Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2837
HOMEBREW Digest #2837 Wed 30 September 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:
Re: Malting, and Mashout (Scott Murman)
Re: Easy Keg (John_E_Schnupp)
counter pressure kegging (Rick Wood)
Meeting at the GABF (Mark Tumarkin)
Re: Osmotic Shock - was Re: Stepping up Starters ("Brian Dixon")
re: IMBR? (David Kerr)
Bacterial sanitation thresholds ("Ken Schramm")
Clinitest Test ("David R. Burley")
Lactic Acid/Chlorine/Methane ("A. J. deLange")
RE: Water Quality and cooling wort ("Timothy Green")
Mash out (Domenick Venezia)
Burtonization (Domenick Venezia)
Second use First Wort Hops (Eric.Fouch)
Re: Methane from a brewery? ("Greg Lorton")
rank starters (John Wilkinson)
Starters derived from single colonies (Jeremy Price)
Re: Clinitest fuss ("Kris Jacobs")
re: Questions about commercial fridge (Mark Tumarkin)
Extract Flavors ("Stuart Baunoch")
re: HERMS (Ronald Babcock)
Competition Announcement -- Spooky Brew Review (Andrew Ager)
RE: OVERKILL (Robert Arguello)
Sideways fridge - no! (fridge)
home brewery design (Brian K Dulisse)
Fixing chipped enamel pot ("Adrian GRIFFIN")
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send your entries in for the Hoppiest Show On Earth yet?
Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html
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: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: Malting, and Mashout
Dan Listermann wrote:
Re: Quinoa
> If he did not sprout it, he did not malt it. What he may have
> done was gelatinize the grains by steaming them.
Quinoa is not a cereal grain, though it is often treated as one. It's
more of an herb.
Re: Mash out
> There are two purposes for it. It denatures the enzymes so as to
> stableize the wort and it gives better extraction.
<snip>
> I think that
> this is one of those things that may have a use in an industrial
> scale, but for homebrewers I think that it is mostly just an
> academic excercise.
I pursued the mash-out question at some length here about
6months-1year ago (check archives for the whole brutal story). I've
pretty much convinced myself that the mashout has little or nothing to
do with denaturing enzymes. George D.P. clued me in that mash-out
(165F-170F) can burst some remaining starch, allowing the a-amylase
access to them, thereby increasing extraction. The other benefit of a
mash-out is to reduce the viscosity of the lauter.
SM
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:31:38 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: Re: Easy Keg
>>I was wondering what the easiest way to keg is? I don't want
>>to get into a elaborate keg set up. I am planning on going to
>>an football game in few weeks and wanted to bring some homebrew.
>>Brining a keg might be easier than a case of bottles.
Bob>Platisc 2L bottle and a carbonator?
Bob>A small CO2 bottle and a line would store under a sink.
Bob>Quick and easy.
Jim>It's really, really simple. Get a 2L PET bottle. In fact, get a bunch
Jim>of them. While you're out, buy some replacement valve stems (as in, go
Jim>to your nearest Auto Zone, etc., and buy replacement (tire) valve
stems).
My .02, The valve stem idea is a great one. I wrote a short article
that was published in BT about 2 years ago concerning this very subject.
I used the chrome valve stems but rubber would work too and be a little
cheaper, in any case it's way cheaper than the commercial caps.
This summer I want to a July 4th pig roast. I wanted to take some beer.
My solution was to design a special cap for a 3L soda bottle. It is
something very similar to the type of fitting used when CP filling.
The beer out uses 1/4" OD (1/8" ID, i think) which allows the use of
a short line while being able to maintain the pressure for proper
carbonation (it isn't very much of a convenience when you have to drag
along 12-15' of beer tubing). The gas in uses a valve stem. The CO2
is supplied from a CO2 bulb bicycle tire inflator. Works very slick.
I had to do some cutting and soldering to get the various pieces on
one fitting. I'll have to take some photos of it, hmm maybe another
how to article.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
p.s. Jim Graham, you wouldn't be the same guy on the XL digest would you?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:10:14 +1000
From: Rick Wood <thewoods@netpci.com>
Subject: counter pressure kegging
Hello All,
I have just upgraded to soda kegs, and really like them. I also
purchased a counter pressure bottle filler.
Previously, I used the minikegs. I really liked these, particularly the
size. I also have a couple of Party Pigs. I am interested if anyone
has counter pressured filled these. The minikegs seem pretty
straightforward. The Party Pigs seem a little more difficult. I am
planning to get a large stopper and counter pressure fill the Pig, then
pressure up through the tap nozzle with the CO2, also popping the
pouch.
Does anyone have any comments?
Rick Wood
"Brewing on Guam"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:33:34 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Meeting at the GABF
Jethro writes:
I will be @ GABF, and would very much like to meet other HBD'rs.....to
this
end, I would request that any of the collective attending this event and
who
would easily suffer the indignity of having a beer with Jethro e-mail
me,
and let me know how to contact them........
To Rob and any other HBDr's that I've written to (and all that I
haven't, as well), I'd really like to meet up with all of you as well. A
couple of options for meeting up: Brian Rezac will be doing a hombrewing
demo out front of the hall before opening each day. This would be a good
meeting spot. I'll be there on Thursday for sure - probably other days
as well. Another good meeting place would be inside at the AHA
Hombrewers Table. I would imagine a lot of us will be there for the
members only session, so maybe a good time and place would be at the
Homebrewers Table 1/2 hour after the show starts (this would give us a
chance to grab a beer or 3 on the way to meeting). And of course, I hope
everyone can make it to the Falling Rock on Sat nite for the
HBD/Homebrewers gathering. That is scheduled to begin at 8, but I
suspect that most of us won't make it there until later after the
session ends.
See you in Denver,
Mark Tumarkin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 06:08:14 -0700
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Re: Osmotic Shock - was Re: Stepping up Starters
[snip]
>>Anyway, the way to ease your yeast up to the specific
>>gravity of the wort is to start it at the recommended gravity (1.020 to
>>1.030), then use the _brew's intended original gravity_ for each doubling.
>>If you are keeping the original starter wort in the starter (what I do),
>>then this will move the starter halfway towards the brew's OG with each
>>doubling. For example, if you're brewing a wort with SG 1.080, your
starter
>>starts out at 1.020, and you double 3 times to produce a gallon of
starter,
>>then the starter gravities would be like this: 1-pint = 1.020, 1-quart =
>>1.050, 1/2-gal = 1.065, 1-gal = 1.072. The first doubling causes the
>>largest move (30 points), and that is completely acceptable. As the
>>gravity, and stress on the yeast, increases, the jumps are smaller. With
>>the final gallon, let it go to sedimentation and pitch the
>>gravity-acclimated yeast into your wort. Works like a champ! And the
>>process is very simple!
>
>The flaw that I see in Brian's math is this. When you add the 1-pint of
>1.080 starter to the 1-pint of 1.020 starter, the original 1-pint is no
>longer 1.020. It has dropped to ~1.008. This results in a 1-quart starter
>of 1.044, not 1-qt of 1.050. This is a move of 36 points not 30 points.
>Now with each addition the jumps are not getting smaller, they are staying
>about the same. I am not saying that this is not an excellent method for
>making a starter. It is better than what I normally do. The argument for
>reducing osmotic shock does not make sense. Perhaps someone who
>understands this concept better than I, can reduce my confusion.
This is a very good point. Since the starter does ferment down, and is at a
low SG prior to each doubling step, the idea of easing the yeast up to the
gravity of the beer by increasing the starter's gravity may not work as
advertised. I've always done it this way because I thought that's what
Darryl had said ... and assumed the yeast must be getting tougher along the
way, or the yeast that was growing was more 'able' in higher gravities. So,
to verify what the heck _was_ said by Darryl, I went back and re-read that
portion of the Bock book just now (it's in the Recipes chapter). Seems that
Darryl made no such claims, only that you should pitch more yeast than the
usual rate to make sure that the yeast has a fighting chance in the
high-gravity environment. I stand humbly corrected! I think that I'll
modify my doubling procedure and just keep using the 1.030 (plus or minus)
gravity wort each time, concentrating on volume not gravity. (I'm an
electrical engineer ... not a microbiologist ... what do I know?)
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:06:11 -0400
From: David Kerr <dkerr@semc.org>
Subject: re: IMBR?
Randy asks:
> I've brewed my 7th batch and it, like my 6th brew, has something wrong with
> it. According to my untrained senses it has a strong bananna smell and I'm
> having some trouble discribing the taste. It has this tangy taste that I
> can't relate to anything. It's not sour, and it tastes very similar to the
> last brew I did. It's not something that can be overlooked, it is
> completely overpowering. It's hard to get past the bad bananna smell also.
> I have never had a problem like this with my previous brews.
Best guess (all together now) - too high a ferment temp - usually a
Summer brew
session problem. Most ales perform best under 72F (gross
generalization).
Dave Kerr Needham, MA
Sox-Cubs in Series?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:04:49 -0400
From: "Ken Schramm" <schramk@wcresa.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Bacterial sanitation thresholds
Does anybody out there know of a chart or other reference table detailing
the potential beer-infecting bacteria and their relative sanitation
thresholds, ie temp/time ratios, or concentrations of chlorine or iodine
necessary for effective control?
If it is available in archives, I'd love to have a copy, and if it is in
someone's head or notes, I would guess that it might be very helpful to
the masses.
I am a big proponent of use of heat for sanitation (it doesn't have the
affect of contributing chlorine to the water table), but I don't know how
effective it really is against lacto and other sinister beasties. I know
most wild yeasts are fairly intolerant to heat, but I'd love to see the
numbers on the other stuff.
Ken Schramm
Troy, Michigan
"Life is just story problems with a paycheck."
KDS 1998
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:15:08 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clinitest Test
Brewsters:
AlK calls me the Master of Obfuscation and, as many times in the
past, with me and others, tries to use personal attacks and
name-calling to obscure the point of the discussion.
Please Grow Up!
Let me once more say what I have said many times in the past
and which Al chooses to blur for his own purposes:
1) Near the end of the fermentation, Clinitest is a good indicator
of the remaining fermentable sugar content, since it does not
just indicate Glucose content, but all fermentable sugars
( unlike more modern enzyme based Clinistix which is specific
to glucose). It is not good at the beginning of the fermentation,
since sucrose is a non-reducible sugar. In most worts this
represents about a 3% error in total fermentable sugar content,
giving a too low result at the beginning of the fermentation.
However, into the fermentation, the sucrose disappears and
becomes fructose and glucose ( which are reducible) under
the influence of the extracellular invertase enzymes and so is
indicated by Clinitest. Hence my recomendation to
< use Clinitest only at the END of the fermentation.>
2) I have often pointed out that there is a "dextrin" which is not
fermentable by ale yeast, but appears to be fermentable by
true lager yeast. I find that ale yeast are finished fermenting
when the Clinitest reading is <1/4% and often lager yeast
( even those in very dextrinous beers) ultimately give a reading
of 0% Glucose based on Clinitest. Based on discussions with
AlK, it is possible that this is mannose, which ale yeast do not
consume but lager yeast do. The source of this "dextrin"
( that is unfermentable substance) is just a postulate, no proof.
3) Despite George DePiro's indication that Miller shouldn't
agitate their beer, both DeClerk and Malting and Brewing Science
indicate that some form of racking, agitation of the beer -
especially with flocculant yeasts - will help the yeast to finish
the fermentable sugars. I have provided these references many
times in the past. Agitation and racking ARE good brewing
practices if you want to ferment out all the fermentable sugars.
Despite others' attempts to change the method of brewing for this
test, I suggest any so inclined to test Clinitest start as I have
suggested and take care to maintain proper temperatures
and agitation of the yeast. I would not recommend malt extract
as many now on the market have great quantities of sugar
added to them and do not necessarily have sufficient FAN's
for healthy yeast fermentation. Other important factors to
remember is that even though the fermentation appears to be
over from a CO2 evolution standpoint, my experience is that
Clinitest indicator of fermentable sugars continue to decline over
several days after the apparent bubbling stops. My experience
is that it may take a day or more after you get a 1/2% Glucose
reading for the reading to drop to 1/4% and then to <1/4% .
Clinitest readings should be taken for several days running to get
to a steady value.
A final point I have often made is that if Clinitest is in error by 1/4%
( the MAXIMUM it can be) it is STILL more accurate than a
practical hydrometer at indicating the end of the fermentation.
Clinitest measures what you want to know directly and is
independent of temperature, gas bubbles, color and the like.
With a hydrometer you have to know what to expect as a
final FG, Clinitest is independent of prior knowledge, since it
indicates reducible sugar content. Hydrometers indicate ALL
dissolved substances and the fermentable sugar content can
only be inferred. Clinitest's real strength is in homebrewing,
since we often are making new brews all the time.
Good luck in exploring the usefulness of Clinitest.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
Dave_Burley@Compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:50:26 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Lactic Acid/Chlorine/Methane
Darrell asked why gypsum is recommended more often for pH control than
lactic acid. Where residual alkalinity is not excessive calcium salts
are often recommended over lactic acid because the anions of the calcium
salts (chloride, sulfate) are considered more flavor neutral than
lactate. Of course all three of these cations do have flavor effects,
some of them quite dramatic ( it doesn't take much sulfate to coarsen
the delicate bitterness of noble hops). In addition calcium does lots of
good in the mash. We can't quite say the more of it the better but
calcium is probably the ion to which that philosophy most closely
applies. One of the good things Ca does is release (in the course of the
acidification reaction) the yeast vitamin myo-inositol. Thus a calcium
salt is definitely preferred where the water is calcium poor (exception
- Bohemian Pils brewed with very soft water). Where the residual
alkalinity is high, additional calcium usually does not help that much
(it takes 3.5 mEq/L Ca++ to offset 1 mEq/L RA) and the acid must come
from elsewhere. High kilned malts contains quite a bit. If these are not
desired because of color consideration, then additional mineral or
organic acid is called for.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * *
Stuart Baunoch removes "chlorine" from his water by letting it sit in
open gallon jugs and asked if there is a better way to do this. Yes, a
couple. First off, get the water out into the air i.e. put it in a
container where as large a surface area as possible is exposed. A brew
pot, stockpot, crab pot (which hasn't been used for crabs) etc. will do.
Second, agitate or circulate the water. This gets the part of the water
which isn't near the surface up to the surface so the "chlorine" can
escape to the air. Aeration, splashing, etc. are even better and heat
helps. Even with additional surface area and agitation it may take days
for the "clorine" level to get down to the hundredths of milligrams per
liter level. This is especially true if the water contains chloramine
which leaves at a rate 3 - 15 times slower than free chlorine, depending
on circumstances.
The easiest way to get rid of both chlorine and chloramine is to add 1
Campden tablet to each 20 gallons of water being treated. This will
neutralize 3 mg/L chloramine or 6 mg/L free chlorine but will also add a
few mg/L sulfate, potassium and chloride.
Strange as it may sound, adding bleach to standing water which contains
a high proportion of chloramine will get rid of it much more quickly
than if no bleach is added. I prefer the Campden tablet method. It is
quicker still.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * *
In my experience methane production peaks at about the time of, or
somewhat after, the ultimate filtration.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:04:25 -0400
From: "Timothy Green" <TimGreen@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: Water Quality and cooling wort
Stuart writes:
I have a problem with water quality as chlorine is a big part of it. I
take gallon jugs and fill them up and let them sit on the counter for a
couple of days with the top off. This greatly reduces the amount of the
chlorine scent.
Is there are better way>>>?????
Yes there is a better way. There an seemingly infinite number of home water
filters on the market from faucet attachments to large whole house units.
All of them contain some amount of activated charcoal in their filter
material. The charcoal does an excellent job of removing 90%+ of the
chlorine in municipal water.
The type you choose is completely up to you. I am a firm believer in
filtration. I have a whole house unit, and it prevents any concern about
chlorine in my brewing water. The one I have also removes a bunch of other
junk which would be bad for my beer and that I definitely wouldn't want to
drink.
IMHO, a good filtration unit is well worth the money it costs.
Tim Green
Mead is great...
Beer is good...
(But beer is much faster)
ICQ# 20050025
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Mash out
From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
> Darrel asked about the purpose of mash out and every response has
> contained misinformation. Mash out at 168F(75.5C) does NOT denature
> alpha amylase. The homebrew book author who started this momily
> should be shot...
Well, perhaps just maimed by severe tongue lashing.
> The Germans refer to the rest at 168/75.5 as "late saccharification."
> This is indeed a more appropriate name than "mash out" because it
> makes it obvious that there is amolytic activity during this time.
How long does amolytic activity last at 168F?
Domenick Venezia demonick at zgi dot com
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227, any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download
and archival fee of US$ 500. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Burtonization
>>Al Korzonas said:
>>No amount of calcium sulphate (gypsum) or magnesium sulphate (Epsom
>>Salts) added to water will cause the water to taste bitter. Try it! I
>>have. What Noonan is omiting, and the point that is *most* important
>>about sulphate, is that it increases the *perception* of bitterness from
>>hops. In other words, 40 IBUs and 10ppm of sulphate will be less bitter
>>than 30 IBUs and 350ppm of sulphate.
>00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) responds:
>Like many of you I'm sure, I've read Al's experiment before, and even
>tried it once. But, of course, what we are concerned about is the effect
>of gypsum on beer, not water. I'm not disputing what you are saying Al,
>but I wonder if you might be oversimplifying. It appears from my notes
>that water with higher levels of sulphate or magnesium does make my beer
>more bitter, er, uh, makes it _taste_ more bitter... :)
I must have missed the original post to which Al was responding, but it
seems to me that both Al and Brian have said the same thing. Al says that
sulfate increases perception of bitterness and Brian says it makes it
taste more bitter. Taste is perception. The circle has no end. All is
one - oops! Time warp to the 60's!
What I get out of high sulfate is not so much an increase in the
perception of bitterness, but a dryness that puts a harsh edge on the
bitterness. If the sulfate levels are really high I also get a front of
the mouth powdery dryness, similar to, but not exactly like spinach
dryness. Using an auditory analogy, sulfate seems to do to beer taste
what adjusting harmonics to the midrange does to voice. It doesn't raise
the volume of the voice, but just changes the tonal quality so the voice
stands out more from the background.
Domenick Venezia demonick at zgi dot com
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227, any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download
and archival fee of US$ 500. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Sep 1998 11:35:45 -0400
From: Eric.Fouch@steelcase.com
Subject: Second use First Wort Hops
HBD-
I have not received any response to my query of the possibility of "FWH"
effects from spent hops from a previous batch:
FWH a barleywine, and after the boil, dump those hops into the second brews'
boil. Will any FWH characteristics carry over?
Could it be that I'm the first homebrewer to do this? What are the copyright
and marketing implications of divulging new brewing techniques to an
electronic forum?
But seriously, folks- has anyone done this before, or thought about it? Seems
to me, the low temps of sparging fix the aroma components (as I understand
it). The first boil won't extract them all. Could they be extracted in the
second boil? I also queried a while back about the possibilities of "First
Wort Spicing"- adding spices (such as coriander) to the first runnings.
Different chemistry, but could their be a similar effect? Especially if you
"FWS", and FWH concurrently? I have tried this with a Wit- FWH with .5 oz
Cascades (out of style, I know) and FWS with 1 Tbs crushed coriander. It's
still in the secondary.
If you can tear away from the riveting Clinitest debate, give it some thought.
Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood, MI
"In a contest between truth and emotion, emotion usually wins"
-J. Allen Peterson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:48:40 -0700
From: "Greg Lorton" <glorton@cts.com>
Subject: Re: Methane from a brewery?
In HBD #2836, Dave Humes asked where methane might be coming from in a
brewery (methane that a couple of Japanese breweries are using to produce
hydrogen for fuel cells).
For big breweries like that, I think that the most likely source of methane
is the wastewater from the breweries. Breweries tend to generate a lot of
wastewater, and it is often pretty concentrated with organics. The
wastewater comes from rinsing and cleaning equipment, spilled beer and
wort, bad beer(?!), etc. A lot of the big breweries have their own
conventional wastewater treatment processes, such as activated sludge, and
those processes produce a lot of bacterial sludge. This sludge is reduced
in volume and stabilized somewhat using anaerobic digestion, which produces
methane and carbon dioxide. This gas would then go to a steam reforming
process to produce hydrogen and more carbon dioxide.
Obviously, this isn't part of the brewing process (unless the brewery
reuses their treated effluent as brewing water :-)!)
Cheers!
Greg Lorton
San Diego County, where the City of San Diego is moving ahead with plans to
pump treated sewage plant effluent to one of the drinking water reservoirs.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 98 10:44:21 CDT
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: rank starters
Last weekend I tried a no sparge, or perhaps more accurately a low sparge,
mash. I increased my grain bill by 20 percent and at mash out filled the
mash tun with 170F water. I added no more water and drained to the kettle.
I collected eight gallons of 1.070 wort which I diluted to 14 gallons for the
boil to produce a 1.052 wort for the fermenter. After draining the kettle
I refilled the mash tun with hot water, stirred, recirculated until clear,
and ran to the kettle, collecting ten gallons of 1.030 wort. I boiled this
ten minutes, covered, and went to bed. The next day I drained the wort in
the kettle to thirty five quart mason jars for starters. I only had time to
pressure can fourteen of them. I canned another fourteen the next day and
the remaining seven the morning after that. The last twenty one appeared to
have fermented some and the last seven didn't smell that good. I am pretty
sure something was working on them but the pressure canning should have killed
anything and denatured any toxins, right? What I wonder about is would those
last starters be fit to use? I realize that if they were not decanted off the
yeast before pitching they would carry their off flavors to the new beer but
suppose they were decanted? I think Jim Liddle wrote that one could autoclave
feces but one would still have feces. It would be sterile feces, though,
wouldn't it? Of course, there would be flavors and smells associated with
the sterile feces but they wouldn't be capable of causing an infection would
they?
I don't think I have the nerve to use those last smelly starters but just
wondered about the possible consequences if the liquid was decanted.
I expect there will be lots of opinions about this.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:08:02 -0400
From: Jeremy Price <pricejy@email.uc.edu>
Subject: Starters derived from single colonies
> I store my yeast on slants in the
>refrigerator. My first step in getting a culture started for brewing is to
>streak from the slant to the surface of a petri plate. I believe this
>is useful for a couple of reasons. First, in streaking to single colonies
>you get to see how the yeast are doing and are able to pick several nice
>looking colonies for expansion up to pitching volume. By doing this you
>know that you're starting from good viable yeast and unlikely to be
>including any (gross) mutations or selected variants such as petits which
>will produce smaller colonies (thus the name). Also, by picking well
>isolated pure single colonies you can be pretty confident that you are
>not introducing infections from bacteria or wild yeasts into your starter.
I would be carefull about picking single colonies for starters. There are
some mixes cultures on the market, like wyears Bavarian wheat (I think)
that are a combination od s. cerevisiae and s. delbrucki (sp?) I am
certian that in some of the belgian ale strains there is also a mixed
population of yeasts. If only one of the strains is used, the flavor
profile of the beer may be altered comsiderably. By picking only the fat
colonies, you may be eliminating the other strain.
Also, the big healthy yeast colony may not be the intended strain, as
there are wild yeasts that can outgrow the brewing strain.
It is good practice to streak out strains to a single colony when
culturing from bottles, or under unclean conditions. To eliminate any
potential bacterial contamination. If you are certian that the strain of
yeast is infact a single strain, and not a mixed culture then using a
single colony is also ideal.
Jeremy Price
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:13:30 -0400
From: "Kris Jacobs" <jtsnake@net-link.net>
Subject: Re: Clinitest fuss
It is *exactly* the same thing for someone like me who brews for the
enjoyment of it and is completely satisfied with his end product. To
me it is the final indication that *my* fermentation has *finished*,
and is certainly as scientific as I am going to get. I know what I am
making, I have a good idea as to what my yeast is going to do, I
have an expectation of what the beer should turn out to be, and my
personal taste is my ultimate guide. Why should I care if there are
still miniscule amounts of reducible sugars left in my beer, as long
as it tastes good and I am happy with it?
I enjoy my brewing, I enjoy the beer I brew, and getting too nit-picky
over it would only detract from that enjoyment. After all, I brew for
ME.
- --Kris
Spencer wrote to me:
>
> The hydrometer tells you nothing about reducible sugars. It just
> tells you about "stuff" which might be still fermentable sugars,
> non-fermentable sugars, dextrins, proteins, salt, or whatever. Unless
> you know what your final gravity *should* be, the hydrometer does not
> tell you that fermentation has *finished*. It can tell you that
> fermentation has *stopped*, which is not the same thing at all.
>
> =S
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:03:54 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: Questions about commercial fridge
Brian Pickerill asks about using a small commercial fridge.
Brian -
your fridge sounds similar to the common office or dorm sizes fridges,
only way cooler. I was also given one of these small fridges. I had
planned to take off the door and build a fermentation chiller out of
foam - something loosely based on Ken Schwartz' Son of Fermentation
Chiller. I don't have the URL handy but it's been discussed here in the
past and shouldn't been hard to find. I think this should work very well
and you could build the chamber large enough to hold a couple of
carboys.
I never built it because I got the opportunity to buy some used equip
from a brewer who was no longer brewing. Got a great deal on a bunch of
stuff including a used fridge and Johnson temp controller. I have only
brewed a few batches using this setup but it makes a tremendous
difference. I brewed a hefeweizen from a recipe I had used several times
before and the improvement was dramatic. Trying to keep the temp down
here in Florida is a major problem, and a potential source of off
flavors. I would encourage anyone to do whatever they can to control the
fermentation temps. It is one of the things that can have the most
impact on improving your beer. You should be able to buy a used fridge
and a temp controller for under $100 - or build a fermentation chiller
for much less. Whatever you do in this direction will more than pay for
itself in improved quality (not to mention the ability to lager). Hope
this helps.
Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:40:40 -0400
From: "Stuart Baunoch" <sbaunoch@homeruns.com>
Subject: Extract Flavors
I have been reading the homebrewing guide and have seen several recipes for
fruit flavored beers. All of them used fresh or frozen fruit in the boil.
I am trying the liquid extract flavoring. When is the best time to add
this to the beer., before or after racking, before or after
fermentation????
Stuart Baunoch
sbaunoch@homeruns.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:31:51 -0600
From: Ronald Babcock <rbabcock@rmii.com>
Subject: re: HERMS
I would like to add to Bob's (Precision Brewing Systems) comments:
>While there are a number of variations to the concept of raising mash
>temps. by recirculating the mash through a heat exchanger in the sparge
>vessel, the term HERMS was originated by PBS and refers to our particular
>system. Another variation can be found at "the backyard brewery" page.
Precision Brewing Systems "HERMS" looks to be a fine example of a
commercial heat exchange system. They have a simple but effective valve
that controls the temperature with out the use of electronic temperature
controllers. Their system should be considered when thinking about this
type of setup.
You can achieve the same results with a couple of ball valves and
consistent monitoring, but left alone for just a moment and you can very
easily over shoot your target temperature. I denatured a batch with my
system when I ran into the house for just a moment and didn't switch the
valves back to bypass the heat exchanger. This is when I switched from a
manual system to a more automated system.
>The basic concept, as described above will work but there is a lot more
>to consider when developing such a system that will give the desired
>results of Fast temp. raises, not overheating recirculating wort and
>simplicity for ease of operation and consistency of batches.<
>We designed HERMS for a 15 gal brew system. To do HERMS for a smaller
>system, as you're suggesting, with the bruheat would take a bit of
>development and experimenting with coil size/design and flow rates to
>meet the speed and efficiency you desire. You should also reduce HSA when
>returning the wort
I can assure you that Bob is correct in the fact that a *lot* of
experimenting and expense is possible to achieve the results you desire.
My systems heat exchanger alone took several weeks of design and redesign
before I was satisfied with the results of temperature boost and not to
denaturing the enzymes. The flow rate needs established first, not so fast
that you stick the mash and not so slow that temperature raises to slowly.
Then you can experiment with the heat exchangers size, length and design
that matches your system.
>Once done however, I think you'll enjoy the results of your effort: the
>ability to raise mash temps quickly, not heat mash above 158F, Hit & hold
>temperatures accurately, not thin the mash by adding water to raise
>temps. and not carmelize your wort.
I agree totally, if you build one or buy one you will be pleased with the
consistent results you will achieve with the system.
Cheers, Ron
Ronald Babcock - rbabcock@rmii.com - Denver, CO
Home of the Backyard Brewery at http://shell.rmi.net/~rbabcock/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:50:35 -0500
From: Andrew Ager <andrew-ager@nwu.edu>
Subject: Competition Announcement -- Spooky Brew Review
The Chicago Beer Society Presetns:
Spooky Brew Review 1998
A BJCP Registered homebrew competition
October 31st, 1998 at Hopcats Brewing Company, Chicago, IL
Enter to win one (or more!) of our festive Halloween ribbons. They
certainly are unique! Prizes too! Simple entry forms, no full recipes
required!
Judges, sign up early for category preferences, as seats for this contest
fill up quickly.
Enter one of our special categories for only $1:
Smashed Pumpkin Award -- send us your absolute worst concoction for a
special ribbon. All entries must be drinkable!
Spooky Award -- use your imagination, come up with the scariest looking
beer for a special ribbon. Again, it must be drinkable!
Two bottles per entry, $6 for each entry, $5 each for 4 or more. Entries
accepted between October 17th and 24th.
See http://www.mcs.net/~shamburg/cbs/spooky98.html for complete details and
forms, or contact Ron Phillips at rmphilli@uic.edu or (708) 358-1603.
Andrew Ager Program Assistant, Webmaster
andrew-ager@nwu.edu School of Education and Social Policy
847/491-3790 (phone) Northwestern University
847/467-2495 (fax) http://www.sesp.nwu.edu/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Arguello <robertac@calweb.com>
Subject: RE: OVERKILL
In HBD #2836 (September 29, 1998) Mr. Alan Meeker comments, (in part):
>I've seen
>posts from people talking about building glove boxes and laminar flow
>hoods, etc.. If this is fun or helps you sleep at night more power to you
>but I believe this is total OVERKILL and hope it doesn't scare off others
>from trying to streak yeast on their countertop.
My experience is that some measures need to be taken when streaking petri
dishes or harvesting yeast from them. I found myself with rather frequent
instances of dishes becoming infected with various mould and or bacteria
colonies when I first started my yeast ranching career.
I found that my dishes were being infected by airborne contaminants and I
brought this situation under control only after taking some simple
precautions. Firstly, I took care to always keep the petri dish upside down
when the lid was off. Secondly, before opening any dish, I thoroughly spray
down the room with Lysol aerosol. I do this about 5 minutes beforehand.
These simple precautions have effectively prevented contaminations. You
must, of course, be certain that your growth medium is perfectly sterile or
no amount of care later on, will prevent infections.
To make things simpler, I am in the process of building a laminar flow hood.
It is a simple task, inexpensive to build, (mine will cost about $125.00),
and well worth a bit of work. It is true that a flow hood is not an absolute
necessity, but it is a simple enough project that it should not discourage
folks from taking the plunge into yeast ranching.
For those interested, there is an excellent article on building a laminar
flow hood in
Brewing Techniques Magazine, May/June issue of 1995 Vol. 3 Issue 3. The
article is entitled "How to build a Laminar Flow Hood", and is written by
Jim Caldwell.
- --------------------------------------
Robert Arguello <robertac@calweb.com>
Corny Kegs for sale - www.calweb.com/~robertac/keg.htm
Promash Brewing Software - www.calweb.com/~robertac/promash
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:27:18 -0400
From: fridge@kalamazoo.net
Subject: Sideways fridge - no!
Greetings folks,
In HBD# 2836, Brian Pickerill asks if it is ok to turn his
fridge on its side to allow better fermenter access. He also
mentions a noisy fan and the need for a temperature
controller.
Please don't turn the fridge on its side! The compressors
in most fridges that homebrewers are likely to use are of
the "splash lubricated" variety. The compressor must be
kept upright in order to provide proper lubrication, and
since oil doesn't compress, major compressor damage
may occur if it inhales a slug of it.
A second possible problem may occur if the fridge uses a
capillary tube expansion device. The oil in the compressor
may run out into the capillary tube when the fridge is
placed on its side. The inner diameter of the capillary tube
is small enough that oil may prevent proper refrigerant flow
when the compressor starts. In extreme cases, the system
pressure is unable to clear the capillary and the system
must be disassembled for repair.
The controls and layout of this type of fridge may vary
widely. The temperature may be controlled by either a
temperature controller or a pressure switch connected to
the low-pressure side of the system. There will likely be a
defrost timer with adjustable time and duration settings. If
the desired cabinet temperature is higher than 45 degF or
so, program the timer to bypass the defrost cycles
entirely. Try adjusting the existing temperature controller
before deciding to replace it. Commercial controllers often
are adjustable over a wide range.
Noisy fans are often caused by bent or broken fan
blades. If the fan is metal, see if is possible to straighten
the blades so they are all in the same plane (don't try to
adjust the pitch). If this doesn't do the trick, see your local
appliance parts store. There are very many possible motor
and fan combinations, and the parts aren't expensive.
One final note. Please understand that a commercial
fridge is a heavy-duty device. It will be noisier and cost
more to operate than a domestic fridge. It also is much
more able to take a lot of abuse.
Hope this helps!
Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
fridge@kalamazoo.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:19:47 -0500
From: Brian K Dulisse <DULISSE_BRIAN_K@lilly.com>
Subject: home brewery design
poor me. i haven't been able to brew for 18 months . . .
lucky me. my wife is insisting i build a dedicated brewing facility in the
basement . . .
i've been going through web pages looking at how folks set up their systems.
most of these are for outdoor/garage systems. these have been helpful, but i
still have some questions . . .
the plan is to tap into the natural gas line to feed burners. i've gone to
several restaurant supply stores in the area, but can't find high output ng
burners. where have folks found these? and what btu rating did your burners
have?
as for venting the system, the cost of even small restaurant style hoods is
more expensive than i'd like (on the order of $1000), so i've got to cobble
something together. constructing the hood per se will not be a problem, but
i'd like to know what others have done about the fans for moving the air.
specifically, what kind of fans have folks used? i've thought about buying
simple bathroom fans, but i'm not sure that even multiple bathroom fans will
move enough air. again, where did you find the fans?
once i get going, i plan to do mostly 10 gallon batches, although i will
likely do some 5 gallon batches as well. to do this, i i'll need something
with a 15 gallon capacity for the kettle (to allow for vigorous boils), but
what about the hot water tank and mash tun? is a 10 gallon vessel large
enough for these? if 10 gallons is large enough, are there convenience
benefits from having larger vessels? in order to cut down on the scarce
resource (time), i anticipate using batch sparging, which i would think (never
having actually used batch sparging) would make a larger mash tun valuable. i
gather that trying to sparge a 5 gallon batch in a 10 gallon vessel can result
in an overly shallow bed depth; is that the case for a 10 gallon batch in a 15
gallon pot? what say those who have gone down this path before?
tia for the help. email preferred; posting to the digest would likely
interfere with the clinitest postings ;^) my address is briand@lilly.com
one more thing. i'm new to the indianapolis area, and i'd appreciate any
insights from fellow hoosiers as to the relative merits of various local
homebrew shops (and any other local beer info that's worth knowing). i'm
working downtown and the house is in geist.
bd
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:47:20 -0700
From: "Adrian GRIFFIN" <AGriffin@exec.swrcb.ca.gov>
Subject: Fixing chipped enamel pot
I drilled a hole in my enamel boiling pot to install a drain valve and
about 1/4 sq. in. of enamel flaked off around the hole on the inside. How
much of a problem is the exposed steel? Does anyone have any ideas on how
to fix the damage. I have tried lead-free solder, but even with a
generous amount of flux, it won't stick to the steel.
I had a similar problem when I installed an Easymasher in my mashing pot,
but the area that flaked off was much smaller.
Any ideas wil be gratefully accepted, compiled and posted.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2837, 09/30/98
*************************************
-------
