Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2581
HOMEBREW Digest #2581 Fri 12 December 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:
Don't blow your top (AllDey)
Starter ("Frank Klaassen")
Zymurgy problems? (Sandra L Cockerham)
Again on the subjects of cost justification / spousal approv (Vicky Rowe)
Silver as antimicrobial (Dave Whitman)
Porter? (RUSt1d?)
request for manifold plans (SLTACN)
negro modelo not a vienna ("Thomas, Andrew R")
Brewing and composting (dajohnson)
whirlpool : Danger! ("Thomas, Andrew R")
Brewpubs in Mesa Arizona area (Chris Schmidt)
Whirlpooling and Ice Bath ("Michael Gerholdt")
Donations / Various questions & answers / Volcanic yeast (George De Piro)
Colloidal Silver,Open and Closed Cases, ("David R. Burley")
Proper Use of Torrefied Wheat (Andrew Stavrolakis)
Carmelization and Melanoidins (Charles Burns)
Kitchen Rant ("Darren Gaylor")
A-B, Labeling, and Skunky Beer ("George, Marshall E.")
Clinitest Debate (Tom_Williams)
Wyeast's web page (Sean Mick)
A Few Questions (NLC-EX)" <ezeller@nlc.com>
Big Bend Brew-Off '98 Update ("Roberts, Ned")
Filtering (Ralph Link)
RE: Blending ("Kensler, Paul")
=====================================================================
A beer a day...
...ain't nearly enough!
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: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:09:48 EST
From: AllDey <AllDey@aol.com>
Subject: Don't blow your top
Brewers,
This is a tangential question - the answer to which I hope will keep me alive
to brew for many years. I want to use an old pressure cooker for preparing
slants, etc. but need someone to give me the safety spiel on using them. The
cooker in question is a big ole beast from Sears, approx '76 vintage, which I
recently acquired. Being old, I wanted to replace all rubber parts and get a
weight for it (previous owner lost it). Sears sent me mostly wrong stuff -
the lid diameter is 13" inches I told the lady, but she sent me an 8" ring.
Jeez! The over pressure plug they sent is the right size but solid. However,
the existing plug has a small movable metal nipple - what's up with that? Do
I need the same kind or will the replacement work?
I made sure the lid orifice was clean and clear, washed up the old lid ring,
kept the old overpressure plug on, put on the new weight, added a half gallon
of water, closed the lid, fired up the propane and held my breath. I told the
fam not to walk near the potential bomb. It seemed to work properly as the
weight jiggled and steam evolved nicely.
Questions: Is the correct pressure (15lbs) automatically created? How much
water is needed in the cooker? How long (15min?) must something (glassware,
agar, etc.) be treated? Does it matter if I'm at 6000'? Am I fool for not
waiting for a new rubber gasket and blow bung?
Observation: I got a real nice CaCO3 "break" with my 200 mg/l water - seems
like a good way to prepare water, though only in small quantities.
Private email fine for this tangential query!
Paul Dey
Cheyenne, WY - about 1200 miles southwest of Mr. Renner, 881 miles north of
magnetic Draper, and 180 miles south of jeff in casper.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:22:48 -0500
From: "Frank Klaassen" <klaassen@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Starter
After years of never having a single problem with brewing I have to,
sheepishly, admit I am stumped by this one. We just started all-grain and
also started using liquid yeast. The beer is great but my starters are not
starting and I don't know why. Here's what I did, following the
instructions on the Yeast Labs container.
1. Boiled 2.5 cups of water w. 5 tbsp of malt.
2. Put into small jug sterilized (with bleach) and fitted w. an airlock.
3. Gave it a good shake.
4. Placed in dark place for 1, 2, 3 days. No action.
5. Tried shaking again. No action.
6. Tried putting it near the rad. No action.
We've tried this perhaps four or five times and got it to work only once.
Any thoughts?
Private e-mail OK.
_______________________
Frank Klaassen
klaassen@chass.utoronto.ca
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 07:58:58 -0500
From: Sandra L Cockerham <COCKERHAM_SANDRA_L@LILLY.COM>
Subject: Zymurgy problems?
Hi all,
When I got my Zymurgy last week the binding immediately started falling apart!
I have never had
one do that (and its a good thing as they get alot of abuse!)
Sorry to waste the space, but if its a bad issue overall, thought you all
would like to know.
Thanks,
Sandy in Indianapolis
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:16:14 -0500
From: Vicky Rowe <vrowe@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Again on the subjects of cost justification / spousal approv
I too am a female type homebrewer. I got interested when a friend brought over
a batch of his first homebrew, a lager. It was great! (for beer) I thought it
was interesting,
but, not being a beer person, decided I'd rather try mead, which I like very
much, but
here in NC, can't find much of. So, I went to my local brew shop last
September, bought
my first brew pail, carboy and accessories. I put together a Yule Methyglyn,
and it's now
conditioning in the carboy. My cyser is bottled and will be ready to drink by
Christmas, and
I just racked my blackberry melomel to secondary for settling. The
blackberry-raspberry
horilka is in primary, soon to go to secondary, and I'm perusing my recipe
collection with
an eye toward my next batch. Perhaps a cinnamon-ginger warm up? Hmmmmmmm.
Anyway, my hubby thinks it's great and helps me out, especially with moving the
suckers
when they're full! My 5 year old daughter is learning the finer points of
siphoning, and loves
to help Mommy areate the must. Even the cats stand around and watch the must
during
siphoning (they like watching it go round and round).
Meanwhile, I'm cracking the first bottle of cyser today (YUM), and can't wait
to get home for
Xmas to share it with my father, who will be opening some 25 year old cherry
wine *he* brewed
when I was a little'un. Sure hope it isn't vinegar <g>.
Having a home brew,
Vicky Rowe - meadster at large
see my home page with my mead recipes at www.mindspring.com/~rcci/vicky and
click on homebrewing
"No good deed ever goes unpunished" --Unknown
Email:
IBM: vrowe@us.ibm.com
Home: rcci@mindspring.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:19:12 -0500
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
Subject: Silver as antimicrobial
michael rose asks (with some snippage to minimize bandwidth):
>>>>
<excerpt>I just meet a doctor ( of health foods?) who is selling a new
product
called 'Colloidal Silver'.
I quote from his little booklet 'Silver
is a catalyst, disabling a particular enzyme that all one celled
bacteria, fungi and viruses use for their oxygen metabolism and
therefore they suffocate..
He list 650 conditions in humans that this product will cure.
1) Is any of this true, or is this guy just full of bullshit.
2) If any of this is true, can it be of use to us homebrewers,
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
I'm not a microbiologist, and I'm definitely not a medical doctor.
However, I do know a little bit about water treatment, and I can tell you
that it's very common to treat activated carbon water filters with low
levels of silver to prevent microbial growth. As such, the claim of
antimicrobial action isn't bogus. Whether this translates into any
theraputic effect upon ingestion isn't clear. I don't think Ag is
particularly discriminating, and suspect that any level suitable for
killing off a bacterial infection would also go after your (beneficial)
intestinal flora.
The Merck Index says:
Caution: Does not cause serious toxic manifestations, but prolonged
absorption of silver compounds can lead to grayish blue discoloratoin of
skin, known as argyria or argyrosis. Inhalation of dust should be
avoided. Many silver salts are irritating to skin, mucous membranes.
Dave Whitman dwhitman@rohmhaas.com
"Opinions expressed are those of the author, and not Rohm and Haas Company"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:51:12 -0800
From: RUSt1d? <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Porter?
>John asks what kind of beer he made by fermenting a porter wort with a
>lager yeast.
>The answer is very simple: a porter!
>There are many examples of porters that are bottom fermented,
>especially porters brewed in northern European countries around the
>Baltic Sea (the so-called Baltic porters). Okacim, from Poland, may
>be an example (I'm really pushing my brain here). I recall that
>Pennsylvania's Yeungling brewery bottom-ferments their porter.
>Some may argue that it won't be true to style because of the
>cleanliness of the ferment, but there are commercial examples that
>have pretty neutral yeast profiles.
I agree that there are commerical examples of bottom fermented porter
that have pretty neutral yeast profiles, but I would argue that Wyeast
2206 Bavarian Lager does not have a neutral profile. There is a malt
background and coffee/toffee notes that have never been preceivable when
this recipe was fermented with an ale yeast. In fact, this recipe turned
out rather nice and will probably be made again. I think I will enter it
in the next local competition as a porter and a schwarzbier and see what
developes.
In my kitchen, I do all the cooking, she does the dishes. It was a
pre-nup.
- --
John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Glenside, PA rust1d@usa.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:55:42 EST
From: SLTACN <SLTACN@aol.com>
Subject: request for manifold plans
I'm planning to build a copper manifold for a 10-gallon Gott cooler, and I'm
looking for manifold plans. Any and all plans are most welcome, either
privately or through the HBD.
Also, does anyone know where I might get a glass airlock?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:26:05 -0600
From: "Thomas, Andrew R" <thomaar@texaco.com>
Subject: negro modelo not a vienna
This was posted recently:
**********************
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 15:04:11 -0800
From: Ramona and Malcolm East <reast@ptld.uswest.net>
Subject: Re: Mexican Beer, cost justification, women who brew etc.
Bob Lasser wrote:
<Does anyone have a recipe, advice or experience brewing any Mexican
<style beers? I haven't a clue as to what malt or hops are used. I'd
<love to try and make something along the lines of Negro Modelo.
It is my understanding that Negro Modelo is a Vienna-style lager with
corn substituted for about 15-20% of the grain bill. Charlie P.'s book
"The Homebrewer's Companion" has a good recipe for a Vienna lager called
"Autumnal Equinox Special Reserve". It is a partial mash recipe. You
would have to substitute flaked maize for a portion of the barley malt
to make it more like a Negro Modelo.
Ramona East "Happiness is a cold beer and a warm fire."
Portland,OR
*********************
With all due respect to Ramona, she might have gotten Negro Modelo
confused with Dos Equis. George Fix has said that Dos Equis is a
good vienna, I think it is an ok vienna but agree with him. Negro
Modelo is the darkest member of the Modelo family of beers, and
presuming it is a lager would probably fall into the schwartzbier
area. It is much darker than a dunkel. It is not a clear cut entry
into
common lager styles which are Bavaria-defined, and is a pretty
assertive beer. It is frequently suffering from air in the package and
age, which gives the beer a raisin/date/prune flavor as time and
oxidation takes over.I have rarely gotten NM without a flavor dent in
it.
just a clarification,
andy thomas, Houston, Tx
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 97 09:46:15 -0500
From: dajohnson@mail.biosis.org
Subject: Brewing and composting
Hello all,
Perhaps an off-the-wall subject, but i'm curious if anybody out there
has experience with composting their brewing waste? is ALL brewing
waste suitable and safe for composting? For example, there has been
some material published recently on the possible toxicity of spent
hops for dogs, what about for plants? Just curious, as this would be
a good way to dispose of my brewing waste.
Thanks,
dan johnson
Philly, PA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:15:43 -0600
From: "Thomas, Andrew R" <thomaar@texaco.com>
Subject: whirlpool : Danger!
Ron La Borde says:
*****************
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:28:44 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: CW/CCW
...Trivia question for collective consideration...
...Which direction do you rotate *your* whirlpool? Does it matter?
...Is it art?...
When I first heard about the direction, I thought 'Of course, Ron, the
direction will really make a difference'. After thinking about it a
bit, I now believe that it will not make any difference which way you
whirlpool because you are not draining during this time. If you were
draining, then maybe you would get an automatic whirlpool, directional
according to your location.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
****************
Ron, since you are in the northern hemisphere, you should strongly
consider the coriolis effect. It is what makes hurricanes whirl the
direction that they whirl, counterclockwise. If you were to mistakenly
whirlpool your wort clockwise, I am not sure what would happen, but
it could be disaster. It might fly right out of the kettle and land on
small
childeren. It would certainly slow down and start spinning the other
way.
I think we should all think carefully about this.
:)))
Now that I have had fun, Ron I can say that your attention to detail is
what
will make you a very successful homebrewer, but I am pretty sure that
it will do the same thing no matter which way you whirl it. andy thomas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:14:07 -0600
From: Chris Schmidt <CSCHMIDT@LHSNET.COM>
Subject: Brewpubs in Mesa Arizona area
I will be in the Mesa Arizona area around Xmas and would like to check
out the local brewpubs. The Rocky Mountain Brew News quit publishing
the listings and I don't have an old one. Please e-mail me
recommendations.
Thanks
cschmidt@lhhs.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:40:07 -0500
From: "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu>
Subject: Whirlpooling and Ice Bath
For those of us using an ice bath to chill, whirlpooling has more benefits
than gathering material to a cone at the vessel's bottom.
The development of a thermal insulating "film" on either side of the vessel
wall has been discussed in the past. If you simply allow the wort to sit
stationary, and the ice water to sit stationary, you will get the least
efficient cooling possible with an ice bath.
Now, please note that this does not mean that the cooling will be
unsatisfactory. I often let everything just sit and go take a meal while
the wort chills, and 45-50 minutes of sitting still works quite well. (It's
a little difficult to measure the temp since there are so many thermal
layers that differ dramatically, but after a few sessions of taking temp
at top and six inches under and then racking and getting a temp on the
thermally homogenized wort, it isn't an issue.) And, as I noted in a
previous post, most of my gunk is already deposited in a cone, and my guess
is that it is due to the particular convection produced by boiling over two
burners.
Still, the fact that a thermal film is allowed to act as an insulation
between the vessel wall and fluids of greater thermal difference - ice
water on the outside, and hot wort on the inside - slows the action of
transfer of heat from the wort through the vessel and into the icy water.
Movement on both sides of the vessel wall will optimize this transfer and
produce the quickest possible chilling time for a given ice bath
configuration.
Please note that the movement on either side of the wall need not be fast.
Slow and easy is fine. One rotation in 4-5 seconds on the inside is
sufficient to displace the film with hotter wort - and that is all that is
needed for optimum heat transfer. If you are willing to stand and stir
gently for 10 or 15 minutes, with the spoon just under the surface of the
water, this stirring action will "twist" the rest of the wort sufficiently
that it will chill as quickly as *any* other stirring method (and more
quickly than a quick stir and walking away) and it will also gently move
all the 'crap' to the center of the vessel floor without breaking it up
into small pieces and putting it all back up into suspension - as does the
very vigorous, fast stir that seems to be more typical.
Then stop stirring the wort (though you can still move the ice water) to
allow it to stop moving totally and drop out anything else it will. Give it
10 or 15 minutes.
Using this method, I've had good results in producing a good cold break and
a very clear wort.
Leaving it sit for nearly an hour as I eat seems to work just as well,
though the cold break may not be quite as good. I've noted no differences
in the final product, though, so am satisfied with 'relax, don't worry,
have some chow' approach.
I generally just disturb the outer film from time to time but it seems it
would be rather easy to set up some method of moving the water around
autmatically. An aquarium pump bubbling air up from the bottom would do
something, though not really optimal.
For those of you that do other methods of chilling, a slower, longer stir
might still be beneficial simply because you aren't bringing everything
that's already on the vessel floor back up into suspension and breaking
much of it into smaller clumps that won't be quite as heavy and won't drop
out quite as readily.
I'd like to give credit where it is due. Jim Richardson (aka The Thirsty
Scotsman) developed a common-sense approach to chilling some years back
(FastChiller) which some of you might find interesting if you are chilling
in AB or other kegs. I've adapted some of the ideas for my system and
supplemented them with other things I've read here and elsewhere.
Comments welcome. The question I'd ask is "Does the theroretical optimum
make a sufficient difference to recommend it over another approach?" In
other words, if the goal is to get from point A to point B within 5
seconds, achieving it in 1 second is no better or more satisfactory than
achieving it in 4.9 seconds. There's no reason to over-complicate a system
when the requirements can be met simply.
And walking away for a meal surely is simple.
To put it more practially:
1) The vigorous stirring which I fear breaks large clumps into small
clumps which may not drop out as easily - is this valid only theoretically
or is there practical merit to it as well?
2) What about the cold break in a wort that is chilled quickly and evenly
as opposed to in a wort which sits stationary. I'd assume lots of cold
break from certain thermal layers and virtually none from the center.
Thanks -
Michael Gerholdt - a mere quantum leap from the center of Absolute Truth in
western NY state
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:52:50 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Donations / Various questions & answers / Volcanic yeast
Hi all,
In HBD 2578 Kevin wrote:
"I have been reading this newsgroup for about a month and can honestly
say that I have learned more in that time than I have learned in the
past 18 months from brewing and reading my magazine subscription."
If any of you also view the HBD as a highly informative magazine, I
would encourage you to donate a little money to our esteemed janitors
so that they can keep the HBD running smoothly. Perhaps donate as
much as your favorite beer rag subscription costs...
On to beer stuff: Kevin also asks some questions:
1) Is there an advantage to fermenting in a smaller vessel so that the
krausen blows all the foam and funk out of a tube, or is it better to
ferment in a larger vessel so that one does not lose that volume of
beer.
ANSWER: Al K. did a lovely little experiment in which he demonstrated
that all you get is a mess by encouraging blow off. I NEVER encourage
blow off in any of my beers (although sometimes it happens), and they
are most often very good.
2)Is there an adjunct that can be used to make a "sweet stout" if one
is lactose maldigestive?
ANSWER: Just use a high mash temp (158-160F, ~70.5C) and only think
about hops during the boil, rather than actually using them
(seriously, use ~2 AAU worth for a 60 min. 5 gallon boil). The
resulting beer will be quite sweet without adding any adjuncts. If
you are an extract brewer, use an extract that has a high terminal
gravity (Laaglander extra light comes to mind).
3) Speaking of adjuncts, does malto-dextrin powder actually aid in
head retention?
ANSWER: Proteins are more important to body and head retention than
dextrins, but it won't hurt.
4) Is it better to boil in a covered pot to maintain a more constant
volume, or to boil in an open pot and have the volume reduce during
the course of the boil?
ANSWER: If you keep the pot closed the entire time, you will suffer
two nasty fates: 1. Boil over 2. High DMS (dimethyl sulfide) levels
in the finished beer. DMS smells and tastes like cooked corn, and
while it is essential in small amounts (to support a beer's
maltiness), in large quantities it's pretty gross.
If too much wort evaporates off (giving you an unacceptably high
gravity), just add some boiling water at the end of the boil to
achieve the desired gravity and/or volume. For what it's worth, I
don't care too much about volume at the end boil. The starting
gravity of the wort is what is important to me, so I adjust the wort
volume based on its gravity.
------------------------------
Capt. Marc tells an amusing little story about his volcanic yeast
starter that almost blew the stopper off the bottle when he agitated
it.
I can add to that one: The culprit: a Wyeast 1968 starter at ~65F.
The victims: me and the kitchen ceiling. The scene: I was rushing
to split a starter so I could give half to a friend. I picked up the
jar of yeast and fermented wort (which never showed any airlock
activity, as usual) and swirled it to resuspend the yeast. The next
thing I knew, I had starter all over me, the ceiling, the cabinets,
etc. Somehow I managed to catch the airlock as it rebounded off the
ceiling. The dog was thrilled with the beer that was dripping off the
ceiling and onto the floor.
My best guess is that for some reason unknown to me, the starter
became super-saturated with CO2. Upon being disturbed (i.e.,
swirling), the CO2 was released, fairly violently. This had never
happened before (thankfully).
I then had to drive into NYC to teach a beer appreciation class (that
I was late for). I spent the first few minutes of the ride thinking
about what would happen if I was pulled over: "No, ociffer, I haven't
been drinking, I just smell like a brewery...wait, what are those
cuffs for?"
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:48:34 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Colloidal Silver,Open and Closed Cases,
Brewsters:
Mike Rose just met his version of a health food charlatan
( and there are many). Even though I'm not a microbiologist,
I can smell the BS from here. My advice is run, don't walk,
away from this unconfirmed, un-scientific stuff.
It is true that colloidal silver adsorbed on a packing =
material like activated carbon can prevent the activated carbon
from getting infected and is ( and should be) used for this purpose
in many sink water filters.The combination of activated carbon
adsorption and chloride content in the water keeps it from being =
leached out. Although less toxic because of solubility constraints,
remember silver is a heavy metal, just like mercury, and can
cause neurologial problems if ingested over a long period. =
People do drink "silberwasser" an alcoholic beverage with
silver flakes in it. In medieval times it was even supposed to be
healthful and prevent all kinds of diseases - like Black Plague
- sound familiar?. In small quantities it is probably not harmful.
This silver is in small flakes and probably passes through the
system without dissolving. Colloidal silver on the other hand is =
finely divided and this perhaps maximizes the chance to be reactive. =
Ask this "doctor" if he even knows what "colloidal" means.
Mike says:
> He goes on to state that silver has been used thoughout history
>as an antibiotic; pioneers would toss a silver dollar into their barrels=
>of water in order to kill off organisms.
Maybe, but did he tell you it didn't work?
> In 1938, antibiotics were
>invented( and patentable) and therefore all interest was lost in silver.=
Classic "plot" 'us against them' used by all such witch
doctors. And the primary reason/excuse used by these
guys as to why this supposedly wonderful product is not
marketed by conventional marketers but *lucky you* have the inside
scoop. A well used scam. Do you really believe that's the way
economics works? By the way, I have a carburetor for your car
that will save you lots of money. Yeah Detroit ( or was it Exxon?) =
bought the patent rights to keep it off the market.
>He list 650 conditions in humans that this product will cure.
Ask him for the double blind experiments published in =
reputable journals to prove it. His slick answer to the unwashed =
is "Oh but that's the point. No one will spend money on it
because there are no patents." Yeah.
> 2) If any of this is true, can it be of use to us homebrewers,
>either to sanitize or to stop fermenttion(sweet wines, etc)
Save your money and stick to proven methods like boiling
and sulfites. Do yourself and your neighbors a favor and turn
this guy into the police and the FDA. He cannot sell
medicines to cure human maladies without their approval.
- --------------------------------------------------
Kevin TenBrink says:
>1) Is there an advantage to fermenting in a smaller vessel so that the
krausen
>blows all the foam and funk out of a tube, or is it better to ferment in=
a
>larger vessel so that one does not lose that volume of beer.
Two opinions exist on this subject. Those who choose to do
"closed" fermentations and those who choose to do "open"
fermentations.
The old British Burton Union system is a system not unlike
that used by many homebrewers in which the foam, protein, yeast
and hop residue is forced up a tube and out of the primary.
It was touted as producing a "cleaner" beer, but remember when =
it was being used and that most British beers at the time were
fermented in really open fermenters exposed to the air and all
its organisms. Skimming was a popular pastime of the brewing
crew as yeast bite was believed widely to result from the head
falling back into the brew. Likely beer produced by this open =
method was highly infected and this infection was a source of
yeast bite. The Burton Union Scheme was a labor saver and
probably reduced infection as freshly cleaned kegs were used
as the fermenter and then sent off to the pub. The fact that it is
no longer used should tell you something.
The closed ( carboy and hose attached to lead the foam away) =
fermenter's main appeal to homebrewers is that, at first glance, it
appears to be more resistant to infection from outside sources. =
The first few times you use it, all may go well and that is the real =
danger of this method. Infection is insidious. It is my opinion and
others agree (and others differ) that, unfortunately, this overflow =
tube is difficult ( nearly impossible IMHO) to clean of this gunk and
represents a potential harbor for unwanted microorganisms. =
The primary rule to good sanitation is that a surface must not have
any coating on it or it is impossible to disinfect it. This is difficult=
to do *reliably* inside of a hose IMHO. A minor variation on this
theme is the use of a 6.5 gallon carboy to prevent the foaming over
and prevent subsequent contamination by collapsed foam
returning to the carboy from the hose. My comment - why not use
an open fermenter that you can clean by physically scrubbing
instead of a carboy?
If you use this closed method be prepared
to be disappointed every once in a while as you produce an
infected batch or three. Inspect the hose carefully and soak it in hot,
strong bleach solution for as long as you can. Here,recently,
brewers using this closed method listed their various approaches
to trying to get this gunk out of the hose. None appeared
particularly effective to me.
I prefer to use an "open" plastic fermenter as the primary
fermenter (6.5 gallon plastic trash can or plastic bucket covered
with a plastic sheet so I can see what's happening). This sheet
(covered to keep the light out) is held drum tight with a series of
rubber bands looped into a large circle. When the foaming has =
subsided, I rack to a Cornie or carboy to finish fermenting. =
This way I can get to the grungy ring, left by the fermentation,
-using some elbow grease and a plastic scrubber or paper towel =
that hot water/bleach soaking cannot easily remove. I have never
had an infection from this system. Others using the closed system
cannot say that.
As far as "cleaning" the beer by overflowing goes, I believe
the majority of the gunk goes to the side of the small fermenter
(unlike large commercial fermenters) and sticks there. =
Also remember that even though this gunk looks pretty awful,
it was in your wort at the beginning and now it is not soluble. =
>2)Is there an adjunct that can be used to make a "sweet stout"
if one is
>lactose maldigestive?
If you do all grain, just try operating at 158F in your saccharification
and see if you don't get a sweet sensation from all the dextrins.
Strike in at a lower temperature to wet out the malt and then
bump to this temperature with boiling water. For extract users,
try malto-dextrin powder or Laaglander extracts as a base. =
>3) Speaking of adjuncts, does malto-dextrin powder actually
aid in head
>retention?
The above scheme will provide plenty of these without any additives
A few weeks ago George Fix commented without references that
there is a dextrin/protein reaction that improves head retention,
as I recall.
>4) Is it better to boil in a covered pot to maintain a more
constant volume,
>or to boil in an open pot and have the volume reduce
during the course ofthe
>boil?
Open - to prevent dreaded and very messy boilovers and =
to get rid of unwanted sulfur compounds common to all-grain
brewers.
5) Does anyone have a good recipe/technique for making bread
with spent grains without the benefit of a bread machine?
See the archives.
- ----------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 11:22:41 -0500
From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis@harvard.edu>
Subject: Proper Use of Torrefied Wheat
Hi all,
I brewed a barley wine with the following particulars:
97% british pale (maris otter)
3% chocolate
3% torrefied wheat
The wheat was a first for me, added as an impulse at the last minute. I
crush all my grain at the store, and have always had consistent results.
strike water=1.18 qt/lb; I followed a 40-60-70 mash schedule with two
decoctions.
OG=1.102 FG=1.020
I mashed all the grain together, including the wheat, for the the whole
schedule. My sparge was incredible slow, always seemed on the verge of
sticking. Since sparging (in my microscopic Boston apt kitchen) involves
standing there patiently pouring cupfuls of 170F water on top of the bed,
this was tedious to say the least. I also notice that my grain bed is
covered with a thick gummy mess. (I'm unhappy)
I did end up with 31 pts/lb, which is pretty good for me. (I'm happy)
I tasted the end product for the first time after only 1 month in the
bottle, and was extremely pleased with the result, particularly the
extraordinary silkiness of the mouthfeel, which I believe was the result of
the torrefied wheat. This is a characteristic I'd like to duplicate in
other ales, but I hesitate because of the almost stuck tedious sparge, which
I also believe was the result of the wheat.
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to get all the relevent info in. Now
for the questions:
How to avoid a sticky gummy sparge when using torrefied wheat?
Should torrefied wheat be crushed or not? should it be mashed for the full
length of the mash? should it be boiled in decoctions, or just added for
final sacch? Was this sparge from hell not the result of the wheat, but
something more subtle (and insidious)? Could I get the same results from
some other easier-to-use grain? Or do I just suck up and deal with it,
knowing that quality results take quality time?
Private email is fine, if you like.
Thanks for the help,
Andrew Stavrolakis
Boston, MA
andrew_stavrolakis@harvard.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 97 08:39 PST
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Carmelization and Melanoidins
I just got finished reading Charlie Scandrett's two summaries of Malliard
reactions. I recently made a couple of brews that have me wondering about
the fermentability of worts that have been treated this way.
Brew #1 - ESB grain bill 9lbs HB Pale Ale, 1 lb Crystal 40, 1 lb Carapils, 1
lb flaked maize, .5 lb malted wheat. After mashing at 157F for an hour, I
took first quart of clear runnings (didn't take SG), combined it with a half
pound of light brown sugar and boiled it for about 20 minutes. After about
12 minutes of boiling (not pressure cooked) it began to thicken and after 8
more minutes it started to climb out of the pot. It tasted good enough to
put on ice-cream, super sweet and very carmelly.
OG: 1.056
FG: 1.012
Brew #2 - strong scotch ale grain bill 22 lbs HB Pale Ale, 4 oz roasted
barley, mashed 158F for 1 hour. Drained first gallon of runnings and boiled
(no sugar) for an hour. Not as sweet but certainly carmelly flavored.
OG: 1.094
FG: 1.027
Am I creating sugars that are no longer fermentable?
These worts had a high degree of dextrins anyway due to high mash temp
and/or grain bill to start with. Does the carmelization done like this
increase non-fermentables or just make them taste different but remain
fermentable?
Charley in N.Cal
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:51:03 -0800
From: "Darren Gaylor" <dwgaylor@pacifier.com>
Subject: Kitchen Rant
Sorry you feel that way, Lorne. Maybe you should relax and have a homebrew
in "your" kitchen.
In my house, it is her kitchen. Yes, I enjoy cooking. Yes, I'm a good
cook. The floral wallpaper and cute copper pots make it her kitchen. If it
were my kitchen, everything would be stainless steel and there'd be a floor
drain.
It's my garage/brewery. (It's my barbecue, too.)
Here's to good brewing,
Darren Gaylor
Vancouver, WA
P.S. Actually, since Washington is a community property state, everything
is "ours".
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:00:53 -0600
From: "George, Marshall E." <MGeorge@bridge.com>
Subject: A-B, Labeling, and Skunky Beer
Well, it appears that the Anheuser-Busch family is on the warpath again.
Once again, they are pushing in the state of Missouri to have all beers
go with 'Truth In Labeling'. What this appears to me is that they are
taking yet another cheap poke at both the micro market and the import
market to push their beer out, and let A-B dominate the market (with the
exception of RedHook, which A-B has a share in, and also appears to be
sticking their hands in the brewkettle - just try one of the IPA's from
the Portsmouth Brewery in NH). What's wrong with that you say? Well,
if something like this happens, A-B has their butts covered. You would
be very hard pressed to find ANY of their beers in Missouri that weren't
made in St. Louis, so they don't have to worry about it at all.
However, since people like Sam Adams, Pete's, etc. contract their brews
out, then they would have to (oh I shudder - the beer has to travel a
day or two on a truck!) put on their labels where they are made (just in
Missouri), and it may not necessarily mean Boston or whatever.
This 'Truth In Labeling' just for one state would cause unknown amounts
of expense for our friends in the micro world. I can picture it now;
each batch that is bottled has to be carefully done so the ones going to
Missouri would have to be labeled correctly. What a pain in the butt.
In addition, I think that it's high time for August A. Busch III to yank
his hypocritical 'Skunky Beer' ads. Lets take a look at the A-B product
line that is currently in bottles. Bud, Bud Light, Natural Light,
Michelob...so far so good, brown bottles. Bud Ice, Bud Ice Light - NOT!
These very beers are packaged in CLEAR GLASS BOTTLES, and isn't clear
glass one of the causes of 'Skunky' beer? I guess when you make stuff
that is so full of rice (with exception of some the new Michelob beers)
and no hops to speak of (those are the green flowery things that grow in
fields A-B), you don't have to worry about your beer skunking.
This is of course, just my opinion. I do like the Michelob Pale Ale
that is out now, and the Michelob Hefeweizen. They are decent
alternatives that aren't super expensive when I don't have something in
the basement. But I think that it's high time that A-B stops taking
these cheap shots at the competition. You don't hear ads from Pete's,
Rogue, whatever saying A-B beer isn't any good because they use lots of
adjuncts. They have too much class to do so, and are too busy pushing
their own product.
Marshall George
Edwardsville, Illinois - across the river from the home of Budweiser
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:21:35 -0500
From: Tom_Williams@cabot-corp.com
Subject: Clinitest Debate
Dave Burley and Al Korzonas debate Clinitest, hydrometers, behavior of
sugars during fermentation and homebrew techniques.
THIS IS WHY I READ THE HBD.
I urge everyone to read the posts from these gentlemen, and notice how much
the rest of us can learn from two knowledgable, well-spoken people who
disagree, but don't get upset with each other over it. Thanks Al and Dave
for taking the time.
Tom Williams
Dunwoody, Georgia
7 miles east of the Big Chicken
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:30:38 -0800 (PST)
From: homebrew@dcn.davis.ca.us (Sean Mick)
Subject: Wyeast's web page
Hello:
Awhile back, someone was wondering about Wyeast and how to get in touch
with them. They now have a web page at
www.wyeastlab.com You can email them at brewerschoice@wyeastlab.com
Sean Mick
Mick's Homebrew Supplies
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~homebrew
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:30:17 -0800
From: "Zeller, Eric (NLC-EX)" <ezeller@nlc.com>
Subject: A Few Questions
I've been reading the archives for some time now and feel it's time I
threw in some hops in the wort.
First of all I took the suggestion of back to back brews and put my
second batch in the primary fermentor on top of the yeast cake from the
first batch. I got a one hour lag time before the airlock was bubbling
like a steam engine. Should I do the same with the secondary or should I
clean that out first?
I hear people talk about saving the yeast for culturing, is that done
just by pouring the yeast sludge out the primary into a sterile
container? (and then adding some food)
The last question I know is going to sound like heathenism to most
people out there, but I feel I have a legitimate excuse. Is there any
way of making non-alcoholic homebrew (or removing the alcohol). My dad
(among many other people) has chosen an alcohol free life, but still
drinks the occasional Sharps. I woiuld like him to enjoy the homebrew
taste that I do. I thought about boiling it after fermenting but that
would also kill the yeast which wouldn't allow for bottle conditioning
(might work for draft systems though... ). Please note that I wouldn't
do this to my whole batch, just enough to share with people who have
chosen not to drink.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:41:53 -0500
From: "Roberts, Ned" <robertsn@fdhc.state.fl.us>
Subject: Big Bend Brew-Off '98 Update
Second Notice of Homebrew Competition -
Big Bend Brew-Off '98, an AHA sanctioned competition, hosted by the
North Florida Brewers League, will be held on January 17, 1998 in
Tallahassee, FL.
Deadline for entries is January 14th. The entry fee is $5 and 3 bottles
(brown or green, no labels or raised markings). Open to all styles.
For a complete copy of the rules visit the club's home page at
www.freenet.tlh.fl.us/~northflo or e-mail the Competition Organizer, Ned
Roberts at nedr@freenet.tlh.fl.us.
Ned Roberts
nedr@freenet.tlh.fl.us
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 13:48:06 -0600
From: Ralph Link <rlink@minet.gov.mb.ca>
Subject: Filtering
I plan to filter and keg two batches this week end. I will be using a whole
house filter with a 5 micron polypropylene filter, or that is my
intentions. We will force the brew through the filter with co2 from corny
keg to corny keg.
Does anyone have any comments or recommendations to make as to the process
of the filter unit we plan to use.
Private e-mail is most welcome. I would also like to express my
appreciation of this forum and the wealth of learning and information that
it has provided.
Hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable Christmas
Ralph Link
Ralph Link
"Some people dream of success------while others wake up and work at it.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:24:04 -0700
From: "Kensler, Paul" <PKensler@itcmedia.com>
Subject: RE: Blending
Bryan asked about the success of blending beers to help remedy the
problem, "Thin and lacking body".
Bryan,
For what its worth, I brewed an English Dark Mild last spring (extract
with specialty grains, some turbinado sugar, all per a published recipe)
that turned out clean and clear, but thin and bland (batch was kegged
and primed with DME). Just as an experiment, I transferred 4 gallons of
the Mild into a keg that had about 1 gallon remaining from an all-grain
oatmeal stout (shook to blend, then adjusted carbonation).
The resulting beer was exactly what I was shooting for to begin with;
dark, malty, the body was light (per style), but not thin or watery, and
it tasted great. This blended beer went on to win a 1st place ribbon in
the English Brown Ales / Milds category at the '97 Austin BrewHaHa.
So, with one data point, I have 100% success ;-), but now I have to
decide, Do I make these two batches exactly the same again, and blend?
Or, do I try to "blend" the recipes, to come up with a single all-grain
5 gallon batch? Sounds like fun to me, either way...
Hope this helps,
Paul Kensler, Plano TX
(Brewer of Ballpark Brown Ale, the not-yet official beer of the Texas
Rangers)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2581, 12/12/97
*************************************
-------
