Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3338
HOMEBREW Digest #3338 Tue 30 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:
Whole grain efficiency ("Ed Olsen / Kathy Riley")
RE: Ray Daniels "honey" issue? (Dick Dunn)
re: cider/mead/homebrew competitions (Dick Dunn)
beer filtering (Ray Kruse)
Mailing Yeast And Hillbilly Parties ("Phil & Jill Yates")
4.78? ("A. J.")
Marris Otter ("Aaron Sepanski")
Mouth feel rest ("Aaron Sepanski")
Correct Addresses (David Houseman)
District ChopHouse & brewery (DakBrew)
pH Response (Dave Burley)
Dig. therm. (hal)
Re: German infusion step ("Hubert Hanghofer")
URL-Correction / SNPA-IBU range ("Hubert Hanghofer")
More about PET beer bottles than you wanted to know :) (Jim Adwell)
lager lessons learned; water filters (AKGOURMET)
re: floating balls ("Stephen Alexander")
* Don't miss the 2000 AHA NHC in Livonia, MI
* 6/22 through 6/24 http://hbd.org/miy2k
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
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: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:40:53 -0700
From: "Ed Olsen / Kathy Riley" <olsen-riley@worldfront.com>
Subject: Whole grain efficiency
Greetings all,
My home built "whole grain beer machine" is working with about (80-85)%
extraction efficiency based on the "wort calculator wheel". Not that I'm
overconcerned about it....the equipment's gonna do what it's gonna do....but
I'm curious; is 80% - 85% extraction a reasonable value??
Example...just brewed a 5 gallon batch of Russian Imperial Stout with about
13.5# grain. Ended up with an OG of 1.082....wort wheel indicates an
extraction of about 82%.
Ed Olsen / Kathy Riley
olsen-riley@worldfront.com
Life: edolsen@alum.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 00 00:26:57 MDT (Mon)
From: rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: RE: Ray Daniels "honey" issue?
Paul Gatza wrote (in HBD 3329):
> I look at the AHA having a unique role to play in advancing meadmaking,
> especially since the demise of the AMA and the lack of many other
> information sources that have the outreach of Zymurgy...
Ummm...not to blow our own horn too much, but how about the Mead-Lover's
Digest? (running for about seven and a half years, 1000+ subscribers, just
passed 800 issues) I know that a thousand-or-so subscribers isn't much
next to Zymurgy, but it's pretty large compared to the fraction of Zymurgy
subscribers likely to be interested in mead.
>...Historically mead coverage goes back to the very first issue of Zymurgy...
Not that I can tell, at least not in my copy of the first issue!:-) Just
kidding, tho...Zymurgy *has* carried mead info from way back, and I think
it's good. Might have taken until the second or third issue 'til they got
to mead.
> ...The AHA Board of Advisors expressed an interest in having
> more mead and cider coverage in Zymurgy at the most recent AHA Board of
> Advisors meeting.
In spite of my recent posting here opposing some mead and all cider in AHA-
related competitions, I think it's good that Zymurgy is covering these
topics. What I'm getting at is a distinction between what the magazine
covers (in the interest of communication, education, cross-fertilization of
information and creativity, etc.) and what is seen in competition (which
requires or at least expects significant understanding and expertise in the
judging).
I think the honey issue was a good one, and I also think Ray Daniels is off
to an auspicious start.
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
...Simpler is better.
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 00 01:40:36 MDT (Mon)
From: rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: cider/mead/homebrew competitions
Regarding cider and mead categories in AHA competition, "Houseman, David
L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com> wrote:
> Dick Dunn says that: "Part of my opinion here is that I've never seen cider
> categories or judging
> in a homebrew competition that were within a boarding-house reach of being
> able to grab the long hairs of a clue. The AHA competition categories (the
> last I checked) had no relation to reality-as-we-know-it...they seemed, at
> best, to represent one slightly-besotted view of cider from New England in
> the US."
>
> I beg to differ. While certainly not every competition will have mead and
> cider categories and they certainly won't have experienced judges for these
> entries, I've judged in a number of competitions where the mead and cider
> expertise was excellent. A cider won the first Buzz Off competition, but
> what did a bunch of us local judges know? That same cider won Cider Maker
> of the year for its makers that same year, so I guess we did know something.
You are saying that a cider judged by the AHA criteria in a local won in
the national when judged by the same criteria. That speaks to consistency
in the judging, but doesn't address the matter of whether the categories
make sense (which is my issue)! Think of this in terms of the distinction
between "accuracy" and "precision". And it may well have been an excellent
cider, but we can't tell that given the categories.
I am saying that the judging categories don't make sense, and that based on
this, it would be better not to judge cider than to judge it by misguided
categorizations.
> One of the judges, Nick Funnel, was an English brewer so that did help ;-)
> in seeing that this was an excellent cider.
You're begging the question, if you're using an English *brewer* as a
reference on *cider*. Did you have any professional *cider* makers
judging? I've been in too many English pubs that have excellent cask ales
alongside a single Strongbow spigot to believe that there is any crossover
in knowledge or understanding.
Cider-making is basically wine-making. You work with varietals; you work
with "vintages" (i.e., year-to-year variations); you work with the natural
yeasts. You have the choices of dry_vs_sweet and still_vs_sparkling. Tell
me how a brewer would understand a sweet, still beer.
> And how will judges gain experience and knowledge about ciders and meads
> without the experience of judging?...
They start by *tasting*! They need to taste and learn before they start to
judge. Taste a hundred different ciders. Understand the quadrants of
apple types (sweet, sharp, bittersweet, bittersharp). Understand and dis-
tinguish blending, the effect of keeving...and so on.
Same with meads. Taste them dry and sweet, sparkling and still, taste
melomels with a dozen different fruits, metheglins with a score of herbs
and spices. Taste the effects of the yeast...how one yeast will ferment
out a clean product in two months while another yeast on the same must will
give a result that still tastes like bad mouthwash after a couple years.
I can't imagine that anyone could even begin to consider judging mead or
cider with less than five years of serious tasting.
None of it is inscrutable, but it *does* take some learning, and a lot of
brewing knowledge does *not* transfer over.
> While I cannot comment about the older AHA competition categories, Dick, as
> the expert, was consulted for his input for the cider (maybe mead too, but I
> forget) categories for the new BJCP and AHA style guide.
I am *not* an expert. I *was* consulted, but having looked at the "Style
Chart" at www.bjcp.org, noted as "Revised 8/3/99" I would find it hard to
see that any of my comments had any effect! I still see 3 categories--
"Standard", "New England", and "Specialty". Why is New England called out?
Don't the two millenia of English and French cider-making count for any-
thing? Why are the OG/FG limits out of whack? Why should it be necessary
to use adjuncts for 2 of the 3 categories? Where in any of the descriptions
is there a consideration of the balance of the basic flavors with tannin
and acidity? What's the deal with beer-related categories of IBU (noted as
"N/A", small reassurance) and COLOR in SRM?!? Does anyone who worked on
this have the slightest conception of what the color of a cider means? Not
that I can tell! Would you judge a straw-colored Kentish style cider
against a deep-gold Somerset farmhouse? Does the color really mean any-
thing? How can you stack sweet/dry, still/sparkling against one another?
How could you possibly judge cider and perry in the same category?--they are
not even from the same fruit! Would you judge sake and ale together?!?
Sparkling/still and dry/sweet are glossed over...much as if one would judge
a Sauternes and a Paulliac together because they're both Bordeaux (and
still, at that!:-).
I'm sure you can run some good ciders through this gauntlet...but the way
it's set up, you'll also accept some bad ones and reject some good ones.
As for mead, I'll confirm David's recollection that yes I did have a chance
to comment there as well. But again I can't see any effect of my comments.
Why, for example, is the FG range low end at 0.995? I know I commented
that some of my best meads (some sparkling melomels) finished at .992-.993,
and that I would not be amused at having them excluded from competition!
The 5 main classification criteria for all BJCP categories seem to be OG,
FG, ABV%, IBU, and color (SRM). For both mead and cider, the color is at
best irrelevant. IBU is only relevant in the braggot subcategory of mead.
FG ranges push sweet and dry together, which is completely insane because
you cannot possibly judge them side-by-side. Similarly, the effect of
carbonation cannot be overlooked. You cannot judge a still mead against a
sparkling mead--it comes down to something like "is this steak better than
this chicken?" So it comes down to this: there are 5 objective criteria
or classifications. One of them is wrong; two of them are irrelevant; two
categories that should be present are missing. Is this a score-sheet you
think you can be proud of?
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
...Simpler is better.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:03:58 -0400
From: Ray Kruse <rkruse@bigfoot.com>
Subject: beer filtering
Any of you who use the Williams filter plate system and want to go in on
a bulk order of 3u pads, email me privately. The pads are about $.63
each, plus shipping.
Ray Kruse
Glen Burnie, PRMd
rkruse@bigfoot.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 23:24:23 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates@acenet.com.au>
Subject: Mailing Yeast And Hillbilly Parties
I've had so many people asking how I plan to send Ayinger yeast samples
around the world. I thought one post here would be a simple way to answer.
I plan to do it just as the Artist did. I bought a few syringes (now that
got me a funny look from the girl in the chemist shop) and a bunch of small
vials. Yeast from the primary (when it is finished) will be collected and go
into sterile water in the vials and away they will go in their mailing
packets. It got to me like this from the States okay so I guess I can do the
same. Mickey the Artist I believe cultured it up from a slant but I can't
see any problem with me snapping it up from the primary. Unless someone is
going to tell me otherwise?
Now I see in the HBD a guy who is just going to fit in fine and dandy with
our Burradoo parties. Brian Lundeen, the one with the two teeth which he
cleans in the porcelain convenience. Now here is a guy with a sense of
humour and surely will be "life of the party" at the Burradoo Hilton. Come
on over Brian.
By the way, I have been brought to task on a few of my comments from over a
week ago. The first one being :
>Regan and I both used corn in our reproduction efforts.
To which I received this private response :
>The HBD is a family style forum and your sexual habits >are not
appropriately discussed there.
>I demand that you unsubscribe forthwith!
And yet another well wisher passed on to me :
>Hope all is fine and dandy in Burradoo, where the men >drink rice lager and
>the fags are found hanging out of their mouths, not the >other way round!
Sorry about that, just couldn't help passing these on. Just where is all
this humour in the HBD coming from? When I first tapped into it over a year
ago it looked like a deadly serious business to me. It's pleasing to see
some brewers are actually enjoying themselves.
Especially Pat who is yahooing himself over the moon. Don't get too carried
away with the brewing Pat, remember you have our digest to run here.
Cheers
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:39:35 +0000
From: "A. J." <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: 4.78?
In looking at Nathaniel Lansing's post of yesterday when I saw 4.78 for
the distilled water pH with a subsequent 5.68 I said "Ah, 'tis a typo"
assuming that the distilled water pH was actually 5.78, which is about
normal for a pale malt. But then the experiment was repeated and, again,
the pH reported in the 4's : 4.82. Something is funny here. It's
possible to have a distilled water pH in the 4's for a black malt but
not with a Pilsner malt. Could this be a double typo or is that really
what was measured?
On another note, I'd be skeptical of an 0.3 rise in pH in cooling from
mash temp to room temp. In my experience it's more like 0.15 - 0.2
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 8:55:27 -0700
From: "Aaron Sepanski" <madaarjul@earthlink.net>
Subject: Marris Otter
Beeston is the only company that floor malts its grains, at least until a
year ago (based on their circular). Floor malting is more inconsistent in
some respects but more consistent in others. The process is essentially
the same in both.
However, the floor malted maris otter will produce a tarter beer. The
flavor seems to be more rich as well. This is compared to other maris
otter maltings. When we use maris otter, we always use the floor malted
variety, for all English beers, iridescent of gravity. We would not use
it on a barely wine, because malt character would be obtained no matter
what malt you are using, also it would be expensive.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 8:59:50 -0700
From: "Aaron Sepanski" <madaarjul@earthlink.net>
Subject: Mouth feel rest
What is a mouth feel rest? I've always used an infusion mash and have
never had any problem obtaining mouth feel in any of my beers.
I guess what I am saying is that I am not familiar with it. Maybe someone
can fill me in.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 06:19:15 -0400
From: David Houseman <dhousema@cccbi.org>
Subject: Correct Addresses
In sending out judge mailings for both the 1st round of the regional AHA
nationals and the local Buzz Off, I've had many, many returned mailings due
to change of addresses. Where the new address was given, I've forwarded this
on to Russ to update the database. If you didn't receive notification of
these events, that may be why.
These were at least within the window that they would return the flyers with
the new addresses but outside the forwarding window. Many were returned
that were outside the window of even notifying the sender of the new
address. I encourage all the BJCP judges to keep our Program Administrator
up to date with all change of addresses. You can do this via EMAIL; check
the BJCP web site for the Program Administrator's EMAIL address.
I'm also in favor of moving all official mailings to EMAIL rather than SNAIL
mail. It will probably be just as difficult keeping up with changes in
EMAIL addresses, however the cost of mailings for competitions and updates
from the BJCP will be significantly less including the money wasted on
mailings that get returned. How does the BJCP membership feel about the
greater use of EMAIL over USPS? Perhaps only the yearly mailing is via the
USPS; competition notifications would be by EMAIL? Thoughts?
David Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:09:16 EDT
From: DakBrew@aol.com
Subject: District ChopHouse & brewery
Steve If you can stop by the ChopHouse. Jason the brewer is very friendly if
you can catch him there he will usually have time to talk with beer
enthusiasts. They have a cask conditioned bourbon stout that kicks ass. They
cask condition some of there oatmeal stout in used Old Granddad barrels, then
serve it on a hand pump. The rest of there beer's are very nice but you gota
at least taste the bourbon stout. And the food man it aint cheep but it is
very good.
John Harvard's is also very nice.
Dan K
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:59:14 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: pH Response
Brewsters:
The fact that a small sample of wort gives the same result as a commercial
tun doesn't surprise me.
But unless I read Lansing's experimental results wrong, his results
purportedly shows a pH= 4.78 for distilled water and 5.68 for 150 ppm
calcium in wort. This is backwards to what one would expect.
Try adding the calcium sulfate overnight to distilled water with stirring
and comparing the wort from this solution with a wort from distilled water.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:48:50 -0500
From: hal <hwarrick@springnet1.com>
Subject: Dig. therm.
Thanks for the info. on the moisture problem.
I just got it but haven't tried it out yet.
Hal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:47:47 +0200
From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hubert.hanghofer@netbeer.co.at>
Subject: Re: German infusion step
Hi all,
Glyn Crossno <Crossno@tnns.net> asked me in hbd#3337:
> What is your looooong mash-schedule?
> What is the German 2 hour schedule?
As I've tried to point out, there is no standard (2 hour or whatever)
step mash schedule, so the question is, what can be regarded as typical?
A general characteristic is that starch conversion is not done at one
single step. Multiple rests are held at the temperatures of
optimum amylase activitiy (62C/144F "maltose-rest", 72C/162F "final
conversion rest"). Additional rests in the "combined activity range"
(68C/154F) can be found more often these days. The exact conversion
schedule differs from each brewmaster's specific point of view. But in
general, very high attenuation levels are strived for: >80%aa for lagers,
>76% for ales is typical in Germany and Austria.
What other mash-steps can be regarded as typical?
After conversion has finished, additional rest time in the 72-75C (162-
167F) range is added to promote extraction of glyco-proteids
(Vollmundigkeitsrast / "mouthfeel?-rest"). This may be up to 60 minutes
@72C (162F) or 30-40 minutes @75C (167F). Finally, mash out is typically
done @78C (172F).
Add this to a 60-90 minutes conversion schedule and you are well over 2
hours. ...and we didn't discuss mashing-in yet:
With nowadays well modified and homogenous malts mashing in @62C (144F) or
doing a short "mashing-in-rest" @55-57C (131-135F) for up to 15 minutes
(time for milling and adding the grains) can be regarded as "typical",
especially if the beer needn't be filtered. So that's no or not much added
time.
Exception: Wheat-beers, that need a "ferula-acid-rest" @42-44C /108-111F
(I do 20-30 minutes) to promote 4-vinyl-guajacol (clove character)
formation by yeast.
Please note: The above is not based on a scientific statistical review!
Just my (...2 cents ...ehm, schillings...) experience with local brewers,
maltsters and some reading.
But anyway ...nothing new to you either!? -- As I've seen in Pats
interesting brewing report (on the bottom of hbd#3337), the cited target
temperatures are all common, timing may be another issue.
Practical Application, or ..."just another case study"... so to say ;-)
I do step mashing in a propane fired, converted 50L-Keg(arator). Usually
10kg (22 lb) grain bill, 30-33L (7.9-8.7gal )water. My schedules are based
on 20 minutes heating cycles, that means I heat the mash to certain target
temperatures -therby continuously stirring with a paddle. Then I turn off
the burner and make a rest of 20 minutes, during witch the temperature
drops 2- max.3C (with lid, but no other insulation -- thermal mass and
thermal time constant should be high enough for any 10gal system). During
these rests I only stirr once to lift the settled grains (after 10 minutes
- @halftime) so I needn't stress my arms and limit HSA.
My usual target temperatures for such a schedule are 62-64-68-72C (144-147-
154-162F). Mashing in for 10 minutes 55~57C / 131~135F (except for wheat),
mashing out @78C (172F). After transfer to the lautertun, the temperature
drops to 74~75C (165~167F) and is held for further 15-20 minutes --
thoroughly settling the spent grains I get clear runnings after 2-3L (<0.8
gal) recirculation (@5-10mm/min "drop rate" in liquid level), using a
rather coarsly slotted copper manifold.
Details and examples for wheat schedules can be found in my Excel-
brewplanner:
http://www.netbeer.co.at/bin/brewplanner.zip
(English version, SI-metric units only!)
You'll find mash-graphs of a step mash schedule along with two versions of
a single decoction schedule for comparison in the wort_prep register.
hope this helps.
CHEERS &
sehr zum Wohle!
Hubert, brewing in Salzburg, Austria
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:47:44 +0200
From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hubert.hanghofer@netbeer.co.at>
Subject: URL-Correction / SNPA-IBU range
hello again,
sorry, the web address of the brewplanner as given in my previous post may
not work, the correct one is:
http://www.netbeer.co.at/beer/bin/brewplanner.zip
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale - Question:
Can anyone tell me the IBU-range of SNPA?
Any measured or specified values out there?
CHEERS
Hubert, brewing in Salzburg, Austria
- --
"Bier brauen nach eigenem Geschmack"
Infos unter:
http://www.netbeer.co.at
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:45:35 -0400
From: Jim Adwell <jimala@apical.com>
Subject: More about PET beer bottles than you wanted to know :)
As far as PET bottles weakening from repeated cycling of pressure and no
pressure, it may well be true. A more likely cause of failure is physical
damage (abrasion), and also high heat (over 140F). PET softens at 168F,
which would make heat sterilization out of the question. The low-end
working temperature of PET is -10C, under which PET becomes brittle,
perhaps permanently damaging it. When and if one of my old Pepsi bottles
explodes, I'll let ya'll know.
If you are going to use plastic bottles, be sure they are PET and not
something else. If the bottles held soda or anything carbonated, they are
safe to use. I would be wary of bottled water bottles and the like.
The PET bottles discussed below are multilayer PET with better oxygen
barrier properties than the soft drink PET bottles. When these become
widely available( read cheap) I will be using them.
Here's a brewery using PET bottles:
http://www.karlsbrau.com/gb/gd_pblic/pet.html
Homebrewers are not the only group discussing beer in PET. Here's an
interesting discussion at PackInfo World:
http://www.packinfo-world.org/wpo/discuss/USPackaging/Plasticbeerbottles.html
A news story from 1998 about Miller's test marketing of PET bottles:
http://www.onlineathens.com/1998/110198/1101.a3beer.html
And some reasons why we don't see PET beer bottles on the shelf (yet):
from beerweek.com (1999):
PLASTIC BEER BOTTLE IS A-B'S PET PEEVE
In a related item, Anheuser-Busch has
abandoned its month-old
research into how well beer would sell in PET plastic
bottles. The company
stated in an April 20 Associated Press report that it is
discontinuing the
research due to "limited public interest."
and again (1999):
RECYCLING NETWORK SEZ MILLER'S NEW
PLASTIC BOTTLES A PROBLEM
The Miller Brewing Company's new plastic beer
bottle being test
marketed in Los Angeles and five other markets could
devastate plastics
recycling, public officials and the GrassRoots Recycling
Network said in a
January 20 PRNewswire press release. Miller is the
first brewer to
introduce a plastic beer bottle in the U.S.
Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter
announced that she
would introduce a resolution for action by the City
Council that calls on
Miller to take responsibility for making its new package
compatible with
the City's recycling program before introducing it more
widely. Officials
from the City of Madison WI, and the City of San Diego
CA, are also
contacting Miller to urge the company to address the
bottle's negative
impacts on recycling before it is introduced nationally.
"Miller's plastic beer bottle jeopardizes plastics
recycling in Los
Angeles and across the country," Rick Best, chair of
the GrassRoots
Recycling Network (GRRN) and policy director of
Californians Against Waste,
said. "Miller's actions make it clear that the
environment and recycling
are taking a back seat to marketing considerations.
"Miller must make sure
its bottle is compatible with our recycling systems,
before it is
introduced nationally," Best said.
The GrassRoots Recycling Network called on
Miller Brewing Company
to make the following commitments before rolling out
the bottle nationwide:
1. Ensure that the Miller bottle is compatible with
current PET recycling
2. Ensure that the Miller bottle will not increase
recycling costs for
local governments and recyclers
3. Use at least 25 percent recycled content in all
bottles
"Plastics recycling is in a downward spiral,"
George Dreckmann,
recycling coordinator for the City of Madison,
Wisconsin, said. "Miller's
bottle will only make things worse, unless the company
takes responsibility
for its new bottle. "Miller should buy back its used
plastic beer bottles
at a price that covers the cost of processing them,"
Dreckmann said.
"Miller should also incorporate recycled content into the
bottles
themselves."
"The Miller plastic beer bottle's amber tint, new
interior barrier
material, and metal cap and label make it incompatible
with today's
plastics recycling stream," Best said. Best explained
that these elements
increase costs for plastics recycling and cause such
serious contamination
that recyclers who handle the Miller bottle will not be
able to sell their
reclaimed plastic to high value markets. Since most
plastics recyclers are
struggling already, this combination of increased costs
and lost revenues
could literally drive them out of business. "It will be
local governments
and taxpayers who pay the higher costs for recycling
or disposing of
unmarketable material," Best said.
Cheers, Jim
Jim's Brewery Pages:
http://home.ptd.net/~jimala/brewery/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:36:34 EDT
From: AKGOURMET@aol.com
Subject: lager lessons learned; water filters
Well, last night I had to dump a batch. I think that's only the second batch
ever in well over a 100. This was the under-pitched all-grain premium lager
that I wrote about a couple months ago. At that time, it was stuck at 1.023,
so with the advice of some fellow HBDers, I warmed it up to 64f and pitched a
packet of dry ale yeast into each carboy. That brought it down to 1.013, but
6 weeks later it still wasn't clear. Unfortunately, I don't have a way to
chill it down for true lagering. If it was January, I'd just stick it
outside, but this time of year the average temp is 50f.
It also had a real fruity flavor to it. It might have been acetaldehyde from
the stuck ferment and lack of cold conditioning or maybe esters from
underpitching. It was drinkable, but I didn't really enjoy it.
So, in a last ditch effort to salvage this batch, I bought an Omni
whole-house water filter that was on sale and tried running this beer thru
it. I bought the pleated paper 20 micron filter since it was half the price
of the other ones and I didn't want to waste any more money on this batch
than I had to. I washed and sanitized the filter housing, lines, kegs, etc.
and ran a little iodophor solution (12.5 ppm) thru the paper filter, let it
sit for 10 minutes and then flushed with about 3 gallons of cold water. The
beer was already carbonated so it foamed in the filter housing. Other than
that, it transferred ok. A taste test right afterwards revealed a still
cloudy beer (although better than it was) with a new plastic flavor. It was
now an easy decision -- dump it and put something worthwhile in those kegs.
Lessons Learned:
1) Pitch large amounts of lager yeast. I used a one quart starter in 10
gallons, which wasn't enough.
2) Cold condition if you can. This might have saved that batch.
3) If you filter, do it with uncarbonated beer and flush the filter so it
doesn't impart any taste.
Now that I have this nice big filter, I want to use it for all my brewing
water. Which filter element should I use? If I get one that will remove
chlorine, will it also strip out the minerals? There's not much in my water
to begin with, but I'd like to keep what I have:
Ca - 48
SO4 - 27
CO3 - 46
hardness - 82
alkalinity - 38
pH around 7.0
Any advice on filter elements or water treatment would be appreciated. I
usually just use the water straight out of the tap, but sometimes I'll throw
in some gypsum and calcium carbonate.
Bill Wright
Juneau, Alaska
www.gourmetalaska.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 23:29:46 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: floating balls
Dave Burley writes ...
>Martin Brungard has done his homework on floating balls to reduce HSA in
>his RIMS, but can't find balls of the correct specific gravity. Why not
>just use one of the bubble wrap sheets used in packing and available at
>Boxes R Us or whatever
I'm not aware that these balls or the bubble wrap come in food grade of FDA
plastic. Maple floats and imparts no flavor, not sure whether plastic
cutting boards are low enough density to float.
just a though,
Steve
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3338, 05/30/00
*************************************
-------
