Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2441
HOMEBREW Digest #2441 Mon 16 June 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
"CO2 saturation" - some observations (John Rezabek)
Re: Yeast culturing (David Johnson)
Corn, not in beer, but sort-of related to brewing (Russ Brodeur)
Injected = signs, Outatown ("David R. Burley")
Possible Iodophor off tastes. (Eric Tepe)
Oh, please... (Some Guy)
various points ("Graham Wheeler")
Re: MILL ANTI-EXPLOSION PROOFING (Joe Rolfe)
yet more CO2... (Dave Whitman)
RE: Lacto bugs in your equipment (George De Piro)
CO2 release (DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932)
Brewing Software Survey results (Guy Mason)
CO2 toxicity (Jim Busch)
Commercial hop production (Dan Cole)
Scottish Ale and a Scot's reminisce ("Ian Wilson")
Stainless Cooler??? ("John L. Heubel")
New Address (Charlie Scandrett)
re: UPS shipping (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
poor Jethro - CO2 toxicity ("Andy Walsh")
Hefe Roggen help ("Audra Macmann")
Fruit Beers (Dennis Waltman)
Formaldehyde in beer (Bill Watt)
PET Test Bottle ("Val J. Lipscomb")
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
hbd.org /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
E-mail...
ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with
the word help for instructions.)
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 02:27:13 -0400
From: John Rezabek <rezabeks@alpha.wcoil.com>
Subject: "CO2 saturation" - some observations
Please bear with me if these rudimentary observations have been
thoroughly hashed over, later I think have a few marginally more
interesting data points to offer . . .
I have done a couple experiments that may support David Robinson's
hypothesis about pH or some similar chemical mechanism (that's coupled
with high CO2 concentrations) contributing to early attenuation.
This idea first interested me having observed how a dry-hopped ale would
sometimes undergo a noticeably stronger secondary fermentation, than a
similar beer using the identical yeast. The dry hopped beers tended to
have lower FG's as well.
I recently had a 1078 OG bock that was stuck at 1033 at about 40 degrees
for three weeks. I dropped in a few hop pellets (providing nucleation
sites)and the beer foamed up vigorously (had to replace airlock with a
blow-off) and the gravity dropped another 6 points or so in the ensuing
weeks.
Of necessity, I divided a 1068 OG Maerzen between a 5 gallon secondary
and a one gallon secondary. I added dry hops only to the 5 gallon
secondary. The larger fermentor had a gravity of 1023 at kegging time,
while the small vessel finalled out lower (at 1020).?!
Similarly, I divided a 1056 OG Hefe-Weizen between a large and small
secondary, and only added additional hop pellets to the large vessel.
The 5-gallon finished at 1008, while the small fermentor was at 1011.
All of the beers involved had original gravities between 1048 and 1080.
Both the Maerzen and the bock were brewed with the same lager yeast.
Even though these represent very few data points and very imperfect
experiments, there would appear to be more at work than just CO2
saturation. Otherwise, the dry-hopped beer should have always finished
lower. Huh.
Na zdravi!
John Rezabek
rezabeks@alpha.wcoil.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 06:41:16 -0700
From: David Johnson <dmjalj@inwave.com>
Subject: Re: Yeast culturing
Like Anton, I also am a satisfied customer (having bought Brewer's
Resource complete yeast culturing kit), but if I had it to do over again
I might just do it differently. I certainly would have checked out some
other sources of information. Dave Draper has info on using slants on his
beer page and the Yeast Culture Kit Company has good info on their page.
I like the professional equipment I got from BR (I am not dextrous enough
to use a paperclip for this) and the yeasts have done well in my beers. I
enjoy "yeast ranching" too! (kudos to Dave D).
Rounding 'em up! Heading 'em out!
Dave Johnson
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:41:46 -0400
From: Russ Brodeur <r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com>
Subject: Corn, not in beer, but sort-of related to brewing
I had this semi-brewing-related brainstorm the other night:
I assume corn (sweet corn, still on the cob) contains some quantity of
alpha and/or beta amylase enzymes. I may be wrong about this
assumption, but isn't that why it's sweet in the first place? I think
it is generally sweeter after cooking, too.
Could the "sweetness" of the cooked corn be enhanced by a
saccharification rest in the 145-50 F range before boiling?? I am
actually going to attempt some sort of experiment this weekend to find
the answer. I will try side-by-side cookings: one with a 15-30 min
rest at 145-50 F before boiling, the other brought as quickly as
possible to boiling. I am a bit concerned that the gelatinization temp
for corn starch is too high, but it is still worth a shot.
I know you're all quivering with anticipation, so I will post my results
on Monday.
TTFN
Russ Brodeur in Franklin, MA
- --
mailto:r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:02:53 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Injected = signs, Outatown
Brewsters:
Until a week or so ago, I hadn't realized my copy to the HBD was being
ravaged by "=3D" signs, broken words, etc. I normally don''t read my
submissions and hadn't realized how annoying this e-mail defect can be
until other HBDers notified me. I am apparently not the only one, but
cannot see a correspondence among any of the contributors
Karl Lutzen suggested that it is a failure to send in ASCII format,
Compuserve says "Impossible". So I don't know.
I did install a new version of an on-line e-mail spell checker, but fail =
to
see how this could be causing the problem Anyone with any other ideas -
please?? =
- ---------------------------------------
This is a copy of part of the above where I hit return to see if it is a
column problem:
Until a week or so ago, I hadn't realized my copy to the HBD was being
ravaged by "=3D" signs,
broken words, etc. I normally don''t read my submissions and hadn't
realized how
annoying this e-mail defect can be until other HBDers notified me. I am
apparently
not the only one, but cannot see a correspondence among any of the
contributors.
- --------------------------------------
I'll be fishing in Quebec until next Thursday, so I'm not ignoring e-mail=
=2E =
Thanks to Jacques Bourdouxhe's recommendations I won't be going thirsty.
- ---------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:16:28 -0400
From: Eric Tepe <tepee0@chmcc.org>
Subject: Possible Iodophor off tastes.
Collective,
In my search of the archives I did not find the information that I needed
about iodophor. I am fairly new to homebrewing (with 10 batches-3 all
grain-under my belt) and use a basic setup of a 7 gallon food grade
bucket as a primary (I brew in 6 gallon batches) and a 5 gallon
polycarbonate plastic water carboy as a secondary. Being a biologist in
a virology lab I am a nut about sanitation and keeping everything clean. I
use Iodophor because it is *supposed* to be a "no-rinse" sanitizing agent
(although I do rinse some of the time with boiled water). 1. If you
accidently use to high of a dilution of Iodophor 2 tbsp in 7 gallons water)
and the sides of your primary (my 7 gallon bucket) is stained or colored
by the Iodophor and you use it anyway, can this impart an off flavor like
bleach can? 2. What would the off flavor taste like? ( I had what I
thought was a good light ale in a competition and it got hammered
because of a off flavor described as 'solventy' attributed to either
contamination (which I seriously doubt), high fermentation temperature
(basement temp=66F), or residual bleach or Iodophor). 3. Can Iodophor
cause iodophenols like bleach can cause chlorophenols? 4. How can I
use this more effectively or are there more effective sanitation
techniques that I can use.
Thanks in advance to all that respond.
Eric R. Tepe
Private e-mail ok at tepee0@chmcc.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:37:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Oh, please...
Greetings, Beerlings! Douse me with your lager...
In response to Joe Bair's eloquent and interesting note in HBD 2440:
- ---------- thermal barrier -----------
1) I am not in the habit of carrying PHB's phone number around with me.
Until Joe told me I had it, I was, quite frankly, unaware. He did
provide it to me in a rather entertaining missive last night, though, so
I won't have to look for it.
2) When did it become SOP for a customer to call a shop to ask whether
they are abiding by their published hours before visiting them? Damn! I
missed that!
3) A homebrew shop "providing bad press" about another is a bit different
than having a customer do so.
4) The HBD is quite a bit different than the PALE ALE list. The HBD is a
free, open forum in which anyone can post through simply e-mailing a note
- as Joe has (Hell! I even made sure he had the instructions!) - whereas
Mr. Bair writes or otherwise selects the content for his. I could easily
have deleted Joe's post from the queue, but it is not my job to censor,
just to keep out the spam and other internet debris that occasionally
lands on our doorstep. Due to the nature of the digest, my posting to it
is about as "self serving" as taking out an ad in the Times - whether I
administer it, or not. (By the way: Am I still on the PALE ALE
subscription list? You're still on the HBD's...)
I'm sorry you're so disturbed by this, Joe. My intention was not to have
you lay your family and corporate history out in a public forum, and it is
doubtful that the original post would have had much impact on your
business. I am not evil, Joe. Nor am I in need of relaxation. I only did
what I thought a customer was supposed to do: I came out to buy. It is
apparent that they have changed the rules regarding customer-vendor
relationships. I am deeply sorry that I missed the roll-out of this
change. Had I known, this whole unfortunate mess could have been
avoided.
- ---------- thermal barrier -----------
To Joe's credit, his shop is well stocked with all the goodies one could
desire. His prices are, in my opinion, fair. No complaints there (The
source of the "I thought I had..." in the original posting). He does much
to promote home brewing in the Princeton area, and, from what I have seen,
is the main (or at least a major) impetous behind the Princeton and Local
Environs Ale and Lager Enjoyment Society (The PALE ALES), a very
interesting and active bunch of home brewers with an enviable ability to
garner meeting guests from industry. It would be a shame if his shop were
to close - such was not my goal nor intention in the original post nor in
this reply.
I'm sorry that Joe's unique perspective on the vendor-customer relationship
has precipitated this thread. In my opinion, I was justified. This is the
last I intend to say on this issue.
See ya!
Pat Babcock | "Beer is my obsession, and I'm late for
pbabcock@oeonline.com | therapy..." -PGB
brewbeerd@aol.com | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point
janitor@brew.oeonline.com | at the end of your day as every sentence
Home Brew Digest Janitor | requires proper punctuation." -PGB
Webmaster of the Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
Home of the Home Brew Flea Market
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 15:58:45 +0100
From: "Graham Wheeler" <Graham.Wheeler@btinternet.com>
Subject: various points
Andy Walsh's (do I detect a hint of old-colonial flaming here?) input on
Aussie hops seems to confirm my major point: that if you happen to live the
wrong side of that magical 35 degree line, whether in the northern or
southern hemisphere, you are going to have difficulty growing hops. Andy
mentions that the best hops in his region are grown in N.Z. I don't know,
but I would guess that the hop growing region in NZ would be the
southernmost part of the south island -- well into the high 40s latitude.
Neve can't help being born a Brit -- honest!
On Andy's nucleation zone point. I have heard of commercial brewers adding
carborundum powder to old glass-lined wooden fermenters. Whether this was
done to de-gas the beer to cure fermentation problems, or to reduce foaming
on susequent transfer operations, I just don't know. I am sure that most of
this CO2 toxicity stuff is valid, but there are certain aspects of it that
I find difficult to swallow. I can't help thinking that the American HB
practice of fermenting in glass carboys would have revealed problems long
before now if CO2 toxicity was a serious problem. Having said that, I know
of British home brewers that have experimented with using carboys, but have
abandoned them again in favour of open plastic buckets because the yeast
hasn't performed true to type. The yeast very often does not display true
top-working characteristics. This was attributed to the slight positive
pressure caused by the airlock, but in retrospect it may have been a lack
of nucleation zones.
There is a patented lager glass in Britain that has a scintered (?) or
frosted bottom. This rough bottom provides plenty of nucleation sites for
CO2 bubbles to form and has the effect of making the lager look very lively
and appealing to those that like such things as fizzy lager. Surprisingly,
the lager in these glasses keeps up this this fizzing performance for some
considerable time; an hour or more. As this chilled beverage warms up to
room temperature the CO2 becomes less soluble and is immediately released,
courtesy of the amply provided nucleation sites.
Graham Wheeler
High Wycombe
England
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc@shore.net>
Subject: Re: MILL ANTI-EXPLOSION PROOFING
>From: Andy Walsh <awalsh@crl.com.au>
>Subject: brew free or die!
>Would you believe me if I said that it is standard practice on
>commercial 4/6 roll malt mills to have anti-explosive devices fitted?
>Feeling lucky Jethro? Just remove those anti explosive devices from your
>mill...
yes it is standard equipment on most mills (magnets on the input, good
grounds, limited metal to metal contact, dust vaccums and explosion
proof motors.)
but have you ever heard of a micro having and explosion...even a big
micro..... most micros do not grind enough to worry about major trouble
most micros do not have 4/6 roll mills anyway, so dust inside the mill
is limited to some extent.
as an ex microbrewer, we used a schmiddling mill to mill between 2 and 3
metric tonne per month ( yes a very small micro), we never had the "luxury"
of having magnets, dust vaccums or TEFC motors. i lit the motor up
once and the result fire only burned up half the town - only kidding.
i know of other brewers that had similar "hacked together" mill equipment
that are far bigger and they never have had a "close one". a/b, miller and
cors amoungst a few other large producers would need it just to pass OSHA
or local ordinance....so jethro you could probably get away with out it.
joe
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:38:31
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
Subject: yet more CO2...
In HBD2440, Dave Draper maintains a healthy skepticism about
supersaturation of wort/beer with CO2:
> I can see that in a fermentor
>that is "ideal" for this purpose, i.e. perfectly smooth-sided with
>*no* nucleation sites, and if the beer is *perfectly* trub-free
>(remember "frictionless pulleys" from physics class?), then
>supersaturation is possible in principle. I would argue that in
>almost any *practical* setting, where these perfect conditions do
>not apply, that supersaturation will not take place-- there will be
>plenty of bubble nucleation.
Again, I want to move beyond thermodynamics and point out that kinetics are
important here. It's not as simple as "lots of bubbles are forming, so it
can't be supersaturated". You need to take the bubble nucleation rate and
compare that to the yeast's CO2 production rate. I can't claim to know the
relative rate constants, but I'm leery of a blanket assumption that
nucleation is fast relative to fermentation in any practical setting.
There are anecdotal reports of beer gushing out of fermenters when finely
divided Polyclar is added. Adding nucleation sites isn't going to affect
the equilibrium concentration of CO2 in solution (thermodynamics), only the
rate at which the system approaches equilibrium (kinetics). If the system
was at equilibrium already, why would we see an increase in the CO2 loss
rate when more nucleating sites were added?
I'll be brewing this weekend. My glass fermenter is a few years old (far
from ideal) and while I whirlpool to minimize trub, I usually end up with a
centimeter of so at the bottom. When the batch hits high krausen, I'll
pull a wort sample and drop in some Polyclar or silica gel and see what
happens.
Supersaturation (or lack thereof) aside, Dave Burley's comments about CO2
"toxicity" make a lot of sense to me:
>I can explain all of the observations, so far,
>simply by postulating premature flocculation of the yeast - which is a
>well-recognized phenomenon among ale yeasts, especially.
Yeast (like almost all other naturally occurring colloidal suspensions)
have a negative zeta potential. Increasing CO2 concentration will drop the
pH of the wort, which in turn will reduce the absolute value of the yeast's
zeta potential, making them more prone to flocculation. This would nicely
explain the reported observations.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:13:18 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: RE: Lacto bugs in your equipment
Hi all,
Scott Murman says that he would never allow his brewing equipment to
contact microbes other than Saccharomyces because he fears permanent
contamination.
This is an unfounded fear. Tubing, rubber stoppers, and other small,
heat resistant parts can be autoclaved. Autoclaving will kill
EVERYTHING that can hurt your beer. It may not effect thermophillic
bacteria that live in hot springs and sea vents, but they are of
little concern to the brewer.
Fermenters and other things made of metal and glass can be sanitized
effectively with iodophor, bleach, or your favorite sanitizing
product.
Look at it this way: you don't have separate brewing equipment for
each yeast strain you use, and you don't worry about that. Just be
sure to clean the heck out of everything, and then sanitize it!
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 19:33:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932 <BRADLEY_DAVID_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject: CO2 release
Per the CO2 toxicity thread and the use of various
solids for nucleation (trub, silica gel, DE, etc),
one should remember that there is mixing induced by
the resulting bubbles. Ever seen the big clumps of
yeast that rise and fall during the active ferments?
This mixing helps attenuation, as posted by DD and
others. Personally, I am physically (ha) more
comfortable with the contributions of mixing versus
any CO2 toxicity. Just a small consideration....
Dave in Indy
Home of the 3-B Brewery, v. Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:39:23 -0400
From: Guy Mason <guy@adra.com>
Subject: Brewing Software Survey results
Greetings,
Here are the results of my Brewing Software query to date.
4 Brewer's Workshop 4.0
1 SUDS 4.0
1 Homebrewer's Assistant
1 Brewer's Calculator for Windows
1 "Try Homebrew Recipe Calculator" - the author
1 "Try New Joy of Homebrewing CD-ROM" - producer/distributor
1 Homemade MS-Excel spreadsheet
---
10
Looks like Brewer's Workshop is the current leader, now I just need to
decide on a style and recipe for the June 21st Summer Solstice brew-a-thon.
Perhaps a nice Pagan Pale Ale...
Thanks to all who responded.
- -- guy
Elvis has left the building...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:32:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: CO2 toxicity
Our old friend Andy Walsh comments:
<I borrowed some kieselguhr from a micro recently and now add it to my
<primary, since I have very clear wort. I don't have any scientific data
<showing better fermentations, but whereas I *used* to have low AE, I now
<tend to get good AE. Although I cannot categorically state that the DE
<additions have helped, it *has* been shown elsewhere, and it gives me
<peace of mind.
For those out there that dont know what kieselguhr is, it is the German
word for DE (diatomaceous earth). Andy, does the DE settle out and form
a hard cake on the fermenter bottom? Can you detect any carryover into
the beer?
This concept seems very plausable to me. One of the old German tricks to
jumpstart a stuck or sluggish fermentation is to add wooden slats
(beechwood aging's precursor??) to the fermenter. This seems to resolve
a stuck ferment for some. Ive never tried but it sounds promising.
Prost!
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:48:36 -0400
From: Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Commercial hop production
I have almost convinced a friend of mine with a small winery in progress to
devote some of his land to hops. He has a green thumb so we have no doubts
that he will be be successful in growing the hops, but before he is willing
to devote any of his grape space to hops, he wanted to know more about the
agribusiness side of commercial hop production (cost per plot, typical crop
losses, typical fertilizer useage/costs, expected output per plot, and
anything that would give him a better feel for profitability of the endeavor).
I have searched the web for this information and can only find information
for the hobbyist hop grower. Anyone know the commercial side of the hop
business?
TIA,
Dan Cole
dcole@roanoke.infi.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 97 17:07:30 PDT
From: "Ian Wilson" <iwilson@lightspeed.net>
Subject: Scottish Ale and a Scot's reminisce
John Goldthwaite writes:
<snip> but a Scottish Ale is roughly
akin to a bitter. A Scotch Ale is LOTS heavier and usually VERY alcoholic=
. More like a
barleywine or a super heavy stout. Try McEwan's Scotch ale to get a handl=
e on what I feel is an
excellent beer. I'd recommend several of these before hitting the links! =
<end snip>
John,
I'm Glad you got a kick out of my story. The HBD needs a bit more humor. =
We brew for fun, not
work. HBD should be available for exchange of information and brewing sto=
ries, not flames and
snipes.
I'll never beat anyone around the head and shoulders for any statement. =
HBD is for learning, and
I've learned quite a bit from some of the postings. However, to say that =
Scottish Ale is a bit like a
bitter is like saying a kilt is a bit like a skirt. Both statements would=
get you into a brawl in a "guid
Highland pub"!
I managed to take first place at Fresno in the first round of the AHA las=
t year. Would have loved
to have seen what the beer would have done in New Orleans, but it never =
made it there. That,
however, is another story all together!
Scottish Ales tend to have a good bit more residual sugar in them than =
a bitter. There is
considerably more mouth feel from unfermented dextrins, though not nearly=
as much as a
barleywine. Stouts are usually characterized by roasted flavours on the =
edges, whereas Scottish
Ale should be smooth with caramelly notes and a well balanced floral or =
fruity hop bitterness
rather than a rough one.
Scottish Ales have OG from 1.030 to 1.050, depending upon the sub-categor=
y. Hop bitterness
should be between 15 and 25 IBU.
McEwan's Scotch ale is a damn fine brew, even if it is made by a lowland =
brewery (notice the
appelation - Scotch Ale). The highlands start on the North side of Loch =
Ness and proceed North.
Edinburgh and Glasgow are lowland cities plagued by funny wee men left =
over from the Jacobite
Uprising. My family is Clan Gunn, from Caithness and Sutherland, in the =
very northeastern part
of Scotland.
If you are brewing from all grains, I would use a portion of a peat-smoke=
d pale ale barley to get
some of that lovely highland flavour. In addition, I would go so far as =
to suggest using noble
German hops for bitterness and refrain from using any English hops or the=
ir derivatives.
Remember that the Scots and the English didn't mix well, though Highland =
Clan chiefs were
often welcomed in German, Flemish and French courts.
I haven't a recipe to pass along, as I'm still working diligently to prod=
uce a good one I'm prod
enough of.
As far as other good examples of Scottish Ale, I haven't really run acros=
s any that remind me of
an engine pulled cask ale from a pub on a cold, wet night, with a chunk =
of rough bread, a pickled
onion or two, a chunk of cheese, and a bonnie lass to pass the evening. =
Ah, but that was another
life in another place.
Good luck to all of you on hitting the target (a word taken from the Gael=
ic for the small round
shield used by a true highlander). Stop and smell the heather once in awh=
ile and enjoy yourself
and your craft!
Ian Wilson
iwilson@lightspeed.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:32:02 -0500
From: "John L. Heubel" <jlheubel@wf.net>
Subject: Stainless Cooler???
Well, I was sifting through the local junk yard's stainless pile and came
across what I belive is the *Gott cooler of yesteryear.* The stamp on the
side is Jug, Vacuum, 10 Gal w/Spigot. Vacuum Can Company, Chicago. It's
also labelled do not use for milk or milk products. The clamp-on lid is
missing and it has a few dents, but otherwise appears intact. Judging from
shape and size it looks like it will make a great mash tun. Since it's
metal it can be directly heated if I miss a temp step etc.
Now the questions...
1. Does anyone know if the space between the inner and outer walls are
just dead air? Is that how Thermos' work? This should eliminate the need
for insulation I'd think. I know I'm in for some experimentation here soon.
2. Will any harm come to the outer metal by heating without a liquid in
there and will the air transfer the heat to the mash? Anyone out there take
thermodynamics and actually remember it or use it on a daily basis?
3. If I'll damage the metal by *dry* heating, could I instead drill a hole
in the top of the outer portion, fill partially with water, and make sort
of a *double boiler* out of it like is used for heating parafin, chocolate,
etc? I know this should transfer heat better than air alone and also
prevent scorching.
4. If this is indeed stainless, why couldn't it be used for milk? I know
the dairy industry uses lots of stainless. Could this possibly be aluminum
(no I'm not worried about Alzheimer's, just curious about the warning)?
Thanks for any clues regarding my find. This was also posted to r.c.b
yesterday but I've only received 2 responses so far as to what it may be.
Sorry for the long-windedness.
John Heubel
Wichita Falls,Tx
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:34:49 +1000
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino@squirrel.com.au>
Subject: New Address
My internet provider went broke.(probably because I havn't paid them for two
years). All messages to me for the last two weeks have gone missing. Sorry
for the bandwidth, but someone might die wondering. My new address is as
above. I paid them.
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 08:17:47 -0700
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter@camasnet.com>
Subject: re: UPS shipping
I was under the impression that UPS allows the shipment of alcoholic
beverages for evaluation purposes. If this is the case, why don't we ask
the AHA to work with UPS and clear this up once and for all? AHA could give
each of us a letter from UPS that clarifies the policy. Homebrewers could
show it to UPS counter personnel and contract shippers if a question
arises.
>Busted...The local UPS service (Angleton Texas) now opens and inspects
>all packages regardless of what is written on the outside (FOOD or
>YEAST SAMPLES). They would not ship anything in glass and especially
>if it is alcoholic in nature. The same goes with the US postal
>service. Its getting to where you can't enter any home brew
>competitions unless you drive it there yourself. This there any way
>around this.
Dan Ritter <ritter@camasnet.com>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Grangeville, Idaho
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:13:10 +1000
From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh@crl.com.au>
Subject: poor Jethro - CO2 toxicity
>From Sir Gump,
>I crush each and every kernel of malt by hand with a jeweler's hammer and
a pair of micro-surgical
forceps!
Geez. Poor Jethro! That bloody cheapskate owner of LABCO won't even buy you
a mill!
Will anybody out there send Jethro their old clapped out Glatt Mill so he
doesn't have to undergo such torture? (The Glatt mill is the only
homebrewer's mill with integral antiexplosion device - stripped nylon
gears)
******
In my last post I used a couple of acronyms-
AE = apparent extract. the amount of soluble malt constituents in beer.
equivalent to final specific gravity.
DE = diamotaceous earth = kielselguhr.
I also slipped up by saying DE (seemingly) increased my AE. I meant
*decreased*. ie. I am getting lower FG these days.
On reflection, I am really not sure that the DE is the cause of the
improvement. Although increased CO2 concentration *definitely* retards
fermentation (numerous studies exist), and that addition of DE (or other
powder) reduces the CO2 in solution, whether this is significant on a
homebrew scale is an open question.
Pretty much all of the studies in brewing science are aimed at commercial
scales (funny about that). The height of the fermenting vessel will have a
huge impact on the CO2 in solution (10m = 1 atmosphere). Therefore, just
because CO2 may significantly retard fermentation in a 100 Hl fermenter
hardly means the same will happen on a homebrew scale. (maybe it does - it
can't hurt to reduce it!)
On pH in fermentation of beer. Beer ferments faster at lower pH, not
higher. Maybe wine is contrary, but it is also about 10X more acidic. A
recent Brauwelt (1/97, p16) has an article by Narziss, who says that
*lowering* the pH value to 4.9-5.0 of the wort at pitching favours
fermentation rate and maltose uptake. He provides figures between 2
identical worts, initial pH = 5.45. One was acidified to pH 4.95, fermented
in 7 days rather than 9, and had lower VDKs, esters, fusels etc. Most
importantly, it scored significantly higher in taste trials. (interesting
thing to try).
It seems highly unlikely (to me) that CO2 toxicity is due to carbonic acid
lowering the pH to unacceptable values. (It is hardly an acid at all
anyway)
Andy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 97 14:25:52 PDT
From: "Audra Macmann" <kestrel@full-moon.com>
Subject: Hefe Roggen help
My husband has recently started (extract) brewing and it is
his dream to brew a hefe roggen such as the ones he njoyed in
Germany. We think that it had wheat as well as rye and barley.
I have searched Cats Meow for him but nothing seems to ring a
bell.
He sat down with a calculator, a catalogue, and a couple of
books and came up with the following recipe. When you all
are through ROTFL could you let us know how far off base
we are? <G>
4 lbs German Pilsener malt
3 lbs wheat malt
3 lbs rye malt (I think this is too much but I know less about
it than he does!)
1 oz Tettnanger hops, boiled 60 min
1 oz Hallertauer, boiled 15 min
Wyeast #3068
Thanks for any help,
Audra Macmann, Ohio
asmac@concentric.net or kestrel@full-moon.com
www.concentric.net/~asmac/
"The worst thing in the world, next to anarchy,
is government." -- Henry Ward Beecher
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 17:59:49 -0700
From: Dennis Waltman <waltman@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Fruit Beers
My best successes with Fruit Beers have been with bases that are darker
beers: Brown Ales, or Sweet Stouts. The combination of fruit and malt
flavors makes one taste more than fruit. My lighter fruit ales, tend to
be unbalanced towards the fruit.
I have always added the fruit, fruit juice or fruit concentrate to the
secondary fermentation vessel. And in the first case, racked the
beer to a tertiary fermenter for clearing and finishing. This makes it
hard to show a true OG/FG ratio, as you are adding more sugars late in
the fermentation process. Crystal malts or lactose can add a hint of
sweetness, as the sugars are going to ferment out.
I have had good recognition of fruit beers with a higher final alcohol.
A more powerful fruit aroma seems to occur, I'd guess (a WAG) because the
evaporating alcohol helps bring the aromas up out the glass. I've
also tasted a fruit Barleywine that was divine, and it had the same good
aroma.
On Honey to Fruit Beers, to boost the strength without adding body or too
much malt I have added, plus sometimes you gain a perception of sweetness
[I have a super dry mead, that still "tastes" and smells like honey) or
honeyness that mixes well with some fruit. I've always also added the
honey to the secondary. Be careful with really strong honeys. They will
add interesting flavors, but if you plan to enter the beers in contests,
the beer judges may not understand and mark you down for it. It is hard
enough getting mead judges to accept wierd honeys.
:) Also, I've made a grapefruit beer, with no fruit whatsoever :), it had
fair good comments as a fruit beer, then the APA that it was an attempt
at. :)
Dennis Waltman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:13:59 -0700
From: Bill Watt <wattbrew@buffnet.net>
Subject: Formaldehyde in beer
Are you ready for this?
During a beer discussion last week, one of the guys at work said he
heard that Heineken put formaldehyde in their beer as a preservative.
This was back in the early 80's when he was in college. I told him this
was impossible and unacceptable. He insisted that this was a popular
rumor at the time. I have never heard this before and explained that it
was probably the skunkiness of the beer caused by green glass and
improper handling that caused the rumor to start. He insisted that the
rumor was true. I said I would ask the collective if anyone else had
heard this and did anyone actually believe it???
If anyone can shed some more light on this subject, please post or send
private email.
- --
Brewing beer in Lancaster, NY
Watt's Brewing
Bill Watt - wattbrew@buffnet.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:47:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay@NetXpress.com>
Subject: PET Test Bottle
Greetings All,
Lately there have been questions as to if and how long PET (plastic)
soft drink bottles can be used. I just have a suggestion regarding
PET bottles to those who,like me,choose to bottle. For 7 or 8 years
I've bottled one 16 or 20 ounce PET bottle from each batch as a test
bottle. Being clear,it allows you to see the settling of the yeast
and it allows you to check the status of carbonation without opening.
If that sucker is hard enough to drive nails, it's ready!! I've kept
those bottles around for a couple of months with no apparent loss of
quality or carbonation,for those who've asked about time. Like most
simple ideas,it works and,in this case, I doubt if your "mileage
may vary" very much,as long as you remember to keep clear bottles in
a dark place.
Val Lipscomb-brewing in San Antonio
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2441, 06/16/97
*************************************
-------
