Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2864
HOMEBREW Digest #2864 Sat 31 October 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:
Recipe Formulation (Jim Haynes)
Re: Sloshing wort in secondary - is this safe? (Duane Hale)
all grain (Chris Flynn)
FWH utilisation (Al Korzonas)
Belgian Ale Styles (Rob Kienle)
Re: burnt/Porter (curt j tuhy)
McMaster-Carr & Grainger (Raymond Kruse)
clinitest! ("Andy Walsh")
Which burner should I buy?? (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
Innoculating loops (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
Homebrew Digest #2863 (October 30, 1998) (fwd) (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
re: bottling beer in wine bottles - Big RED FLAG ("J. Matthew Saunders")
Alt again/re: A Study of Fluid Flow... (David Kerr)
Guilty as charged: Apology (Jim Liddil)
Re: bottling beer in wine bottles ("Tomusiak, Mark")
Re: Too much foam from corny keg ("Watkins, Tim")
Beer Bread ("D.Holen ")
Grain Storage (Christophe Frey)
Fixing chipped enamel / drain valves ("Adrian GRIFFIN")
Results of 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off (Stephen Johnson)
question: Alkaline Water (LEAVITDG)
Re: sterile buffer storage (Scott Murman)
re: A Study of Fluid Flow Through A Grainbed (John_E_Schnupp)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event 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: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:22:22 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <Jim.Haynes@dstm.com>
Subject: Recipe Formulation
Being a newcomer to the world of homebrewing(on my 5th extract batch) I lack
the skills necessary to formulate/deviate from recipes that come with the
"kits" I have purchased. I have read The New Complete Joy of Homebrewing
and The Homebrewing Guide. They have been invaluable. I am constantly
searching for sources of information and would love to find a good workshop
to attend. Suggestions welcomed!
I tend to enjoy the darker types of brews such as porters and hearty brown
ales more than pale ales or ambers but recently purchased a Pete's ale type
kit that I am afraid will be too hoppy. So off I go researching and hunting
for ideas on how to "modify" what I have. It has actually been a great
experience and I have learned some about beer styles and
ingredients...Again, I'm still the novice so advice is appreciated. The
ingredients I have are listed below. I have thought about just using the
cascade hops for bittering and finishing and then adding some honey or dark
brown sugar but am not sure if this will be better than using the Brewer's
Gold or what the difference would even be. A holiday/winter brew wouldn't
be bad, but I don't even know where to start. Suggestions are appreciated,
private email is fine. Suggestions on other books to read would also be
appreciated.
What a hobby...I'm hooked!!!! Nothing quite like a homebrew...
Thanks,
Jim
Ingredients
Crystal 60 8oz
Special roast 8oz
Chocolate 8oz
DME Light 5lbs.
Brewer's Gold 1.5oz
Cascade 2oz
Irish Moss
Wyeast #1272 American Ale II
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:32:08 -0800
From: Duane Hale <dhale@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Sloshing wort in secondary - is this safe?
In HBD #2862, Chris P. Frey said,
" ... Assuming the headspace is indeed filled with CO2, is there any
reason to concern oneself with violently shaking and rocking the carboy,
thus rousing the little yeasties awake? What say yea?"
I just did this sort of thing a couple of weeks ago with a Robust
Porter. I removed the blowoff tube from the carboy and replaced it with
an airlock. Then I swirled the beer around until the the sediment was
fully disturbed. And the next thing I did was say "Dohhhhhh".
In the process of shaking up the beer, I caused much CO2 to be released,
which created 2-3" of foam (no big deal, plenty of headroom). But, the
"Dohhhhhh" came about because the inner piece of the airlock started
bouncing so violently that I am almost certain some small amounts of
vodka had to have gotten to the inside. And, if I had just done the
swirling prior to removing the blowoff tube, I don't think there would
have been any thought about if I had done anything to affect my beer.
I'm just glad I didn't have any more of a detrimental chemical in my
airlock.
So, other than the small leakage, I don't think any other harm came
about, since as one of Chris's brew club's members surmised, there
seemed to be plenty of CO2 to protect the beer.
Has anybody else had the situation where they thought a eventless
swirling of their fermenter caused any detrimental effects to the flavor
of their beer?
Duane Hale
Fuzu's Fuzzy Fluxion Homebrewery
Lacey, WA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:41:22 -0500
From: Chris Flynn <flynnguy@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: all grain
I am currently doing extract brewing and have thought of going
all-grain. Only I don't know where to start. I've read some things but
just end up getting confused. I would apreciate it if someone could help
me out by telling me of a web page or something. Thanks.
- --
Christopher Flynn
http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/undergrad/cjf24
flynnguy@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:55:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: FWH utilisation
Jeremy writes:
>I wasn't trying to introduce an incorrect concept into the collective, I
>simply mistyped. It happend. this is a discussion group; It should be a
>place for brewers to express ideas and opinions; it should not be the
>archived bible of brewing science.
Sorry about that... I tried to be diplomatic and still came out sounding
scolding. I thought that you had made a presumption, but I believe that
we are in agreement that at a *higher* pH the utilisation is higher.
As for the HBD, I personally, believe that it *IS* the archived bible
of brewing science! Well, a pretty ratty, often with sections crossed
out, dogeared, constantly improving bible, but the bible nonetheless.
While not everything on HBD is necessarily 100% correct, in the end
we do get the correct information out. Remember that it's all
archived and 10 years from now, someone could be searching for
information on FWH utilisation and they will come across our four
posts. Cumulatively, they not only have the right information, but
also references. That's more than you can say about most brewing
books.
This is a discussion group, indeed, but I doubt that there is a more
dedicated discussion group anywhere on the Internet. I've had this
discussion offline with someone about a year ago. My bottom line is
this:
I contend that communally, we, the HBD members, have more combined
knowledge in the areas of beer, brewing and related sciences than
any one person in the world. Post the final exam from the Diploma
Course of *any* brewing school (even Domens or Weihenstephan... we have
people that can translate to and from German) and I'll bet that
in a few weeks, we could, as a group, complete the exam for a passing
grade. I'm willing to bet money on that!
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:29:05 -0600
From: Rob Kienle <rkienle@interaccess.com>
Subject: Belgian Ale Styles
Well it's been so long since I've posted that I'm not ssure iiI remmeber
hhow1.! :) But having just returned from a whirlwind tour of Belgium and
an ample sampling of the many fine brews available there, I have it in
my head that I've really been remiss at not having brewed any Belgian
beer to speak of! My research into styles and recipes has me a little
confused, however; the majority of literature out there seems primarily
dedicated to Am/Eng/German beers and there isn't the same amount of info
available about Belgian brews (Daniels' book, for example, doesn't
hardly even mention them!).
Here's my question; what's the difference between a Belgian "ale" or
"pale ale" and a Belgian "Strong Ale" (besides the strength, I suppose).
Is one spiced and the other not? How do "Special" ales fit in? Note that
I'm not trying to refer to Doubles or Triples or Wit beers, which seem
more clearly delineated. Any advice about where to find some decent
recipe guidelines would also be appreciated. I've got Rajotte's book,
have reviewed Jackson's descriptions of the styles and an old issue of
Zymurgy but I remain somewhat confused (tho maybe not that much more
than usual!).
- --
Cheers4Beers,
Rob Kienle
Chicago, IL
rkienle@interaccess.com ***"Life is not a dress rehearsal."***
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:28:41 -0600
From: hophead2@juno.com (curt j tuhy)
Subject: Re: burnt/Porter
The porter that Mr Spies made sounds like it would be possibly very
tasty, the one thing that i have learned is that all home brew is
drinkable and a brew that is not up to expectation is knowledge towards
brewing. So drink it you might like it.
Hoppy, Black hawk brewing
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:54:08 -0500
From: Raymond Kruse <kruse2@flash.net>
Subject: McMaster-Carr & Grainger
A lot of folks have given information about parts that they've
purchased from McMaster-Carr or Grainger, while others have stated
that they have been unable to purchase from these same places due to
their "non-business" status.
The easiest way around this is to form your own company. You can do
so, using your Social Security Number, by declaring your business as a
"Sole Proprietorship". Just have a name for the business and your SSN
and you should be able to order anything you want.
Ray Kruse
Glen Burnie, PRMd
rkruse@bigfoot.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:09:13 +1100
From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh@ventrassist.com>
Subject: clinitest!
With some trepidation I decloak to post on this most infamous topic. I would
not do so unless I had something more to add...
This is mainly aimed at those who are considering writing an article for BT
on clinitest. I think you should consider the following before submitting
your final draught..
There are 2 claims that have bothered me in the whole debate that have not
been pursued to completion:
- sucrose is not detected by Clinitest in a fermentation (both sides seem to
agree on this)
- all fermentable reducing sugars are measured to an acceptable degree of
accuracy by Clinitest.
The first point is probably more interesting.
Sucrose (to all intents and purposes) does not exist in wort in the presence
of yeast. It is *rapidly* transformed to glucose and fructose, which are
both detected with 1:1 accuracy by clinitest. Hence claims of a failure of
Clinitest to detect sucrose appear to be completely without validation, at
least as long as viable yeast cells are present. I tested this theory
tonight. I added sucrose to water to provide a 2% solution. This was
verified by a hydrometer (1.008 SG) and Clinitest (0%: should read 2% if 2%
glucose were added instead). Then I added a small amount of yeast taken from
a primary. As I do not have a haemocytometer I cannot provide a cell count,
yet I can state that the proportion of yeast present was certainly less than
one obtains during a typical primary fermentation. The next reading I took
was 60 minutes after pitching. The SG was 1.008 and Clintest read 2%. In
other words all the sucrose had been inverted by the extracellular enzyme
invertase within 60 minutes of yeast being present, before significant
fermentation had taken place.
What prompted me to test this was the fact that glucose specific sticks are
used by a local megabrewer to test for the efficiency of pasteurisation.
Sucrose is added to pasteureised beer, then glucose sticks are used within a
short time on the beer. If viable yeast is present, the sucrose is rapidly
broken down to glucose and fructose and the test is positive. It is
apparently very quick and sensitive to very small amounts of viable yeast.
If pasteurisation is effective the test is negative.
Clinitest is hence *more* useful for testing fermentations of simple sugars
(ie. wine and mead) than it is for beer. Forget sucrose as it doesn't exist.
I will say no more on the matter, other than suggest interested people
repeat the test themselves in a more controlled environment.
The second point concerns using a yardstick to measure a flea. As I have
mentioned before, one of the major fermentation disorders is a lack of
complete maltotriose fermentation. Clinitest is not sensitive to this sugar
(maybe 1/3 as sensitive as it is to glucose, although my tests indicated it
was more like 1/4). If Clinitest indicates 0.25% every time you use it when
fermentation appears complete, I would suggest this does not mean that all
beers are the same, rather that Clinitest does not provide useful
information! (many geek communications engineers will know the theory about
information vs. predictability. If you know what the result of an experiment
will be beforehand, the information content is zero! Maximum information
comes from minimal predictability). I digress. Steve Alexander's point of
measuring a forced fermentation with Clinitest is very good. However, the
problem again arises: what does 0.25% mean, if it does not accurately
measure maltotriose? I would just like to suggest combining this idea with
one of Dave Burley's: do a forced fermentation, then use Clinitest
*undiluted* ( ie. 15 drops of beer rather than 5 of beer and 10 of water).
This will make use of much more of the full scale range of Clinitest and
provide much more information than relying solely on the 0.25% thing, which
represents the smallest reading of the apparatus. If this is not clear:
- do a forced fermentation (high temp, with air if you like) on a *small*
sample. After completion, measure sugar content with Clinitest (undiluted).
This figure represents complete fermentation.
- the undiluted clinitest reading is a much more accurate indication of
%sugar in beer nearing completion than the normal test, due to the lack of
sensitivity of Clinitest to polysaccharides. The result from the forced
fermentation shows what completion actually means in a particular beer. It
also requires very little in terms of wasted beer or effort.
Conclusion: I am actually starting to like Clinitest, but I think it helps
to have an understanding of what you are measuring, and how it works. I must
go and buy my own rather than pinching Calvin Perilloux's all the time!
Andy.
PS. Congratulations to Calvin on winning the ESB Hahn Trophy! Good work
Calvin!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:04:55 -0500 (EST)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Which burner should I buy??
Hi All.
Having recently converted to all-grain I am now in "need to get a burner
mode." The colder it gets outside the more of the gallon+ or so boil-off
water vapor ends up condensing on the inside surfaces of my windows which
causes my wife to run around with a scowl on her face mopping up the
puddles - not a desireable situation! No basement, no garage so it's
outside I go. Anyway, I'm sure there must be good reviews on which cookers
are good and importantly which to avoid so if anyone could steer me in the
right direction I'd appreciate it. Personal testimonials/experiences would
be very welcome also.
Thanks,
Alan
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life."
-Jim Squire
-Alan Meeker
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Dept. of Urology
(410) 614-4974
__________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:09:45 -0500 (EST)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Innoculating loops
Jeff Hewit asks about good innoculating loops...
Hi Jeff. Sounds like you did indeed "fry" your loop with the torch. Yes,
as you'd surmised a flame this intense is major overkill! You are right
that an alcohol lamp should do nicely.
There are many different materials used for loops. Perhaps the best are
made from platinum but these tend to be costly for obvious reasons.
For my money I'd go with nichrome wire loops which perform quite well.
Happy culturing!
-alan
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life."
-Jim Squire
-Alan Meeker
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Dept. of Urology
__________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:25:26 -0500 (EST)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Homebrew Digest #2863 (October 30, 1998) (fwd)
Dave Whitman responding to criticisms of his report on yeast
storage experiments finished his post thusly:
....Petty crap like this certainly makes me less interested in
sharing results with the collective in the future.
Dave, I don't remember whether or not Jim's criticisms were mean-spirited
but please don't let that stop you from posting results of any future
experiments on this forum. Personally, I truly believe this is one of the
great functions of the HBD. Your studies in particular are directly
relevant to a project I'm currently involved in with the Cross Street
Irregulars brew club here in Baltimore. Mike Maceyka and I are setting up
a yeast farm and are currently evaluating various methods for archival
storage of the yeast strains. Your results with phosphate buffer give us
more food for thought. I appreciate the time you've put in to try and shed
some light on this question.
Looking forward to future posts,
-Alan Meeker
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:32:39 -0500
From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm@vt.edu>
Subject: re: bottling beer in wine bottles - Big RED FLAG
jhammond@bryant.edu writes:
>I wonder if anyone has advise on bottling beer in wine bottles?
DON'T DO IT! If you bottle in regular wine bottles, you will have at best
a mess and at worst someone badly cut. Regular wine bottles can't take the
pressure that will build to cabonate the beer. Use only champagne bottles.
Ok, so you want to cork finish. It is easy and lots of fun. First of all
you will need a case and a half or so of champagne bottles. You can also
use the bottles that Belgian beers are conditioned in. You will need a
corker, the simplest cost less than $20. You need straight corks, cages,
and something to act as a barrier between the cork and the cage. You'll
also need some campden tablets.
1) Crush one campden tablet and add it to two cups of water in a large
bowl or saucepan. Put your corks in the solution, put a collander or
something on top of them with a weight to keep the corks submerged. Soak
them overnight.
2) Rack the beer into your bottles as usual (taking all the care of
sanitizing the bottles etc).
3) Cork the bottles completely, like a bottle of wine. Put your spacer on
top of each bottle and wire the corks down. For spacers, I use the
mushroom top of old champagne corks that I have laying around. This way
your spacer fits the cage almost perfectly.
4) Let the bottles condition on their side. Put a piece of cardboard
under the necks, they may leak a bit at first.
5) When they are ready, uncage, take the spacer off, and uncork with a
corkscrew.
If you need more help, let me know. I cork finish close to half my beer.
Good luck!
Matthew in Virginia.
www.dogstar.org -- The Arts and Technology
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:44:11 -0500
From: David Kerr <dkerr@semc.org>
Subject: Alt again/re: A Study of Fluid Flow...
I recall reading that noted iconoclast H.L. Mencken was a lover of
(almost) all things German - Wagner, Nietze, and especially German
beer. He often sang the praises of Munich's beerhouses.
He was quite proud of his efforts at brewing his own beer,
especially during America's dark Volstead Act ages. Have any of the
HBD brew historians come across his recipe(s)?
...
Cool analysis/photos from J. Palmer. Any guesstimates as to how
significant (in terms of extraction efficiency) the
single/double/triple outlet differences are?
Dave Kerr - Needham, MA
"I joy in vulgarity, whether it takes the form of divorce
proceedings or of _Tristan und Isolde_, of an Odd Fellow's funeral
or of Munich beer." - H.L. Mencken
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:00:24 -0700
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: Guilty as charged: Apology
>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:57:22 -0500
>From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
>Subject: sterile buffer storage
>
First of all I fully apologize for the tone of my original post. I take
full responsibility for it being interpretted as an attack on your
methodology and experiments. I should have learned not to post when I am
in a given bipolar state.
>The volume of liquid in the vials was 2 +/- 0.1 ml. Each vial got two
>loopfuls of yeast solids harvested off actively growing slants. While no
>attempt was made to rigorously control the cell count, I estimate that
>differences in added yeast solids were about +/- 20%. It's not obvious to
>me what the initial or final cell counts have to do with anything, unless
>dead cells magically disappear. What matters is which method of storage
>gives a higher percentage of viable cells after storage.
My only point was that all variables be controlled. Thus one would start
out with the exact same conditions. The same volume, cell # and viability.
And again viable is defined in this case as methylene blue staining. If i
get a chance I'll scan and ocr the stuff I have from Pollock's Brewing
Science on the problems with mehtylene blue. And as person who does cell
culture work and a whole lot of viability assays, I think there is an
inherent danger in placing too much weight on a single assay. Just my
totally biased opinion.
>
>While I don't know what viability was at T=0, it seems unlikely that it was
><95% since the buffered samples were higher than that after 3 months storage.
A very valid point which I failed to see.
>As mentioned in the original post, viability was estimated with at least
>two microscope slides prepared from each vial, with multiple regions
>counted on each slide. I continued to count fresh regions and slides until
>I had recorded 800-1200 cells for each vial. The number of
>semi-independent determinations for each strain/treatment were:
>
Maybe I am missing something, I would not doubt it. But what I was getting
at is did you take samples from each vial multiple times?
>
>>800 cells may be a statistically small value for the actual number
>>of cells in the vial.
>
>
>While I followed the published procedure's guideline on number of cells to
>count, Jim's comment is a red herring. The number of cells you need to
>count is related to the inherant uncertainty of the measurement technique
>and how small of an effect you want to be able to detect. It has nothing
>to do with how many cells are in the vial.
Though it is highly unlikely is or is it not possible that when you do a
single sample that the sample removed does not truly represent the whole
population? Again I admit that I may have missed something here.
>
>I'm left with the impression that Jim has been criticized for lack of rigor
>in the past, and has been saving up some bile for the first opportunity he
>got to dump it on someone. Would I have received this criticism if I had
>posted "Hey, I put some salt into my yeast samples and I think they stored
>better"? Petty crap like this certainly makes me less interested in
>sharing results with the collective in the future.
Again I admit to sounding like a pompous ass. And don't take it personally
but I am generally considered an asshole by everyone. And I'll try to do
my best to be constructive in the future.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:29:17 -0800
From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak@amgen.com>
Subject: Re: bottling beer in wine bottles
Greetings all...I have bottled quite a few batches of Belgian and French ale
in Belgian or champagne-type bottles. You definitely need to wire the corks
down, as the pressure generated during conditioning will force the corks out
and leave a mess wherever you stored them. Also a word of warning about
corks. Some batches I have used have sealed well, while others have leaked
significant quantities of beer through channels in the corks (note that the
corks found in Belgian beers appear to be made of a conglomerate of cork
particles, and are very dense). Try to select a variety of cork that is
dense and has a low porosity. Brew on,
Mark Tomusiak
Boulder, Colorado
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:37:51 -0500
From: "Watkins, Tim" <Tim.Watkins@analog.com>
Subject: Re: Too much foam from corny keg
Richard Scott wrote in HBD2863:
>From the Texas school of trial & error, I too experimented with
>fixing this problem. My fix: first was to make certain that I had
>properly carbonated the beer after racking (refer to Zymurgy, Summer
>1995). Second, as the keg continues to drain, I backed off the CO2 psi
>by a bit. Too much made the beer go flat. Again, trial & error gave
>me the 10 psi solution that I use today @ one-half keg or less.
Another
>impact for me was the time it took to drink the keg. Now I have an
>excuse to hold more parties & finish the kegs quickly. :-)
You didn't mention what length and what ID hose you are using, so this
may or may not work for anyone else. Also, 10psi at 40F will leave you
with a beer carbonated between 2.2 and 2.3 volumes, which may not be
ideal for everyone. IMHO, it would be far easier to set your regulator
and leave it set at whatever pressure you desire, and adjust the hose
length / diameter to get the proper pour. A few calculations and a bit
of trial and error, and you never have to mess with the regulator again.
Also, I don't understand why the volume of beer left in the keg would
make any difference as to what pressure you need to dispense it. If
anything, I would think you would need more pressure to dispense as the
liquid level falls, due to the greater vertical distance you must push
the beer. Anybody have an answer for this one?
Tim in
Lowell, MA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:13:10 -0600
From: "D.Holen " <holen1@konza.flinthills.com>
Subject: Beer Bread
I have recently started doing some grain brewing. Through my journey
gathering tips and techniques I have
run into several articles referring to retaining some of the spent grains to
make beer bread. Would anyone
by chance have any detailed recipes? It seems to me a shame to waste that
much grain.
Thank you in advance.
Doug
Manhattan, Ks.
Go Wildcats!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: 30 Oct 1998 09:26:14 -0500
From: Christophe Frey <cfrey@ford.com>
Subject: Grain Storage
to: post@hbd.org
Allen asked: What are the finer points of storing 50 pounds of malt? Can you
put it in a RubberMaid container and forget about it? Or do you worry about
the humidity or temperature? What are the natural enemies of malt and how do
you keep them out?
I asked basically the same thing a month or so ago. The consensus answer is to
double-trash bag your grains and utilize food grade buckets (with the o-ring
on the lid). I have found that with just a little ingenuity that you can find
these buckets everywhere. Doughnut shops were recommended (4.25 gallon buckets
used for icing), supermarket bakeries, I even get them from a deli that
purchases their pickles in them. Just soak pickle bucket in baking soda
overnite and it removes the smell.
Greg from Denver indicated that he once was infested with "Psocptera, tenny-
tiny little guys that were happily galloping in and out of the bags through
stitching holes."
My concern was more towards the moisture absorption that my older grains were
presenting. I store in the basement, and even with a dehumidifier, the grains
tended to act as a desiccant.
There was a sale on 50 gallon storage bins at ACO a few weeks ago, and I
purchased 8 of them for $3.96 each. Just double garbage bag the sacks, label
the bins and stack them in my basement. I use the white food-grade buckets for
the partial bags (20 lbs or less, and I now have an impressive, yet tidy
solution!
Sincerely,
Chris P. Frey
Strategic Planning & New Product Development 337-1642
chris.frey-ford@e-mail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:48:50 -0800
From: "Adrian GRIFFIN" <AGriffin@exec.swrcb.ca.gov>
Subject: Fixing chipped enamel / drain valves
Many thanks to the folks who replied to my question on fixing chips in
enamel pots. Here is my compilation of answers. Also included is how I
made a manifold fitting out of standard plumbing fittings.
Jim@iowacitynet suggested using an epoxy from the hardware store. Michael
Lausin suggested looking for a touch-up kit for sinks and bathtubs.
Ckafer@iastate.edu reminded me about the thread on barbecue paint a bout a
year ago.
Paul Shick said he had found that small areas of exposed steel had no
effect on flavor and it would be sufficient to cover the chipped area with
a de-leaded brass washer. To make a seal he suggested using food-grade
silicone rated to 400F. However. I could not find any such product in my
local Home Depot. The choices were:
GE Silicone II--rated to 400F, but should not be used for aquariums or
when FDA compliance is required.
Aquarium silicone--Presumably emanates fewer soluble nasties.
Dishwasher-safe silicone from the Super Glue Corporation
I could not verify that the materials available to me were food-grade for
contact with boiling wort, so I relied on covering up the flaked section
with a home-made copper washer and using the silicone on the outside of
the pot. I used the "dishwasher safe" silicone from the Super Glue
Corporation.
Here's what I ended up doing.
The chip in my pot was caused by drilling a hole for a drain valve. My
"manifold fitting" was a 1/2-inch male pipe thread to 3/8-inch compression
coupling. I drilled a 1/2-inch hole in the pot and reamed it out to
approx. 17/32 so I could screw the compression end into the hole. Some
enamel flaked off both sides of the pot when I drilled the hole. Also, I
drilled out the flange in the compression nut to make it into a locknut
for the inside of the pot.
I could not find any suitable washers. The brassy washers at Home Depot
were steel, possibly plated with yellow zinc. So I made my own copper
"fender washers". I cut two 1-1/2 inch pieces of 3/4-inch copper pipe
longitudinally, flattened them out, and cut them in two. This gave me
four 1-1/2 inch by 1-1/4 inch copper plates. I drilled 1/2-inch holes in
the plates and reamed them out so they would slip over the compression
thread. Finally, I clipped the corners of the "washers" to make them
octagonal.
I needed to use two washers on the outside as spacers because the
compression thread stopped 1/16 away from where the fitting flanges out
for the larger pipe thread. I slid two washers on the compression thread,
put a bead of silicone around the hole on the outside of the pot and
screwed the fitting into the hole. On the inside of the pot, I slid a
washer over the compression thread and then tightened the drilled-out
compression nut on as a locknut.
The inner washer covered the flaked-off area. The assembly has lasted for
a 10-min. test boil and a 70-minute brew.
Again, thanks to everybody for the information. I'd welcome any
observations on the safety of using epoxy, enamel paint, etc. on the
inside of boiling pots.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:58:42 -0600
From: Stephen Johnson <Stephen.Johnson@vanderbilt.edu>
Subject: Results of 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off
The results are in for the 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off, held
in Nashville, TN on Oct. 24, at Boscos Nashville Brewery, and hosted
by the Music City Brewers. Thanks to all who entered a total of
181 entries! A note of thanks to the 30 judges who came from Georgia,
Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee to help us out.
Special thanks to our special guest for the weekend,
Al Korzonas, who spent the better part of 3 days with us, including
a Sunday afternoon brunch, featuring a talk and follow-up tasting of
fine Belgian beers from his own personal stock brought back from his
1995 trip there. Thanks again, Al, for a great visit with us!
Finally, a note of thanks to our local and national sponsors for supporting
the event with sponsorship monies, prizes, and merchandise. See our webpage
for a full listing of these individuals and companies.
Some of the winners are presented below. A final posting of all winners
should appear on our webpage beginning November 1
http://www.theporch.com/~homebrew/
Best of Show: Tom Karnowski, Knoxville TN: English-style Barley Wine
Prize: A brew-session with Jeff Kinnard of Market Street Brewery with
the brew-session beer featured at the brewpub!
TN Homebrew Club of the Year: Tennessee Valley Homebrewers, Knoxville, TN
winners of the traveling firkin award donated by Chuck Skypeck of Boscos
TN Homebrewers of the Year: Jeff York & Stasi Valos, Knoxville, TN
(highest number points for beers earning ribbons at the 3 Tennessee
competitions this year: Memphis, Knoxville, Nashville,
with 1st place beers = 5 points, 2nd = 3 pts., 3rd = 1 pt.)
TN Quality Homebrewers of the Year: John & Doran Moranville, Memphis TN
(highest overall average of 6 best scoring beers entered into the 3 Tennessee
competitions this year)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:25:38 -0500 (EST)
From: LEAVITDG@SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU
Subject: question: Alkaline Water
Date sent: 30-OCT-1998 16:19:53
I have seen some of our homebrew experts state that they boil all of the
water that they will use in the brew. Is this both for killing bugs (esp
if one is doing a partial boil and adding cold water) and for bringing the
pH of the water down? I guess that I am asking: IF one has alkaline water
is this boiling of the water to be used better than adding stuff to the
wort later (lactic acid, etc). I know that I need to probably do a water
analysis...so the above may not make any sense..or be something that can be
responded to outside of knowing what the minerals are in the water?...
This stuff can get confusing...
...Darrell
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/
_/Darrell Leavitt _/
_/INternet: leavitdg@splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu _/
_/AMpr.net: n2ixl@amgate.net.plattsburgh.edu _/
_/AX25 : n2ixl @ kd2aj.#nny.ny.usa _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:34:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: sterile buffer storage
Jim spewed and Dave retorted, but I'm just hoping that some of the
actual info in between doesn't get lost.
Jim mentioned that a phosphate such as this provides a nutrient source
not only for the yeast, but also any potential invading organisms.
While I love the idea of improving my storage viability, I'm not going
to do it at the cost of contamination risk. Maybe if I worked from a
sterile lab instead of the kitchen table, I'd think differently, but
to me an increased risk of contamination is a big deal. Can anyone
quantify or qualify what Jim asserted?
-SM-
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:50:14 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: A Study of Fluid Flow Through A Grainbed
John,
Great study. Like you I'm wondering about the false bottom.
One question. I gathered that you did all of the tests
on a rectangular box. How does this translate for a round
tun (like my 10 gallon Gott)?
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2864, 10/31/98
*************************************
-------
