Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3014
HOMEBREW Digest #3014 Mon 26 April 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:
Re: Bitter Mimic (Robert Uhl)
thomas dolby/old and stale ("Bayer, Mark A")
Keg Conditioning ("Kris Jacobs")
Re: Sulphate = Astringency ("Larry Maxwell")
Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: free]] (Nathan Kanous)
Hop Oil as a preservative? (Badger Roullett)
Hops in Beer and Dutch (Badger Roullett)
water treatment (BrewInfo)
bubblegum (BrewInfo)
Idophor based sanitation comments (Joy Hansen)
More on Sanizers (Joy Hansen)
distillation (BrewInfo)
fun (BrewInfo)
Nitrogen in Guinness; Beer Tower ("Daske, Felix")
Good use for a beard (Shane Brauner)
Dunno! (pbabcock)
sanitising oxygen-absorbing caps (BrewInfo)
Re: Nitrogen head (Sparrow)
Has anyone kegged Mead? (Alan McKay)
Brew House (vee12)
Improved my siphoning... (Ed Choromanski)
Recipe tried (Paul Haaf)
Grow your own Hops (woodsj)
Nitrogen dispense and draught dispense ("silent bob")
re:Mazer Cup pictures ("Kensler, Paul")
Re: Where is 'unitconv'? ("Brian Dixon")
Over Carbonation = Acid Beer (kchris1)
Pot caramelization? ("Brian Dixon")
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99
(http://burp.org/SoFB99); Oregon Homebrew Festival 5/22/99
(http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/fest.html); Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99
(http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)
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: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:08:57 -0500
From: Robert Uhl <ruhl@austinc.edu>
Subject: Re: Bitter Mimic
I received many thoughtful comments regarding my request for
improving the body/flavour of my London-style bitter. My thanks to
everyone who wrote me. The comments could be summarised as such:
o cut out the superlight; it may have rice or other undesirable extract
o cut down on/cut out the crystal
o use Goldings instead of/to compliment the Fuggles
o use Laaglander DME; it's thicker
o use M&F LME; it's thicker
o use flaked barley to improve body
o partial mash with brewing salts for London
o use Wyeast London yeasts (Fuller's, London, London III, British &c.)
o use chocolate/dark malt instead of dark LME
o no need for a 90-minute boil
With all this in mind, I think that my next recipe will be something
along the lines of:
6 lbs. pale LME
4 oz. chocolate malt
8 oz. crystal malt
2 Tbsp. gypsum
Goldings & Fuggles to make 11-12 HBUs (boil)
1 oz. Goldings (flavour)
1 oz. Goldings (dry hop)
Mashing malts with gypsum, then adding LME and boiling hops, and
proceeding as usual. I think I may go with the longer boil anyway,
to help darken the wort, but perhaps I'll forego that step. We'll
see how it comes out. Prob. won't get to it 'til May, though.
Once again, let me thank all those who wrote me regarding this.
This, IMHO, is what the HBD is for: brewers sharing their expertise.
I remain
As ever,
Bob Uhl
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:19:50 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: thomas dolby/old and stale
collective homebrew conscience_
james p wrote:
<snip>...the HBD hardly qualifies as science at all, and what
>science we do see is often bad science.
>Good science requires the testing of theories and speculation with
>experiments.<snip>Good science realizes that correlation does not imply
> a causal effect --
>the difference between observational data and randomized experiments.
boy, is this ever unfounded. every scrap of info. i've ever seen on this
forum has been backed up by plenty of........wait.......what's
happening?????...........
>Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:24:50 -0400
>From: "Brook Raymond" <brook@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: forced CO2 contaminating?
>I checked out Brewing Techniques web page and found and interesting article
>describing an brewing experiment (sorry can't remember the Title at the
>moment, but I'm sure many of you are aware of this study since the
>participants were from HBD).
>Anyway, I poked around with the data and found conclusive evidence that
>contaminated samples were caused by force carbonation.<snip> About
>half of the naturally carbonated samples were contaminated, but all of the
>forced carbonated samples were contaminated
uh, never mind.
****************************************
regarding the diacetyl debate, and the overall notion that a particular
substance or flavor shouldn't be considered improper in *all* styles, i have
a question about oxidation.
for some strong beers (belgian and english), part of the maturation process
involves laying them down at cellar temps for months and months, if not
years. surely this involves oxidation at some level, even if the beers are
sedimented with live yeast. i recall in george fix's bt article that
temperature was a more important factor than the amount of headspace air
when it came to oxidation and the staling process. are oxidation products
an expected part of the flavor profile of some strong aged beers?
brew hard,
mark bayer
saint louis missouri
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:46:02 -0400
From: "Kris Jacobs" <jtsnake@net-link.net>
Subject: Keg Conditioning
Hey guys, I have been wrasslin' with this problem of me never having any
bottles to "pass around" -- if you want to try my beer, you gotta come
over here and get it off the tap. My 3 best local brewing buds always have
bottles to pass... :(
I have decided that I might start keg conditioning. I will brew a batch,
and then reserve a quart or two of wort -- can it in a hot water bath and
store it in the fridge. Ferment as usual. Put that quart or two of wort
into my keg, then rack from secondary into the keg, seal it and mix it up
good. Fill a few bottles by pushing it right out of the keg with a little
CO2. Let the keg sit, let the bottles sit, voila! Naturally carbonated
beer, some in the keg, some in bottles! My only concern is how much
reserved wort would be necessary to get sufficient carbonation levels in
the bottles..... as for the keg, I can always "juice up" the carb level
with CO2, NP.
I've got a CP filler but it's a pain in the ass, IMO.
Kris Jacobs
Galesburg, MI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:52:37 -0700
From: "Larry Maxwell" <Larry@bmhm.com>
Subject: Re: Sulphate = Astringency
I have been under the belief that the reason I don't care for
Bass Ale is that it has a relatively high sulphate content, which
I perceive as "chalky"-tasting, like Milk of Magnesia. To my
sense of taste, this chalkiness is very similar to astringency.
I know exactly the tannin/polyphenol taste of chewing grape
skins and, to me, it is similar. Am I correct that what I perceive
as chalky is due to a high sulphate content? If so, maybe
"chalky" would be a better description for the sulfate taste
than "astringent."
Larry in San Diego
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:56:51 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: free]]
Free rinsing solution for carboys!
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>Hello:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>We here at Miller Brewing Company, Inc.
>>would
>>> >>>>>>>>>> We
>>> >>>>>>>>>>like to think of ourselves as a
>>progressive
>>> >>>>>>>>>>company, keeping up with our
>>> >>>>>>>>>>customers. We have found the best
>>> >>>>>>>>>>way to do this via the Internet and email.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>Combining these things, we would like to
>>make
>>> >>>>>>>>>>a special offer to our
>>> >>>>>>>>>> If this email makes
>>> >>>>>>>>>>it to 2,000,000 people by 12:00 PM on New
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Year's Eve of 1999, we will
>>> >>>>>>>>>>send a coupon for one six-pack
>>> >>>>>>>>>>of any of our Miller Brand beverages.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>In the event that 2,000,000 people are
>>> >>>>>>>>>>reached, our tracker/counter,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>embedded in this message, will report
>>> >>>>>>>>>>to us with the list of names and email
>>> >>>>>>>>>>addresses. Thereafter, each
>>> >>>>>>>>>>email address will be sent an electronic
>>> >>>>>>>>>>coupon which you can print out and redeem
>>at
>>> >>>>>>>>>>any Miller Brand beverage carrying store.
>>The coupons will
>>> >>>>>>>>>>be sent as soon as 2,000,000 people are
>>> >>>>>>>>>>reached, so the sooner, the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>better.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>Enjoy, and Cheers,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>Gary D. Anderson, Chief Marketing Director
>>> >>>>>>>>>>Miller Brewing Company, Inc.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.millerbrewing.com
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web.
>>Visit
>>> >>>http://www.msn.com
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web.
>>Visit http://www.msn.com
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>> >>>>>>>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit
>>http://www.msn.com
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>> >>>>>>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit
>>http://www.msn.com
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>> >>>>>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit
>>http://www.msn.com
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>> >>>>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit
>>http://www.msn.com
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>> >>>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit
>>http://www.msn.com
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________
>>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:30:18 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Hop Oil as a preservative?
From: "Nigel Porter" <nigel@sparger.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Hop Oil as a preservative?
> How about just making it without hops at all? If it could be done 500
years
> ago, I'm sure that it can be done now. Unless you are planning on storing
> the ale in less than ideal conditions for long periods, I cannot imagine
any
> problems. I also believe that some of these old ales were quite sour
> affairs, so lack of hops may be an advantage.
The problem here that ale in period was consumed very quickly, and usually
did not last long. two weeks was about the longest you could keep it. So
many of the recipes I am reproducing are only meant to be around for short
periods of time. But I can only drink so much beer myself, so I want to
preserve it.
Also my research seems to point to the use of herbs (besides for medicinal
purposes) was to mask the off flavors of infected ale. Hops was known very
early on (pre 1000) for its preservative properties. The English were the
last to fall sway to the "demon weed" which was being brought in by the
Flemish.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brander Roullett aka Badger
Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger
In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven
"It had to be a linguistics professor who said that it's man's ability to
use language that makes him the dominant species on the planet. That may
be. But I think there's one other thing that separates us from animals. We
aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners." --Jeff Stilson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:41:48 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Hops in Beer and Dutch
From: "Charles T. Major" <ctmajor@samford.edu>
Subject: Re: Hop oil as a preservative
>>the source of his comment. The conversation was in the
>>context of a 14th century English mead and metheglyn recipe
>>that called for rosemary, among other herbs, and he noted
>>that the rosemary would have provided some preservative qualities.
I would love to get my hands on the recipe. what source it from?
>>Another preservative common in the Middle Ages was alcohol.
>>Ales tended to be stronger than beers are today, and the
>>alcohol helped keep bacterial infection at bay.
Yup, the Strong Ales, were quite strong.
>>That said, I've got to quibble with Badger's assertion that
NOPE! No quibbling allowed!! can't do it... Against the rules... ;)
>>hops were unknown in England before the Dutch introduced
>>them in beer. Hops are mentioned in England as early as
>>the 10th century in Bald's Leechbook.
I guess i meant to say they weren't common.
>>Though they were not
>>the brewing staple they are today, they were known in
>>England and likely found their way into the occasional brew
>>along with the various other herbs that formed the gruit.
I agree, the Flemish, and the German brought it into regular usage as the
primary ingredient much sooner than the English.
>>Additionally, beer is not a Dutch loan word, but rather a native Germanic
one used interchangeably with ale in
>> some of the earliest Old English texts. The distinction between ale
(hopless) and beer (hopped) is a late
>> distinction, after the Dutch began importing weaker, hopped beer. At
this point the English became
>> opposed to hops in beer, not because of the hops themselves, but because
of the weaker
>> beer they allowed the Dutch to brew.
I mean to say, that beer is what they called ale with hops... which was
primarily a product of the Flemish. I am quick to type, and slow to think.
When you say Late addition, do you mean Late period meaning (to my sca
brain) 1500+? There really is no distinction now-a-days.. I have vague
memories of Ale and beer coming into such usage around 1300? (QDA) Don't
have my brewing library in my head.
Badger
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:53:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo@xnet.com>
Subject: water treatment
In HBD #3003, Dave writes:
>I know we all have been brought up (or steeped) in the
>mantra ( or momily) that historical local beers have taken
>on the character they have because of the local water.
>However, from these simple observations many extreme
>behaviors have arisen. Like for instance AlK's admission
>that he once used up to 1/2 cup or more calcium sulfate
>in brewing ( I assume 5 gallons). Such behaviors fail to
>recognize that there are several things like solubility of
>calcium sulfate in water that will limit the content. If calcium
>sulfate were really that soluble then we couldn't use it as
>Plaster of Paris. So I doubt that using such an extreme
>amount did any good, since it was limited by the
>solubility of the salt.
Firstly, what I said was:
>Personally, I love high-sulphate
>Bitters and once made a 15-gallon batch of IPA into which I put more than
>1/2 CUP of gypsum (I weighed it out, but turned out to be > 1/2 cup).
Why then would you assume it was a 5-gallon batch. I don't like my
brewing methods to be characterised as "behaviors." Also, please check
the solubility of calcium sulphate before you start bashing my methods.
>Secondly, extreme amounts of calcium in the brewing
>liquor ( maybe by using the more soluble chloride)
>precipitate too much of the phosphate and the pH falls
>and, more importantly, the mash and wort is starved of
>phosphate. A bad thing for the mash pH and the yeast.
This is a good point and I will check my pH next time, but I'm pretty
sure that it was reasonable.
>Thirdly, if you will read the books I have read, they all
>seem to list the water analysis of the locality. The major
>INCORRECT assumption is that this is the water used
>as the brewing liquor. A simple treatment such as liming
>the water will remove bicarbonates and sulfates and
>correct the pH to make an excellent brewing liquor.
>SO just because the well head has a certain mineral
>analysis does not mean that is the water that makes it
>to the brewery (or even into the mains, as municipalities
>treat water as well as the brewery) nor, above all, what
>makes it into the mashtun.
You keep reading your books (which I have read too, and
probably a few more) and I'll keep brewing beer and talking
to brewmasters. Like the time I was in Burton-upon-Trent
and spoke with the brewmaster at the Burton Bridge Brewery,
where I was told that the municipal water is now 1/2 well
and 1/2 surface water so they add gypsum to get the sulphate
up to the traditional 600-700ppm range.
As for water treatment, I know of no brewery that removes
sulphate (how would you do that economically? AJ?), but
there are many in Germany that remove bicarbonate by using
hydroxides (slaked lime, I believe). However, modern water
treatment aside, traditionally, the beer that was brewed
in these famous brewing cities (Munich/Munchner Dunkel,
London/Porter, Burton-upon-Trent/Pale Ales...) was made
with untreated water. Today, they can make Pils in Dublin,
but back then, they couldn't.
In the very next post, Dave writes:
>Don't be so quick to condemn someone who
>might on some occasion agree with you and
>provide *scientific* support for your case.
Good point... I'll have to remember that.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz@brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:44:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo@xnet.com>
Subject: bubblegum
Pat writes:
>Al sez:
>
>> Yes. Orval has Brettanomyces among the bottling strain mixture. Brett
>> is what gives Orval that "bubblegum" aroma.
>
>Really? I got the bubble-gum aroma from fermenting an Orval clone with
>WYEAST 1214 Belgian Ale yeast. I was not aware that this was Brettanomyces
nor contained any. The aroma was so intense at initial racking that I
>swore someone was breathing little-league breath right next to me. It
>wasn't until several weeks later that Brett. got anywhere near the carboy
> - again, unless Wyeast 1214 is or contains it.
My guess would be it doesn't... but I didn't say that Brett is the *only*
way to get bubblegum aroma in your beer. I typically get a banana aroma
from #1214, but then the esters and higher alcohols produced by the yeast
are influenced by the makeup of the wort (amino acids, for example).
Perhaps I was a little overly confident on my initial post... I had
convinced myself of this a long time ago and what used to be posted as
"I think that perhaps Brett is..." five years ago, now becomes "Brett is..."
Here's the whole story. These are all the facts:
1. I isolated a yeast from a bottle of Orval around 1990 that makes beer
which smells just like Orval (bubble gum).
2. It is an extremely slow-fermenting yeast (roughly 2 or 3 months until the
airlock slows down and it never gets above about 6 bubbles per minute).
3. One of the yeasts that Orval pitches after the main fermentation is a
Brettanomyces yeast.
4. Brettanomyces are typically very slow fermenters.
5. Both the yeast I isolated and a true Brettanomyces I purchased make
*extremely* fruity beer (initially -- later you get the horseyness).
6. Both the yeast I isolated and a true Brettanomyces I purchased are
acid producers -- in other words, they make "tart" beer.
I put these six facts together and deduced that it is quite likely that
the yeast I isolated from Orval was the Brettanomyces yeast and that
it is Brettanomyces that produces the bubblegum aroma in Orval.
So, while I didn't check my Orval isolate with cyclohexamide, I have
reason to believe that it is a Brett yeast. Do you think my statement
merited a QDA?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz@brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:30:16 +0000
From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen@scronline.com>
Subject: Idophor based sanitation comments
Rob Moline, aka Jethro Gump,
wrote in post #3030 concerning MR. JOY's pronouncements on idophor
sanitizing solutions at 12.5 PPM.
With respect to your experience, home brewers without CIP systems might
have a different problem and results with sanitation. For one thing,
the city water where I live is not chlorinated nor is it treated an any
way. It's very high in bicarbonate and a 25ppm solution will discolor
within 5 minutes and on standing results in a rust colored precipitate!
My explanation is that an iodine complex is formed/precipitates and
effectively removes the sanitation properties of aqueous iodine. Of
course, the chlorine wouldn't have much effect on the idophor; however,
the lack of chlorine in the city water could introduce beer spoilage
organisms into the nutrient rich environment of my wort! You might
agree that Star San is appropriate as a sanitizer for my situation. I
must live with the foaming, the cloudy solutions, and check the ph
frequently. OTOH,Star San solutions might have an indefinite storage
period and could be used over and over until the pH changes?
I would rather that G. Fix step into the ring and explain his tests and
findings or that interested home brewers read his book. The following
is what I recall from reading G. Fix's chapter on sanitation. Idophor
solutions at 25 ppm with a contact time of 5 minutes are effective.
Interestingly, when the ppm idophor increases above 25, the
effectiveness of the sanitizing decreases. More is not better! When
the temperature increases from a nominal room temperature, the higher it
goes, the less effective the sanitizer is. G.Fix explains the situation
in great detail and includes the calculations for determining the proper
contact time of the sanitizers. My practical experience with idophor
solutions involved adding idophor until I got the approximate correct
concentration - add more as it loses color. Hmm, never did get around
to using the test strips. The warmer the water, the better sanitizing
job I thought the idophor was doing. Again, these are my
interpretations and not quotes of what is presented in G. Fix book.
>From my own experiences and reading, a 70% isopropyl alcohol aqueous
solution is optimum for sanitizing (not sterilizing). Solutons above or
below this optimum concentration become ineffectual. I suppose ethanol
behaves like wise.
Oh, I don't know what 10/60 means. Could it be "Contact time of 10
minutes at 60 degrees"?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:00:51 +0000
From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen@scronline.com>
Subject: More on Sanizers
Fred Johnson wrote in his commentary in HBD #3010 that Mr. Joy failed to
identify "IMHO" and direct quotes from G. Fix. Unfortunately, I'm in
California and all my brewing references are at my home in Virginia.
Iopologize to the consortium for my failure.
Ripley's "believe it or not" suggests that I am an analytical chemist
with specialization in laboratory quality control (microbiology,
chemistry, and pathology). Though not trained in the sciences other
than chemistry, I learned a great deal about preventative sanitation in
laboratories and abattoirs. I'm convinced that the findings and the
experiment presented by G. Fix are factual and that the conclusions are
appropriate for home brewer situations.
I guess all that can be done after all the saying is finished is to take
a swab of the surface and have it tested for viable organisms. I read
the book and I believe!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 16:23:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo@xnet.com>
Subject: distillation
Tony writes:
>My distillation experience (yes, it is legal here in New Zealand) to date is
>based on preparing simple sugar-only wort. From these, and run through a
>reflux condenser, I collect a very clean & tasteless vodka, which is ideal
>for creating liqueurs with, and adding to commercially available flavors.
That reminds me... please excuse the non-HB question...
A few days ago, there was a news story about a group of older guys
who ended up in the hospital... two (I beliveve) died. The reporter
said that initial reports suggest that they died from drinking
homemade moonshine. One relative said that it was common in that
Puerto Rican community for people to make moonshine from molasses,
white sugar and brown sugar.
Let us review the science once again... ethanol poisoning aside,
is moonshine any more likely to kill you than store-bought alcohol?
Also, methanol is impossible to make via fermentation of sugars, right?
Just checking my facts so I can blast the newspeople.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz@brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 16:31:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo@xnet.com>
Subject: fun
Alan writes, quoting Phil:
>"My friends, neighbours, relatives and even my wife and
> associated girlfriends think my beer is more special than
> any commercial versions available."
>
>Then I think you are already far, far ahead of anyone who can
>go on for hours about chemical compositions and reactions.
>
>Sure, I use an amount of science in my beer. But when the
>science begins to become more important than the beer - well -
>that's when I'll turn in my brewspoon and move on. Unfortunately
>I think there are a number of folks I've seen in here who
>are already well beyond that point IMO.
Why do you presume that the science is more important than the
beer for us who like the science? I find both science and beer
fun. I can go on for hours about chemical compositions and
reactions, but they are not more important than the beer to me.
If you think I'm passionate about the science, then you should
see how passionate I am about the beer!
I'd give up the science before I gave up the beer, but who says
I have to give up either?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz@brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:46:23 -0700
From: "Daske, Felix" <DaskeF@bcrail.com>
Subject: Nitrogen in Guinness; Beer Tower
In HBD #3011, Al Korzonas of Lockport, IL provides a compelling argument,
and a descriptive diagram, explaining why "atmospheric nitrogen had
something to do with the head [on a pint o' Guinness]".
[snipped some]
25% CO2 + 75% N2 -> =========\\
||
|| //=========== -> beer out
|| ||
------||-||-------
| || |
| N2 || |
| + || |
| CO2 || |
| || |
|~~~~~~~~||~~~~~~|
| || |
| beer || |
| + || |
| dis- || |
|solved || |
| gasses || |
| || |
| || |
------------------
Now, since N2 is virtually insoluble in the beer, then the "dissolved
gasses" in the beer are really virtually 100% CO2. I don't see how the
N2 can make it to the faucet until the keg is empty.
<<
Thanx, Al, for that clear explanation. Even
I <G> could understand that.
- ---------------------------------------------------
One good ASCII diagram deserves another(?)
I've got a query...
This my bar area (actually a rather large closet)
in our main living space. The closet is there,
and it currently houses the shelf unit and bar
fridge.
- ----------------------------------------------
| |/ | |
| | | |
| | /| |
| | / | |
| |/ | 2 tap |
| SHELF | | _ tower |
| | /| -| | |
| glass- | / | _| |_________|
| ware |/ | / | | COUNTER |
| | | /__ _________|
| wine | /| |_______________|__
| | / | | | |
| etc. |/ | | BAR FRIDGE | |
| | | | | |
| | |_______________| | |
| | / / | | 4'
| | / 4' | | |
| |/ / | | |
- ------------------------------------------------
|<----------------- 5' --------------------->|
I want to install a beer tower.
The bar fridge has a nice stainless front and is
sitting close to the front of the closet. There
is about 2' of open space behind it. I intend to
install a nice counter which will cover the fridge-
the tower will be attached towards the back. There
is room underneath for equipment.
I am in need of some guidance. What you
do not see, in the diagram, is that I intend to
run the hoses from the tower through the floor,
into the crawl space (5'11" but I can't call it a
basement). In the crawl space I will have a
temp. controlled freezer, for kegging.
I have yet to purchase the tower or the kegging
system. My lovely wife said that she would give
me her small freezer if I take her , and the kids
to Disneyland. Sounds like a deal <G>. I know, I
know, bad economics - but, you gotta admire
her support!
The distance for the hoses will be about 8',
which is also the rise of the beer. Is this
a problem? How about the regulator? I think
that this is something I will need to adjust,
from time to time. Should I be keeping the CO2
tank and regulator in the bar? Any thoughts?
kind regards, Felix
Fallen Rock Home Brewery (beer from the earth)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:10:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Shane Brauner <shane@UH.EDU>
Subject: Good use for a beard
Here's a story... From
http://cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/16/BC-LITHUANIA-RECORD.reut/index.html
Bearded Lithuanian lifts beer keg with his whiskers
April 16, 1999
Web posted at: 6:48 AM EDT (1048 GMT)
VILNIUS, Lithuania (Reuters) -- A Lithuanian brewer put his 32-cm long
(12.60 inches) beard to good use when he lifted a 41-kilogram (90.39 lb)
barrel of his own homemade beer, the daily Lietuvos Rytas reported on
Friday.
Antanas Kontrimas, from the Western town of Telshiai, was already
well-known in the small Baltic state for having Lithuania's longest beard.
The paper said that Kontrimas steeled himself for the challenge by downing
a pint of beer beforehand. He pulled off his feat in front of the cameras
of a morning television show.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:35:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Dunno!
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Al sez:
> Do you think my statement merited a QDA?
Dunno! What's a QDA?
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:50:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo@xnet.com>
Subject: sanitising oxygen-absorbing caps
Nathaniel P. Lansing writes:
>I spoke to a technician at one of the companies that manufacture
>oxygen scavenging crown caps. His comments were that the only
>good way to do it was with gamma radiation. Since the DOE permit
>process for maintaining a gamma source is cost prohitive, the only
>aqueous
>solution to use for sanitizing caps would be a sodium or potassium
>metabisulphite solution at 10%. The sulphite solution is a strong
>reducing
>agent and will not affect the oxygen scavenging ability of the caps.
Firstly, please refer back to my many posts in which I point out that
metabisulphite solution is not a sanitiser... bisulphite solutions
are only guaranteed to *inhibit* bacteria and yeast, not kill them.
Secondly, this goes against what the lead engineer of the original
oxygen-absorbing caps told me personally (on the phone). He
recommended bleach solution at a rate of 200ppm free chlorine or
iodophor at a rate of 12.5 to 25 ppm titratable iodine.
In my opinion, technicians at companies that manufacture crown caps
are more likely to be experts in mechanical engineering than microbiology.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz@brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 19:33:35 -0700
From: Sparrow <druid@princeton.crosswinds.net>
Subject: Re: Nitrogen head
but what if the keg were really like this?
>
>
> 25% CO2 + 75% N2 -> =========\\
> ||
> || //=========== -> beer out
> || ||
> ------||-||-------
> | || || |
> | N2 || || |
> | + || || |
> | CO2|| || |
> | || || |
> |~~~~~||~||~~~~~~|
> |beer || || |
> | & || || |
> |disso||l||ved |
> |gases|| || |
> | + || || |
> |bubbles || |
> |from || || |
> |dispensing tank |
> ------------------
Since in this configuration the gas in tube runs to the bottom of the keg,
some bubbles might be forced up thru the beer out line also. Perhaps
Guinness uses a different combination of internal keg plumbing?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:18:50 -0400
From: Alan McKay <amckay@ottawa.com>
Subject: Has anyone kegged Mead?
Is there anything special to do? I threw one
in the keg 2 nights ago - a Cherry Mead. Didn't have enough
time to bottle it before moving, so in it went.
Is it OK to leave the keg out of the fridge for extended
periods? I'm assuming that it is.
This one is a real whopper, too! It's easily full-strength -
a good 17% or so. Man, does it have a kick! And it goes
down smooth as a whistle, nice and fruity and lots of
honey flavour left in it. And it doesn't seem to hold
the carbonation for a long time, so you can pour a 4 oz
glass for sipping and when it's half gone, so is most
of the carbonation so there's just enough left to add
some balance to it.
Nice 'n' smooth ...
... and being served on moving day Saturday ;-)
cheers,
-Alan
- --
"Brewers make wort, yeast makes beer"
- Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 05:38:44 -0500
From: vee12@juno.com
Subject: Brew House
Howdy,
Does anyone on the list know of a source for plans to build a small
backyard brewhouse?
Butch V.
Dallas Area
___________________________________________________________________
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, 23 Apr 1999 08:38:26 -0400
From: Ed Choromanski <choroman@voicenet.com>
Subject: Improved my siphoning...
Hi All:
I am always looking at ways to shorten my brew day (which is normally at
night). I wanted to share, what I think might be an area of improvement.
Siphoning from the boiler to the fermetor, this is one area (for me) that always
takes longer that is should (IMHO).
In my system I have a 10 gal pot that is used as the boiler. For siphoning, I
use a homemade goose-neck cane (made of 3/8" copper) with a braided-stainless
steel loop attached to the bottom with a Tee. The braided hose works great at
filtering out the hops and break material but the flow rate always seems slower
that it should.
So on Wednesday night I tried an experiment. I was doing a double batch (5 gals
each but different recipes) so I would have to siphon twice. The first time I
did my normal procedure; whirlpool, let settle (10 min.) and siphon. This
resulted in 41 min. The second time, whirlpool and siphon (but continue to
whirlpool). Time to complete was 14 min. I immediate notice the flow rate
through the siphon was much greater than the previous batch (actually the
greatest that I have ever had). There appears to be no visually noticable
degradation in the filtering of the wort.
Since the above experiment was done with different recipes, this is far from a
solid conclusion and warrants further (and more controlled) testing.
I just wanted to share my experience with the collective and hope that this
small payment pays back what I have personally gained (from lurk mode) from
HBD.
Cheers,
Ed
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:09:19 -0400
From: Paul Haaf <haafbrau1@juno.com>
Subject: Recipe tried
The Irish stew recipe was very tasty. Even my wife liked it, and she
loathes beer. (This is not a bad thing, it means more for me 8-) ) I did
add peas to it, only because I had them, and I didn't have many carrots.
Oh yeah, I also used a crock pot instead of the oven. I just finished
the last of it off for breakfast. Keep the recipes coming.
Paul Haaf
___________________________________________________________________
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, 23 Apr 1999 11:45:38 -0400
From: woodsj@us.ibm.com
Subject: Grow your own Hops
Does anyone know where you can obtain hops to grow and harvest ? I've read
some recent
articles, not sure I want to get into it but I'm interested. The authors
seem to have a hop-farmer
connection and get cuttings from them. Are there any commercially
available hop vines ?
Any responses will be greatly appreciated.
Jeff Woods (WOODSJ@US.IBM.COM)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:37:19 PDT
From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil@hotmail.com>
Subject: Nitrogen dispense and draught dispense
Hello all!!
I would like to comment on the recent thread about nitrogen dispense.
I am going out on a limb and diputing Al K's post (I say out on a
limb because I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge, having
read many of his posts). Even though the swan neck of a beer engine
system quickly becomes immersed in the ale being dispensed, turbulence
mixes in alot of air. Because of the low amount of CO2 in the beer,
most of the gas in the bubbles is air. Since the gas in the bubbles
is air, and the gas outside of the bubbles is air, very little
diffusion occurs through the walls of the bubbles. This does two
things: First, the smaller a bubble, the greater the surface tension
of that bubble, so if a small bubble is next to a large one, the small
one tends to diffuse into the larger and so on and so on. Since
nitrogen diffuses slower than CO2, this coalescence occurs more
slowly. Second, since their is very little concentration gradient
between the gas in the bubbles and the atmosphere, the gas in the
bubbles does not tend to diffuse out to the atomoshere (this process
is very rapid with CO2 which is less than .5% of the atomoshere but
100% of the bubble gas in a conventionally carbonated beer). The same
principals apply to beers dispensed with nitrogen and CO2 mixtures,
except that the nitrogen is dissolved in the beer and is knocked out
of solution when it passes through the pinholes in the "guiness tap".
I hope that I have been clear, as I have tried to keep the length of
this post down. Happy dispensing!!
Adam
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:30:21 -0500
From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler@wilcom.com>
Subject: re:Mazer Cup pictures
Big thanks to Jason Henning for posting pictures of the Mazer Cup judging on
his website - it was fun to see everything and everyone.
By the way, the judging sheets I received back were some of the finest (ie,
filled out, legible, worthwhile comments, etc.) I have ever received back.
Many thanks to the judges for doing a fine job (even though I didn't win!).
Paul Kensler
Plano, TX
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:19:48 -0700
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Re: Where is 'unitconv'?
Finally getting caught up with my HBD email! Alan McKay asked the
whereabouts of something called 'unitconv' that converted "just about
everything under the sun." He was referring to the software utility that I
wrote called Craft Brew Unit Converter, which has an executable named
unitconv.exe (for Win95+/NT). It converts weight units, liquid volume
units, temperature, density etc. I think it's the most complete utility of
it's kind, but I don't really know what's out there in the world that I
haven't seen. Anyway, it's free. It's available at
http://www.proaxis.com/~mutex. Have fun!
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:18:36 -0700
From: kchris1@lausd.k12.ca.us
Subject: Over Carbonation = Acid Beer
HBD,
Im always learning something... Recently the topic
of over carbonating kegs leads to the beer taking on
some additional acidity. This appears to be in
agreement with my experience. However, I have
blamed the over acidity on adding too much lactic
to my sparge water or sparging too long. I couldnt
figure it out even though I was using pH papers and
a hydrometer.
Is it possible to fix the beer after becoming
acidic from over carbonating it? Fortunately, I
dont have any acidic beer on tapit is all tasting
great right now!!! I am interested in this topic
because I am not real good at getting the right
carbonation levels for the style of beer. This is
because I crash cool the beer once it is in the keg
and hit it with CO2
The last batch I made was a
stout. I put a pot of French Roast
coffee in the primary which added a
very nice coffee note to the beer.
Light carbonation helps let the flavors
through too.
Thanks for the info!
Keith
Chattsworth CA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:26:49 -0700
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Pot caramelization?
Anyone experienced with pot caramelization? I tried it for the first time
on a 90-Schilling Scotch Ale (from Noonan's book ... OG 1.076). Holy butter
caramel, Batman! I did like Noonan said: place boil pot on burner, start
sparging, turn burner on high, turn burner off when wort is deep enough to
be just boiling instead of caramelizing, then finish sparging. Maybe Noonan
doesn't have a 160kBTU propane burner, but man did that hot pot BONG and
BANG while that wort went into it! I sped up the sparge so it was hosing
out pretty fast and killed the propane when it got about 1 1/2" deep in the
pot, then slowed the sparge to normal rates and finished up. My question
is: Has anyone else done this? How did you do it and what were the results?
Mine is finishing up in the primary right now, so it'll be awhile before I
find out my results, but I was curious in the mean time....
Brian
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3014, 04/26/99
*************************************
-------
