http://www.satech.net.au/~scarman
mailto:scarman@satech.net.au
- ----------------------------------
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest V2 #44
*****************************
The following is an attached File item from cc:Mail. It contains
information that had to be encoded to ensure successful transmission
through various mail systems. To decode the file use the UUDECODE
program.
- --------------------------------- Cut Here ---------------------------------
begin 644 RFC822.TXT
M4F5T=7)N+5!A=&@Z(#QO=VYE<BUH;VUE8G)E=RUD:6=E<W1`9&EO;GES=7,N
M86]B+F]R9SX-"E)E8V5I=F5D.B!F<F]M(&1I;VYY<W5S+F%O8BYO<F<@*&1I
M;VYY<W5S+F%O8BYO<F<@6S(P-2XQ-C@N,C,Q+C<R72D@8GD@87-T+F-O;2`H
M."XW+C8O."XW+C,I('=I=&@@15--5%`@:60@3T%!,C@Q,#4[(%1H=2P@,C,@
M2F%N(#$Y.3<@,30Z-30Z-3@@+3`X,#`@*%!35"D-"E)E8V5I=F5D.B`H9G)O
M;2!D:6]N>7-U<T!L;V-A;&AO<W0I(&)Y(&1I;VYY<W5S+F%O8BYO<F<@*#@N
M-RXU+S@N-RXS*2!I9"!/04$P-3<Y.2!F;W(@:&]M96)R97<M9&EG97-T+6]U
M=&=O:6YG.R!4:'4L(#(S($IA;B`Q.3DW(#$T.C$V.C`R("TP-S`P("A-4U0I
M#0I$871E.B!4:'4L(#(S($IA;B`Q.3DW(#$T.C$V.C`R("TP-S`P("A-4U0I
M#0I-97-S86=E+4ED.B`\,3DY-S`Q,C,R,3$V+D]!03`U-SDY0&1I;VYY<W5S
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M<F<-"E-U8FIE8W0Z($AO;65B<F5W($1I9V5S="!6,B`C-#0-"E)E<&QY+51O
M.B!H;VUE8G)E=T!D:6]N>7-U<RYA;V(N;W)G#0I396YD97(Z(&]W;F5R+6AO
M;65B<F5W+61I9V5S=$!D:6]N>7-U<RYA;V(N;W)G#0I%<G)O<G,M5&\Z(&]W
M;F5R+6AO;65B<F5W+61I9V5S=$!D:6]N>7-U<RYA;V(N;W)G#0I0<F5C961E
+;F-E.B!B=6QK#0H`
end
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 16:31 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re:Crisp Marris Otter
If the grain is bad, and causing this problem, you could possibly prove it
by doing another batch, exactly the same way. Take pictures (closeups). If
it comes out the same way, and you really feel its the grain, return it to
the supplier for a refund/exchange.
My $.01 worth.
Charley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:38:06 -0300 (GMT-0300)
From: Jorge Blasig - IQ <gisalb@elmer.fing.edu.uy>
Subject: Yields
I have read an article which mentions a certain way to express yield in
points. I do not know the concept of this yield expression and how it is
calculated. Can somebody explain it to me?
I also read something related with extraction%. What is it and how is it
determined? Is it anything that I should fix for a certain recipe or what?
I would appreciate your help.
Jorge
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 16:58 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re: Immersion Chillers and cold break
>Stuart E. Strand writes in hbd 41
>Want to reduce the amount of cold break in fermenter by using immersion...
I use an immersion chiller in 5 gallon batches. Mine can take the boiling
wort down to 85F in 10-12 minutes (a little more than a few seconds). I get
a very nice cold break. After chilling I whirlpool the wort and let settle
for 15-20 minutes while I do cleanup, drinking, sanitizing, drinking,
getting yeast ready, drinking, well, you get the picture.
I still get some cold break in the fermenter but maybe only a 1/4 inch or
so. I also use a secondary, usually after about a week. I like to add the
gelatin to knock down the yeast and I always do this during transfer from
primary to secondary. Even on a dark beer like porters and stouts. I don't
like the taste of yeast and I want it OUT of the beer.
My .02 worth.
Charley
PS - this time of year my tap water is 55F, out of my well.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:40:12 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: And what a nice home it is/New construction and bacteria
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
As you (should) be able to see, the HBD is now in what we hope to be
its permanent home. Many people pulled together to bring this
together. The donors of material and monies to
purchase/restore/upgrade equipment immediately come to mind. Greg Day
and O&E Online also come immediately to mind for providing the means
for us to function on the net. The one no-one notices, quietly chugging
away in the background is the "brains" of this operation. I wish to
offer my sincerest thanks to my friend and teacher Karl Lutzen.
Without Karl's expertise, the server from whence this now comes
would be doing little more than consuming electricity.
Take a look at http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/hbd to see our own
"wall". The events leading to this new home, as well and the names of
those who helped us along the way are at this site. There is also an
accounting of the financial end of it.
Thanks again for your support, and we look forward to your continued
support of the Digest.
And to the AOB: Thanks for not letting the torch go out! Rest well,
my friends.
===================================================
OK, enough mushy stuff! I remember reading about some fairly
invincible bacteria beast that comes with new construction. As I
recall, it had to do with new basements and concrete or something
like that. Anyone have any experience with this? (I know I asked a
similar question about a year or two back, but I don't recall the
answer, and now its *MY* basement!) I opened the floor to the
basement to have some plumbing worked on, and have yet to fire up the
brewery again. Any abnormal precautions I should take?
See ya!
Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock@oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Take advantage of the Drinkur Purdee document echo!
Send a note to pbabcock@oeonline.com with the word
help on the subject line to see what's on tap!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:53:12 -0500
From: Mike Dowd <mikedowd@geocities.com>
Subject: Crisp Malt/stuck sparge
Alex writes:
> Sorry, it wasn't my intention to hurt your pride. You had asked for
> suggestions and it's hard for anyone who hasn't got the stuff in their
> hands to say, "Don't worry Mike, you just got a bad batch of grain." I
> didn't think many bad batches of grain got around, and the other likely
> alternative was procedural."
Don't worry Alex, my pride is unwounded. What I objected to in your post
was not that you were telling me my procedures were bad, but that you were
doing so without explaining why.
_Why_ is my technique not well suited to my equipment?
_Why_ would resting at 104F have a negative impact on sparging?
_Why_ would a thick mash during saccrification but not during
mashout/lautering make for difficulties during lautering?
If you (or anyone else) have answers to any of these questions, I would
definitely like to hear them -- I'm not just looking for people to tell me
what I want to hear. What I'm really trying to figure out is _why_ this
happened. I certainly appreciate the replies I have gotten -- there were
several times in the past when I wrote into the HBD with what seemed to me
like interesting topics, but never heard a peep from anyone else;
meanwhile, there seemed to be 53 posts every day on the "Beer in Space"
thread. (Note: this is not, repeat _not_, an invitation to restart the Beer
in Space thread. If it is finally dead, let it stay that way, please.)
But if you write in attacking a man's technique, you can't expect him not
to defend himself. ;)
In reply to your questions, there is no difference between the Crisp malt
and any other pale ale malt in the way it feels, tastes, or looks. There
may be a way for me to get it analyzed it further -- I will check into
that, and if I can find a way, I will report back on that.
Mike
Michael Dowd Whoever makes a poor beer is transferred
Yeastie Boy Brewing to the dung-hill.
Pittsburgh, PA
mikedowd@geocities.com -Edict, City of Danzig, 11th Century
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:18:56 -0800
From: aLexd <theman@smellygig.com>
Subject: '97 WE Festival of Independent Music,Film,Press,&Beer
******************** WE Festival *****************
May 22 - 28, 1997
"Come Wreck Our Town Again"
http://www.smellygig.com/wefest/
Exclusively Independent, Music, Film, Press and Microbrew
Join an eclectic gathering of people who do cool stuff at the
WE Festival in Wilmington, NC, Thursday, May 22 - Wednesday, May
28. We're having another seven day smorgasbord: over 40 Bands from
around the world, a plethora of Independent / Underground Films,
tons of Zines, and an unhealthy dose of Microbrewed Beer, all to be
featured during this weeklong romp through our own (your own)
private wonderland.
The Wilmington Exchange is a cooperative organization that
encourages independent thought, striving for an environment where
people can come together and be inspired. Searching for a new sense
of cross cultural community; interested in nurturing artists' careers,
rather than exploiting them and helping individuals find the tools
they need to do the work they love, uncompromisingly.
How? By bringing them in contact with EACH OTHER.
A week-long pass to the WE Festival is only $15.00. The cost for
anyone attending as a "representative" of any corporate conglomerate
is $1500.00(that is not a joke).
WE Festival attendees will get in to all participating venues free,
and receive a We Guide(to help them navigate the new frontier).
Plus, they'll get free access to the Wilmington Exchange Center,
(a deconsecrated church)where they can bring a bigass bag and fill it
with as much as they can carry, since tons of free swag will be theirs
for the taking (as well as giving - show off what you DO!).
Detailed submission guidelines, schedules of events, accepted bands,
neat pictures, etc., are available on the web @
http://www.smellygig.com/wefest/
**Send independent film(on VHS) and music(Tape,CD,Vinyl) submissions to:
WE Fest
PO Box 2071
Wilmington, NC
28402-2071 USA.
(Like now! the clock is ticking.................................)
**If you have any other questions or want to involve your Zine,
Microbrew/Homebrew or Indie Label, email us at WEFestival@aol.com
**Please forward this to your own mailing list or link up to our pages
if you'd like to help spread the word.
**If you get a duplicate, please let us know.
**To be removed from this list just ask.
************************************************************************
"Everybody needs a vacation - Join us for week of wanton debauchery in
the town that two hurricanes couldn't kill, 'cause it's cheap as
waffles, and while some make excuses, WE makes history. "
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:43:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Hal Davis <davis@planolaw.com>
Subject: Re: Carbonation computation
>This points out once again why I think it makes more sense to talk about
>carbonation in terms of CO2 content as per cent by weight as the Germans do
>(g CO2/100 g beer, according to Eric Warner, _German Wheat Beer_).
[Large snip]
I disagree. The only time the amount of CO2 used seems to come up is when
someone asks how far a bottle of CO2 should go. In that regard, even the
best theoretical information is only the most optimistic case for empirical
results. The rest of us waste CO2 on leaks, trying to get seals to seat, and
pushing cleaning solution through lines and kegs.
For the force-carbonator, empirical results show that hooking your keg up to
30 psi and shaking and/or letting it sit a few days carbonates the beer
enough. For the keg or bottle conditioner, empirical results show that a
certain amount of sugar (or gyle) will carbonate the beer enough. There's
little confusion or problem with the empirical results. If X volume of sugar
doesn't sufficiently carbonate one batch when it has sufficiently carbonated
previous batches, it's unlikely that the problem is with the volume of sugar
added.
Hal Davis
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:43:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Hal Davis <davis@planolaw.com>
Subject: Re: green bottles - why?
>> Why do they use green glass for beer bottles, =
>>anyway?
Agreed -- but green bottles are surely superior to clear glass bottles, and
there's some mighty fine beer sold THAT way.
I guess I don't understand why Heineken in green bottles is so consistently
skunked. As I understand it, it's the light through the bottle that's the
problem, not necc heat or motion. If I were shipping Heineken to the USA,
the bottles would be in cardboard boxes which would be on pallettes which
would be in containers on container ships. There would be AT LEAST
corrugated cardboard between the beer and daylight until they reached the
retailer, and for most of the journey there would be a layer of metal (the
container, ship hull, truck sides). How does beer get skunked under those
conditions?
Hal Davis
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:55:18 +0000
From: John Hicks <jon_tiff@computer-services.com>
Subject: Yeast Problems
Hello All,
I have an update on my yeast problems, oh that sounds sort of gross.>
anyways after adding the yaest to the 95 degree wort I saw a lot of
action, it bubbled for about 24 hours then let off and now is not doing
anything, is this still normal? I would also like to think all the
people who gave me all those tips, you all are very helpful...
Thanks John in Kansas
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:55:45 +0000
From: John Hicks <jon_tiff@computer-services.com>
Subject: Yeast Problem Boy
Hello All,
I have an update on my yeast problems, oh that sounds sort of gross.>
anyways after adding the yaest to the 95 degree wort I saw a lot of
action, it bubbled for about 24 hours then let off and now is not doing
anything, is this still normal? I would also like to think all the
people who gave me all those tips, you all are very helpful...
Thanks John in Kansas
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2325, 01/24/97
*************************************
-------
