Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3026
HOMEBREW Digest #3026 Mon 10 May 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:
sterilizing bottles (Jeremy Bergsman)
malted spelt (colorart)
How to clean a Sanke keg? (Joy Hansen)
The plastered thread . . . (Joy Hansen)
buffered yeast storage (Scott Murman)
Homebrew legality (Cory Chadwell Page Navigation)
Weizen (ensmingr)
Furry Projectiles In The Night ("Phil & Jill Yates")
Guestimating centrifugal forces. ("Dr. Pivo")
Late Note For The Doc ("Phil & Jill Yates")
Cylindro-conical fermentor ("Charles Beaver")
RE: converting a keg to a boiling pot (LaBorde, Ronald)
Re: spud caca (Jeff Renner)
saltwater, islands, and beer down under ("Dr. Pivo")
Sanitizing O2 barrier caps/bottles (Dean Fikar)
Plastic Conical Fermentor (John Elsworth)
Lawn Mower Beer ("glyn crossno")
Enzyme Kinetics ("Stephen Alexander")
Dave Burley and the Chinese Connection (Secret Squirrel)
Prag (Alan McKay)
RE: Legalized Homebrew (Steve)
site guages and unboiled wort ("C and K")
When best to dilute beer and how?! ("Coordinator")
Competition results (Adam Holmes)
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: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:25:34 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: sterilizing bottles
> Joy replies: " Your premise that water cannot exceed 212 degrees Fahrenheit
> is absurd! Think about it. Water is seldom boiled at one atmosphere due to
> weather conditions and elevation throughout the United States. Possibly the
> 250 degree temperature inside my pressure cooker with water and the air
> exhausted is a myth created by scientists and the United States Department
> of Agriculture Extension Service to make extra work for home canning
> efforts?
Not sure if you're trying to bait me, but if you read my post carefully I
think you'll see that I know that 212F (which I actually didn't mention) is
the boiling point at 1 atm. While I do distrust scientists, I in fact do
mention 250F as the (implied) autoclave/pressure cooker temperature.
Obviously I should have spelled it all out explicitly.
> You haven't yet convinced me that dry heat is any better than a clean bottle
> rinsed with a properly prepared sanitizer solution and drained dry or rinsed
> with potable water.
For someone so concerned that the oven may not sterilize it seems odd to imply
that homebrew sanitizers are just as good, especially with a water rinse. In
any case I was in no way comparing dry heat to a sanitizer, but to a pressure
cooker. And when I did I didn't say it was more effective, just easier. I
thought you were the one saying that one was better than the other. I will
go on record as saying that I think the oven *is* more effective than the
sanitizer/rinse, although I won't bother to try to convince you. I also
happen to think it is easier because I do it days, weeks, or months before
I bottle and then I have the bottles ready to go when I have a chance to
bottle a batch. Of course your alternative method may be easier for some
people.
Possibly I should make a more explicit layout of my opinion to allow the
slings and arrows a better target (courier, no tabs, you're welcome):
Technique Advantages Disadvantages
- --------- ----------------------------- --------------------------------
Sanitizer Low total effort, can be done Must be done at the last minute
at the last minute Nonsterile (especially w/ rinse)
Dishwaser Lowest total effort (?) Must be done a bit in advance,
Bottle right on dishwasher but cannot be done greatly in
door advance
Nonsterile (but pretty good)
Oven May be done in advance More work than above methods
No special equipment
High throughput
Sterile
Pressure May be done in advance Low throughput
Cooker Sterile Must have a pressure cooker
Slightly less total time than Most total work (due to low
oven method throughput)
> Jeremy, does your technique terminate heat resistant spores and
> thermophiles? You may have revolutionized the entire food industry and
> the medical accessory sterilization industry. :)
According to my text (Medical Microbiology--An Introduction to Infectious
Diseases, 2nd Ed., Ed by John C. Sherris, 1990, pg. 173) dry heat for 2
hours at 160C (a bit less than the 350F I use) is a sterilizer. I
acknowledge that this is not the most authoritative book for such a subject
and if you can cite a source that this is not the case then I'm all ears
(or I guess it's "eyes").
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 99 10:48:20 -0000
From: colorart@spiritone.com
Subject: malted spelt
Subject: malted spelt
Sent: 5/7/99 10:45 AM
To: Post@hbd.org
Hello!
I'd like to brew up a beer using malted spelt. I'm wondering if anyone
on here has tried this, what kind of results they had and what advice
they'd give. Also, I'm wondering where to get malted spelt. And,
finally, if it's unavailable, how to malt spelt. Any information, even
if it's only to point me to a source would be greatly appreciated.
Any personal e-mail with regards to this is more than welcome.
Thanks!
-Matt Hollingsworth, Portland OR
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 12:25:34 -0400
From: joytbrew@halifax.com (Joy Hansen)
Subject: How to clean a Sanke keg?
Joe Gibbens wrote: "Does anyone know what the brewing industry uses to
clean stainless steel fermenters? I'm looking for a readily available
caustic that won't leave
a residue and can be used to clean areas that are inaccessible to
scrubbing."
Hi Joe and other interested HBDers,
My assumption is that you are using a legal stainless steel keg as a
fermenter. If so, then read on. Otherwise, page down!
"THE FOLLOWING, IF EMPLOYED, IS DONE SO AT THE FABRICATORS OWN RISK AND
LIABILITY."
I've converted several kegs to be used as fermenters. These are convenient
for my use because my batches are 8 to 10 gallon and the 1/2 barrel Sanke
type kegs fit in my beer cooler so I can attempt to control the fermentation
temperature.
This said, I found it nearly impossible to clean the inside of the keg and I
couldn't really see where I'd missed with the brush when I used a mirror
that would fit through the fitting. The rubber stopper blow off tube
combination in the irregular opening was difficult to seal and clean. The
decision to open the top of the keg was easy. Accomplishing the task was
something else. I drilled around the keg fitting with nitride tip drills
and eventually broke out the fitting. Then, I traced the outline of a corny
keg closure on top of the keg with the drilled opening in the center of the
outline. The vertical shoulder on the corny lid must just fit the finished
opening. The excess metal is removed with a bimetal equipped saber saw and
a rotary file. A plasma cutter would make this a few minutes job. PLEASE
USE SAFETY GLASSES AND SOME TYPE OF DEVICE TO PREVENT STAINLESS STEEL SHARDS
FROM ENTERING THE LUNGS.
My experience is that kegs can be obtained in at least two older
constructions. It is necessary that the area around the cut opening be
relatively flat and smooth so a corny lid "O" ring will seal. The plastic
capped kegs are SMOOTH and seal well without much additional metal
reforming. However, depending on the skill and tools of the operator, some
of the rubber (stainless steel plate inside the rubber) must be cut to fit
the corny lid lock lever. An easy task if a rotary file is available. The
all metal kegs must be hammered smooth with an anvil inside the keg. The
fabrication of a sealable opening takes some time; however, it can be done.
To modify the corny keg lid, I leave the relief valve in place and drill/cut
ca a 7/8 inch hole in the lid. The actual size of the hole in the lid is
determined by the clear PVC one chooses for the blow off. At least one inch
in diameter! The hose is routed with two hose barb elbows to hug the keg
top and side and ends in a small bucket of sanitizer.
The spring lock of the lid must be modified (the legs shortened). Pull the
plastic caps off and cut about 3/16 off and replace the caps if the keg type
is all metal. The plastic top kegs require a bit more skill to fabricate an
acceptable lid lock.
Of critical importance is the selection of the corny lid "O" ring.
William's Brewing in Hayward, California sells a special "O" ring which is
larger in diameter and of softer composition. This "O" ring conforms easily
to the imperfections of the fabricated opening in the keg.
This conversion works for me and I keep track of the fermentation rate
through the activity in the blow off receiver. My arm is small as compared
to many home brewers? However, I can reach to almost the center line of the
keg. This allows use of a scrubber along with hot PBW to remove much of the
after fermentation debris. The large opening allows visual inspection of
the interior and easy recleaning if necessary.
As to the original question, I'm sure there are a multitude of HBDers have
specific answers to your question about cleaning fermenters. IMHO,
industrial keg cleaners use CIP cleaners/rinses injected into the siphon
tube and out the gas inlet of the keg opening. Other home built keg
cleaners use a converted dishwasher that has the tower entering the opening
(with the siphon apparatus removed). There are adequate reference articles
published about the use of these alternatives.
Joy"T"Brew
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 13:35:00 -0400
From: joytbrew@halifax.com (Joy Hansen)
Subject: The plastered thread . . .
OK Alan,
As the originator of the sheet rock thread, I feel qualified to interject a
couple of FACTS:
1. The yeast was ready, everything else for the brew
day was ready, except as I discovered the calcium sulfate.
2. The nearest brew store is 2 - 3 hours each way.
The local Wal Mart is 10 minutes away.
3. The choice was not economic in the sense that the
plaster of paris is cheap as compared to food grade gypsum.
4. To save the brew day, I resorted to using "fast
setting plaster of paris" from the children's hobby dept. of Wal Mart. I
guessed that there couldn't be anything toxic - lead, chromium, etc. in the
formulation because a child might eat or drink the stuff.
5. I wasn't aware of the iron content that might be
in the product - no ingredient label.
6. As a plastered home brewer, my health is as can be
expected by anyone drinking alcoholic beverages - known to forget to examine
the brewing inventory closely, known to cause birth defects, known to impair
the ability to operate lawn mowers, and known to be the leading cause of
accidental pregnancies!
Warning, the foregoing is strictly the opinion of Joy"T"Brew and the use of
HBDer's reply comments is intentional!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 11:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: buffered yeast storage
For various reasons I'm going to be slowly moving towards adding a
buffer to my sterile water yeast storage. I decided to use potassium
phosphate monobasic, and I'll be using this at a 2% solution following
Dave Whitman's initial experiments. Since I store my yeast in 2 dram
vials, adding the weight of phosphate to each vial isn't practical. I
can either store a larger volume of solution and fill the vials
individually, or I can process a whole load of vials at once. I'd
prefer the former. How much risk for contamination is there when
storing plain 2% pH 4 buffer solution (sterilized) for several months?
Are there guidelines for this type of thing? I don't have a
microscope, so periodically checking for bacteria is out.
-SM-
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 May 99 14:05:12 -0500
From: Cory Chadwell Page Navigation <chadwell@ssd.fsi.com>
Subject: Homebrew legality
Brian Kurl wrote...
>>>>>>>>>>
>From what little I have read from Idaho law, homebrewing was not
illegal. Homebrewing was just not statutorily recognized. A subtle
difference but an important one. In the other states listed, is homebrewing
illegal or just not statutorily recognized?
>>>>>>>>>>
Living to brew here in Oklahoma my understanding is that I can brew 100 gal.
per person, but I can't transport it anywhere. This is information given to
me by the owner of a HB supply store. Also you can buy those goofy "Mr. Beer"
kits in stores like Homeplace or Bed, Bath and Beyond so I don't think it
could be that illegal.
If it actually is illegal in some way to brew here in Oklahoma I would be
interested to hear from some of the grassroots people in other states, about
the process for legalizing homebrewing in a state.
Brian also asks...
>>>>>>>>>>
By the way, does illegal homebrew taste better that legal homebrew?
>>>>>>>>>>
Simple answer, I'm pretty sure mine does taste better :)
Cheers, Cory
Possibly Bootleggin' in Oklahoma
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 16:55:56 -0500
From: ensmingr@npac.syr.edu
Subject: Weizen
I partially agree and partially disagree with mark@awfulquiet.com's
recent
HBD post on "Weizen". I agree that one typically pours the yeast
sediment of
a Weizen into the glass (and said so in HBD 3023-17
http://www.hbd.org/hbd/archive/3023.html#3023-17 ).
However, I disagree that the "usual" definition of Weizen is the type of
wheat beer that is from around Berlin. In Germany and several other
European
countries, the term "white" is applied generally to beers made with
wheat,
presumably because such beers produce a thick, white, foamy head. Thus,
we
have Weisse in German, Wit in Flemish, and biere blanche in French. In
Baden-Wuerttemberg (where I lived) and the rest of southern Germany,
when you
want a Hefe Weizenbier, you can order a "Weisse" or a "Weizen". You will
never be given a Berliner Weisse. In Germany, Berliner Weisse is only
made in
Berlin and maybe one or two other northern German cities and is not
widely
available outside of the cities where it's made.
For a reference, see *Michael Jackson's Beer Companion*.
Cheers!
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 19:55:09 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates@flexgate.infoflex.com.au>
Subject: Furry Projectiles In The Night
Dr Pivo, I can tell you uric acid will not improve your beer. Not that
you asked but I can also tell you the critical velocity for a cat occurs at
15000 r.p.m.! How do I know this and why would a homebrewer care?
Sometime back I was experimenting with open fermentation. The brews at
first were great but suddenly the flavour profile changed notably.
Scientific analysis revealed traces of uric acid. The source was not easily
determined but several sleepless nights later, crouched behind a barrel in
the brewhouse I observed the cause. The neighbour's pesky cat had taken to
finding his way in and committing the unthinkable in my open fermenter! The
cat and I had never really seen eye to eye but this was an act of unprovoked
insolence! I was not in a good mood! The cat was persuaded to leave the
brewhouse by the extremity of his tail. A rapid rotation was commenced. At
precisely 15000 r.p.m. several astonishing things happened.
1/ The dreadful howling ceased.
2/ The cat vanished into the night air.
3/ I was now swinging a catless tail.
Taken out of context you may say the discovery of this speed has no
relevance to homebrewing. It's not mentioned in any of Charlie's books.
However in my case it greatly improved the flavour of my beer!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 13:51:22 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv@wireworks.se>
Subject: Guestimating centrifugal forces.
Phil and Jill Yates apparently have collectively done some bold
experimentation. There are, however a few "points", that I think they
may be missinterpreting:
> I can tell you uric acid will not improve your beer
Certainly not without the gyprock, and I never meant to imply that.
> . A rapid rotation was commenced. At
> precisely 15000 r.p.m. several astonishing things happened.
> 1/ The dreadful howling ceased.
> 2/ The cat vanished into the night air.
> 3/ I was now swinging a catless tail.
I would like to remind you that this is just *one* data point.
According to "BS&BS", maximum acceptable cat revolutions are attained at
5000 rpm. I would wonder how accurately Jill and Phil were measuring
rotational speed. Without a well calibrated cat tachometer, these are
deceptively hard things to accurately measure. We are well aware that at
speeds exceeding the "acceptable level", a vortex is created around the
cat's rectum, creating a vacuum, and they implode.
I am also wondering how certain Jill and Phil can be that the howling
really ceased. Many people confuse the howl of a cat with that of a
cockatoo, and not meaning to be insulting or anything, they may just
have a raised threshold for cat howling, and didn't hear it.
I give courses in "recognizing the sounds of tortured animals", and had
you attended one, you might have realized that the sound was still
there. I am giving such a tutorial next weekend and we are up to "W",
and will be exploring the sounds of run over warthogs, drowning wombats,
and electrified wallabies. Should Phil and Jill care to wait until we
get back to "C", they are perfectly welcome.
One things for sure, they won't have missed anything, as we will be
repeating the same material over, and over, and over, and over.....
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 23:01:42 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates@flexgate.infoflex.com.au>
Subject: Late Note For The Doc
Now I don't wish to pit my scientific wit (or lack of) against that of the
good Doc. It's not that I didn't learn anything at school, more to the point
I just didn't listen! All those years ago it was never explained to me that
all this science was going to help me make good beer. Nor was it ever
explained just what happens to a cat at high r.p.m. But putting all of this
aside let me at least respond to some assumptions from Doctor Pivo.
Confusion at our wedding? There was no confusion then and there isn't any
now. I wear the pants around this house! So long as Jill doesn't mind.
Diacetyl is found off the coast of NSW. Rubbish!! There ain't nothing out
there but salt water.
The cat must have imploded! Here the Doc is assuming I never pursued the
fate of my neighbour's much loved cat.
Now listen Doc, If you're going to be over this way September next I
needn't waste any more of this precious electronic ink. You can help me fix
the holes in the walls. We can swing a few cats and cockatoos on the roof
and see what really happens. And best of all you can show me how to get
Jill's name off my transmission title so it doesn't look like every thing I
write is in tandem.
Cheers, Phil and Jill Yates!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 08:12:03 -0500
From: "Charles Beaver" <cbeav@netnitco.net>
Subject: Cylindro-conical fermentor
I am considering moving up to a 12.5 gallon stainless cylindro-conical
fermentor (CCF), but I have a few questions I hope someone can answer for
me. Is the entire fermentation conducted in the CCF? By that I mean is there
a primary fermentation and then a secondary in another vessel? Do I keg
directly from the CCF? At what point is trube removed? Is there a concern
about also removing yeast? Private e-mail is fine. TIA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 08:26:52 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: converting a keg to a boiling pot
>>>
From: JPullum127@aol.com
my brother recently bought(legally!) me a keg from a brewery that is
structurally sound but has a damaged valve and will not hold pressure. i
would like to cut off the top and use it for a boiler. i have a friend who
teaches welding at a community college and has access to a plasma cutter.
does anyone have a faq or specific info on the best way to do this...
<<<<
Many people will recommend using a sawz-all, or some kind of cut-off
grinder, etc, but a Dremel motor tool with the fiber cut-off wheel works
great. You can sit down in a chair, and using 3 or 4 wheels, about 30
minutes, and a pint of beer, you will have a nicely cut out top. Use a
little heavy grit sandpaper on the edge, and you will have a very smooth
opening.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 10:35:23 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: spud caca
Cory Chadwell <chadwell@ssd.fsi.com> asks some questions about his potato
adjunct cream ale. While I've never mashed potatoes, the procedure should
be similar to other adjuncts.
>I brought to boil about 8# [sliced] spuds and 1# 2row inside on the
>kitchen stove.
Did you mash this first at ~150F? This is normal cereal mash procedure.
See archives for the reasons, but I think there were convincing arguments
that it has benefits for handling. This might have avoided the slow
sparge, although I don't know. A proper cereal mash turns very liquid
before your eyes. I don't know haw much dry material there is in 8 lbs of
potatoes, but with corn or rice, you sould use about 1/3 as much malt as
adjunct. Perhaps you could have used more malt.
>It has quite a bit of starch haze that I'm
>hoping will clear with time.
You shouldn't have to accept this. I'm not sure what caused it, but there
have been many reports of success without starch haze in potato beer.
>
>I was wondering is this the same procedure you would use for rice or
>polenta?
>Also my spuds basically turned to mashed potatoes in the mash causing a very
>slow sparge. Is this expected when brewing with adjucts like rice and
>corn or
>is this specific to using the spuds.
This is the real reason I felt I should answer - here is my area of
experience. An adjunct mash uses some malt, as you did, but then you mash
before boiling the adjunct. You then have a thin mash to add to the main
mash, at least with corn.
I think that with some adjustments, you ought to be able to make a beer
you're even happier with.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 18:19:52 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv@wireworks.se>
Subject: saltwater, islands, and beer down under
> Diacetyl is found off the coast of NSW. Rubbish!! There ain't nothing out
> there but salt water.
... and I was quite certain that it was part of the Whitsundays.
On the other hand, I'm thinking of signing up some HBD contributers for
a dive trip leaving from Port Douglas.
You can come along as we send them off.... just so long as you can't
count either.
> We can swing a few cats and cockatoos on the roof
> and see what really happens.
Just as long as you don't forget the cattle prods and the wombats.... I
expect a complete experiment here.
Speaking of beer, been out to Picton?
The only pub I've ever been in, where one of the workers (who had
cattle) brought in a plastic bag full of cow flops, for her co-worker
who had an undernourished pashion fruit plant at home. The bag sat on
the bar through the whole shift..... aw, only in Oz... I luv it!!
Since the pashion fruit owner's ex-hubby was Czech, I taught her to say
(spelling errors a many->) "eshti e sem se po spenatu neposral", or
loosely, "it hasn't happened yet that I've crapped myself with
spinach"... a phrase I've found to be quite a "door opener".
If you do get to Picton, let me reccomend the light and the lager, half
and half. The bock is nice, but at a strength that will require you to
book the "bridal suite", which is within stumbling distance of the
bar.... and say hello to "Dave" for me, the guy polishing the copper
kettle and chasing Pediococcus with a fly swatter.
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 12:16:56 -0500
From: Dean Fikar <dfikar@flash.net>
Subject: Sanitizing O2 barrier caps/bottles
My $0.02 on the recent sanitizing threads...
What I do with the O2 barrier caps is spray them with a 70% EtOH
solution just before capping. Even though the contact time needed is
supposedly 10-15 mins., I suspect there is some benefit to this,
particularly if you don't let the beer come into contact with the cap
for a few minutes after capping (i.e. by not tipping the bottle). This
is a little more problematic when CP filling from a keg and capping on
foam (to decrease air in the bottle) as is my custom when not doing the
usual priming routine.
As for sanitizing bottles, I use a bottle tree with a spray washer
mounted on the top in which I pour about 2 cups of Star San solution and
give each clean bottle 2-3 hard squirts and leave them to drain on the
tree for a few minutes while I get the other stuff ready to go. I don't
bother rinsing the bottles since I can't taste or smell the Star San
anyway. Star San foams like crazy so I only fill the very bottom of the
spray reservior. Star San is great stuff and truly is, for me at least,
a no rinse sanitizer (insert standard disclaimers here).
I've done about 20 batches this way and have had no problems so far (as
I knock on wood X 3).
Dean Fikar
Ft. Worth, TX
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 15:14:01 -0400
From: John Elsworth <jdelsworth@snet.net>
Subject: Plastic Conical Fermentor
Over the past few months there have been several inquiries about the
experience that hbd-ers have had with the plastic conical fermentors
that are now available. We bought one of these a couple of years ago,
with its stand, and we have done several batches using it. It was from
South Bay Homebrew Supply (no affiliation etc):
http://members.aol.com/aconical
Below are what we found to be its advantages and disadvantages (not in
order of importance).
Description
6.5 gallon, cylindrical upper section with conical bottom, with 2 holes
on the top surface (a large raised hole which has plastic cover, and
smaller one for air-lock), and drain tap at the bottom. The drain is
threaded and come with a screw-in adapter that has a barbed end so that
tubing can be attached. It comes with option stand, which we bought. It
cost about $35 in all.
Ideally we wanted to be able to collect yeast during, or at the end of
the fermentation, so that there would be no need for a separate
secondary. Also to be able to transfer from the fermentor without
siphoning.
Pros.
1. Lightweight
2. Virtually non-breakable
3. Easy to clean - you can get your arm in!
4. You can remove cold-break early on, if you are able to get to it
before the primary kicks up. This may be especially useful if you use a
counter-flow chiller; we use an immersion chiller usually.
5. You can transfer rapidly from this fermentor without siphoning.
6. You can collect yeast, to save and use in a subsequent brew.
7. The fermentor is quite narrow (12 inches diameter, by about 33 inches
tall in its stand without airlock), so it can fit in many fridges. This
can be useful, for example, if your yeast is not ready for pitching, or
you want to bring the yeast down fast (keep a brown ale slightly
sweet?), or for lagering (which we never want to do, however).
Cons.
1. More expensive than standard glass fermentor.
2. It is opaque, so you can't see the fermentation activity or clarity
of the contents. However, it is possible to make out when there is a
head and how much yeast deposit there is.
3. It is not possible to remove all the yeast at one go in a small
volume. When the tap is first opened a good thick stream of yeast
emerges; however, after that there is a relatively large volume (very
rough estimate of at least 0.5 gallon) of cloudy beer, before clear beer
comes out. If only the thick stream of yeast is collected, the fermentor
can be swirled a bit to bring down the yeast that has collected on the
sloped sides of the container, and then this can be drawn off at a later
time - this reduces the volume of beer that is wasted. Another approach
is to draw off small amounts of yeast regularly instead of letting it
accumulate too much, although this involves more work, of course.
So, its suitability really depends on what you want to use it for (e.g.,
just a primary fermentor, or a combined primary-secondary fermentor, or
a way to collect yeast etc).
Presently, we use it for small or split batches, which are usually are
somewhat concentrated, and are diluted later. Otherwise we use a 12
gallon Pyrex carboy as the primary fermentor, and use two 6 gallon Pyrex
carboys for secondaries, before kegging.
Cheers!
John Elsworth
Bret Morrow
Hamden, CT
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 15:57:29 -0500
From: "glyn crossno" <crossno@tnns.net>
Subject: Lawn Mower Beer
Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com> told us about his Apricot Wheat
sometime last year. I pulled the recipe, converted to all grain, and
have now brewed it several times. As a straight up beer it is good and
most people like it. Brewing in 12+ gallon batch sizes I like to bottle
some straight, some I prime with a ginger tea, and some I secondary with
fruit. But just about any way you brew it it turns out nice. Also if
you desire, pump it up with a shot (2+ lbs.) of honey.
Category : Fruit Beer / American Wheat
Method : Full Mash
Starting Gravity : 1.053
Ending Gravity : 1.013
Alcohol content : 5.1%
Recipe Makes : 12.0 gallons
Total Grain : 26.00 lb..
Color (srm) : 8.4
Efficiency : 66% (I got impatient with the homemade mill)
Hop Bus : 18.6
Malts/Sugars:
3.00 lb. American Crystal 20L
16.00 lb. American Two-Row
5.00 lb. Belgian Wheat
2.5 lb honey if desired
Hops:
3.00 oz. Hall. Tradition 4.6% 60 min
Desired Grain/Water Ratio: 1.1 quarts/pound
First Mash Temperature: 157F
Second Mash Temperature: 168F
There you go.
Brew a good one.
Glyn Crossno, Estill Springs, TN
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 20:27:15 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Enzyme Kinetics
Matt Brooks asks about mixing and enzymes ...
>My understanding of the Michaelis-Menten (M-M) equation is that it
>represents a [see HBD #3025.
]
Yes - nice description. Looking at it as the rate of product formation with
increasing substrate concentration - it starts at (0,0); then (almost)
linearly
increases (1st order) as the substrate concentration increases; then as the
substrate concentration increases further the rate of product formation
"rolls off" to a peak flat value (zeroeth order). The peak represents the
maximal rate at which the enzyme can act under the test circumstances - it's
an enzyme limitation, not a lack of substrate.
My previous point (which is often overlooked) is that water is every bit as
much a substrate as starch. In fact water is a substrate for al the
amylases, glucanases and certainly most of the proteases & peptidases.
>Could the kinetics of this enzyme-substrate complex be improved by the
>addition of a mixer (or mash recirculation), [...]
The answer is that mixing helps, but not because it somehow bypasses the
M-M relations. If the enzymes and the substrates (and all conditions) are
evenly distributed throughout the mash (or distributed by the random
processes called Brownian motion) then mixing won't help at all.
If they are not evenly distributed (more starch over here - and more water
over there for example) then the M-M relation still applies to each domain
separately and the total activity is provably less that if mixing took
place.
In a mash, in practice, the enzymes are in solution fairly quickly, but not
all the starch is. The enzymes are involved in degrading insoluble granules
of starch (mobilizing an immobile substrate). Mixing undoubtedly helps here.
Also in real world mashes - the temperatures are not uniform and at the hot
spots more enzymes are denatured, but more starch is gelatinized. Mixing
helps here.
A secondary effect of mixing is shear forces from pumps and mixer blades can
denature enzymes and some commercial brewers are concerned with this (see
HBD archives for detail). The RIMsers among us have demonstrated that even
these relatively high shear force systems can be used and they still get a
completed mash - so maybe the shear-denaturing issue isn't so critical.
>Would the addition of a mixer (or recirculation) also aid in getting
>water molecules in contact with the enzyme-substrate complex
Generally not after the first couple minutes of mixing when the concentrated
enzymes & water become evenly distributed in the mash. Of course as more
starch becomes available you'd like to mix that with the water & enzymes ...
>It seems that in a static mash bed the reaction of the enzyme with the
>substrate would not occur as quickly (efficiently?) as in a mixed or
>recirculated mash?
Right - but because of the non-uniformity of heat, starch concentration etc.
Continued mixing wouldn't help a starch+enzyme uniform solution for example.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: 9 May 1999 03:10:23 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
Subject: Dave Burley and the Chinese Connection
This has only slight beer content, for which I apologize in advance. But a guy
who recently defended his tendency to proclaim the "facts" in response to
uninformed speculation in this forum, has painted a bullseye between his eyes,
and I couldn't resist the invitation to open fire.
Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com> wrote:
>In China ( where I've spent more time than in Eastern Europe - where "bier" is
>well understood), the word for beer is "beezho" in most of China I visited
>and "beezhwer" in the Beijing area dialect.
You've misinterpreted what you thought you were hearing. Many dialects of
Chinese are spoken in China. The "official" dialect (the Guo Yu, or national
language) is Mandarin. The Mandarin words for "beer" are Pi Jiu. It's
pronounced roughly "Pee Joe". Jiu = wine, but various kinds of spirits are
all called "jiu". Mandarin speakers from the area of Bei Zhing do tend to add
a buzzing "R" to the end of lots of words. Speakers of Mandarin not from the
Bei Zhing area may pronounce it without the buzz. The spoken words for beer
in dialects *other than* Mandarin (I can't say, as I'm only familiar with
Mandarin) are potentially something completely different.
>Bayzhing is the new name for what used to be called Peiping, and Peking,
>depending on the politically correct linguistic era and who was in control
>politically at the time.
Bayzhing isn't the name for anything. Bei Zhing (pronounced Bay Jing) is, and
has been for thousands of years, the name for the northern capital of China
(Bei=North, Zhing=capital). The varied spellings through history have nothing
to do with politics. They are due to the fact that the Chinese spoken
language originally had no alphabet to represent it, and westerners (Chinese
too, for that matter) in trying to transliterate Chinese using a western
alphabet, came up with schemes that left something to be desired in capturing
the sound of the spoken words. Each creator of a new system (Wade-Giles, Yale,
PinYin) sought to improve on the previous system, thus the changes in spelling
over the course of time. Older maps of China tend to reflect Wade-Giles
spellings of place names.
>The northern Mandarin has a lot of ZH sounds in it and perhaps the rise of
>Chinese domination in the north (Mao and his gangs) versus earlier British
>domination in the south ( where the Chinese symbol for Beijung would likely be
>pronounced without the zh sound in the Shanghai or Hong Kong dialects)
>prompted this change in the accepted pronunciation in Western translations.
That's nonsense. There has been no change in "accepted pronunciation"; there
has been an evolving series of attempts to use Western alphabets to represent
the Chinese spoken language. People in the southern areas of China tend to
speak their own dialects (Cantonese, etc.), and not Mandarin at all, unless
they have been educated to speak the national dialect.
Since the Chinese had no alphabet, the British came up with the Wade-Giles
system for transliterating Chinese words. They chose to transliterate Mandarin
instead of other dialects, because Mandarin was the language of the royal court
and educated Chinese in general. Mandarin was later to become the "official"
national language as decreed by the communists. In the Wade-Giles system, Bei
Jing is spelled "Peiking" because there is no "B" in the system. There is only
*P* (unaspirated, pronounced like a "B") and *P'* (aspirated, pronounced like
a "P"). For some bizarre reason, there is no "J" in the Wade-Giles system
either. "K" was used instead. Thus the captial of China was transmogrified into
"P'eiking", but that has nothing to do with the pronunciation, which was always
"Bay Jing". The ignorant (not necessarily stupid; I said ignorant) not knowing
the vagaries of Wade-Giles, when seeing "P'eiking", pronounced it just like it
was spelled - "Payking".
When the Chinese finally came up with their own transliteration system
(PinYin), they decided on "Zh" for "J", (thus Bei Zhing), probably to reflect
the tendency of speakers in the northern capital area to lend a "zh"
sound to "j". But to my ear, most Chinese speakers pronounce "zhing" as
"jing". I get a big laugh out of Ted Koppel, et. al. trying to wrap their lips
around the "zh" sound when "jing" is perfectly acceptable and would be
understood by almost any Chinese.
In case you're wondering, I was taught Mandarin Chinese by native (born in
mainland China) Chinese. I won't cite any weighty tomes in my defense. I'm
solidly on the side of those in this forum who rest on their personal
experience.
You the man, Dr. Pivo. Let your light shine down.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 23:53:11 -0400
From: Alan McKay <amckay@ottawa.com>
Subject: Prag
In prague go to the square with the old astrological
clock. There are several good beer places within staggering
distance. Also, on either end of the Charles bridge is
great. Go to the end with the old square museum for a nice
little basement pub with excellent black beer.
Get the black beer in Prag. "Pivo" is beer.
"Tchorny" is "black".
I have more details if only I weren't just getting off
a big move, I'd probably be able to find my notes. The
hari-krishna restaurant is actually a pretty decent
spot. And up on the hill in the castle is a really
neat resto-bar that will knock your socks off. And
while up there see the Kafka-house.
It's pretty cool in Prague. Email for more tips.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
"Brewers make wort, yeast makes beer"
- Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 00:57:54 -0500
From: Steve <steves@ro.com>
Subject: RE: Legalized Homebrew
Brian Kuhl asks:
By the way, does illegal homebrew taste better that legal homebrew?
Yes. Yes it does.
OK, maybe not. I haven't tasted any legal homebrew.
Steve Stripling
Huntsville, AL
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 03:51:37 -0700
From: "C and K" <Cuckold@cornerpub.com>
Subject: site guages and unboiled wort
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 11:53:31 -0500
From: "Poirier, Bob" <Bob_Poirier@adc.com>
Subject: Re: 1st Allgrain
Greetings!
I posted this question a few months ago, but never got any responses.
Scott, I notice that you've got a site gauge installed on your kettle:
Should there be any concern that the wort that fills the site gauge is
never boiled along with the main volume of the wort??
Hi Bob. Good point. I would have to defer to someone in the know. This
is my first batch (second in the works).
There are so many variables involved with brewing. My level indicator
holds perhaps 1/2 pt. of wort. It was hot to touch, so would just have to
presume that that portion of the wort was pasteurized. I'm not nearly as
aghast to this as the little dead bug found during the racking!
Prost!
Scott
Richland, Wa.
3000 miles west of somebody.
Seldom correct...but never without doubt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 10:39:08 -0400
From: "Coordinator" <emcreg@one.net>
Subject: When best to dilute beer and how?!
I know more is better, etc, etc, but I would like to bring a miss calculated
1.070 beer in primary (OG) down to target of 1.056, or so.
Just completed my third all-grain recipe - a honey porter. Think I put
in to much honey. Before the honey it was at 1.049, threw in 2# honey last
15 minutes of boil. OG=1.070. It tastes great though, pronounced honey
flavor but not too much.
According to NCJHB about 10% more water should bring down OG about 0.005.
I only have about 1.25 gallons worth of space in the 6.5 gal primary in
which it now sits. Will be throwing in 1 gallon of water to bring down to a
comfortable gravity. When should I attempt this and how?
At transfer to secondary with 1 gallon of boiled water?
Thanks
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 15:26:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: Adam Holmes <aaholmes@lamar.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: Competition results
I am a newcomer to brewing competitions. I've noticed a trend in the
posting of results:
1) We usually see how many people entered the competition
2) We see who won 1st, 2nd, 3rd place in each category
Why don't they take it one step further and post:
1) the scores that each beer got
2) how many beers were entered into each category
I entered my barleywine into a comp and got good feedback on my judging
forms and that is the most important thing that a comp can provide.
However, I didn't see how my beer stacked up against the rest. I wasn't
hungry for a ribbon. I was just curious how many people entered the
Belgian category vs. the Pale Ale categoryor? Was I in 4th place or 40th
place in my category? What was the average score of a 1st place beer?
I understand the people who run these competitions are probably already
overworked and this data entry would require more work but some people may
find this info interesting.
What does the collevtive think?
Adam Holmes
Cell and Molecular Biology
Colorado State University
aaholmes@lamar.colostate.edu
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3026, 05/10/99
*************************************
-------
