Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3855
HOMEBREW Digest #3855 Sat 02 February 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:
Superbowl brews ("Kevin Kutskill")
Where online to buy beer kits? ("Tray Bourgoyne")
Re: Fermenters (Marc Tiar)
Re: Further stuck fermentation ("RJ")
Re: FWH & boilover ("Steve Alexander")
Gott Cooler Thermometer ("Rogers, Mike")
rice solids substitute ("Brad Boes")
Fw: historical beer /yeast ("Chad Gould")
re: Grain/water ratio ("Steve Alexander")
CHERMS ("Drew Avis")
PBW as a sanitizer ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
Re: PTOs and IBUs ("Steve Alexander")
RE: Moving Brews Company? (Bill Tobler)
Alternative BT Addresses (mohrstrom)
Fermenters ("Kirk Fleming")
How long can I save this yeast??? ("Smith,Brian H")
Re: Fermenters ("Larry Bristol")
Sour Cherry Concentrate (Nathan Kanous)
RE: BT Back Issues ("Paul Kensler")
Thermometers (Dave Larsen)
New Ottawa homebrewing mailing list ("Drew Avis")
Bottles for Barleywine ("Sieja, Edward M")
Newbie question ("Hodges, Walt")
Hop Floaties (Dave Larsen)
Good mailorder beer kit locations? (Al Klein)
Indoor automated brewing (Al Klein)
*
* 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: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:31:31 -0500
From: "Kevin Kutskill" <beer-geek@home.com>
Subject: Superbowl brews
What is everybody planning on drinking during Superbowl? Purely by chance,
I have a doppelbock on tap for the game (going for the Rams theme).
Kevin
beer-geek@home.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:57:44 -0600
From: "Tray Bourgoyne" <tray@netdoor.com>
Subject: Where online to buy beer kits?
Looking for a place to buy another kit so I can make more brew!
Where do you use?
Thanks,
Tray Bourgoyne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:11:12 -0800
From: Marc Tiar <marc@tiar.reno.nv.us>
Subject: Re: Fermenters
I don't know that I count as an experienced brewer, but I've done my share.
I'll put a pitch in for cornelius kegs. I've never used a carboy. Cornies
don't break, don't let light in, are easily cleaned, seal well, are not
terribly expensive, and you can go straight from secondary to dispensing
with CO2 with no transfer. Built-in handles for carrying, too. I guess
the only downside I see is that you can't see into them and know what your
brew looks like, or what's going on in there. No big deal. Let's hear it
for the kegs!
Marc Tiar
Reno NV
[1874.4, 276.4] Apparent Rennerian
>Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:20:36 -0800
>From: John Maylone <mrkoala@mac.com>
>Subject: Fermenters
>
>
>I am new to home brewing, and have been lurking here on the list for a week
>or two. I would like some input from experienced brewers on fermenters.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:49:10 -0500
From: "RJ" <wortsup@metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: Further stuck fermentation
John McGowan of NJ: john.mcgowan@us.abb.com wrote:
"All this talk of stuck fermentation compels me to write to ask the
collective
about my current dilemma.
I brewed 10 gallons of IPA with the following grain bill:
25# Pale
2# Munich
2# Crystal 60L
1# CaraPils
OG: 1.072
Split batch: 5 gal with WLP005 (British Ale); 5 gal with WLP051 (California
V)
Aerated very well, but didn't have time to build up starters, so pitched
directly from vials.
After six days gravity was down to 1.030 (in both carboys), with no activity
in
the airlock.
Roused the yeast -- No further activity.
One day later added 2.5 tsp of yeast nutrient (ID Carlson) to each and
shook. No
change.
Repeated previous step two days later. Still nothing.
After 14 days, gravity of both is still 1.030
The beer is still a bit sweet and even masks the 10 oz of Centennial.
I was shooting for a FG of 1.018 - 1.022.
Your thoughts?"
"PS: I was intending to dump a stout on this yeast this weekend. Good or bad
idea?"
Well John,
1st two things I'd like to know is what temp(s) did you mash at & how old
was the yeast?
2nd, until you can find the common cause of the current problem, I wouldn't
re-use that yeast.
Ciao,
RJ
43:30:3.298N x 71:39:9.911W
Lakes Region of NH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:36:58 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: FWH & boilover
Glen Pannicke notes ..
re hops and boilovers ...
> My biggest question is that why hasn't this been noticed by others and why
> is the advice to "add hops only after your wort is boiling" still
> persisting?
I've heard a lot of suggestions as to why, but nothing convincing. Someone
has noticed though. M&BS pp 510 states ... "Boiling worts in the absence of
hop material presents a problem for the brewer. The surface tension of the
wort is sufficiently high to encourage foaming and there have been
catastrophic incidents when coppers have boiled over because hop material
was not present". It doesn't explain the reason for the surface tension
changes, but coagulation of protein or introduction of hop oils may be the
factors. The following pages in M&BS describe typical practice of adding
some of the hops at the beginning of the boil. That's different than many
of HB sources.
> Maybe we're talking about the difference between isomerizations at boiling
> vs. isomerizations at temperatures below boiling. Maybe the oils
extracted
> below boiling temperatures isomerize differently or not at all during
> boiling. But then wouldn't that effect flavor, aroma or bitterness,
> spoiling the above assertion that there is no difference?
No - the bittering alpha acid resins of hops (humulone, cohumulone,
adhumulone, ...) are involved in isomerizations that improve available
bittering. FWH is more about the flavor and aroma components - volatile
oils like myrcene, farnesene, carophyllene, humulene.
Actually Hubert Hanghofer posted the technical reasons why FWH is supposed
to work in 1997, HBD#2479. Volatile hop oils, the aroma factors, oxidize
forming epoxides and alcohols in the warm wort and survive the boil and
fermentation. Normally these volatile oils (terpenes, sesquiterpenes) boil
off or are lost during fermentation, but not the more soluble epoxides &
alcohols. These epoxides are quite reactive chemically so there is a whole
complex manifold chemistry nugget buried here. Hubert sites L.Narziss,
"Abriss der Bierbrauerei", as a reference.
The epoxides and oil-alcohols are major players in dry-hopping, but there
are a lot of herbal flavors added by dry-hopping that are totally out of
place in a lager. In fact dry-hopping only works well in a pale-ale I
think.
Marc Sedam (I think it's Marc) has been experimenting with mash-hopping, and
he may be on the right track, since there are lipo-oxidase enzymes active in
the mash which promote lipid oxidation.
- --
Dennis Lewis adds ...
>I recall thinking that it was just adding
>nucleation sites for the boil so that no large bubbles would form.
I don't buy that. I use whole hops, which give relatively little
particulate to the brew, and I can and do get a full 'thumping' boil with
hops added or without and the foam level is quite different.
>[...]
>I have read in this digest that FWH with harsh bittering hops can lead
>to less than desirable aroma in the finished beer, so be careful what
>you're throwing in.
It's regularly suggested that one add the aroma hops for FWH - exactly
because we are using FWH to extract and preserve aroma factors into
the beer. I can't imagine that FWH would produce anything awful.
Maybe a pils with aroma of Northern Brewer rather than Saaz, is less
than ideal, but it's not "less than desirable".
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:58:42 -0500
From: "Rogers, Mike" <mike.rogers@eds.com>
Subject: Gott Cooler Thermometer
I have a 10 gal. Gott cooler that works excellent for mashing, however, I
would like to take temperature readings without uncapping and submersing a
float thermometer. I see that Zymico (http://www.bobbrews.com/zymico.html)
carries a $10 bulk head fitting for adding a thermometer. Does anyone have
a thermometer installed in their Gott cooler? Has anyone used the Zymico
fitting? Any experiences, good/bad?
Mike Rogers
Cass River Homebrewers - Mid Michigan
www.hbd.org/cassriverhomebrewers
mailto:mike01_rogers@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:05:31 -0600
From: "Brad Boes" <gerald.boes@verizon.net>
Subject: rice solids substitute
Hey,
I want to brew a beer that calls for a third pound of rice solids, but
there are none available. Is there a good substitute? I'm doing the
extract version of the Dixie Blackened Voodoo Lager from the Clonebrews
book. I thought I might just grind up a third pound of rice and throw it in
with the grains at the start. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated-
Brad Boes
Princeton, Il
[297.5, 257.7] Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17:54 -0500
From: "Chad Gould" <cgould11@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Fw: historical beer /yeast
> whatever else finds its way in there.THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION.I'm trying to
> find out how breweries from relatively resent times,say from the time
IPA's
> were brewed for those guys in India.Or the miners from the gold rush
> days.All those hundreds of breweries,if not thousands of breweries needed
> yeast.WHERE DID THEY GET THERE YEAST?----and once they did have some HOW
> DID THEY KEEP IT HEALTHY?-we know as brewers that you can only reuse the
I believe it was the mid 19th century when Louis Pasteur did his work on
yeast, of which commercial brewers eagerly copied later, isolating strands
for better quality control. So it's safe to say that after, oh, the late
1800s, all breweries were able to use isolated strands, and control the beer
this way.
Prior to that, I'm not sure, but I imagine it was open fermentation (I'm not
even sure brewers back then knew enough to use a starter). One technique
I've read about which may help is continually refilling a batch of brewing
beer with fresh wort - which might prolong a good batch for a longer period
of time. Still, I've read bad batches were very common then - 20% loss
wasn't untypical.
Plus, it is not as easy to notice off flavors in ales, especially
stronger-gravity and spiced ales, which I gather were more typical back
then. The pilsner is relatively new in beer history, certainly you notice
sanitation problems with this. But with something like an IPA, of which
speculation is that it was *more* hopped back in the 1800s, you would
certainly have some infection (from the wood cask, from open fermentation
methods, etc.) but the hop flavor would cancel some of that out.
Beyond that, I'm unaware... maybe there's a beer historian out there with
more info. :)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:46:56 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: Grain/water ratio
chris eidson asks about the amount of water in the mash.
Mash thickness or the water:grist ratio is expressed in the US HB world in
terms of quarts of water per pound of grain(qt/lb). The metric world and
the pro lit use liters per kg(L/kg). 1qt/lb is a little more than 2 L/kg.
>Being relatively new to all-grain brewing (3 batches so far), I was
>wondering what the collective would suggest for water to grain ratios on
hot
>(~ 154f - 158f) single infusion mashes. How does variation in the ratio
>manifest in terms of quality of the finished product?
There is an impact on enzyme activity and stability with mash thickness.
Very thick mashes have little free water (most is loosely bound to starch).
Water is one of the reaction chemicals and not just a solvent for the
hydrolytic enzymes, so in thick mashes the enzyme reaction rates are slowed
considerably. Also some enzymes are more stable when the amount of free
water is low. The impact of this becomes very significant below about
0.9qt/lb (1.8L/kg). In a very thick mash you can get more proteolysis at
150F/65C than you would in a thin mash since the proteases are more stable,
but proteases, amylases and other hydrolases are as slow as molasses and the
extraction rate is poor in thicker mashes.
The typical range of mash thickness is 1.25-1.5qt/lb (2.5-3L/kg) , and light
colored lagers up to 2.5qt.lb(5L/kg). In this range the enzymes have
sufficient water to act quickly, yet are relatively stable.
For very thin mashes, the enzymes and substrate are diluted and the reaction
rates drop so mashes take longer to complete, Also enzymes are less stable
in thin mashes so you are losing enzymes faster. It's a double whammy - a
lower enzyme activity rate, and the enzymes are denaturing faster so very
thin mashes convert more slowly. Thin mashes do not cause as much wort
browning as occurs in thicker mashes and also get a few percent higher
extraction rate from the grist. If you want a light colored pils the
2.5qt/lb will help the color, but a temperature overshoot could easily ruin
the mash by destroying the less stable enzymes. If you have a mash with a
lot of cereal (low enzyme content) do not use a very thin mash as it may
fail to convert.
For a 154-158F single infusion .... If the mash was thicker you'd get more
fermentables, but it would take longer to convert. At conventional
thickness you'd get a quick conversion giving wort with considerable but not
overwhelming dextrins, since the beta-amylase would cut out fairly quickly.
In a thin mash the beta amylase will cut-out very quickly leaving more
unfermentable dextrins and the conversion time will be a bit longer.
My advise is to pick any value between 1.25qt/lb and 1.5qt/lb and stick with
it for all of your conventional mashes. It's a good range for quick
conversion and relatively stable enzyme operation. Using a fixed thickness
value will help you understand the other variables of the mash - like strike
temperature, conversion time and extraction rate without having too many
things changing at once. OTOH if there is a good reason for it feel free to
play around - but expect differences.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:48:08 -0500
From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis@hotmail.com>
Subject: CHERMS
Many thanks to the folks who responded about mounting elements in a sankey
keg. There is certainly a wealth of information out there, and some amazing
systems!
I was particularly inspired by Tony Verhulst's system which is based on an
off-the-shelf controller. Simplicity is important as I have no
understanding of PIDs, solenoids, etc. I've started to order the parts I'll
need to build a simple HERMS system based on a counterflow chiller (CHERMS)
and one heated vessel, a kettle which doubles as an HLT. It also will
require a second pump. I plan to use an off the shelf hot water tank
thermostat on the HTL/kettle to maintain a constant temperature, and
continuously pump HLT water and mash liquor through the chiller. I'm not
sure of the efficiency of a counterflow chiller for this application, but I
assume that it's at least as good as the coil in the HLT approach. It would
be great to get some feedback on this approach - anyone who is interested
can check out my schematics at http://www.strangebrew.ca/Drew/cherms/ - can
anyone see any obvious flaws or complications that I'm missing?
Cheers!
Drew Avis ~ http://www.strangebrew.ca
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:06:44 -0500
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com>
Subject: PBW as a sanitizer
David Craft asked:
> I soak the bottles in a standard solution of PBW and rinse well in hot
>water. Are they sanitzed after a certain time?
>I hoped that the Ph of solution is high enough to kill any
critters.........
I would not doubt that there is a degree of sanitzation being performed by
using PBW. The extent of which, however is not known. Remember that
sanitization is the act of reducing the microbial load by some factor. Well
ANY factor. If I reduce my load from 1,000 colony forming units per
milliliter (CFU/ml) to 100 CFU/ml, I have performed a type of santization.
Is it effective? No. I still have 100 CFU/ml. It is effective if I reduce
the count to a manageable level, which may be as high as 1 CFU/ml in one
case or 0.01 CFU/ml in another.
I would go as far to say that I believe there to be a degree of sanitizing
action in using non-caustic alkaline oxygen cleansers (such as PBW) due to
the action of the free oxygen content, heat and pH of the solution (between
9-12). However, this sanitizing action has not been demonstrated to be an
effective sanitizer of hard surfaces in brewing when used alone.
David might not encounter much of a problem in his case because he follows
Jim Birminghams well-put advice and keeps his bottles clean to begin with,
then soaks them in hot PBW before use. Since he rinses with hot tap water,
the bottles should be no more clean than his tap water is but that may be
clean enough so as not to pose a problem.
As for the AHA BOA's political infighting: Please, please, please keep it
on Beertown - where it belongs.
Carpe cerevisiae!
Glen A. Pannicke
glen@pannicke.net http://www.pannicke.net
75CE 0DED 59E1 55AB 830F 214D 17D7 192D 8384 00DD
"I have made this letter longer than usual,
because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:11:24 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: PTOs and IBUs
Mark writes ...
> And the takeaway message on the Hop Clock:
> > [..] then 1hr at boiling
> > is equivalent to 9 hours at 80C or [...]
>
> See, I knew that if I kept asking the question in different ways, I'd pry
> out an answer ... I think that this confirms what both Ray Daniels and I
> were thinking - Immersion chiller in the kettle to knock down the high
heat
> out of the wort, and the CFC to get it where you want for pitching.
Let me embellish my comments. M&BS and Kunze report figures for high temp
high pressure boilers that give similar values as above, but I just came
across a table in M&BS which compares a 90minute boil vs a 90 minute rest at
85C(185F). The wort ended up with 45.9IBU when boiled and 37.5IBU after the
rest. The final beers were 20.9IBU and 16.3IBU. That's less than a 25%
difference for a 15C drop.
I do think that chilling the kettle wort (I just turn on the pump & CFC
water and recycle wort) does help prevent the volatile hops oils from being
stripped.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 09:06:33 -0600
From: Bill Tobler <WCTobler@brazoria.net>
Subject: RE: Moving Brews Company?
Andrew,
From what I understand, Bill did not leave a return date, but I'm pretty
sure he did not go out of business. I talked to him just before the
Holidays, and although he did not mention he was going away for an extended
period, he sounded like his old self. I hope to see him back soon, as I
need a pump also. (But not as bad you.)
Cheers
Bill Tobler
Lake Jackson, TX
(1129.7, 219.9) Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:02:02 -0500
From: mohrstrom@humphrey-products.com
Subject: Alternative BT Addresses
Mike Maag is on the trail of his BT issues:
> I emailed Consumer's Edge Network, from their site
> using the site link info@consumersedgenetwork.com
> and got a failure notice
Try these:
c.e.n.@netzero.net
technokween@yahoo.com
gadgetkween@yahoo.com
Please report back on your satisfaction, or lack thereof.
Mark in Kalamazoo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17:41 -0800
From: "Kirk Fleming" <kirkfleming@earthlink.net>
Subject: Fermenters
In #8354 John Maylone <mrkoala@mac.com> asks for opinions on
fermenters--since I doubt you'll get many opinons on this topic (heh, heh,
heh) here's mine. I've used many, including the glass carboy, the converted
stainless steel keg, Cornelius soda kegs, plastic buckets, stoneware crocks,
picnic coolers and large food containers.
What I LIKE best is an 8-gallon food-grade plastic container that I bought
at Sam's Club. When filled with 5 to 7 gallons of the nectar, the aspect
ratio (diameter-to-depth ratio) is about 5:4, which I like. It's semi-clear
plastic, cylindrical (no neck) with a snap-on lid. In lieu of something like
that, where it's a little shorter than it is wide, I'd recommend sticking
with your white plastic food bucket.
I ferment with the container open, sometimes just leaving the lid lay
loosely on top of the container, sometimes removing it completely. The
choice for me depends on how active the ferment is--the kraeusen often gets
6 or more inches thick--and how much of the nectar I've brewed. Just
starting out, you may be skeptical of open fermentation, which I understand.
I'd never do it any other way, ever again. Air locks, blow-off tubes and so
on don't do anything for me and I eliminated all that stuff long, long ago.
Finally, unless you're brewing more beer than you can lift alone or with
your brew buddy, I can't see any need or benefit to going nuts with conical
fermenters, pressure relief valves, or other semi-pro gear. I hate having
gear around, but I understand perfectly the enthusiast who likes a permanent
setup--it makes sense and can cut down on overall brew time, etc. Cleanup of
a cylindrical, open bucket after racking takes about 3 minutes, however.
Kirk Fleming
FRSE, FRSL
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:51:33 -0600
From: "Smith,Brian H" <bhsmith@bogmil.gylrd.com>
Subject: How long can I save this yeast???
To the collective....
I have saved the "bottoms" from an American Brown Ale (White Labs California
ale yeast) with the intention to reuse the yeast. As luck would have it I
have not been able to brew and this sediment is now about 2-3 weeks old.
Now before you start shouting it is still in the carboy with a fermentaion
lock attached. It looks uninfected and still smells of hops (ie no off
odors). There is no visible fungal growth on the top and still pressure on
the airlock. It has been relatively cool in the brewery. So, my question
is, can I still reuse this stuff?
Brian Smith
Big Ring Brewery and Winery
Bogalusa, La
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:06:10 -0600
From: "Larry Bristol" <Larry@DoubleLuck.com>
Subject: Re: Fermenters
John Maylone <mrkoala@mac.com> queries:
>I am overwhelmed by the variety of equipment available for fermenting and
>would like to hear what the voice of experience says about the pros and cons
>of plastic buckets vs. carboys vs. conical steel vs. conical plastic. The
>negatives of the carboy are obvious, and yet a lot of you seem to use them.
Plastic buckets are fine to use as a primary fermentation vessel. On
the plus side, they are cheap and easy to come by in a lot of different
sizes. There are a few problems with them. First of all, unless made
from a high density plastic (read: more expensive) they will be gas
permeable. This means that oxygen will be able to permeate through the
walls of the vessel over time. Oxygen is bad for the beer (after the
initial fermentation stage), making these vessels undesirable for use
during the longer secondary fermentation phase. The second problem
with plastic is that it is easily scratched. To bacteria and other
undesirable critters (I like to use technical terms like that), these
tiny scratches are like canyons in which they can hide. Over time, it
becomes much more difficult to thoroughly sanitize a plastic fermenter.
Finally, plastic can brittle over time, causing it to crack and fail.
Consider plastic buckets temporary and replace them as often as
necessary.
Glass carboys also make excellent fermentation vessels. Glass is not
gas permeable and is easy to clean and sanitize. The only downside to
glass vessels are that they are heavy, not easy to manipulate, and have
this unfortunate tendency to get broken (with undesirable side
effects). Other than this, consider them permanent pieces of
equipment.
Since the pros use conical fermenters, this is obviously the best
shape. (Someone else will have to explain why fermentation works
better in a conical vessel, because I cannot.) Mechanically, however,
the shape offers offers some nice advantages for separating the
wort/beer from trub. Ideally, you want (1) a butterfly valve at the
bottom of the cone, enabling you to dump the trub that will settle
after primary fermentation, and (2) a side port valve a short distance
higher up, allowing you to draw clear beer after fermentation completes
without disturbing the trub below (it is even better if the side port
has the ability to modify the depth at which the beer is drawn, so that
you can get it just above the surface of the trub). These things are
so much nicer than all the bother it is to syphon from one vessel to
another that it is not funny!
While much less expensive, plastic conical fermenters unfortunately
have the same disadvantages mentioned above for plastic buckets. I
would not go out on a limb and say that I would recommend avoiding
them, as I am sure there are many people reading this who use them
successfully and are quite happy with them. It just did not make sense
(in my situation) to spend the extra money for a plastic conical, since
I figured it would eventually get scratched enough that I would have to
replace it, just like a plastic bucket. [I am sure I will get an
earful about this from someone! <g>]
At least this argument worked with my wife, and I get her permission to
buy a S/S conical! Happy happy joy joy!!! The only downside to steel,
of course, is the expense. But it is nice to know that my great great
grandson will someday be fermenting his beer in the antique stainless
steel conical fermentation vessel he got from that crazy old man in
Bellville.
My advice, assuming you do not want to shell out the bucks for the
steel conical, is to go the tried and true route homebrewers have been
using for years. Use a plastic bucket for a primary fermenter.
Replace it regularly, especially when you see that the surface is
scratched and notice that it is getting more difficult to clean. After
the primary fermentation subsides, transfer the beer to a glass carboy
for secondary fermentation. Do not even consider attempting to save
the costs of the appropriate handles you need to move and manipulate a
carboy safely. If you have more than one carboy, get the handles for
EACH carboy. I recommend both a neck handle and a harness made of
nylon straps, although some of the other solutions discussed in the HBD
are just as effective.
Larry Bristol
Bellville, TX
http://www.doubleluck.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:21:29 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Sour Cherry Concentrate
Hi,
I'm seeing posts about using dried cherries in your beer. I will post
based on my own experience.
Trial #1 was 8 oz of dried cherries in the secondary of a brown ale. Mild
cherry aroma and flavor. Just at threshold.
Trial #2 was a quart of that famous sour cherry concentrate. This made
cherry beer. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that I made New Glarus
Belgian Cherry Red. However, this beer had HUGE cherry flavor and
aroma. Ask some of those guys in the Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild.
My opinion (for what it's worth)? I'll stick with the sour cherry
concentrate. The mead I made is doing quite well also.
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:13:21 -0500
From: "Paul Kensler" <pkensler@home.com>
Subject: RE: BT Back Issues
Mike,
I was able to send an email to c.e.n.@netzero.net, but I had to send it a
few times to get a response. The response I finally received was:
"Thanks for contacting us about the unfulfilled "make good" back issues
offer from BrewingTechniques. Consumer's Edge Network (CEN) will be
handling the fulfillment of these orders, pending two things: 1)
confirmation of contact information so we can send packages without concern
of loss, and 2) regular sales of back issues to fund shipping costs (no cost
to you). This is a liquidation effort; the publisher earnestly desires to
make good on all accounts, but must fund the high overall
cost of fulfillment through regular sales of back issues. Response to our
public announcements and website updates has been good, data base updates
are in progress, and we expect to be able to start fulfilling make-good
orders in the next four to six weeks."
So I figure they want to sell as many of the back issues as they can, and if
there are any left over then the subscribers would be taken care of. I
don't know as I'd waste any money on long distance calls at this point, but
thats just my opinion.
PK
- -----Original Message-----
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:50:45 -0500
From: "Mike Maag" <maagm@rica.net>
Subject: BT Back Issues & Do you scoop?
I emailed Consumer's Edge Network, from their site using the site link
info@consumersedgenetwork.com
and got a failure notice...I don't know if I should waste a phone call.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:53:22 -0700
From: Dave Larsen <HunahpuMonkey@home.com>
Subject: Thermometers
Having just moved into all-grain brewing within the last six
months, I've noticed that one of the most important pieces
of equipment is the thermometer.
I've got one of those deep fry thermometers with the long
poker, and I love is for that. I can stick it in my mash
and get deep down in there to see what is really going on,
and I can stick it in various places to see how the temp
changes throughout my mash.
What I don't like is that because it is a deep fry
thermometer, the temp goes up to 750 F, and the range I need
is so small on the damn thing. In fact, each notch on it is
ten degrees. As a result, I can not get pin-point accuracy.
The other thing that I noticed is that, at least at the
lower temps, the thermometer is not that accurate anyway.
The thermostat in the house registers 72F and the
thermometer registers 67ish.
On the flip side of that, all my all-grain batches have
turned out very good, so it must be doing something right.
What does everyone else use?
Dave Larsen
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 16:13:12 -0500
From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis@hotmail.com>
Subject: New Ottawa homebrewing mailing list
Greetings brewers - for those of you in and around Ottawa, homebrewer Alan
McKay has resurrected the Ottawa Homebrewers list. To subscribe, send an
email message with this command:
subscribe brewers
to majordomo at mail dot yashy dot com
If we get enough participation, this could be the genesis of a homebrewing
club in the Capital region (finally).
Cheers!
Drew Avis, Merrickville, Ontario ~ http://www.strangebrew.ca
I don't understand people who say life is a mystery, because what is it they
want to know
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:43:00 -0600
From: "Sieja, Edward M" <EMSieja@ingr.com>
Subject: Bottles for Barleywine
Our club has recently brewed a barleywine and are
looking for possible sources for 7oz nip bottles or
something similar. This is for a 5 gallon batch, so
our purchase would be limited. Anyone know of a
good source for these ??
- -- Ed Sieja
- -- Madison, AL
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:46:38 -0600
From: "Hodges, Walt" <whodges@teamists.com>
Subject: Newbie question
This collective is awesome! Searching the archives, I find instructions
to rehydrate dried yeast in 90 Degree - 100 Degree water ( I know the
high end is bad so will try 90 - 92), wait thirty minutes and pitch into
chilled wert. Other searches say when pitching liquid or starter yeast
to try and match the temperature of the yeast to that of the wert. Other
searches say the wert needs to be cooled to approx. 70 Degrees. I need
to come to grips with the correct temperature combo of wert with
rehydrated yeast.
Thanks,
Walt Hodges
Brewing in Ankeny IA
(502.8, 268.8)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:16:12 -0700
From: Dave Larsen <HunahpuMonkey@home.com>
Subject: Hop Floaties
I just started dry hopping within the last couple of batches
I've done. Where I love the better flavor, this has
introduced a new problem. I get an excess amount of hop
chunks that never settle out. Even worse, they sink within
the top three inches of the surface of the fermenting wort,
bobbing around. This makes it so that I get an amount of
these annoying globules that get siphoned off from rack to
rack and eventually into my kegged beer. Now, if it goes
into the keg, eventually it is going to end up in someone's
glass, and that really sucks. There is nothing more of a
reminder that what you are drinking is not a professional
product than when you swallow something chunky. I though
about rubber-banding a hop bag onto the end of the siphon
hose, or maybe just keeping the hops themselves in a hop bag
when I dry hop, but I thought I'd ask here first.
Obviously, I'm not the only one who has had this problem.
Dave Larsen
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:20:27 -0500
From: Al Klein <rukbat@optonline.net>
Subject: Good mailorder beer kit locations?
Tray Bourgoyne asks:
>Where is a good place to mail order all-extract kits from?
I've had good luck with www.austinhomebrew.com.
- ---
[Apparent Rennerian 567.7, 95.9]
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:20:27 -0500
From: Al Klein <rukbat@optonline.net>
Subject: Indoor automated brewing
Beaverplt wrote:
>My suggestion really is that there must be used
>restaurant supply places in most major towns. If a
>stove can be purchased at a reasonable cost it might
>be worth running a natural gas line into your
>basement.
Am I missing something? Or is the main difference between a
"restaurant" stove heat output and a regular kitchen stove heat output
the burner? IOW, why not just replace one burner (and control) on the
regular kitchen stove? (Assuming that there's nothing overhead that
would cause a fire hazard.)
- ---
[Apparent Rennerian 567.7, 95.9]
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3855, 02/02/02
*************************************
-------
