Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2617
HOMEBREW Digest #2617 Fri 23 January 1998
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:
Break Material/Oops! Forgot the Irish Moss (Jim Herter)
Upping Heating Efficiency ("Tkach, Christopher")
New Wort Boiling Method ("David R. Burley")
Southeast Homebrewer of the Year Results ("Bryan Cronk")
Fast starts / racking off t ("Andrew Avis")
Clink! Pop! Blam! And the eating of humble pie... (Some Guy)
decotion mashing (Michael Rasmussen)
How to clean and immersion chiller. ("John W. Carpenter")
Layers in carboy ("Dr. Dwight A Erickson")
Re: Optimum Mash Grain Depth (Kelly Jones)
2 liter heaven (Darrell)
Bridgeport IPA ("Eric Darrow")
Brewtek Saison (Keith Busby)
Dry Yeast Expired? (Michael Beatty)
Re: SOD ("Dr. Dwight A Erickson")
Lower efficiency for high-gravity beers? (Dan Cole)
Competition announcement ("Ralph Colaizzi")
RE: more about labels ("PARKER,Myles")
cornelius keg carbonation (antnee56)
Ion Exchange ("Raymond C. Steinhart")
GRISTBLASTER(tm) (The Holders)
Help with porter ("David Johnson")
In Defense of Step Mashing (GuyG4)
Re: Zima Brewing (Glenn Raudins) (Jeff McNeal)
labels (Heiner Lieth)
alcoholism thread (Heiner Lieth)
propane tanks (John_E_Schnupp)
Cheap CF chiller design (Richard Scholz)
Re: Zima (Mark Weaver)
Apologies for missed delivery of Digest 1/22/98.
You were not unsubscribed, the server did not
crash, and the world did not end. Situation has
been rectified.
Be sure to enter the...
The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition
Brooklyn Brewery, Brooklyn, NY
Entries due by 1/31/98, competition 2/7/98
Contact Bob Weyersberg at triage@wfmu.org for more info.
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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.edu/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: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:10:59 -0500
From: Jim Herter <james.m.herter.1@nd.edu>
Subject: Break Material/Oops! Forgot the Irish Moss
I did my first decoction mash yesterday (Oktoberfest) following the steps
outlined in the Zymurgy "Grains" issue from a year or so ago. Surprisingly,
it went as planned, but did add an hour or so to the session.
I try to lay out my brewing session the day before and usually I am very
prepared. In the course of reading and brewing at the same time I managed
to forget to add the Irish Moss. Even when using the moss I seem to end up
with a good amount of protein in the fermenter.
I know that this is not desirable, but I haven't become overly concerned
due to the fact that the beers turn out very well. Generally, when I do a
lager (which is not often), I leave the beer in secondary for 4-6 weeks and
get good clarity. Any reason to be concerned? Or any remedial steps to take
after the fact to deal with potential problems that may occur as a result
of having the excess protein in the primary?
Any suggestions on how to leave the junk behind in the brew pot? I use a
converted keg with a spigot at the bottom and the pipe running to the
center of the bottom. (Unfortunately the person who cut and welded the keg
thought he was doing me a favor by making the pipe one piece to the
bottom). I'm always leery of leaving the beer set too long in the kettle
after chilling - Or set in the carboy for extended periods before pitching.
Jim Herter
St. Joe Valley Brewers
Chairperson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:39:18 -0500
From: "Tkach, Christopher" <tkach@ctron.com>
Subject: Upping Heating Efficiency
Ok, after having probably one of the worst
brew sessions I've ever experienced on Saturday, I'm
asking some advice on improving my boils.
But first, let me give you a little history...
This Christmas, to my dis-belief, I found a 10gal
brew kettle under the tree. Meaning that
I could finally do all-grain, full boils (I've been
stuck in partial mash/partial boil land for over
2 years now). Needless to say, I was quite happy!
But w/ this new toy, I've run into a bit of a problem
w/ achieving a nice rolling boil because I'm now trying
to boil 6-7 gallons instead of the 4-4.5 gallons that I
was boiling previously. To compensate for the lack of
'power' that my wimpy electric stove puts out, I've had
to partially cover the kettle (I know, DMS...). But this
has created another problem, and that is the amount
of boiled off wort has dropped (I'm assuming its due to
the kettle being partially covered). Which in turn has
resulted in lower OGs and more wort than I know what to
do with. This was quite evident Saturday when I tried to
make an Imperial Stout, but ended up w/ 7gal of wort (after
a 90min boil), about 10 pts lower than expected. My mash
efficiency wasn't off, which means that the lower OG is due
to the fact that I had more wort than expected (7gal vs
5.5gal).
Is there any way that I can improve the efficiency of the
stove/boil so that I don't have to keep the kettle partially
covered. Would insulating the kettle help much?
Thanks,
- Chris
Newmarket, NH
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:17:49 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: New Wort Boiling Method
Brewsters:
One of my buddies attended the recent American Institute of =
Chem Engineering National Meeting in LA and brought back
a reference to a paper given by Gino Bacon from =
Vrije Universitet Brussel. He described a "greener" wort boiling
method. Not that the wort is green, but the method is claimed
to be more environmentally satisfactory. The news article was
titled "Making Better Brews, "Worts" and All" Guess the author
just couldn't help her/himself.
Anyway, Bacon and Sonck working with Interbrew NV describes
the method as a two stage wort boiling system.
1) First the wort is kept at boiling temperature and no significant =
evaporation occurs. Volatile compounds formed through chemical
reactions are accumulated in the wort.
2) In stage two, the volatile compounds are eliminated in a wort
stripping column. Boiling wort is passed through a column packed
with materials that offer a large surface for contact with water
vapor to effectively strip the liquid of VOCs (Volatile Organic
Compounds) which pass off with the steam.
Bacon comments that the flavor profile of the beers produced
in industrial trials matches that of conventionally boiled worts.
He also comments that there is a significant reduction in the
energy loss due to boiling.
Frankly, I doubt this news description is entirely correct and I
believe what happens is that the *vapors* from the boiling wort are
passed over a packed column familiar to chemist and chemical =
engineers alike. I would also suppose that it is a method of
reducing or controlling the odor released to the outside world
( an increasing problem with food processors in the US.) during
the long boil, which needs to be carried out for an hour or longer
to get the conversion of the hop resins. This may also preserve
some of the hop aroma oils as well or they could be collected in
the effluent from the column. I would imagine the length of the =
column and the number of theoretical plates would be important
to this process.
Interesting idea. I can imagine a pressure cooker being used in
some fashion to simulate this in which the wort is held at 212F
and not boiled for an hour. Perhaps some form of magnetically
coupled agitation would be needed to get the extraction from the
hops and then follow this with a brief boil. This might minimize =
the "this place smells like a brewery" comments from the SO , and
provide more control over the hop aromas/bitterness ratio in
the brew.
The danger of course is that with pressure cookers, plugging
of the vent can spell disaster. Can you say wort bomb of scalding
water and flying chunks of metal? The combo of hops and boilup
foam sounds like a dangerous combo to me and certainly goes =
against the recommendation of the cooker manufacturer of what
kinds of things that can be safely processed in a pressure cooker.
Maybe this could be done at atmospheric pressure with some kind =
of automatic control on the heater at near boiling with agitation from
inert gas - CO2 or nitrogen - or a mechanical stirring to get
dispersion of hop resins so they can be converted and utilized.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 12:13 EST
From: "Bryan Cronk" <bcronk@nortel.ca>
Subject: Southeast Homebrewer of the Year Results
Competition Results, Southeast Homebrewer of the Year
Hosted by TRUB and CARBOY, Durham NC, January 17, 1998
======================================================
Southeast Homebrewer of the Year winner
- ---------------------------------------
Brian Travis, Lawrenceville GA
Congratulations Brian!!!
Best of Show
- ------------
1st Al Clayson Charlotte NC Belgian Strong Ale
2nd Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA American Style Lager
3rd Weston Sampson Orlando FL Irish-Style Dry Stout
Individual Category Results
- ---------------------------
Category: Belgians and Lambics
1st Al Clayson Charlotte NC Belgian Strong Ale
2nd Bruce Pitner Durham NC Belgian Strong Ale
3rd Scott Boeke North August SC Tripel
Category: Brown Ales and Milds
1st David Pappas Ocoee FL American Brown Ale
2nd John Allen Alphretta GA American Brown Ale
3rd Scott Wallace Concord NC American Brown Ale
Category: English Pale Ales
1st Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA India Pale Ale
2nd Nancy Sampson Orlando FL India Pale Ale
3rd Bruce Pitner Durham NC India Pale Ale
Category: American Ales
1st Nancy Sampson Orlando FL American Pale Ale
2nd Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA American Pale Ale
3rd J. Horinek, P. Schomaker
Scott Christoffel Pompano Beach FL California Common
Category: Bitters
1st Brian Buckowski Smyrna GA English Strong Bitter
2nd Weston Sampson Orlando FL English Ordinary Bitter
3rd Danny Johnson Willow Springs NC English Best Bitter
Category: Stouts
1st Weston Sampson Orlando FL Irish-Style Dry Stout
2nd Nancy Sampson Orlando FL Irish-Style Dry Stout
**Tie**
3rd Mike Hamman Huntsville AL Oatmeal Stout
3rd J. Horinek, P. Schomaker
Scott Christoffel Pompano Beach FL Foreign-Style Stout
Category: Porters
1st Barry Browne Atlanta GA Robust Porter
2nd Scott Boeke North August SC Robust Porter
3rd Scott Wallace Concord NC Brown Porter
Category: Strongs
1st Evan Kraus Atlanta GA American Style Barleywine
2nd Jim Buck Cary NC Traditional Bock
3rd Al Clayson Charlotte NC Weizenbock
Category: German Lagers
1st Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA Bohemian Style Pilsner
2nd Rick Klemp Rougemont NC Schawrzbier
3rd Al Clayson Charlotte NC Marzen/Oktoberfest
Category: Alts/Kolshes
1st Weston Sampson Orlando FL Dusseldorf-Style Altbier
2nd David Pappas Ocoee FL Dusseldorf-Style Altbier
3rd K. Klemp, J. Purl Durham NC Dusseldorf-Style Altbier
Category: Wheats
1st Bill MacKenzie Raleigh NC Berliner Weisse
2nd Weston Sampson Orlando FL Weizen/Weissbier
3rd J. Horinek, P. Schomaker
Scott Christoffel Pompano Beach FL Weizen/Weissbier
Category: Smoked/Fruit/Herb
1st Thomas Moore Covington GA Herb and Spice Beers
2nd Dennis and Paul Waltman Atlanta GA Fruit and Vegetable Beer
3rd Tyler Freeman Whitwell TN Other Smoked Beer
Category: Specialty
1st David Pappas Ocoee FL Classic-Style Specialty Beer
2nd Bruce Pitner Durham NC Classic-Style Specialty Beer
3rd Nancy Sampson Orlando FL Specialty Beer
Category: Scottich Ales/American Lagers
1st Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA American Style Lager
2nd Weston Sampson Orlando FL Scottish Export Ale
3rd Al Clayson Charlotte NC American-Style Premium Lager
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cronk, SHY 1997 Competition Organizer
cronks1@mindspring.com
(919) 528-3375 (H)
(919) 991-7598 (W)
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 10:20:23 -0700
From: "Andrew Avis" <Andrew.Avis.0519423@nt.com>
Subject: Fast starts / racking off t
Fellow brewers:
I use a yeast starter method that is unorthodox and in theory should lead =
to bad beer, but has in practice made excellent beers that start in 2-4 =
hours. I've done this with both lager and ale yeasts:
1) I make a 1 litre starter w/ OG 1.040, well aerated, & pitch the smack =
pack or washed yeast from a previous batch. The starter is kept at about =
70F. I do this 2-3 days before brewing. (I'll step up once if brewing a =
strong beer).
2) I pitch the entire starter at high karausen into well aerated 85F =
wort.
3) There is usually some karausen after 2-4 hours, and a full, rolling =
ferment within 6-8 hours. The beer is usually at about 70F. At this =
point I move the carboy to an area at proper fermentation temps.
I realize that a "hot start" at 85F is not considered optimum (especially =
for lagers), nor is making such a large starter from a small amount of =
yeast. However, I have yet to taste any off-flavours in the last 5 =
batches I've made with this method, one of which was a bock using Wyeast =
2007.
Now a question: does anyone rack a second time after a few hours to get =
the wort off of settled trub? I tried this for the first time last night =
w/ an American Lager. I racked the wort into a carboy, pitched the =
starter, and then let settle for 2 hours. I racked clearer wort off of =
about 1" of trub into a second carboy. I noticed, however, that there =
seemed to be some activity in the trub, and my beer took about 12 hours =
to start fully. I'm wondering if I racked off most of my active yeast as =
well as trub? Should I have waited until after racking to pitch the =
yeast? Where does active yeast go after it's pitched - to the bottom, or =
into suspension?
Ultimately I'd like to find a filter that works better than the choreboy =
at getting rid of all the break material/hops stuff.
Drew Avis
Calgary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:31:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Clink! Pop! Blam! And the eating of humble pie...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Al takes exception with my analogies, and some other stuff...
"... analogy needs work. Your tires will inflate even if you fill them
with water, but the ride would not be so smooth ;^)."
True, but you're looking at the wrong side of the system. Tires *will*
inflate with water because rubber is elastic; not because water is
compressible. Perhaps a better thing would be to have said that is why the
compressor you used to fill your tires works. Or something. Whatever. You
get the point.
"Not quite... the issue is not pressure but rather generated CO2.
The generated CO2 would go somewhere: into solution."
Maybe I'm all wet here, but I think you and I are sharing the towel: CO2
goes into solution both above and below the liquid/headspace boundary
relative to the apparent pressure (note the word pressure) of the gas on
each side. It "rushes" to equallize the two. Granted CO2 is formed by the
metabolizing of sugars, so in terms of mass-equillibrium, all is equal -
but! I contest that the densities of ethanol and CO2 (you'll note CO2
typically *is* a gas, no?) is much less than that of the sugars from
whence they derive. Otherwise, you'd never hear the welcome Pppphhhttt! of
the cap or the unwelcome *POP* of a breaking bottle. It is my contention,
then, that no matter where you think the CO2 is is the system, it *must*
generate some change in pressure if developed via fermentation in a closed
environment. Otherwise, you'd never have to worry about popped bottles
(whether "Blam" or "Chink") because the CO2 would simply go into solution
(I don't think that's quite the way you meant to say that, Al).
Now, based on the differences in compressibility between water and gas, I
*still* contend that the headspace provides a safety net.
**** Pie eating contest! Flavor of the day: Humble Pie...
Sanity check: 4 Cornelius, 2 Spartanburg, and 1 Firestone keg checked:
130 psi Max working pressure (blush Those 3's KINDA look like 8's, don't
they? Heh.). I retract my statements regarding the max pressure on a keg
(though they are using an engineering safety factor, aren't they?).
(Mmmmm. I *LOVE* this pie. Can I have it ala mode?)
Also, in my zeal in shooting from the lip, I did mistate failure
mechanisms of the kegs: gradual changes upward in pressure of some
incompressible medium (water, ice) will usually not result in an
explosion. Failure modes of glass under pressure, on the other hand, are a
little less predictable. (Urp. No more pie for me, thanks. Full.)
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brewing Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:50:37 -0800
From: Michael Rasmussen <mikeraz@ncube.com>
Subject: decotion mashing
I spent several frustrating hours with a decoction mash yesterday.
the basic problem was going from the protien rest to the saccrification
rest - and not hitting the target temp. Heck, getting close would
have been good.
Normal descriptions of the process say to take out 1/3 of the
thick part of mash for the decotion. Is that 1/3 by weight?
By Volume?
Could any experienced decoction masher please post some hints
for the process? I'd like to try this again and get it right.
Michael Rasmussen - mikeraz@ncube.com 503-531-6401
Product Management Engineer
nCUBE Video Servers
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 12:49:03 EST
From: "John W. Carpenter" <jwc@med.unc.edu>
Subject: How to clean and immersion chiller.
I had a wonderful idea this past weekend when brewing. With the recent
discussion on cleaning copper immersion chillers, I started wondering if
I should pay more attention to cleaning mine. The current idea seems to
be to use vinegar and a green scrubbie thing to get off the oxides. This
is too much trouble for me. I wanted to just soak it off. It would cost
too much and be a waist to get enough vinegar to be able to soak my
chiller. (50 ft. coil) Then it hit me. I'm an all grain brewer, and stop
collection running when they get to 1.010 or when I have enough volume in
my kettle. I acidify my sparge water. Why not switch to another pot and
keep collecting runoff. That's what I did. I then put my chiller into the
low pH, low gravity runoff and let it soak. It worked great! No
scrubbing, no buffing. Try it, you'll like it.
--
John W. Carpenter **** Never Trust a Brewer with an ****
email - jwc@med.unc.edu O|~~| inseam larger than his waistline. |~~|O
http://www.unc.edu/~jwc/ `--' `--'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:47:26 -0700
From: "Dr. Dwight A Erickson" <colvillechiro@plix.com>
Subject: Layers in carboy
I started a version of IPA a week ago. Five days into the primary
fermentation,
the yeast began to "settle out" - -but it is in layers : The top 1/4
of the wort is
fairly clear the next fourth is "cloudy" yeast, the next fourth is
clearish (like
the top fourth) the bottom fourth is cloudier, then the sediment. I've
never
seen this kind of layering - - Any ideas ? Has anybody else
experienced this ?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:07:33 -0800
From: Kelly Jones <kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Optimum Mash Grain Depth
George Danz in HBD #2613 asks:
>What is a
>good guideline for ratio of grain depth to tun diameter?
Why does anyone suppose that the RATIO of depth to diameter has any
bearing on the mechanics of sparging? The important parameter is
DEPTH. If you consider a drop of water making it's way down through the
grain bed, it has no knowledge of how far it is from the sides of the
tun. The only thing it sees is the distance it travels from top to
bottom.
I remember reading somewhere (could it have been Papazian?) that when
the brewers from (some Megabrewer) wanted to do a small-scale test of
their lauter tun, they simulated it with a stack of coffee cans, with
the tops and bottoms removed, taped end-to-end. Thus, they achieved
grain depth of several feet (which was similar to the full-size tun),
even though the depth:diameter ratio was nowhere close.
If you look at a wide range of tuns, from homebrew scale to megabrewer
scale, you'll find that the depth is close to the same (well, within a
factor of 2x-3x) in all, whereas the diameter is all over the board.
So don't worry about a grain depth of 18-20" in a small tun. Not only
is the ratio unimportant, but you'll get more efficient sparging with a
deeper bed.
Kelly
Hillsboro, OR
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:12:53 -0700
From: Darrell <darrell@montrose.net>
Subject: 2 liter heaven
Hi guys,
It seems like forever since I've posted (or read...) HBD or r.c.b.
Things have been kinda crazy. Anyway, I stumbled onto a great trick.
(Sorry if someone has already come up with this).
I have heard of the "Carbonator", and I hate to take away anyone's
business, but this was just too good. I have been getting tired of
lugging kegs around with me to various occassions, and was wishing I
could do something more portable (I use 1/2 bbl. kegs). I had a couple
of those "Fizz-Savers" from Walmart that I got for about $2.50 for a 2
pack. It's one of those pump gizmos to put onto a 2 liter bottle after
you open it. (Anyone who understands partial pressures knows how little
these will actually do for you, but I had other things in mind...)
I broke off the pump portion, and pulled it out of the main housing. I
then used the gasket from the foot of the pump to place around the 1/4"
tube from my CO2 cylinder. Inserting the tube with the gasket around it
back into the hole from the pump gave me a tight enough fit to now
pressurize a 2 liter bottle. BINGO!! I now have perfectly portable
kegged beer! (I also have free sparkling water...)
Since I keg in 1/2 bbl. kegs, I have been limited to one keg in the
fridge at a time. I am now considering keeping my kegs at room
temperature, and just filling various 2 liter bottles in order to have
an assortment of brews in the fridge. At $2.00 ea. (the price has gone
up, I just went and bought a few more) I don't mind using them with
impunity (as compared with $12 - $15 ea.).
Happy brewing!
- --
Darrell Garton
Montrose, CO
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:27:50 -0800
From: "Eric Darrow" <edarrow@cmdpdx.com>
Subject: Bridgeport IPA
I would like to brew something close to a Bridgeport IPA but since the
recipe calls for 5 different hops I can't begin to guess the amounts. Does
anyone have any experience with this recipe? TIA.
Eric Darrow
Graphic Designer - Multimedia Group
Creative Media Development
Portland, Oregon
www.cmdpdx.com
(503) 223-6794
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:12:07 -0600
From: Keith Busby <kbusby@ou.edu>
Subject: Brewtek Saison
Does anyone have recent experience with Brewtek CL-380 Saison yeast? After
mighty flocculation and a decent impersonation of a maelstrom, the head on
my Saturday Grand Cru batch rose so much that I have to put a blow-off tube
on a 6.5 gal. carboy. Grain bill was the usual pilsner, small amounts of
biscuit, aromatic, carapils, and amber candi sugar. Pitched 1 liter starter
into 5.5 gal of OG 1.074. Temp. about 68F. Is this yeast notorious for such
behavior? Do we know its origin? Dupont? Regal?
Keith Busby
Keith Busby
George Lynn Cross Research Professor
University of Oklahoma
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202
Norman, OK 73019
Tel.: (405) 325-5088
Fax: (405) 325-0103
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:27:44 -0600
From: Michael Beatty <beattymp@dscoe.com>
Subject: Dry Yeast Expired?
Greetings All!
I've collected a few packets of dry yeast over the past few years with =
various kits and am now having thoughts of attempting to use them in my =
next couple of batches of brew. Some packets have been refrigerated the =
whole time, and some have been stored in a cabinet in my garage (temps =
varying from 25F-105F). All packets were from ale or stout kits.
Anyone have a reason why I couldn't pitch the dry yeast? I'm not so =
sure that temperature would affect dry yeast, but I thought I'd get some =
input from the collective.
Thanks,
Michael Beatty in Edwardsville, IL
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:49:00 -0700
From: "Dr. Dwight A Erickson" <colvillechiro@plix.com>
Subject: Re: SOD
Marshall, Al wrote:
> Dr:
>
> Is this your own idea (using it in brewing)?
> Is it in use anywhere else in the food
> industry?
>
> -- Al
>
> Al Marshall
> al_marshall@mail.intel.com
Al,
This is just an idea that I had on my own. SOD is mainly used in
the human nutritional area. It is pretty near flavorless (I use it
daily in addition to other anti-
oxidants i.e. Vit.C, Vit.E Selenium etc as part of my own health
maitenance.)
I doubt if it is used much in the regular food industry, as there are
other cheaper
anti-oxidants around. My thought(s) are that even vitamin C is
sometimes used in
brew, it isn't stable to heat.....SOD is much more stable to heat. I'm
thinking that
it might be quite useful in beers that are going to go through a long
lagering or
possible long storage. I've never heard of anyone using it in brew,
but my
knowledge of chemistry says it should work.
If I don't hear anything to the contrary, I'm gonna give it a try the
next time I
do a lager.
Doc E
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:04:06 -0500
From: Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Lower efficiency for high-gravity beers?
Has anyone (besides me) experienced significantly lower extract
efficiencies for "big beers". Over the weekend, I brewed a barley-wine (for
next winter) and wound up with a lousy 50% efficiency. Usually, I estimate
my efficiency in SUDS4.0 at 75% and can pretty much hit the predicted O.G.,
but this time rather than the 1.110 I was expecting, I wound up with 1.070.
I did have one other problem (I mistakenly used a water to grain ratio of
.8quarts per pound, rather than 1 to 1.5), but was wondering if this is the
only factor that contributed to my undershooting my target O.G.
Do those who have their brewing down to more of a science experience any
significant change in efficiencies for their "big beers"? And if so, can
anyone describe the mechanisms at work?
Thanks,
Dan Cole
Roanoke, VA.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:25:23 -0500
From: "Ralph Colaizzi" <rwc@pair.com>
Subject: Competition announcement
The Three Rivers Alliance of Serious Homebrewers will be hosting their 8th
annual homebrew , mead and cider competition on March 28, 1998. The Turtle
Creek Homebrewers Award will be presented to the winner of a new category
for "just good beer" that doesn't fit any recognized class. Best of show
winner will have their recipe brewed by the Foundry Ale works. Entries will
be accepted from March 2 to March 14 at local homebrew supply shops or can
be mailed to Triangle Homebrewing Supply, 2821 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA
15222. Entry fee is $6 for the first entry and $5 for each additional.
Judges are needed! Contact Rich Schutte, Competition Organizer, 412-429-4922
. Web page url http://ralph.pair.com/competition.htm
Ralph Colaizzi
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:03:59 +1000
From: "PARKER,Myles" <myles.parker@deetya.gov.au>
Subject: RE: more about labels
> <LURK MODE OFF>
>
> Mark Tumarkin said:
>A couple of things on the label thread, milk does make an effective (and
>cheap and easy) glue but it tends to come off if you put the bottles in an
>ice chest at a party. I have tried a number of adhesives and the one that
>I am most satisfied with is the UHU glue stick. It stays on very well, but
>comes off easily in a light ammonia soak. Recently I have been using the
>purple ones. They work exactly the same as the plain white but the color
>makes it much easier to see where you have already applied the glue and
>thus to get complete coverage without going over areas twice.
>
>I second Mark's comment about the UHU glue stick. I have always used them and
>found the glue to be easy to apply and to remove. Mark, to remove my labels I
>just run a little hot water over the label till it's soaked then just slip
>the label off the bottle. (With you applying the clear contact over top will
>make this step a little harder! Like the idea though, I just might start
>doing that with mine). Then just rinse the bottle some more under the hot
>water, rubbing with your finger and you'll find that the glue washes off
>quite easily! I wrote about the UHU glue sticks some time last year in
>response to a question about label adhesives.
>
> Myles Parker,
> Limestone Plains Brewing ,
> and Canberra Brewers Club,
> Canberra,
> Beautiful Capital City
> of the beautiful land of OZ!
> Australia
>
> <LURK MODE ON>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:21:02 -0500
From: antnee56@juno.com
Subject: cornelius keg carbonation
Hi, I would like some info on naturally carbonating my homebrew in a
corny keg . I will be trying this method for the first time and would
like to know how much head space is required, and also the correct amount
of corn sugar / 5 gal keg. Thanks in advance!
Tony in Trenton ,NJ
Antnee56@juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:29:58 -0600
From: "Raymond C. Steinhart" <rnr@popmail.mcs.net>
Subject: Ion Exchange
Can anyone tell me the proportion of ions exchanged in a standard
water softener? Is calcium the only ion exchanged for sodium or are
there others?
Thanks.
Raymond C. Steinhart
B.O.S.S. Brewers of South Suburbia
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:24:40 -0800
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
Subject: GRISTBLASTER(tm)
I've found browsing the recent thread concerning
RIMS/RSMS/GOTTIMS/MIXMASHER, etc. very interesting. It has me thinking
twice about implementing a GRISTBLASTER(tm) in IGOR98(tm), my HEARMS
(Heat Exchange Automated Recirculating Mash System).
Would a GRISTBLASTER(tm) that doesn't operate full time during the mash
be a possible bridge between HEARMS and MAXMISHER, or would it be a
waste of gadgetry?
Wayne Holder
Long Beach CA
http://andinator.com/zymico
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:48:46 -0600
From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj@inwave.com>
Subject: Help with porter
Brewers,
I will be brewing an interpretation of early porter. I intend to use
special roast for a significant part of the grain as brown malt (the
suppliers I usually deal with don't carry Hugh Baird). I was wondering if
anyone knew about the enzyme level in this malt. Does it have enough enzymes
to convert itself?
I also intend to use some oak chips. I am aware that the older porters
were aged in oak vats. I am also aware that there was a large volume to
surface ratio and that this flavor was probably not marked. I would use some
restraint. The other reason I would like to try it is that I have liked the
flavor in the beers that I have tried that have it. Any suggestions on how
and how much to use?
I would also like some suggestions on a yeast to use. Since Whitbread
was a big porter maker in the past, would it (or similar yeasts) be a good
choice? Maybe I should use more than one strain.
In order to get some of the acid character I was considering adding some
lactic acid, but when and how much. I had guessed about 5 cc's of 88% lactic
but when? I am not ready to try a sour mash or chance my whole set up to
lactobacillus.
I realize that old porter probably had some Brett. character in it. I am
not sure that I like that flavor enough to commit a whole batch to it. But
might consider splitting a batch at racking and adding it in the secondary.
Would this give a significant brett character?
It is good to try new things.
I plan to use American pFuggles(US Tettnanger) as hops (Hopped to about
35 IBU) and dry-hop with the same.
Suggestions?
Dave
------------------------------
13
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:17:49 EST
From: GuyG4 <GuyG4@aol.com>
Subject: In Defense of Step Mashing
Much has been written of late, by many whose posts are met with respect and
awe by those of us general hobbyists, about the uselessness of step mashing,
and the clear superiority of the infusion mash technique. Before this goes
much further, I wish to defend step mashing, and differ with those who think
our time is wasted, our beers are less satisfying, and our brains somewhat
small.
First, definitions. By step mashing, I refer to the technique of mashing in
with hot water, raising the temperature of the mash vessel and contained mash
by means of outside heat to pre-determined levels, holding for a period of
time, and raising again. This ends, generally, with a relatively popular
"mash-out" phase, denaturing enzymes at 170 degrees F.
Infusion mashing, alternatively, consists of mixing a pre-determined amount of
hot or boiling water with grain, then allowing that mix to equilibrate
temperature wise at optimum temperatures for enzyme activity. Temperature
raises are accomplished by addition of more water, again, ending with a
mashout at 170 degrees F.
Why stepmash? Current malts need no protein rest; indeed, the 122F rest was
recently disposed in several posts in this digest. Current malts need no
beta-glucan rest, because we've abandoned rye or other gummy bits in our beer.
Infusion is the best, right?
Well, perhaps. I'll not denegrate infusion mashers here. I will say that
step mashing allows me a level of control over both mash thickness and
temperature an infusion mash cannot approach. I beta-glucan, acid, or protein
rest, or sometimes a mixture of these, at 1 qt. water per pound of grain. I
add some water, generally .5 qt.per pound, to allow easy stirring at
saccrification temps. I can control reasonably well the temp, emphasizing
alcohol production or body as the style or my whim indicates, with my burner.
Yes, the first few batches were difficult, but with practice, I got pretty
good at landing on proper temps.
What I gain, over a similar infusion mash, is a tangible level of control, and
an intangible feel for the grain. I lose efficiency, and time. Neither of
increased efficiency or saving time are reasons why I brew. Even though a
protein rest is not needed, my beers have a great head. My rye beer doesn't
stick in the lauter because I rested for it. I can change, in the next batch,
and emphasize body over alcohol production or vice-a-versa as I choose.
Commercial breweries don't do this we are told. I don't know, but Noonan, in
Appendix C (I think) of Brewing Lager Beer, disputes this. He claims most
micros step mash. I suppose we could count, but does it really matter?
Equipment is minimal, just a propane burner and a canner. I have infused and
stepped the same beer, and to my taste, the step-mashed brew tastes better. I
guess, If I wanted to brew like A-B, or Red Hook, or even the local brewpub,
I'd need permits and a big garage. And I'd need to recoup investment, and all
that other stuff we do 9-5. I choose to brew beer for me, and stepping offers
the most control and fun for me. Infusers, enjoy, but I'll be steppin' out on
the back porch for some time. Whether I need to or not.
Infusion mashing certainly works, and makes great beer. But let's be nice to
us step mashers, guys, and give it a try. You'll get a lot more control.
Cheers, and good to hear from you Siebel guys
Guy Gregory
Lightning Creek Home Brewery
Spokane WA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:35:27 -0800
From: Jeff McNeal <mcnealj@ECE.ORST.EDU>
Subject: Re: Zima Brewing (Glenn Raudins)
Gabi Scharfetter asks about brewing Zima,
>From what Glenn says about the process of "Brewing" zima, it sounds like
it is just alcohol and carbonated water. If I were going to "brew" some
zima, I'd just get some water, add vodka to taste, and carbonate. Maybe
a twist of lemon?
Jeff
Corvallis OR
- --
Jeff McNeal mcnealj@flop.engr.orst.edu
OFFICE: DEAR206 541.737.3213
http://www.ece.orst.edu/~mcnealj
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." I. Asimov
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:24:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth@telis.org>
Subject: labels
"Michel J. Brown" praises Avery #6464 labels and Word 8 from making beer
bottle labels:
>Word also allows this, and additionally, you can print the ubiquitous gov't
>warning (mine's a rye wit poking fun at the inanity of the liberal's
>warnings) in a fine pitch font. You can preview, test print, and even print
>multiple copies. The best part is that the Avery #6464 labels are easy to
>peel off and make for easy cleanup when returned for reuse!
I've used WordPerfect (version 6 and up) to make labels and it works just as
well.
My experience with Avery labels has been different (probably because
different labels have different glues?). I bought a box of #5163 labels (2"
x 4" address labels) and used them liberally only to discover after two
bottlings that the glue sticks REALLY REALLY well to just about anything fit
to hold beer and you have to invest some serious elbow grease to get them
off. These labels are definitely NOT easy to peel off.
As a result of that, I now label just my bottle caps. I use the #5163
labels and print 12 small labels (in a 4 by 3 table) onto each address label
and cut these out and stick them on the bottle caps. This is functional
(they get tossed with the cap), but provides little outlet for art or for
impressing those who are not adequately impressed by the bottle's content.
Heiner Lieth.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:24:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth@telis.org>
Subject: alcoholism thread
I've been intrigued at our discussion on alcoholism.
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to me that we are all
concerned about alcoholism because at the level to which it might apply to
us (1) it doesn't seem to be well defined, (2) it appears to be an actively
acquired affliction (i.e. not like diseases that you get without regard of
what actions you take), and (3) most of us in this forum are susceptible
because we drink alcoholic beverage in quantities that are (for most of us)
not insignificant. I.e. many of us are probably prone to some extent to
getting this disease.
Perhaps we realize (fear) that our hobby could somehow slide us into
alcoholism. I think we all know that is something which we must avoid at
all cost. As such we look for clear-cut indicators to help us determine
when we might have stepped over the line.
>From what I can tell there are no such indicators and there is no clear
line. Although it might have something to do with how much alcohol you
consume, how it affects you, or how much you weigh, I suspect that it has
more to do with whether you could muster the needed will-power to not drink
the next beer (even if in your mind you know that there is no reason why you
shouldn't have that beer). I think we would all prefer some neat little
test that we could administer that would allow us to measure clearly to what
extent we're afflicted (or not). Without such a test we basically must stay
vigilant and not allow ourselves to slip into alcoholism.
To do that we need information; which explains why we're interested in facts
related to the matter. ...and the thread goes on...
Heiner Lieth.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:22:05 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: propane tanks
>Randy in Modesto
>According to the propane jockey, new (U.S.) regulations go into effect =
>April 1, 1998 which require any propane tank put into initial service or =
>inspected and returned to service to have a new type of check valve. Said
=
>new valve is rumored to cost about $40.
>
>Since brand-new 5 gallon tanks (with valve) can be had for around $20, =
>this will be a rude awakening. "New" tanks are good for 12 years before =
>requiring inspection, and used tanks are good for 5 years.
Here's an idea. Don't know if it will be cheaper than buying new or not
but I bet it would. Take you empty tank to anyplace that does tank
exchanges, usually convience type stores and service stations. They do
not usually inspect the tank or otherwise look at it, other than to open
the valve and make sure it's really empty.
This is more expensive than going directly to your propane dealer but I'll
bet it's cheaper than a brand new tank. Just make sure the tank you get
in exchange has the correct valve.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:05:16 -0500
From: Richard Scholz <rscholz@ml.com>
Subject: Cheap CF chiller design
Collective,
Here's an Ascii drawing of an new gadget I made after researching all
the
possiblilities. Works great, easy to clean (lid unscrews),Cooled from
200+
to 68F in 18 mins for 5 gals. Any comments, suggestions welcome.
(hope this drawing comes thru OK!)
|| ||
3/4" Garden hose \/ \/ 3/8" hose barb/FPT into
compression fitting/MPT for 3/8"
copper
in out
[ ][ ]
|| || || ||
|=====================|
| || || {||}{||}|
/ || || \ Here's a cheap and simple
counterflow
| || || | wort chiller. The parts can be
bought
| / / || | for around $15. The cost of Phil
fittings
| |-----------------| |
| | ----------------| | 1. Polyethylene 1 gal jar w/lid
$2.75
| | | / / | 2. two(2) garden hose fittings
$2.00
| | ----------------| | 3. two(2) commpression/MPT
$2.00
| | ----------------| | 4. four(4) FPT/hose barb
$3.00
| | | / / | 5. ~15ft 3/8" copper tube
$5.00
| | ----------------| |
- ------
| | ----------------| |
$14.75
| | | / / | Constuction:
| | ----------------| |
| | ----------------| | wrap copper into spiral that fits
| |/ / | into top of jar(~4" OD).
| | | | Drill four holes in top. Make
sure
| /|/----------------| | copper tube will match up!
| / / ----------------| | Connect hose barbs to fittings.
| \ \ | They secure the connections on
| | |----------------| | each side of the lid. Garden
hose
| -------------------| | side are in the jar. 3/8" are
outside.
| |
| |
---------------------------
/\ coil of 3/8" copper in 1 gallon
|| polysomething jar with screw lid
- --
Later,
Richard L Scholz
Merrill_Lynch,_Pierce,_Fenner_&_Smith_Inc. \\\|///
phone #(212)449-8186, ____________________o000_(.) (.)_000o
rscholz@ml.com U
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:17:40 -0800
From: Mark Weaver <HeadBrewer@eci.com>
Subject: Re: Zima
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:41:20 -0500
> From: Glenn Raudins
> Subject: Zima Brewing
>
> Gabi Scharfetter asks about brewing Zima:
>
> Though many will argue about Zima's worth, process wise, it is an
> interesting beverage. For what I have heard (from a person who helped
> with the Zima Project), the beverage is brewed as a beer then run
> through carbon filtration (and possible some other steps) to remove any
> indicator that it once was a beer (color and flavor). After this,
> flavoring and compounds to prevent any head formation are added.
> Unfortunately, I can't offer any direction in making some at home.
>
> Glenn
>
Glenn,
You're right, it is an interesting beverage, at least from a technology
standpoint. I that I talked with a guy at Stroh's, when I worked at
Cardinal Brewing, who was in charge of filtering. Between the
centrifuge and his filters, he can turn wine into water...
Sante!
Mark
- --
Mark Weaver - Brewer on the Loose
HeadBrewer@eci.com
75'02 / 72tii
"No, I don't brew heads....."
Resume http://markweaver.com2tom.com
Web Site: http://markweaver.com2tom.com/home.html
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2617, 01/23/98
*************************************
-------
