Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2591
HOMEBREW Digest #2591 Wed 24 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:
Sodium hypochlorite in public water / Sanitizer primer (George De Piro)
More on Fermenters / Bleach (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Re: A-B attacks (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
wassail (kathy)
Whirlpool Article (Richard Stueven)
Truth in labeling (Jim Anderson)
Wyeast 1968 carbonation woes, HBD 2588 ("Grant W. Knechtel")
Ken's mysterious "trapped" sugar (Jeremy Bergsman)
Non-alcoholic Homebrew (Tom Clark)
Re: east vs. west Am. pilsner (Jeff Renner)
Falstaff Tapper ("Keith Royster")
Plastic fermentors ("Dave Draper")
keg cleaning (John_E_Schnupp)
hole size for false bottom (John_E_Schnupp)
the law (yuk!) ("MMC Richard A. Kappler")
Re: Probably Taking the Plunge to All-Grain (Lance Levsen)
whole flower dry hopping mess (Beerd00d)
Exploding Bottles ("Mark Ellis")
Rasberry Mead (DGofus)
Orval (Paul Edwards)
Old Style Cork Bottle Caps (Richard S. Kuzara)
Under-Carbonation (Wayne_Kozun)
re: Triple Bock (Michael A. Owings)
Staistical Correlation ("David R. Burley")
Corona mill (Scott Kaczorowski)
Happy Holidays!
- The HBD Janitors and Steering Committee
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...
ftp://hbd.org /pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edui /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:06:01 -0800
From: George De Piro <gdepiro@fcc.net>
Subject: Sodium hypochlorite in public water / Sanitizer primer
Hi all,
Dave Burley says that I, like many others, am confused about the form of ch=
lorine in my =
drinking water.
No I am not. Sodium hypochlorite (bleach) is used at two points in my town=
's water =
purification process to ensure microbial death. I have the water analysis =
and crappy =
tasting water to prove it. Bleach is used by municipalities because it is =
cheap, and =
will stay in solution long enough to keep the water microbially safe all th=
e way to the =
users faucet.
Dave also says that cool (room temp) bleach solution is not a good disinfec=
tant; he =
believes that it will allow a film of organic crud to coat the wall of a ve=
ssel, thus =
protecting microbes that will be trapped under this film.
When I worked in a laboratory that generated lots of human blood waste, roo=
m temperature =
diluted bleach was the *required* sanitizer. I think we used 100 ppm with =
a 30 min. =
contact time to disinfect blood solutions before we could toss them. I dou=
bt that any =
brewer has a carboy with as much organic matter in it as a beaker full of b=
lood! (Yeah, =
that was a fun job...it was a diagnostic kit research lab; we generated a l=
ot of blood =
waste)
Zymurgy Vol. 18 # 3 has a very nice article written by Jim Liddil and John =
Palmer about =
sanitizers and their proper usage. They state that bleach (sodium hypochlo=
rite, 5.25% =
solution) should be diluted to 200 ppm (1/2 ounce per gallon) in cool tap w=
ater (not ice =
cold) for use as a disinfectant. A 10 min. contact time is recommended. T=
he same =
concentration can be used for cleaning, but with a longer contact time (unt=
il the vessel =
is clean!). Bleach is not safe for use on metal, including stainless steel=
=2E
A cool , 200 ppm bleach solution also has the advantage of being relatively=
safe and =
non-toxic to humans. Wear gloves and eye protection, and don't get it on y=
our clothes.
While I'm on the subject, I will quote liberally from that same Zymurgy art=
icle about =
some other sanitizing options:
1. Ethyl or isopropyl alcohol: 70% solution in water is most effective; a=
10 min. =
contact time is recommended. IT IS HIGHLY FLAMMABLE (boy do I know this...=
) and pricey, =
too. Like bleach, it should be used at room temp.
2. Iodophor: one of my favorites because of its short contact time. 12.5-=
25 ppm. =
While Jim & John's article recommends a 10 min contact time, the directions=
on my bottle =
say 1-2 min. Decide for yourselves. Like bleach, it should be used at roo=
m temp or =
else the iodine will be volatilized too quickly.
A big misconception with iodophor is that "no rinse" means you can just put=
your beer =
into a vessel that is wet with the stuff. Some people have a pretty low ta=
ste threshold =
for iodine, and it isn't pleasant stuff. The instructions say to allow the=
vessel to =
drip dry. This allows the iodine to evaporate off. Iodophor is safe for s=
tainless, but =
will stain plastic, skin, and many other things.
3. Hydrogen peroxide: 3% solution straight from the bottle with a 10 min.=
contact =
time. Very safe stuff; environmentally friendly, too (quickly decomposes t=
o water and =
oxygen). A good choice for rinsing away other sanitizers.
4. Heat. Heat comes in two forms: dry and wet. Wet heat is a more effec=
tive =
sterilant than dry, but both are *sterilants*, as opposed to sanitizers. Y=
our oven or =
pressure cooker are perfect for sterilizing heat resistant items such as gl=
ass and metal =
(be careful with glass, of course: sudden changes in temperature will crac=
k even Pyrex, =
possibly causing injury).
Dry heat can be applied as follows: 250F (121C) for 12 hours; 284F (140C) =
for 3 hours; =
320F (160C) for 2 hours; 338F (170C) for 1 hour.
Wet heat (pressure cooker) is faster: 257F (125C) at 20 psi for 20 min.
Jim and John point out that all of the above numbers are conservative, so y=
ou probably =
won=92t have any problems achieving good sanitation by following the instru=
ctions in their =
article.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 08:30:07 -0600
From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Subject: More on Fermenters / Bleach
Why does the debate on fermenter types necessarily have to be open
bucket vs. closed carboy?
I have always used a *closed plastic* primary fermenter. Most 6.5
gallon bucket fermenters come with airtight lids that are (or can be)
drilled for a stopper and airlock. I currently have 2 of these in
operation as primaries and find them very convenient to clean up post
ferment. I usually use a carboy as a secondary ferementer mostly so
that I can observe when the beer has sufficiently cleared for bottling
or kegging.
Since the beer is typically only in the bucket for a week or so, the O2
permeability issue is a moot one IMO, but I have also done secondary
ferements in a bucket (for up to 3 weeks) with no observed negative
consequenses (no premature staling). In 52+ batches using these methods
I have never had an infection that was traceable to the plastic bucket
primary. My only infection was caused by imprudent addition of
unpastuerized fruit in the secondary.
As to the notion that minute scratches will harbor bacteria and ruin
your beer, I have not observed this to be true. While I don't
intentionally do anything that would score the inside surface of my
fermenters, I'm certain that with as much use as they have seen some
scratches are present.
I use an extended soak (overnight) in a dilute chlorine bleach solution
for sanitization followed by a very hot water(~180 degF) rinse and have
had good results. As usual, YMMV.
The following is some information I use as a reference collected from a
friend:
How much chlorox for what purpose?
>From "Sanitation in Food Processing" by John A. Troller.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----
Cl2 (ppm) % Bleach (oz/gal) Dilution
- --------- -------- -------- --------
5 0.02 0.03 1/5000
10 0.04 0.05 1/2500
50 0.20 0.26 1/500
100 0.40 0.52 1/250
200 0.80 1.04 1/125
250 1.00 1.30 1/100
300 1.20 1.56 1/83
500 2.00 2.60 1/50
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----
The germicidal efficiency of chlorine is strongly dependent upon
temperature and pH. This is because only one of the ionic species
formed between chlorine and water - HOCl - is responsible for most of
the germicidal activity, and its concentration is strongly dependent
upon temperature and pH. As temperature and/or pH rises, more of the
HOCl disassociates, and the germicidal efficiency of the solution
decreases - even though there is just as much "chlorine - the atom"
present as before.
>From a practical standpoint, use cold water, and test the solution using
test strips for "ppm available free chlorine". These strips react to
the available HOCl. This will compensate not only for temperature and
pH effects, but also for any HOCl removed by interaction with organic
materials in the water, and for HOCl lost by "gassing off".
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----
Fred Wills
Fearless Freddies Homebrewery
"Closed Plastic" Fermenting and Bleach Sanitizing in So. NH
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 08:30:04 -0600
From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Subject: Re: A-B attacks
Graham,
you said: =20
<<Right, but are those adjuncts designed to cheapen the beer in both
quality, flavor, and cost? No, they generally improve the product or
make it unique. What does rice or corn add to the beer to make it
better, in other than financial terms?>>
While I can appreciate your enthusiasm for full flavored beer (heck, I
haven't had a Bud, Miller or Coors in years) I think some of your
"facts" are a bit off the mark.
It is my understanding (information obtained from AB brewers so you may
take this with a grain of salt) that currently, the cost of the brewers
rice (used in Budweiser as an example) is actually more expensive per
pound than the malt they use. The reason they continue to use it now =
is
because the market demands a light colored and flavored beer with a
"normal" alcohol level. While rice may have been cheaper when the
recipe was originally formulated, the American beer palate (big
generalization) has now been formed based on the post prohibition
American lager style.
Rice does indeed contribute some unique attributes to a beer recipe. =
It
adds alcohol without adding color or flavor. American Lagers may not =
be
your individual preference in styles, but that does not invalidate it.
Corn also adds a unique flavor (especially to lighter flavored beers),
in addition to alcohol and a very small amount of color. I think some
of the "Pre-Prohibition Lager" crowd might get somewhat defensive when
you cast such aspersions on these adjuncts as being unsuitable for use
in brewing high quality beers.
In short, the widespread disdain for adjuncts is pass=E9. Keep an open
mind about such things and you may be surprised.
Cheers,
Fred Wills
Fearless Freddies Homebrewery
Brewing all malt beers (because that's the way *I* like 'em) in
Londonderry, NH=20
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 09:39:18 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: wassail
A local dairy sells cider and offers this recipe. I've really like it.
1 gal cider
juice of 8 oranges (app 2 1/2 c)
juice of 4 lemons (app 2/3 c)
2 c sugar
3t gd. allspice
1t gd. clove
1/2 t gd. nutmeg
4 sticks cinnamon simmer all 1/2 hr.
Wassail, jim booth, lansing, mi with 16g cider fermenting
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 08:12:28 -1000
From: Richard Stueven <gak@molokaibrewing.com>
Subject: Whirlpool Article
Aloha!
AJ Wrote:
xp
> Richard Steuven wrote:
> >There's an excellent discussion of the physics of the whirlpool in
> >the new "Brewing Techniques" issue.
>
> Are you sure you don't mean "New Brewer"?
Right you are...it's the Nov/Dec issue of "The New Brewer".
Sorry for the confusion.
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: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:51:23 -0700
From: Jim Anderson <jander@xmission.com>
Subject: Truth in labeling
Terry White writes in HBD 2585:
> Marshall George laments AB's stance on truth in labeling in HBD 2581. I
> would love to see truth in labeling, but I don't really care where they
> make my beer, I am more concerned with what is in it. Why is beer
> exempt from labeling all ingredients in their product. Every other
> product has to list all the ingredient in descending order, why not
> beer. It would be very interesting to see a listing of all the adjuncts
> and chemicals in some of the commercial beers out there.
Consumer Reports addressed this in their 6-96 profile on beers. As I
recall, the BATF controls beer labelling, while the FDA does not because
beer is not considered to be a "nutritional" product (that's what THEY
say, not me!)
Interestingly, I had a heated exchange with someone in RCB who was
pissed because I occasionally use ascorbic acid and he's allergic to
it. Never mind that I never offered him a brew in the first place. He
seemed to feel that the onus was on the brewer to inform the consumer
what's in the beer. I think that if he's got allergy problems, the
burden is on him to find out what's in the beer. As usual in disputes,
neither one of us convinced the other .... As far as I'm concerned,
anybody can look at my recipe and ingredients for any particular batch,
all they've gotta do is ask.
- Jim (in the land of OZion Utah)
(where legislation was just introduced to legalize homebrewing!)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:50:25 -0800
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK@hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Wyeast 1968 carbonation woes, HBD 2588
Jay wrote in part,
<snip>
However, the batch never carbonated, even after doing exactly
the same procedures as batch #1 (boiling 2 c water, dissolving 3/4 c
corn sugar, cooling, adding to fermented beer, mixing and bottling.)
Was there not enough yeast in suspension when I siphoned the beer off of the
cake? I know 1968 is flocculent, but geez! How can I remedy this
situation? The batch has only been in the bottles for 2 weeks. Should
I just let it sit and hope for the best, or uncap, add a pinch of sugar
to each bottle and recap, or what?
<snip>
no doubt you will get other replies about this, but here goes: without data as
to cellar temperature, etc, can't explore all possibilities. A couple that come
to mind are that 2 weeks may not be enough time for this yeast in this beer at
your cellar temperature. I've had beers go four or more before they carbonate.
I find carbonation sugar is not always detectable to taste in bottled beer,
depending on style, so your's may not be fermented out yet.
Check your caps. If you can turn them by hand, they're too loose to seal.
Capper problem. Check the one you removed (if you can still find it) to make
sure it's not defective and hasn't a loose seal from boiling. Likewise check
your bottle for nicked rim, etc.
If you have a bottle or capping problem, you may indeed need to rebottle,
reprime and/or recap. Otherwise, I'd recommend relaxing, waiting and drinking
what's left of batch no. 1. Don't reprime unless you're sure it's needed, you
may over carbonate.
Good luck, and Hoppy Holidays!
-Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 12:53:41 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@stanford.edu>
Subject: Ken's mysterious "trapped" sugar
I sent an email to Ken, and he encouraged me to post, about
a few potential sources of error in his calculations about
the gravity of "trapped" wort in the mash. (If there's one thing
I've learned in graduate school, it's how to poke holes in someone
else's experiments!)
There are two types of problems I'd be worried about: 1) random
measurement error, which might increase or decrease the size of
the effect Ken thinks he sees, and 2) some systematic problems that
I can see that would be in the right direction to cause Ken's effect.
"Random" errors:
Despite 2 significant digits used on the volume measurements, most
of us are measuring these gallon-sized volumes with errors on the
order of .1 gallons or worse.
Ken's "trapped" volume is estimated as the difference between the strike
(original added) volume and the first runoff volume, and tends to be fairly
small, so small errors in the estimation of either or both measured volumes
could have an effect on his calculations.
Most hydrometers only read to 2 SG points, and reading them can be tricky.
Also they may not be accurate at any or all SGs. (Ken told me that he had
calibrated the hydrometer at 1.050.)
SGs are not totally linear with dilution, but I think this effect is
pretty small. In other words, it is not correct to say 1 gallon of 1.100
equals 2 gallons of 1.050 after dilution with pure water.
The continuous sparge data seem rather unreliable since he relied on the
grain water absorption constant of .13 gallons/lb. If this is incorrect
it seems to me that one could get a pretty different answer.
Systematic errors:
These all increase the volume of the mash. When Ken subtracts the
first runoff volume, these "hidden" increases in mash volume mean that
he underestimates the volume of "trapped" wort. The trapped wort therefore
needs a lower SG to explain the points it has retained, since it has more
volume in which to contain them.
Grain already contains some moisture. Hence the total water content
of the mash is greater than the strike volume.
Water, and especially sugar water, expands when it is warm. If the
temperature of the first runoff is higher when it is measured than the
strike water was when it was measured, it actually would represent a
smaller fraction of the strike water, resulting in more "trapped" volume.
The dissolving of materials in water increases its volume. Note that
this is generally greatly subadditive, in other words, 1 "cup" of sugar
dissolved in 1 gallon of water has a volume much less than 17 cups, and
pretty close to 16 cups (1 gallon).
Summary:
All that being said, some of Ken's differences between what one would
expect and what he measured are pretty large. Most of my corrections are
pretty small. Barring gross measurement error in Ken's data, I would
still think there may be something there. What would be good would be
for Ken, and others, to redo these types of measurements accounting
for the physical characteristics I've mentioned, and with estimates
of their maximum errors, and see if the same discrepancies are still
seen.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:14:15 -0500
From: Tom Clark <rtclark@eurekanet.com>
Subject: Non-alcoholic Homebrew
Can someone who is either a chemist or, has been there, done that help
me on this?...
I made a light amber beer. OG = 42: FG = 09.
Took about a quart of the finished beer and heated it to 170 degrees and
held it for 30 minutes.
The specific gravity went back up to about 24.
Now, I know that this process removed some if not most of the alcohol
but it would not put the CO2 back... So, what is reasonable to expect
in the way of a finished gravity?
BTW - Then added 41 grains of corn sugar to each 12 ounce bottle...
(gunpowder scales - 1 lb = 7000 grains) plus a small amount of the yeast
it was originally fermented with and re-bottled. 41 grains is equal to 5
ounces in 5 gallons.
Thanks
Tom
(298 miles SSE of the apparent center of HBD Universe.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 20:53:32 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: east vs. west Am. pilsner
GuyG4@ aol.com writes:
>A question: Jeff promotes classic American Pilsener...I've made it several
>times, and drunk it a lot...real good beer. But as Jeff notes, it is an
>"eastern" beer. What was the difference between "eastern" beer and "western"
>beer, if there's anyone out there old enough to remember when there was a
>distinction?
George Fix says that it is the use of rice rather than corn in western
Pilsners. I really like the flavor of corn, and I think rice is pretty
flavorless (I've never tried it though).
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 21:08:11 +0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith@ays.net>
Subject: Falstaff Tapper
Happy Holidays to the collective!
I was taking a truck load of recyclables to the county recycle
center today and noticed a small shiney object sitting next to a
bunch of old propane tanks. Turns out it is a commercial grade
mini-keg, which I brought home of course. But now I'm not sure if I
can really use it. This is not your typical thin aluminium mini-keg
you buy in the homebrew shops. It's the same size, but made out of a
very thick guage aluminium much like your aluminium half-barrel kegs.
It has a metal "bung hole" type gadget on the bottom similar to a
full-sized keg including some relief valves and also picnic cooler
type spigot on the top. The label indicates it is a "Falstaff
Tapper" keg. I see no place to hook up a CO2 cartridge nor a hand
pump for pressurizing, so I assume the internal pressure is enough
to serve the entire 2.5 gallons, although that seems like a bad way
to do it (a jet of foam at first, then a trickle of beer as it
empties?)!
Anyway, does anybody know if this thing has any value to a
homebrewer? It looks neat, but otherwise I don't have the chuck
necessary to remove the bung nor any other way to open it up short of
destroying it.
Keith Royster - Mooresville/Charlotte, North Carolina
email: keith@ays.net
http://www.ays.net/brewmasters -Carolina BrewMasters club page
http://www.ays.net/RIMS -My RIMS (rated COOL! by the Brewery)
http://www.ays.net/movingbrews -pumps and accessories for advanced homebrewers
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 22:56:20 +4
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Plastic fermentors
Dear Friends,
Jack Schmidling slapped the momily label on comments regarding the
reputed danger from scratch-borne bugs in plastic fermentors. I
agree with Jack 100%. I have written about this in these pages
before, but it's been awhile since I have, so I'll make my soapbox
speech again. My attititude in this post is highly tongue-in-cheek
but my convictions in the positions I take are rock-solid. Let me
state at the outset, lest there be confusion, we are talking about
the high-density food-grade plastic fermentors, not the plastic
versions of carboys such as used in water coolers.
I can definitely see the theoretical possibility that plastic
fermentors, once scratched, could harbor bacteria and other unwanted
life forms, but documentary evidence that this actually occurs has
so far not been presented, to my knowledge. In contrast, a very,
very large number of batches of beer have been brewed using plastic
fermentors with absolutely no hint of problems due to infection. They
are inexpensive and readily available. Installing spigots in a
plastic fermentor is a breeze, if they're not already so equipped.
They simply do not break, period. One can crop top-fermenting yeast
easily, or skim, etc; blowoff hoses are wholly obviated. Cleaning
them is incredibly easy to do. They come with handy handles, so
moving them is also straightforward.
I'll go even further and say that I have a hard time picturing how
they could even get scratched in the first place. If you clean them
as soon as you remove the beer from them, there is no need to even
wipe them-- the gunk typically rinses right off, and because you can
get right inside there, you can bring a stream of water to bear on
the tougher bits. As I have (only half) flippantly written before,
as long as you don't use them to carry around the shards of your
dropped and broken glass carboys, the danger of scratching them is
very, very low, given that beer or sanitizing solutions have no
sharp edges. But OK, let's say it does scratch, somehow. Get
another one for what, ten bucks? Then use that one for the next ten
years till *it* scratches, if it ever does.
Do I need to bring up the many horrific tales we have all heard about
people dropping or otherwise breaking carboys, sometimes with
tendon-severing results?
There are only two genuine drawbacks to plastic fermentors. First,
many are made of plastic that is not very opaque, so that if you are
concerned about light-strike you may need to cover it with
something. Obviously they outperform glass in this respect. Second,
it has been written that oxygen permeability in the long term could
lead to oxidation of the contents of the fermenters, but I claim
(with no evidence of my own, I fully admit, only experience) that it
would take at least a couple of months for this to be a problem.
(Yes, I lager in plastic.) Therefore, to be totally safe, I could
see storing a beer for prolonged aging in something other than
plastic.
Obviously, one could have the best of all worlds with stainless steel
fermentors. Great, if you can afford them; I sure can't, not yet
anyway.
I hope no one will be offended at my tone in this post; I feel it is
quite mild and appropriate to the many years of look-down-the-nose
poo-pooing that has been directed at the use of plastic in this
forum. I see absolutely nothing to gain from using glass carboys
and a lot to lose if one breaks. Call me a heretic, or anything else
you like, but I will give up my plastic fermentors when they're pried
from my cut and bleeding fingers. Or when my ship comes in and I
can afford stainless!
Happy holidays everyone!
Dave in Dallas
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Dept. Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas
ddraper@utdallas.edu http://hbd.org/~ddraper
...That's right, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 01:45:16 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: keg cleaning
>We all know that SS needs to passivated, meaning to allow
>the protective oxide layer to form BEFORE you brew with it.
>What IF the tanks/tuns where improperly cleaned thus removing
>the oxide layer and exposing the wort/beer to the raw SS.
>Wouldn't the brew then take on the metallic taste?
Happy Holidays,
Will cleaning keg with a "ScothchBrite" type of scrub pad be
enought to remove this passivated oxide layer from stainless?
If a scrub pad will remove it, how does one go about getting
the passivated oxide layer back?
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 02:27:08 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: hole size for false bottom
Happy Holidays,
I acquired some scrap SS perforated with 1/8" holes. Are these holes
too large for use as a false bottom in a mash tun? If they are too large
I suppose I could place a layer of aluminum window screening on to
of the SS bottom.
TIA
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 11:30:36 -0500
From: "MMC Richard A. Kappler" <KAPPLERR@swos.navy.mil>
Subject: the law (yuk!)
secure lurking mode
Hi folks, let me start by thanking you all for the education I daily
receive from you on this list. I have one specific request though.
Regarding the law and homebrew, what agency governs HB? I have 27CFR
(BATF) and can't find anything about it. Also, I know that, by law,
were allowed to brew 200 Gal per year, but where does it say that?
Additionally, what is the consenus regarding
giving homebrew as gifts? As I recall, the law says for 'personal
consumption'. And finally, what about mailing or UPSing homebrew,
what is the official rule? If you could post me privately on these
issues, including references if available, I would greatly appreciate
it. I get this in digest form and the next one's not due until
tomorrow sometime, but the debate rages hot and heavy as we speak.
Thanks again.
Richard Kappler, MMC(SW), USN
kapplerr@swos.navy.mil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 18:44:31 -0600
From: stargazer@dlcwest.com (Lance Levsen)
Subject: Re: Probably Taking the Plunge to All-Grain
Schultz, Steven W. writes:
=
> Phalse Bottom. I would expect this to produce a mash temp in the
> mid-150s. Put cover on cooler, go to work.
I use 1 qt/lb and I get a little more then a 15 degree temperature drop i=
n a =
_preheated_ 5 gallon Gott. I preheat with regular tap hot water, let it s=
it =
for a while and then pour into my waiting sparge containers (two 12 liter=
=
stock pots). I add the water first, cuz it mixes easier and doesn't force=
you =
to stir as much. Stirring in a cooler causes massive 5-10 =F8F drops. YMM=
V.
=
> would hope that this would give me about 3-4 gallons of water with a
> gravity approximately 5/3 of my target OG. =
How are you measuring you runoff? I don't use a hydrometer, but to a leve=
l in =
my boil pot. From your post you should have @ 4 qt to a gallon, 10 lbs =3D=
12 qt =
=3D 3 gallon dough in + 3 or 4 gallon sparge =3D 6 to 7 gallons liquid.
And shouldn't that be 3/5 of target OG. More water is going to be boiled =
off =
so gravity will increase.
>
> Does that sound about right? I cannot do full boil now or at any time
> in the near future, so please tailor your advice to that limitation. =
=
Ahhhh. I do a stove-top with lid partial closed in a 30 quart enamel cann=
er =
that I got here in Canada for 30 bucks at Home Hardware. Gives me almost =
6.5 =
gallons w/ boil room.
> =
> I haven't used one of these coolers before, but with 10 or more pounds
> of grain in it, will there be enough room for me to pour in 3-4 gallons=
> of sparge water? =
Yes. I get 10 - 12 lbs + dough in water and can still add at least a gall=
on in =
my 5 gallon.
> =
> Without doing "rests" at 122F, etc., will beer produced in this manner
> suffer in some way? Will it be hazy? Will there be poor head
> retention?
Who said you couldn't do a rest? It takes time and experience, but throug=
h =
experimentation you can start your dough in thick and add boiling water t=
o =
increase temp. I've also sone decoction to increase temp.
Cheers,
-Lance, who's a long way from Jeff.
- -- =
- -----
If I had a neat and nifty saying, it would go here.
mailto:stargazer@dlcwest.com L^3
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 16:33:24 EST
From: Beerd00d <Beerd00d@aol.com>
Subject: whole flower dry hopping mess
I bottled my first batch of beer that I used whole hop flowers to dry hop
with. Normally I would use pellets in a "hop sock" but I did not feel I was
getting as much kick from the hops as I might be able to with free-floating
whole flowers. My only concern was how am I to bottle when I have 2 inches of
free floating flowers on the top of the beer. To combat this problem, I
simple took a nylon mesh "grain bag" and ran the out end of the siphon tube
through it. This simple set-up was amazingly effective at eliminating all the
floating hops from the bottled beer.
Does anyone else have a method that works well and is also easy to do?
beerd00d@aol.com
aka Kevin in Salt Lake City
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 20:52:16 +1100
From: "Mark Ellis" <mellis@gribbles.com.au>
Subject: Exploding Bottles
>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:05:05 -0800
>From: Kelly Jones <kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com>
>Subject: Re:Bottle Carbonation (Overfilling)
><snip>
>In HBD #2585, Usually, the headspace acts
>like a cushion to absorb this force. If there's no headspace, theres no
>cushion, and you run a higher risk of exploding bottles when the beer
>expands.
>Always leave at least a little bit of headspace in any bottle.
>Kelly
>Hillsboro, OR
><snip>
Hang on a minute there. Please could some engineers etc jump in here any
time and verify this. What I am about to say lacks a bit of the scientific
stuff so please falme away!
I am led to believe that it is a combination of EXCESS head space of AIR
and too much fermentable matter in the solution (beer) which will usually
lead to exploding bottles. For instance, if anyone is completely stupid
enough to try and fill an empty corny keg with compressed anything in gas
form they will literally blow themselves up grenade style. Conversely, they
greater the amount of fluid in the keg, the pressure will be such that the
keg SHOULD simply split. Draw your own parallel with a bottle. Make sure
fermentation has finished, dont overprime, and fill your bottle as high as
possible. At least you probably wont kill yourself this way.
Mellis
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 07:27:13 EST
From: DGofus <DGofus@aol.com>
Subject: Rasberry Mead
I recently tasted a wonderful brew. It was a Rasberry Mead. This was my first
taste of mead and WOW!!!. My wife who is not as enthusiastic as i am about
beers and such tried also........she loved it. We would of had more, but at 9+
abv, we knew the trip home would not be safe. Can anybody give me some help or
guidlines on this brew? I have a few books that have mead recipes, but none
with rasberry. This brew was also carbonated like a beer. Thanks in advance.
Bob Fesmire
The Madman Brewery
Pottstown,PA
Dgofus@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 08:23:00 -0500
From: Paul Edwards <pedwards@iquest.net>
Subject: Orval
Al responded to Joe's post:
>Joe writes about Orval...
>>but I don't often shell out 3.50 for a 12 oz. beer.
>When you consider what Bud costs at a bar, I'd rather
>drink Orval at home (less smoky too!).
a bottle of Orval is as much as $4.50 around here. And not usually
well-cared for either. The brewery recommends that the beer be stored at
no higher a temperature than 15 Deg C (59 deg F). I know once a beer
leaves the brewery, it's at the mercy of distributors and retailers, who
many times leave the product out at room temp or worse, much to the
detriment of the quality of the beer. I've had Orval at the source, both
fresh, and many years old, each sample properly cared for. Magnificent!!
The stuff sitting on most liquor store shelves in the US doesn't begin to
compare, IMHO. And when you consider that in 1995, Orval was going for
less than a buck a bottle in grocery & beer stores in Belgium, I have a
hard time shelling out $4.50 for something that's been abused by
distributors & retailers who don't know or don't care that they're
ruining a great beer.
I'm saving my money for my next trip over to get it fresh!!
>In response to your question Joe... yes, Orval is usually
>very highly carbonated.
...Which explains the beautiful Orval chalices from which the beer is
meant to be drunk. The beer goes into the bottle at about 5.5 percent
alcohol, and continues to ferment ever so slowly over time up to about 7
percent. It indeed builds up quite a bit of carbonation as a result.
A well-poured glass of Orval is a wonderful thing to behold.
- --Paul Edwards
(My computer and I are in Indianapolis, but my heart's in Belgium)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 06:39:27 -0700
From: rkuzara@wyoming.com (Richard S. Kuzara)
Subject: Old Style Cork Bottle Caps
I have a couple of hundred or so old cork bottle caps that have been
sitting in a basement area. Two questions. Can these bottle caps be
effectively sanitized for use (I normally soak my bottle caps in diluted
chlorine bleach and then rinse multiple times)? Also, are these collectors
items and, therefore, should not be used?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:53:11 -0500
From: Wayne_Kozun@otpp.com
Subject: Under-Carbonation
I recently made a Mild Ale from extract (with some specialty grains) that
was bottled two weeks ago but is undercarbonated. I used Wyeast Scottish
Yeast which fermented quickly and left a very clear beer. The initial S.G
was 1.033 and the final S.G was 1.012. I primed with either 3/4 c. of corn
sugar or 1 1/4 c. of dried malt extract (I can't remeber which). The beer
was bottled two weeks ago and has very little carbonation. The beer also
has very little sediment in the bottom of the bottle. I tasted the beer
and it seems slightly sweet so I am assuming the yeast have pooped out and
I added a pinch of dried yeast to each bottle and recapped. Any other
suggestions on what to do to save this batch? Was this the right thing to
do?
And why would this happen in the first place? I know the Scottish Ale
yeast works best for beers with high specific gravities, but this was the
only yeast I had and I wanted to make a lighter beer for people who don't
like dar ales?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 14:26:10 GMT
From: mikey@waste.com (Michael A. Owings)
Subject: re: Triple Bock
>I recently had a chance to try Samuel Adams Triple Bock and I was very
>disappointed. I found it to be thick, sickenly sweet with no hop
>balance, and uncarbonated. I'm a big fan of high gravity beers
>(Eggenberger Urbock being the best beer ever produced) and at 6.50 a
>bottle I expected it to be at least drinkable.
I'm also a fan of high gravity beers -- but not this one.
> I really like unique beers and will try anything a couple of
> times
Save your money -- I've had it twice, and it's been pretty much this
way on both occasions. You could get the same effect from mixing a
little port maple syrup and gravy. Hell, for all I know they
actually _make_ it that way ...
Pretty bottle, tho.
***********************
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, 22 Dec 1997 10:54:22 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Staistical Correlation
Brewsters:
Kyle Drury says:
> think even Dave Burley would agree =
>this indicates a strong relationship. I know Dave will probably try and=
=
>convice me that my mashing data has produced a spurrious relationship, =
>but then again Fix, Lewis, and Young seem to indicate to the contrary.
Kyle, no denying a strong relationship. My point was that this
is outside normal models for enzymes and that often such
correlations occur in experiments even though there is no theoretical
explanation. I'm sure your results are explicable in normal enzyme
kinetics, but such a correlation doesn't mean you have discovered
a basic truth. It may be very accurate to use your numbers with
*exactly* the heat rates, mash thickness, pH , etc. you used in
developing your data - I do not doubt that. It is a tribute to your
technique. This is exactly what your highly significant
( in a statistical sense) correlation shows. However, when you
change your heat up rate, mash thickness or composition, in your step
infusion mash, for example, you will likely find you can no longer use
this equation. Which is the point of my comment - that your equation is
not as universal as it might at first appear from your presentation here.=
In our private correspondence, I pointed the oft touted US birth rate
and Russian wheat harvest or some such correlation is known to
exist. The reason is that the correlation is interdependent with other
variables which are the true variables or it just may be spurious.
I point this out not to make fun of your work ( quite the opposite,
I admire the initiative), but to make the point that in a complex system
like mashing where the enzymes have a time\ temperature
dependent activity over a wide range of temperatures and disappear
at higher temperatures just when their rate of catalysis is speeding up,
make it a complex system. Results like % AA is time\temperatures
history and mash conditions dependent and not dependent on =
one variable like a 140F hold time or similar expression.
Basically, from what I have read, for periods of *normal* hold
times ( say and hour or so), alpha amylase is not considered to be
*significantly* active ( for brewing purposes) at 140F although
undoubtedly there is some activity. See Jim Busch in Aug& Sept 97 BT =
articles for an excellent quick dose of enzyme kinetics and
temperature data.
Therefore, in *infusion* mashes, other than =
the higher carbohydrates produced during malting ( and from
beta glucanases, perhaps, if a 122F(40C) hold were used),
beta amylase has a limited amount of substrate at 140F even =
though beta amylase is active at this temperature. This would make
the hold time at 140F not a significant contributor to the apparent
attenuation in the general model - especially for infusion mashes.
This is, of course, not true in *decoction* mashes, since the alpha
amylase is active during the heatup of the decoct to the boil and =
produces substrate for the beta amylase upon returning the decoct
to the main mash. This may explain the references to the 140F hold
in the literature you quoted. Although the "maltose rest" of decoction
mashes is considered to be around 145-147F, I believe. =
Once you begin to raise the temperature from 140F into the classical
infusion saccharification (149-158F or 65C-70C) region, both alpha
and beta amylase are considered to be active and sugars and dextrins
can begin to be formed from the starch. Given all else is constant,
it is the temperature hold in this region in a *single* infusion mash
which is held to be the main determining factor in dextrin/sugar ratio
and a strong ( but not the only) effect on the %AA. Step infusions are
another matter and the complete history must be considered.
At first, based on your submission, you stated that the 158F hold time
was (90 min -140F hold time). I pointed out that this could explain the
correlation you found, since the 158F hold time is related =
to the amount of dextrins produced, depending on the mash =
temperature history. In our correspondence you noted that this
was a simplification of the way you actually determined the
158F hold time. Perhaps you would care to expand that
explanation here. It would also be interesting to see the =
dependent variables and independent variables expressed
in the manner you obtained them.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 8:19:30 PST
From: Scott Kaczorowski <kacz@nfs.aisf.com>
Subject: Corona mill
Bill Giffin says in HBD 2589:
> Again Jack defends his mill, and I agree his mill is fairly well made. But
> for the money you cannot beat the Corona mill.
I have both mills...
> Dollar for dollar, without question the Corona is the best buy.
...and I have to heartily agree with this statement.
I bought a Corona mill for crushing malted corn, and of course I had to
run some domestic 2-row (GW) through it just for giggles. The resulting
crush *looked* so similar to what my non-adjustable MaltMill gives me that
it actually made me kind of mad. Whether or not the result *is* similar
is for someone else to say. Try before you buy. And nope, my MM is not
for sale...
> Contrary to Jack's assessment the
> malt mill will allow small grains to pass through the mill without being
> properly crushed.
This also is true and I find that I must run (un)malted wheat through twice.
This is not a problem for me as I'm motorized, but for a hand-cranker...
OTOH, Coronas are getting hard to find, leastways through normal homebrew
channels 'round here. Also, neither Brewer's Resource nor Williams carries
this mill anymore. On yet a further different hand, they can be found for
as little as $22 at Latino markets in the LA area. Get some corn for
malting while you're there.
Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA
kacz@nfs.aisf.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2591, 12/24/97
*************************************
-------
