Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2974
HOMEBREW Digest #2974 Wed 10 March 1999
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:
No more Mills (Rod Prather)
Dry vs Liquid Extract (Ken Schwartz)
Brewing w/o Hops...Allergies (cdwood)
Re: Dry vs. Liquid Malt Extract (David)" <drussel3@ford.com> (Sandra L Cockerham)
Re: Phil's Phloating Phalsie in a 10 gallon Gott ("Scott Moore")
Wort Aeration (Keith Busby)
What a crock! (Nathan Kanous)
Proper Phalse Bottom Usage (Dan Listermann)
Implosive Carboys, topless carboys, plastic fermenters (Dave Burley)
Re: questions about them yeasties ("Charles T. Major")
Stones and clips and extract, oh my (PAUL W HAAF JR)
Straw Creepage (Eric.Fouch)
Keging Presure (msnet)
Malt Mills, ho-hum? (Joy Hansen)
Alan Monaghan's RIMS question (Joy Hansen)
Thanks to Dan Listermann ("Curt Speaker")
Open Fermenters (Eric Schoville)
Strike Heat Part 1 of 2 (Dave Burley)
Strike Heat part 2 (Dave Burley)
Re: Beginners Guide to Mashing - Mash pH ("John Palmer")
i need more head (JPullum127)
re: Fermentor geometry/characterstics ("Eric McIndoo")
Pithy Response to Witty Post (AJ)
Mash/Lauter Tun (Drewmeister)
DME vs LME (Lou.Heavner)
Re: Re: Malt Mill Blues ("Larry Maxwell")
California Common ("Eric R. Tepe")
BeerTrader Mailing List (NEW!) (Alan Gilbert)
kegging/bottling questions (SRNagley)
Gypsum (William Frazier)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild's 13th annual Big and Huge - 28
March 1999: Rules and forms at www.globaldialog.com/madbrewers
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
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!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 07:01:48 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr@iquest.net>
Subject: No more Mills
Jeff, I don't think that the subject is tired, it is quite valid. The
problem is that no one has presented any controlled studies to determine
that a finer, variable, double, coarser, funkier, fluffier, fussier,
fuzzier, frumpier crush actually produces a better extraction. I have the
feeling that one or the other has a good point. There is just no
definitive valuation as to who it is. From appearance, IMHO, the finest
crush you can get without plugging up the plumbing is the one you want.
Where does that lie. Guess it depends on your system, huh!
> Is it just me or is anyone else about tired of the on going mill debate.
> Hey
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 05:49:42 -0700
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: Dry vs Liquid Extract
Dave Russel asks about dry versus liquid extract.
Dave, I think you hit on most of the pro's and con's of the two forms of
extract. Your choice of "types" of extract might arguably be greater
with liquid -- pale ale, pilsner, blended "kit" syrups, as opposed to
basic light/amber/dark/wheat for dry. My suggestion is to use liquid
extract in 3.3 lb increments (or other unit sizes) and make up any
difference with dry. I also like to keep some dry extract on hand for
yeast starters.
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
E-mail: kenbob@elp.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 07:50:54 -0500
From: cdwood@lexmark.com
Subject: Brewing w/o Hops...Allergies
My Dear Brewing Brethren,
I have a friend who I work with that has developed an allergy to hops.
Over the last year or so he has started having reactions when ever he drinks
beer.
(No, I'm not talking about getting drunk!) His face starts turning red and he
starts to
have asthma type problems breathing. He is willing to start homebrewing if he
thinks he can brew good tasting beer that he can drink without the reactions.
He came to me, knowing I was a Homebrewer, asking if you could brew beer
without hops or use something else instead of hops to bitter a brew. We talked
some
about using Spruce and Ginger as bittering agents, but wondered if there was
other
things that could be used instead of hops to help him out. He loves a GOOD beer
,
but as this disorder progressed he found less and less beers he could drink.
Now I have made a few pLambic Kierks in the last couple months and noticed that
my yeast starter was not too bad using Wyeast Belgian Lambic Blend. In fact the
beer I decanted off the top of the yeast cake was sour/bitter tasting and there
were
no hops in it at all.
So my question to ya 'all is: Is it possible to brew a beer without using hops
to bitter,
that tastes good even if storage time is reduced?
Thanks to the Janitors of the digest for all the hard work they put in!!!!
Long time lurker, seldom poster,
May your next brew be your best,
Curt Woodson
cdwood@lexmark.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 08:24:26 -0500
From: Sandra L Cockerham <COCKERHAM_SANDRA_L@Lilly.com>
Subject: Re: Dry vs. Liquid Malt Extract (David)" <drussel3@ford.com>
Hi,
*Regarding Dry Malt Extract (DME) vs. Liquid Malt Extract (LME)*
I almost exclusively use DME for my extract batches. The rare times I do use
LME, it is bulk Alexander's...
I do not like canned LME, often its old, and there is a distinct "tang" that
taints the beer.
I especially like to use a mixture of M & F brand DME and Laaglander DME. I
use the latter, for its propensity
to leave a higher terminal gravity. I have made many full bodied beers with
this method. I also like the fact
that I only weigh out what I need. It does have a tendency to be a mess when
spilled, but I have made worse
messes with LME !!
I also only use the lightest DME and LME. If any color or sweetness is
desired I use specialty grains.
Cheers,
Sandy C. in Indianapolis
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:49:50 -0500
From: "Scott Moore" <smoore@koyousa.com>
Subject: Re: Phil's Phloating Phalsie in a 10 gallon Gott
Alan writes:
>I put the syphon hose around the thing, but it's
>pretty obvious by looking that it isn't going to do any >good.
Tried it and when the hot mash water got to the hose, it got soft and came
loose....
>I already have an all-metal bulkhead, and the arm going >from the centre of
the Phil's to the ball valve is >ridgid copper, which some pholks suggest
should help (it >didn't).
I know, the far end of the Phloater still comes up...
>HELP! I wanna be lazy again!
Well, being somewhat lazy myself I followed the advice of a fellow HBDer
(Sorry, I don't remember who but I am forever grateful) and constructed a
weighted snake to hold it down.
Take 35" of 3/4 ID vinyl hose and jam a #3 stopper in the end after
softening up the end with hot water. Fill the hose with BBs and jam a
stopper in the other end. I couldn't find a #3 stopper that wasn't drilled
so I used 7/8 SS bolts to plug the holes. The snake weighs about 7 pounds
and keeps the Phloater tight on the bottom while it also seals the area
around the edge.
Scott Moore
The still unnamed brewery
Medina, Ohio
Sleeplessly awaiting my next brew session Friday...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 07:59:03 -0600
From: Keith Busby <kbusby@ou.edu>
Subject: Wort Aeration
I used to aerate my wort by splashing and sloshing but for the last two
batches have used the aquarium pump/aeration stone method. Instructions
said to run for about 5 mins for 80% saturation. 3-inch head of foam
developed as predicted. I thought fermentation was sluggish on both
occasions: the first a Grand Cru using La Chouffe Yeast (this finally
fermented out after a month), and the second an ESB (OG 1.056) with
Shepherd Neame yeast. Is 5 mins long enough? If not, how to avoid foaming
without additives? Ditch the stone? A less powerful pump?
Keith Busby
Keith Busby
George Lynn Cross Research Professor
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
University of Oklahoma
780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202
Norman, OK 73019
Tel: (405) 325-5088. Fax: (405) 325-0103
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 08:09:10 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: What a crock!
Isn't that open "glass" fermentor just a crock? Ah yes, I bet I stirred up
a few memories from some of our more mature posters. :^)
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:41:23 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Proper Phalse Bottom Usage
Alan McKay ( amckay@nortelnetworks.com ) Asks about using a Phil's
Phalse
Bottom in a 10 gallon Gott cooler. First I assume that he is using the
12" diameter bottom as a 10" bottom will always be a problem in such
coolers.
The key to all this is to NOT POUR THE STRIKE WATER IN BEFORE THE GRIST !
That was exciting. I feel better now, thank you.
The water needs to be added at the same time with the grist. Pour a pan
of
water in the cooler and follow with a pan of grist, stirr, repeat. If
the
mash gets too thick add a second pan of water. If the mash gets too
thin,
add a second pan of grist. This method ensures that the mash is
thourghly
wetted and does not expose the enzymes to harsh temperatures. The weight
of the mash keeps the bottom down. Before vorlaufing (recirculating) you
should do as the English and underlet a bit of sparge water and stir the
mash to break up any compaction. Let it resettle for 5 to 10 minutes
before vorlaufing.
A neat alternative is to connect the cooler's outlet to the hot liquor
tank
( I use my half barrel kettle's tap) and let the strike water underlet
while adding and stirring the grist. It saves screwing with the second
pan
and requires strike water about 5 degrees Fahrenheit cooler.
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com or
72723.1707@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:41:59 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Implosive Carboys, topless carboys, plastic fermenters
Brewsters:
I was alarmed to read in Simon Wesley's endeavors to
produce low alcohol beer by distillation that Bill Frazier and
Loius Bonham had suggested the use of a carboy under
vacuum as a vessel. DON'T DO IT! The shape of the
carboy with the flat bottom and cylindrical sides are not
made for vacuum service. Carboys also vary within the
bottle itself in glass thickness so that the suggested heating
of the carboy could build up thermal stresses.
Lest you think I 'm being too cautious, I saw the hamburger
that used to be the face of an experimenter who chose the
wrong glass vessel for his work. Luckily he lived. If you must
place a vacuum on a huge vessel, at least make it something
that will bend and not shatter.
- --------------------------------------------------
On a related topic of cutting the top off of a carboy to make
an open glass fermenter, remember that the carboy is an
integral design with the shoulders being part of the stiffening
( strengthening) of the complete assembly. Removing the
top will make the sides much weaker to blows and perhaps
even to lifting. This will just amplify the inherent danger in
handling such a heavy breakable bottle full of liquid.
- --------------------------------------------------
I agree with the HBDer who cautioned against
using certain plastics which have plasticizers or
dangerous monomers. However, polyethylene is inert
and if care is taken to choose a safe pigment system
- like titanium dioxide white, no problems should ensue.
Polyethylene can be identified by the recycling mark on
the bottom of the container. I do not know the number
off the top of my head. Anyone?
- --------------------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:41:50 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: "Charles T. Major" <ctmajor@samford.edu>
Subject: Re: questions about them yeasties
Cory Chadwell asks about reculturing yeast from a bottle of
Boulevard Pale Ale. I have no knowledge of the brewery,
the yeast(s) it uses, or the temperature ranges for the
yeast, so I'll leave those questions for others.
For reculturing from the bottle, wipe the lip with alcohol
and flame before pouring most of the beer out. Then, as
you suggest, pour in about a cup of starter wort and shake.
I've used a small stopper with an airlock in the past, and
more recently I've plugged the mouth of the bottle with
sterile cotton which allows a more aerobic environment as
the yeast grows. Then pitch to a regular starter and build
up as usual. See Dave Miller's _Brewing the World's Great
Beers_ for more details, but you've certainly got the right
idea. Good luck--I always enjoy brewing with recultured
yeast from a bottle-conditioned beer.
Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:55:00 -0500
From: PAUL W HAAF JR <haafbrau1@juno.com>
Subject: Stones and clips and extract, oh my
First off, I pulled four driveway stones from my, yes, driveway. I put
them in my pot to boil with my wort. They are the best thing I've added
to the boil. Talk about saving boil-overs. The second best thing I've
added to the boil is a clothes pin or two. When clipped to the lid, they
do wonders for relieving boil tension and allowing full use of heat
without any DMS problems. I've been waiting to post this until someone
had a question about lid use. I just saw one, so here's my post.
QDA alert. I'm an extract first brewer for many reasons. Every time
I've tried to use DME, I've had clumping problems, plus it seems to be
more expensive. My vote is on LME I'm sure others feel differently.
I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Paul Haaf
Y2K- A survivalists dream come true.
___________________________________________________________________
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: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:04:00 -0500
From: Eric.Fouch@steelcase.com
Subject: Straw Creepage
But, Mark-
"The premised gradients would be quickly lost due to the mixing action in
the fermenter. Most likely IMHO, the mechanism at work here is that of
buoyancy: The flocs of yeast *may* be carried up to the surface by CO2,
there releasing it to sink again, pushed by the next floc in line. This
phenomenon (in principle) is observable in a glass of soda/pop with a straw
- as the CO2 bubbles form on the straw, it will begin to float until an
equilibrium point is reached between the displacement of the bubbles and
weight of the straw above the surface (less the differential buoyancy of
the rest of the straw)."
You forgot to take into account the friction between the straw and the
container.
Initially, the bubbles must overcome the stiction between the straw and the
container to initiate movement. Then, once the straw starts moving, inertia
will actually move the straw upwards beyond the point of buoyant equilibrium,
and the straw will "hang up" on the side of the container due to the friction
between the container and the straw. And don't forget that the friction will
vary due to the container material- glass vs. plastic, vs. waxed paper. And
container geometry will play a role also- a wide container will provide a
steeper angle, increasing the friction. Although I suppose eventually, if the
container is wide enough, the vector would change such that the straw would no
longer slide up the container, but simply pivot at the point of contact. Maybe
we should try Teflon straws. I wonder if the bubbles would be less likely to
form on a Teflon straw. Then, of course, the aforementioned stiction and
friction would be reduced, also. Perhaps a straw constructed out of a
hydrophilic material would increase fluid drag, and decrease bubbly affinity,
reducing the amount of buoyant forces imparted to the straws surface.
Of course all this can be avoided, by simply using one of those covers that
has an "X" shaped cut in the top, allowing for straw insertion, but providing
enough friction to impede buoyancy induced straw creepage. The tops with the
simple holes in the top, IMHO, are inferior to the "X" slit.
And I don't even have a Masters Degree. In Science or otherwise.
Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood, MI
Notice- Fred Garvin is now accepting all competitor's Male Escort Service
coupons.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 07:32:04 -0800
From: msnet@pacbell.net
Subject: Keging Presure
Hi All,
I am new to keging. I keged last night for the first time using a 5 gal
"Corny" keg and I have a few questions about time at pressure.
>From the numerous charts on the web I determined I wanted 1.8
atmospheres of pressure for carbonation. According to the charts I
put the beer under 22lbs of pressure at my brewery room temp
(65F). My questions are. How long do I keep the CO2 tank valve
open and the beer under constant pressure? Do I bring the keg up
to pressure and then remove the pressure line from the keg? Does
the beer stay at this high pressure? I have been told/read that to
dispense you need 3lbs. Is this right for "corny" type kegs? Does
the beer absorb the CO2 making the pressure go down? Do I wait X
time and then vent the excess pressure?
Does anyone have a tried and true method of getting the right
pressure/carbonation?
I would also like to hear opinions on Priming with sugar verses
Force carbonation.
Thanks in advance!
Fritz Waltjen (msnet@pacbell.net)
Los Angeles, California
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:40:17 -0500
From: joytbrew@halifax.com (Joy Hansen)
Subject: Malt Mills, ho-hum?
The discussion on malt mills is as boring as the discussion on distilling.
With the exception that the BAT raid, seized properties and equipment might
make an interesting story!
I think the use commentary of one of the mills under discussion might make
the dialog more meaningful and interisting to entry level all grain home
brewers.
IMHO, based on the appearance of the milled malt, the faster a small
diameter roll turns, the more shearing of the husk and production of fines
take place. I thought the idea was to crack the kernel and leave as much
husk intact as possible. When did speed become an issue?
I purchased a Schmidling Malt Mill years ago because it was affordable and
filled a void in the home brewing equipment market. At that time, it was
the most economical mill available. It was an outstanding performer as
compared with the Corona grinder. After many years of satisfied use, the
long rollers have many stone scars over much of their surface (This is
thanks to the horrendous amount of dockage included in malts destined for
Home Brewers. More rocks mean more profits!).
Speaking to dockage in malts, I note the small weevil holes in most
specialty malts. This means that the source malts were infested with
insects and a high kiln temperature was required to salvage the malt! I
wonder what the kilned insect flavor/taste contributes to the beer.
I run my Schmidling Mill between 100 and 200 RPM with a 1/2 inch 600 RPM
electric drill which has variable torque and speed on the trigger. The
center gap of the
mill is adjusted to .060 inches. The roller speed is adjusted under load.
The hopper is lowered from the manufactured setting to prevent malt from
exiting over the rollers. I always have starch imbedded over the entire
length of the rollers. Uncrushed kernels are always emaciated and probably
don't contain mush carbohydrate. I accept the 80 to 88 percent efficiency
of extraction from my mash which implies that most of the kernels must be
cracked by the milling procedure I use!
Turning the rollers at 600 + RPM and creates mostly malt flour and broken
husks!
Cheers,
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:45:58 -0500
From: joytbrew@halifax.com (Joy Hansen)
Subject: Alan Monaghan's RIMS question
Hi Alan and RIMS home brewers,
I use a home built RIMS unit with a 15.5 keg mash tun and a PBS punched SS
false bottom. My Promash program calculates gravity based on achieved
efficiency within the system. The default value is 75%. For several brews,
I found myself about 10% over the target gravity. By calculation, I'm
getting a minimum of 80%, with some hitting 88%! I brew batches to provide
8 gallons of wort in the primary fermenter. The grist is typically 18 to 25
pounds for this amount of wort.
Your question about doubling the amount of grist and achieving greater
efficiency is troubling to me because, IMHO, you may not have optimized the
mash parameters for a 5 gallon batch. I hope you will believe me when I
tell you that Murphy's Law is applicable and you'll soon find out why he's
considered as your brewing assistant! Especially when you start stepping up
the volume of the mash.
If you consider the open area of R. Morris' original picnic cooler false
bottom, I recall that it exceeds 200 square inches. The open area of the
PBS punched SS plate, IMHO, is about 75 square inches. Obviously, the depth
of the mash changes from less than 5 inches to as much as 8 inches. I
believe that these changes result in a substantial decrease in the
permeability of the mash. Increasing the grist in the keg exacerbates the
problem! IMHO, choosing a keg as a mash tun is a poor choice. It's cheap
by comparison to commercial pots; however, I have about 8 years of
experience with a keg mash tun to back my claim. Calculate the open area
possible in a 19 inch pot compared to a PBS punched SS false bottom!
Are you checking the pH of the mash, adjusted for the rest temperature?
My description of the iodine starch test is a little different than I read.
It's true that I get an blue/black color early in the mash rest. Later, I
remove most of the large particulate for the test and I get an immediate
red/brown color which changes to black in less than one minute. The
particulate also turns black. Later, near the end of the first
saccharification, I get a longer lag between addition of the iodine and the
color development. Because many posts and texts indicate that a one hour
rest in the 145-152 range develops a better malt flavor, I use this
schedule. The second saccharification rest is typically at 158. At this
temperature, my objective is for the particulate in the starch test NOT to
turn black for an extended time after addition of the iodine. Mash out is
at 168 to 170. I try to maintain the temperature of the mash during
subsequent sparge/runoff by both infusion and RIMS direct heat. This
schedule produces a malty, thick mouth feel, and highly fermentable wort.
Ending my soap box, the last consideration is the actual final volume of
wort in the brew pot after boiling. I might have 10 gallons in the brew
pot; however, there is cooling shrinkage, trub and hop displaced volume, and
dead space in the brew pot. So, I might get 8 1/2 gallons in the primary.
This may be critical, because an error in measurement of 2 gallons of a
target 8 gallons converts to a 25 percent or so deviation from the target
gravity! A one gallon difference amounts to 12.5 percent deviation, and so
on . . .
Don't worry about all this stuff, I've worried for you over the past 8
years. Sometimes, I think I should go back to the Herter's Bull Moose
Cookbook recipe for home brew. The mail order firm is out of business;
however, looking back - their brewing source was a gem, as were the
writings!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:44:09 +0500
From: "Curt Speaker" <SPEAKER@SAFETY-1.SAFETY.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Thanks to Dan Listermann
I just wanted to take a moment to thank Dan Listermann for what
may be one of the best pieces of information that I have ever
gleaned off of the HBD. Dan mentioned last week that if your
lauter/sparging process is taking 30 minutes or less, you are
leaving something behind. Now I have been brewing all-grain for
about 3.5 years now and have been fairly pleased with my
extraction rates --- nothing special, but my beers turn out well.
While brewing a Schwarzbier this past weekend, I took Dan's
recommendation to heart and slowed down my lautering process.
Instead of the usual 20-25 minutes to lauter a five-gallon batch, I
took about 45 minutes to collect all ther runnings. My extraction
rate jumped by about 3-5 points per gallon.
Thanks Dan!!!
Curt
Curt Speaker
Biosafety Officer
Penn State University
Environmental Health and Safety
speaker@ehs.psu.edu
http://www.ehs.psu.edu
^...^
(O_O)
=(Y)=
"""
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 11:13:05 -0600
From: Eric Schoville <eschovil@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Open Fermenters
The discussion of open fermenters is being raised again, so I thought
I would throw my two cents in. For a couple of years, I have used a
converted Sankey keg as an open fermenter and have been extremely
happy with the results. Converted kegs make excellent fermenters
because they are easy to clean, sterlize and readily available. Plus,
there are no safety concerns with stainless as there may be with some
plastics.
Eric Schoville
Flower Mound, TX
http://home1.gte.net/rschovil/beer/3tier.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:27:15 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Strike Heat Part 1 of 2
Brewsters:
Andrew Nix sent me an e-mail asking about what M&BS
( Malting and Brewing Science) meant and a couple
of other innocent questions. Since he had a Bechtel
e-address, I assumed he was an engineer and
likely a mechanical engineer. Anyway , to be sure he
was happy I supplied him with a scan of the table on
malt heat capacity and the rest of the relevant information
and went back into my notebook to understand why
I had used 0.22 as the equivalent number of quarts
of water for a pound of malt's heat capacity. From the
table 10.1 it was obvious that the number should be
more like 0.20 or so - if an unslaked malt were being
used. My results were empirical and I have to guess
that I probably used malt that had been hanging around
in a trash bin for a few years and likely had a heat
capacity of 0.44 from the extra water absorbed and
was thoroughly slaked.
Anyway, here is the scanned version of that page
with the formulas repaired, since my scanning
software tried to reorganize them into something "meaningful"
RIMSers will find this of interest, since "underletting" as a way
of heating is discussed.
I will have to shorten the lines, since the HBD server does not
like long line formats (WHY IS THAT?) I hope the table
survives:
M&BS (1971) P. 259
,MASHING
259
Initial Heat = (St +RT)/(S+R) + (H/2)/(S + R)
where S is the specific heat of the malt and t the
temperature of the malt; R is the ratio of weight of liquor
to that of grist and T the temperature of the liquor
(striking heat); H is the slaking heat of the malt in
gram-cals/degree temperature. The expression
is applicable to both C and F providing terms are
expressed in the appropriate units.
TABLE 10.1
Specific heat (water =1) and slaking heat of a malt
at various moisture contents
Slaking heat (gram
% Moisture Specific heat cals) at mashing
temp. of 150F
0 0.38 33.5
1 0.38 29.0
2 0.39 25.0
4 0.40 18.8
6 0.41 14.5
8 0.42 12.4
BROWN, H. T. (1910). J. Inst. Brewing 16, 112.
HOPKINS, R. H. and CARTER, W. A. (1933). f. Inst. Brewing 39, 59.
Part 2 follows:
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:27:44 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Strike Heat part 2
Brewsters:
Part 2
Brewsters:
continuation of M&BS (1971) page 259-60
A slack malt has a slightly greater specific heat, but a
much reduced slaking heat and requires a striking heat
some 2-4F (l.1-2.2C) higher than a malt of normal
moisture content. Thus for an initial heat of 150F (65.5C),
a grist moisture content of 2 %, a grist temperature of
80F (27C), and a mashing rate of 2.5 brl/Qr, the striking
heat would be 156F (69C) assuming the volume of liquor
to be measured at 60F (15.5C). Using a grist moisture
content of 6 %, the corresponding striking heat would be
159F (70.5C).
With the thick mashes (about 2.5 brl/Qr) used in infusion
mashing, it is difficult to raise the temperature once the
mixing is completed and is usually not attempted.
Heat transfer is particularly slow and the use of
steam-jacketed vessels with the thick mash can lead
to localized baking of the materials. It is, however,
possible in some circumstances to pass free steam
into the mash and this causes very little dilution of the
mash, an important factor in the protection of mash
enzymes. On the other hand, the temperature of the
mash may be raised by pumping hot liquor underneath
the mash (underletting); thus a stand of 145F (63C)
may be followed by underletting to raise the
temperature to 155F (68C). A further formula has
been devised to assist in the calculation of the
temperature of liquor underlet. It is approximate because
it does not take into account heat losses from the equipment.
Final Mash Temperature = (M(S +R) + QT)/(S + R + Q)
where S and R are the same as in equation (1), M is the
mash temperature before underletting and T the temperature
of the introduced underletting liquor; Q is the weight of water
in the mash in appropriate units. In order to convert Q into
volume of liquor, it must be multiplied by the weight of malt in
the mash and divided by the weight of water in one unit
volume, expressed in the same units of weight.
The infusion-mash tun (Fig. 10.4) is traditionally circular, varies
very much in diameter, but is usually 6-8 ft in depth and in
some cases even deeper. Although the traditional wooden
construction has the advantage of heat insulation, wood
soon becomes spongy.
- ------------------------------------------
Note that the equation I provided took into account the heat
capacity of the tun (important in our case) and allowed one
to use it to do a step infusion mash.
My equation did not take into account the slaking heat
of the malt.
In the above example, a quarter is 448 lbs and a barrel is 36
imperial gallons or 36/0.833 = 43.2 US gallons. So the
grist/liquor ratio is for 2.5 brl/Qr = 0.96 or ~ 1 quart/lb.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:41:46 -0800
From: "John Palmer" <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Beginners Guide to Mashing - Mash pH
In an otherwise good post encouraging brewers who have not have tried
all-grain brewing before to Just Go For It, Jim had one instruction that I
particularly disagreed with.
To wit:
>Add about 1 tablespoon of gypsum (to the mash)...The experts will point
out the "1 >tablespoon" of gypsum is a pretty crude guess. Probably, but
water chemistry isn't a huge >issue for most people for their first beer.
Okay, maybe not huge, but it is important. The axiom Don't Play With
Matches is appropriate here.
There is more to the issue of adding gypsum than it just being a crude
guess. The whole purpose of adding gypsum or any other salt to the mash is
to manipulate the mash pH. The mash pH depends on 2 main variables: the
grainbill and the mineral content of the mash water. The combination of
these will produce the mash pH. HOPEFULLY, that pH is around 5.7 If it's
not, (you need to measure it to be sure) you can add salts to adjust it.
There are several resources, online and otherwise, that can lead you
through the calculations. One thing that is not well known is that the
concept of Residual Alkalinity is the best way to understand the mash pH
and adjust it. (Do a search in the HBD archives for keywords: AJ and
Kohlbach; or see the article on Water in last falls? BT. Sorry I cant
locate my copy at the moment)
The point I want to make is that unless you know that your water is
relatively high in carbonates AND you are brewing without any dark malts,
adding an unknown amount of gypsum to the mash is folly. In fact, if you
know only those two things and add a known quantity, it is still folly. You
are still flying blind. IF you are going to mash for the first time and
have no clue as to your water's mineral content then you are better off
adding nothing, and brewing a neutral recipe that includes only some
coloring malt like medium caramel (crystal 60) and base malt.
The preferred way to start all-grain brewing is to understand how the malts
and residual alkalinity combine to determine mash pH and brew your recipes
accordingly.
Of Course, I didn't start out that way, and neither did the other 90% of
us. When I started, I took a class at a local brew shop (Fun Fermentations)
(now, sadly, defunct) and there Don (an experienced all-grainer) told me
what styles Los Angeles-area water was good for, (Pale Ales, Brown Ales,
and Porters), because of our moderate calcium and magnesium levels and our
moderate-to-high carbonate levels. I brewed a porter for my first all-grain
and was ecstatic with my success.
Sorry to turn a simple cautionary comment into a tirade, but once I started
explaining I couldn't stop. Good post Jim.
John Palmer
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 13:31:12 EST
From: JPullum127@aol.com
Subject: i need more head
my first 3 all grain batches have all come out really well except there isn't
much head. carbonation is good with 3/4 cup corn sugar. glassware is properly
cleaned. extract batches have never had this problem. mashes have been
single infusion with tempof 154-156. i know some folks add a little wheat
malt for this,not sure how much to try without affecting the character of the
style i'm going
for. any recs. or other ideas? thanks marc
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:48:14 -0700
From: "Eric McIndoo" <emcindoo@micron.net>
Subject: re: Fermentor geometry/characterstics
Nathan Kanous wrote
"My thoughts are that the plastic was much more effective than the glass at
transferring heat from the brew to the atmosphere and the glass held it in.
Therefore, higher temps, more vigorous fermentation and other attendant
effects. I suppose that it could be the "open" style of fermentation in
plastic that allowed this to occur. Essentially the same event, just a
different reason."
Actually, glass is better at dissipating heat than plastic. This comes from
many years of experience of chilling growth media for bacteria in both
plastic and glass containers. In my experience, glass sometimes takes half
the time that plastic does (to freeze water/growth media from room temp).
Just to prove this to yourself, pour hot water into a plastic cup and your
pint glass and feel the outside each. If the plastic is the same thickness
as the glass, the plastic will take much longer to heat up.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 20:33:48 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Pithy Response to Witty Post
John Varady proposes to sour a wit by means of some Pilsner beer which
he has innoculated with a couple of barley corns. Sour it will probably
become but as there is little low molecular weight sugar present to feed
lactobacillis it is probably going to be acetobacter, feeding on
ethanol, which will predominate and produce acetic acid rather than
lactic. In other words, I think it probable that the Pils will turn into
malt vinegar rather than the desired lactic acid containing broth. In
the Guiness process I believe it is sugar containing wort that is
fermented (partially by) lactos thus producing the sour beer used to
tart-up the main volume.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 15:38:41 -0500
From: Drewmeister <drewmstr@erols.com>
Subject: Mash/Lauter Tun
I currently am using a 5 Gal Gott cooler for mashing, works great, but I
transfer my mash over to a 2-bucket (Zapap type) lauter tun. I want to
eliminate the extra equipment, and extra step of transferring by converting
my Gott cooler. I thought info would be all over the web. I'm considering
two systems (gonna start a debate here). The Phil's Phalse Bottom and the
EZ Masher. Regardless of what system I go with, I was wanting info on
replacing the faucet that comes on the Gott cooler. Does the Gott EZ
Masher come with this attachment, or do I use a simple spigot that is used
on bottling buckets??? Has anyone converted a Gott cooler using the EZ
Masher??? I use a Phil's Sparge Arm, which I love. Also, for people using
sparge arms, what do you use as your hot liquor tank (HLT) to keep the temp
up during sparging??? Or do you just insulate the HLT?? I currently use a
7 gallon bottling bucket as my HLT and just keep adding water from the
stove as the level drops to insure that my sparge water is up to
temperature. If using this method, it is best to avoid aerating the sparge
water correct???(hot side aeration).
Next week, it's 100 questions!!!
Andrew Nix
Drewmeister
drewmstr@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/drewmstr/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:15:38 -0600
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: DME vs LME
>>From: "Russell, D. A. (David)" <drussel3@ford.com>
>>Subject: Dry vs. Liquid Malt Extract
>>What is the general consensus out there?
Hi David,
I do mainly all grain now, but when I do an extract batch or when I
build starters, I use LME. I get it locally and my supplier gets it
in 55 gal drums. They have a reportedly high turnover so it is fresh.
They have several flavors (light, dark, wheat, Munich, etc) to choose
from and I can buy as much or as little as I want. I can go get a cup
or 2 for building a starter or exactly the right amount for whatever I
am brewing. No cans to mess with. They claim that their light LME
makes a lighter colored wort/beer than their lightest DME. This makes
sense because the drying process will probably cause more darkening
even if it is relatively low temperature spray drying. Their price
for LME is less than for the equivalent DME (or cans of LME, for that
matter) as long as you buy it out of the bulk containers. If I were
planning to store extract at home for long periods, if I were buying
it mail order, or if the cost favored it, I'd lean towards DME. In my
situation, I avoid the cans and dry malt extract altogether unless
there was a specific reason like using Laaglander for extra dextrins
or rice extract for for an American style. Your situation may be
different so also YMMV.
Cheers!
Lou - Austin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 14:12:13 -0800
From: "Larry Maxwell" <Larry@bmhm.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Malt Mill Blues
> Subject: Re: Malt Mill Blues
>
> Hey Folks,
>
> Although I learn a lot from this digest and I do know how to use my PgDn
> key, I am beginning to become tired of the seemingly constant arguing
about
> whose malt mill is my efficient or more like a commercial mill
<snip>
I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of their debate and
commend
them for their effort to avoid it degenerating into pointless bickering.
As long
as each one has something new and reasonably informative to add in a post,
I would like to hear it. I intend to purchase or build a mill, and having
two
interested parties debate the merits of their products is useful to me.
It is
unusual to have two manufacturers go head to head in a debate, and I only
wish manufacturers of everyday items I purchase were willing to engage in
debates for the benefit of consumers.
Larry Maxwell
San Diego
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 17:30:47 -0500
From: "Eric R. Tepe" <erictepe@fuse.net>
Subject: California Common
Collective,
I was wondering if there were any other commercial representatives of
the Steam beers/California Common style besides Anchor.
Thanks in advance to all who reply
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:47:09 -0800
From: Alan Gilbert <alan_gilbert@mac.symantec.com>
Subject: BeerTrader Mailing List (NEW!)
Attention all homebrewers!
I'm assuming you all like beer (big assumption right? :)
I'm also assuming that you (like me and many other homebrewers I know)
buy a significant amount of beer besides what you brew, right?
Ever lived in another part of the country where you could get a beer you
just can't get where you live now?
Ever visited another country where you tasted a heavenly beer that isn't
imported where you are?
Ever felt like trying another homebrewers perfect beer (an Uerige copy
perhaps) after reading his post on HBD?
I know I have.
Well, I had an idea!!!
I started a mailing list called "BeerTrader". It is in digest form so
you will only get spammed once a day if you subscribe (and then only if
people post), so it should be very low bandwidth. The purpose is thus:
post about a beer you've been looking for or one you want to trade, and
perhaps somebody, somewhere (this country or another) will let you know
if they have or can get what you want. You never know.
Here's all you got to do. Email a subscription request to:
Requests@BrewCam.com with a body of "subscribe BeerTrader" (subject
doesn't matter)
Once you are subscribed you can post by sending your message to:
BeerTrader@BrewCam.com
I'm looking forward to some lively beer trading.
-Alan Gilbert
BrewMaster@BrewCam.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:40:48 EST
From: SRNagley@aol.com
Subject: kegging/bottling questions
Fellow Brewers,
As a recent convert to kegging, with a dedicated serving fridge, I find
myself being able to have no more than 2 beers on draught at any one time. My
supply of previously bottled beers has been dwindling and one of the pleasures
I've enjoyed about this hobby has been the variety of beers that I've had on
hand to drink. So I've been thinking of purchasing a CP bottle filler. My 2
questions in this regard are:
1) Does anyone have any experience with the Phil's CP bottle filler? I've
seen
one mail order place recomend it as being the easiest to use. Some directions
of
other fillers that I've seen have seemingly required three hands to operate.
(Dan L need not respond :) unless he wants to privately)
2) Can I bottle fill say, half a 5 gal batch after having consumed the first
half from the keg, and then store this at cellar temps? (currently ~ 60F,
bound to increase during the summer months). Or conversely, I could bottle 1/2
the batch right off and then proceed to drink the second half from the keg.
I'm wondering about having the beer initially cold for the bottling and then
having it warm to cellar temps and then keeping it for several months. I would
imagine that the shelf life would be shortened but will I be running into any
other problems here? While I've stored beers in my basement for a year or
more, these have all been bottle conditioned.
Many thanks for any help you can provide.
Steve Nagley
Muskrat Brewing
Old Forge, Pa
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 04:01:18 +0000
From: William Frazier <billfrazier@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Gypsum
Jim Cave makes a nice presentation for first-time all-grain brewers, as have
several others recently. However, there should be some caution about
arbitrary addition of brewing salts to brewing liquor without first knowing
your local water quality. Jim goes so far as to say...
"The experts will point out the "1 tablespoon" of gypsum is a pretty crude
guess. Probably, but water chemistry isn't a huge issue for most people for
their first beer."
My local water (Kansas City area) starts out with 152 ppm sulfate (gypsum =
calcium sulfate). If I added one tablespoon gypsum for a 5 gallon brew I
would have about 575 ppm sulfate. There aren't many world class brewing
waters with anything that approaches that level of sulfate.
I would try the first all-grain brew without any gypsum, or better yet ask
your local water department for a water quality report. Then consult one of
the homebrew books on water-mineral adjustments. You may find your local
water is just fine or you might want to dilute with distilled or reverse
osmosis water to reduce the concentration of certain minerals.
Bill Frazier
Johnson County, Kansas
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2974, 03/10/99
*************************************
-------
