Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2613
HOMEBREW Digest #2613 Mon 19 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:
Exploding Bottles/Dry vs. Liquid yeast (Al Korzonas)
Optimum Mash Grain Depth (919) 405-3632" <danz@rtp.semi.harris.com>
anti-oxidants ("Dr. Dwight A Erickson")
yeast in a lagered ale (Loren Crow)
re: Bottle Labels ("Michel J. Brown")
Trademarks (Mark Riley)
Dead Danstar/Coors clone/souring beer with lactic acid (Al Korzonas)
Morgan's Liquid Malt Extract finishing 1.020 (The THP)
Don Watts Lemon Beer (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
Re: Phosphoric-Lactic (was RO/Phosphoric-Lactic/pH) (brian_dixon)
War and Peace ("Eric Fouch")
Looking for Recipes for Black Beer (Bowden Wise)
The End Is Near!/Andy Walsh is God ("Rob Moline")
Kegging Equipment, What would you call it? (Alex Paredez)
Predicting %AA using 60/70: Followup (Kyle Druey)
Unfinished Ale batch (MacRae Kevin J)
pwit (David Kerr)
alcoholism ("John Robinson")
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: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:10:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Exploding Bottles/Dry vs. Liquid yeast
Back from vacation... a little behind in reading... I've gotten caught
up so I don't re-answer any questions.
Pat writes:
>No flames, just facts: Gasses are compressible. Liquids are not.
>This is why both air compressors and brake systems work. Your
>brakes work because the brake fluid is incompressible. Your tires
>inflate when you go to the air pump because gasses are. (NOTE:
>liquids with gasses dissolved in them ARE compressible, but not
>enough to be a consideration in our discussion.)
No flames, and I agree with your initial statement, but your second
analogy needs work. Your tires will inflate even if you fill them
with water, but the ride would not be so smooth ;^).
>If you had excess fermentables and NO headspace, the pressure has
>nowhere to go. KABLAM! as they say on that weird Nickelodeon show.
>With adequate headspace, the gas in the headspace will compress
>"cushioning" the force from the bottle walls. With inadequate
>headspace, the pressure has nowhere to go but through the bottle
>walls.
Not quite... the issue is not pressure but rather generated CO2.
The generated CO2 would go somewhere: into solution. The only
reason any "cusioning" would be needed (I've read here in HBD)
is that if the bottle was very full and get hot or begin to freeze,
there would be no room for the liquid to expand and you would
get "clink" (not "blam!") as the glass cracked.
<snip>
>Depends on the pressure. Most kegs are rated for a minimum of 180
>psig. Most are quite a bit higher <snip>
I've purchased several new Cornelius kegs. They were rated (new) at
130 psig.
***
David writes:
>By underfilling the bottle, more oxygen is left in it for the yeast to
>metabolize the priming sugar or malt. If this is the case, it would mean
>that in a normally filled bottle, the amount of air in the bottle is the
>limiting factor of carbonization, not the amount of priming sugar. It
>would also mean that unfermented priming sugar is left in the finished
>beer.
I don't have all the data handy, but in a private correspondence, a
chemist (I believe) and I discussed this. He had calculated that
the difference in CO2 production from the small amount of oxygen (remember
air is only about 17% O2) in the headspace was not enough to create
a big difference in pressure.
>This could also explain variance in carbonation from bottle to bottle
>within a batch. Bottles with more open space at the top would be more
>highly carbonated.
I contend that it's a combination of two things, one perception and the
other physical. Firstly, if you have a big headspace, you hear a big
"fffft" when you open the bottle. This could make you think there is
a difference in pressure. Secondly, based upon some experiments I did
and repeated several times (another HBD'er also did them), if you leave
very little headspace (like 1/4" or less), you get slower carbonation
rates and possibly even a lower final carbonation level too. If you
overprimed (or bottled too early) AND you overfilled some of the bottles,
you could have normal carbonation in the overfilled bottles and overcarbonation
in the underfilled bottles.
***
Eric writes:
>I have some questions =
>about dry and liquid yeast. First what is the difference, if any in =
>taste of the beer? What are the differences in brewing with dry yeast =
>vs. liquid? As in the actual steps to use, is one harder / easier than =
>the other.
15 years ago all we had were dry yeasts. Most were made by companies that
make bakers' yeast. As a result, we got yeast that was usually not very
good for making clean, tasty beer. Now, with pressure from liquid yeast
mfgrs, dry yeast makers have had to clean up their act or go out of business.
The dry yeasts we have today are very clean and make great beer. The
problem is that not all strains of yeast will survive the dehydration.
Therefore, you get a lot more variety if you choose your yeast from both
dry and liquid varieties. Yeast strain makes more difference in the
finished beer flavour than malt brand or hop variety, so the biggest
difference between most brands of beer (of the same style) is their yeast
strain.
To properly use dry yeast, you should rehydrate and temper it. See
http://www.lallemand.com/ . To properly use liquid yeast, you should
make a starter. A starter takes more planning and work, but there are
certain styles of beer (Weizen, for example) for which you cannot buy
an authentic yeast in dry form, so you must use a liquid one. Personally,
most of my favourite yeasts happen to be liquid, so I use them most of
the time, but I really like the yeast from Lallemand (Nottingham,
Windsor, London, etc.) and I miss the new Red Star Ale (which was pulled
due to infection problems and I haven't seen it now for more than 3 years).
You have to hand it to them for pulling it, though... if it comes back,
you can be pretty sure that it's clean.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:30:47 -0500
From: "George Danz (919) 405-3632" <danz@rtp.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Optimum Mash Grain Depth
Recently I switched from a 10 gal. mash system (cooler with 4 Cu
slotted 1/2" pipes and cross pieces for manifold). The old system
worked great with at least 85% extraction. Grain depth was less than
12in.
The new and BIGGER system uses a 17" perforated stnlss screen from
Stainless in Seatle inside of a 1/2 barrel keg cooler. This cooler holds
just about 24 to 25 gals. of water including the underletting depth of
about 1 in. This cooler is slightly tapered so that it is perhaps 19 in.
in diam. at the top. Grain depth in this cooler is about the same as the
old system or maybe a bit deeper, say 12 to 13 in.
This new system seems to take about 45 mins. to lauter and sparge. We
need to process about 35 gallons of liquid wort so that after boil we'll
have about 32 gallons (that's our goal) of 1050 to 1052 wort.
We are considering some real heavy brews in the future and we could use
a thicker mash and institue mash recirculation and stepping so that we
don't end up overfilling the tun. Presently we step mash for temp. changes
and the added water almost puts us to the very top of the tun.
With heavy mashes we won't have that luxury and will have to go to a
recirc. system with heat added for the steps.
But here's the rub... we believe that our lauter and sparge times will
increase significantly if we add 50% to the grain quantity or possibly
even 75% if we do a very HEAVY recipe. We worry that there may even be
the distinct liklihood that we'll get a stuck sparge with so much grain.
It might reach a depth of 18 to 20" in a particularly heavy mash. This
depth is higher than the screen is in diameter!!
Does anyone on the HBD have any experience with this problem? What is a
good guideline for ratio of grain depth to tun diameter? We've noticed that
some commercial tuns have depts of 2 to 3 feet with diameters up to 8 feet
or more! If this is optimal, then we might be flirting disaster?
Please send comments also to gdanz@harris.com
When we've completed the experiment we will post our results for others'
benefit and enjoyment.
Thank you,
George Danz
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:43:46 -0700
From: "Dr. Dwight A Erickson" <colvillechiro@plix.com>
Subject: anti-oxidants
I wonder if anyone has tried incorporatiing SOD (super oxide
dismutase)
into their brew recipies in order to reduce oxidation in the bottle.
SOD is a very powerful anti-oxidant and basically flavorless.. I
wonder hoit might owrk for longer stored brews.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:41:18 -0600
From: lorencrow@earthling.net (Loren Crow)
Subject: yeast in a lagered ale
Greetings!
I've been "lagering" an ale I made (i.e., making an Old Ale) for a couple
of weeks at 32-34F and need to know whether or not there will be any active
yeast to carbonate the beer after a couple more weeks of this. I did step
the temp down at the rate of about 3 degrees per day (sometimes a bit more
than this due to falling ambient temps). Will I need to pitch a packet of
dry yeast for carbonation before bottling?
Thanks again for all your help!
Loren
==========================================================================
# Loren D. Crow, Ph.D. ++ Office Phone: (903) 927-3219 #
# Department of Religion ++ Fax: (903) 938-8100 #
# Wiley College ++ #
# 711 Wiley Avenue ++ Email: lorencrow@earthling.net #
# Marshall, TX 75670 ++ #
==========================================================================
As a spider spins out threads, then draws them into itself;
As plants sprout out from the earth;
As head and body hair grows from the living man;
So from the imperishable all things here spring.
(Mundaka Upanishad 1:7)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:27:34 -0800
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade@spiritone.com>
Subject: re: Bottle Labels
KE:Dave Thomson asks about label-making software for bottles.
At least since version 6.0, and possibly before, MS Word under the
tools/envelopes & labels menu allowed the making of nice *colored* labels.
You can either define the size and number directly, or enter the
appropriate Avery number (#6464 in this case).
KE:My goal was to produce something in color that wouldn't smudge or run
under the KE:unpredictable conditions of my recipients' holiday ice chests
or whatever.
The Avery #6464 labels are inkjet compatible, and after drying, can be
sprayed with inkset, or if you're cheap like me, then you can use egg white
for that "old masters" look and feel ;^)
KE:By virtue of the automatic multiple-up printing, the labels were nicely
aligned so I could cut
KE:them out with broad strokes of an Exacto knife rather than having to cut
them out KE:individually with scissors. The huge assortment of graphics
and word-art features make it KE:quite easy to make slick-looking 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!
KE:Many word processors and database programs have multiple-up mailing
label capability. KE:For simple labels, this may be adequate. If you're
into lots of color & graphic effects, KE:though, you'll need a more
graphic-oriented application.
Guess that you never tried MS Word 8-) It does a very nice job, and allows
for sideways printing, as well as imbedded graphics from paint programs,
and other art type programs (even 3D art from Imagine, TrueSpace, Caligari,
and LightWave). Clip art is, as always, acceptable.
KE:I used a single thin bead of "Tacky Glue" around the edge of the label
to affix them to the KE:bottles. This allows easy removal by running under
hot water for a few seconds. For non-KE:returnable gifts, more glue would
be OK, but not necessary. "Glue sticks" also work well.
True enough, but the Avery #6464 labels use a really excellant adhesive
that won't come off unless you want it to. Besides being the right size for
beer bottles, they hold up well without smearing/smudging, and come off
without tearing, or leaving a sticky residue. TTYL, God Bless!
Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR}
homemade@spiritone.com
http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html
"Big Man don't drink no stinking light beer!"
"Big Man drink beer what got BIG TASTE!"
Big Man Brewing (R) 1996
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:56:24 -0800
From: Mark Riley <mriley@netcom.com>
Subject: Trademarks
I wrote:
>P.S. (USA only) Don't you actually have to *sell* something across
>state lines in order to trademark it?
To which Jack S. replied:
>No. In fact you don't even need to register it until or unless you
>wish to sue someone for violation as long as you can prove prior use.
>In actual practice, a suite would be less complicated if it were
>formally registered but it is no necessary at all.
>
>The encircled "R" indicates that the trade mark has actually been
>registered and the TM is a warning of a sort of common law claim
>that it will be defended if challenged. Both have equal weight in
>the courts.
The Nolo Press website has some detailed information
on trademarks:
http://www.nolo.com/ChunkPCT/PCT.index.html#4
I did a little digging there and in a couple books I have.
Apparently you *do* need to put the trademark in use
"in commerce that Congress may regulate" if you are
filing for a federal registration of trademark (i.e. selling
said product across state or national boundaries).
Also, in reviewing the material at the Nolo website, it
seems it is rather inappropriate to use the (R) unless
and until the trademark is actually registered.
Cheers,
Mark Riley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:55:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Dead Danstar/Coors clone/souring beer with lactic acid
Steve writes:
>Could dropping the dry Danstar yeast into plain water have done
>something bad to the yeast, e.g., like rupturing the cell walls? Seems
>unlikely to me. More likely, in my view, is that the yeast was not
>good.
Plain water is what dry yeast *prefers* for rehydration. Rehydrating
in wort is bad for the yeast and can seriously increase lag time.
Sounds like the yeast was indeed bad... was it refrigerated at the
store? I've heard of store owners saying that dry yeast *must not*
be refrigerated. This is *absolutely* wrong. Rehydration temperature
is also a factor... you don't want to use cool rehydration water...
you want 90 to 110F. See http://www.lallemand.com for more info.
***
Jeff writes:
>According to George Fix and Michael Jackson (I think), Coors contract grows
>and malts its own Moravian II strain of two row barley, which is somewhat
>closer to continental than typical US two row. Perhaps you could use half
>US and half German. I'm pretty sure that they do not use corn as you
>suggest, only rice. I'd guess maybe 25-30%.
I thought it was Morivian III. My understanding is that Coors uses corn,
not rice, and the percentge is closer to 40%.
***
Jim writes:
>Mike Rose recently quoted a stout recipe that called for 40cc of 88% lactic
>acid at bottling.
>
> Dave Burley wrote in that this would be undrinkable and suggested 2 to 4cc
>as more reasonable for a 5 gal batch.
I think that it really depends a lot on your water. It seems to me that
high-carbonate/bicarbonate waters would require you to use more acid to
get a similar sourness than if you had very low-alkalinity.
> The moral of the story is to ALWAYS add acid slowly , stir well, measure pH
>as you go and have a target pH in mind to stop at. The target pH can be
>gotten from any of the many 'style' books.
>A pH of 4 would probably be a good target number for stouts. Pg 37 in
>Lewis's 'Stout' gives the pH of Guinness Extra Stout as 3.99. The pH of
>other stouts mentioned in that book range from 3.6 to 4.5.
This is fantastic advice. You can also use your palate, but clear it
often with water and bread, and have the target beer handy for comparison.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:11:59 EST
From: The THP <TheTHP@aol.com>
Subject: Morgan's Liquid Malt Extract finishing 1.020
Greetings Beerlings,
I, though being an all-grainrt, and like many thousands of you out there got a
Beer Kit for Christmas. I had a spare evening before new years and went ahead
and made the beer. The it was Morgan's an Australian maltster. I got a 3.3 lb
can of dark liquid malt extract and a 2.2 kg can of Dark Crystal liquid malt
extract, as well as 1 lb Laglander Dark Dry Malt extract. Hops included were 1
oz. EKGoldings pellets (A=5.9%)which I supplemented with 1 oz more EKG plugs
(A=4.5%)I had. I used the seasonally not so soft water from the local brew
pub--its free and doesnt have any clorine. Full volume boil, 90 min with 60
and 30 min hop additions. Chilled to 70F. Airated with pure O2 (2 20 sec
blasts 5 min apart) and pitched half of the just washed (no acid) yeast slug
from my previous 5 gal batch of Stout (Wyeast Irish). Caried to the basement
to my fermentation corner (64F), put a tee shirt on it, and had a beer. So
far, so good. 6 hrs and there were bubbles just forming around the edge of the
carboy. A week later it was at 1.020. Since Im used to my ales being done at
this point, I decided maybee it was too cold, So I took it upstairs to the
coat closet (70F) for a week. Still at 1.020. 2 weeks still at 1.020
My question is why? I know laglanders has a high percentage of unfermentable
sugar, Does anyone outhere have any experience with Morgans. Especially those
of you downunder? This is the first year I've seen there product on the
market.
Next Question--What can I do about it now? Its been 3 weeks in the primary and
its time to rack or keg. Other question is What is it? Black as night and no
roast character at all.???
Phil Wilcox
Poison Frog Home Brewery
Sec/Tres. Prison City Brewers
Editor--The Sentencing Guide (our newsletter)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:14:20 -0500
From: brewmaker1@juno.com (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
Subject: Don Watts Lemon Beer
Good evening,
Sometime last spring or thereabouts, a gent named Don Watts of Goose
Creek, S.C. posted this recipe to the newsgroup rec.crafts.brewing. I
would like to contact him for some further information. Here is the
extract recipe for the beer
3.3 lbs Light malt extract
2 lbs M&F extra lite dme
1 oz cluster pellets (bittering)
2 tsp irish moss
2 packs ale yeast
3/4 cup priming sugar
1 fresh lemon
heat 1 1/2 gal water and remove from heat, add liquid and dry malt stir
well. Bring to boil and slow boil for 35 min, add irish moss and hops and
continue slow boil for 15 min. cool and add to fermenter for 5 gal. when
active fermentation stops, chop the peel of the lemon very fine and add
to
secondary, rack wort in to sec. bottle in 6 days after sec.
If anyone knows Don, would you pass this message on to him? I made the
beer in the early summer and everyone ranted and raved over how great it
was.
Thanks in advance,
Jeff
Brewmaker1@Juno.com
Woodstock, GA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 98 18:53:02 -0800
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Phosphoric-Lactic (was RO/Phosphoric-Lactic/pH)
>Phosphoric does pull calcium - this is not a rumor - and I suppose
>you
>could argue that this is a reason to prefer lactic but not very
>convincingly. We need calcium mostly so that phosphates from malt can
>pull
>it and thus lower mash pH. This takes place at the pH of the strike
>water
>and, as much less precipitation will occur at the lower pH of kettle
>wort
>and fermenting beer, there should be plently left for other duties
>provided
>that the mash-in precipitation didn't drop it all out. At pH 5, for
>example, 10 mg/L calcium is in equilibrium with approximately 70
>mMol/L
>total phosphate.
Need calcium mostly so that phosphates from malt can pull it and thus
lower mash pH? I'd say "not mostly, but maybe 50:50". For those of
us that have experienced poor fermentations due to our soft water (we
think anyway) that is very low in calcium, I'd say the other half of
the calcium equation is that it is needed by yeast for proper
metabolism. Even for mashes that don't require pH adjustment, I'll
either toss in a tiny bit (< 1/4 tsp) calcium chloride, or
approximately 1/4 tsp each of calcium sulphate and carbonate. I'm not
sure if yeast nutrients or yeast energizer contains calcium or not ...
I've just been research-lazy and have simply been tossing in a bit of
the salts to make sure the calcium is at least 50 ppm or so. BTW, the
calcium in our water is naturally around 8 ppm during the
winter...when I brew!
>The question I always ask is "Do you really need to acidify the
>sparge
>water?". If the sparge water is of low alkalinity (regardless of its
>pH) it
>will have a hard time competing with the buffering capacity of the
>mash/wort and pH will rise slowly. If you've decoction mashed you've
>already extracted tannins (yes, yes, I know the pH is lower but
>tannins
>still get extracted - getting them to complex and drop out is one of
>the
>reasons for lagering in traditional brewing) and you're not as
>sensitive to
>additional extraction at sparge.
Well, it might be argued that you don't need to acidify sparge water
... I didn't for years and all was well with my soul. But then I made
an oatmeal stout that had a huge amount of oatmeal in it (25% of the
total extract). Because I'd never used that much before, I decided to
do everything I could to prevent a sticky or stuck sparge. Rice hulls
not being available, I purchased a couple of pounds of oat hulls. Oat
hulls contain oils and tannins that could reach excessive levels if
you are not careful. Careful? Yes, wash those hulls in a large
coarse grain bag over and over until the water runs clean, then
ACIDIFY your sparge water (to around 5.6-5.7) to minimize tannin
extraction from your unusually high husk content in the mash. As far
as I can tell, this procedure worked wonderfully, and the lauter ran
better than my normal batches. Running better, BTW, is a good thing.
In other words, if the sparge liquour can flow through the mash more
easily than through the false bottom, then the grain will not compress
and cause a sticky or stuck mash (lauter, really). Just my 2-bits
worth on another reason why some may want to acidify their sparge
water!
Happy brewin'!
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:07:36 -0500
From: "Eric Fouch" <fouches@iserv.net>
Subject: War and Peace
HBD-
Not really, but this is a long one.......
First, I have a question about an "Old Ale" that is two weeks old in the
bottle. Particulars:
5# Munich, 5# Pale Ale, 1# raw wheat, 1# Tapioca starch, .75# wheat malt,
.25# Chocolate malt
I did a cereal mash on the wheat malt, tapioca and 2# pale ale malt
40-50-60C-boil, then combined it with mash two (which was at 151 F) and
mashed at 155 F for about an hour (sorry 'bout switching units- I'm a
cosmopolitan kinda guy).
Anyway, I fermented with a German Alt yeast at around 62 F for two weeks or
so, racking to secondary after 7 days. Two weeks after bottling, it has
very strong black licorice (anise?) notes. It's too early to wonder if
MBIR, but it's the first time in two years of brewing all grain that I have
found this flavor. Anybody else find it? How long did it persist?
On to the mashing thread. All this talk about mixmashing, RIMS, RSMS, and
mashmixing got me reminiscing. 'Memeber back a few years here in the HBD
somebody (from Down Under, I think) wrote about a mashing system using a
central "lift pipe", a lot like an old style coffee percolator, with a
small hobby motor pumping the mash liquid up the pipe and onto the top of
the grain bed? I was surprised nobody has brought it back up yet, so I
built one. I mounted it in my old 7 gallon plastic fermenter with a
Zap-Pap bucket bottom and CPVC lift pipe coming up the center. I ran a
proof of concept 'speriment tonite and the thing worked quite well on hot
water. I just need to rewire my immersion heating coil.
Anyway, I have a question about flow rates: The water seemed to be coming
out the top pretty fast, and I doubt the grain bed could keep up with it.
How fast do you rimmers (I mean RIMS'ers) run the flow? Any of you mates
who posted originally about this setup still here, or are you on a
Walkabout? I may have to put in a restrictor plate or modify the impeller,
but how fast a flow should I be looking for? If it works (and it looks
quite promising) I'll have RIMS type benefits for a mere $25 in pieces
parts (I already had the immersion heater laying around). Any further
comments on this type of setup vs. mixRIMSing or RIMmashing?
About my cider- I dumped the must onto the yeastcake from the forementioned
"Old Ale" and it has been very slow in the going. Then I thought "Hey,
maybe the cider had preservatives!" I got it at a farmers market out of a
40 gallon drum. Didn't think to ask 'bout preservatives. Anyway, can I
over power the perservatives by periodically pitching more yeast? It went
from 1.085 to 1.065 in two weeks, and bubbles profusely when I shake it
(not that, the fermenter), and generally shows postive pressure. Perhaps I
should make another batch of documentedly unpreserved cider and dilute it
out?
Whaddaya think?
Thanks
Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood, MI
efouch@steelcase.com
Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon (quoted by Aristotle, NE 6:2,1139)- As quoted by
Loren Crow
If He did, how would we know? "Remember back when...ummm...never mind."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:01:58 -0500
From: Bowden Wise <wiseb@acm.org>
Subject: Looking for Recipes for Black Beer
Hello
I have been sarching for recipes for a bavarian black beer.
If anyone has ever had Saranac Black Forest, i would like
to make something similar.
So send me your fave' black beer recipes!
Bowden
wiseb@acm.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 98 00:04:51 PST
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: The End Is Near!/Andy Walsh is God
Greetings,
And yes, we are duly chastised, for we have not given the level of service
we promised....
But, after 9 hours of classes per day... and the best part of the day,
having beers with the instructors, after school.....one really has very
little time to deal with the Web....again, much to my dismay.....
But, even if it takes me until I get back home to respond to all the 3
Questions you folks have submitted, I will get it done, and respond....
The first day I was here, being over-enthusiastic, and worrying about
being late.....I arrived and waited in the ante-room @ the doors of
Siebel....EVENTUALLY, someone heard me reading my newspaper and let me
in....and advised me to go to a certain door up the stairs, and to the
left......
I walked into a bar-room......nice wooden chairs on both sides of long
tables, and thought...."This is where they teach?....How Cool?"...but later
learned they don't teach there....they have separate class rooms for
this..... two of them, equipped with centralized controls for slides,
video, audio, overhead, and ambient light.....
But the bar room is apparently unique in the whole globe of brew
schools....in that, and this is confirmed by a brew staff of instructors
that have trained @ Doemens, Weihenstephan, VLB, South African Breweries,
UC Davis......look, these fellas and ladies have been everywhere...BUT,
they all say ...there is no brewschool, where one leaves a class, and walks
to the breakroom, some 20 feet away, and one can get a beer, and shoot the
breeze, before rejoining your class again.......for the next lecture....
.........as one gazes around, the view includes,,, a couple of mounted
Buck's heads, scores of Steins, a piano, a bar with multiple taps, and
handles for product that revolves on a rapid basis, ( one of the
instructors told me that when he took the Diploma Course in the sixties,
his class went through 3.5 kegs per week!!!!!....and that was @ school
only!!)......there is an organ, hockey sticks hanging from overhead,
glassware from the planet of beer on shelves, and backbars.........plaques
from previous classes...commemorating donations of beer coolers to the
Institute, or artwork, or MAJOR beer carvings from highly notable Beer
Associations....baseball bats with beer promotions.......banners, pennants
from Budvar, and God Knows, any brewery thats ever been a
brewery........guitars, stuffed Kiwi's, dominos...the most elegant set I've
ever seen,(from Corona, in an elegant box).....glassware, and Good Lord,
the place has breweriana and neon that I would die for!!!
And they DO hold classes here,........the Roundtable Discussions, where
anything is up for grabs.....
George here:
The round tables here are great; one of my favorite parts of the
experience. It will probably be a long while before I find myself in a
room with 2 dozen brewers of varying experience discussing all matters of
beer and brewing. It's like a super-hyper homebrew club meeting, or the
HBD in real time!
It is amazing how many of the topics we have discussed here at Siebel have
been recently discussed on the HBD; bleach and other chlorinated alkalis,
HSA, etc. You would think that the folks here were all readers...
Oh, yeah, Dave: Rob asked an instructor outright if he had heard of
Clinitest and if it was useful to brewers: he said, yes, although it has
its limitations. Some of those were discussed here recently...don't ask
about boiling your mash sample before an iodine test, though!
I'm really loving my time here at Siebel. It's hard to believe I only have
1.5 weeks left. Oh yeah: Rob says, "It sucks. I only have two days left."
I would say that most homebrewers with extra time and money would greatly
benefit from course work here at Siebel. I especially think that the taste
panel training should be a part of every aspiring brewer's training. Not
only do I know how specific chemicals affect beer character, but i know my
thresholds for many of them now! It's too cool!
Well, I'll write more some other day. Have fun!
Rob again:
By the way, Andy Walsh won't let you know this because he prefers not to
be seen as "big-noting" himself, not that he needs us to do this...
As was recently reported in a major international brewing journal, a very
low percentage of applicants to the IOB brewing exams passed muster and
gained certification. Andy was amongst those who did pass!
Discussing this last night with some of our instructors, Lyn Kruger
(formerly of SAB) commented that he must be the only homebrewer in the
history of the IOB that has ever attempted or passed the exam. She then
asked her colleagues if they knew of any homebrewers achieving this. They
did not. Perhaps Andy is the only amongst us to have achieved this
distinction?
George De Piro and
Rob Moline
Brewer At Large
brewer@ames.net
Ames, Iowa.
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:35:31 -0800
From: Alex Paredez <aparedez@sdcc14.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Kegging Equipment, What would you call it?
Hello all,
I am working on putting together a kegging system. I have collected or
bought everything except the co2 bottle and regulator. I have replaced the
gaskets in the 3 kegs I have and was wondering what most people here prefer
to use for sanitizing kegs?
The reason I have not bought a bottle and regulator is that a friend of
mine is getting them for free. What concerns me though is that they were
used in an industrial application. He said they used them to charge a
sprayer that was filled with experimental chemicals (fungicides,
herbicides, etc.). The other problem is that he said while the regulator
works fine, one of the gauges is bad. The regulator is supposed to be of
very high quality since it was used in R&D where everything must be
accurate and usually certified. I was wondering if the bad gauge can
simply be replaced, and if there is any difference between industrial co2
and beverage co2 tanks (he said it has to be siphon filled whatever that
means)?
On of the guys at my local home brew shop (who has thus far only given me
what I believe is good advice) said that he does not recommend using steel
co2 bottles because he has noticed that some of them have a rusty odor in
the gas? Well if my friends bottle and regulator fall through, I was
wondering if anyone had an opinion on what I should buy since I don't want
to wait any longer (I hate bottling)?
Option 1 cheapest:
$60 for a 10lb reconditioned steel cylinder from a gas company and a single
gauge regulator for $46
Option 2 splurge:
$80 for a new 5lb aluminum cylinder (it looks nicer) and $55 for a dual
gauge regulator.
Note: I am not an extremist I just didn't feel like mixing and matching a
bunch of options but any opinion is appreciated. At any rate I am going to
put the system together before the Super Bowl.
A question for the experienced beer competitors!
I brewed a most excellent beer and I want to enter it in a local
competition but am uncertain to what category I should enter it in. It is
the Americas Finest City Homebrew competition in San Diego they are judging
all categories by the 1997 guidelines. My beer:
10.5# 2 row
.5# Munich
.5# 10L crystal
.5# cara pils
1 0z Mt Hood Boil
1 Oz Sazz Flavor
.5 Oz Sazz dry hop
50% of the water was ddH20 compliments of UCSD.
WLP080- Pilsner Lager Yeast
: Classic Pilsner strain from
the premier Pilsner producer in the Czech Republic. Somewhat
dry with a malty finish, this yeast is best suited for European
Pilsner styles. Attenuation is 72-77% Flocculation is Medium to
High. Optimum fermentation temperature is 50-55 degrees.
Available Aug.-March.
I had an OG of 1058 and the beer is a crystal clear golden color. Which
pilsner category would be the best? I just drink beer indiscriminately so
I am not confident in my ability to classify this other than saying it is
the best I have made. Perhaps it was because I made it Halloween night :-{> .
I originally wanted to call it a German Lager but the OG is higher than the
guideline. Does it really matter? I bottled the beer Dec. 15 will the
stuff hold out until March 7. I guess I will cross my fingers and hope I
can slip the beer into some category. I honestly just want a judge to give
me some feedback, so I am not certain if I really care about stringent
guidelines.
Thanks for reading my gibberish
Alex
Brewing Without style in San Diego.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:09:10 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey@ibm.net>
Subject: Predicting %AA using 60/70: Followup
> From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
>I am very appreciative of your 60C/70C time versus fermentability
>result. The linear relationship is something that I have been implicitly
>using without supporting data. Dave Burley is correct in noting that
>there are a lot of reasons why the relationship can't be truly linear,
>but the fact that you're getting excellent fit to a linear approximation
>over a decent range of time gives us a basis for a simple first order
>approximation.
Yes, Dave Burley has motivated me to look for a better model for my
mashing data using the 60/70 mash schedule. I have since added a few
more data points and have developed a new model that is exponential:
%AA = [A * (e^(B * t))] + C
%AA = percent apparent attenutation of the finished beer
t = time the mash is held at 140 F in minutes
A = -0.247
B = -2.042 X 10^-2
C = 0.873
the equation is valid for t >= 0 through t <= 90
The constants were determined using the mashing data that I posted a
while ago, and solved for in Excel using the solver tool. The mash data
included a variety of different base malts, adjuncts, sugars, crystal
malts, and yeast. The resulting equation has an R^2 of 0.99 with this
data. I am able to use this equation with my mashing system to estimate
the alcohol content of the beer and the apparent attenuation. The
equation can be rearanged and solved for t to provide the time needed to
rest at 140 F to produce a desired apparent attenuation:
t (at 140 F in minutes) = [ln((%AA - C) / A)] / B
I know this may look complicated to some but it is very simple to use.
I also realize there are many complex factors involved in how the
apparent attenuation is determined. But for homebrewers we need rules
of thumb and must try to make things as simple as possible.
Steve, thanks for answering my off the wall RIMS questions.
Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:46:05 -0500
From: MacRae Kevin J <kmacrae@UF2269P01.PeachtreeCityGA.NCR.COM>
Subject: Unfinished Ale batch
I brewed 12 gallons of an all grain Stout December 20, 1997.
The OG was 1.072.
I split the batch into two 6 gal carboys.
In one I added a starter of WY Irish Ale Yeast, about 1 quart.
To the other, the yeast from the secondary of a lager batch WY 2206.
Both fermented in the same room with an ambient temp of 64-67F.
The lager started violently, active within 6 hours.
The ale started more slowly, active in 24 hours.
The lager 2206 finished out in 3 days to 1.012.
The Ale is still bubbling, almost one month later, about every 4 or 5
seconds,
and has only dropped to 1.032. (It tastes good, but sweet).
Without raising the temperature what is the best way to finish out the
Ale?
I was thinking of:
1. adding additional ale yeast, Edme dry (because I have it on hand).
2. adding some of the lager batch to the ale,
hopefully transferring enough yeast to finish out the job.
3. Adding fresh lager yeast, from a starter.
After adding the yeast, I believe I should not aerate.
Will the new yeast take off properly?
Kevin MacRae
reply to:
Kevin.macRae@PeachtreeCityGA.NCR.COM
Just south of the Atlanta airport.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:32:26 -0500
From: David Kerr <dkerr@semc.org>
Subject: pwit
Charles L. Ehlers wrote:
"What makes Hoegarden and Celis so dad-gum superior to Blue Moon Belgian
White?...so, for those who say "pwit" is the last sound heard before
Blue Moon hits the ground..."
I'm the one to blame for the "pWit" joke, and intended it as only a joke
(it was in response to a post asking what the "p" in pLambic stood for,
was there such a thing as a pWit, etc). I had tried the Blue Moon BWA a
couple of years back and thought that it was drinkable, had a nice
orange/coriander nose, but was less sharp than the Celis version that I
had had. I agree with Charles that the vicious slamming of the Blue
Moon was overdone - perhaps due to the mega-brewer affilation?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 10:44:54 +0000
From: "John Robinson" <robinson@novalistech.com>
Subject: alcoholism
I too have been trying to stay away from this topic, but it is
something I'm interested in.
I haven't decided if I agree with the 'disease' theory. I see it as
more of a symptom of a deeper problem, not a disease in and of
itself.
I find the popular conception of what constitutes an alcoholic quite
fascinating. I heard a 'public service announcement' on the radio
the other day that greatly disturbed me. The message was 'work and
alcohol don't mix' which I would agree with if it was amended to
'work and alcohol abuse don't mix' but it very clearly was against
the whole idea of someone having even one drink with lunch during a
work day.
Everyone's circumstances are different. I weigh in at 225 lbs. One
20 oz pint doesn't produce any noticable effect on me with food, and
the effect of two with a meal disapates within about an hour. Having
one or two drinks at lunch from time to time doesn't strike me as a
problem.
Some people here in Nova Scotia (and I'm sure elsewhere) seem to feel
that if you drink every day, you must be an alcoholic. These same
people often feel that it is quite acceptable to go out on Friday
night and get so drunk you can't get home by yourself. In my
opinion, regular binge drinking is abuse of alcohol, every bit as
much as daily overindulgence.
Being a quantitative soul I was quite distressed when I tried to pin
down a definition of alcoholism. Basically, what I got was that if
you or someone close to you thinks you have a drinking problem, you
have a drinking problem. I fundamentally disagree with this.
The *only* hard information I was able to find came from the back of
Fred Eckhardt's Brewing In Styles. His guidelines as to what
constitutes abuse are six ounces of ethanol (not beer, wine or
spirits, pure ethanol) daily for 'an extended period of time'. This
is a definition I can live with. It is at least partially
quantified, and doesn't depend on the half baked emotional opinions
of people around you. He provides some references.
Six ounces of ethanol is a lot. If you're drinking 5% beer, that's
six 20 ounce pints of beer per day, every day, for an extended period
of time. It is also 15 ounces of 40% hard liquor a day, every day,
for an extended period of time.
Even this definition is one that I can quibble with (I can quibble
with just about anything) because it doesn't say anything about how
the alcohol is consumed. I strongly suspect, but have no evidence to
support it, that the effect alcohol has on one's body depends on not
only how much is consumed, but how much is consumed at once. For
example, if I have 2 pints for breakfast, 2 pints for lunch, and 2
pints for supper, I've had six pints of beer, but this is (I think)
different than if I go out after supper and have six pints.
This definition also doesn't say anything about the weight of the
individual, and I suspect that the imact on the body and organs
is more a function blood alcohol concentration than it is daily
totals.
The bottom line in my opinion is that we really don't know enough
about alcohol and its effect on the body to quantitatively define
abuse in the general case.
This will be the last I will post on this subject here, but I welcome
civilized private correspondance on the subject.
- ---
John Robinson "When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty.
Software Developer I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I
NovaLIS Technologies have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know
robinson@novalis.ca it is wrong." - Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2613, 01/19/98
*************************************
-------
