Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2554
HOMEBREW Digest #2554 Tue 11 November 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: esters (Steve Alexander)
Black Barley instead of Roasted Barley (Dan Cole)
dry hopping problems (Lenny Garfinkel)
Verdigris,copper,acids Part 2 ("David R. Burley")
iodophore question ("Michael Gerholdt")
St. Louis Brews Holiday Competition (RBoland)
Bugs! (Richard Stueven)
Mashing Woes (John Varady)
Cooling wort and high S.G ("Michael E. Dingas")
Yet another question on making starters (Lars Wireenn)
Effects of elevation on carbonation ("Robert J. Waddell")
Kegs, Oxygen, etc.. (Chasman)
Re: work Christmas Party (Exchange)" <bridgess@caemail.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
But Al........... (Glyn Crossno)
Bad Batches,Teflon Stirrer, OOPS ("David R. Burley")
O2 Dissolution Rates (AJ)
Decoction ("David Johnson")
Re-using yeast cultures (David S Draper)
Wort Recirculation (Greg Young)
Esters, Aromas, & Taste (Paul Ward)
re: Yeast Slant Preparation/Cryogenics (Michael A. Owings)
Re:Corrections to our new book (George and Laurie Fix) ("Anton Verhulst")
ColorpHast Strips (Kit Anderson)
Wit recipes (dajohnson)
verdigris (michael rose)
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: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 05:45:29 -0400
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: esters
I'm glad that my note on esters met with so much approval. I will
follow up with some similar information and further notes on
fermentation flavor compounds and their formation.
In the meantime I think that I should clarify some points
Paul Edwards wrote ...
>>2/low pitching rate -> more esters
>>3/high pitching rates -> more ethyl acetate
>This part has me a bit confused. In 2 (above) were you implying that
>_fruity_ esters(as opposed to ethyl acetate) result from low pitching
>rates? Or _overpitching_ leads to ethyl acetate formation?
>
>Also, in my reading of Fix's new book he says that very low pitching
>rates can lead to excessive ester formation, especially ethyl acetate.
>That seems to contradict the paper you quoted. Or my memory is faulty
>this morning
I'm still waiting on a copy of George's new book - so I can't respond on
that question.
It is not possible to extrapolate the results in this way. Simply
because low pitching rates cause more esters to form does not in any way
imply that high pitching will produce low ester levels. Nor does the
adjacent note regarding high pitching rates causing more ethyl acetate
imply anything about the mix of esters at low pitching rates. The
abstracts published in the JIB, and most of the papers published therein
are remarkably precise in their use of language. Read those notes as
you would a legal contract. Al K had this about right.
I believe that Andy Walsh has also got the non-enzymatic portion nailed
down. Without the yeasts' enzymatic catalysis of ester formation the
ester levels in beer would be a couple orders of magnitude lower and
basically undetectable outside a lab. This is because of the relative
rates of formation and degradation of the esters.
Several people have asked for comments on warm temperatures at pitching
time and the effect on esters. There are too many factors at work to
form any sort of simple analysis. High fermentation temps do correspond
with high ester levels overall. Of the precursors, both the oxo-acid
pool and the fatty-acid metabolism should be in high gear shortly after
pitching, creating a lot of CoA activated acids. On the other hand the
concentrations of the various alcohols will be low. In the one study I
have which measures ester levels throughout fermentation shows a delay
(lag period) in ester formation of ~10 hours after pithing, followed by
a more or less constant rate of ester formation until hour 50 or even
later. Actually the levels only really start to flatten out as the
sugars run out. It would thus seem that a warm pitching temps, and a
cooling over the lag period *might* not cause excessive esters - but
only an experiment will tell for sure. I'd personally recommend
patience and a wort cooler.
As for the aromas of the various esters -
ethyl acetate - solventy, fruity
ethyl caproate - apple-like with note of aniseed(licorice)
isoamyl acetate - fruity banana
(more later)
Clove-like flavor in wheat beer is of course caused by 4 vinyl guaiacol
a phenolic - not an ester. In cloves it is caused by eugenol.
Charlie Burns seeks a royal road to flavor control - of esters and
diacetyl. As for ester control, yeast strain selection and fermentation
temperature are the obvious keys. 'Tricks' such as underoxygenating, or
adding pantothenic acid may compromise yeast health too much.
As for diacetyl (more on other VDKs later) addition of the amino acid
valine has been shown to supress diacetyl formation in many yeast
strains. Low valine levels force the yeast to synthesize their own
valine which can yield diacetyl as a byproduct. Conditions which
promote high(excessive) total yeast growth, like open fermentation also
yield high diacetyl formation. Many brewing books have a how-to-avoid
sections on diacetyl - if you want more diacetyl check these out.
Separating the beer from the yeast as soon as possible prevents the
yeast from reassimilating the diacetyl, while long contact permits VDK
reassimilation.. One lager yeast for which I have data has a good
positive relationship between VDK production and fermentation
temperature. Yeast strain is also a big issue.
As I said - more shortly,
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 05:38:30 -0500
From: Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Black Barley instead of Roasted Barley
I just started an infusion on an all-grain batch that was supposed to be a
good oatmeal stout to making living through the upcoming winter easier, but
in assembling the grains I realized that I had wrongly remembered what I
got at the homebrew shop.
Instead of Roasted Barley I actually picked out some black barley. Since my
typical brewday starts at 5:00AM on Sunday, I'm going ahead with the
brewing, but wanted some expert opinions on what my brew will be like.
I am considering adjusting my mash (single infusion) to stabilize at 152F
instead of 154 F to prevent an overly sweet product since it won't have the
roastiness to counter the sweetness.
What can I expect from this batch?
TIA,
Dan Cole
dcole@roanoke.infi.net.this.line.modified.to.resist.spammers
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:37:36 +0200
From: Lenny Garfinkel <lenny@inter.net.il>
Subject: dry hopping problems
I have had some problems dry hopping which I wonder if others have
encountered. I made two batches of an IPA on two successive days and
decided to dry hop. Each was in a secondary fermentation bucket and
fermentation had stopped so I figured that the time had come to add the dry
hops. I did not take any special precautions with sterility. After all,
the hops are supposed to be anti-bacterial, and the beer had about 6% ethanol.
The first problem was that after initially settling on the bottom, after the
hops pellets broke up, they formed a thick layer of hops on the surface (I
had added 1.5 oz of fuggle pellets to each bucket). I stirred that stuff up
with a sterilized spoon (sterilized by pouring boiling water over it) hoping
that it would settle. Last night, after about a week post stirring (10 days
post adding pellets) I checked again. There was still a layer of hops
(thinner, though) on the surface. But one batch had a bad odor and the top
of the hops layer has a white scum on it. I stirred both batches (sterile
spoons again plus sterilization between batches). They out of curiousity,
tasted the one with the scum. Sour! This morning I checked under the
microscope and it was indeed contaminated with some bacteria.
Questions: Do hop pellets always float to the top? Have others had
contaminations during dry hopping. I know that both batches were
uncontaminated before dry hopping. I can't see that dry hopping is worth
the risk at this rate. AFter about 20 batches, I have NEVER had a
contamination until I started getting fancy. I tossed a whole days work
(full mash) down the toilet. I don't think I'll dry hop again.
Comments?
Cheers.
Lenny Garfinkel
Leonard Garfinkel, Ph.D.
New Projects & Technology
Biotechnology General
Kiryat Weizmann
Rehovot
Israel
Tel: 972-8-9381256 (office)
972-8-9451505 (home)
FAX: 972-8-9409041
972-8-9381124
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:23:00 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Verdigris,copper,acids Part 2
Brewsters:
=
We can, nevertheless, conclude that:
=
1) The reaction to dissolve copper coupled
with an oxidation can proceed in a neutral =
media.
=
2) This reaction requires only wet copper
and oxygen from the air to proceed.
=
The overall reaction of interest is
Cu + O2 + H2O then H+ produces Cu ++ when the =
reacted copper is placed in contact with acid.
=
Oxygen as an oxidizer is unusual in =
that it forms the other part of water and
has a special place in this chemistry.
=
I don't have the data here, but this actual
oxidation of copper occurs with wet copper
in contact with oxygen and produces lots of other
oxides and hydroxides. These oxides and
hydroxides can react with the carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere to form the complex
cuprous/cupric carbonate/hydroxide hydrate
which is relatively insoluble and is responsible
for that beautiful green colored "patina" we see
on roofs and other copper ornamented buildings
and statues and copper pipes in our wet basement.
Now, unlike copper metal, copper hydroxide
IS soluble in acetic,hydrochloric and other
protonium acids, as an acid/base reaction
and not an oxidation reaction is needed.
Likewise, the oxides are soluble in acids.
So the copper hydroxide and copper oxide
( a reddish brown/ black coating you see on
"aged" copper - and especially where you touched it)
is soluble in these acids, but the metal itself is not. =
So what's the bottom line for us brewers? =
=
=
Keeping the brownish or greenish colors off of
our copper equipment and tubing will prevent
the dissolution of the oxides and hydroxides
of copper into our wort/beer. How do we do that? =
Wash with acid. Acetic acid or dilute hydrochloric
(careful!) acid will easily remove this coating.
Do this just before you use it, and keep things
like bases ( aka alkaline soap powders) away
from the copper unless used quickly
( i.e. not soaked) and rinsed with dilute
food grade acids and then water before storing dry.
Keep on brewin'
=
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:23:27 -0500
From: "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu>
Subject: iodophore question
I have on hand a particular brand and model of an iodophore and wonder if
someone can help me decide if it is appropriate for no-rinse use in the
brewery.
It's called "Wescodyne" and is subtitled 'Tamed Iodine.'
'Detergent-Germicide for Hospital Use.'
Its usage is described as other iodophores and the presence of color is a
gauge of its effectiveness. Recommended concentration 3 oz to 5 gallons H2O
(75 ppm). For porous surfaces, double that amount.
What troubles me is the reference to 'detergents.' The final descriptive
statement says "Wescodyne is an excellent cleaner. It contains several
synthetic detergents."
Unfortunately, the list of active ingredients on the front of the bottle is
rubbed away sufficiently to be illegible.
If anyone is familiar with this particular product or can confirm (or, even
better, allay!) my fears that the presence of detergents renders it
unsuitable for the standard brewery no-rinse application of iodophore
solutions, please let me know.
Thanks -
Michael Gerholdt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:30:51 -0500 (EST)
From: RBoland@aol.com
Subject: St. Louis Brews Holiday Competition
Calling All Brewers, Judges, & Stewards!
The St. Louis Brews are holding their seventh annual Happy Holiday Homebrew
Competition on Friday, December 12 and Saturday, December 13, 1997. The
competition is sanctioned by the AHA, registered with the BJCP, and part of
the Midwest Homebrewer of the Year program.
We invite all homebrewers to submit their beers and meads for evaluation by
panels of experienced judges. Our primary objective is to provide accurate,
complete, and useful feedback to the brewer. AHA style guidelines will be
used with the addition of a Christmas Brau category with two subcategories.
We also invite all BJCP registered judges and those interested in stewarding
to assist us in evaluating the beers submitted. Limited accommodations in
Brews members homes are available; you can indicate your need on the
Judge/Steward registration form.
Our secondary objective is to have fun, and a good time will be had by all!
All judges, stewards, and spouses are invited to attend our Saturday holiday
banquet and party as our guests.
Beers will be accepted by mail between November 20 and December 6. Please
visit our web site, stlbrews.org, for competition information and on-line
registration or contact RBoland@aol.com.
We look forward to judging your beers.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 09:29:19 -1000
From: Richard Stueven <gak@molokaibrewing.com>
Subject: Bugs!
Aloha!
Please take a look at http://www.aloha.net/~gak/bug.gif and tell
me what kind of bugs have got into my grain. Is there any sure-
fire way to get rid of them? They've already made their way to
my kitchen and the flour and bread therein...
have fun
gak
P.S. The bugs are here at home, not at the brewpub. The brewpub
doesn't have grains nor a kitchen yet.
- --
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: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:31:43 -0500
From: John Varady <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Mashing Woes
Friday evening, I was attempting to do a small decoction on a batch of
Fest beer I was making. I mashed 10 lbs of munich in 2.5 gallons at 150F
for 15 mins, boosted to 158F for 15 mins and boiled for 15 mins. This
was added to the rest of my mash water (6.5 gallons) at 145F and I then
added the rest of the grain bill consisting of 12.5 lbs 2 row, 2.5 lbs
crystal and recirculated. Unfortunately, I hit 170F. With the mash being
thin already I was reluctant to add water to cool it down. So I put then
lid on the tun and left it.
The next morning, I drained the mash tun and collected the first
runnings. I then emptied the spent grains from the tun, added back the
first runnings (6.5 gallons) and heated to 158F. I crushed another 10
lbs of 2 row and added this to the mash to rest at 148F for 30 mins. I
then boosted to 154F for an hour and mashed out at 170F. I then sparged
the grain bed with 5 galons of water and continued. I got a O.G. of 1063
for 12 gallons for wort out of 35 lbs of grain, basically a low sparge
beer.
My questions are what kind of sugars will make up the wort? The initial
rest at 170F for most of the grain bill will have produced plenty of
dextrins, but the additional mashing at 148F should have reduced these.
Hopefully there were enough enzymes in the second mashing and the mash
wasn't too thin to have some reduction.
I have a fairly good understanding of enzymes and temps, but this one is
beyond me. Thanks.
- --
John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Glenside, PA **> rust1d@usa.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:39:18 -0500
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Cooling wort and high S.G
Two questions for the collective, please.
1. I don't yet have a chiller and so must resort to other means. I =
freeze about 3/4 gal in a ziplock bag which is added (minus the plastic =
bag, of course!) to the hot wort in the pot. This lowers the temp pretty =
well but not to the desired temp. I then transfer the beer from the pot =
to my fermentation vessel sitting in a large tub of water to which I've =
added a number of 12 oz plastic soda bottles containing frozen water. =
This finally lowers the beer to pitching temp. Am I leaving myself open =
to a problem using this method?=20
2. My fifth batch (boiled today) has a S.G. of 1.088!, considerably =
higher than expected. I took this reading at ~ 70 degrees and 3 gallons =
of wort. I'm still at the tinkering stage but here's what I boiled: 4 =
lbs hopped extract syrup, 1.5 lbs DME, 1.5 lbs corn sugar in 2 gallons =
of water. This is a basic recipe my brewshop gives out to newcomers. =
This batch is now in my new 5-gal carboy with a blow-off hose, under a =
heavy towel and in a 18-gal rope-handle bucket. I'm going to keep a =
watchful eye on it! Question is: do I need to adjust the recipe for a =
lower S.G. and should I expect a beer shower which shall certainly spell =
the end of my brewing days?
Remember guys/gals, I'm a newbie. Be gentle!!
mike aka 'what have I done now!'
------------------------------
Date: 09 Nov 1997 22:57:08 +0100
From: Lars Wireenn <y94larwi@und.ida.liu.se>
Subject: Yet another question on making starters
In recent issues of HBD there has been a lot of articles on the proper amounts
of yeast to be pitched into one batch of beer, but I don't seem to find answer
to some question I've got.
My first question is on practical means of getting the right amount of yeast
in good condition at the time of brewing (I've got to brew on the day I've
planned). My current method is to start make a starter of 4oz (10P) and then
double the the amount when I think it's appropriate - this has the disadvantage
of giving me unpredictable amount of culture (from half a pint to one quart)
and I'm probably not doubling at the correct time either. So my question is
when to smack the Wyeast pack and which procedure I should use to ensure a
good population of cells (in a normal strength ale primarily, but figures that
is adequate for stronger ales and lagers would be useful for future use). I
would like to use 48oz coke PET bottles so I suspect that the method to decant
of used wort will have to be used (I don't like the idea of adding 1 gallon
of dissimilar wort in my brew anyway). And let me state again, for me timing
is important (FYI my brewing handbook states that one could let the starter
rest at lower temperature if one gets out of phase which maybe what I'll have
to do).
Another interesting article in HBD somebody stated that the method of
decanting of the spent wort prior to fermenting it out would select out the
more flocculant cells which would not be recommended in order too get high
attenuation, but would it be a good idea to add such yeast along with priming
when kegging (or in the secondary for bottle conditioned beer given that the
attenuation in the primary was good) in order to get a better settling of the
yeast? On the other hand would the reverse be useful to decant of half spent
wort on fresh one and use that to continue stepping up the starter in order
to get better attenuation or would that only result in a too long stepping
up procedure?
/Lars
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:44:44 -0700
From: "Robert J. Waddell" <rjw@dimensional.com>
Subject: Effects of elevation on carbonation
Greetings fellow brewfolk,
About a year ago I posted some questions dealing with the effects of altitude
on the amount of perceived carbonation using a fixed amount of dextrose or
force. I didn't receive many replies and I've been scratching my head ever
since.
The scenario: I sent a mead entry to a competition in the S.F. Bay area that
was entered in the sparkling category. It had just what I thought would be
a light champaign sparkle here in Longmont, Colorado (~a mile high). It was
gigged for having NO sparkle, but otherwise a great mead. Ok, so I entered
it in a local competition as a still mead. It was gigged for being out of
style and should have been entered as sparkling. (Insert frustration
scream here!)
On to the present: In the November issue of "BrewPub" magazine is an
article by Scott Meyer titled "Practical Bottle Conditioning". A small
chart in said article states that "For bottle pressure at 50F., at sea
level: 2 atmospheres = 37 oz. dextrose per barrel" and at the bottom of
the chart it says to "Reduce primings by 3.3 percent for each 1,000 feet
of elevation."
So, what I am gathering from this comment is that if I want to enter some
competition that is at sea level, I need to *increase* my primings or
force carbonation by 16.5 percent from what I find to be just right at my
local altitude. (Is forced carbonation going to be linear?) The other
side of this coin is that if you live at sea level and you are going to
be shipping brew up to 5,000 feet or greater, you need to decrease your
levels of priming.
Did any of the competitors at the GABF take this into consideration and
adjust their entries?
Comments are solicited and encouraged from seaside and mountain top.
RJW
P.S. The article also explains the method of using Clintest Conversions
ala Dave Burley's way of determining fermentables. Looks like it's
catching on Dave. #%^)
I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that
gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it
off the bed at night.
Women...
--Pat Babcock
*** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! ***
************************************************************************
RJW@dimensional.com / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared.
Owner & Brewmaster: Barchenspeider Brew-Haus
*************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:24:52 -0800
From: Chasman <cwhudak@gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: Kegs, Oxygen, etc..
Rob asks about kegs:
No, all kegs aren't SS. You are right, some are indeed aluminum...*usually*
these are European in origin. Newcastle comes in aluminum kegs as do quite
a few other English beers. They are easily distinguishable: duller with
lots of sharp nicks in them and quite a bit lighter to boot.
Though it's not proven, Aluminum *has* been implicated in Alzheimers.
Better safe than sorry, I say. I'd rather use an enamel pot (in fact I do)
than a cheap aluminum one. The only thing that you have to worry about is
chips in the enamel which exposes the steel underneath. It can contribute
iron to your wort (Bad, bad, bad...) if you don't seal the chips. I've
found that boiling hard water in the pot seals the bare spots with calcium
carbonate. I just make sure to *not* scrub too hard when cleaning. I'm sure
I'll get flamed for this. A better solution is to find a temperature
resistant, non-toxic epoxy (like you'd use on a stove-top) or enamel paint
to seal the bare spots...something that I've been too lazy to do.
Coming across used *and* unwanted kegs is a real problem. There is a real
problem with stolen kegs. Brewers pay around $100 each for these things and
don't see it as a fair deal to get the $20 or so dollar deposit instead of
the keg; fact is, they want the kegs back. Check ads in "The New Brewer" or
the "Celebrator Beer News". Occasionally someone's trying to get rid of a
small quantity of used barrels. Usually they don't like to split them up
but may if you talk real nice and arrange shipping. SABCO also reconditions
barrels and even sells them as brew kettles, though they do charge a good
amount of $$. You will have the peace of mind knowing that you obtained
them legally though.
Good luck in your search.
Regarding oxygenation using O2 and aquarium pumps:
I tend to be cynical about this issue. Though I don't have any "hard
evidence" to back up my assumption (shame on me) I believe that the
guidelines given by the manufacturers of these oxygen bottles is a bit
conservative. They want you to be able to get 15-20 batches out of that
little bottle so you don't feel "ripped-off". In order to do that, they
have to suggest that you use quite a bit less than is optimal. Anyone out
there feel like doing the math on this one? I think that it'd be
instructive to see what the actual O2 contribution to the wort *is* based
on the manufacturers instructions.I'd check into medical supply companies
which can provide medical grade oxygen. A 50# tank for our brewery costs
$25. You might be able to get a five pound tank for a lot cheaper than that
little oxygenator they sell. I don't know if you need some kind of doctors
orders to be able to get these or not, I haven't checked into it. The spot
here locally to get them is called Parsons Medical Supply. The only thing
that *I* like is the little stainless steel diffuser that you get with
those little oxygenators. It's alot more sturdy than the glass one that I
have (I know it'll break one of these days).
As far as aquarium pumps go, I think that they're great. I run mine for
30-40 minutes before I pitch my yeast. I've found that the wort foams up
quite a bit less if you aerate before pitching . It may be overkill but who
cares? That way I'm sure that I've got sufficient DO in my wort. It will
wear out my sterile filter faster though. BTW does anyone know a cheap
source for these? I use a 0.2 micron syringe filter used for media prep
inline between the pump and the diffusor. I don't work in a lab anymore so
I don't have a ready source for them. Any lab suppliers have these things
cheap?
Keep Brewin'
C--
Charles Hudak
cwhudak@adnc.com
ICQ# 4253902
"If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs."
- --David Daye
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:19:58 -0500
From: "Bridges, Scott (Exchange)" <bridgess@caemail.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Subject: Re: work Christmas Party
Phil Wilcox writes:
>Greetings all, after conversing with the party organizer of this years
>christmas party who was lamenting the Cash Bar from last year, I
volunteered
>2 cornies of ale for the party. After the requsite discussion of
non-payment
>for beer and the legality of home brewing in Michigan, (Bill is on the
Senate
>Floor). A new interesting point came up. The party is to be held at a
bar
>owned by one of people on staff. So assuming that the bar owner doesnt
refuse
>my gift of 2 kegs... Are there any laws pertaining to the giving away
of beer
>for free in a bar? One of the party orgainzers thought so but wasnt
sure. A
>more insidious question would be a liablilty question in case of an
accident.
> What says the great collective?
>
>Sincerely, Phil Wilcox
>Poison Frog Home Brewery
Phil,
I'm not a lawyer, but I have some related experience. Our club, the
Palmetto State Brewers, has for the last several years put on a public
tasting at a local bar. We do it for publicity, to get exposure for
home brewing, and generally to have a good time. We call it the
Keg-0-Rama. The format is that the brewers in our club all brew one or
more batches for the event and keg them in corny kegs. The bar owner is
a club member. He has researched it with his attorney and is convinced
that it is OK under SC law.
We do several things that protect us. First, the club ID's everyone and
we make all attendees wear a bracelet or stamp to indicate that we've
checked them. We do not accept money, except for tips. We serve small
portions in 3-4 oz glasses. The event is held outside away from the
bar's taps. The crowd is usually well behaved, but I did shut a guy off
this past spring. I personally think that we're on the hairy edge of
legality, but so far we haven't had any problems with the law. I think
that we can get away with it under the premise that we're operating an
event similar to a competition.
Your situation is a little different. My uneducated opinion is that
what you're proposing is probably not legal, but the risk of getting
caught is probably pretty low.
Scott
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:26:32 -0600
From: Glyn Crossno <Glyn.Crossno@cubic.com>
Subject: But Al...........
>I don't want to start another frenzy...
But we like it.
>let's just discuss this calmly...
Not here!
>let's limit our posts to what we know as *fact* and resolve this
without
>a lot of speculation which will only confuse most and drag the
discussion
>out unnecessarily.
That would be no fun.
Glyn Crossno
Estill Springs, TN
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:42:53 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Bad Batches,Teflon Stirrer, OOPS
Brewsters:
Rich Sonnischen has experienced 10 bad batches, off-flavors, etc. and gav=
e
some details of his brewing techniques. Rich, sounds like the Charlie P
Overflow/carboy method of primary fermentation has another victim. Do you=
r
primary fermentation in a open container (like a 6 gallon plastic contain=
er
covered with a lid or plastic sheet) and get rid of that contaminated
overflow hose which no one knows how to clean reliably. Also, I don't kno=
w
at what alcohol content a solution becomes a good disinfectant and not a
food source for bacterial growth, but I would use more conventional thing=
s
like bleach and boiling water.
- -------------------------------------------
John Schnupp asks about how to make a teflon coated magnetic stirrer bar.=
=
John, you don't need to use teflon unless you are going to heat it up. U=
se
a magnet (or piece of steel), put it inside a piece of polyethylene or
polypropylene tubing about twice as long as the magnet (teflon should als=
o
work) and heat the tubing by holding each it close ( but don't burn this
relative of paraffin wax) to a candle flame or a propane torch between th=
e
end of the tube and the magnet while rotating it. May take a minute or so=
=2E =
When it is somewhat transparent and soft, seal it off at the ends by
pulling on the tubing until it separates and then warm the ends to meltin=
g
to complete the sealing. When I was a boy experimenter I used to make m=
y
own stirrer bars by sealing a cut off nail in some glass tubing. I drille=
d
a hole in a bar magnet and fastened it to a small motor as the driving
force. Using a magnet as a stirrer improves the performance.
- ------------------------------------------
Well, I apologize for my own incompetence in trying to correct an error I=
made in calculating the volume of copper oxide and recognizing it *after*=
I
had submitted it. If you see about the same stuff for several days, blam=
e
me for using the wrong address to cancel the errant article and then
re-submitting a correction while blithely assuming all was right in the
world. Thanks to Pat Babcock, overworked hard drive de-cruncher for
pointing out the problem, but he was too busy to help out and I couldn't
stop the flow of the errant article into the HBD. Sorry!
- -------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:49:11 -0400
From: ajdel@mindspring.com (AJ)
Subject: O2 Dissolution Rates
John Wilkinson wonders "..if 30 seconds of O2 is sufficient for 5 gallons of
wort, why does it take so much longer using an air pump?" Many variables
come into play but, ceteris paribus, it is the fact that the rate of flow
of oxygen into solution depends on the difference between the partial
pressures of the gasses in the wort and the air. When the wort is 50%
saturated with respect to air the partial pressure of oxygen in the wort is
0.1 atm. If the gas is pure oxygen the pressure differential is 1 - 0.1 =
0.9 atmosphere. If the gas is air (partial pressure of oxygen 0.2 atm) the
pressure differential is 0.2 - 0.1 = 0.1 atmosphere so the gas flows into
solution at a ninth of rate for pure oxygen.If you plotted curves of DO vs
time you would see steep slopes initially gradually leveling off to
approach the level of O2 in the gas being used assyptotically. Here's some
data
time DO% using Air DO% using O2
0 8% 8%
:10 - 26
:15 23 -
:18 - 32
:24 30 42
:38 39 -
:46 - 73
:58 48 -
1:01 - 96
1:22 58 -
1:27 - 121
1:49 66 137
2:14 72 154
2:41 80
3:36 85
4:18 85
4:59 90
5:57 93
6:43 96
7:35 97
8:35 99
This experiment was done with a stainess steel aerating stone with the flow
rates of air and O2 set as close to the same as possible by visual
inspection. The "wort" was 2.5 gal of water in a 5 gal carboy deaerated to
8% DO with nitrogen. The % figures represent percentage of the DO when the
wort is in equilibrium with air.
The data indicate that it takes about a minute's worth of O2 to get to 96%
and about 7 minutes of air. Note also that 100% is exceded with O2 in less
than a minute and a half and never reached with air even after 8 min.
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:50:20 -0600
From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj@inwave.com>
Subject: Decoction
Robert,
I posed a similar question a few months ago and didn't get much
response. I have had a few months to think it over and have decided to
proceed. One area of concern is that boiling the grains may release more
starch and give you starch haze. So, I propose doing a partial mash with two
grain bags. I would then remove the grains for the decoction leaving behind
some highly enzymatic malt (6-row) to help with conversion when I return the
decoction to the mash. I would then do a pressure-cooker decoction with the
rest of trhe grains, return it to the mash and proceed until completion. I
haven't done it yet and am still in the planning stages. My guess is that
this might make an even bigger difference to a partial mash brew
(proportionately) than to an all grain.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:56:27 -0600 (CST)
From: David S Draper <ddraper@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Re-using yeast cultures
Dear Friends,
Recently there have been some discussions of yeast cultures on slants and
dishes, and in several of these there has been reference to multiple
sampling of a given culture. That is, a single slant is opened, loopfuls
of yeast taken to inoculate a small starter, and recapped for re-use at
some later time.
I just don't see the need for this. Why not use the entire amount of
yeast (or as much of it as you can practicably retrieve)? When one gets
to the last slant of a given strain, that's when one re-inoculates some
new blanks from that slant before using it. Is the amount that grows on a
typical slant surface enough to increment the strain generation? I would
guess no, so that there is nothing to be lost by using it all and some
time to be gained by being able, for example, to inoculate a larger
initial starter, eliminating at least one step-up. I would like to hear
from some knowledgeable yeast folk on this. I know not everyone does it
that way, but am interested to know why those who do, do. For comparison,
when I use all the yeast on one slant (typical 50 ml vial) I can get a
500-ml starter going within a day, and in due course step it up to 2
litres, from which I can pitch a 25-L batch and usually get a 12-hour lag
or so. Yes, I know I am underpitching, but these kinds of results are
satisfactory to me.
Thanks for any input,
Dave in Dallas
- --
David S. Draper ddraper@utdallas.edu Fax: 214-883-2829
Dept. Geosciences WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper Electron Probe Lab:
Univ. Texas at Dallas 972-883-2407
...That's right, you're not from Texas... but Texas wants you anyway...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:43:32 -0500
From: Greg_Young@saunderscollege.com (Greg Young)
Subject: Wort Recirculation
Howdy all. Are there any reasons for/benefits from recirculating the run-off
from the mash tun (until clear) other than to remove the particulate matter and
bits o' grain? If that's the only reason we choose to recirculate, then why not
simply pass the run-off through, say - a coffee filter, until it runs clear?
This seems like a no-brainer, so I'm assuming there are indeed addtional
benefits to recirculation, but I figured I'd throw the idea out there
anyway....ya never know--it may just be one of those simple things noone ever
condsidered before.
I await the wisdom of the collective....
Greg Young
greg_young@saunderscollege.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:17:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Ward <paulw@doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Esters, Aromas, & Taste
I'm an extract brewer (no appologies, no bragging) who has been
experimenting for the past couple of years with process and
ingredients. Along the way I discovered that I like hops - a lot!
I consider ale to be a pleasurable hops delivery vehicle. The recent
discussions concerning esters and other aromatics has prompted me to
post two queries pertaining to aromatics.
Last spring I brewed an American Pale ale (perle and cascade hops)
that I thought was just about perfect. I poured one for a yuppy
acquaintance who thinks "Rolling Rock" is an exotic beer. I thought
I would be introducing him to one of the better things in life. He
took a sip, puckered his face and said, "It tastes like CELERY!"
Now I've heard of beers having a vegetative presence, but doesn't
that usually refer to the cooked corn or cabbage aromas of insufficient
diacetyl reduction? I mean, celery? I took a sip from his glass. There
was a definite cascade nose, but it was not overpowering. Was he just
oversensitive, or is celery an apt description that I am not
sensitive to?
Now for the real stumper. Last month I brewed a brown ale (6 lb.
Alexanders pale extract, 1 lb. light brown sugar, 2 oz. whole
Willamette for 60 min., 1 oz. whole Willamette for 30 min. 1 oz.
whole Willamette at flameout - immersion chill to 75 F in 20 min).
The hops were in bags, so I don't think this ale would have been too
heavilly hopped. I had rehydrated a packet of Yeast Labs Australian
Ale which looked alright after 1/2 hour rehydration, but after
airation and pitching, I had no activity after 36 hours. I pitched a
packet of "John Bull special yeast" directly into the wort and had
activity within 12 hours. I have no idea what happened to my yeast,
but at least I did get fermentation which appeared to proceed normal
after that, In fact it off-gassed wonderful malty aromas. However,
after a couple of weeks conditioning my first couple of samples have
yielded this really bizarre aroma, flavor, taste component. I like my
ales to have a slight floral or fruity air about them, but this batch
only gives me the intial impression of meat. Not a meat flavor per se,
but just something when you are taking your intial sip that reminds me
of meat. There are no signs of infection, and I'm sure this is the
result of my yeasting of the wort. I hope this element diminishes
with further aging, as I pitched a second brown ale (same recipe) directly
on the yeast cake of this batch. The second batch is now in bottles and
there was no off odor at bottling (of course I didn't notice anything
wrong with the first batch either until after carbonation). I enjoy a steak
with my ale, not in it.
Has anyone else ever made a meaty ale? Did it get better with aging?
Am I just going to have to buck up and drink the 'wurst' ale ever?
Should I strive for puns about Hamburg style altbier?
Paul
- --
You know, I kind of liked Ebeneezer Scrooge before
all those ghosts scared the good sense out of him.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:55:04 GMT
From: mikey@waste.com (Michael A. Owings)
Subject: re: Yeast Slant Preparation/Cryogenics
> Problem: So far, the jello wort still has not really set very well.
> If the vials are rotated, the jello-wort will pull away from the
> sides, effectively ruining the sample.
> Question: Could this have been due to the pressure cooking? Or just
> not enough gelatin used? Or is this normal for all-grain jello-wort?
A lot of people seem to have trouble with gelatin. I suspect it is
more of a problem in warmer climates. You might just want to try
agar. Note that you CAN get agar in small quantities, both from
Brewer's Resource (http://www.brewtek.com) or the Yeast Culture Kit
Co. (http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/yckco/yckcotbl.html). Remember, a
little goes a REAL long way. Both of these sources will sell a couple
of ounces, which makes a LOT of slants and petri dishes and is pretty
cheap.
>The result is that I have 6 vials of the fresh strain that look very
> good, but none of the frozen strains have yet shown any activity (4
> days). Hopefully the yeast are just a little sluggish after a good 9
> months in the deep freeze, but I fear that I may have inadvertantly
> committed yeasticide! IMYR???
Ahhh -- there is a MUCH easier way. For long term storage, try
keeping the yeast under distilled water, rather than freezing them.
This method is easy, requires NO refrigeration (the vials are stored
at room temp out of direct sunlight) , and is cheap. I just revived
a six-month old sample, but people keep samples for years this way,
with precedent in the literature for 3-5 year storage times. For
details, see http://realbeer.com/brewery/library/SterileDW1096.html.
There was also an article in a recent issue of Brewing Techniques. I
now use slants only for reviving samples.
Good luck -- mikey
***********************
Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
The courage to change the things I can. *** And the wisdom to
hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they pissed
me off ***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:59:20 -0500
From: "Anton Verhulst" <verhulst@zk3.dec.com>
Subject: Re:Corrections to our new book (George and Laurie Fix)
Also, the table listing FAN levels (I'm doing this from memory, I don't have
the table number, sorry) reads:
poor <120
acceptable 135-150
good 135-150
excellent >150
Were the values for "acceptable" supposed to be 120-135?
- --Tony Verhulst
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:02:25 -0800
From: Kit Anderson <kitridge@bigfoot.com>
Subject: ColorpHast Strips
Here's what I found on ColorpHast Strips. They are a product of Merck
KGaA of Germany and sold in this country under the manufacturer
trademark of EM Science.
EM Science
480, Democrat Road
Gibstown, N.J. 08027
Tel: ++1-609-4236300
Fax: ++1-609-4234891
2909 Highland Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45212
Tel.: ++1-513-6310445
FAX: ++1-513-6310164
There is a host of ranges available. pH 4-7 is what we are looking for.
Most homebrew suppliers are selling them for $16/100. VWR Scientific
Products at http://www.vwrsp.com/ has them for $11.90/100 or $58.80/600.
- --
Kit Anderson ICQ# 2242257
Bath, Maine <kitridge@bigfoot.com>
"I had the right rib, but it musta been the wrong sauce" - Dr. John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 11:56:51 -0500
From: dajohnson@mail.biosis.org
Subject: Wit recipes
Hello all,
Sometime this winter i want to brew a Belgian style Wit beer. I was
just wondering if anybody has any suggested
readings/resources/references for Wit recipes. Other than a few found
on The Cat's Meow, i have not run across any references for Wit.
thanks,
dan johnson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:26:33 -0800
From: michael rose <mrose@ucr.campus.mci.net>
Subject: verdigris
Edward L Basgall wrote about verigris( green stuff on copper)
> It's LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of the test subjects) in rats is .71 g/kg.
I Have a 1/4 inch copper tubing that I use to O2 my wort. The
outside of the tubing is pretty. The inside spends its time filled with
either O2 or chlorine solution. This is not pretty. I need the verdigris
info in laymans terms.
Thanks, Mike Rose
P.S. I'm really very highly educated, but it's in the ARTS.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2554, 11/11/97
*************************************
-------
