Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3314
HOMEBREW Digest #3314 Tue 02 May 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:
Re: Brewing Forgiveness ("Robert A. Uhl")
Re: Nice (Stupid) Blokes (David Lamotte)
re: H2O2 good uses, and possible less so. (John_E_Schnupp)
re: mash-out, foam rest ("Stephen Alexander")
Thanks! (Charles Walker)
Re: BudSwill contributes to STDs ("John Watts")
cream ale (J Daoust)
cool heat and intrepid comments. ("Dr. Pivo")
Re: Yeast propagator (Bill.X.Wible)
Water Chemistry (Richard Foote)
he may be a baron, but I am a king (of stupid) ("Dr. Pivo")
Party Pig Family For Sale (Jason Jackson)
ID that off-flavor ("Taber, Bruce")
Wheat flour (Graham Sanders)
Re: Nice (Stupid) Blokes - correction (David Lamotte)
* 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: Mon, 1 May 2000 01:01:13 -0500
From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl@austinc.edu>
Subject: Re: Brewing Forgiveness
I quite agree with Phil's point about how forgiving the brewing process
can be. I am now about to relate the absolute worst brew day I have
ever had. It should _never_ have turned out at all right.
It was my junior year of college, and I wanted to brew a British bitter.
So I got my ingredients together and started to work. The only problem
was that I had a small spaghetti pot for my entire boil. No big deal, I
just used less water than perhaps I should, figuring that some beer is
better than no beer, which is what I would have had, had I followed the
rules and insisted on x quarts of water per lb. of extract.
Well, I was using large-pellet hops and I got a bit sloppy with my boil
time, nearly dozing off (did I mention that I did this starting at
1.00am in order to evade the RAs? I was but 21), and to cut a long
story short I ended up with about 4 in. of concentrated wort. Stupidly,
and in a sleepy stupor I started to strain out the hops and toss them.
Then I realised that I had almost no wort left. The wort had stuck to
the hops and gone into the trash.
I then faced a horrid decision: throw away the batch, or recover the
wort from the spent hops. Always eager to throw my gauntlet into the
face of an uncaring world, I decided to chance it. After all, in the
worst case I would just throw the stuff away anyway.
Luckily he hops were in a heap on top of the trash. I took all but the
bottom layer--these hops had touched naught in the dust bin. I then
soaked them in the pure water which I used for brewing, straining
several times and changing the water in order to strip the maximum
amount of wort from them.
After a _long_ night's work, I ended up going to bed about 4.00am. I
watched the fermentation of this Frankenbrau with some trepidation, but
it seemed to smell alright. I bottled it, and then the day to taste it
was upon me.
It was the best beer I ever had. I don't know what it was, but it was
top notch, excellent, nectar of the gods and the rest. I had been
convinced that it was going to be a Very Bad Thing, but it turned out
just the opposite.
Brewing is much more forgiving than some think. In fact, one of these
days I am going to conduct some experiments into faulty brewing
practices in order to see just _what_ I cna get away with. But not now;
I'm too scared it will turn out amiss.
Bob Uhl
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 17:15:59 +1000
From: David Lamotte <lamotted@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Nice (Stupid) Blokes
G'Day All,
The Baron tempts me from hiding with tales of bravery in the face of
extreme stupidity. But I am afraid that his claim on the title cannot
go uncontested, for it is I that am truly deserving.
All though my brewing life I have done many stupid things. These mainly
concerned the boiling stage, although one notable exception was the
incident with the highly fermented bottled yeast slurry (the whoosh as I
opened it propelled it around the kitchen resulting in a new coat of
aromatic tan paint and a dint in the fridge door visible to this very
day)
My boilovers rival the eruption of mount Vesuvius. I regularly sparge
with the kettle drain open (what is the funny dribbling noise) and
occasionally run out of gas. But lately I been called up to the major
league with the purchase of some commercial brewing equipment. Serious
equipment, while providing many happy hours of serious tinkering, can
lead to serious problems.
Since acquiring my new toy, I have done 3 batches. The first was a
double Coopers kit to get a handle on the new equipment and to get a
quick batch going - boil and chill went fine using a few whole flavour
hops.
2nd batch was a Taylors Landlord clone with heaps of whole hops. My
system has a 1" hose and fittings from the boiler -> pump -> filter ->
plate heat exchanger. The pump has a 1/2 HP motor, and is really strong
(it can almost suck the kettle inside out).
The guy I bought it from said that all you needed to do was let the hops
settle then pump it through the filter/cooler into the fermenter. The
fine filter mesh ensuring that no 'splooge' got through to the
fermenter.
In my impatience I didn't wait very long and the pump sucked heaps of
whole hops in and clogged solid after about a liter. After much
swearing/cleaning/swearing/burnt fingers/still more swearing, I gave up
and used a jug to ladle the 50 litres out into my fermenter - break,
hops
and all. I then spent many happy hours picking the pulverised hop cones
out of the pump impeller.
The 3rd batch was much the same recipe, except that I replaced some of
the hop cones with pellets. This time I KNEW that I had it beat when I
inserted a screen in the kettle to act as a rough filter. I have some
stainless steel mesh (used as a termite barrier) which I roll up into a
'easy masher' shape and it fits nicely into the drain hole. This worked
great during my test and cleaning runs, however I was again too
impatient and it collapsed when the pump sucked hard letting a lot of
the hop pellets through. These didn't clog the pump but clogged the
filter.
After more swearing/filter cleaning/swearing/filter replacing, I finally
got the 50 litters out.
But the drama didn't stop there. As it was now very late, and I was in
a bit of a hurry, I dumped the brew onto the yeast cake from the
previous batch. Remember that this still had heaps of hops in it.
Anyway, I ferment in a 9 gal corny keg which has the standard ball lock
fittings, oval lid and pressure relief valve. What I normally do, is
just flip the pressure relief valve open, allowing the CO2 to gently
escape. It was pitched late on Sunday night, and by Monday morning was
at high krausen. When I came home from work on Monday night, things
were strangely silent.
I looked in horror and saw that the relief valve had somehow popped
shut, and the top of the keg was visibly domed. The wire legs on the
lid were swinging freely in the air like a first grader being picked up
by the school bully. The lid was pushed hard upwards.
I opened the relief valve and was almost blown away by the rush of gas.
I now know where steam beer got its name. The noise was deafening.....
until it clogged with hops a few seconds later. So I put a fitting on
the gas-out and bled off some more until it also plugged. To cut a long
story short, I removed the relief valve and gingerly twiddled some wire
in and gradually let out the gas/foam/hops. Alternating between
twiddling (to clear the blockage) and using my finger to gently release
the pressure, it took about an hour.
After this time I could just whack the lid in with a hammer and block of
wood, which released the final 'phooooph' of gas, as well as a volcanic
eruption of foam/hops - all over my nice new slate floor.
The large amount of yeast had resulted in a very active ferment. The
beer had dropped from 1.050 down to 1.015 in 24 hours. Needless to say,
the abuse that this poor beer has suffered, has left it with a few
problems. It has a distinct DMS character. I could quote Kunze as
attributing one cause of a sulphur aroma to fermenting either too
rapidly, or under excessive pressure, but I won't.
Hope that this story helps other brewers recover from similar
trauma's...
David Lamotte
Brewing supersonically in Newcastle N.S.W. Australia
Which is 2.5 Baronometers North or 3.0 WS (ie 3 hours from Wes Smith)
and Diddly squat Rennarian (as measured by Jeff during his recent visit
down under)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 00:13:26 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: H2O2 good uses, and possible less so.
Dr. Pivo said,
>I purchase 5 litres of 35 percent at a time, and that lasts me through a
>couple thousand litres of brewing.
Far be it from me to argue with a Dr. I could very well be having an
attack of open mouth, insert foot but here goes...
H2O2 at 35% is not something you want to be messing around with. We
use it for cleaning equipment in semiconductor manufacturing and full
protective gear is REQUIRED. This includes gloves, glasses and
respirator. Get a drop of it on exposed skin and watch your skin turn
white as it oxidizes your skin.
It would be better to purchase the proper solution strength. I know
there are those out there who will say they take all the proper
precautions and I won't argue with you. It's those who think that the
30-35% (or more) solutions are "like" the peroxide you buy in the
drug store that I'm trying to inform.
Then again, it's possible that I just fell for Dr. Pivo's troll.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery
Georgia, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 04:25:54 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: mash-out, foam rest
Nathaniel P. Lansing says ...
V.Briefly on the rehash (since no info was added there) ...
>Steve points out >>170F = 76.666C . So you Specified 76+C for mashout. <<
> That I will concede, probably came from switching F to C and back
No Nat - it comes from the fact that we are discussing MASHOUT and not
70-72C or even 74C.
> I imagine the activity about doubles through the 18 degree F of the
[...]
I thought you would say this - it is a common misunderstanding.
The short answer is that you're half-right, you've ignored the
denaturing rate temp dependence and must perform the integral
to understand what is really happening. I promise to add more
detail in an upcoming post. Mashout "don't mean squat" to fermentability.
>>Mashout causes the starch release in the first place. <<
> Yeah, so we use the AA to reduce it before [...]
> That is not a band-aid, it is a cure.
You earlier stated starch clearing as an advantage of mashout over
no-mashout. I pointed out it was both the cause and cure - so no
advantage. I guess you agree(above). Starch clearing is not an
advantage of mashout methodology.
>The Tuborg experiment is right out the window. [...]
The fact is that I've used no-mashout with mash-in temps as high as 68C
and I get entirely comparable fermentability as with a mashout. Did you
expect the couple % of starch released at the end to make a big
difference in fermentabilty ?
>As to glycoprotein rests:
>Method-50 g finely milled malt mashed in 200mL distilled water with
[...]
>ref-J. Am. Soc. Brewing Chemists, 55(1):20-23,1997
Sincere thanks for the infusion of information (finally).
I can't say I completely understand your statement of
the sampling times tho'.
It seems to say that if you mash very thin (~2qt/lb) and pulverize the
p*ss out of your malt and [like other congress mashes] perform no pH
correction. Then after 20'@60C & 90'@68C & 90'@71C gets you
125ppm of critical protein, then for an outlandish 90' long@75C mashout
you only get another 20ppm.
I don't think this is directly relatable to normal brewing - but it does
support my POV that you are only getting a 16% critical protein
boost from the outlandishly long 90' mashout. *MAYBE* you'd get
half of that in a normal 20' mashout. Let's see an ~8% diff
in these proteins translates into how much difference in foam ?
Like I have been saying - not a big obvious difference. Probably
not discernible w/o side-by-side comparison.
To re-iterate - I said that you can get entirely normal levels of foam and
head from no-mashout beers. That is beers which have never
seen temps above 70C before the kettle. I NEVER said that yet higher
temps do not or cannot contribute to head. Just that the impact of a
normal mashout on head is not obvious on observation. It might be
clear in a side-by-side test, but not on individual observations
where is seems to match batch-to-batch variation.
Normal mashout is defined in virtually every HB book,
and represented in the pro books as a boost to 75-77C and a
rather brief rest followed by sparge at a matching temp. No source
calls 71C mashout.
What you have argued above is that a rather non-standard mash
and a protracted 1.5 hour mashout to an already outrageous 3.33hr
mash schedule measurably increases certain proteins related to
foam. I agree but it has no impact on my position.
> I thought I was wrong, I was right
You are neither right nor wrong. You missed the point.
71C is not mashout and you have in no way demonstrated
normal head is impossible from no-mashout or even <70C mashing.
The obvious questions are:
1/ How much of this protein fraction is necessary for entirely normal
levels of foam ?
2/ What is the relationship between the release of these proteins and
the mash *time* versus temperature ?
I might agree that the higher temp stand increases these proteins -
*BUT* only if you factor out the time using a control. How
do we know the same proteins wouldn't be released given the last
THREE HOURS at 68C rather than 71C and 75C ?
3/ What is the rate of release of these proteins given a normal crush and
a conventional pH control.
I'm not knocking your effort (or your mentor's) Nat, but you really are off
on a tangent. You've written that my experimental beers couldn't have had
normal level of head (tho' I experienced it) - and your proof is an
experiment which cannot be compared to normal brewing practice. Then
you assume that more of this protein fraction appearing above 70C (and
beyond hours 2, 3, & 4 of the mash!) means that stopping the mash at 70C
would not have produced normal head without basis
You are missing a lot of pieces to make a whole cloth of this argument Nat.
And you certainly have no basis for telling me my experimental beers had
poor or marginal head. All this stuff about 71C-74C is entirely irrelevant
to
the discussion of mashout.
Ultimately tho' I suspect your lit posting is suggestive of the truth of the
matter- that longer and perhaps hotter mashes may contribute to these
proteins. But the levels in final beer are not, as I have been saying,
different enough due to normal mashout alone to make a substantial
impact in say all-malt 11-15P beer's foam.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:42:57 -0500
From: charlybill@xpressway.net (Charles Walker)
Subject: Thanks!
>BTW, I don't think we take nearly enough opportunities to publicly thank
Pat
and Karl for the endless and often thankless hours that they put in bringing
the HBD to our cyber-doorsteps each and every day. Without them, the wealth
of brewing information and overabundance of amusing flame wars would not be
available for us. With the demise of BT, their contributions to the brewing
community are even more appreciated, at least by this brewer.
Keep up the good work, guys...we love ya!<
I agree and add my thanks and appreciation!
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:42:00 -0500
From: "John Watts" <watts@radiks.net>
Subject: Re: BudSwill contributes to STDs
"Lost be those souls who knoweth not the difference between correlation and
causaulity, for their days upon the earth shall be fraught with misguided
beliefs" -- Statistics 3:16
John Watts
watts@radiks.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 06:25:10 -0700
From: J Daoust <thedaousts@ixpres.com>
Subject: cream ale
Has any one else had a Carl Straus Cream Ale? I am trying to reproduce
the creamy effect in this brew. I have come only moderately close on my
last batch, but it came out too malty. What is my best choice of lots of
creamy mouth feel and no color or flavor additions? I am going to try
using 2 pounds of dextrin malt with this next batch and hope it works. I
am using White Labs East Coast Ale yeast on their recommendation.
All help is greatly appreciated and private e-mail is ok. Thanks, Jerry
Daoust
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 15:23:49 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se>
Subject: cool heat and intrepid comments.
Jim Adwell made a clever little stirring device which he reported a few
issues back, and wonders if it would shorten his heating times to boil,
and grouses about his pecunious propane supplier (almost an
alliteration... I'll give me a "2").
I am guessing that that would be a marginal effect at best. I think if
you really want to cut down on propane use, a "mantel" would be your
best bet.
here comes an ASCII drawing that is sure to fail (I only do genitalia,
and neighboring parts well)...
I I
------------- I I
I I I ---I I
I I I ------I
I I I I
I I-------I I
I I
down here
it is hot as hell
such as flame
What you want, is all air drawn to your flame source to come from
"under" so you're not pulling cold air past your kettle. You also want
to pull your exhaust very high up, so the heat is staying intimate with
the kettle as long as possible.
The outside "mantel" can be easily made of very thin aluminum sheeting,
which cuts and bends easily (I think you can get it down to 1/10
millimeter without "special ordering") and perhaps some rivets....
though I certainly needn't tell this to someone who can make a wort
stirrer out of an "ice cream machine" and a "cookie sheet". Make sure
the top is folded over to meet your existing kettle. Another
constructive option is an old "oil drum" which you cut apart.
If you really want to get fancy and heat conservative, you can insulate
the outside with that diabase shredded wool that itches like hell. It
can be worthwhile making that removable if possible, or you will soon
find out how much of your cooling used to go right through the walls of
your kettle, and you'll have to make an even better wort cooler.
I have a retired variant of this which was wood fired ( it only held 80
litres, and I can't piddle around with such small volumes... wouldn't
have as many ferments to divide up and play with). It now only comes
out on "slaughtering day" to ease turkey plucking (anyone who has fowl
and doesn't know this trick... a 10 second dip at 70C, and the feathers
virtually fall off... any hotter or much longer, and the "pilo erector"
muscles go "rigor" and you're back where you started, with a long boring
afternoon), and I am continually surprised at how fast that large volume
comes up to temperature. I have since gone electric, with a coil in the
boiler, so "all" heat is directly in the goods, but am considering a
similar structure to the above the next time I make a volume quantum
leap (brewhouse MARK VII).
As to Phil Yates publicly embarrassing himself by recounting his acts of
stupidity, it was a noble effort Phil, but I do believe I've got you
edged out on the stupidity side, and follows only one of
MANY proofs to that effect.
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 09:43:30 -0400
From: Bill.X.Wible@QuestDiagnostics.com
Subject: Re: Yeast propagator
"Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com> writes about a design
for a small plastic yeast propagator with a 1.5 gallon capacity made from a
bleach bottle top and food grade plastic.
Just a couple things:
The real purpose of a cylindroconical fermentor in commerical brewing is
to minimize the number of tanks required to brew, since large stainless steel
tanks are very expensive. The main reason we rack beer from the primary
fermentor to a secondary is to get it off of dead autolyzed yeast to avoid
off flavors. Few large scale commercial breweries can afford redundant tanks,
plus the cost of cleaning and maintaining them.
So the unitank or cylindroconical fermentor was invented to allow the
yeast to be removed during primary fermentation, eliminating the need for
redundant tanks. These tanks are full batch fermentors, and are not designed
specifically for starting yeast. Yeast propagation is just an additional
benefit
of these systems.
This means I would rather have a 6.5 gallon cylindroconical, to ferment
in, minimum. If I'm going to brew a batch of beer, I'm not wasting my time with
1.5 gallons of 'yeast starter'. And I would not want plastic. Plastic breathes
air
and will oxygenate your beer.
Lastly, I was surprised by the comment that 'most of us are using bleach
as a sanitizer'. I'm not. I use Star San. Those of you who are using bleach
should reconsider that choice. Bleach requires much rinsing. And if the bugs
are in your tap water, you're putting them right back into your vessels after
sanitizing. Additionally, use of bleach for sanitizing is probably the biggest
contributor of phenols to your beer, when it is not rinsed thoroughly. Star San
is worth what it costs.
Prost!
Bill Wible
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 10:03:13 -0400
From: Richard Foote <rfoote@mindspring.com>
Subject: Water Chemistry
Yet another water test post...
I recently got back my water test results. I have a private well. BTW,
for anyone wanting to have their water analyzed, I got mine done through my
local Cooperative Extension Service. I went into my local county office
and told them I wanted my water tested. They gave me a sample bottle. I
returned with my full sample bottle, filled out a form and paid $10 for the
basic analysis. Other analyses can be ordered but at higher cost. The
results were in my mail box about a week later. I chose the basic
analysis, results follow:
pH 6.0
Element Sample PPM EPA Max. PPM
Al negligible No Set Max.
B negligible No Set Max.
Cd negligible 0.01
Ca 4.3 No Set Max.
Cr negligible 0.05
Cu 0.05 1.0
Fe 0.03 0.30
Mg 1.6 No Set Max.
Mn 0.10* 0.05
Mb 0.06 No Set Max.
Ni 0.01 No Set Max.
P negligible No Set Max.
K 1.8 No Set Max.
Na 6.2 No Set Max.
Zn 0.10 5.0
Note that the Mn is over the EPA limit. The report explains there is no
health risk (which is good since I've been drinking it for 9 years) with
Mn, only a bitter or metallic taste and brown stains in laundry and
plumbing fixtures. The report further explains that treatment is only
required if these symtoms are causing a problem, which in my case don't
seem to be a problem.
My question is now that I have my analysis, how do I interpret it in terms
of brewing. For example, is there a way to calculate sulphate and
carbonate concentrations? Also, how should I view the rather low pH? It
would seem good for sparge water if the pH would stay constant once heated.
Would pH go up due to carbonic acid level decreasing with CO2 being
liberated out of solution?
Any help appreciated and welcome.
TIA,
Rick Foote
Whistle Pig Brewing Co. and Home Remodeling
Murrayville, GA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 15:57:21 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp@pivo.w.se>
Subject: he may be a baron, but I am a king (of stupid)
I was renting a little cabin with a cold attic which could be reached by
opening a door and climbing a twisted stairway.
At one time of the year, it offered perfect fermentation temperatures. I
was doing 60 litre batches and had an open fermenter on a chair up in
the attic. When it came time to rack, I took up by "carboy", which was
made of plastic (I think anyone who has worked in a lab knows about the
"Nalgene" products... well they have some big babies and one that takes
just under 60 litres, and looks like all the others... tall, round, and
with a little screw top lid).
This "carboy" sat quite nicely on the next to the top step up to the
attic. What I should say, is that it sat quite nicely when empty. As
the carboy filled to the top, the center of gravity kind of shifted as
it straightened itself out from the step I had jammed it next to.
Just as it was filling to the very top, and I was pulling the racking
cane out, holding it in both hands, I watched and saw to my horror the
whole thing leaning ever so more "downhill". Now one has trained oneself
to be careful with racking canes, so I just stood paralyzed staring
until it had leaned too much and started its descent.
The good carboy managed to twist sideways so that it could roll down the
stairs, and even made the turn at the bottom and rolled right out into
the living room.
I cast aside my good racking cane habits, and the cane itself and went
running after down the stairs in my woolen stocking feet, sliding
through the spilt beer.
I made the turn at the bottom much less gracefully than the carboy,
crashing into the door frame with my feet doing a sort of "burn out"
under me, just managing to retain myself upright, to peer out into the
living and see.... in the middle of the room was the carboy doing a sort
of "take a breath and belch" act, where it would spit out a great hippo
burp of beer on the floor, then shudder and have to take a new breath
(saying:"whuh-uh-uh") before it spewed out a new fountain of a couple of
litres (now saying: "Fuh-lurp-lurp-lurp").
By the time I slid my way over and righted it, it had managed to dump
about one third of its contents over the stairway and most of the living
room floor.
Now this is not a treatment than I would recommend to anyone, but I
found, as did Phil and his "multiple mash" that the beer came out
"OK"... it truly is a pretty forgiving process.
And you think that leaving out a false bottom twice in a row was a
daring act? At 5 o'clock in the morning I'd have fallen into the mash tun.
Dr. Pirouette
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 09:57:09 -0500
From: Jason Jackson <jcjackson@jrpower.com>
Subject: Party Pig Family For Sale
Info: (www.partypig.com)
I have a set of Party Pig mini kegs for sale.
Set will include:
2 - 2-1/4 gallon kegs.
1 - filling stand.
1 - activation pump.
2 - Pressure Pouches.
1 - Set of instructions.
They have been used 2 times now.
I have moved on to full sized kegging and would like to sell this set.
$40.00 shipping included anywhere in the US.
If interested- email: torula@yahoo.com c/o Jason
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:46:40 -0400
From: "Taber, Bruce" <Bruce.Taber@nrc.ca>
Subject: ID that off-flavor
After 10 years of brewing with almost no spoiled batches, I now find
myself with a recurring problem. Every second batch over the last 6 batches
has been infected. I have gone anal with my sanitizing, doing both a bleach
soak and isodor on everything and I haven't changed any other procedures but
I can't find the cause. I figure I may have better luck finding the cause
if I could identify the type of infection.
I have read the descriptions of the various types of infections
(diacetyl, DMS, ester, phenolic) many times but I'm still not sure which it
is (my best guess is phenolic). There are many commercial beers that have a
similar flavor component to what I consider the off-flavor in my beers. It
can be found in Orval as well as most of the Trappist beers, also Hoegaarden
and the German Schneider Weisse to name a few. If anyone can put a name to
the flavor component that I am trying to find, please let me know. And if
you can give suggestions as to a cure, I would be eternally in your debt
(so-to-speak).
Bruce Taber
Almonte, Ont. Canada
bruce.taber.ca
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 07:22:16 +1000
From: Graham Sanders <GrahamS@bsa.qld.gov.au>
Subject: Wheat flour
G'day all.
I simple question.
I want to use some ordinary wheat flour in a mash instead of raw wheat. Yes
I am aware of the dangers etc.
But I have lost my conversion rate.
How much wheat flour equates to a given amount of raw wheat grain or wheat
malt.
Ta!
Shout
Graham Sanders
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:24:16 +1000
From: David Lamotte <lamotted@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Nice (Stupid) Blokes - correction
Yesterday, I refrained from quoting Kunze as attributing one cause of a
sulphur aroma to fermenting either too
rapidly, or under excessive pressure. Which is just as well as my
recollection was faulty.
He does write that rapid fermentation in light beers can result in a
sulphury nose, however fermenting under pressure reduces the level of
ester formation.
David
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3314, 05/02/00
*************************************
-------
