Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3853
HOMEBREW Digest #3853 Thu 31 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:
One Step and Sanitizers ("Eric R. Theiner")
Re: Dunkel (Brian Levetzow)
You find the most amazing things! (Beaverplt)
Re: Weight Watchers (Bill Wible)
Re: Acetylene regulator (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Do you scoop? ("Rich, Charles")
RE: Hungry Server (Bob Sheck)
Monk's Fight For Pure Water ("Axle Maker")
Brewing Water ("Axle Maker")
Defective Wyeast packs ("Mike Maag")
Spirit of Free Beer Homebrew Contest (Roanne2)
RE:Scooping and OxyClean ("Don and Sarah Cole")
Carboys, recircing (Nate Wahl)
Dunkel and Recipes on the net.......... ("David Craft")
Re: Brewing Indoors (Todd Goodman)
Fermentation, Fruit Concentrates (ZanfiricoE)
Astringent beer ("Bridges, Scott")
Re: Stuck Fermentation ("dennis")
Re: Frozen liquid ale yeast? (Jeff Renner)
Brew Hauler ("Jodie")
Re: Frozen liquid ale yeast? ("Gregor Zellmann")
RE: Weight Watchers ("R. Schaffer-Neitz")
"Beer Consultant" Spam ("George, Marshall E.")
Re: Recirculation ("Larry Bristol")
re: more astringency problems (LJ Vitt)
RE: Glen's mind, scattered across the brewscape... Oh, the humani (Brian Lundeen)
IBU Open 2002 ("Vernon, Mark")
re: hops/acetylene ("Steve Alexander")
long mash with declining temp profile (Road Frog)
*
* Ft. Lauderdale Beer Fest to benefit the homeless
* 1/25/02 info: http://www.homebreweronline.com
*
* 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: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:07:11 -0500
From: "Eric R. Theiner" <logic@skantech.com>
Subject: One Step and Sanitizers
Sanitizing, sanitizer, and sanitize are some terms that have been thrown
around quite liberally for a long time. The dictionary defines sanitizing
as the process by which one cleans or sterilizes an item; I have seen
laboratory definitions that indicate that a sanitized surface has a log 4
reduction of microbiological contaminants; and the EPA defines a sanitizing
product as a material that has been tested and proven to be an
anti-microbial agent, but only if the proper paperwork and fees are
included. Unfortunately, the EPA's definition is the only legal one.
Why is this unfortunate? Because of the tremendous capital investment
required to prove that a given product is a sanitizer. You see, there are
not very many companies that have the kind of money needed to register
products as sanitizers. The processing and maintenance fees alone are
often too much for a small business to bear-- let alone the independent lab
testing which the EPA requires (since they don't trust _your_ data).
Even those that you think have such registrations often don't-- they have
only borrowed someone else's in a subregistration agreement (which means
that they will either pay the true registrant, or only buy the active raw
materials from the registrant). In fact, unless you're buying your
sanitizing product from EcoLab, Auto-Chlor, Diversey, WestAgro, Huntington,
Lever, or Clorox, I'm willing to bet that you are a user of a subregistered
product.
And products that are legally called sanitizers are expensive because of
this. A business must, after all, recoup the amount of money that they
have paid either because of or to the EPA. So that $0.89 bottle of
hydrogen peroxide on the shelf in the drugstore doesn't say that it is a
sanitizer. Neither does the $0.73 bottle of bleach at the grocery
store. You know it sanitizes, so why should they tell you again?
Do you see where I'm going?
One Step uses a material which is not legal to be called a sanitizer for
hard surfaces (ie brewing equipment). This material, sodium carbonate
peroxyhydrate, will produce a level of active oxygen in a solution of
water, much like hydrogen peroxide. Some in-house testing has shown that
this solution also has some properties that could be construed as
anti-microbial, but I'm not going to say that it is a sanitizer because the
EPA is vigilant and their fines have put people out of business (I am not
making that up-- I wish I was).
The active ingredient has, however, received an EPA registration. I have
asked the manufacturer if I could subregister, but they don't see the hard
surface application of that material as a growth industry. The
registration will only apply to the use of that product as a sanitizer for
use in hog lagoons (the waste pit from hog farms). We could get a
subregistration of that type, but the instructions would then make
absolutely no sense for the home brewer.<g>
Because of the demand, I have looked into subregistering some products as
well for industrial application, but nothing for use by homebrewers. You
see, homebrewers can use anything they want, and I encourage people to do
that and make good choices of products to use via educating themselves
rather than relying on things like EPA registration. Don't get me wrong,
though-- I have been a good chemical engineer all my life and have always
followed the standards set by any regulatory agency, but if there is not a
need for these standards, I don't have any problem expressing my derision
for them.
One final point-- EPA registrations are necessary in industry because
health inspectors, etc. like to see them when they go into a kitchen, food
processing plant, or brewery. But they aren't for consumers. If you
believe a product works, why not try it? One bad batch is all it will take
to show you that it doesn't. As they say, one million Elvis fans can't be
wrong, and I've sold way too much of this stuff for it not to work.
Thanks for your attention.
Rick Theiner
President
LOGIC, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:28:07 -0500
From: Brian Levetzow <levetzowbt@home.com>
Subject: Re: Dunkel
David asks about his dunkel recipe and dark malt additions.
FWIW, the dunkel recipe I have in my personal repertoire uses 1/2 lb.
Cara-Munich 72L and only 1/4 cup (around 2 oz.) of black. I looked at
several other recipes in books, and if they call for chocolate or black
malt at all, it's on the order of 2-4 oz.
- --
+++++++++++++++
Brian Levetzow
~
Laurel, MD
[425.7, 118.5] Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:32:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Beaverplt <beaverplt@yahoo.com>
Subject: You find the most amazing things!
I am in the middle of doing a major remodeling job on
my house and because I'm doing most of it myself I
haven't had time to brew since last winter. Besides
the withdrawal you must believe I'm going through, you
now understand why I stand in front of the vast beer
selection at discount liquor with drool running down
my chin.
That leads me to the point of this missive. Last night
whilst selecting some finer offerings to slake my
thirst for good beer I happened upon a pretty red box
that offered a magnum, yes a magnum, of Budweiser. It
appears it is And-hows-your-Bush's 125th anniversary
and for the low, low price of $13.95 you can purchase
a collectors edition magnum of Bud. All this goes to
prove that you can make a silk purse out of a sow's
ear.
Dying to brew again in Wisconsin
Jerry "Beaver" Pelt
Up wind of Jeff Renner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:09:44 -0500
From: Bill Wible <bill@brewbyyou.net>
Subject: Re: Weight Watchers
I would think that home brew would follow the same point system as
commercial beer. It's possible that beer, wine, and other alcohol
is not in the Weight Watchers week one materials; There is a
Celebrations booklet that I think is in week 3 or 4.
I checked with someone who was recently on WW, and she thinks it's
probably 4 points (200 calories).
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:47:57 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Acetylene regulator
>>>>> "Gene" == Gene Collins <GCollins@cranecarrier.com> writes:
Gene> Secondly, for those who have been around acetylene gas, it
Gene> is the most vile smelling stuff imaginable.
Interesting note on this from Encyclopedia Brittanica (quoted without
permission):
Pure acetylene is a colourless gas with a pleasant odour;
as prepared from calcium carbide it usually contains traces
of phosphine that cause an unpleasant garliclike odour.
Brewing relevance? Not really. :-)
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:31:51 -0800
From: "Rich, Charles" <CRich@filenet.com>
Subject: Re: Do you scoop?
Regarding skimming off the initial dense foam layer when wort comes to a
boil, I scoop. I've noticed that if I don't, when the layer completely
covers the whole surface of the kettle it acts like a thermal blanket which
lets the wort underneath it heat up enough to cause a sudden boilover.
I have wondered if leaving it in might help produce a stronger hot break by
providing more coagulation sites but haven't seen a difference either way.
Our Seattle area soft water makes for a pretty low pH wort (typically pH
4.8) despite even outrageous salt additions and so never produces very big
hot break particles.
Charles Rich
Kirkland, WA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:49:11 -0500
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck@skantech.net>
Subject: RE: Hungry Server
Time to feed it again with donations!
>Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:16:41 -0500
>What's with the hungry server, Pat?
>Jeff
>- --
Bob Sheck // DEA - Down East Alers - Greenville, NC
bsheck@skantech.net // [583.2,140.6] Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:10:43 -0500
From: "Axle Maker" <axlemaker@mindspring.com>
Subject: Monk's Fight For Pure Water
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020129/od/beer_dc_1.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:17:22 -0500
From: "Axle Maker" <axlemaker@mindspring.com>
Subject: Brewing Water
Would the water expert's out there take a look at the water i'm using to
brew with and let me know if there are any problems with it.
Private E-mail would be fine.
Carolina Mountain Water
Bottled Water Mineral Analysis
Parts Per Million
Constituent (mg/liter)
Calcium 6.70
Magnesium .34
Sodium 3.50
Potassium 1.50
Fluoride .06
Iron <.01
Zinc <.01
Total dissolved solids 50.00
pH 6.88
Thank You !
Axle Maker
Axle's Alewerk's
Rossville, Ga.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:11:36 -0500
From: "Mike Maag" <maagm@rica.net>
Subject: Defective Wyeast packs
The local HB supply store just got in some new Wyeast smack
packs. They have the type of yeast stamped at the top of the
pack at the seal. It appears the new stamping process
compromises the seal. Anyway, the outer pack seal is weaker
than the inner seal. It is impossible to break the inner pack
without breaking the outer pack seal.
If you use Wyeast that has the new stamp at the seal,
smack it in the shop.
Mike Maag
Squirting yeast all over the shop
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:34:04 EST
From: Roanne2@aol.com
Subject: Spirit of Free Beer Homebrew Contest
The Brewers Untied for Real Potables, BURP, have tentatively scheduled the
Spirit of Free Beer homebrew contest for May 18-19, 2002. The Old Dominion
Brewing Company outside Washington, DC has agreed to host this MCAB
qualifying event. Other possible dates are April 27-28 or May 11-12. Does
anyone know of any events or problems that would interfere with the Spirit of
Free Beer being held the third week in May, or on either of the alternate
dates. In particular, are any of the AHA regional contests being held these
weekends? If you are aware of any conflicts please let me know at
Robert@BURP.org. We will officially confirm this date in a couple of weeks.
Thanks again for your help and I hope to see some of you as judges at our
club's contests and also hope our judges have the pleasure of tasting your
beer.
Robert Stevens
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:03:24 -0600
From: "Don and Sarah Cole" <dcole@mc.net>
Subject: RE:Scooping and OxyClean
I don't scoop, I spray. I had the pleasure of looking over a Pro brewers
shoulder (thanks Bubba!) who was using a hot water spray to keep the foam
down at the beginning of the boil. Worked well, so I started doing the
same. I run a hose out to the garage from a hot water source. Works for
me.
I use OxyClean on everything. I try not to leave it soaking too long and
never use it as a sanitizer.
Don Cole
dcole@mc.net
Northern Mud Zeptobrewery
Somewhere in Northern Illinois [or 232.3, 269.2 Rennerian...I think...]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:16:09 -0500
From: Nate Wahl <cruiser@cros.net>
Subject: Carboys, recircing
Brewers! A few brief tidbits:
Regarding carboy handling and safety, please take a look at some
carriers I use; easy to make, convenient and they make the glass
integrity somewhat better!
http://www.cros.net/cruiser/carboy/carboy.html
Regarding recirculation, I initially get a lot of 'chunkies' when I
first come out of the mash tun; so I hand recirc a half-dozen large
cupfulls of wort before hooking up the pump. I'd be afraid any large
pieces could damage the pump. I also have a manual bypass valve around
the 3-way solenoid valve, directly into the up-facing H-shaped
open-ended return manifold; I used to get plugging also with a slotted
manifold. I run on the bypass for a few minutes to set the grainbed, and
the wort usually clears up nicely by then.
I always run throttled on my pump outlet; I found a 1/12 HP pump, which
works great, but if left unbridled, can draw the grainbed down to a
half-height solid mass in about 2 seconds...
Solenoid valves are particularly subject to sticking when solids get
lodged in the mechanism; I'm going to install a 20 messh strainer inline
with the valve soon. The valve only gets a bit hung up occasionally
now, and a good whack usually clears things up, but the strainer should
cure the problem. Fortunately the valve rattles quite loudly when hung
up, so it acts like an alarm.
My HLT heater uses a straight-thread element, 1", threaded into a 1"
female half-coupling welded to the keg; the white tape and a double
gaskets seem to seal fine.
Here's some info on my system; the drawings are pretty much current, but
the pictures and text sorely need updated. I'll update them soon!
Right...
http://www.cros.net/cruiser/Brewery/nate_herms.html
Regards and Hoppy Brewing!
Nate Wahl aka Oogie Wa Wa
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:06:40 -0500
From: "David Craft" <David-Craft@craftinsurance.com>
Subject: Dunkel and Recipes on the net..........
Greetings,
Thanks for all of the advice on Dunkels. It looks like I have made
wonderful German Porter! Probably too strong (1.059 sg) and chocolately
for a Black Beer and not quite strong enough for a Bock. Although it
probably is closest to a Bock. I suppose I'll have to rename it from "Tim
Dunkel" (named for the great Wake Forest/ San Antonio Spurs Center) to
"Sippin on the Bock of the Day". Whistle after you say that!
Dunkels are not as dark as I remembered, but I have had several rather dark
and somewhat chocolately examples.............I did buy some Dinkel Acker
yesterday and saw the color I should have shot at. Unfortunately the taste
was stale.
My lesson learned is that many recipes posted on the net are not reliable.
I do surf around and usually end up more confused with all the recipes
posted in various places.
Does any one have any thoughts on recipes on the internet and their trueness
to style?
Cheers,
David B. Craft
Battleground Brewers Homebrew Club
Crow Hill Brewery and Meadery
Greensboro, NC
Apparent Rennarian 478.4, 152
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:17:05 -0500
From: Todd Goodman <tgoodman@bonedaddy.net>
Subject: Re: Brewing Indoors
Glen writes:
> Indoor automated brewing:
> C02/C0 and explosive propane leak warnings aside, can anyone tell me if they
> brew indoors using natural gas or propane? I don't feel like killing
> myself, so I'll go with adequate ventilation using a blower and keep my 20#
> LPG tank outside. But I cannot keep thinking that it is much easier for me
> to brew in the basement... out of the cold... out of the rain... running
> water on hand... no spotlights when it gets dark... Does anyone do this?
> Private e-mail me if you do to avoid the ramblings of the Digest safety
> monitors!
I brew in my basement with natural gas on a commercial six burner stove.
This stove is a real commercial stove and not an insulated high-btu
stove made to go in residential kitchens. It needs 6" clearance from
combustibles.
My basement brewery was inspected by the fire department and building
inspector. The fire department required an automated fire supression
system (Ansul) since the stove was commercial (per their reading of the
Boca codes). The company who put the system in would only install it if
I had an all welded stainless hood with an all welded duct to the
mushroom fan outside. This was custom made and way overkill (it
includes grease traps and everything), but that's what I needed to do
to appease the inspectors.
The building inspector was very concerned about appropriate make up air
(and after using the system, I'm glad he was). He made me determine the
cfm of make up air required from the max BTUs of all burners and oven
together. This ended up requiring two 8" square vents in the outside
wall (one high and one low to promote air flow). Luckily my basement is
a walk-out and half the wall is wood framed instead of all concrete.
He also made me hardwire a heat detector and CO detector into the fire
detector circuit (so it would trigger all detectors in the house if one
of those tripped). I also use a Nighthawk CO detector with digital
readout.
If I forget to open the vents and turn on the fan then the CO builds up
pretty quickly. I have to admit that when I first used the system I did
set of the hardwired CO detector once. I haven't since that time.
With the appropriate ventilation and fan running, there is no measurable
CO (the digital readout reads 000).
I use one or two burners tops (one for my mash, one for my hot liquor
tank and one for my boil).
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:18:14 EST
From: ZanfiricoE@aol.com
Subject: Fermentation, Fruit Concentrates
Hello, this is my first post. I'm new to homebrewing (18 gallons so far) and
had
a few questions. I just made a clone of Old Speckled Hen (extract version)
and
am wondering how long to ferment in the secondary before bottling. It spent a
week in the primary. O.G. 1.041. When I transferred to secondary 1.011. I am
using Wyeast 1084 Irish Ale Yeast. The secondary is a 7 gallon plastic bucket.
This is my first non kit beer. i.e. no suggestions on little sheet!
I am not sure how to tell when it's completely fermented. Is it when all CO2
pro
duction stops? Slows considerably? I've been timing the bubbles coming out of
the airlock. Yesterday it took a little over 5 min. inbetween bubbles.
My other question concerns fruit beers. I want to brew a Cherry Stout. The one
I am considering is from Papazian and calls for 5 lbs. Sour cherries. I can't
find
an affordable source of fresh or frozen cherries this time of year so I
thought
I'd use a concentrate. I found this site.
http://www.amonorchards.com/cart/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&CatID=3&subgroup
id=7
It says 45 oz. is the equivalent of 35 pounds of cherries. Would you expect
6.5
ounces or so to come close, or would this probably be too powerful? I want a
strong cherry flavor, not just a hint or aftertaste. So any fruitbrew fans
out
there feel free to send your suggestions. Add fruit stuff in primary or secon-
dary? I am also looking for a similar product made from sweet cherries.
Thanks for the suggestions, private email ok,
Eric Dahlberg
Rochester NY
[311.3, 78.6] Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:43:01 -0500
From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges@sc.slr.com>
Subject: Astringent beer
Andy Bailey writes:
>I have now brewed 20 gallons of astringent/funky bitter beer. ;-(
>Could it be the sparge water ph? In the town that I live in (Rapid City,
>SD), there is no way to get a complete water analysis. Even the municipal
>water supply doesn't do any kind of mineral analysis, they only care about
>the stuff that can kill you. Not knowing my calcium content, would it hurt
>anything to add gypsum to the sparge water in an attempt to lower the ph?
If
>so, what would be a safe, yet effective amount?
Andy,
I think that you have it. When I first went all-grain, I basically wasted
an entire 50lb bag of grain before I figured this out. The water where I
live is very high in carbonates / temporary hardness. The local city water
supply which comes from a local lake is very soft and great for brewing. My
subdivision has its own "community well", and there must be some limestone
down there... The carbonates make the pH too high, and was the cause of my
astringency problem. Yours sounds very similar. If this is your problem,
gypsum may not have enough buffering power to counteract the carbonates. I
would suggest an acid addition to your sparge water instead. Lactic acid is
very commonly available from brewing suppliers. Phosphoric acid is better,
but much stronger and very hazardous. The amount of any addition is really
dependent on the make-up of your water, so it would not be possible for
anyone to answer the "how much" question without more info. If this is not
available, you might just need to do some experiments. There are a number
of good sources of info on brewing water treatment. If you can't find any
or need more help, let me know.
Scott
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:35:44 -0500
From: "dennis" <dcollins@drain-all.com>
Subject: Re: Stuck Fermentation
Greetings,
I thought I would weigh in on Al Beers post:
"Hi all,
Brewed a robust porter a week ago ( extract/steeped grain, WLP002 ). OG was
1.056, bubbling nicely after 6 hrs. Racked to secondary 6 days later,
gravity of 1.020, tasted fantastic! Now it sits in the secondary flat, no
activity. A wee bit of pressure in the airlock, but very little bubbling.
Rousing the carboy doesn't help either."
Al, remember that the only reason that wort bubbles out CO2 is because the
wort is saturated with it already and cannot absorb any more. Once you rack
your beer, you rouse a lot of that CO2 out of solution which means further
fermentation will saturate the wort with CO2 first before it will start to
bubble out. Plus, once the CO2 bubbles out, it has to pressurize the head
space above the wort. You said there is slight pressure in the air lock
which would indicate that your wort has become re-saturated with CO2 and
also has pressurized the air space. You may find that the SG has dropped
even though you haven't seen any activity. You might want to take a reading
just to make sure.
I recently kegged a porter that wouldn't drop below 1.016. I kegged it
anyway and it turned out just fine. Relax, don't worry.......
Dennis Collins
Knoxville, TN
[3554 furlongs, 3.18 Radians] Apparent Rennerian
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but not in practice."
http://sdcollins.home.mindspring.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:32:22 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: Frozen liquid ale yeast?
Gregor Zellmann reported from Berlin, Germany on his friend's success
baking bread with previously frozen ale yeast.
Interesting report. What kind of ale yeast was it? How long was it
frozen? How did he thaw it (thawing can be damaging too)? How much
yeast did he use (per kg of flour)? What kind of bread did he make?
I've never deliberately frozen yeast, but I have baked with ale
yeast, and found that it gave good flavor but I had to use a lot to
get very good rising action compared to bread yeast.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@mediaone.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:43:52 -0500
From: "Jodie" <jodie@ga.prestige.net>
Subject: Brew Hauler
The Brew Hauler is available from The Home Brewery.
http://www.homebrewery.com/catalog/basic_equip.html
It's kinda like a basket made of nylon strapping. There's an adjustable
strap that goes around the carboy, so it can fit 5 or 6+ gal carboys. I have
one on a carboy right now. Forgot that I had ordered it with my initial
brewing equipment six weeks ago and have been moving carboys without it
until last night. Much easier!
Thanks for all the great postings. Along with the books I'm devouring, you
all are making the climb up that learning curve much easier for this newbie.
Have I caught the bug or what? Am on my third batch of beer since buying my
setup at Christmas!
Jodie Barthlow
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:14:16 +0100
From: "Gregor Zellmann" <gregor@blinx.de>
Subject: Re: Frozen liquid ale yeast?
Jeff,
it was Wyeast #1968 Special London Ale Yeast. It was frozen for 10 days or
so. No idea how he thawed it. (Probably not in the microwave though ;-) He
used ~50 g of thawed, pretty compact slurry per kg of flour, the same amount
he would take when using bread yeast. It is what we call Treberbrot in
Germany. AFAIK 10% spent grains (from the lauter tun, also deep frozen and
thawed) and 45 % of each white wheat flour and whole wheat flour.
As I am not a baker myself, I'll check back with him and post the detailled
recipe in a few days.
cheers
Gregor Zellmann
Berlin, Germany
[4247.6, 43.4] Apparent Rennerian
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA wrote on Jan 30 2002:
> Interesting report. What kind of ale yeast was it? How long was it
> frozen? How did he thaw it (thawing can be damaging too)? How much
> yeast did he use (per kg of flour)? What kind of bread did he make?
>
> I've never deliberately frozen yeast, but I have baked with ale
> yeast, and found that it gave good flavor but I had to use a lot to
> get very good rising action compared to bread yeast.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:25:26 -0500
From: "R. Schaffer-Neitz" <rschaff@ptd.net>
Subject: RE: Weight Watchers
"Hedglin, Nils A" <nils.a.hedglin@intel.com> wrote:
" I joined Weight Watchers over the weekend & was wondering if anyone has
come up with a formula for figuring out the WW points in home brew?"
First, way to go Nils! I'm down 25 lbs and have 25 to go. I don't go to
the meetings or anything. I just have the kit with the points books and
calculator.
The following site will figure out your calories per PINT if you plug in the
OG and FG (as well as original, apparent, and real extract degrees plato,
ABW, ABV, apparent and real attenuation):
http://cocktails.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fleebrewe
ry.com%2Fbeermath.htm
To figure out points from there, just use your point calculator. If you
don't have that, just go by this: (it's easy since beer has no fat or
dietary fiber)
80-120 cal - 2 points
130-170 cal - 3 points
180-220 cal - 4 points
230-270 cal - 5 points
280+ - don't ask
Personally, I tend toward big beers and don't really want to know how many
points ;). The WW Supermarket Guide says 3 points for a (non-light) beer,
so I go by that. I'm sure they mean a "non-light" (HAH!) megaswill, but
they say beer is beer and who am I to argue, as long as it works out so I
can have more of the beer I like/brew?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:27:02 -0600
From: "George, Marshall E." <Marshall.George@Reuters.com>
Subject: "Beer Consultant" Spam
It appears that someone is gleaning email addresses from
the HBD again to spam people as "Beer Consultant".
Now while I think the list of products in the email was nice, this
kind of crap is unsolicited and the person(s) responsible should
be told as such. However, the return email address -
beer@consultant.com looks phony.
HBD Janitorial staff???
M. George
Glen Carbon IL
Adhering to 80 character limits
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:34:54 -0600
From: "Larry Bristol" <Larry@DoubleLuck.com>
Subject: Re: Recirculation
- --->Kirk Fleming <kirkfleming@earthlink.net> wrote:
>First, I hope that manifold is submerged during recirc. I would recommend
>against letting the sweet wort sprinkle down onto the top of the mash,
> ... <snip>
>
>As for the pump clogging--I found that occassionally I'd get better results
>by not connecting the pump initiall--just let the wort drain thru the tubing
>into a container, recirculating by hand a few times to set the bed.
> ... <snip>
On submerging the manifold, I assume you are expressing concern about
HSA. This is most probably a valid concern. Although I have not
encountered the supposed effects of HSA in any of my brews, it is worth
checking my system more thoroughly in this regard. Thanks for
reminding me.
Actually, pump clogging has not been a problem. There are not enough
grains and husks getting into the works to clog the pump. My problem
is the clogging of the manifold on top of the grain bed. Recirculating
a while by hand may be the ultimate answer.
- ---> Jeff Renner <JeffRenner@mediaone.net> added:
>I hate to ask the obvious, but you do have a false bottom, EZ-Masher
>or manifold or something like that to hold the grain back, right?
>
>I have a slotted false bottom and a few mash particles get through,
>... <snip> ...
> I generally don't run the pump when I'm not heating
>or recirculating for clarity (vorlauf) at the end of the mash.
>
>Maybe you need to make bigger holes in the manifold.
Sorry to be unclear; I just assumed everyone KNOWS what my system
contains. <smile> I mash in a 14 gallon S/S vessel with a false bottom
made using a S/S screen. Below the false bottom, there is a faucet to
drain wort from the mash tun. The wort is pumped through a heat
exchanger (copper coil submerged in the liquor tank) and returned to
the mash through a manifold on top of the grain bed. This is similar
to a RIMS setup, but uses a heat exchanger rather than an inline
heating element.
I use the system much like you describe, to heat the mash and to
clarify the wort at the end. The reason for my original question is
that it is common for me to make what is usually a minor temperature
adjustment immediately after dough in. This is where I see the
grains/husks going through the works, sometimes enough to clog the
manifold.
Bigger holes in the manifold is an obvious solution that I (obviously)
overlooked. Also part of this is the fact that the copper tubing is
depressed slightly where the holes have been drilled. This means that
not only do the holes themselves get clogged, but the entire tube gets
clogged near each hole. I will definitely check into modifying the
manifold, or even eliminating it completely.
The suggestions I have received to date center around the idea of doing
recirculation by hand until the running are clear enough to run the
pump. I will give this a try on my next batch just to see how it
works. My only concern with this is that since the wort will not be
going through the heat exchanger, I will not be able to adjust the
temperature upward until I can start the pump. Perhaps I should raise
my strike temperature slightly so that my initial temperature
adjustment is downward.
Thanks for all the input! Any additional thoughts, anyone?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:14:06 -0800 (PST)
From: LJ Vitt <lvitt4@yahoo.com>
Subject: re: more astringency problems
In HBD#3852 Andy described his problems with astringency
>Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:23:59 -0700
>From: Andy Tina Madi Bailey <atmbailey@home.com>
>Could it be the sparge water ph? In the town that I live in (Rapid City,
>SD), there is no way to get a complete water analysis. Even the municipal
>water supply doesn't do any kind of mineral analysis, they only care about
>the stuff that can kill you. Not knowing my calcium content, would it hurt
>anything to add gypsum to the sparge water in an attempt to lower the ph? If
>so, what would be a safe, yet effective amount?
Andy, have you measured the PH of the mash or the PH of the sparge water?
I too had some astringent early all grain brews. With my local water
I has getting too high PH in the mash, which also lead to poor extraction
efficiencies -- Less than 25 points per pound per gal.
I use acid to lower the PH. I have used latic acid and phosphoric acid.
I like the phosphoric acid because it takes less.
Lactic acid is easy to get in homebrew shops. Phosphoric acid - A friend
found a supply and ordered enough for several people.
Using latic acid, I need to add 1 tsp to most mashes. I am looking to
get the mash PH to 5.4 and sparge ph to 5.8.
I measure the PH with papers. The more expensive "colorPHast" brand work
better than the cheaper ones I first used. It is easier to read the colors.
I also make sure I stop sparging when the warm wort is at 1.010 spec grav.
I too measure it warm. However, I ruined a couple of hydrometers measuring
hot wort. I think the hot wort expands the glass and the paper slides down
giving readings lower than reality. I cool the wort to 100F and use one of
my old hydrometers for measuring the gravity of wort coming out of the sparge.
Some of the other local homebrewers in town have changed to getting water from
a local company that filters water using reverse osmosis. They use much less
acid to adjust PH, IF ANY, than they did with tap water. They buy water by the
carboy for $0.35 per gallon. Another advantage - no Chlorine
>The grain I was using was from a 50# bag of Minnesota Maltings 2row that I
>bought from a local microbrewery. That is now gone, and I am switching to
>Pauls Pale ale malt. Could my original grain not have been the best and
>cause the problem? Does the brand of grain dictate how much you can safely
>sparge?
Are you using the low protein 2 row pale malt from Minnesota Maltings?
I know several homebrewers and 1 brewpub brewer who use this malt. It
works very well. The malting company is about 40 miles from here (Cannon
Falls), and they give nice tours for groups with advance planning.
I hope this is helpful.
- Leo Vitt
Rochester, MN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:30:29 -0600
From: Brian Lundeen <blundeen@rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: RE: Glen's mind, scattered across the brewscape... Oh, the humani
Glen Pannicke writes:
> Indoor automated brewing:
> C02/C0 and explosive propane leak warnings aside, can anyone
> tell me if they brew indoors using natural gas or propane?
> Private e-mail me if you do to avoid the
> ramblings of the Digest safety monitors!
Glen, safety is everyone's business, and I would feel like I let you down if
I didn't warn you... Don't even think about doing this! Like my mother
always said... Sure, big laughs,... till you level half the neighbourhood!
;-)
OK, couldn't resist. I too decided I had had enough of outdoor brewing (and
given that the last few days have been a balmy -30C in the morning I feel I
made the right choice). However, I can't stress enough how happy I am with
my decision to go electric (for the kettle anyway). The rest I can handle on
my kitchen cooktop. My mash tun fits nicely across a couple of gas burners
and that is plenty to heat up my mash water. Sparging? Now that I'm a
regular attendee at Spargers Anonymous meetings, I've become comfortable
with spending a little more on grain and only sparging with 2-3 gallons
(sometimes less) and that too I can heat up easily on the cooktop. BTW, I've
never used a sparge arm, I just pour in a pint at a time over a ladle to
break up the stream, but I will defend to the death the right of others to
use a sparge arm without being persecuted for their beliefs. As usual, I
digress...
Back to the electric kettle. The part I love most about it is the control I
get during everyones favorite part of the boil, the Big Foam-up. Now,
everyone thinks gas gives you much better control over the heat that is
applied, and that is certainly true up to a point. However, the foam-up
would usually result in a little ballet between me, my regulator and my
lighter that went something like this (set this to music if you like):
Foam-up... Twist, twist... Twist, twist
Foomp... Crap! Twist, twist... Click, click... Woosh!...
Repeat verse until foaming subsides.
With my electric, I just stand there laughing smugly at the foam rising up,
waiting, waiting, watching as the foam starts licking the rim, and...
Click! Foam goes down. Click! Start boiling again. Repeat as needed. I love
it!
Is there a down side? Well, my kettle is in the basement, which means I have
to carry down 5 gallons or so of runoff from the kitchen in a bucket. My own
version of two-tier brewing. Not a big deal since I always did the mash and
runoff inside anyway, and still had to carry it out to the garage for the
boil. Oh yeah, and the wife refuses to stay home because she hates the
smell. Depending on how you feel about your SWMBO, you can look at that as a
plus or a minus.
>
> Promash in Linux:
> Has anyone gotten Promash to work in Linux wing WINE? I keep
> getting "File
> not found errors". Do I need to configure anything special?
> Promash is
> the only program forcing me forcing me to dual boot Windows
> and Linux on my PC. I refuse to give up my Promash!
Resistance is futile, Glen. Give in. Years ago I accepted Bill Gates into my
heart as my saviour and Lord, and today I am a... Happy man. I am happy. I
am happy. Repeat as necessary...
Cheers
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:32:05 -0600
From: "Vernon, Mark" <mark.vernon@pioneer.com>
Subject: IBU Open 2002
Iowa Brewers Union Open
Homebrew Competition 2002
Judging: Saturday, March 9th, 2002
Entry Deadline: Sunday, March 3rd, 2002
Competition Specific Category: IBU Challenge. For you hopheads, the only
requirement of this category is the beer must have 1 IBU per 1 OG point.
Example: 1.045 O.G. must contain no less than 45 IBUs of Hops.
Entries must be received by 7:00pm Sunday, March 3rd 2002. Ship to the
address below or drop off at local sites.
Edwards Graphic Arts
Attn: Mike Edwards
2700 Bell Ave
Des Moines, IA 50321
515 280-9765
All Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) styles will be accepted -
including meads and ciders. The Director of Judging may combine categories
if necessary.
Go to www.iowabrewersunion.org/events.htm to see complete rules. We are a
qualifying event for the Great Plains Brewer of the Year
Mark Vernon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:37:03 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: hops/acetylene
Glen A. Pannicke asks ...
>But what I /have/ noticed is that my FWH brews, foaming and boil over have
>been reduced. Boiling is less explosive and the foam is only a thin cover
>which is easily broken.
>
>Has anyone else noticed this difference?
Absolutely - sweet wort is much more likely to boilover than the same wort
shortly after hops have been added, with obvious implications for FHW.
Someone on this digest suggested years ago adding some of the hops early to
prevent boilovers.
>Does anyone have an explanation?
My hunch is that the hops phenolics (which are much more likely to bind to
proteins) form enough break to prevent the proteins from participating in
boiler foam. Hops have a *lot* of phenolic material compared to malt - but
most is retained in the break. The protein is responsible for the foam.
===
Mark Ahrstrom ... mohrstrom@humphrey-products.com asks ...
>Down to the Farm
>'n' Fleet liquidation sale (a bankruptcy with greater personal implications
>than Enron's ...) for that.
Same here - but it's a great place to load up at the moment. Do you
think the PTO adapter for my grain mill is going too far ?
>Still, the question remains:
>
>What is the "floor" temperature for hop isomerization?
It's a matter of degree & time. I would expect a certain amount of
isomerization will take place at 20C, but it may take forever to bitter a
beer like this.
At wort pH and higher you can get quite a bit of humulone into solution -
around 50IBUs at pH 5, and 25C and well over 200IBUs at 100C and pH 5.
Unfortunately at lower pH and lower temps the soluble levels drop like a
stone (only ~3IBUs at 0C and beer pH) and so the humulones precipitate out.
The isomerized iso-humulone and humulinic acids are fortunately much more
soluble. There is no magic temperature for the isomerization, tho the rate
of isomerization certainly dependent on temperature (and likely on pH and
other factors too). A lot of common chemical reactions roughly double in
rate per 10C increase in temp, but this is dependent on the free energy
values of the reaction. My hunch is that the rate increase for humulone
isomerizations is higher - perhaps a factor of 3 per 10C. Commercial
brewery pressurized boilers operating around 120C seem from reports to
experience roughly 8X the hops extraction rate. If this is right (and
it's just a guess a far as the factor goes) then 1hr at boiling is
equivalent to 9 hours at 80C or 3+ days at 60C, or a month at 40C or most of
a year at 20C.
===
Converting an acetylene regulator to CO2 use might not be worth the effort,
but it's unlikely to be dangerous.
"acetylene gets its name because it has acetone in it". No way - the roots
of the "acet-" name means they share a (very little) bit of structure. You
absolutely can't make any implication about safety this way - that's just
senseless fear mongering. Many deadly poisons share chemical nomenclature
handles with common food chemicals. Your protein is full of amino groups,
but I would suggest you follow it with an ammonia chaser. Plant matter is
full of dozens of phenolic compounds, but phenol would certainly kill you.
Acetylene is more strictly called ethyne, and acetone is similarly called
propanone. These two don't even share the same carbon structure. An
organic chemist would see greater similarity between acetylene and ethanol
or acetic acid than with acetone - but again that says nothing of safety. "
I don't think it's very safe to use equipment that's been in prolonged
contact with acetone". Beer contains measurable amounts of acetone as a
fermentation by-product. The way to check the safety of a chemical is to
find its MSDS safety sheet (often available online). Acetylene is permitted
in the workplace at 2500ppm in air and has no known long term effects so I
wouldn't worry about the tiny amount in a regulator.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:26:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Road Frog <road_frog_run@yahoo.com>
Subject: long mash with declining temp profile
"Steven Parfitt" <the_gimp98@hotmail.com> typed:
"Will this (the declining temperature profile) have
any negative effects on the end product?"
Yes and no, or no and maybe. I have used this or the
overnight mash (mash in at midnight start sparge at
6am) on most styles of beer.
If you use wheat, rye or some other adjunct, be sure
the cooler temps. will allow the sparge to flow. Rye
and corn grits like a WARM grain bed.
I also find that these beers finish dryer than the
"normal" mashed beers. You can adjust for this with
the grain bill.
Visiting sunny COLD San Diego,
Glyn
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3853, 01/31/02
*************************************
-------
