Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2477
HOMEBREW Digest #2477 Tue 05 August 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:
Re: Legal brewing of Eisbocks (Oliver Weatherbee)
Re: Rob Kienle: Yeast Starters, Botulism and Paranoia (Daniel S McConnell)
Re: Legal brewing of Eisbocks (Richard Stueven)
Sweaty subject (Some Guy)
"Negra" Modelo (MCI)" <Todd.W.Wilson@mci.com>
fermentables vs. dextrins ("Jeff Hailey")
plambic at the GABF (Jeff Sturman)
Botulism (Mike Hughes)
Eisbock - The BATF Speaks..... ("Ian Wilson")
botulism, aha, plambics (Jim Liddil)
Re:priming (Jim English)
US Tettnang really Fuggle! ("Andy Walsh")
chillers, racking & sterile water ("C.D. Pritchard")
Notso silly, ("David R. Burley")
Home-pelletized hops (GuyG4)
questions on 5l mini-kegs (checked HBD archives...) (Jim Graham)
Easy Off Labels (Red Wheeler)
Wit recipes (Red Wheeler)
Eisbock & the BATF (Bill Watt)
A Somewhat Sleazy Idea For Color Correction (Rob Kienle)
Corona Grain Mill; Quinoa (Mark Thomson)
Trappist Style Brew - help ("Jackson.Bill")
Re: legal definitions - EISBOCK (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: A little more on Blue Moon (John_E_Schnupp)
Water PH and differnt temps. (Mike Spinelli)
Re: starters ("Charles L. Ehlers")
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 brewery@realbeer.com
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, 1 Aug 1997 13:38:20 -0400
From: oliver@triton.cms.udel.edu (Oliver Weatherbee)
Subject: Re: Legal brewing of Eisbocks
Kudos to Jeff who in hbd #2475 posted the url of a wonderful resource
for looking into some of the legal issues of alcohol. However, I
looked through the codes and found what I think are some important
ommissions in his excerpts which seem to support my interpretation
of this particular issue.
Jeff cited 27 CFR 252.11 (Meaning of Terms):
"(a) Conditions on concentration. A brewer may not employ any
process of concentration which separates alcohol spirits from any
fermented substance."
However, the rest of the section describes the reconstitution of
"Beer Concentrate" such as "reconstitution of beer will consist of the
addition to the concentrate of carbon dioxide and water only."
This would seem to indicate that a brewer can concentrate beer.
This is verified in 27 CFR 25.263 [Subpart R] (Production
of concentrate and reconstitution of beer):
"(a) Operations at brewery. A brewer may concentrate beer or
reconstitute beer only at a brewery."
The rest of the provisions regards labelling, transfer, and
reconstitution.
Also in 27 CFR 252.11 (Meaning of Terms) we find the definition
of Concentrate:
"Concentrate. Concentrate produced from beer by the removal of
water under the provisions of Subpart R of this part. The
processes of concentration of beer and reconstitution of beer are
considered authorized processes in the production of beer."
So what this definition and the condition statement earlier say is
that a brewer can concentrate beer through the removal of water but
not through distillation (removal of alcohol). It also recognizes
this procedure as a beer brewing process.
I suspect that these provisions are meant to cover the activities of
such brewers as Coors who ship concentrate to be reconsituted at various
nationwide bottling plants. However, it seems to me these provisions
provide for the distinction between freezing and distilling with the
former permitted.
The catch is that there is no provision for selling "beer concentrate"
in a retail market. Not to mention some strict records and reporting
requirements. Also, it only provides for the transfer to another
brewery of the same ownership. Since the definition of concentrate does
not list any quantitative measurements, it likely includes Eisbock style
beers and this would affect commercial production of this style (e.g. not
allowed to sell it). However, it doesn't say you can't give it away like
HOTD Eve.
I can find no other areas that seem to relate to freezing/concentrating
beer. There is also no mention of this type of procedure under the
definition of distillation (19.316). So concentrating beer through
the removal of water is a recognized process in brewing and is defined
and treated separately from distilling.
It is also important to note that homebrewers are not considered
brewers under these regulations:
"Brewer. Any person who brews beer (except a person who produces
only beer exempt from tax under 26 U.S.C. 5053(e)) and any person
who produces beer for sale."
So, again I argue that the Code of Federal Regulations distinguishes
concentrating beer from distilling and therefor I am not distilling
when I make an Eisbock or Eve knockoff.
Disclaimer: This is only submitted for discussion's sake and as an
explaination of my stand on this issue. I am not giving legal advice.
- Oliver
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:30:19 -0400
From: danmcc@umich.edu (Daniel S McConnell)
Subject: Re: Rob Kienle: Yeast Starters, Botulism and Paranoia
>From: Rob Kienle <rkienle@interaccess.com>
>What happened was that when I opened the wort starter to add
>the yeast, I noticed a fairly pronounced scent coming from it that was
>probably more "dirty socklike" than anything else.
> I had a nice krausen going in the subsequent step a
>day later, even without having had any evidence that such would occur in
>the original vial.
Rob, what you might be smelling is either Yeast Nitrogen Base which is used
as one of the nutrients in the media or the plastic tube as a result of
heating. These tubes contain very low gravity enriched wort. At his low
gravity little, if any krausen forms. Depending on the temprature (is it
summer where you live?), these tubes can ferment out overnight. The media
is designed to grow yeast rapidly. It is definately not something that
will make a drinkable (or wonderful smelling) beverage.
>Now for the paranoia; with all this talk about botulism, and after I
>smelled the yucky situation in the first vial I tried last night, I at
>first feared that the dreaded *b-beast* is in my starter vials, which
>were canned by YCKC and shipped to me along with the slants.
Not canned. Autoclaved for 20 min at 15 psi. Sterile. Even the
Pediococcus are dead.......
Thanks to all of you who forwarded this message to me!
DanMcC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 08:30:53 -1000
From: Richard Stueven <gak@molokaibrewing.com>
Subject: Re: Legal brewing of Eisbocks
Jeff notes:
> According to US law ( 27 CFR part 25 section 25.262 "Restrictions and
> conditions on processes of concentration and reconstitution"):
>
> "(a) Conditions on concentration. A brewer may not employ any
> process of concentration which separates alcohol spirits from any
> fermented substance."
But the alcohol isn't separated from the fermented substance in
the freezing process...only water is.
have fun
gak
- --
Richard Stueven gak@beerismylife.com http://www.aloha.net/~gak
The Moloka`i Brewing Company http://molokaibrewing.com
Beer Is My Life! http://beerismylife.com
Breweries On The Web http://www.aloha.net/~gak/beer/brewwww.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:22:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Sweaty subject
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Spencer rants on a peeve...
Ah! But "pore" is also "a tiny opening, as in plant leaves or skin, for
absorbing or discharging fluids". Like a sweat gland. Olde English, they
used to say "Don't sweat gland over that data" from whence derived our
modern colloquialism: "Don't sweat over it." Ah! English!
I prefer to use multifunctional languages. For instance, I could say: "As
I po'ed ober mah e-mail, I beginned to feel wahm and de sweat dun po'ed
out o' mah po'es until I hadda swim. Po me, po me." See the beauty? I hit
all the meanings, without mispelling or misusing one!
Back to po'ing ober mah e-mail...
;-)
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:46:25 -0600
From: "Wilson, Todd (MCI)" <Todd.W.Wilson@mci.com>
Subject: "Negra" Modelo
Thanks to all who responded to my question of how to classify "Negra"
Modelo. Not only did I learn how to correctly spell the beer but
everyone who responded indicated that it is a Vienna style lager and
everyone recommended George and Laurie Fix's book on lagers as a good
place to start. I have always been an ale brewer but I will pick up
this book and try my hand at the recommended "Graf-style" lager.
Thanks also to Charlie Marino who offered the following historical
background on Vienna style beers/brewers "Most of the Viennese brewers
migrated to Mexico after the collapse of the Ottoman empire." Certainly
an the most interesting beer in a squat brown bottle!
Thanks
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 97 13:09:14 EDT
From: "Jeff Hailey" <jeff_hailey@ccmail.ray.com>
Subject: fermentables vs. dextrins
Reading the HBD the last few days has got me thinking about
the sugars present in wort. First, John Carsten has had
a bit of trouble with the body in his porter. Consensus
seems to be that he let it mash at too low of a temperature,
creating too many fermentable sugars. Second, Ken Schwartz
created his own specialty malts at home. He states that,
according to Randy Mosher, the process favors the creation
of dextrins over ferementables. Also, I have read that
crystal malt and cara-pils malt contain a high proportion of
dextrins. Some brewers use these malts, especially cara-
pils, to add body to their beer (obviously, crystal adds
color and flavor components as well due to the fact that it
has been caramelized to an extent).
All of this leads me to a question. What keeps the
beta-amalysases from breaking down the dextrins provided by
speciality malts? Or, maybe the question should be, why add
cara-pils when you can just raise your mash temperature to
contribute to a more dextrinous wort?
Please help to enlighten this brewer.
Cheers!
Jeff Hailey,
Brewing in Tulsa, OK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:09:11 -0700
From: brewshop@coffey.com (Jeff Sturman)
Subject: plambic at the GABF
Here's a thought that just occurred to me. At last year's GABF John Fahrer
(sp?) (1996 hboy) of Nebraska was on hand with a keg of his award winning
beer, offering samples to anyone who wished to savor a good home brew.
Several hundred people tasted that beer and exchanged a few words with
John. Good publicity for home brewing.
This year Charlie Gottenkjeny (sp?) may be at the GABF offering samples of
his plambic to the public. Probably not good for home brewing. I think
offering non-home brewers plambic is going to do more harm than good. They
might get the impression that all home brew tastes like that. The fact is
most people haven't tried lambic, and most people cringe the first time
they do. I think maybe Charlie should offer something a little more subtle
at the GABF.
And don't tell me that offering the plambic would be very beneficial and
educational. That's crap. Every amateur beer lover at the festival will
go home thinking home brew sucks. At the very least there should be two
beers to choose from; the plambic and a pale ale, or a pilsner, or maybe a
wheat beer.
I have nothing against lambic, I even enjoy one from time to time. And I'm
sure Charlie's is an excellent example of the style. But giving it to
unsuspecting, potential home brewers would not be wise.
jeff
casper, wy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 14:42:43 -0700
From: Mike Hughes <mikehu@synopsys.com>
Subject: Botulism
Salutations -
Since we're talking about botulism, anybody see 48 Hours last night?
They did a story on a doctor that is using live botulism to remove
wrinkles from peoples faces. He injects the live bacteria into their
faces where wrinkles are present. The toxin produced paralizyes the
muscles, removing the wrinkles. So what are you guys worried about? If
you have botulism in your beer, it will be impossible for you or your
friends to get "Bitter Beer Face"!!!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Eisbock:
> According to US law ( 27 CFR part 25 section 25.262 "Restrictions and
> conditions on processes of concentration and reconstitution"):
> "(a) Conditions on concentration. A brewer may not employ any
> process of concentration which separates alcohol spirits from any
> fermented substance."
The Brewer is not removing any alcohol spirits from the fermented
substance. The Brewer is removing water and proteins that freeze, right?
The alcohol stays in the fermented beer. If any of you feel guilty about
taking advantage of this free legal advice, you may clear your
conscience by sending me a case of the first Eisbock that you brew.
Mike H.
Portland, Or
"Life is short. Grain is cheep. Just Brew It!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:44:56 -0700
From: "Ian Wilson" <ianw@sosinet.net>
Subject: Eisbock - The BATF Speaks.....
With all due respects to all the posters, and there have been many - some
good ones, too:
Spouting of statistics is a relative subject! For example, one can
determine the odds of being the winner of the California Lottery by
dividing the number of tickets one buys by the total number of tickets
sold. However, the person who manages to win is a one-hundred percent
winner!
Statistics work well when predicting the behavior of a function over a
large population. For example: if 1 in 10 million people poke their eye
with a sharp stick, today, some 27 people will do so in this country. The
chances of me doing it are indeed slim, but if I am one of the unlucky
ones, it bloody hurts.
This letter was sent to me by Mr. Charles N. Bacon, of the Bureau of
Alchohol, Tabacoo and Fire Arms in reposne to my request for an opinion:
The story of eisboch is obviously lost to time although a few German
brewers continue to produce the style. More recently, American Brewers
"discovered" the style in Canada; Labatt claims to have invented it
although the Niagara Falls Brewery apparently produced it before anyone
else in recent times in North America. I have seen evidence that this
type of beer was produced by local brewers in the 1930's and 1940's.
Hard cider has been produced throughout the east by this method since
colonial times.
Because of the uncanny resemblance to a concentrate made from beer, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has written a formal ruling on
"ice beer." Essentially, it states that if a brewer superchills beer
and removes ice or water, the product will be considered to be ordinary
"beer" if the volume of material removed is not more than 1/2 of 1% of
the original volume, and if the resultant product resembles "beer."
This ruling was issued to prevent brewers from producing an "ice beer"
which is seriously concentrated by the removal of water or ice. Classic
beer concentrates often are 15% alc/vol or more and may have only 1/4 of
their original volume. These products are taxed as distilled spirits if
they are removed from a brewery or imported without being reconstituted
with water.
The eisbock or ice beer method of production would be considered as
ordinary home beer making and home brewers could use the method if they
wished. ATF's primary interest would be, as usual, to ensure home
brewers were not selling the beer they make.
Mr. Bacon goes on to list the actual ruling, which would be too long to
post here. I will make if available for those of you who want a private
e-mail of the document.
Carry on brewing, gentlepersons! Go to the source when in doubt!
Ian Wilson
Relaxin' and havin' anotha.....
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:45:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL@AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: botulism, aha, plambics
First on the Botulism thread. As has ben pointed out life is a risk. But one
thing that everybody has been ignoring is that Clostidium botulinum is a strict
anaerobe. It won't grow nor will it sporulate when air is present. So for all
of you who use the simple hot water immersion method to "can" your wort just
loosen the lids after the jars have had cooled to allow air into the jar. Then
tighten the lid and put it into the refrigerator.
>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:03:18 -0400
>From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
>Subject: AHA Commitments
>We did spend a great deal of time talking about how the AHA and Zymurgy
>can be of more value to brewers. How to get and retain members. How to
>better work with clubs and with the homebrew suppliers. How to make the
>AHA more meaningful to its members. A number of ideas have been
>brought forward and the AHA's new staff professes a very real desire and
>willingness to work with us. They are very "client" oriented. Many are
>new to the AHA so we may have to account for some learning curve, but I
>was satisfied with their commitment.
So can you outline what some of the "hows" will be? Gee I go on vacation and
come back to more comments lambic than the issues of the AHA. I know that more
than one BofA person reads the hbd. So did the AHA put a gag order on all of
you? I guess we have to wait for the Official Party Line to appear on the AOB
web site and in Zymurgy? It makes me wonder who is looking out for who's best
interests.
>complete report. If one of the other BOA members can do that from
>memory (I didn't take notes) go right ahead; don't wait on me -- I off
>on some business trips.
All I hear is silence.
>Of course results are what counts but I can assure you that the new BOA
>(some 12+) are committed to working with the AHA to make significant
>changes.
Again what are the chnages going to be? What are some of the proposals to
implement them? Or are the questions I'm asking one that can only be answered
on the AHA Member Only section?
>From: John Kessel
>RE: Lambic
>In response to my slam on Jim Liddil's "quiet joke" about plambic, I must
>say that it went right over my head. Sorry, but please be a little less
>subtle for those of us who don't know the complete history of the
>homebrew world. For those that didn't know, Jim won best of show at
>nationals with a lambic and, I assume, he faced a lot of serious comments
>like his light-hearted one from the July 25 HBD.
Apology excepted. It's great to go on vacation and have a bunch of people
defending what you say. :-) But I can also speak for myself.
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:41:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Lambic BOS
>Knowing Jim, I don't think that he was being intentionally offensive.
>Jim has judged pLambics in the nationals and I believe that he simply
>sets an unrealistically high standard for pLambics. I judged his
>pGueuze in the 1st round (at Oldenburg) and since I had one in the
>2nd round (from Chicago) too, we could discuss what I wrote on his
>scoresheet. He disagreed with my comments and said that the score
>(47, I believe) was too high. Well, not only did it win 1st place
>in the second round, but also BOS. What this proves is that Jim is
>far too critical of homebrewed pLambics.
An N=1 does not a theory prove. :-) And I might argue that everyone elses
standards are unrealistically low. I also know that Al is not the only one who
disagrees with my view of the world.
>No doubt Jim felt the
>homebrewed pLambic was over-rated, as he feels all are (including
>his) and his comment was a (undeserved) criticism of the judges rather
>than the entrants. Personally, I think Jim sets far too high a standard
>to be an impartial judge in this category.
As impartial and objective as we would all like to think we are, we are not.
And judging and competitions are still a crapshoot.
Jim
www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 19:48:15 -0400
From: Jim English <jimebob@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:priming
O foam-flecked wise ones, lend me your ears. Mine is a tale or woe and ESB
gone awry.
I made an extract, generic ESB using the ingredient guidelines in CP's tome
using the table of beer style guidelines. IOW no specific recipe, just the
"generic" ingredients. So far, so good. Pitched a half-gallon Wyeast 1028
starter and was cookin' in 3 hours. I racked it to secondary not quite 72
hours later, even though I was getting 8-10 bubbles a minute. It had
dropped from 1.060 to 1.010 in that period of time!!! Left it in secondary
a week. Primed and bottled it and tried it today, 12 days later. FLAT.
Did I rack it too soon and leave too much yeast in the primary trub?
If I choose to prime each(thankfully flip-top) bottle, would I be better
served to just sprinkle some dry yeast into each bottle(how much???), or,
would it be better to use a starter because of the level of alcohol(+5%) in
the bottles now, and if so how much? A teaspoon. A tablespoon.
This stuff is GOOD and, by God I'm'a'gonna drink it, flat or not, but if I
could just get a little head, I could share it with some of my less astute
buddies.
Thanx
JRE
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:00:29 +1000
From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh@crl.com.au>
Subject: US Tettnang really Fuggle!
This one is bound to ruffle a few feathers...
Colin Green of the reknowned Hop Research Unit, Wye College, Kent, claims
that most, if not all of the US (and Australian) Tettnang crop appears to
be Fuggle, in the July/Aug 1997 issue of the Journal of the Institute of
Brewing. Gas chromatograms of 16 "Tettnang" samples from around the US show
the characteristic chromatograms of UK Fuggle, rather than German
Tettnanger.
In addition, single samples of USA Tettnanger and USA Hallertauer
Mittelfruher clones grown in Australia also appeared to be Fuggle.
Samples of (European) Saaz and Tettnanger were also of the same variety.
The USA Saaz sample was indistinguishable from that grown at Wye.
(ie. UK Saaz = US Saaz = German Tettnanger)!
GLC analysis of essential oils is a well established method for determining
the variety of a hop sample. The most likely explanation of the results is
that mistakes were made many years ago during the propagation and selection
of the varieties.
Andy.
(ref - JIB v103 1997 pp239-243)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 11:10:42 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: chillers, racking & sterile water
Miguel de Salas posted:
>I used an immersion chiller made of 7 yards of coiled copper tubing, >and
it took less than 20 minutes to chill the wort. I really wonder >why people
go to the trouble of building counterflow chillers for a >volume of 5
gallons. It seems to me that it doesen't save much time, >and the risks
involved by more difficult sanitation makes it less >worthwile.... I have
never used a counterflow chiller, so maybe >someone who has used both can
elaborate.
If you think 20 minutes is fast- add a powered stirrer to the boiler. It's
one of the best additions I've made to my brewery and I'll never go back to
using a counterflow chiller. Moving the hot wort over the immersion chiller
coils *greatly* speeds cooling- e.g. 6 gallons of boiling wort to 68 degF
with 64 degF tap water (vs. Migel's ~ 58 degF water) in 15 minutes. If you
want a lower final wort temp. or a faster chill, use tap water 'til the wort
temp drops to ~ tap water temp. + 10 degF then run the tap water through a
prechiller (a coil in a ice water bath) or use a cheap bilge pump to recirc.
ice water through the immersion chiller. If your HLT has a pump and is
insulated, fill it with ice/water and it'll likely make a good source of
cooling water.
Used during the boil, the stirrer also increases bitterness derived from the
hops, eliminates any concern with wort carmelization or burning. If it's
important to ya, it also allows more of the cold break to remain in the
boiler since the cooling is quicker and you can cool the wort way down and
then raise the temp. back up to pitching temp. by circulating warm water in
the chiller. Stirrer details are at:
http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/boiler.htm
- ---------------------
Joe Stone described his very nice (but tall) cylindriconical fermenter he
made from a 10 gal. SS keg and said:
> I probably won't be able to fill the fermenter directly from my
>counter-flow chiller due to the height of the fermenter. I will
>probably have to chill into a 6.5 G glass carboy and rack into the
>cylindriconical fermenter. Or invest in another pump. Fill via the
>bottom drain?
Just a brain fart: rack to a 5 or 10 liter keg (maybe tilted to reduce the
effective height) and use compressed air to push the brew up to the
fermenter. By using a long dip tube/air stone attached to the CO2-in fitting
to deliver the air to the keg, you can oxygenate the wort as you rack.
FWIW, it takes ~0.46 psig to raise sg-1.060 wort one foot. I was going to
suggest using O2 to rack, but I don't know how the gaskets in the keg would
react to it. Also, it'd be expensive unless you've a welding rig already.
I wouldn't trust a pump for pumping wort unless it's sanitized by
recirculating boiling wort through it for awhile. I wouldn't depend on
sanitizing solutions to get in all of the nooks and crannies (and possibily
scratches) in the pump. YM (or degree of anal-retentiveness) MV...
Per Occam's Razor, simply raising the boiler is probably the best solution.
- ---------------------
On a racking related note, Layne Rossi described about a gizmo that racks
brew by pressurizing a carboy with compressed air from am aquarium pump.
Sounds like a way to perhaps rupture a carboy to me- particuliarly a
scratched one. Scratches act as stress risers and weaken the glass. Also,
if you've ever broken a carboy, you'll have noted how surprising thin the
side walls are. I'd at least want a pressure relief valve in the system...
Maybe a secondary racking tube with it's open, outboard end attached to
tubing raised to a height slightly above the highest point of the "real"
racking hose. (The extra height is needed to account for friction loss in
the racking hose.) Overpressure from a clogged or crimped racking hose
would force wort out of this tube and indicate that you need to shut off the
pump.
vent-->| flow
|+--->----+
+-+||+-+ +-+|+-+
| || | | | |
| || | | | |
| || | | | |
+------+ +-----+
air pump ommited for clarity (and due to laziness....)
- ---------------------
Finally, Dave Burley said:
>You should try storing your yeast under sterile water...
A *RHETORICAL* question : Would water canned in a boiling water be OK or
(like starter wort) does one need to can water with a pressure cooker? <g>
c.d. pritchard cdp@mail.chattanooga.net
http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 12:28:03 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Notso silly,
Brewsters:
I still remember my first drink of my homebrew and the courage it took to=
believe that I wasn't poisoning myself in some manner. Those were in the
days ( 1969) when almost nothing was known about beer making except rumo=
rs
by homebrewer wannabees. The fact that I have survived and prospered ( I=
'm
a much better chemist)) from brewing is a testament to homebrewing.
Nevertheless, lately we have been asking ourselves about the safety of o=
ur
method of brewing, which I believe is overall a good thing, as long as we=
pursue it to the end and not shy away from brewing before we know the who=
le
story.
Michael Baum asks a question I asked myself long ago. "If botulism is a=
problem with wort stored under vacuum, then beer which is anaerobic, bein=
g
under CO2 , could also be a problem , nichtr wahr??" =
Well, thankfully, I answered the question with a negative response. Its t=
he
pH. As wort ferments, the pH drops into the safe range which prevents th=
e
Clostridium spores from growing into bacteria and forming the toxin. The
alcohol may help. As far as I know, the hops which are effective some of=
the time on some of the lactobacilli are not reputed to be effective
against Clostridium. Perhaps because it doesn't appear to be a problem.
The high sugar content of CONCENTRATED extract likewise inhibits
clostridium growth in the anaerobic environment of the tin can, oxygen
prevents it when diluted and when the yeast consume the oxygen and begin
fermentation the pH drops. So as the Ozzies in the outback near 'Alice'
say "No weirries".
As far as not hearing about people involved with homebrew and death goes,=
I
recall that I was saddened at the early deaths of H.E. Bravery ( British
Pioneer of homebrewing in the 1960's) and Dave Line (British author of a=
number of HB books). I recall wondering at the time if homebrew poisoning=
was the problem. I managed to convince myself that it was more likely
other problems. Perhaps over consumption of homebrew and other alcoholic
beverages or other things such as heart attacks or automobile accidents
which bring on early death are more likely to blame.
As far as the comment that C. Papazian made that beer contains no known
pathogens goes, Malting and Brewing Science made the same statement long
before Charlie ever stirred a mash.
My conclusion? As long as beer is brewed along normal lines of
concentrations, known yeasts, temperatures, etc. it is not only a safe
beverage but can improve your lifestyle both intellectually and
hedonistically, taken in moderation.
- ---------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 17:06:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: GuyG4@aol.com
Subject: Home-pelletized hops
I discovered a way to get the flavor of leaf hops and the conveninence of
pellet hops by total accident! Home Pelletization! Here's how.
Attempt to put 1 oz. leaf hops (any variety) into a secondary carboy through
the neck. Get a bright idea! Use a funnel!...Sanitize the funnel, but don't
dry. Dump hops into funnel. Attempt to force the hops through the funnel
using, progressively, a old siphon hose, a old racking cane, a long pencil,
and finally a fiberglass muzzleloader ramrod. After entire ounce of hops
jammed hopelessly in funnel, cut open neck of funnel lenghtwise with
appropriate device. My funnel was plastic, so I used a utility knife. You
may need a cold chisel if your funnel is metal. Viola! a perfectly shaped
hop pellet that drops in your fermenter effortlessly!! And you now have
total control on how your leaf hops have been pelletized...no more guesswork.
Obviously, kids should do this under adult supervision.
Cheers!
GuyG4@aol.com
Guy Gregory
Lightining Creek Home Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:25:50 -0600 (CDT)
From: Jim Graham <jim@n5ial.gnt.com>
Subject: questions on 5l mini-kegs (checked HBD archives...)
After looking through the HBD archives (back to 1995 so far), I have a
few questions on the 5l mini-kegs. If you believe that your reply might
not be of general interest to the group, feel free to respond via e-mail.
I've also got some questions (last) about a beer that's recently appeared
in town, Diebels Alt....
First, some background. I live in a small apartment, and it's going to
be a few years before I'm in a position to buy a house (that, of course,
assumes that one can still get insurance in Florida, but that's another
issue). I do *NOT* have room for a fridge large enough for a real keg,
but my dorm-sized beer fridge holds 5l mini-kegs nicely. Unfortunately,
I also don't have much time to spend bottling.... In fact, this has
become a big enough problem lately that I haven't brewed a batch in
quite some time. ;-(
Solution (I hope): 5l mini-kegs for most of the batch. I also very much
prefer beer on tap (who doesn't?). I just ordered a tap, bungs, and CO2
cartridges (16 gram) from one of the mail-order places I found on the
net. The tap is a Beer King tap ($47 from Bacchus & Barleycorn, Ltd.).
I'd already planned on probably buying a second tap eventually (e.g., for
parties, etc., when I might want two kegs tapped at once), and based on
comments I found in the archives (about plastic taps), I will probably
buy their other tap, the Party Star Deluxe ($75), or something similar,
and use it as my primary tap.
And now for the questions that I haven't found answers to....
1) Is there a FAQ or good set of instructions out there on using
5l mini-kegs? If so, that's probably enough to cover the rest
of this....
2) Is there any difference in how I need to handle store-bought
mini-kegs that already have beer in them (the Diebels Alt comes to
mind---I'll probably use that as a good, cheap, and tasty way to buy
kegs). What I'm mainly concerned about is the fact that it's already
carbonated, and probably more than homebrew would be. Then again,
I've never kegged anything, so I could be way off-base here....
3) I've read a lot of comments about the Carbonator. Where would
I find such a beast? From the comments I've read, it sounds like
something worth having. The same place I bought the tap from has
the following listed (just now saw it):
CARBONATOR, VALVE COUPLIN $ 15.00
Does this sound like it's the whole setup? Or is it likely to just
be an adapter?
4) I've read and heard a *LOT* of different suggestions for the
amount of priming sugar to use. Ideally, I'd like to keg most of a
batch, and leave about 12 bottles. I've gotten numbers for priming
each keg individually (nothing much on what to do with for priming
the remaining bit for bottles, though), and for priming the whole
batch. If I've understood correctly, the general consensus seems to
be to use 1/2 cup of corn sugar for the entire batch (I'm assuming
that's for either a 5 or 6 gallon batch), and then kegging part of
it and bottling the rest. Is that about right?
5) I've heard that the kegged beer doesn't take as long to clear as
bottled beer (6--10 days, as opposed to 2--3 weeks). Is this
true? Do I get the added bonus of a (slightly) smaller requirement
for patience when waiting to sample a new batch? :-)
6) Do the taps come with instructions? I hope so, because I need
them.... Again, I've helped empty some kegs before, but I've
never filled one!
Well, I think that about wraps it up for now. Any other comments and
suggestions for someone who is about to start using 5l mini-kegs, and
has never kegged anything in his life, would also be more than welcome!
Finally, I mentioned the Diebels Alt that's just come into the area.
This beer, in fact, was what finally pushed me into getting started
with the 5l mini-kegs. IMHO, it's a very nice beer, particularly when
on tap, but I just don't want that much at one time...I'd like to buy
a 5l keg of the Diebels Alt, and have it to enjoy over a week or so.
I would also like to clone this beer, and that's where my final question
comes into the picture. Does anyone have any suggestions for an extract
brew that gets close to this beer?
Thanks,
--jim
- --
73 DE N5IAL (/4) MiSTie #49997 < Running Linux 2.0.21 >
jim@n5ial.gnt.net || j.graham@ieee.org ICBM / Hurricane: 30.39735N 86.60439W
Jack: DS B+Bd+O+W Y+G 1 Y L W C+ I+++ A++ S V+ F- Q++ P++ PA PL-- SC++++
Shadow: DS B+C Y+B 1 Y L++ W+ C+ I+++ A++ S+ V-- F+++ Q++ P++ PA++ PL+ SC++++
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 21:17:26 -0400
From: Red Wheeler <fwheeler@mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us>
Subject: Easy Off Labels
Christopher D. Hutton
asked, "What are the best labels to use on bottles? I'm looking for easy
removal."
A while back I read somewhere on the net about using milk to attach labels.
After trying it with several cases I can tell you that it works great.
Whoever had the idea it is very good. The labels stay on until you want to
peal them off and the bottles clean easily.
As easy as that was, I seldom put labels on anymore. Putting labels on
several cases got old fast so I now write a number on the cap to identify
the batch. It isn't fancy but it is quick and a lot less work.
Red Wheeler
Blue Bell, PA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 08:03:40 -0400
From: Red Wheeler <fwheeler@mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us>
Subject: Wit recipes
Thanks to everyone who has posted a wit recipe.
Wit beers are among my favorite brews. However. What I would really like to
see is an all grain recipe for Blanche de Bruges. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
Red Wheeler
Blue Bell, PA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 09:52:53 -0700
From: Bill Watt <wattbrew@buffnet.net>
Subject: Eisbock & the BATF
Seems to me that if the BATF guideline prohibits separating the alcohol
from any fermented product, then the "legal" thing to do would be to
separate the "water" from the fermented product by freezing and removing
the ice crystals.
- --
Brewing beer in Lancaster, NY
Watt's Brewing
Bill Watt - wattbrew@buffnet.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 10:31:52 -0500
From: Rob Kienle <rkienle@interaccess.com>
Subject: A Somewhat Sleazy Idea For Color Correction
Yesterday I brewed an altbier I had been planning for several months and
for which I had run three other test batches to refine the recipe and
procedure. In ordering the ingredients, however, I decided to go with
German grains instead of the Belgium ones I had used in my most
successful test (deciding that the decoction sequence used in that batch
was the biggest difference between it and the others).
Everything went fine except that the color of the final batch appears to
have come out about a shade or two lighter than I had intended. Normally
I wouldn't care, but this beer is for a big wedding party in late
September, hence I desire to make it as perfect as possible. So now I'm
thinking about whether I can still do something to modify the color.
My choices thus far: take an ounce of Black Patent malt (which does not
require mashing and adds no unnecessary fermentables) and steep it in a
couple cups of hot water, strain and boil the water, cool and add it to
the carboys (there are two of them for this 10 gallon batch). Or, boil
the water beforehand, add the malt to it as it cools, strain and add to
the carboys.
Has anyone tried anything like this before to provide color corrections
to a batch that's come out a little too light? Seems to me that it
should be safe (if the water has been boiled) and effective (if I use
enough malt).
- -----------
Cheers4beers,
Rob Kienle
Chicago, IL
rkienle@interaccess.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 22:14:05 -0600
From: Mark Thomson <mthomson@mail.xula.edu>
Subject: Corona Grain Mill; Quinoa
I have two questions I need some help with. First, I purchased a Corona
grain mill assuming there would be a set of instructions on how to use
it. Wrong. Can anyone please help me get started. Second, I would
like to make a beer using Quinoa. Has anyone tried this? Any
suggestions?
- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Mark Thomson I was supposed to have been a Jesuit priest,
Department of Chemistry or a naval academy grad.
Xavier University That was the way that my parents perceived it,
New Orleans, Louisiana Yes, those were the plans that they had.
mthomson@mail.xula.edu --Jimmy Buffett
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 11:20:21 +0930
From: "Jackson.Bill" <Jackson.Bill@etsa.com.au>
Subject: Trappist Style Brew - help
I am looking to brew an all grain Chimay style ale in the near future.
I have looked in Miller, Cats Meow and Gambrinous Mug with the following
being the outline:
Yeast: Culture from Chimay bottle (the 7% one) or Wyeast High Gravity
Belgian Ale Yeast.
For 22litres (~6 usg)
Grain: 6-9kg Pale Malt (ideally Belgian but nut not here in OZ),
.5 kg Crystal
.25 - 5 kg Wheat ?
Extras: .5 kg Brown Sugar
Hops: 7 HBU mixed Fuggles and Hallertau (or was it Hersbrucker)
OG: 1.070 - 1.090
FG : 1.015?
Any recipes, pitfalls, fermentation temp rec's... would be greatly
appreciated.
Bill Jackson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 03:15:07 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: legal definitions - EISBOCK
But, but, and but....
A couple of years ago, the BATF issued a ruling that the "ice beer"
process *did not* constitute illegal concentration of alcohol, in that
the amount of ice removed was insignificant. (This is my recollection of
what it said, I've been unable to find the original ruling.)
To me, the fact that they felt they had to issue this ruling implies
that concentrating alcohol significantly by freezing may be illegal.
If anyone can has, or manages to dig up, a copy of that ruling, I'd be
quite grateful if you can send me a copy or a pointer.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 01:04:31 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: Re: A little more on Blue Moon
>time defending these guys. They're not trying to make good beer. They're
>just trying to make more money. Now I'm an ardent capitalist, and the
goal
>of almost any business is to make money, so don't get me wrong. I'm just
>saying that we, as homebrewers and craft beer lovers, shouldn't support
>their efforts either in word nor voice nor dollar.
IMHO, Graham has hit it squarely on the head.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 97 08:57:01 est
From: paa3983@dpsc.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli)
Subject: Water PH and differnt temps.
HBDers,
I saw a reference a few HBDs back that said that the temp. of the
water can substantially alter the ph reading. Is this true? I use
ColorpHast ph strips and typically dip them in the sparge water
at temps. anywhere from 120 to 160F.
Thanks
Mike Spinelli
Cherry Hill NJ
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:10:07 -0500
From: "Charles L. Ehlers" <clehlers@flinthills.com>
Subject: Re: starters
<<Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 11:24:42 -0400
<<From: Greg.Moore@East.Sun.COM (Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware
<<Engineering)
<<Subject: starters
<<I hope the collective experience of HBD can help me on this one.
<<For my last two batches of beer, I've made starters. Also, for my last
<<two batches of beer, I've had very cloudy beer. The beer tastes fine,
<<and clears after a month or two in the bottle/keg. Since one of the
<<batches was a repeat batch, and my actual brewing process has not
<<changed from before, I feel that I've done something wrong in the
<<starter process. I'd like to avoid the 1-2 month settling if possible.
Actually, it doesn't sound as if you're doing anything wrong.
I have always followed the instructions on the back of the WYeast package
to make a starter. However, I double the amount of water and DME, brings
it to 2/3 cup DME and 2 qt. water.
I use Clorox to sanitize everything and use hot tap water to rinse. I
don't
force cool the wort, I just let is sit, covered, for a few hours in the pan
I boiled it in.
It takes anywhere from 18-48 hours to get the starter solution going,
depending on how old the WYeast was to begin with.
I also pitch the entire starter solution, not just the yeast slurry.
This has always worked for me :)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2477, 08/05/97
*************************************
-------
