Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3831
HOMEBREW Digest #3831 Sat 05 January 2002
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Yeast Strain equivalency chart? ("gregory ramirez")
RE: Wort recirculation thru CFC/Stability tests ("Steve Alexander")
RE: The Definitive History of Rennerian Coordinates ("Leonard, Phil")
Re: Barley cereal mash questions (Jeff Renner)
RE: Keg Conversion (Kelly Grigg)
unintentional lagering (Alan Meeker)
Fw: More Rennerian Assistance Needed ("Lynda Ose")
Re: cold guinness (Jeff Renner)
RE: Real Cereal Adjuncts (B Johnson)
cold poor-ter (Marc Sedam)
RE: Unintentional lagering (Steve Doig)
old grain (Alex MacGillivray)
Guinness Extra Cold ("Melberg, Rorik")
Re: cold guinness ("Bill Riel")
Tool Time with Steve - was Re: Brix to SG conversion ("Steve Alexander")
Beer Article ("David Craft")
re: Clear Bottles (and skunked beer) (Rama Roberts)
HRBTS/BRIESS CUP Homebrewer of the Year (Tom Byrnes)
Servomyces Experiment Question ("Kraus,Drew")
Accord II vs. BTF Iodophor (Al Beers)
*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* 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 cannot 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.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 04:42:20 +0000
From: "gregory ramirez" <gwr40@hotmail.com>
Subject: Yeast Strain equivalency chart?
I wondered if anyone here knew of a document of some kind which shows the
strains of yeast use by White Labs and Wyeast so if one brand isnt available
then the same yeast of the other brand may be chosen.
Gregory
Salinas Ca.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:56:01 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: Wort recirculation thru CFC/Stability tests
Steve Jones posts ...
>I'm not sure I agree with the statement:
>>... The wort can't be clear of cold break
>> particulate either.
>
>I believe that the break material was filtered out by
>the false bottom / whole hop bed. Obviously the yeast was not,
COLD break particles are 10 times smaller than yeast. If you aren't
filtering out yeast you aren't filtering out the cold break either. Also
the recirculation pump breaks up some of the hot break to 0.5uM-1.5uM -
smaller than yeast too. See M&BS and/or Kunze for details.
> In addition,
> the sediment in the primary was cleaner than most, if not
>all, of my previous batches (68) on this system.
It's very hard to tell how clear wort is by examining sediment after
pitching, since the yeast and starter crud add to the pile. Here's my
experience.
I've had the habit of taking certain worts and chilling them to near
freezing overnight, then racking to remove trub before pitching. The amount
of trub accumulated runs around 1 inch in a 5gal carboy for wort that is
simply whirlpooled and pumped from the boiler thru CFC to carboy.
Sometimes a little under 1 inch, sometimes 1.5" it varies. When wort is
recirculated thru hops and cooled in the boiler the amount of trub developed
overnight in carboy is about 1/3rd as much - 1/4 to 5/8 inch. That's
certainly less, but there's 5 times more hot break and it's initially in
larger particles than cold. It's unlikely hop filtering does more than
remove a majority the hot break and none of the cold break. The small break
particles that get through, hot or cold, are the source of cool wort
turbidity so this stuff is nowhere near clear. You cannot see your hand
thru a carboy of chilled sedimented unpitched wort.
Last evening I brewed, recirc'ed the boiler wort thru 6+oz of whole hops and
the CFC for 45 minutes. The boiler wort reached 55F. I left the resulting
wort unpitched in a carboy overnight and there was a modest layer of
gray-goo cold break on the bottom - a little over 1/4". I'd certainly get
more if I had chilled. My feeling is that longer recirculation and
additional chilling of boiler wort thru' the hops bed/pump/CFC does not
significantly improve trub removal. Break removal is similar when I've
recirc'ed for 10 minutes and only chilled the boiler to about ~90-100F.
===
Dean Fikar notes ...
>Steve A. writes:
>
>"Another suggestion is to recirc iodophor solution thru the pump, CFC and
>tubing for 20' [...]"
>
>I thought that hot wort would be an effective
>sanitizer if given enough time.
[...]
>Comments?
I'd recirc iodophor for a quick rinse, then place the manifold in the
boiling wort and recirc till about 15 minutes after the wort re-achieved a
boil. Like Dean I though the "near boiling" wort would be sufficient to
sanitize the pump, tubing & CFC. Stability tests showed otherwise and
cleaned up when I started recircing iodophor for 20'. Maybe gaps, bubbles,
or failure to reach a high enough temp after the CFC is the issue.
My hunch is that the original scheme did not get iodophor and/or hot enough
wort everywhere. Maybe the water wasn't hot enough after the (difficult to
heat) CFC.
>Perhaps I need to do another wort stability test soon even
>though I don't think I've had any significant infection problems lately.
I didn't have any significant infections in the beers, but I was not doing
well against stability tests. I love the stability test because it's cheap,
easy and can detect problems before you must send 10 gallons of funky-beer
down the drain.
==
The stability test Dean and I are discussing is a simple and yet important
qualitative test of your brewing sanitation. You simply divert a small
amount of cooled unpitched wort into a sealable sanitized container (a jar
or whatever) and keep it around in a warm spot for several days observing
it. If you can get to 72 hours with spotting any signs of infection (added
turbidity, gas production, surface colonies, aromas) then your methods are
good enough. Infection signs appearing from 48-72 hours indicate you've got
a minor problem that needs attention, but probably isn't causing beer
problems. Below 48 hours and your in peril that your beer will have
infection flavors.
I just moved to a place with well water, so I've got two stability tests
underway. One like above, will tell me about last evening's brewing
sanitation methods. The other is adds tap water to cool unpitched wort.
This should help me understand the wort-loving bugs that live in my water
supply. I highly recommend stability tests - but do let them go until you
see infections then sniff and maybe taste the product. It's a great way
to understand the sources of your "house flavor".
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:10:46 -0600
From: "Leonard, Phil" <Phil.Leonard@dsionline.com>
Subject: RE: The Definitive History of Rennerian Coordinates
This is great! Thanks for the history lesson.
Philip Leonard, Overland Park, KS
[612, 251.4] Apparent Rennerian
- ---------- Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ----------
PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby on notice
that you are in possession of confidential and privileged information. Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify
the sender by reply e-mail. Please advise immediately if you or your
employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind.
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:38:46 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: Barley cereal mash questions
Rob Dewhirst <rob@hairydogbrewery.com> asked for further clarification:
>At 12:18 AM 1/3/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >
>>
>>Actually, the reason for a cereal mash with unmalted rice and corn
>>(maize) is that the gelatinization temperatures of their starches is
>>above the temperature of ordinary mashes. Barley starch gelatinizes
>>below mash temperatures. So a cereal mash is not actually necessary,
>>although it won't hurt, and will probably make the conversion a
>>little more time-efficient.
>
>More to the point -- in the absence of flaked barley, can I use straight
>unmalted barley without a cereal mash?
Absolutely. I thought I had said that, but it must have been buried
in the long answer. (I think I've posted here before that my kids
always complained that I couldn't give just a short answer).
Short answer:
Grind the raw barley and mash it along with your malted barley. I
wouldn't bother with a cereal mash myself.
Longer supplemental answer:
German brewers, constrained by the Reinheitsgebot (German purity
law), are forbidden to use unmalted barley, but it can improve some
beers (head stand, drier flavor in a Pils for example), so they use a
small portion of "chit malt," which is more or less the equivalent of
raw barley. It has been steeped until it just begins to sprout
(chit), at which point it is kilned. It is virtually unmodified
barley, but it complies with the law.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@mediaone.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:28:59 -0600
From: Kelly Grigg <kgrigg@diamonddata.com>
Subject: RE: Keg Conversion
We just got a grinder...and cut the tops off of regular sized SS kegs...and
drilled a hole in one of them to install an easy-masher...worked like a
charm.
Kelly
>
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:13:11 -0800
> From: "The Holders" <zymie@charter.net>
> Subject: Re: Keg conversion
>
> Troy asks about keg conversion.
>
> I would recommend starting at http://www.brew-beer.com/kegs.htm . There is
> also info in the Brewery's Library section at
> http://brewery.org/brewery/Library.html#MashE .
>
> Those links should get you started.
>
> Wayne Holder AKA Zymie
> Long Beach CA
> http://www.zymico.com
>
- --
Proudly using Mutt on Linux...
No nasty Micro$oft products here...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:15:53 -0500
From: Alan Meeker <ameeker@mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: unintentional lagering
Kristen asked about a porter that was underpitched and then exposed to cold
temps...
I see two options for salvage: 1) wait for the yeast you pitched to
"re-activate" as the beer warms back up. It will probably be helpful if you
swirl the fermentor from time to time to promote this. 2) Re-pitch a good
amount of new yeast. Probably the best solution, depending on how
underpitched the porter was initially. Good luck!
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:29:39 -0500
From: "Lynda Ose" <lyndaose@starpower.net>
Subject: Fw: More Rennerian Assistance Needed
Jeff,
I am still having difficulty determining my Rennerian Coordinates. It would
help if I had your Visa/MasterCard number, PIN and mothers maiden name.
Please send private e-mail so this info does not fall into the wrong
hands...you can trust me.
Happy New Year and good brewing to all,
Wendell Ose
Reston, Virginia
The Wort Hogs
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:35:43 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: cold guinness
Scott Murman <smurman@best.com> writes from Redwood City, CA, which,
as he points out, is "nowhere near Jeff" (ah, but last week, you were
closer than you knew at [~5, ~270] Actual (not Apparent) Rennerian
when I was in Menlo Park for a few hours. Did you feel a thrill?)
Anyway
>recently returned from a semi-annual trip to ireland. don't know if
>it's been discussed here, as i haven't had time to keep up, but
>guinness has apparantly changed some things. in most of the up-scale
>pubs (read: yuppie zoos) i was in, the guinness was served very cold.
>when i asked around i was told that they had changed the recipe
>slightly, and are now serving it colder, in order to win back some
>market share lost to the cold lagers (piss-lager drinking is very big
>there believe it or not). in some of the outlying areas it was served
>at a more proper temperature, but if they've changed the recipe...
>needless to say, this really, really sucks. anyone else seen/heard
>about this?
When we were there 2-1/2 years ago, many pubs had two Guinness taps -
one with a red border around the pump clip logo, and the other with a
blue border. The blue one was for cold Guinness, the red was a
proper cool temperature. Here in the US, Guinness directs that it be
served at 39-45F (and it's probably at 39 since that's probably what
the beer coolers are at), which I think is what the blue tap is in
Ireland. I still preferred Murphy's when I could find it. I hadn't
heard anything about a recipe change.
I agree, it sucks, but if there is at least a choice, it's better than here.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@mediaone.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:47:47 -0800 (PST)
From: B Johnson <bsota7@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Real Cereal Adjuncts
Regarding Grape Nuts, this month's Zymurgy has an
article about strange experimentations in which the
author describes the use of this cereal. Sounds pretty
cool. According to the article, the author's procedure
was to use 1 cup Grape Nuts with a pint of water, cook
it in a pan until it breaks down and gets all mushy,
strain and add the liquid to the boil kettle. The
author reports that fermentations are more vigorous
because of nutrients in the cereal, specifically zinc
oxide. I suspect it would a little malt complexity. I
picked up a box of Grape Nuts at the store last night
to 'speriment with.
Brewing and lurking in St. Paul, MN,
Brett
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:49:18 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: cold poor-ter
Hey Kristen,
Don't sweat it. Heat the carboy as best you can (soaking a
t-shirt in very hot water and draping over the carboy a few
times could help, as would placing the carboy in the bathtub
and giving it a hot water bath until the temps in the carboy
increased would be great. I've done this a few
times--fermentation can start very, very quickly.
Otherwise you have two options:
1) Treat this as a test of your sanitization skills. If
the beer warms up, ferments, and is "clean", then your
skills prepping the wort and equipment for fermentation
rule!
2) Pitch some of that lager yeast in there too! Have a
blended fermentation--not a good idea if you want to repitch
the ale yeast, but the lager yeast will ferment and the ale
yeast's flavors will take over once it's warmed up.
Cheers!
- --
Marc Sedam
Chapel Hill, NC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:57:42 -0700
From: Steve Doig <steve.doig@asu.edu>
Subject: RE: Unintentional lagering
Kristen Chester's tale of underpitching into chilly porter wort is
weirdly similar to my own experience a day earlier. I boiled mine on the
afternoon of New Year's Eve, put the wort-filled primary into the
laundry room sink and wrapped it in a wet tshirt beneath a fan to cool
the wort. (I've got to make a real chiller.)
Several hours and much partying later, I pitched the yeast and then
belatedly thought to glance at the temperature, which turned out to be
58 degrees. I took off the wet tshirt, but absolutely nothing happened
for 36 hours, not a bubble. So I went back to my homebrew supply store
for advice and another vial of yeast.
But when I returned, the original yeast finally had woken up. Within a
few hours, the airlock was ticking away at 70 burps/minute and the wort
was 75 degrees, about 5 degrees above the ambient air temperature in the
house. Things were moving around in there so fast it looked like it was
boiling.
I don't yet know how it will taste. But if this experience is any guide,
Kristen's batch should spring to life if she can warm it to ale
fermentation temperatures.
Steve Doig
- --
*************************************************************
Stephen K. Doig, Professor, Cronkite School of Journalism,
Arizona State University, Box 871305, Tempe, AZ 85287-1305
V:480-965-0798 Fax:480-965-7041 mailto:steve.doig@asu.edu
http://www.asu.edu/cronkite/faculty/doig/index.html
"Reporting Census 2000" http://cronkite.pp.asu.edu/census
*************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 08:58:11 -0900
From: Alex MacGillivray <alex_macgillivray@admin.state.ak.us>
Subject: old grain
Can anyone run past me the negative effects of old (< 2 years)
un-crushed grain?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:02:41 -0700
From: "Melberg, Rorik" <Rorik.Melberg@Sequencia.com>
Subject: Guinness Extra Cold
Scott Murman writes:
the Guinness was served very cold..... anyone else seen/heard about
this?
I was in Ireland a year and a half ago, and they were pushing this cold
Guinness. As I understand it, it is being sold and marketed as a different
beer all together "Guinness Extra Cold". I didn't really drink much of it,
I was on the west coast and (unlike the US) there aren't many "yuppies" on
that side of the country. I do think they are still making the old Guinness
recipe and serving it at regular temps, this Extra Cold thing is probably
just a fad.
BTW, someone a while back was asking if there were many brewers in Phoenix,
well, there is at least one.
Rorik J. Melberg
Phoenix, Az
[1639.5, 257.9] Apparent Rennerian
mailto:rorik.melberg@sequencia.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:08:19 -0800
From: "Bill Riel" <bill.riel@home.com>
Subject: Re: cold guinness
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:18:15 -0500, Scott Murman wrote:
>recently returned from a semi-annual trip to ireland. don't know if
>it's been discussed here, as i haven't had time to keep up, but
>guinness has apparantly changed some things. in most of the up-scale
>pubs (read: yuppie zoos) i was in, the guinness was served very cold.
Yeah, I was pretty shocked to find that last summer while in Dublin.
Even more insulting was the fact that they served cold guinness right
at the brewery! You could, of course, get the regular guinness draught,
but every bar at the Dublin brewery had taps for Guinness 'cold', too.
Outside of Britain and Ireland I didn't encounter any cold Guinness
though - I suppose it's one of those things that the marketing folks
dream up in an attempt to break into the trendy light lager market
(which is sadly very big in the UK).
- --
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:23:57 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Tool Time with Steve - was Re: Brix to SG conversion
I'm a little surprised that it hasn't been covered yet in the erudite
responses on this topic. Brix, Balling and Plato are all similar scales
meant to relate the specific gravity of a sucrose or cane sugar solution to
the % of sugar by weight in the solution. The original question was this
however ....
>Refractometers are a little more of a mystery, though.
>
>I understand the idea behind them - they measure sugar content in
>%Brix,
No - really they don't - that's an error.
>and I can see where one would be useful in two places -
>seeing the rise in sugar levels in the mash, and the fall during
>fermentation.
Hydrometers (or any float scale) only measures displaced mass using
Archimedes principle, and with calibrated scales and temperature corrections
we can get specific gravity. Given specific gravity you can use one of the
tables - Plato is the brewer's choice - and read off how much sucrose it
would take to make a solution of the same specific gravity. Of course wort
extract is not sucrose, and even the 88% or so of wort extract that is made
of carbohydrates don't all have exactly the same SG vs %mass properties as
sucrose. It's an often ignored fiction that brewers believe wort solids
and sucrose have the same SG in solution. 12P reading of wort means that a
12% by weight sucrose solution has the same SG as our wort. It does not
mean that the wort has 12% of mass as extract, tho' that's probably true to
with 1% or so. The wort protein solution is a little less dense than
sucrose, the mineral content a little more dense and the numerous wort
carbohydrates on both sides of the scale.
A refractometer measures the index of refraction of the medium - the
property of bending light at a air/liquid interface. A refractometer may
have a Brix scale attached, but it should be labeled in large red
lettering - "ONLY VALID WHEN MEASURING SUCROSE SOLUTIONS". The same warning
should also appear on a Brix or Plato scaled hydrometer too. When measuring
fruit juice with refractometer the fluid consists of several simple sugars
and all have very similar refraction properties as sucrose so the reading is
'good enough'. If you compare difference of the index of refraction of a
solution Vs water at a 20C air interface you get figures like
10% sucrose sol'n 148 * 10^-4
10% glucose sol'n 146 * 10^-4
10% fructose sol'n 147 * 10^-4
so the estimate is within 1% for fruit sugars but
10% maltose sol'n 152 * 10^-4
10% dextran sol'n 157 * 10^-4
So the estimate is off by 4 to 6 percent for these more complex wort type
carbohydrates and it's anyone's guess what the 12% of non-carbo wort solids
do to the index of refraction.
A refractometer is reportedly a very nice tool for watching the increase in
wort carbs throughout the mash. It probably has some value in watching
fermentation progress too since the fermentables vs ethanol have differing
IoR properties (37 vs 6 (*10-4) for 2.5P vs 1% EtOH). Don't take the
refractometer Brix scale too seriously when measuring wort - it will be in
error by about 5% for the carbohydrates alone and I really don't know how
the non-carbo wort extract shows up by refractometery. Alternatively I'd
expect the extract as estimated by a Plato hydrometer to be within 1% of the
actual wort extract mass.
My personal suggestions on brewery tools would put a $25 lab hydrometer that
covers SG 1.035 thru 1.070 and is readable to 0.0005 well above a
refractometer. Even if you buy a refractometer (and do get a temp
compensated model) you still need a good hydrometer.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:34:15 -0600
From: "David Craft" <David-Craft@craftinsurance.com>
Subject: Beer Article
Good Afternoon from snowy North Carolina.
There is a good article on page A8 of the January 3 Wall St. Journal on the
dearth of Christmas Ale and consolidation in the brewing industry in Europe.
To access their archives you have to be a subscriber, content costs! If you
can access this some other way or find a copy, it is a good read.
The upside is that Homebrewers and a few select small breweries can carry on
the tradition of a truly great Christmas Beer! Support year round those
that make Christmas beer.
Prost,
David B. Craft
Battleground Brewers Homebrew Club
Crow Hill Brewery and Meadery
Greensboro, NC
Apparent Rennarian
478.4,152........I Think!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:14:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Rama Roberts <rama@eng.sun.com>
Subject: re: Clear Bottles (and skunked beer)
> Can anyone direct me to a supplier of clear 12 and 22 oz crown cap
> bottles?
If you don't mind soaking labels off, just recycle some.
Newcastle Brown Ale is sold in clear 12oz'ers. Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout
comes in clear 18.7-ounce "Victorian Pint" bottles. I'm sure there are
several others.
BTW- speaking of clear bottles (and skunked beer) this month's Brew Your
Own magazine has an article on cold weather brewing. One of their
suggestions was to build a warming box, essentially a light bulb and your
carboy in a closed space. I admit I don't know if incandescent bulbs
produce the same light spectrum in sunlight responsible for reacting with
isomerized hops, but this just seems a bit dangerous to me.
Anyone know for sure?
- --Rama Roberts
San Francisco bay area
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:39:58 -0500
From: Tom Byrnes <kmstfb2@exis.net>
Subject: HRBTS/BRIESS CUP Homebrewer of the Year
The Hampton Roads Brewing and Tasting Society (HRBTS) is pleased to
announce the winners of our first annual BRIESS CUP HOMEBREWER OF THE YEAR
AWARD. This cup was sponsored by Briess Malting and was awarded to the
brewer who accumulated the most points from entries in our monthly club
contests. These contests ranged from the traditional beer styles to the
unique offering of a Grateful Dead Brew. We presented this cup to Chris
Jones and Diane Catanzaro, a husband and wife team who excelled in their
brewing over the last year. Second place was awarded to Doug Boyd, an up
and coming brewer in our club. It was notable that both winners were
extract brewers sweeping the field of all grainers. HRBTS would also like
to publicly thank Briess Malting for their sponsorship of this year cup.
Their products definitely improved the quality of our beers.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:30:46 -0800
From: "Kraus,Drew" <drew.kraus@gartner.com>
Subject: Servomyces Experiment Question
Since I didn't get any responses to my question on using Servomyces in home
brewing (posted 12/22/01) I thought I'd run my own experiment splitting a
10-gal batch of IPA into two 5-gal. batches, with Servomyces in one and not
the other. I'll post my procedures and observations, of course.
I'm wondering how best to handle the yeast. I plan to use Whitelabs
American Ale (WLP001). Should I get 2 vials and use them separately? I'm
concerned that there could be differences from vial to vial
(shipping/storage & the like) that could taint my results. I'm not sure how
big an issue this might be, and am hoping that if I get two vials with the
same production dates this will be enough to imply consistent handling. My
other thought would be to mix the contents of the two vials then pour half
into one batch and half in the other. Of course I'd be going by eye, which
could mean slightly different pitch rates for the two batches. Any thoughts
on best negate or at least mitigate the yeast differences?
Attributes I plan to look for include:
* Lag time
* Total fermentation time
* Final product flavor differences
* Final product clarity differences
Anything else you'd like to see a layman/apprentice judge report back on?
I'll be brewing this Sunday, so please send responses directly to my e-mail
address (drew.kraus@gartner.com) as I may not get posted responses in time.
Sorry that I didn't think to post this earlier. Thanks in advance for any
help on such short notice!
Drew Kraus
San Jose(r), CA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:42:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Al Beers <beersal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Accord II vs. BTF Iodophor
Hi y'all, I posted this just before the holidays and
didn't get any responses. I thought I'd try it again.
I am sure this a fine sanitizer for the food service
industry, but I wonder if it is considered adequate
for brewing.
I recently came into a couple gallons of a
sanitizer from DiverseyLever called Accord II. It
looks and appears to be a clone of BTF Iodophor. A
question for the scientific experts out there:
Can the
Accord II be used as Iodophor? Here are the ingredient
lists:
Accord II: Iodine (from
Alkyl(C12-C15)poly(oxypropelene)poly(oxyethylene)and
Octylphenoxypolyethoxy-ethanol-iodine complexes)
1.75%, and Phosphoric acid 18.75% and INERT
INGREDIENTS 79.50%. It is used primarily as a food
service sanitizer.
The BTF Iodophor reads:
Butoxy polypropoxy polyethoxy
ethanol-iodine complex (providing 1.6% titratable
iodine) 12.54%, INERT INGREDIENTS 87.46%
As always, thank you all very much, Al
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3831, 01/05/02
*************************************
-------
