Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2448
HOMEBREW Digest #2448 Wed 25 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:
bottle fill & CO2 levels - a test ("Keith Royster")
A Pub Without Beer ("Mark K. August")
Me? A beer judge? Oh, come on... (Charles Burns)
Anything similar ot Beck's out there? ("Mark D. Johnson")
CO2 Saturation - NOT`, leaky CO2 ("David R. Burley")
Weizen (Jim Busch)
re:doppelbocks (dave and laurie dow)
Re: Bottle Pasteurization (Kelly Jones)
Yeast Starter w/ energizer vs. nutrient (GIBBONJJ)
Mike Spinelli's weizen post (Randy Ricchi)
Sanke keg insulation (Harlan Bauer)
Dave Miller weighs in on botulism (SClaus4688)
water question (faymi)
batch vs. fly/warm kegging/beer engines/La Fin Du Monde/peaty beer (korz)
Re: Pub Without Beer ("Paul A. Hausman")
Motorizing MM (M.P. Manning)
leak (John_E_Schnupp)
Mash tun construction (Dave Thomson)
cherry plambic redux ("Grant W. Knechtel")
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: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 00:10:20 +0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith@ays.net>
Subject: bottle fill & CO2 levels - a test
I was thinking this evening about the recent (dead?) thread
concerning bottle fill levels and how this might effect carbonation
levels and I think I might have come up with a test to determine if
there is a relationship. I don't bottle much anymore since I have a
kegging system, so I'm posting my idea so that someone else can try
it.
Take two bottles with clearly different fill levels that are at the
same temperature and carefully open each. The pressure in the
headspaces should now be equal (atmospheric). Now securely attach
two identical balloons to the open neck of each bottle. Shake the
bottles vigorously so that the CO2 comes out of solution and give
them enough time for the CO2 to completely evolve. Measuring the
size of each balloon should give you the volume of the gas that
escaped. Then measure the volume of liquid in each bottle. Gas
evolved divided by liquid volume will give at least a good
indication for comparison reasons of the carbonation levels.
I'd be interested to hear any thoughts in this experiment as well as
the results if anybody tries it. I just sort of threw this together
quickly, so I expect there may be some problems, but it still seems
like a more objective test than simply listening to opening bottles
and tasting the beer. Practically speaking, one immediate
problem/difficulty I see is how to shake a full beer covered by a
balloon without filling the balloon full of foam/beer, but I suppose
it is possible if done carefully.
Have fun!
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina
"An Engineer is someone who measures it with a micrometer,
marks it with a piece of chalk, and cuts it with an ax!"
mailto:keith@ays.net
http://www.ays.net -@your.service web design & hosting
http://www.ays.net/brewmasters -Carolina BrewMasters club page
http://www.ays.net/RIMS -My RIMS (rated COOL! by the Brewery)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:27:09 +0100
From: "Mark K. August" <mark.august@virgin.net>
Subject: A Pub Without Beer
Roy, the store 'A Pub Without Beer' is located at 35A Jubilee Market,
London, WC2. Their phone number is 01713799450.
At the beginning of August I shall be visiting Toronto and I was
wondering if anyone out there could tell me of any good homebrew stores,
micro breweries or pubs worth visiting in the area.
Mark
London, SE
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 97 05:25 PDT
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Me? A beer judge? Oh, come on...
Yeah, after about 18 months of brewing they ask me to be a judge. Like I'm
qualified to tell other people what's wrong with the beer they so proudly
entered into this contest. Sure.
It was a great honor but I was very uncomfortable about it. Basically
because I hadn=92t been trained to be a judge. Big deal, look at some of the
idiotic comments that judges have written on some of MY entry forms. What do
you mean "lactic"? That beer was **wonderful** before I submitted it to the
competition, must have been really poor handling by the stewards=85
So, I mistakenly mention to someone that I=92m interested in taking the beer
judging class that will be offered next year. Why mistakenly? Turns out that
the person I=92m talking to just happens to be the guy (little did I know)
that organized last winter=92s classes. It turned into an extremely
interesting conversation after that and convinced me that yes, that=92s a=
good
idea, if only to gain a better understanding of what the damn style
guidelines really are all about, and how to stay within them. Problem is, I
repeated my conversation to a couple of other people=85
So, I somehow got invited to help judge homebrewed beer at the California
State Fair this year (1997). But "says I" I=92m not trained or qualified.=
But,
says they, "what better way to learn than with some experts". Well, who
could argue with that? So, last night (May 29th) I wander into the back room
of Sunrise @ the Oasis in Citrus Heights, California to help out with the
judging of the first round of Pale, Bitter and Belgian ales. What did I get
assigned to, Belgian! Oh yeah I remember, these are the beers that are
SUPPOSED to taste BAD! I had entered a MicroBrew California Pale Ale so I
was disqualified for those and also and ESB and disqualified for British
too. Stuck with the Belgian.
I must tell you, when "beer of the month" is Belgian, its the one month of
the year I truly consider staying home for the monthly homebrew club
meeting. I just don=92t like =91em, sorry.
So, here I sit with 3 certified judges (thank God) pretending to know what
I=92m doing. First thing I ask, "What the heck is a Wit supposed to taste=
like
anyway?". They all chuckle and one of them launches into a diatribe that
pretty much says "anything goes dude", but certainly gotta=92 be spicey.
Well, after 6 Wits, 4 Pales and 1 Lambic Kriek, I now know next to nothing
about what Belgians are supposed to taste like (I don=92t think anyone=
really
does). I=92m glad that my input really didn=92t count. Although by the end=
of
the evening (2 hours to judge 11 beers) I really did begin to feel like I
could match their comments and scores - I wasn=92t far off from them at the
end. If they scored high, I scored higher, if they scored low, I scored
lower. So I think I was overcompensating, but had the general feel of the
process.=20
Anyhow, if you=92re thinking about becoming a judge, I advise you to start
somewhere other than Belgians. They=92re just too weird and unpredictable.
Start with some American Pale Ale or Porters or Stouts.
I know that the beers our panel passed on to the final round are good beers.
There were over 20 Belgians in the group (two panels) and about 12 of them
made it past us and will be judged on June 8th, well before the publication
of this writeup, thank goodness.
I=92m really looking forward to going to class next January and learning all
the aspects of judging. Both for my own beers and also to contribute as much
as I can to the sport of Homebrewing!
More coming...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mark D. Johnson" <mdjohnso@cs.millersv.edu>
Subject: Anything similar ot Beck's out there?
Hi,
I would like to try to brew a light German Lager, but with a little
twist...I can't lager yet! I would like to try to imitate something like
Beck's or Spaten. Can anyone give me a approximate grain and or extract
bill and what hops are used. Also, what would be a good ale yeast that
may still produce similar results to the lager yeast? It was suggested to
me to use the California Common...I have not had experience with this
particular yeast, has anyone out there had good/bad results?
Thanks,
Mark D. Johnson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:55:01 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: CO2 Saturation - NOT`, leaky CO2
Brewsters:
Gary Knull's observations that he got improved attenuation by adding
nucleation sites for CO2
(in the form of nutrient crystals) and by shaking the carboy do not
definitively indicate that CO2 supersaturation of the wort is a cause of
poor attenuation. All his observations can be explained
quite simply by yeast flocculation in his wort slowing the fermentation
prematurely, followed by deflocculation as a result of the CO2 agitation =
of
the wort or by shaking the carboy which has the
same effect. If he were using top fermenting yeast in a high calcium ion=
enviroment ( say a British Burton-style bitter), this could explain some =
of
the difficulties, as this highly ionic ( especially
calcium ion) environment seems to encourage flocculation. Perhaps the
problem lies in his water
supply, since, as even he observes, most others do not have this problem.=
This cause is fully borne out by historical fact and observation. The
problem with trubless
ferments can easily be a result of insufficient agitation of the wort by=
escaping CO2 from a
smooth sided vessel with no nucleation sites normally provided by the
trub. This is an
explanation of a well known observation that different vessels produce
different attentuations,
especially with ale yeasts because of this flocculation tendency. The
taller vessels provide
a more complete attentuation, since the flocced yeast take longer to fal=
l
to the bottom and still
convert the sugars as they fall. This indicates that the problem is not
CO2 poisoning, since the
yeast are still converting sugars, rather one of prematurely removing th=
e
"catalyst" from the
reaction by flocculation and preventing further conversion of the raw
materials. Powdery yeasts (i.e. non-flocculating yeasts) are often added=
to yeast blends to keep the fermentation going to the end. Sometimes
"dropping " is resorted to as a means of agitating the wort and in other
agitation paddles
are used to ensure a uniform fermentation and complete attenuation.
This is not to say that CO2 solutions cannot become supersaturated and th=
at
CO2 cannot be slow
to come out of solution. Witness my previous example of popping the top=
on a beer bottle. When you do,
the CO2 is supersaturated, relative to the new head pressure and stays
that way for several hours, sometimes days -thank goodness- otherwise
neither beer nor champagne would be very popular with
the well dressed consumer. Several years ago a deep volcanic lake in
Africa erupted when CO2 =
and other gases in a supersaturated state came out violently and killed
people and animals.by
suffocation.
Despite this observation that CO2 supersaturation is a real possibility,
yeast still ferments in the
bottle where the CO2 concentration is substantially above one atmosphere =
to
produce naturally
conditioned beer. If the yeast were de-activated by CO2 it would not be
possible to have homebrew
carbonated by this method.
Also, witness the example given here recently about fermentation under CO=
2
pressure. I would like to
hear more facts from that article in BT or Zymurgy. Anyone care to commen=
t
on examples of fermentation
under CO2 pressure? Also, more information of what causes yeast
floccuation, like pH, salts, etc.
would be most appreciated.
- -------------------------------------------------
Hardpipe writes that he has had several tanks of CO2 leak away into the
atmosphere without passing through his beer first. I had this problem an=
d
it turned out the hard fiber washer (you do have one?) that forms the
connection between the tank and the regulator was not compressed enough. =
Try turning the coupling nut a LITTLE tighter. Also you can check for
leaks with a soap solution made from foamy dishwashing detergent and wate=
r.
Liberally apply it to the various connections and if you see bubbles, yo=
u
have a leak. Always close the main valve when the tank is not in use.
- ------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:04:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Weizen
<Anyway, if I'm making a weizen with the standard 60/40 split of readily
<available U.S. pale and Weyermann german wheat malt,
Standard in Germany is 60-70% Wheat malz to 40-30% pils malz. I prefer
70% Wheat malz.
<what would be the LEAST
<troublesome mash schedule to use, but still get a decent product?
Dough in at 40-45C. Raise to 50C for 20 mins, 60-62C for 15 min, 68-70C
for 45-60 mins, 75-77C and lauter. Or you can decoct.
<Are all these 40/50/60/etc./etc. programs overkill when using the highly
<modified malts we can all get?
No. Be sure to keep the kettle hops below 18 IBUs.
Prost!
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:27:53 -0400
From: dave and laurie dow <dlkd@agate.net>
Subject: re:doppelbocks
>>
>>>Subject: Dopplebocks
>
>>Has anyone out there in the collective made a partial-mash/extract
>>dopplebock?
>Yes I have .
>
>>Since I don't have a temperature controled refrigerator, what would
happen if
>>I ferment it with an Ale yeast and then "lager" in the basement, at around
>>50F, for some extended time? What yeast would I use (Alt yeast? Scot
>>yeast?)?
>I used a lager yeast and kept the temp at about 50-55. I let it set 5 weeks.
>I don't think that it hurt the taste and it definitely didn't hurt the
alcohol
>amount any!! I don't profess to be an expert, and I am sure that the
"Dinkernator"
>wouldn't win alot of medals, but I enjoyed it!!!
>
>dinky dave dow
>belfast, me
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:04:18 -0700
From: Kelly Jones <kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Bottle Pasteurization
On the subject of prssure rise in bottles being Pasteurized, Charlie S.
wrote:
> According to Boyle-Charles' Law pV/T = constant
> where T is measured in degrees absolute (K) where 0K is -273C. So the
> increase in CO2 pressure at 60C is only 1.22 times the pressure at 0C.
This would be correct if the bottle contained only gaseous CO2, but
since the contents are actually a beer-CO2 mixture, we must take into
account the beer/CO2 equilibrium. The actual pressure rise will be much
greater than this, due to CO2 trying to come out of solution. For
example, referring to the carbonation tables at
http://alpha.rollanet.org:80/library/CO2charts.html
we see that the equilibrium pressure for beer (with 2.5 volumes of CO2)
at 32F is 8.2 psi, whereas the eq. pressure at 80F is 34.8 psi. The
pressure increases fourfold, for only a 50F rise in temperature - much
greater than what is predicted by incorrectly applying Boyle's Law.
I wish I could tell you what the increase in P would be for
Pasteurization, but don't have my CRC tables handy. But you should plan
on a significant increase, and use only strong bottles, and avoid
thermally shocking the glass.
Kelly
Hillsboro, OR
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:21:24 -0400
From: GIBBONJJ@apci.com
Subject: Yeast Starter w/ energizer vs. nutrient
I made a yeast starter late last night by bumping up a Wyeast smack pack
with a third cup of DME boiled in a pint of water. I also intended to add a
small pinch of yeast nutrient. This morning, I realized I had mistakenly
added yeast energizer [Yeastex (?), it is a coarse, yellow powder] instead
of nutrient. The starter did not look or smell like it had much activity.
Does anybody have any knowledge on the effects of yeast energizer in a
starter? Will the starter be adversely affected or will it turn out fine?
Thanks in advance.
John Gibbons
Allentown, PA
gibbonjj@apci.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:07:35 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Mike Spinelli's weizen post
In response to Mike Spinelli's question about a simple, yet effective mash
program for Bavarian Weizens:
Of the dozen or so weizens I've made, about half have been step infusion,
and half have been single decoction, and I've come to the conclusion that
decoction mashes for pale hefe-weizens are not worth the added time and
effort. The two considerations I can think of when comparing the two
programs are taste and ease of lautering.
As for taste, any "theoretical" increase in maltiness is hidden by the
clove and fruit provided by the yeast, at least in my experience. My own
preference in pale hefe-weizens is for intense yeast character, so I brew
to accentuate that characteristic. I have noticed slower than usual sparges
when brewing weizens, but this has been the case whether I did decoction or
step infusion, and while the sparge may be slow, it was never "stuck".
When I do an infusion mash, I do a protein rest of 126 to 130 deg.F for 45
min to l hour, then boost by direct heat while stirring, to a sugar rest of
around 152 deg. F.
I get a beautiful, long lasting head, and eventually, the beer drops very
bright. The beer drops bright with the decoction mash a little sooner, but
who cares? It's a freakin' weizen! You're probably going to dump the dregs
in your glass anyway.
One problem with decoction mashing (although it is avoidable, you just have
to be careful about rest times) is some brewers spend too much time doing
their decoction, while leaving the main mash at protein rest for way too
long a time, resulting in thin head which disappears quickly. This can
happen even in a high protein weizen.
Mike mentioned he would be using U.S. pale malt, and German wheat malt.
Although I prefer German pils malt over U.S. malt because it's lower in
protein, and you already have a lot of protein from the wheat malt, I have
successfully used American 2-row lager malt with the procedure outlined
above. Just make sure you use U.S. LAGER malt, and not the new U.S. pale
ALE malt that has just come on the market. Assuming the new pale ale malts
are like their British counterparts in flavor, the flavor profile wouldn't
be right for a weizen.
Now I know that there are die-hard decoction heads out there who will want
to blast what I've said, but keep in mind that Mike is looking for an
EASIER way, to make good weizen. Step infusion IS easier, and there are
many, I'm sure who will feel that it is THE way to go for brewing weizens.
I am not saying decoction mashing is wrong in any way, after all, who am I
to question the Germans on brewing good weizen? To each his own.
"Should anyone thirst, let them come unto me and drink"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:09:11 -0500
From: blacksab@midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Subject: Sanke keg insulation
Mark Hagen wrote:
>A local homebrew supply owner mentioned to me that it would be nice
>to come up with some way of insulating the Sabco sparge/mash/boil
>kettles.
Another option is a product made by CertainTeed. It is a rigid fiberglass
duct insulation used in commercial construction. It comes in 1-2-inch
thicknesses and can be got in 16-in diameter, the exact diameter of a sanke
keg. It has a slit down the length and is simply a larger version of the
pipe insulation sold for 1/2-in. copper water pipe that is sold in any
hardware store. This is what I used for my mash tun (and then covered with
sheet aluminium), and it withstands the heat from my gas-fired burner. I
found mine at a commercial insulation outfit in Chicago, but it should be
available in any urban area. Look in the BUSINESS yellow pages under
"insulation". It's sold in 3-ft. sections.
Hope this helps,
Harlan
Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can
Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man.
<blacksab@midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:54:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: SClaus4688@aol.com
Subject: Dave Miller weighs in on botulism
It's the thread that wouldn't die! As those of you who've been following the
botulism discussion know, Dave Miller's books recommend a wort canning method
that some believe is susceptible to botulism infection. Enough noise has
been generated on the HBD on this issue that Miller will put in his 2 cents
in the upcoming BT. Here's an advance copy that the BT editors sent me
today (BTW, the editor said a number of people wrote to Dave on this issue as
a result of the HBD posts):
"Botulism in Canned Wort
"Q. I imagine you have seen this question already, but here goes: A recent
thread in the Home Brew Digest asserts that typical canning procedures used
to package sterile wort (as described in your books) are not safe because
the pH of the *food* is higher than 4.5. The contributors mention that
botulism spores withstand the heat of boiling and the hot water bath. They
say that to truly can wort safely a pressure cooker is required. Otherwise,
wort prepared in a hot water bath using normal canning procedures must be
boiled and cooled just before use, making it less convenient than boiling up
a starter from dried malt extract each time. I have been using your canning
method for two or three years now without any problems. Should I be
concerned?
"A. Thank you for an intriguing and important question. I spoke with Dr. Joe
Power of the Siebel Institute of Technology (Chicago) about this one. The
standard brewing microbiology texts contain no specific reference to
botulism growth in wort, so he could not rule out the possibility that
botulism spores might survive and grow in canned wort. Botulism, however, is
a Gram-positive organism, and most Gram-positive bacteria are inhibited by
hop resins. So if you have been putting hops in your wort, there is probably
little cause for concern.
"I would also point out that if bugs start to grow in wort or any other
growth medium they show signs of their activity -- clouding of the wort,
bubbles on the surface, and strange odors, for example. Obviously, if a jar
of wort shows any of these symptoms it should not be used. Botulism is
usually associated with home canned vegetables and low-acid fruits, and one
could understand how the appearance of microbial activity could be missed in
a jar full of tomatoes or green beans, but in jars of clear wort, the signs
should be much easier to read.
"If you are very concerned, you can use an alternative procedure that does
not require a pressure cooker. It is called Tyndallization and was used in
laboratories in the days before autoclaves became widely available.
Basically, you would cook the wort in the jars as usual on the first day,
then let them cool in the water bath. The second day, repeat the procedure --
heat, boil, cool -- just as on the first. The third day, do it all again.
This is more tedious than simple canning, but it requires no additional
equipment and allows you to process a large number of jars at the same time
rather than going through the wort preparation routine every time you want to
propagate some yeast. The reason Tyndallization works is that any spores that
survive boiling will begin to germinate fairly soon. They will produce
vegetative organisms which can be killed by boiling. That's what you do when
you come after them again on the second day. The third day? Well, that's
just to be doubly sure. It's based on the same reasoning behind running a
sanitizer rinse for 10 minutes on a unitank, even though all the tests
provethat iodophor will kill the bugs in 2.
"Another procedure you could use, as an alternative to pressure cooking or
Tyndallization, would be to adjust the pH of your wort to 4.5 before canning.
Boiled wort is usually around 5.2 so it wouldn't require much acid to bring
the pH down to 4.5, and the slightly lower-than-normal pH would have no
effect on the brewers yeast when you propagated it.
"I used sterile canned wort, made up exactly as described in the Complete
Handbook (4), for about six years -- from the time I started using liquid
yeast cultures until I got into commercial brewing. I never had a bit of
trouble; I never saw even the slightest hint that anything was alive in
those jars -- including some jars that were as much as two years old. I doubt
you have anything to worry about. But if you are at all uneasy, you might
want to Tyndallize any jars of canned wort (steps two and three; you did step
one when you canned them) that you have on hand, and use Tyndallization for
future batches."
-Steve Claussen in PDX
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:49:00 EST
From: faymi@earlham.edu
Subject: water question
I've been spectating (with an occasional post) for about nine months now.
I think I've learned quite a lot, so keep posting everyone!
Where I'm staying this summer, the water supply comes from a well which
has a lot of iron in it. I seem to recall that iron is very bad for beer
flavor. So I'm wondering if softened water is any good for making beer?
Any water experts have ideas? I suppose water analysis might help a lot
but since that would cost over a hundred dollars-ain't gonna happen.
Any suggestions as to the lesser of the two evils or should I just buy
spring water or r/o water?
Thanks
Michael Fay
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:23:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: batch vs. fly/warm kegging/beer engines/La Fin Du Monde/peaty beer
Ken writes:
>AlK chimed in with:
>
>"Saying that batch sparging "can be almost as efficient" as
>fly sparging, assumes that the fly sparging is 100% efficient.
>In most cases, it is not. The factor you have forgotten Ken,
>is *channeling*."
>
>I thought I did indicate that my term "efficiency" meant that compared with
>"fly sparging", not conversion efficiency. If batch sparging is 90% as
>efficient as a fly sparge on a 70% efficient conversion, then my total
>efficiency is 90% of 70% or 63%. That's what I meant.
>
>As for channelling, batch-sparging should alleviate this problem to an extent
>since the stirring of the grain bed after the first runoff and prior to the
>second would redistribute the grain bed. Channelling may again occur, but
>the lost wort would be considerably more dilute, meaning less sugar is lost.
My post seems to have been unclear. What I meant was, that if you are
fly sparging and are having a lot of channeling, then you may actually
get *better* efficiency when you batch sparge. My gut feeling is that
it won't take a lot of channeling to make batch sparging more efficient
than fly sparging.
***
Lord Fredrick Badger writes:
>I have been trying to get into kegging, and been having problem with
>FOAMing in a big way. I have been told that i need to keep the kegs
>cool, but i cannot afford (space and money) to get a beer fridge, plus i
>wanna take them camping and stuff with me (medieval style, i do SCA) so
>thats not really an option either...
It seems to me that the only option you may have is to shoot for a very
low carbonation level (like Real Ale). Carbonate to about 1.25 volumes
of CO2 at whatever temperature you happen to be and then cool the kegs
with ice before serving. Conceivably, you can carbonate to any level,
but it's much more practical to try to get kegs from 75F to 55 or 60F
than to get them all the way down to 45F. If you get foam, increase
the length and decrease the diameter of the serving hose.
***
Roy writes:
>I'm interested in possibly obtaining and using a beer engine with a
>"corny" keg instead of a CO2 bottle. I know that many of the pubs draw
>their ales...with these 'pumps' in the UK. I have a couple of questions
>about them though as I'm still a relatively new homebrewer. If a beer
>engine is used, will the beer have to be used in a short period of time
>to keep it from going flat? Or assuming that priming sugar was used, will
>the CO2 formed be sufficient to keep the beer pressurized and 'fresh'? If
>this is too basic, I apologize, as I said I've only been brewing for a
>short period of time........Roy
Ideally, you should finish the keg quickly. A way to cheat, that no
respectable CAMRA member would ever do (;^), is to:
1. vent the keg and leave the vent open,
2. connect the handpump,
3. serve the beer,
4. disconnect the hanpump,
5. purge the headspace with CO2,
6. close the vent, and
7. store the beer at 55F till the next drinking session.
Beer will keep quite long this way, but is time-consuming, non-traditional,
and wastes a lot of CO2. Ooop... prime/force-carb the beer only to about
1.25 volumes... otherwise you will pour foam throught the beer engine.
You need not go to Britain for a beer engine... they are available from
a place in eastern Canada (PEI? NS?)... there was an article in Zymurgy
on Real Ale (not the very last article, a previous one) which gave a
few addresses. Ray Daniels had some beer engines for sale (very nice ones)
after the last Real Ale Fest. See the RAF home page... I don't know the
website URL, but you can get to it from the CBS home page:
http://www.mcs.com/~shamburg/cbs/cbshome.html
***
Dave writes:
>Belgian style beers were right on the money. Following Jacques'
>instructions we went to a supermarket (!!!) to buy these beers. La Fin Du
>Monde - a Gueuze style was exceptional but all were extremely good and to
La Fin Du Monde (The End of the World, gotta love that name) is
a Belgian-style Strong Ale, not a Gueuze, but indeed it is a great beer!
***
Charles writes:
>Subject: Re. Peat Taste in Extract Brews
>
>>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:36:41 -0400
>>From: "Lee Carpenter" <leec@redrose.net>
>>Subject: Peat Taste in Extract Brews
>>Fellow stir-doctors,
>>What is the best way to impart a natural peat taste in an extract beer? I
>>want to attempt a clone of S.A. Scotch Ale.
>>Lee C. Carpenter
>
>Lee,
> I've heard of two ways and have tried one. Either will work only if
>you're doing "intermediate brewing", using some specialty grains in along
>w/ the malt extract.
> WYeast makes a "Scottish Ale" yeast that helps to impart the taste you're
>looking for. I used that with 5lb. DME, 1lb. crystal malt, and 1/4lb.
>toasted (350 degrees F, 10 minutes before crushing) malt. It turned out
>nicely.
The toasted malt may have added a touch of flavour, but mostly it added
starch and haze. The use of toasted malt in extract brews was popularised
by Charlie P. and really should be avoided.
As for the Wyeast Scottish Ale yeast, the Wyeast brochure says that
it imparts a peaty aroma, and I've read in HBD from several brewers who
got a peaty/phenolic aroma from it. However, I posted a question about
this yeast on HBD a while ago and something like two brewers wrote me
that they got a smoky character from they yeast whereas 10 wrote me that
it is one of the cleanest yeasts they have used. I have not brewed
with it yet, but I made two starters (one at 68F, the other at 58F) and
neither had any smoky character. Perhaps it has something to do with
the amount of ferulic acid in the wort (this is what gets turned into
4-vinyl guaiacol in Bavarian Weizens and imparts that clovey/phenolic
aroma). You can increase your ferulic acid level by adding some wheat
or rye and resting at 104F (I believe... or is it 112F? Check Warner's
German Wheat book) for 15 minutes.
Oops... just forgot... you wanted this for an extract batch. Well,
you can add some wheat extract and take your chances, or you can be
sure and home-smoke some crystal malt.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:55:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Paul A. Hausman" <paul@lion>
Subject: Re: Pub Without Beer
According to the British Telecommunications plc. website
(www.eyp.co.uk), there is a business called: The Pub With No Beer
they are located at:
30a Jubilee Market Covent Garden
London WC2E 8BE
Tel: 0171 379 9450
There is also an interesting-sounding place called
Pub Paraphernalia (U.K)
Unit 6 Newington Ind Est,Crampton St
London SE17 3AZ
Tel: 0171 701 8913
Let me know what you find out about them.
> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 97 12:06:26 -0400
> From: "Roy R. Rimmele" <flossbos@mindport.net>
> Subject: Pub Without Beer Help
>
> I've been fortunate enough to be in London several times in the past
> couple of years. Unfortunately, when I was there I was not a home brewer,
> hence my query for help. Does anyone out there have any information about
> a store in the Convent Garden area of London, called 'A Pub Without
> Beer'. I'm interested in either writing or calling them. They carry
> anything you can think of beer/pub related. (I don't think they do home
> brew supplies). i.e. glasses, coasters, pitchers, towels,
> mirrors........and I think beer engines. I'm looking for a correct
> mailing address, and or telephone number so I can contact them. Can
> anyone help. Thanks.......Roy
- --
Paul A. Hausman <Paul@Lion.com>
Lion Technology Inc., Lafayette, NJ, USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:46:14 -0400
From: manning@one.net (M.P. Manning)
Subject: Motorizing MM
From: "Mike Kidulich" <mjkid@ix12.ix.netcom.com>
>I own a Schmidling MaltMill, which I would like to
>motorize. Towards this end, I have acquired a Dayton model 4Z613
>motor. The specifications are as follows:
>1/25 input motor hp
>F/L torque: 12 in/lbs
>full load rpm: 154
>Does this motor have the guts to power a MM? I am planning a belt
I'd say not. The MM seems to have a pretty high starting torque, and If I
remember correctly, JS once said he tried a 60 in-lb gearmotor without
success in a standing start, loaded condition. I have a 30 in-lb 150 RPM
motor driving a Glatt mill, which works fine, at about 1 lb of grain per
minute. The Glatt's rollers, however, are only about 4 in long compared to
the MM's 10" (effective length being somewhat less). You may be able to
reduce the speed using pulleys, thus multiplying the torque, but at a loss
of through-put. Look for a bigger motor.
Martin Manning
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:13:09 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: leak
Hardpipe and fellow Digesters,
Get a bottle of a liquid leak detector. The brand we use here
at my job is called Snoop. You should probably be able to find
this at plumbing supply house. Other alternatives are making
a solution of water and liquid dish detergent. Add just enough
detergent to make it bubble. I also suspect that child's bubble
liquid that you can buy in department and drug stores would also
work . Use this solution on all your fittings and regulator.
There will be steady supply of bubbles if there is a leak. Make
sure you check the fitting on the bottle too. My CO2 supplier
give fiber type seals with each bottle. I have found it very
hard to get a good seal with them (they almost always leak).
Use a teflon seal if you can get one. I have been using teflon
seals and have never had a leak with one. I use my CO2 for many
purposes including racking and carbonating beverages other than
beer. I brew about 10-12 batches a year and a 5# bottle will
last me for about 9 months, it would last even longer if I was
using if for force carbonation and dispensing only. If you have
a leak and the bottle/regulator and can't get a teflon (or
other soft seal) you will need to turn the bottle on/off each
time you are going to tap beer in order to not lose it into
thin air.
5 Gallon Brewer
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
'95 XLH 1200
john_e_schnupp@amat.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:54:22 -0400
From: Dave Thomson <dlt@ici.net>
Subject: Mash tun construction
I am trying to construct an mash tun out of a 10 gal igloo industrial
cooler. I am planning to buy a phils phase bottom. my question is what
should I replace the push valve with?
thanks Dave T
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:58:23 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK@hartcrowser.com>
Subject: cherry plambic redux
Several issues ago I asked about using local cherries in plambic. To summarize
the private and public responses:
1. Definitely leave the pits in.
2. Choke cherries came highly to lukewarm recommended. I'm not sure I'll be
able to find any, but will make the attempt. No one recommended "Bing" type
cherries.
3. The Belgian Schaarbeek cherries prized for Kriek lambic are scarce even in
Belgium, and it doesn't sound like there are any close analogs readily available
in the US as fruit. The combination of dark color and intense flavor is pretty
rare here.
4. For those further interested, with Internet access, check out the Lambic FAQ
at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb/lambic/lambic.html for more
information on cherries.
Thanks for your replies,
-Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2448, 06/25/97
*************************************
-------
