Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4171
HOMEBREW Digest #4171 Fri 14 February 2003
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:
PVC issues (beerbuddy)
Priming with liqueur ("Bill Lucas")
Competitions ("Beer Guy")
RE: high finish gravities (eIS) - Eastman" <stjones@eastman.com>
StrangeBrewers Unite! (Alan McKay)
Dead Horses, Water Power, Gravity, and 3 Gallon Kegs (Charles)
RE: Designing Great Beers BU:GU (Steven L Gardner)
Re: two things/or three (steve-alexander)
Re: two things/or three (steve-alexander)
Questionable Carboy (huck7248)
NEW LIQUOR TAX PROPOSAL THREATENS MARYLANDS HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY ("Dic Gleason")
re: keg volume ("Michael O'Donnell")
Re: Re: Equipment does matter. ("Dave")
Results from MCAB V (Andy) NSSC" <AndersonRW@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>
Re: Basic kegging questions (R.A.)" <rbarrett@ford.com>
Re: Aroma hopping (Larry Bristol)
Millsap Small Engine and Ccainsaw Repair first ever brew off (Jim Bermingham)
Re: Basic kegging questions (Jeff Renner)
please George...tell us some more! (Marc Sedam)
Brewing in Alabama (james ray)
Re: Yeast Behavior (Jeff Renner)
Are the judges that bad? ("H. Dowda")
RE: Separate lauter tun vs. combi-tun (Pete Limosani)
Re: PVC in a rectangular cooler ("Bill Lucas")
Re: BU:GU ("Martin Brungard")
RE: Aroma hopping/ note the use of cheap equipment! (George de Piro)
*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* 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.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:19:24 +0000
From: beerbuddy@attbi.com
Subject: PVC issues
Thanks to all who responded on and off list. Teresa, that is one heck of a
simple system! With 84% efficiency shown at least once that should put to bed a
huge hunk of the argument over complex systems.
I think I know which sealant to use now, but I am still not sure about the PVC
I've already built the manifold from. I used what home depot had a lot of, it's
just labeled PVC and a brochure they had there listed it as ok for potable
water. It is labeled on the pipe to 400 PSI, but nothing about temperature. I
did not take note of the stock number. A couple of off list responses told me
to look for "CPVC" to avoid leeching chemicals out at mashout temps.
Does anyone know where I can find this CPVC? Including fittings? Any more
detail? Teresa, that one PVC T fitting that you use, is that CPVC? If not, have
you noticed any off flavors you might attribute to it?
As always, this list is a fantastic resource, and with such an overwhelming
amount of information, just asking the question raises more questions!
Thanks
Timothy
beerbuddy
North Bend, WA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:26:01 -0500
From: "Bill Lucas" <Homebrew42@hotmail.com>
Subject: Priming with liqueur
I racked my stout to secondary the other day and had about a gallon left
over. I split the last gallon or so into two flip top growlers (no point in
wasting good beer). Since they are in such small quantities I thought I
would try getting a little creative with these (at least for me). I put
some vanilla in one, and the second I was going to add some espresso and
maybe prime it in the growler with some creme de cacao. Any thoughts on
this, how much creme de cacao to prime a 2 liter growler? Would I be able
to get enough sugar before the flavor becomes overwhelming or should I also
plan on adding some corn sugar to the growler when adding the liqueur?
Anyone care to comment on using liqueur to prime beer? I may just use
bakers chocolate, but thought I would check here before making up my mind.
Hopefully someone with some good or bad experiences doing this could share
their results?
Thanks to all,
Bill Lucas
State College, PA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:08:06 -0500
From: "Beer Guy" <beerguy@1gallon.com>
Subject: Competitions
Since everyone else seems to have posted on this, I thought I'd add my $.02.
I've never entered a competition.
I brew beer because I like to drink the beer I brew (except for that
oatmeal/Starbucks Stout-YUK!)
My friends like drinking it too and we have fun tasting and goofing with
each other at times.
My life is richer for the beer I make, tho probably it wouldn't win ribbons
(or medals- I don't know how the prizes go). My enjoyment and the
companionship of my friends is a good enough reward for me.
Why are YOU brewing?
Henry in Portage
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:58:22 -0500
From: "Jones, Steve (eIS) - Eastman" <stjones@eastman.com>
Subject: RE: high finish gravities
Mike (xd_haze@yahoo.com) asks about high finish gravities on his first few
all grain batches.
>My first few batches of all grain have stopped at a
>high FG. Both were 5 gal batches with 22 oz W1028
and
>Any idea why my FG's seem to get stuck at ~ 1.020?
When I first started down the AG path I experience similar problems. I tried
all the suggested remedies - big, healthy yeast starters, plenty of
aeration, etc. No luck - I just couldn't figure out why a 150F mash would
finish so high.
Then I decided to check the accuracy of my floating thermometer, and found
that it read about 9 or 10 degrees low, so I was always mashing at about 160
when I thought it was 150. To check it, I bought a standard lab-type alcohol
thermometer (about $10 or so) that was accurate to 1 degree F, and held it
in the mash right next to the floater. Seeing the difference in readings, I
then replaced the floater with a cheapie dial thermometer thru the side of
my mash tun, and my problem was solved.
Now I always check the temp of my strike water with my lab thermo to verify
that my dial is close enough, and if it is more than a degree or so off, I
adjust the dial thermo before dough-in.
Hope this helps
zu Ihrer Gesundheit
Steve Jones, Johnson City, TN
[421.8 mi, 168.5 deg] Apparent Rennerian
State of Franklin Homebrewers http://hbd.org/franklin
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:47:33 -0500
From: Alan McKay <amckay@neap.net>
Subject: StrangeBrewers Unite!
Hey folks,
Users of the StrangeBrew software may be interested in checking out the
new StrangeBrew Recipe archive that StrangeBrew Drew and I wrote for my
website : http://www.bodensatz.com/sb/
Actually even non-StrangeBrewers may be interested since the recipes can
be read off the website without the SB software. Since it is database
driven there are all sorts of useful ways to group and view the recipes :
by style, by brewer, all-grain or extract, etc.
Non-members of my site can browse, read and download recipes. Members
can also upload recipes, leave behind their own comments on recipes,
and also read the comments left behind by others.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
http://www.bodensatz.com/
The Beer Site (tm)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:07:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Charles@thestewarts.com
Subject: Dead Horses, Water Power, Gravity, and 3 Gallon Kegs
Okay, it is readily apparent that Bill Wibble stands against the rest of the
civilized brewing world (assuming you consider this form civil) in his efforts
to ban good brewers from competitions and only allow those who brew in pot
holes. Alright, folks, this horse is dead, move along now.
So, anyhow, I thought I'd try to rig a chiller with a water powered stirrer. I
went to Lowes and bought one of those pumps that you hook up to your drill
thinking that I could use it in reverse. My idea was to run the water through
it, then through the immersion chiller. The (hopefully) spinning shaft would
turn a paint-stirrer in the brew kettle, thus speeding up the chilling. The
only problem is . . . . the thing just doesn't work in reverse. There's way too
much drag; in fact I couldn't even turn the shaft by hand. I even tried taking
it apart, cutting the vanes down, and putting it back together. No go. Anyone
have any ideas where I can get something that will transfer the water pressure
from my hose into mechanical rotation for the stirrer? I'd like to get the
whole thing mounted on a drop on lid. I'll post photos when I'm done.
After about 5 years of brewing, I just had an idea that should have occured to
me years ago . . . using gravity to transfer my wort from the brew kettle on the
patio to the fermenter in the basement. I've been draining the brew kettle into
the fermenter, then carrying the fermenter (up to 15 gallons, and with two
herniated disks in my back) into the basement. Next batch, I'm going to just
run a 15 foot hose straight from the kettle on the patio to the fermenter in the
basement. The 10 foot vertical drop should drain the kettle quickly, provide
great airation with the thingy on the end of the hose, and provide additional
cooling, as well. I'll report back on it.
Finally, after my last posting about 3 gallon kegs for sale, I received a few
orders that I suspect are HBD'ers. Unfortunately, not one person identified
himself (or herself) as such. If you read this and ordered kegs within the past
couple of weeks, please let me know so I can make the donation on your behalf.
Peace, Love, and Beer,
Chip Stewart
Gaithersburg, Maryland
Charles@TheStewarts.com
http://Charles.TheStewarts.com/brewing
Support antispam legislation.
Join the fight http://www.cauce.org
Chip Stewart
Charles@TheStewarts.com
http://Charles.TheStewarts.com
Support anti-Spam legislation.
Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:59:50 -0500
From: Steven L Gardner <stevengard@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Designing Great Beers BU:GU
Shoes... I can't say enough good things about "Desiging Great Beers"
by Ray Daniels, but the BU:GU number really turned on a light for me.
I took Rays book and put it into spreadsheet form and use it for all
my batch calculations. I give it the knows ... system efficency,
types of malts and percentages, volume of batch, type of hops
and the BU:GU number and it tells me how much grain and hops to use
When I think of a SNPA .. I think around .90 BU:GU and by just
looking at that number I know a lot about what that beer will taste like
If I'm thinking of a soft Vienna I punch in .40 and if my SG is 1.055
it will tell me to build my hops up to 22 IBU's but the .40 defines what
I'm shooting for in malt / hop balance.... hope this helps.. my first post
I don't use ProMash so I'm not sure if it lets you figure in a BU:GU
but its an easy calc....
Larry G.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:04:54 +0000
From: steve-alexander@att.net
Subject: Re: two things/or three
Jeff says ....
> >the hybridization [producing lager yeast]
> >must have been a quite recent event."
>
> Lagers are
> thought to have arisen in Bavaria in the late middle ages by my
> reading. Does your reading suggest that lager yeast hybridization is
> as recent as this? I would guess perhaps so, since there wasn't any
> other place for it to arise before this.
I haven't seen any specifics on the time range, so I can't say.
Interesting that some modern cell fusion work with yeasts have
produced stable bayanus x cerevisiae crosses. Maybe it's not
so difficult to hybridize these two.
I don't really see the "wasn't any other place for it to arise"
part. I mean fruits and wine fermenters must have been chock
full of bayanus, cerevisiea and other relatives and presented
an opportunity for this to arise. There are some really
weird things in the literature. One french cider yeast has
DNA contributions from another fungi which has only been found
in Japan. The fungi get around, and there just isn't that
much information about the natural sources.
It seems likely that the brewing S.pastorianus was first
identified and isolated in Medieval Bavaria, and perhaps their
brewing conditions helped select and 'purify' the strain since
no one was plating out at the time, but who really knows if it
originated then and there ?
There is a bit written on the fact that the lager yeasts tend to fall into two
general categories (S.pastorianus var ...) and some have suggested that this
corresponds with the Southern (Czech&Bavarian) sulfur producers and the clean
neutral Northern types, but I'm away from my books today. When and where that
split or distinct origin took place is yet another mystery that will eventually
get teased apart. The lager yeasts are far less varied that the ale yeasts.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:23:29 +0000
From: steve-alexander@att.net
Subject: Re: two things/or three
Jeff also wrote ...
> "Steve Alexander[...] wrote some
> really good stuff about yeast relationships. [...] This
> won't help us make better beer,
I'm not so sure Jeff. I'll set aside my own personal
mysticism - that knowledge is intrinsically good, but
still I think it's actually useful to know that bayanus
is close relative of lager yeasts.
A few years ago during the Clinitest wars I fermented some wort samples with
champagne yeast(S.bayanus) to see what it did to attenuation. The beers
produced with S.bayanus where actually quite good. I little crisper than most
beers, but I could really see using S.bayanus in a Biere de Blanche style
without much hesitation. I feel more confident now that I wasn't just making
some flukey 'beer with wine yeast' but was really fermenting with lager yeasts
other parent. It gives you another way to think about lager & champage yeasts.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:06:21 -0500
From: huck7248 <huck7248@optonline.net>
Subject: Questionable Carboy
I'm brand new to homebrewing and help. While visiting the local
recycling center in search of bottles I came across a 7.5 gal carboy.
Through a little wrangling and begging I was able to bring it home.
Since I don't know its origin or what substance that was stored in it I
wanted to know if it was safe to use and if so what steps should I take
to remove any contaminants. The following information appears on the
bottom of the carboy: 1998 NRC M-3008
Any information would be greatly appreciated.
George Finn Greenwich, CT
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 05:08:04 +0000
From: "Dic Gleason" <dicgleason@hotmail.com>
Subject: NEW LIQUOR TAX PROPOSAL THREATENS MARYLANDS HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY
As homebrewers many of us won't care about this, but if you enjoy a good
pint and live in Maryland it's in your best interest to at least pay
attention to what's happening in the (free?) state.
http://www.distilledspirits.org/mediaroom/2002/release.asp?pressid=72
The proposed legislation, HB 87, calls for raising the spirits tax from
$1.50 per gallon to $5.12 per gallon; the wine tax from 40 cents to $1.28
per gallon; and the beer tax from 9 cents to 64 cents per gallon.
Another great reason to brew your own.
Dic Gleason
Taebaek Mountain Brewery
Denton, MD.
Love your country, but never trust its government.
- -- Robert A. Heinlein.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:48:11 -0800
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo@stanford.edu>
Subject: re: keg volume
Brian,
At 12:40 AM 2/13/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>2. Keg volume. I'm really enjoying this new hobby
>and I'm brewing beer faster than I drink it, thus I
>give away a lot of my beer. I would like to bottle
>about 1/3 of the batch for my buds and keg the rest.
>Is there any problem with kegging say, 3 gallons in
>the corny keg or is the forced carb setup designed for
>the keg to be full in the beginning?
I'd recommend kegging & carbonating the whole batch, then building or
buying a counterpressure bottler to package some for gifts. It is easier
than bottling with a siphon IMHO... but if you've reasons not to, go ahead
and fill the keg with 3 gallens... no problem at all.
cheers,
mike
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:42:40 -0800
From: "Dave" <brewingisloving@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Equipment does matter.
Dear "Beer Drinker",
> Dave,
>
> I don't believe that you neither disproved nor
> disqualified Bill Wibbles comments, but rather
> reinforced his assertions with your own flawed
> arguments. For example:
>
> "Also, most properties of the better equipment that
> brewers use don't have an effect on the quality of the
> beer, but, rather, on the ease of making the beer."
>
> That statement is almost entirely false. While yes,
> better, bigger equipment does ease the brewing
> process, it also produces better beer. If I were to
> strain my wort through a colander (which is what I,
> and most beginners, used to do), as opposed to a mash
> tun with an EZ-masher or False Bottom, then obviously
> the colander method wouldn't have as high extraction
> rates, nor would it produce as clear of a wort as the
> mash tun . In addition, you're also mixing in air and
> other potential contaminates.
Well, there is a bare minimum, and then there is below that.
True, equipment matters when you are comparing a colander
to a cheap mash tun - even though you can make a very cheap
mash tun from a bucket for under $20, that will compare favorably
to any other system out there - but the cheap, actual mash
tun will make just as good of beer as a $4k system, and there
are many awards to prove this. You have handicapped my
argument to make it easy to refute, though less blatantly here
as has been done below.
> Also, let's take the chef example. I you give one chef
> a creme brulee dish and all the modern convinences,
> including a chef's torch, and the other chef a dirty
> soup bowl, some matches and a can of hairspray, which
> dessert are you going to eat, Creme brulee or Creme
> bru-AquaNet? As we all know, cooking and brewing isn't
> just about taste, but also about presentation.
This is a straw man. Sure, if I boil my
wort by dumping hot briquets from my barbeque into it,
as opposed to more traditional methods, then, yes,
equipment would matter in this case, but who would
brew using such techniques? What's the purpose of telling
a chef to make creme brulee with hairspray and matches?
Not to make creme brulee, especially with your handicap.
There is no difference in the quality of beer produced when
comparing a glass carboy and a $700 conical fermenter, or a
gott cooler mash tun and a $500 mash tun, as long as the
brewer follows sound brewing principles in each case.
> Finally, I think you're giving the yeast too much
> credit. While I believe the yeast is the most
> important ingredient, it only eats what we provide it.
> And, I believe that "90% of bad beers" are bad for
> other reasons than the yeast. Afterall, if you "have
> to turn over control to the yeast to do much of the
> work," and it is only "biological organism to compound
> all of the mistakes made during the brew session,"
> then everyone would just be buying great yeast and
> brewing with table sugar and there would be no
> discussion of all-grain brews.
I mentioned only the yeast because you have direct control
over all of the other variables during the brew session, in
a *short amount of time*. I used it to show how Bill's analogy
doesn't take into account the variable of time. Tiger
Woods, the Carpenter, and the bowler all deal with decisions
that bring about results in seconds. Yeast does its part over
a period of weeks or months.
> As far as the experience goes, I don't think that it's
> unreasonable to want different tiers of experience for
> competitions. Afterall, you don't see a 300 lbs boxer
> fighting a feather weight. Why should you have a
> brewer with 30 years of experience competing with a
> brewer with 3 months of experience.
I would definitely want to be in the competition with the
large breweries. The ribbon, assuming I got one, would
mean so much more. Even if I didn't win, I would probably
learn much more than if I was in the category where,
"It's OK, If your "brown ale" tastes like a stout, and is
a little infected, you're an amateur!" Let people do their
practice at home, but when it's competition time, let's make
it mean something to win.
The ideal we are all trying to reach is a top quality
beer (I hope), but, with boxing, people can knock
each other out (the ideal) in any weight class.
Cheers,
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:31:25 -0500
From: "Anderson Robert W (Andy) NSSC" <AndersonRW@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Results from MCAB V
Greetings,
The Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing (MCAB) V was held last
weekend in the Washington, DC area. This MCAB was hosted by the homebrew
club BURP (Brewers United for Real Potables.) The results can be found at
http://www.burp.org/mcab5/winner03.asp If you were a winner, your score
sheet and prize should arrive by the middle of next week. If you were an
entrant, but did not win, your score sheets should arrive by the end of this
week.
Congratulations to John Doherty from Boston, Massachusetts who won
BOS with his Eisbock. But, also, congratulations to all the entrants, as you
were a winner simply to have been eligible to compete.
The entire weekend seemed to run smoothly (in my biased opinion),
and the 6" of snow that blanketed DC on Friday morning did not seem to cause
too many problems. If you were a participant, thanks for being there. If you
could not attend, well ... you missed a good show.
In an attempt to foster better brewing, I have asked all the winning
brewers to post their winning recipes as well as brewing process on HBD.
Maybe by reading a winning recipe, it will be the incentive you need to brew
a new & better batch this weekend. Because after all, isn't that the goal of
all homebrewers: better homebrew & more of it.
Cheers,
Andy Anderson
MCAB V Contest Organizer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:35:38 -0500
From: "Barrett, Bob (R.A.)" <rbarrett@ford.com>
Subject: Re: Basic kegging questions
Brian Trotter asks about kegging and carbonation:
<Is there an advantage to force carbonation verses priming with sugar?
The only advantage is time. You can carbonate a keg much faster
by force carbonating. The quality of the beer is unchanged. Although
our 20# CO2 tank does a superior job of carbonating than our 2 1/2 #
tank. You know, the tank is bigger and it costs more!!!!! ;-)
< I've seen the chart in books and on
<the web where the entering arguments are "desired
<carbonation" and "beer volume", yielding the pressure
<to set the regulator to.
I think you mean "desired carbonation" and "TEMPERATURE" will
yield a certain volume of CO2. At a constant pressure, the colder
the beer the more CO2 it will absorb. These are the charts you see
for CO2 volume. Pressure on the top and temperature down the side.
When force carbonating, beer volume is not a factor. I guess it will
take a little longer to force carbonate 5 gallons vs. 3 gallons, but other
than that it is not a factor. It *IS* a factor when naturally carbonating.
This is because the volume of CO2 comes from the sugar you add
fermenting naturally in the keg or in the bottles for that matter.
CO2 comes from one of two sources, either you force it in or you add
sugar and let the fermentation process produce the CO2 naturally.
The volume of beer you are naturally carbonating along with the
desired volume of CO2 will determine the amount of sugar to add.
<Where does the "desired carbonation" level come from
<and how do I adjust this if I prime the beer prior to
<attaching the tank?
Desired carbonation levels are different for different beer styles. English
Ales generally have lower CO2 levels. Some American Lagers are a little
higher and wheat beers are higher yet. I have found that a good source
for desired CO2 levels can be found at:
http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/recipator/recipator/carbonation.html. Click on "styles"
and you will find a CO2 level range next to each style name. Adjusting the
desired carbonation level when naturally carbonating is achieved by adjusting
the amount of sugar you add to the keg. The same as when you bottle.
<Is there any problem with kegging say, 3 gallons in
<the corny keg or is the forced carb setup designed for
<the keg to be full in the beginning?
As I said before the volume of beer when force carbonating doesn't matter,
just the temperature and pressure setting. Hope you enjoy kegging as much
as we do. Good luck!!!!! By the way, let us know where your location next time
you post. Sometimes there's a homebrewer closer than you might think!!!!!
We make the beer we drink!!
Bob Barrett
Ann Arbor, MI
(2.8, 103.6) rennerian I can almost reach out and touch the guy everyday!!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:45:17 -0600
From: Larry Bristol <larry@doubleluck.com>
Subject: Re: Aroma hopping
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:00:10 +0100, "Rudolf Krondorfer"
<rudolf.krondorfer@sensonor.no> wrote:
> I have a question about aroma hopping. By going from an immersion
> chiller to a counter-flow chiller i cut down brewing time by at least
> an hour. This was very nice, but other problems seem to have emerged. I
> previously used to get a nice strong aroma in my brews, but not anymore
> after turning to the counterflow chiller.
>
> Has anyone else noticed this problem? What can be done to solve it? I
> miss the aroma but I don't want to move back to the immersion
> chiller........
Rudolf, there is not a problem with the counter-flow chiller. The
"problem" is that hour of time you saved! :-)
I have to assume that you make a late addition of hops in order to obtain
the desired hop aroma. When you were using the immersion chiller, after
turning off the heat, those hops would soak in the still hot wort while
it cooled. A lot of the aroma characteristics you desire actually gets
added during this time. With the counter-flow chiller, you are now
removing the wort from the hops much sooner than before. The result ---
you are not getting nearly as much aroma out of those late hop additions
as you did before!
There are several possible ways to change this. The best one is probably
the use of a "hop back". But a simple method (one that does not require
any addition equipment) is to simply let the hops soak in the hot wort
for a while (with the heat OFF) before running it through the chiller.
This sort of simulates the time the hops had before. This is the
technique I use. I happen to think that the best way to get nice rich
hop aroma is to turn off the heat, add the aroma hops (without boiling
them at all), and let them sit for a while before chilling the wort. Or
use this time to whirlpool the wort to help separate the solid materials
before chilling.
I know this sounds contrary to the principle of "cool it down as quickly
as possible and pitch the yeast", but it seems to me that this rule is
frequently misinterpretted. As long as the temperature is 180F or more,
there is no danger of airborne infection. Your thinking should be to
minimize the time between the wort temperature dropping below 180F and an
active fermentation. This is the danger zone! Letting the wort sit
above 180F for a reasonable period of time is not dangerous.
- --
Larry Bristol
The Double Luck
Bellville, TX
http://www.doubleluck.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:23:21 -0800
From: Jim Bermingham <jbham6843@netscape.net>
Subject: Millsap Small Engine and Ccainsaw Repair first ever brew off
This is a call for all entries for the very first and what may be the
last Millsap Small Engine and Chain saw Repair Brew off. The boys in
the back room of Bubba's shop welcomes all entries of never before
winners. If you have won a competition before or if you have received a
ribbon for prior entries, you are not eligible to enter Bubba's
competition. A special invitation is to be forwarded to Bill Wibble and
Beer Drinker. All entries are guaranteed to be a winner. Judges? What
judges? We don't need no stinking judges! The boys in the back room
will do all the drinking. If it's wet, it's a winner. You pick the
style you want to call your entry. Hint, it would be best if you are
creative and made up a style all your own. It might be confusing to the
boys if they had two beers of the same style. Just send a beer along
with your $100.00 entry fee to: Bubba's Small Engine and Chain saw
Repair, 101 Front Street, Millsap, TX 76066. There is no deadline for
your entries. Wwe will drink 'em anytime. We have lots of ribbons left
over from the first ever and what ended up being the last Millsap
International Livestock Show and Tractor Pull from 5 years ago.
This one is for you Bill,
Jim Bermingham
Millsap, TX
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:19:26 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Basic kegging questions
Brian Trotter <sandinmysuds@yahoo.com> asks some kegging questions:
>Some articles recommend force
>carbonation and others recommend priming with sugar as
>in bottling first. Is there an advantage to one or
>the other?
You may find that kegged beer requires less priming sugar - others
have. I like to skip priming entirely for a sediment free keg that I
can move without stirring sediment, so I force carbonate. Usually I
just leave the gas on the keg for a while, but if I'm in a hurry, I
use the shaking method.
>Where does the "desired carbonation" level come from
>and how do I adjust this if I prime the beer prior to
>attaching the tank?
Desired just means convention for a style. British ales are
typically low carbonation. American lagers and German wheat beers
are among the highest. I think you should carbonate your beer the
way you like it, but consider the "desired carbonation" has arisen
for a reason - many people think that a beer of a certain style
tastes best at a certain carbonation.
I think many Americans drink beer too cold and too fizzy. When I was
a boy in Cincinnati, the father of friend told a story on himself.
He was courting his future wife (my friend's mother), who was part of
an old, minor Cincinnati brewing family (Schoenling, I think). He
was at the family home and poured a beer down the inside of the
glass. His future mother-in-law said, "Young man, if you want to be
part of this family, you're going to have to learn to pour a beer
properly," and showed him how to pour it with a big head.
I was pleased to see a recent magazine full page color ad for Bud
that advocates, "When you want a beer that's never filling, pour it
directly down the middle, to release the carbonation for a crisp,
clean fresh Budweiser." The accompanying photo was so inviting it
almost made me want a Bud. Take that, you long-neck swillers!
I think that one reason draft beer used to taste better than the same
brand in bottles is that draft was lower carbonation. Nowadays, with
frozen mugs and pitchers, it's too fizzy.
>I would like to bottle
>about 1/3 of the batch for my buds and keg the rest.
>Is there any problem with kegging say, 3 gallons in
>the corny keg or is the forced carb setup designed for
>the keg to be full in the beginning?
No problem except you want to make sure there is no air in the keg.
One way to accomplish this is to use three gallon Corneys, but they
are pricey. The other way is to fill the keg with water and force it
out with CO2. Now you have a keg full of nothing but CO2. Then
siphon your beer into the keg and allow the gas to escape with the
relief valve. Then force carbonate. With all that head space, it
should carbonate really fast if you shake it.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:32:21 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: please George...tell us some more!
If one thing the recent traffic was useful for is to let the newer
brewers on the list know that many experienced brewers still make great
beers on "junkyard" systems. A concept to live by as I actively and
wontonly drool over a conical fermenter. Oh, and for anyone who's
bitching about the content lately--feel free to post an interesting,
thoughtful question or concept. Participate in the list and it will be
a better place. Especially when the archives show only three posts
historically.
_________________
George dePiro gave tantalizing hints about his system. OK...he told us
a lot about it but I need to know more. George, could you please
explain your system in detail, including how you move either solids or
fluid from one vessel to another. I'm sensing augers and pumps, but
need a little help seeing it through. With a four-vessel system is it
possible to do a decoction? I could see you starting the regular mash,
pumping into the mash tun, starting a "goods" mash, then pumping that
into the mash tun as well.
- --
Marc Sedam
Chapel Hill, NC
"Where the women are expensive but homebrewing equipment is cheap."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:44:38 -0800 (PST)
From: james ray <jnjnmiami@yahoo.com>
Subject: Brewing in Alabama
I am searching for the name, address and phone number
of any homebrew shops in Alabama. The beertown
homebrew shop site is still down. Are there any
homebrewers from Montgomery out there. We should
start a homebrew club here and maybe even try to get
homebrewing legalized in Alabama.
Jamie Ray
Montgomery, AL
rjraybrewer@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:36:24 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Yeast Behavior
darrell.leavitt@plattsburgh.edu is confused by the behavior of WLP006
Bedford British Ale yeast
>I ... pitched a vial directly (w/o a starter). The lag time was significant
>( about 24 hrs)
Really, not too bad considering no starter. I consider that
acceptable if not ideal.
>then what initially appeared at the top of the wort
>appeared to look like cornmeal...in clumps...
><snip>and the cornmeal clumps are now continuous
>across the top, but just under is a beautiful white layer, nearly 1/4"
>thick, of very small, and white bubbles...
><snip>
>Anyway, I have never seen such a head of thick yellowish stuff, under
>which is the small white layer...
Welcome to the wonderful world of top fermenting yeast. Yes, what
you see there is a yeast "pancake," and is the best yeast, IMO, for
repitching. It has no trub and consists of healthy yeast. Skim it
off as the fermentation begins to slow (on the third day for me) with
a perforated ladle (like a Chinese dumpling ladle) and put it in a
new ziplock plastic bag (it's sterile enough out of the box) and keep
it in the fridge, then repitch it. This is called top-cropping, and
is the traditional way of managing many ale yeasts.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:43:00 -0800 (PST)
From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda@yahoo.com>
Subject: Are the judges that bad?
I cannot believe that BJCP judges (and others) are so
unobservant. They cannot discern that beer produced
from trashy gear (a towel insulated 8 gallon pot with
an EasyMasher for an M/L tun, an 8 gallon Wal-Mart
enamel pot with a spout for a kettle, and a tin pot
for heating sparge water which is poured from a
measuing cup into the lauter tun as needed; none of
which resides on a stand) must be clearly inferior to
that produced by more sophisticated equipment. They
have had the bad form to award, over the last 2 years
or so, 3 - 2nd BOS in 3 categories, 9 - 1st and a
bunch of other colors in 8 categories to beer made in
these deplorable conditions. SHAME!!!!
Folks, it's the brewer, the yeast, the ingredients.
A Testarossa ain't nothing but a decoration if you
don't know how to drive.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:50:00 -0500
From: Pete Limosani <plimosani@rcn.com>
Subject: RE: Separate lauter tun vs. combi-tun
> Kevin asks why I stated that a separate lauter tun is more desirable than a
> combi-tun (combination mash/lauter tun).
> The main reason is wort quality: you can get much clearer wort if you are
> using separate vessels.
I'm about to embark on my first all-grain batch and I'm researching equipment.
Having a separate lauter tun can actually save money because I can use
my bottling bucket with a mesh screen and then use my boiling pot for
mashing.
It appears, though, that one major reason for combining them is safety.
If I'm mashing on my kitchen stove, how do I safely get several gallons hot
mash into the lauter tun?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:02:54 -0500
From: "Bill Lucas" <Homebrew42@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: PVC in a rectangular cooler
Hi Timothy,
I built my first manifold about 6 months ago and had some of the same issues
you seem to be having. Here is what I did to work around them.
First let me say I did not use PVC. Instead I used copper, as Kent Fletcher
suggested in the HBD 4170 on Thursday. I would have to second his
recommendation. I am very happy with my copper manifold and expect it to
last me for years. Which is good because it will take years for me to
forget about hacksawing all the slits in the cross bars, I would recommend a
Dremel and not a cordless one at that. I tried to use the cordless one I was
given for my birthday last year and while it worked, it would have taken
forever to get the job done at least with two batteries. Anyway I ended up
using a spigot on my cooler similar to the ones on bottling buckets. The
hole from the drain was a little small to fit the spigot but my Dremel took
care of that issue. I then attached the spigot to the cooler and hooked my
manifold up to that. To accomplish this I used a hose barb that fit into a
drilled stopper that is set into the back of the spigot. This has worked
great for me and has the advantage of being removable... I did have to
soldier some of the copper, just not the pieces with the slits so you can
take it apart and clean it. The other issue was getting the manifold to sit
flat on the cooler bottom while plugging it into the back of the spigot. To
accomplish this I used a 1/2' copper T that was soldered to a short shank
that was soldered to a 90* elbow. I then attached the hose barb to that and
the shoved the stopper onto the hose barb. This set up has been working
great. I have not had a stuck sparge to date, the wort clears real nicely
after about a gallon of vorlauf, and with the spigot it is really easy to
control the rate of the run off.
If you want I can get you more information on the design just send me an
email.
Hope that helps...
Bill Lucas
State College, PA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:18:06 -0500
From: "Martin Brungard" <Martin.Brungard@trow.com>
Subject: Re: BU:GU
I greatly appreciate Ray Daniels' writing. The Designing Great Beers book is
very valuable for understanding the characteristics of many styles and
developing the ability to formulate your own recipes.
The BU:GU concept is helpful, but I feel it may be leaving out a very
important contributor to bitterness perception. That is the residual sugar
content. The residual sugar content is a function of the final gravity of
the beer.
It seems to me, that another easy to use ratio could be used to provide more
indication of the balance of a beer. I suggest that the ratio could be:
Bittering Units divided by the sum of Starting and Finish Gravities
or
BU/(SG+FG)
This change is minor, but it produces a more meaningful result.
Yeast selection and mashing schedule can easily produce a 10 percent
difference in the apparent attenuation for a beer. This suggested change to
the equation does make that difference in balance more apparent.
The effect of the equation change is more pronounced for high gravity beers
and higher bittering levels. This could mean a difference as high as 6
percent in the results of high- and low-attenuated, hoppy, high gravity
beers. The equation change is much less significant for smaller beers, maybe
only a percent or two.
I know that this is definitely a nit-picking aspect, but I figured we needed
a break from some of the other discussions on HBD. I wouldn't doubt that Ray
already considered this refinement to the balance equation, but dropped it in
the interest of ease of use. Final Gravity is one more bit of data that we
might not have when evaluating a beer.
I would appreciate any comments on this relatively useless bit of minutia
that I've put out here.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:28:37 -0500
From: George de Piro <george@EvansAle.com>
Subject: RE: Aroma hopping/ note the use of cheap equipment!
Hi all,
Rudolf is pondering the loss of hop aroma in his beers since switching from
an immersion chiller to a counter-flow chiller. This is a common problem.
When using an immersion chiller, the entire wort is cooled at once, so the
last hop addition made will not be steeped in hot wort for very long. This
preserves the hop oils in the wort, and is an advantage of immersion
chillers.
Counter-flow chillers cool the wort rapidly, but in a piecemeal fashion,
leaving the much of the wort near boiling temperature for a long time. This
will not only drive off volatile hop oils but it will also cause
isomerization of the alpha acids from the last hop addition. This
isomerization is much more efficient than many realize, especially if using
hop pellets, and will significantly increase bitterness.
At the brewpub, which of course uses a counter-flow heat exchanger, I had
the exact problem that Rudolf is now experiencing. I solved it by making a
very simple hop back: I put a few pounds of hop pellets into a nylon bag,
tie the bag to a pole and immerse the bag in the wort near the kettle's wort
outlet. I then begin pumping wort out of the kettle to the heat exchanger.
This simple technique has produced excellent results, as evidenced by the
success of my very hoppy American Brown ale at the Great American Beer
Festival. Bill Wible please note: the "hop back" I use costs US $3.50, and
yet I still manage to make award-winning beer with it.
Of course, one can elect to build a more fancy and possibly more efficient
hop back, but the point is that some sort of hop back will solve this
problem. If you try the cheap nylon bag hop back, don't try to stuff too
much hops into it. The hop pellets expand when they get wet, and if you
overstuff the bag the hops in the center never get wet. It won't hurt
anything, but it is a waste of hops.
Have fun!
George de Piro
Head Brewer, C.H. Evans Brewing Company
at the Albany Pump Station
19 Quackenbush Square
Albany, NY, USA 12207
(518)447-9000
www.EvansAle.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4171, 02/14/03
*************************************
-------
