Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2647
HOMEBREW Digest #2647 Thu 26 February 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:
European swallow/US Pints (Paul n Shelley)
RIMS inline heater question (Brad Johnson)
Re: Modified RIMS heater / Expanding foam around LT (Dion Hollenbeck)
RE:Hazy beer ("Jim Busch")
ppms ("C.W. Hudak")
Re: RIMS inline heater question (hollen)
glatt grain mill (Greg Egle)
Aluminum and CIP ("James Hodge")
Brewing with the Devil, IPA ideas (Matthew Arnold)
Flatulence and Homebrew ("Myers, John")
ppm vs. mg/L --> molal/molar (AJ)
Long Secondaries/Spent Grain Dog Bones ("RANDY ERICKSON")
re: Hop Plant Identification (Alan Edwards)
Re: Water Chemistry Question (brian_dixon)
Worried or Not? Mead question.... (Michael Tucker)
RE: Chloramines ("Frederick J. Wills")
Re: Lager Ferment times/Pints (John Wilkinson)
Where is Spencer? (Spencer W Thomas)
carbon filters ("Bryan L. Gros")
Re: Small-Scale Brewing (Rick Wood)
Re:Long Secondaries (RedlackC)
Salt Additiions: Do or Don't? (Kyle Druey)
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@hbd.org
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: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 07:48:05 -0800
From: Paul n Shelley <pracko@earthlink.net>
Subject: European swallow/US Pints
Kevin TenBrink wrote:
> Secondly, I think the last English Unit of measure that home brewers and
> beer drinkers the world over will be the most reluctant to relinquish is
> the pint.
Indeed. In England, pub goers are adamant about being served a complete
pint. If the beer (no head allowed) doesn't reach the 1 pt. mark on the
side of the glass, drinkers go ballistic.
Here in the States we're getting ripped off and no one is saying a word.
When I ask for a pint, I want A PINT. What we usually get is a 12oz pour
in an American "pint" glass. A glass of beer is usually about 8oz.
I really wish publicans would get their act together and serve a REAL
pint when asked for. If I want 12 oz. I'll ask for a glass, and if 8 oz.
I'll request a "half". It's like going to a gas station, asking for 16
gallons and only getting 12.
Isn't this something the state departments of Weights & Measures should
be enforcing?
For standing up for a REAL pint of REAL ale,
Paul Racko
Termino Brewery
Long Beach, CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:04:23 -0500
From: Brad Johnson <bjohnson@berkshire.net>
Subject: RIMS inline heater question
I am designing my own brewing system, which I have dubbed the
BrewGurney. It will utilize a 30 gal. jacketed soup kettle as a mash
tun, mounted on a converted hospital gurney or stretcher on wheels. This
will allow easy portability (from my 19th century barn down the hill to
my open porch) as well as providing a strong platform for the entire
brew set-up.
I intend this to be a RIM system. The SS mash tun was salvaged from a
scrap yard, sans steam system. The steam jacket will prove useful as
either air insulation w/ the inlet/outlet capped off, or as an active
assist to temp maintenance and temp boosts by circulating hot water
through the jacket.
My specific question is in response to Dion Hollenbeck's BT article on
RIMS (I am cc'ing this to him). He refers to the practical limits of
in-line heating elements as being 10 gal batch/20 lb grain bill. He
recommends supplementing the in-line heater for larger grain bills by
either doubling up with a second heater in series w/ the first, or
adding direct heat by fire to the bottom of the MT.
Could this heater-in-series simply be at the other end of a long heating
chamber, with wort entering the chamber, passing over the first heating
coil, and passing over the second coil on its way out (vs. a separate
second chamber)? If the additional heater were manually switched on
during temp boosts (Dion's suggestion), would the brewer want to use the
second heater in series as the one controlled by the PID, to prevent
overshoot? I hope to benefit by the cumulative HBD RIMS experience.
Thanks.
Brad Johnson
Berkshire BroadArrow Brewery
Bjohnson@berkshire.net
------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1998 08:06:21 -0800
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen@vigra.com>
Subject: Re: Modified RIMS heater / Expanding foam around LT
>> Kenneth Sullivan writes:
KS> I found some water heater elements at Home Depot for $10.50 each so
KS> I bought a long one at 4500W/240VAC and a short one at 1500W/240VAC.
KS> I have a 24" x 2" copper pipe and am thinking about putting 'Tees'
KS> on both ends and inserting both heater elements on opposite ends.
KS> That way I can turn on one, the other or both. Questions: Should I
KS> run these at 120VAC to cut the wattage in half?
Absolutely!!!
KS> What other problems can you experienced RIMSers forsee?
You should not use these heater elements at all!!! First, a suitable
heater element of low enough watt density, when stretched out will
measure about 72", these are barely 20". You will scorch your wort.
Second, I do not trust the metallic coating on these in the pH of
wort. They appear to be zinc which should be fine for water of pH 7
or above, but not for wort. Use the heater element that Morris
recommends, a Grainger 2E675 or 2E676, which have a high nickel
content alloy sheath, very like stainless steel.
KS> Second item: I have a converted keg for sparge water and plan to
KS> insulate the bejesus out of it. My carpenter friend suggested that
KS> I build a box around it and fill the box with the expanding
KS> foam-in-a-can and carve it into a nice package. I plan to use the
KS> RIMs heater or a different keg to bring the sparge water to temp
KS> and then pump it into the Sparge keg. Again, I would like to
KS> learn from others mishaps than rediscover the obvious ;-)
This is a fine use for the heater from Home Depot, run at 240v.
dion
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:11:41 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim@victorybeer.com>
Subject: RE:Hazy beer
Wayne writes about Hazy beer:
<Amen to Carl Shipman's comments on hazy beer. The best microbrew
<I've had to date comes out of Theo DeGroen's Baltimore Brewing
<Company--all unfiltered!
As much as I also enjoy the beers of the BBC, all of their 12 oz
bottles are filtered. In my opinion, many beer styles taste better
filtered, and lagers in general display the benefits of filtration,
especially in the overall malt flavors. Yeast tend to obscure some
of the delicate malt and hop/fermentation character of good German
lagers. This is why brewers often refer to filtration as a means to
"clean up" a beers flavor, it does tend to taste cleaner after a
rough filtration to 1-3 microns. Try a BBC Maerzen in 12 oz filtered
form next to the unfiltered draft or growler and see if you agree.
Many ales also benefit from filtration, Koelsch and Alt are two that
come to mind.
Regarding the subject of rapid lager production, I received a note
from the brewmaster I mentioned. His flagship beer, which accounts
for 400,000 Hl of production annually, is a 11 day 12P Pilsner beer.
It is high gravity fermented at 15.5P and diluted to 12P on day 11
when packaged. His 15P stronger dark beer requires all of 14 days
cycle time!
Prost!
Jim Busch
"A Victory for your Tastes!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:10:03 -0800
From: "C.W. Hudak" <cwhudak@gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: ppms
>I suspect that the term "ppm" is being substituted for "mg/kg"
>(milligrams per kilogram) in the texts that you are looking at. The two
>terms are often interchanged, but shouldn't be. As Gregg pointed out, ppm
>is a measure of the number of molecules while mg/kg is a measure of mass.
>By the way, chemistists always use mg/kg or another measure of mass to
>avoid the confusion that ppm seems to be causing.
Sorry but I disagree. As a chemist who used to do environmental lab work I
can tell you that ppm is not a measure of "molecules". A concentration of 1
ppm is equivelent to 1 mg/kg or 1 mg/L as a mg is one millionth of either
of these. There may be confusion among lay people, but not among chemists
who know what the terms mean ;p.
C--
Charles Hudak in San Diego, California (Living large in Ocean Beach!!)
cwhudak@adnc.com
ICQ# 4253902
"If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs."
- --David Daye
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 08:14:31 PST
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: RIMS inline heater question
>> Brad Johnson writes:
BJ> My specific question is in response to Dion Hollenbeck's BT
BJ> article on RIMS (I am cc'ing this to him). He refers to the
BJ> practical limits of in-line heating elements as being 10 gal
BJ> batch/20 lb grain bill. He recommends supplementing the in-line
BJ> heater for larger grain bills by either doubling up with a second
BJ> heater in series w/ the first, or adding direct heat by fire to
BJ> the bottom of the MT. Could this heater-in-series simply be at
BJ> the other end of a long heating chamber, with wort entering the
BJ> chamber, passing over the first heating coil, and passing over the
BJ> second coil on its way out (vs. a separate second chamber)?
Yes, but you should watch out for dead zones in the heater chamber
caused by a T being the highest point in the system. With one heater,
there is only one T, with two, you have one at each end, and unless
you lay the heater down, you have a potential for a trapped air
bubble.
BJ> If the additional heater were manually switched on during temp
BJ> boosts (Dion's suggestion), would the brewer want to use the
BJ> second heater in series as the one controlled by the PID, to
BJ> prevent overshoot? I hope to benefit by the cumulative HBD RIMS
BJ> experience.
I really don't think it will matter which heater is controlled by the
switch. The temperature out of the chamber will be the cumulative
addition of heat input of both heaters.
dion (glad somebody read my article)
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
http://www.vigra.com/~hollen
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 07:36:00 -0900
From: Greg Egle <rsgje@aurora.alaska.edu>
Subject: glatt grain mill
I bought a glatt grain mill a few years ago and it's been great. I
recently loaned it to a friend and he stripped both gears on the thing.
Does anyone out there know how to get in touch with the glatt company?
Their phone numbers are all disconnected and nobody seems to be able to
get in touch with them. I'm hoping to find them so I can replace my
gears and get grinding again. If anyone out there has any info please
e-mail me.
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:31:23 -0600
From: "James Hodge" <jdhodge@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Aluminum and CIP
Michael Rose asked about aluminum and CIP chemicals. I believe the primary
issue is with the use of caustic. Sodium hydroxide severely attacks
aluminum. Actually, NaOH dissolves the layer of aluminum oxide that
spontaneously forms on aluminum metal. When this happens, the 'virgin'
surface of aluminum metal is exposed. Aluminum is a very strong reducing
agent and, consequently, will react/dissolve in water and liberate hydrogen
in the process. It's this reaction that makes the airlines absolutely
paranoid about shipping NaOH around in their mostly aluminum airframes.
Jim Hodge
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:37:51 GMT
From: mra@skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Brewing with the Devil, IPA ideas
>From the first MCAB results . . .
>Amber Lager
. . .
>2) Thomas J. O'Connor III MD and Satan, Rockport ME (MALT), O'fest
^^^^^
"Judges notes:
Original gravity: 1.0666. Flavor reminiscent of brimstone. Slight sulphury
aroma. D*mn good beer."
This rather surprised me. One would think that he would brew a Helles.
ObBrewing: I am considering making an IPA using Centennial for bittering and
Cascade for flavor/aroma. Granted, I like Cascade a lot, but is this going to
really be overwhelmingly citrusy? Here's my current plan:
Lion Fan in Packerland Extremely Bitter IPA
11# English Pale Ale malt
.5# 60L Crystal malt
.5# Victory malt
.5# Wheat malt
2.5 oz Centennial pellets (75 mins)
.5 oz Centennial (10 mins)
1 oz Cascade (10 mins)
1 oz Cascade (at knockout / dry hop)
#1098 British Ale yeast
I realize this is going to be blindingly bitter: that's what I'm aiming for. I
based it vaguely on Dave Brockington's "Sister Star of the Sun" IPA. I just
fear that this will have such an overpowering Cascade character. Would I be
better off using Centennial exclusively?
Thanks,
Matt, brewing with the Lord
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:49:30 -0500
From: "Myers, John" <JMyers@polkaudio.com>
Subject: Flatulence and Homebrew
Ladies and Gentlemen,
To my surprise, the thread of flatulence and homebrews has surfaced not
once, but twice in recent months. I would like to set the record
straight for once and for all. Folks, the media fairly bombards us with
statistics and testimonials stating that a daily, moderate consumption
of alcohol actually lowers our risk of fart attack. Allow me to quote
from the New England Journal of Medicine, which states
unoquivicably.......oh. That's "heart attack".
Nevermind.
john
John Myers Polk
Audio
Mechanical and Industrial Design Manager The Speaker Specialists
mailto:jmyers@polkaudio.com
http://www.polkaudio.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:52:27 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: ppm vs. mg/L --> molal/molar
Stephen J. Van der Hoven wrote:
>By the way, chemistists [sic] always use mg/kg or another measure of
mass to
>avoid the confusion that ppm seems to be causing.
I'm not a chemist so I probably shouldn't be commenting but that's never
stopped me before. From my readings I can't agree with the statement.
What chemists do seem to do is carefully distinguish between the
molality scale measured in mg/kg (ppm) and the molarity scale
(sometines called the "concentration") scale measured in mg/L. One could
argue that the former is more "correct" because in fact the
all-important "chemical potential" of a species in solution from which
everything else is ultimately determined depends on the fraction of
molecules/ions of that species in the solution and that's more easily
determined from the molal strength. It's easy to translate between the
two scales the concentration scale is just so convenient that it enjoys
frequent use. One determines the alkalinity of a water sample, for
example, by titrating with 0.1 molar (concentration scale) hydrochloric
acid. The differences in the two scales are significant in some areas of
chemistry (and groundwater chemistry is an example) but in making our
brewing calculations we can ignore themfor a couple of reasons:
1) We ignore the fact that the solutions we are dealing with are not
"ideal" (for those familiar with the terminology, we assume the activity
coefficients of all species are 1.0).
2) The main effect of 1) could be loosely said to have the effect of
throwing off our pH's or pK's (what counts is the difference) by at most
a couple of tenths for water as "strong" as Burton. pK's vary by that
much over the temperature ranges we deal with and we ignore the effects
of temperature on pK.
3) The effect of not distinguishing molality and molarity would amount
to thousandths of a pH unit at the strengths we deal with.
4) The errors brewers incur in measuring water and salts and the errors
in the values in water reports (usually given in mg/L, i.e.
concentration units) completely swamp the errors due to sloppiness re
the scale (and usually obscure the errors associated with 1 above).
To sumarize: ppm (milligrams per kilogram) expresses the mass of solute
per mass of solvent. mg/L (milligrams per liter) expresses the mass of
solute per volume of solvent. For all practical purposes in brewing, ppm
and mg/L are equivalent because 1 liter of water weighs 0.997 kg (at
25C) and the amounts of salt added to or contained in brewing water (a
couple of grams per liter at most) doesn't change the volume
appreciably. Note that the situation is very different in wort with
respect to dissolved sugar.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:51:09 -0800
From: "RANDY ERICKSON" <RANDYE@mid.org>
Subject: Long Secondaries/Spent Grain Dog Bones
Paul Masson, no wait, "Paul Hockings" <phocking@pacifier.com>
wrote:
>> I shall Dump No beer younger than a year...
Sound advice, that. Advice that's repeated here from time to
time, but not often enough.
***************************************************
Drew Avis <Andrew.Avis.0519423@nt.com>, hoping to
sidestep the hop toxicity in dogs thread, offers the following
recipe for dog treats:
Pizza & Beer dog bones:
2 cups wet spent grain
cup pizza/pasta sauce
4 cloves garlic, crushed (I added 6, but Finn is a garlic lover)
1 egg
2 cups of any combination of whole wheat flour, corn flour,
barley flour, soy flour, or regular flour
Uh, not to rain on your (or your dog's) parade, but aren't
*tomatoes* harmful to dogs too? (Not that it ever stopped our
GSD from eating them off the vine). I can't remember where I
first heard this, but it's stuck in back the neurons, somewhere.
Anyone know for sure?
Randy in Modesto
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:00:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Edwards <ale@cisco.com>
Subject: re: Hop Plant Identification
| Hop growers,
|
| I have 4 different plants in my yard. I know that one of them is a
| Cascade, another a Perle. I seem to remember someone giving me an American
| Hallertaur (Liberty?) and the last one is maybe a Tettanang or a Nugget, I
| don't quite remember.
| I need someone to suggest a good book, or text or something that
| will help me identify these plants so that I can label them properly on a
| site plan. I noticed *some* differences in grown pattern, leaf pattern, hop
| size and color; so there must be a way to identify these for sure. Even the
| two most prolific plants, the Cascade and the Perle, I'm now uncertain as
| to which is which. (I think the Perle produced larger flowers and leaves?)
I'd be very surprised if a book on Hop ID exists. But I can relay my
experiences with these plants.
Cascade has definitely been the most prolific in my experience (two
different home-plots). So, if you have two plants that are are growing
like crazy and you are pretty sure that the other one is Perle, then
crush the cones in your fingers until you have yellow sticky stuff on
your fingers (Yumm!!). There definitely is a difference between these
two varieties. The Cascades should smell more like grapefruit or pine
than the Perle.
If the difference is not obvious, then you should buy some whole-hop
versions of each from the homebrew store and compare the smells to your
dried homegrown hops.
If you think that Nugget is among the other two plants than the test is
pretty simple: boil up some wort and taste it to see which one is more
bitter. Nugget is a bittering hop and has like twice the bittering power
(per weight) than the aromatic varieties. A carefully measured experiment
should clearly demonstrate which is which. The Nugget should stand way
out as very bitter by comparison. By the way, you must boil them in wort
to test this; you cannot simply eat the hops to see which is more bitter;
however, you do not need to ferment the result.
If both of the remaining plants turn out to be aromatic hops, than the
smell test that you used to differentiate Cascade from Perl should also
work for identifying the distinctive smells of Tettnanger and Hallertauer.
Though it may take some practice, you should be able to identify all of
your hops by their smell.
One of the most rewarding part of growing your own hops, to me, is that
while working with them and getting hop oils all over your fingers, you
should eventually be able to identify those smells that make each one
unique. (Actually, you do not have to grow them to enjoy them in this
way.) Then, when you are planning a brew, you can decide which taste/aroma
you are after and choose your hop accordingly (rather than simply following
someone's recipe). To me, Tettnanger has a wonderful spicy aroma that
I haven't found in any other hop (maybe like nutmeg?). Cascades, to me,
is more citrusy--like grapefruit. (I know, that's cliche; but it is
true.) Goldings have an aroma that is all their own, but I cannot describe
it in text. Some of the others are harder for me to identify. Obviously,
I need more practice!
Oh, man! I gotta get back to brewing--it's been a few months. ;-)
-Alan Edwards, Fremont, CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 09:20:58 -0800
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Water Chemistry Question
[snip]
>Taking Greggs example of 1 gram of CaSO4 dissolved in 1 gallon of
>distilled
>H2O, I will first calculate the concentration Ca based on units of
>mass.
>
>1 gal = 4.546 liters = 4546 ml (milliters) H2O
>
>assuming 1 ml H2O = 1 gram then, the mass of 1 gal of H2O is 4546 g
>(4.546 kg).
>
>The molecular weight of CaSO4 is 136 g/mole (40 g for Ca and 96 g for
>the SO4 molecule). Therefore the mass of Ca in one gram of CaSO4 is:
>
>1 g CaSO4 X (40 g Ca/ 136 g CaSO4) = 0.294 g Ca (or 294 mg).
>
>294 mg Ca dissolved in 4.546 kg H2O = 64.7 mg/kg, close to the 61
>"ppm" value quoted in texts.
[snip]
Stephen,
I agree wholeheartedly with your discussion of the ppm versus mg/kg
(and versus mg/L) issue, and share your views on _not_ using ppm in
the texts. It's too bad that the misuse of the term 'ppm' is so
prevalent.
But I wanted to point out a couple of minor discrepancies in your
calculations. Don't forget that CaSO4 is a hydrolyzed salt,
containing 2 water molecules for each molecule of CaSO4, as found in
the food grade version sold to brewers. This gives it a gram
molecular weight of 172.168 g rather than the nonhydrolyzed weight of
136 that you stated. As an example on how it affects your mg/kg
calculation, consider the following for Ca:
1 g CaSO4 * (40.08 g Ca / 172.168 g CaSO4) = 0.2328 g (or 232.8 mg)
And, unless I am making a mistake (!), there are 3.78531 liters per US
gallon, so without correction for the density of water at any
particular temperature (assume 1.0 kg/L), the mg/kg calculation
becomes:
232.8 mg / (3.78531 kg H20 + 0.0002328 kg Ca) = 61.50 mg/kg
This is a _lot_ closer to the "typically published" value of 61 and is
actually equal to the oft quoted mg/L concentration (not quite the
same as mg/kg).
If you really want to express the concentration as mg/kg as you
suggest, consider that water weighs 0.99913 kg/L at 59 F (sufficiently
close to the 60 F usually used when making accurate specific gravity
measurements). In this case, you would multiply the liters by the
density in kg/L to get kg of H2O first. The mg/kg calculation
becomes:
kg Sol'n = 3.78531 * 0.99913 kg H2O + 0.0002328 kg Ca = 3.78225 kg
mg/kg Ca = 232.8 mg / 3.78225 kg Sol'n = 61.55 mg/kg
In any case, you had the right idea, but just needed a couple of minor
tune ups. The point that you were making is that 'ppm' in terms of
molecular counts is NOT the same as 'ppm' mentioned in brewing texts,
and that mg/kg should be the preferred measurement. I couldn't agree
more! And I'd even go a step further and say that mg/kg should be
used instead of mg/L too, but that's because of how water density
varies with temperature, and is close to being an insigificant detail.
Later,
Brian Dixon
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:59:00 -0500
From: Michael Tucker <mrtucker@fayettevillenc.com>
Subject: Worried or Not? Mead question....
Hi all,
As you might remember, I am new to the list and have my first batch of mead in
the works right now. Never tried the stuff, never even saw it from a home
brewer or commercially. but, as a well read young man (well, I like to think so
anyway) I knew of its place historically, and since I dabble in home brewing, I
of course encountered mention of it in various places associated with that,
yada, yada, yada. So, I thought I'd give it a whirl...... but, keep in mind I
have no idea what it tastes like, smells like, or looks like, aside from
half-educated guesswork. I do have a degree in microbiology, and I spent most
of my undergrad time in biotech (a while ago, and I am since out of that line
of work), I figure I can manage an "unknown" fermentation process. And....
since biology is so fascinating and anything can happen..... I'm not too
worried yet.... but I am a bit worried- because of an abrupt change in the
batch that I seemed to cause...... <whew- am I long winded or what???>
Some background on the batch-
5 gallons total volume. I used about 15-16 lbs of honey. I basically followed
the "generic" recipe
in the book "Mad About Mead" by Pamela Spence. I don't have exact quantities
of ingredients
right in front of me,
but i put in a bit of acid, a bit of yeast nutrient, a bit of tannin, and I
made a starter with one
packet of champagne yeast. Sanitized *everything* thoroughly and boiled the
must, then put the must
into 5 gal. plastic primary. Pitched my yeast.
foamed like crazy day one- which I skimmed as suggested by the book. I let it
sit in the primary-
covered- for a week. then I racked it into a glass secondary, attached the
fermentation lock, and
it happily bubbled and gurgled actively for two weeks or so- I could see the
tiny bubbles of CO2
fizzing away- everything looks normal so far. during this time, it also threw
off about an inch and a half of sediment.
OK- so far so good. the book suggests that you rack the mead off of the
sediment once a month or
so. OK- fine. I sanitized another carboy, racked the mead off of the
sediment, topped it back off
with a gallon or so of clean, sanitary spring water (also suggested by the
book), repositioned my ferm
lock, and nada. Nothing. no visible signs of life. No glubs from the ferm
lock, nothing. the
mead is clear, I can see through the stuff- a dark reddish golden color. I did
taste it- I was disappointed in the flavor, but it didn't taste "sour" or "off"
like it had been contaminated.... I figure it was still "raw" and needs time
to mellow. I guess what has me
worried is that moments before I racked it, it was bubbling away- one glub
every 3 minutes of so.
Moments after the transfer, nada. Its almost like i wiped out the wee beastie
yeasties in toto. I can't believe that to be true- but that's what its like.
Its now been two solid days since the transfer and still no signs of life.
Let's just say I am
concerned by the extreme change in behavior...... should I be worried?
- --
Michael R. Tucker
Fayetteville Observer-Times
New Media Online Producer
mrtucker@fayettevillenc.com
work- http://www.fayettevillenc.com
home- http://www.frii.com/~mtucker
Tel. 910-609-0635
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:08:18 -0500
From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: Chloramines
Jim,
<<jim booth, lansing, mi>>
replied in private mail:
<<Subject: chloramines
I had heard that the garden variety carbon filter didn't remove
chloramines. I got the 800 number for the suppliers of filters to Sears
and called and talked to their tech people, who confirmed I'd have to
use RO water to avoid chloramines.
A year or so ago on the HBD, a gent who worked for a filter co posted
that it took an especially processed type of carbon to filter
chloramines.
if you have better info, I'd appreciate your sharing such. I keep
seeing postings that suggest ordinary carbon filters remove chloramines
and I wonder if people really know.
cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi>>
My personal experience with carbon filters was only with chlorine on a
small community water system (ie 45 homes on a common well). Your reply
peaked my curiosity, so I did some web surfage to see what I might turn
up
on this.
What I found was that chloramines are conspicuously absent from every
manufacturer's list of chemicals that are effectively adsorbed by carbon
filter media.
There is more discussion about chloramines as a hazard to the aquarist
and
fishkeeping than anywhere else. Most of these discussions suggest use of
certain chemicals to break the chlorine ammonia bond and then treat the
two
chemicals seperately. This may or may not be the best approach for the
brewer.
One could try using this "Ammo-Lock" stuff and then running the treated
water through a carbon filter. Once the chlorine is seperated from the
ammonia I think a carbon filter may be effective on both elements. A
good
water quality analysis before and after would indicate the effectiveness.
As a rule of thumb, I'd imagine that any chemicals that are safe for the
little fishies to *live* in should be safe to get into a beer, but what
would they taste like?
A few other things of note that I found on my surf...
Some manufacturers claim the superiority of granulated carbon particle
type
filters due to the increase in surface area. The claim is that this
allows
faster adsorbtion of the evils allowing faster flow through. Predictably
the Carbon block style filter manufacturers refute that claim stating
that
the granulated carbon allows a percentage of bacteria and/or spores that
becomes trapped (and breed in the media) to pass through to the end user.
That is why some granulated type filters use silver as a bacteriostatic
element. The carbon block guys say that their 1/2 micron filter media
doesn't allow passage of any cells, so the use of these bacteria reducing
techniques is unnecesary.
Another interesting item was that a company that sells both RO units and
carbon filters had a chart indicating that RO and even distillation is
not
effective at removing organic chemicals like Chlorine and Chloramine!
Hmmm...
Much confusion on this subject. Glad I have a private well now...
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 12:54:44 CST
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Re: Lager Ferment times/Pints
Nathan wondered in HBD #2644 about lager ferment times.
My most recent lager started at 1.050 and after a week at 44F was at 1.013.
This was using the sizable yeast cake from a previous lager. The previous
lager used a very large starter that had been fed for about three weeks
before pitching at 42-45F and finished within two weeks. It still had a
good head of krausen after a week and was bubbling the airlock so was still
active at that point. My previous experience has been two to three weeks
for my lagers, although I have not done a lot of them. My yeast was Wyeast
Czech Pils and was, as I mentioned, pitched below 45F and the ferment kept
below 45F. The wort was also well oxygenated with O2.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In commenting on Kevin TenBrink's earlier comment on the sanctity of the pint,
Dave Kerr wrote in HBD#2645:
>British Imperial (20 oz.) or U.S. (16 oz.) pint?
Just to further complicate things, the imperial pint is 20 imperial ounces
while the US pint is 16 US ounces. The Imperial ounce is about .96 US ounces
so the Imperial pint is about 19.27 US ounces. However, most of the UK beer I
buy that is not in 12 US ounce bottles is in 16.9 US ounce or 1/2 liter bottles.
Some are in 18 or so ounce bottles, though. I haven't figured that one out yet.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:28:36 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Where is Spencer?
Before every brewer in the known universe writes to me, let me state
clearly and up front: I am NOT at the University of Utah, even though
my "bio" in the latest Brewing Techniques says that I am. This error
crept in somehow, and was missed through at least two proofreading
cycles. I am still at the University of Michigan and have no plans to
leave.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:40:25 -0800
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: carbon filters
Both Andrew Quinzani and MAB <mabrooks@erols.com> stated
in HBD #2645 that using active carbon filters for brewing water is
bad.
>...anyone who
>has a carbon filter (which removes chlorine) will always have a
>bacterial population on the carbon media and in any piping that follows.
I don't understand why this is a problem. The purpose of the filter,
in brewing, is to remove chlorine and chloramines. If you introduce
a little bit of bacteria, it shouldn't matter since the boil will take
care of them.
So, is there any other problems with carbon filters? Why would
filtered water be harmful to yeast?
- Bryan
Bryan Gros gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:42:59 +1100
From: Rick Wood <thewoods@netpci.com>
Subject: Re: Small-Scale Brewing
Hello all,
I would like to anounce to the digest a book which I have just
purchased. It is a book called "Small-Scale Brewing" by Ilkka Sysila.
I saw reverence to the book in RCB and sent an email to Ilkka. Within a
day or two I had a response with detail of the book. I ordered the book
and within two weeks had a copy. (This was remarkable as I live on Guam
- quite a distance from Finland!)
I am finding the book a very interesting addition to my library. Its
focus, as the title sugests, is small scale commercial brewing.
Although much of the focus is commercial brewing there is much of
interest to the home brewer.
Follows is an excerpt from an email I received from Ilkka:
> When it comes to the book, "Small-Scale Brewing", it certainly
> is written in English and I have the pleasure of offering it to
> you delivered by mail. The price for a copy is 20$.
>
> Mailing option 1: Ordinary surface mail 6$ (postage 4,5$ + envelope 1,5$)
> Total 26,00 $
>
> Mailing option 2: 1st priority air mail 10$ (postage 8,5$ + envelope 1,5$)
> TOTAL 30,00 $
>
> Cheers
>
> Ilkka Sysila
> Maneesikatu 3 D 28
> 00170 HELSINKI
> FINLAND
> email: isysila@clinet.fi
Rick Wood
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:12:01 EST
From: RedlackC@aol.com
Subject: Re:Long Secondaries
Paul n Shelley <pracko@earthlink.net> asks:
<I don't get it. A LOT of recipies call for an initial 5-10 primary
<fermentation and then for a lengthier fermentation in a secondary.
<Following this, the recipes usually call for packaging and priming with
<corn sugar. What I don't understand, and have NEVER been able to
<achieve, is successful natural carbonation of a beer after it has been
<in a primary and/or secondary for longer than about two weeks. Usually
<the yeast has completely autolysed by this point and can no longer
<reproduce due to the alcohol content. Has anyone been successful at
<bottle conditioning their beers after a long (14-20 day) fermentation
<without use of additional yeast? Why do recipes call for such a lengthy
<secondary fermentation when corn sugar is being used as a primer? I can
<see the benefits of conditioning a beer in the secondary for a long
<time, but that's only if you have a CO2 tank to force carbonate it with.
Paul,
I have two suggestions. Make sure that you are using corn sugar instead of
malt extract when priming. I have found that corn sugar is more reliable.
Secondly, try increasing the amount of corn sugar that you are pitching. I
usually ferment most of my ales for 3-5 weeks before kegging or bottling so
I'm accustomed to long secondary fermentations. When I bottle I use nearly a
full cup of corn sugar and when I keg I use a heaping half cup. For a long
period of time my kegs were not carbonating and I suspected that I had a leak
in my system. However after increasing the amount of corn sugar from 1/3 cup
(the recomended amount in most texts for kegging) to over 1/2 cup I have yet
to encounter an uncarbonated batch.
Good luck,
Chris Redlack
Rockville, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:47:47 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey@ibm.net>
Subject: Salt Additiions: Do or Don't?
I have a few questins while we are on the topic of water chemistry and
salt addition.
1) When do you add salt additions: to the gross brewing water volume
(this is the final beer volume plus extra water to account for any
losses in the brewing process), to the mash tun, to the boil kettle?
2) If you add salts to the gross brewing water volume some salts will
not readily dissolve until lactic acid is added. Is this normal, or am
I doing something wrong?
3) Are the salts added primarily to pre-adjust the mash pH, or for
flavor effects in the finished beer? Seems as if the types/amounts of
salts needed would then be a function of what your objectives are. If
you just want to alter mash pH, then the famous brewing water profiles
commonly found in homebrewing texts may not be very useful.
4) I have been calculating my salt additions based on the gross water
volume, and adding them there. Like I mentioned above, some salts do
not readily dissolve, but I add this water to the mash tun anyway. The
remainder of the water is used for sparging, which is acidified with
lactic acid, after which the mineral salts dissolve. What happens to the
undissolved salts that are added to dough in the grist? Do they
dissolve once the mash pH is adjusted, or do they somehow get 'trapped'
in the grain bed?
5) Once you add the salts, and you then have to add more salts to
adjust the mash pH, what happens then? Do you run the risk of adding
too much of the wrong kinds of minerals?
6) Are calculating salt additions worth the time and effort? Or is it
just easier, and produces the same outcome, to ignore salt
additions/calculations and adjust the mash pH with lactic acid to lower
the pH, and use calcium carbonate to increase the pH?
I am sure most of us have read that the Bavarians originally could not
brew Pilsners because when they mashed with lightly kilned malts and
added their hard water (hard when compared to Pilzen) to the grist the
resulting mash pH was not enzyme friendly. Perhaps designing mineral
salt recipes based on the composition of the grist is more appropiate?
i.e. darker malts generally lower the mash pH, design water recipes the
account for this... Doesn't Daniels in his book DGB suggest that the
mash pH will be lowered by 0.2 for every 10% of dark malts that comprise
the grist?
This topic is very confusing to me (not surprising, most things confuse
me). There is very good treatment in homebrewing books concerning what
types of salts to use, how much to use, etc., but explanations for my
questions above have been lacking. Please step in here and fill in the
blanks.. anyone, anyone, Mr. Buehler?
Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2647, 02/26/98
*************************************
-------
