Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3301
HOMEBREW Digest #3301 Mon 17 April 2000
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:
The Science and Art of Brewing ("Alan Meeker")
Dr. Cone question ("Alan Meeker")
re: ring around the neck // science vs art (Jeff McNally)
Yeast Q's- Dan Listerman- Dr. Cone ("Rob Moline")
Yeast Q's- Micah Millspaw-Dr. Cone ("Rob Moline")
heating, cooling and water stuff (Jim)
Re:water source ("Doug Marion")
RE: Iodophor (Robert Arguello)
Belgian Trippel (Ted McIrvine)
6th Annual 8 Seconds of Froth (Paul Dey)
Re: Trip to San Francisco (Sandra Cockerham)
PrimeTabs (Bruce & Amber Carpenter)
Re: picnic tap/faucet as inline valve (Jeff Renner)
Beer engine parts... (Some Guy)
chiller turned flusher ("steve lane")
Aerobic Yeast Propagation ("Fred L. Johnson")
Re: "caramelly flavors" (Jeff Renner)
Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout ("Mike Pensinger")
Curious Australian Life Forms? ("Phil & Jill Yates")
Water ("Sean Richens")
Re: "caramelly flavors" (Jeff Renner)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* 18th Annual Oregon Homebrew Festival - entry deadline May 15th
* More info at: http://www.hotv.org/fest2000
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:16:21 -0400
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: The Science and Art of Brewing
Greetings. Well, looks like the old "Beer Brewing: Art or Science" thread
has once again risen from the dead. To those who insist that the process of
brewing beer should not be scrutinized too closely I humbly submit the
following quote from Richard Feynman which I think does a good job of
capturing the essence of why many of us scientists love to dissect things
the way we do...
"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I
don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it
is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how
beautiful a flower is. But you, a scientist, take it apart and it becomes
dull." I think he's kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people - and
to me, too, I believe. Although I might not be quite as refined
aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. But at the
same time, I see much more in the flower than he sees. I can imagine the
cells inside, which also have a beauty. There's beauty not just at the
dimension of one centimeter; there's also beauty at a smaller dimension.
There are the complicated actions of the cells, and other processes. The
fact that the colors in the flower have evolved in order to attract insects
to pollinate it is interesting; that means insects can see colors. That adds
a question: does this aesthetic sense we have also exist in lower forms of
life? There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a
knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe
of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
-R. Feynman from "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"
-Alan Meeker
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:53:27 -0400
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Dr. Cone question
Here's another for Dr. Cone: In your opinion what is the best long-term
yeast storage method available to amateur brewers? We have heard much
discussion about the pros and cons of frozen storage in glycerol, storage
under distilled water and various salt and/or buffer solutions as well as
beer, etc. It seems no clear consensus has emerged from these discussions.
-Alan Meeker
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:00:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff McNally)
Subject: re: ring around the neck // science vs art
Hi All,
In HBD #3297 "cbuckley" writes:
> ...I bottled them about a month ago. Every week I go grab one (or
>two) of each to try. I want to learn how beer conditions in bottles so I like
>to sample them frequently to check for improvement. Two days ago I noticed
>that both batches are developing a ring on the neck (insert - expletive).
>Clearly we all know that could be an infection. I have made seven batches of
>beer. this is my first sign of trouble.
At about the same point in my brewing, I too noticed the "ring around the
neck" on most/all of my bottled beers.
I discovered what I believe to be the cause quite by accident.
I always bottle one beer in a clear bottle so that I can check out things
like clarity and color as the beer conditions. After a few batches, I started
re-using bottles that had previously held homebrew. Even though I had double
rinsed these bottles right after emptying them, they had a very noticable white
"film" inside them only up to the fill level.
I had thought that a soak in dilute bleach followed by a triple rinse with my
jet bottle washer would not only sanitize my bottles but clean them as well.
As I was getting ready to bottle one day, I noticed that one of my clear
bottles still had this film on it's inside surface even after being "cleaned
and sanitized". From that point on I started using a bottle brush on every
bottle, every time I cleaned and sanitized them.
Since then (many batches later) I have not seen this film on cleaned and
sanitized bottles, nor the "ring around the neck" on any of my beers.
Coincidence? Maybe, but I dont think so.
"cbuckley" also writes:
> ...is an infection, is it likely to get worse in these bottles? What's the
>best course of action? Should I just dump them?
I never really noticed any *drastic* flavor impacts that I could correlate
with the "ring around the neck", but my beers did seem to stay fresher and
cleaner tasting for longer amounts of time after I got rid of it.
The only course of action is to prevent it from happening in the future.
As far as dumping these batches: NO, don't do it! Never dump a batch until
you KNOW its bad and it's not going to get better.
+++++++++++++++
It seems that the never ending art/science thread is back again.
Please keep in mind the following: brewing, as with any worth while endevour
in life, follows the "90/10" rule. That is, 90% of your effort will be spent
reaching the last 10% of your goal. Many people that are regulars on the HBD
are reaching for that last 10% (or 1%, or 0.01%) in their brewing.
Or, as John Palmer states it in his "How to Brew Your First Beer" guide:
"Brewing Beer is simple and complicated, easy and hard. Compare it
to fishing - Sit on the end of the dock with a can of worms and a
cane pole and you will catch fish. Going after a specific kind of
fish is when fishing gets complicated."
And I'll add: going after a world record of a specific kind of "fish" is
when you need to turn to the science behind the art (and the HBD), but you
don't need to if you are content simply "goin' fishin'".
Hoppy brewing,
Jeff
==========================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250
Naval Undersea Warfare Center email:
Systems Development Branch mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW:
Newport, RI 02841-1708 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:56:55 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: Yeast Q's- Dan Listerman- Dr. Cone
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeast Hydration, Infusion Mashing and England
My question to Dr. Cone regards yeast rehydration. All the packages of
yeast contain instructions for rehydration yet they all ferment just fine
without it. I have to believe that such a procedure may be theoretically
beneficial, however it would seem to be margionally usefull at least on a
homebrew scale.
I own a home brew shop and a very common phone call is the " My beer is not
fermenting." problem. I go through the list of potential causes ( plastic
bucket lid leaks, too cold, ect.) About twice a week the caller will
indicate that he rehydreated the yeast. This is a strong signal that the
yeast has been damaged and will need to be replaced. I have come to the
conclusion that, since rehydration is not necessary to ferment beer
properly and there is a strong chance that the yeast will be damaged in a
botched rehydration, it is not desirable to recommend such a proceedure.
Just how important is rehydration and is it worth the risk?
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com 72723.1707@compuserve.com
Dan,
I appreciate your dilemma It is a universal problem for those that market
Active Dry Yeast.
Let me give you some facts regarding rehydration and you can decide for
yourself where you want to compromise.
Every strain of yeast has its own optimum rehydration temperature. All of
them range between 95 F to 105F. Most of them closer to 105F. The dried
yeast cell wall is fragile and it is the first few minutes (possibly
seconds) of rehydration that the warm temperature is critical while it is
reconstituting its cell wall structure.
As you drop the initial temperature of the water from 95 to 85 or 75 or 65F
the yeast leached out more and more of its insides damaging the each cell.
The yeast viability also drops proportionally. At 95 - 105 F, there is
100% recovery of the viable dry yeast. At 60F, there can be as much as 60%
dead cells.
The water should be tap water with the normal amount of hardness present.
The hardness is essential for good recovery. 250 -500 ppm hardness is
ideal. This means that deionized or distilled water should not be used.
Ideally, the warm rehydration water should contain about 0.5 - 1.0% yeast
extract
For the initial few minutes (perhaps seconds) of rehydration, the yeast
cell wall cannot differentiate what passes through the wall. Toxic
materials like sprays, hops, SO2 and sugars in high levels, that the yeast
normally can selectively keep from passing through its cell wall rush right
in and seriously damage the cells. The moment that the cell wall is
properly reconstituted, the yeast can then regulate what goes in and out of
the cell. That is why we hesitate to recommend rehydration in wort or
must. Very dilute wort seems to be OK.
We recommend that the rehydrated yeast be added to the wort within 30
minutes. We have built into each cell a large amount of glycogen and
trehalose that give the yeast a burst of energy to kick off the growth
cycle when it is in the wort. It is quickly used up if the yeast is
rehydrated for more than 30 minutes. There is no damage done here if it is
not immediatly add to the wort. You just do not get the added benefit of
that sudden burst of energy. We also recommend that you attemperate the
rehydrated yeast to with in 15F of the wort before adding to the wort.
Warm yeast into a cold wort will cause many of the yeast to produce petite
mutants that will never grow or ferment properly and will cause them to
produce H2S. The attemperation can take place over a very brief period by
adding, in encrements, a small amount of the cooler wort to the rehydrated
yeast.
Many times we find that warm water is added to a very cold container that
drops the rehydrating water below the desired temperature.
Sometimes refrigerated, very cold, dry yeast is added directly to the warm
water with out giving it time to come to room temperature. The initial
water intering the cell is then cool.
How do many beer and wine makers have successful fermentations when they
ignore all the above? I believe that it is just a numbers game. Each gram
of Active Dry Yeast contains about 20 billion live yeast cells. If you
slightly damage the cells, they have a remarkable ability to recover in the
rich wort. If you kill 60% of the cell you still have 8 billion cells per
gram that can go on to do the job at a slower rate.
The manufacturer of Active Dry Beer Yeast would be remiss if they offered
rehydration instructions that were less than the very best that their data
indicated.
One very important factor that the distributor and beer maker should keep
in mind is that Active Dry Yeast is dormant or inactive and not inert, so
keep refrigerated at all times. Do not store in a tin roofed warehouse
that becomes an oven or on a window sill that gets equally hot.
Active Dry Yeast looses about 20% of its activity in a year when it is
stored at 75 F and only 4% when refrigerated.
The above overview of rehydration should tell you that there is a very best
way to rehydrate. It should also tell you where you are safe in adapting
the rehydration procedure to fit your clients.
Clayton Cone.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:57:18 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: Yeast Q's- Micah Millspaw-Dr. Cone
From: "Micah Millspaw" <MMillspa@silganmfg.com>
Subject: Clayton Cone question
Mr. Cone,
I would like to hear your opinion on
oxygenation vs. aeration of wort for
the purpose of:
1. yeast propagation (increasing biomass)
2. normal yeast fermentaion (just making beer)
By aeration I mean the use of atmospheric gases
in the naturally occuring varieties and volumes.
Oxygenation being the use of almost pure oxygen.
Micah Millspaw
Rob,
Excuse the delay in replying. Yesterday was not my day. Flying stuffed up
my eustachian tubes and I was off balance all day. My head is on straight
today.
Clayton
Aeration as you define it is satisfactory for both yeast propagation and
for just making beer. Air is cheap, after you have paid for the delivery
system: compressors and filters. Since air is only about 20% oxygen and not
all of the O2 dissolves as the bubbles pass through the wort it takes much
larger volumes air than pure O2 to achieve the 7 - 8 ppm dissolved O2. This
added volume is desirable for yeast propagation because it sweeps out the
excessive CO2 that can become toxic to the yeast growth. This system also
need a metering device to deliver about 0.1 volume of air / volume of wort.
It is not easy to over aerate with air.
Pure O2 is simple to deliver. It can operate off of pressure and time or
for large operations, and can be calibrated by weight difference in the
cylinder before and after
delivery. It is easy to over oxygenate when using pure oxygen. Yeast do not
have tolerance to high concentrations of oxygen in the brewing environment.
7 - 8 and sometimes 12 ppm is satisfactory for most brewing yeast to
multiply the 3 - 4 times that is optimum for brewing;
For your interest:
Life was simple once upon a time. It was believed that yeast plus sugar plus
nutrients with air (O2) = biomass.
Yeast plus sugar plus nutrients with out air (O2) = alcohol. In recent years
this was found not to be entirely true. When the sugar level is above 0.1%
, the mitochondria bodies are effected in such a way that no matter how much
oxygen is present the yeast wants to produce alcohol instead. This is called
the Crabtree effect. Only a trace amount of oxygen is now required to
produce lipids which act as a growth factor. With no oxygen present no
lipids (fatty acids) are produced. The lipids in the pitched yeast share
their lipids with the daughter cells which in turn share their lipids with
their daughter cells. Soon there are no lipids to share and no more growth.
This problem is then compounded by the fact that lipids also act to protect
the cell wall against alcohol toxicity as the alcohol level increases. The
lipids can deplete to such a low level that the cells can be stunned and
even die at 3% alcohol. With sufficient lipid levels, and proper nutrients,
the yeast can tolerate up to 20+% alcohol. The Guinness book of records for
alcohol produced in a beer fermentation is 23%.
Repitched yeasts are usually very low in lipids and are very sensitive to
inadequate aeration or oxygenation. Active Dry Beer Yeasts are originally
very high in lipids and tolerate inadequate aeration or oxygenation. Active
Dry Beer yeasts contains about 5% lipids (dry basis). After one doubling
each daughter cell will have about 2.5% lipids. Their daughter cells will
have about 1.25% lipids. Their daughter cells will have about 0.75% lipids.
At the 0.75% level the yeast would struggle to reproduce one more time
unless Oxygen is supplied to allow the yeast to produce more lipids.
It is not practical, but the optimum time to add the oxygen is at about the
14th hour into the fermentation. The yeast have multiplied to the point that
the lipids are about depleted and the cells are hungry for oxygen . At this
point the yeast uses the oxygen more efficiently. That is why in commercial
breweries that require several preparations of wort to fill the fermenter,
the fermentations go so well. The second and third additions of oxygen rich
wort are added at the time that the yeast needs the oxygen the most.
In the highly aerated propagation fermenter at the yeast factory, the wort
feed is controlled at a rate that never allows the % sugar in the fermenter
to get above 0.1%. This allow almost 100% conversion of the sugar to be
converted into yeast biomass and CO2 (plus an enormous amount of
energy/heat).
Hope that I have not told you more than you wanted to know.
Clayton Cone
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:00:04 -0400
From: Jim <jimala@apical.com>
Subject: heating, cooling and water stuff
Stephen Lane writes:
"I know the flames are coming that I am increasing my boil time by stealing a
few BTU's out of the boil kettle but this sure has saved me clean up time.
As cool as this system is... I then do research and find that I have built
nothing more than a HERM's... is everything already invented and I just
haven't found it yet?"
In a word, probably. And before _you_ think of it, here's another type of
system:
http://home.ptdprolog.net/~jimala/brewery/
Of course I thought I had invented this, but it turns out someone else got
there first, I _think_ Stephen Cardinal, but I may be wrong about that.
In a related(?) subject, I have found that the simple act of shaking one's
immersion chiller gently in the cooling wort decreases the time required to
cool it dramatically; before I 'discovered' this, my cooling times were on
the order of 30 minutes, or even longer; since I started moving the chiller
to and fro my wort cools from near boiling to 70F in 5-10 minutes ( I have
nice cool well water, 45-50F year round). This technique would of course
be difficult to do with a built in immersion coil in the boiling vessel. :)
I don't think I need to point out that cleaning an immersion cooler is much
easier than cleaning a counter-flow chiller.
Jeff Beinhaur writes:
"I'm curious if anyone has used a natural source for brew water such as a
creek or lake? I'm assuming some type of boiling and/or filtering would be
needed to eliminate micro-organisms that may exist."
<humor>
Pardon me for asking, but is there an UN-natural source for water?
</humor>
I briefly considered doing this some years ago and decided against it; I
think the cost factor put me off, but I don't remember the details.
Anyways, it sounds like more trouble and expense than it is worth; you
will probably need to filter out whatever larger stuff is floating in it,
and boil it and/or carbon filter it to remove/kill microorganisms. Not to
mention removing any muddy turbulent matter. And you will need to
physically move the water from the source to your brewery, by pump or by
carrying it. On the other hand, if your tap water is truly awful, it might
well be a good alternative. I would want to have the water analysed by a
lab to see how aggressively ( and in what ways) it needs to be treated, and
go from there.
Everyone here at the HBD playground seems to playing nicely together
lately; even Phil Y and Dave B are almost civil to one another. Wonder
what it means?
Cheers, Jim
Jim's Brewery Pages:
http://home.ptdprolog.net/~jimala/brewery/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 18:04:32 MDT
From: "Doug Marion" <mariondoug@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re:water source
Jeff Beinhaur asks about anyone using natural water sources such as lakes or
streams for brewing.
I live in Boise Idaho and have the Boise River that runs right through town.
I have without question made my best beers using the water right out of the
river. I take those blue 6.5 or 7 gallon reliance water containers to the
river above town (before any pesticides,irrigation runnoff, or any other
pollutants from town can enter the river) and fill the containers right out
of the river. Silt, algae, critters and everything.
I have made beer with this water without boiling first and also by boiling
first and can tell no difference. I have had beers make it to the second
round of the AHA NHC and score well using this water straight from the
river. This isn't the cleanest water around either but its better than my
city water. This was a real eye opener for me. That I could use skank river
water and brew award winning beers with it WITHOUT a preboil.
I just think that most everything gets filtered out in the mash/sparge
process, and then anything left gets killed in the boil. So go for it Jeff.
It might just make the best beer you've ever made.
Doug Marion
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:22:48 -0700
From: Robert Arguello <robertac@calweb.com>
Subject: RE: Iodophor
ON Thu, 13 Apr 2000
Dennis Templeton WROTE regarding my article on iodophor...
- --= http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/iodophor.htm
- --= This is certainly a good writeup, and Robert's conclusion that
- --= rinsing after using proper concentrations of iodophor is well
- --= justified. He notes that tasters can detect the iodine diluted in
- --= water, but not in beer.
Thankyou for the compliment Dennis, but with all due respect, I think you
need to re-read the article. Your statement above [seems to] suggest that I
recommend rinsing after sanitizing with iodophor.
I did state that the testers could detect iodophor in distilled water at 4
TIMES the "normal" amount that would occur by using the product without
rinsing or even "air-drying", but that none of the testers could detect
iodophor at TWICE the "normal" contamination. I also noted that even at
EIGHT times the norm, testers could not detect iodophor in SNPA. My
conclusion was that rinsing is not necessary and neither is "air drying" if
the carboy/equipment is well-drained before use.
Please refer to the article for am explanation of how I arrived at the
phrase...
"normal contamination".
- --= This raises the point that may be lost on some users and not
- --= discussed in the report. The iodine in iodophor reacts with proteins
- --= (and nucleic acids) and thus is effective as a disinfectant only in
- --= low protein solutions, e.g water.
Sorry, but I did identify "protein loading" as the #1 culprit in reducing
iodophors' efficacy. Also listed was chlorine, sunlight and exposure to
air. I can't imagine that anyone would try to use wort or some other
high-protein liquid to make a working solution of iodophor. Proteins and
the other factors listed all contribute to the degradation of the working
iodophor solution. Even unused, a working solution of iodophor should be
discarded when the amber color fades or after 24 hours...whichever comes
first, to be assured of effectiveness.
ON A SIDE NOTE: I am often asked if storing a working solution of iodophor
in corny kegs will extend its life, or if using distilled water would help.
The answer is sure..to some degree, but just how cheap are we? It only
costs a few cents to mix up a 5 gallon batch of iodophor. Who cares if we
can get an extra day or two out of it?
- --= Don't think that adding the "right
- --= concentration" of iodophor to a dirty carboy (or god forbid wort)
- --= will do much good. The iodine will be consumed by binding to the
- --= "dirt" (proteins) and little or none may be left to disinfect. In
- --= other words, clean well, then disinfect.
You are correct and I explicitedly explained in the article that iodophor
is NOT a cleaner and that proper cleaning is essential beforehand. Iodophor
will denature a host of living micro-organisms on contact.... but, if the
article is not cleaned well and completely free of organic material, the
material itself will shield much of the micro-organism population from the
sanitizer.
Robert Arguello
http://www.calweb.com/~robertac
robertac@calweb.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 21:40:55 -0700
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Belgian Trippel
Belgian Trippel 5 Gallons
12 lbs DWC Pils, 1 lb DWC Wheat
Mash in with three gallons and stabilize at 145 f
My water is similar to Pilsen water, so I add 1 tablespoon Water
Crystals (Gyspum and Magnesium); adjust for your water but using
Magnesium is recommended.
Infusion, Mashout at 170, sparging from 170-180 to collect 6 gallons
0.5 Kilo Light Candi Sugar at beginning of boil
My preferred hopping is 1 Oz Perle or Northern Brewer boil,
(the German-grown Northern Brewer is nice here!)
1/2 oz each of East Kent Goldings, Hallertauer, & Saaz at 30 minutes.
I like the WYeast Trappist and Abbey strains (sorry I don't remember the
numbers), others like the Belgian Strong Ale Strain which doesn't seem
to flocculate as much. I have had less satisfactory experiences
fermenting with these yeast strains below 60 f, both in terms of lack of
esters and inadequate attenuation.
My OG is usually around 80 and it usually finishes around 15-17.
Cheers
Ted in NYC
Brian Dixon." <briandixon@home.com> and someone else inquired:
> > P.S. Anyone have a favorite all-grain Belgian Trippel recipe?
>
> Yes ... Please post it here! Now that the local temps are getting up to 70
> or so, I want to do a "back room Trippel" ... a good recipe would be great!
>
> Brian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:14:08 -0600
From: Paul Dey <alldey@uswest.net>
Subject: 6th Annual 8 Seconds of Froth
The High Plains Drafters of Cheyenne, Wyoming invite you to enter our
annual homebrew competition, the "8 Seconds of Froth". We are
committed to carefully evaluating all entries with experienced judges
and providing quality feedback to entrants. Check out our web site at
http://www.vcn.com/~bbriggs/8sec2000.html
Entrants will be judged according to the most recent BJCP guidelines
(8/99). Entries are due between June 1 and June 13 at the address
listed on our web site.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Apr 2000 22:50:42 -0700
From: Sandra Cockerham <cockerham@justice.com>
Subject: Re: Trip to San Francisco
Hi fellow brewers,
I know this was from a week or two back and hope
this info isn't too dated...
I am currently in San Francisco and can
offer a bit of info on the local beer scene.
I have previously popped into Twenty Tank
and do plan to return to quaff some of
their excellents brews. It is a neat place
with great beer, plus my old Twenty Tank
t-shirt has just about fallen apart from wear!
I am happy to stay I am at this minute, staying
at a location just off Haight St.
about halfway in between the Magnolia Brewing Co.
and the Toronado. I may lunch
at the Magnolia tomorrow. I enjoyed it
my last trip here and my SFO resident sister
really enjoys going there. As for the Toronado,
well, all I can say is that when
the bus taking me downtown goes past there,
I get thirsty thinking off all the great
beers they have there! That is a "must do"
for a beer geek visiting SFO.
This time, I visited the new Protero
Brewing Co. and found their beers to be pretty
good. Their pale ale was sort of a SNPA clone.
The wheat reminded me of the Broadripple
Brewing Co. hefeweizen back home in Indianapolis,
it was well received by a member
of my party. The stout was creamy and I
believe served on nitro, but was closer
to a sweet stout (not my fave) but nonetheless
a good brew. Food was great. (they
also had an IPA and an ESB on tap Other
selections rotate.)
Not far from that brewpub is the Anchor
Brewing Co. This time, I did not plan to
tour the facility. Note, if you plan to
call and get on their tour, you must call
FAR in advance. My first trip here, I
called well over a month in advance and couldn't
get on. I called when I arrived and the
tour was still full. If it were not for
the great George Fix, I wouldn't have been
able to get in (and no, I won't share
the secret!) If you can get in, it's a great
tour and the beer at the end is really
swell!
I was planning a return trip to Thirsty Bear
Brewing Co., but my sister nixed it,
saying she had gone back a time or two
after my last visit and was not as pleased
by the place. Of course, your visit might be different!
Finding myself on the other side of the bay
today, I ventured into the Pacific Coast
Brewing Co. Sadly, I found their beers not
as good as before. Several of their beers
had a very strong diacetyl note running through
them. The stronger ones could pull
that off, but their house ale just couldn't.
The beer that would have most benefitted
from diacetyl, didn't have it. A bright
note in my beer adventure was the Hoptown
Red. I enjoyed a pint of this local microbrew.
The Beach Chalet Brewing Co. was good during
my last visit, but I may not have time
to visit this time. I have never been
pleased with the San Francisco Brewing Co.
offerings, often finding the lagers to be
full of DMS or receiving beer with obvious
lactic contamination. Hopefully they will
someday get the quality up as it is the
neatest old historical bar!
I have had numerous beer travels and the
only town to give this one a run for the
money for great beer adventures is New York
City.
Best of luck to anyone visiting SFO. There
is great beer to be enjoyed !
Good luck and great beer!
Sandy
_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http:///www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 07:27:46 -0500
From: Bruce & Amber Carpenter <alaconn@arkansas.net>
Subject: PrimeTabs
I just took advantage of the free PrimeTab offer shown here recently, and
was wondering about anyone's experience with this product.
Thank you.
- --
Bruce Carpenter
541 Crestwood
Camden, AR
bcarpenter@appleonline.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 08:50:21 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: picnic tap/faucet as inline valve
I wrote:
>you can use
>this as an in-line valve by stuffing a hose in the spout
Actually, I guess I most often stretch the hose on the outside of the
spout. Depends on the ID and OD of the hose.
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, 15 Apr 2000 09:06:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: Beer engine parts...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Well, I won a beer engine in an eBay auction. And <SOB!> it's broken. The
person I bought it from will take it back for a full refund, or send me a
partial refund to keep it and fix it. My preference is to keep it (they're
pretty hard to come by at reasonable cost for such an ornate one!), but my
problem is this: I can't find the company: Southern Industries, Croydon,
Limited. I need one of the clamp screw assemblies and the head to the pump
cylinder. The cylinder carries a label stating "Beer Engine Cat No 608
(Standard)"
If anyone is aware of how I can contact Southern Industries, or have a
spare catalog I can use, please contact me. It would be great if I found
that they have a web site I can deal through.
Thanks!
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@hbd.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 08:09:38 CDT
From: "steve lane" <tbirdusa@hotmail.com>
Subject: chiller turned flusher
>I, however, did enjoy great success with mine (the
>chiller part anyway) and wonder what our differences could be.
The difference is 34 feet of tubing. I only used 16 feet as that is all I
had laying around. This 16 foot coil does a great job of what I have asked
of it now. I still prefer the CF style.
I only use leaf hops and it does take a little scrubbing to get it all clean
but in the boiler but the clean up time of the pump and tubing system is
well offset.
I have two PID controllers on this RIMS. One in the HLT and one in the mash
tun exit manifold. The mash tun PID controller has the capability to do
step/ramp/hold operations, ( 16 total). My element is a 4750 watt @ 240
volt running on house current. After the wattage is knocked down by running
on 110v, will this element, by itself, be able to make the ramps in the
required 20 minutes? The system is very typical 3 keg, 2 tier, 10 gallon
batch system.
On the subject of strike temp., I have a palm pilot and the "pilot brewing
freeware" program asks for thermal mass of the tun. What is the thermal
mass of an A/B 1/2 barrel keg?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 18:04:23 -0400
From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Aerobic Yeast Propagation
Yeast question for Dr. Clayton Cone:
I understand that in aerobic yeast propagation the goal is to provide
a continuous supply of oxygen and glucose to an actively growing,
non-fermenting culture in order to maximize biomass and minimize
(eliminate) ethanol production. To do so one must provide glucose so
that the concentration of glucose in the culture never exceeds about
0.4% (w/v). Otherwise, the yeast will shift into fermenting the
glucose. Thus, one must continuously infuse glucose at a rate that
matches its utilization, which I assume increases exponentially as the
biomass increases exponentially. (Please correct me if I am wrong on
any of the above.)
The best means of controlling the glucose concentration in the medium
would be to continuously monitor the glucose concentration in the
culture and to adjust the glucose infusion rate accordingly. However,
without a means of monitoring glucose concentrations, I would like to
estimate the rate of glucose utilization of the culture from published
literature values and infuse accordingly. Can you (or anyone else)
provide me the approximate rate of glucose utilization for an aerobic,
non-fermenting culture in the log phase of growth, assuming doubling
times of 2 hours?
I assume the units would be something like moles glucose/min/g biomass
or moles glucose/min/million cells.
- ---
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina
USA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:10:27 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: "caramelly flavors"
Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Phil those "caramelly flavors" as you call them and darkening with
>the lid off during what you term a "high boil" is what I was talking about.
>I doubt you would see much of a difference if it were not that oxygen
>weren't having an effect.
A pertinent (and not impertinent, which there is an awful lot of around
here sometimes) observation - I often can a quart or two of leftover wort.
This is after I've aerated by cracking the outlet fitting so it draws
bubbles into the pump while I'm recirculating the cool wort as it gets down
to low 50's for a CAP. The atmosphere canned wort darkens a bit, and
pressure canned wort darkens a good bit more. I don't know how much of
this is due to the dissolved O2. I thought that melanoidin producing
Maillard reactions (good things, I think) are between proteins and sugars,
and do not involve oxygen, so this darkening could be due th this and not
to any oxidizing reactions.
An interesting sidelilght, even though I get decent (not great) hot break
in the kettle, which is pretty well filtered out by the hop bed, I always
get a good deal more hot break in the canned wort, especially the pressure
canned sort. Anyone know why? I'm I not getting enough break in the
kettle.
Also, does anyone know how best to inoculate this canned wort with
Clostridium botulina? (That's a joke, son, a joke!).
>The flavors produced are not appropriate at all
>for most light, rice based lagers ( which I also enjoy) but maybe not too
>bad in beers with lots of other flavors.
I think a little of the malty flavors that I think are produced in the
kettle boil (and cereal cooker) are nice in a CAP, including a rice CAP,
but not if done to excess. I wouldn't want to distress the billiard ladies.
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, 15 Apr 2000 22:03:28 -0400
From: "Mike Pensinger" <Beerlvr@hrfn.net>
Subject: Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout
This is one of my favorite Stouts and was wondering if anyone of the
collective could point me at a good recipie to make a clone. I am looking
for an all grain version without using any candy type chocolate.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Pensinger
beerlvr@hrfn.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:17:46 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates@acenet.com.au>
Subject: Curious Australian Life Forms?
Jim Verlinde is having trouble understanding things "down under". But Jim,
isn't everyone on the HBD a bit odd? Let's give it a run past.
At one end we have the likes of Steve Alexander. His scientific mind thirsts
and hungers as it devours endless new literature in a never ending quest for
answers. What is going on in that mash tun? What is going on everywhere? Why
doesn't Stevie Hawking take up homebrewing and help me out?
At the other end you find obnoxious folk like me. The only thirsting I do
mostly relates to the homebrew I have in my hand as I sit out here on the
verandah belching and farting and reflect on all the things I think I read
in yesterday's HBD. It is here that I conjure up visions of a 30 lb lighter
Fouch prancing about in his tutu. Despite what Fred says, I know Eric wears
it more often than not. He'd go well with Marilyn who I can now just make
out crawling from the muddy waters of the duck dam to give me yet another
night of torment. I've gotta stop drinking this stuff!!
Alan Meeker has written us a patronising little piece all about how he was
battling with all sorts of brewing problems. Struggling to come to terms
with it, he had turned to science to help him see the light. Now things are
getting a little bit better for him. Honestly Alan, you are going to make us
weep. But for the fact that I know your views on religion, I was going to
suggest for you a new career.
But not to worry, quick as a flash Paul Niebergall collectively put together
what everyone else was thinking when he summed up for Alan :
>Why punish us for the shortcomings that you perceive
>in your beer?
I have to give top marks to Paul for his post, I nearly fell off my chair
laughing.
Back at the Lakes District, an excited Jeff Renner could hardly get his
pants on as he raced out the door to catch the next flight west and arrived
at Burradoo train station. Fully equipped with his new cue stick and red
carnation he was waiting for a lift in the ute. Unfortunately I was on the
other side of the continent that day and a dejected Jeff (with Fred Garvin
in tow) returned to Michigan without so much as a sniff of rice lager nor a
glimpse of the scantily dressed ladies. Next time Jeff, ring me before you
leave home.
With so many odd bods, it is not surprising there is always a scuffle going
on in the HBD. It's not that much different to the kindergarten my little
girl Phoebe goes to, though there the children are better behaved.
But all this keeps the HBD sparking along, and it helps that massive head of
hair of Pat's part company with his scalp. Sometimes naturally and sometimes
in clumps as he forcibly pulls it out.
I don't think Jim it is fair to single me out, though at times I must admit
I wonder. At the age of three, Phoebe got up one morning and with an angelic
face told me:
"Daddy, you are a big turd".
"My God" I thought, "she's been reading the HBD".
Either that or she listens too much to her mother!
Cheers
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:38:34 -0500
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens@sprint.ca>
Subject: Water
I'm not posting to start any controversies, although it might happen anyway,
but I've just been on a course courtesy of my employer and learned amazing
stuff about water treatment chemistry and want to share the brewing-related
stuff.
For the record, I've become obviously enough water-obsessed through brewing
that when the need arose for a water chemistry guru, I got the job. The
course was offered through the International Society of Pharmaceutical
Engineers, taught by someone with 25 years' experience building water
treatments systems for pharmaceutical and semiconductor plants.
The highlights:
- carbon removes chlorine or chloroamine by a catalytic process, not by
adsorption. They do eventually get deactivated by soaking up organic
miscellania, but don't "fill up" with chlorine.
- if you have chlorinated water, effective removal requires a flow of 2-3
USGPM or less per cubic foot of carbon. With chloramine, this has to be
reduced to 0.5 to 1.5 USGPM or less per cubic foot. Nearly all
municipalities in the US and Canada using a surface water source are
switching to chloroamine for microbial control.
- the point of chloroamine is that it is slighlty less active than straight
chlorine, so can adequately control bacteria but won't react with
miscellaneous organic compounds. The driving force is the increasingly
tight limit on THMs (chloroform, essentially) which are produced by the
reaction of chlorine with whatever. Now I understand why I haven't had any
chlorine-related off-flavours even though I don't do any dechlorination.
Chloroamine is just less prone to reacting with wort components (my
interpretation, not the course instructor's).
- Carbon does encourage bacterial growth by removing chlorine and collecting
organic matter. If you boil everything, that doesn't matter as long as the
water doesn't taste "off", but if you want low bacterial counts and the
housing can take it, your best bet is a weekly flush with water at 80
degrees C (176 F) - I would flush a bit and then try to hold for about 1
hour, then flush it a bit more. Sodium hydroxide (5% or so) can also work
but is a pain to rinse out.
- You can also remove chlorine or chloramine with sodium metabisulphite, but
without further treatment (reverse osmosis or deionization) this is probably
not very relevant to brewers. If you are also making wine, just make sure
you add enough sulphite to leave a residual after it reacts with the
chlorine.
Your municipal water folks should tell you whether they are using
chloroamines or not, and you might as well ask where the water comes from,
because it helps debug water troubles.
I'm curious to hear what others think about not bothering to remove
chloroamines. As I said, I haven't had phenolic off-flavours, and now I
think I know why.
Sean Richens
srichens.spamsucks@sprint.ca
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:45:18 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: "caramelly flavors"
Brewers
I wrote regarding additional hot break in canned wort:
>Anyone know why? I'm I not getting enough break in the
>kettle.
I meant to write , "Am I not getting enough break in the kettle?"
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3301, 04/17/00
*************************************
-------
