HOMEBREW Digest #1741 Fri 26 May 1995

Digest #1740 Digest #1742

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Mercury and SCIENCE (Gary Plank)
  Re: Confused Aussies (Jeff Frane)
  Boston Area Homebrewers - Next Wort Processor Meeting (Timothy J. Dalton - Ein Prosit der Gemutlichkeit)
  Bad News Bungs on Minikeg (dsanderson)
  Yeast for Wheat Beers (Bunning W Maj ACC/DOTE)
  Trub Removal (John Heck)
  yeast strains (Darren Robert Gergle)
  Safe Houses (Russell Mast)
  gas mix ("Dale L. Orth")
  Sam Adams Extract Recipe (Mark Kempisty - 957-8365)
  Refrigerating wort (Stephen Schryburt)
  FW: Returned mail: Host unknown ("Ellsworth, Brian")
  Some mercury details ("Dave Bradley::IC742::6-2556")
  plastic carboys (Nigel Townsend)
  Kegging question (SMKRANZ)
  Open fermentation (Bill Rucker)
  Corn Sugar ("Philip Gravel")
  Cost/Starters/Extracts (Elde)
  mutating yeast (Lenny Garfinkel)
  re: Styles & Creativity (Gerald_Wirtz)
  Piper's stand ("Lee C. Bussy")
  Speltsbier: who's done it? (mark evans)
  Trapist beer recipes. (Daniel Faucher)
  Grain bed as a filter (Sandy Cockerham__Mc625__6-0412)
  Generations of yeast (Jim Busch)
  CONFIG (Marc Faubert)

****************************************************************** * POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:07:38 -0500 From: plankg at dgabby.mfldclin.edu (Gary Plank) Subject: Mercury and SCIENCE From: plankg Wed May 24, 1995 -- 10:09:45 AM To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com~ at In HBD 1737 DocsBrew writes: > Whether the ADA says so or not, lots of research has shown dental amalgams > to be quite toxic. This has been a topic of considerable debate for a number of years. A Medline search of the medical literature since 1990 yielded the following recent citation, among others: | TI: Amalgam tooth fillings and man's mercury burden. & AU: Halbach-S & AD: Institute of Toxicology, GSF-Research Center for Environment and Health, & Oberschleissheim, Germany. & SO: Hum-Exp-Toxicol. 1994 Jul; 13(7): 496-501 & ISSN: 0960-3271 & PY: 1994 & LA: ENGLISH & CP: ENGLAND AB: Next to nutrition, amalgam fillings represent the main source for exposure of the general population to mercury. Toxicological considerations focus on the dose of mercury resulting from such exposure. Various approaches to estimate this dose are reviewed. Introducing the dose into the known toxicokinetic model for mercury, tissue and blood and urine concentrations related to mercury release from the fillings can be predicted. These agree well with autopsy and in vivo observations. An assessment of the health hazard for individuals with amalgam fillings shows that the combined mercury intake from food and amalgam does not exceed the acceptable daily intake. In addition, blood and urine mercury concentrations of amalgam bearers are below one tenth of the critical values associated with the onset of early symptoms or of subclinical effects attributable to mercury. .....The Toxicologists have spoken..... > Many dentists are refusing to use them, and many patients are having them > removed. With what results??? Do the insane suddenly become sane upon removal of amalgam?? Do leukocyte counts and tumor necrosis factor levels return to population normals?? (Did you ever notice that whenever 60 minutes presents a topic within YOUR area of expertice you find the information "somewhat less than factual"?) > Remember that textbooks are for reference, and don't always reflect real > life. Numbers are fine, but don't believe everything you read. What does this mean, "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" are we to throw away scientific method and simply believe that which can be found which will corroborate our pre-existing opinions? > Doc. > > "Chiropractic, Like Gravity, Works Whether You Believe In It Or Not." And mercury containing dental amalgams are toxic "whether we believe it or not." PLEASE, cite the literature or provide us with the data, don't just play upon fears and unfounded rumors. > Now, let's quit playing with mercury, and let's put this thread to bed. I concur, as long as I get the last word!! <G> Gary __________________________________________________________________________ "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" Albert Einstein __________________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:14:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Frane <gummitch at teleport.com> Subject: Re: Confused Aussies Alan from Adelaide wrote: > Subject: Corn sugar/To boil or not to boil/Two Dogs > > American 'corn sugar' seems to be exactly the same as what we in Australia > know as 'white > sugar'/'table sugar'/'sucrose' -- in other words, that white crystalline > stuff that you can use to sweeten your coffee. No, "corn sugar" is dextrose, not sucrose. Just like in Oz, our sucrose is derived from cane *or* like the Europeans, from beets. Sugar beets are a big crop in California. Andy Walsh, also from Oz, wrote: > > Subject: irish moss > > Matt Melton reckons Irish Moss and gelatin are useless. Fair enough; > I must admit I often wonder whether the ritual irish moss sprinkle actually > achieves anything worthwhile. Sometimes I forget but still get clear beer. > I do find, however, that gelatin helps yeast to settle out faster. I guess > if you're keeping the beer cool in a secondary for 3 weeks that provides > ample time to drop the yeast out. I'm just not that patient! > > The trouble with the irish moss question, is that everyone has > their own opinion based on subjective criteria. How can > you really be sure it works unless you do some sort of scientific > test? Do you grind it up? Do you rehydrate? When do you add it to > the boil? I don't think many of us would be keen to do the > work necessary to really answer these questions. > The scientific work has already been done, and was actually circulated on the net a year or so ago. George Fix did the research, and determined optimal amounts for Irish Moss. The reason most people "have their own opinion" has been that *all* the homebrewing texts called for amounts of Irish Moss too insignificant to make a contribution. George's research determined that the flakes were actually superior to the powder, and that the correct amount is roughly 1-1/2 tsp. in 5 gallons. Although the paper didn't include the process of rehydration, George's recommendation is to do so. My own anecdotal evidence in favor of Irish Moss is overwhelming -- I wouldn't make a beer without it. - --Jeff Frane Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 12:08:32 EDT From: Timothy J. Dalton - Ein Prosit der Gemutlichkeit <dalton at subpac.enet.dec.com> Subject: Boston Area Homebrewers - Next Wort Processor Meeting Attention Boston Area Homebrewers. The next meeting of the Mighty Boston Wort Processors will be held on Friday, June 2nd, 1995. If you are interested in attending, please email me for directions and more information. Tim Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 12:46:28 EST From: dsanderson at msgate.CV.COM Subject: Bad News Bungs on Minikeg I just bought my first FULL Minikeg of a German beer named Warsteiner motivated out of curiosity and an expectation of reusing the can. This isn't about the beer or the Minikeg. It's about the Bung which was a bugger to get out. It's made of rubber molded around nylon with 8 exposed lands that spring out and lock after clearing the rim. Clearly tamper resistant and not intended for reuse. I got it by tearing off the top brim, pushing it in and pulling it out sideways but the rim of the can was somewhat deformed in the process. Is this typical of full Minikegs and does anyone any decent techniques for removal. Or should I just slice off the rubber brim, push it in and stop worrying? Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 11:35:00 +6 From: Bunning W Maj ACC/DOTE <bunningw at ns.acc.af.mil> Subject: Yeast for Wheat Beers Bob Sinnema wrote: I'm planning to make a blueberry-wheat beer and am curious about yeasts that others have used when making wheat-based fruit beers. There would seem to be little advantage to using a weizen yeast since one is not looking for the unique clove/banana/spice aroma of a weizen. Nevertheless, most of the recipes I've seen call for weizen yeast. So tell me, why shouldn't I use a garden variety ale yeast? Jeff Guillet wrote: I'm in the process of making a clone of Pyramid's Apricot Hefeweizen. I used Wyeast #1338 European because of it's low attenuation. This should make for a slightly sweeter beer which lends itself to the fruit flavor. I find that most of the actual fruit essence comes from aroma, not flavor so you don't want the yeast's characteristics to compete. You do want some residual sweetness in your wheat beer, however. I think the kind of yeast chosen should emulate the type of beer you are trying to brew. If you are making a specific type of beer (a porter say) with a fruit component, then use the yeast for that style. If you are trying to produce a lambic style (the original fruit beer) without all the hassle of special yeast strains, try a Belgian ale yeast. If however, you are trying to emulate an American-style fruit beer (usually wheat based), try a neutral ale yeast (like WYeast American Ale), or for a hint of wheat beer taste, BrewTeks American White. Bill Bunning <<bunningw at hqaccdo.langley.af.mil>> Member of the Mile High Beer Club Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 13:32:40 EDT From: jkh at meaddata.com (John Heck) Subject: Trub Removal After I started to use a wort cooler last year I was faced with the problem of a large mass of cold break material. It was a large volume of very powdery white material which did not settle well at all. I wrestled with the concept of just ignoring it as it was, after all, dissolved in the wort prior to my using a cooling technique and I couldn't tell if it affected the flavor or not. Aesthetically, however, it was intolerable so I have tried to come up with a way to remove it *without* losing a lot of wort. After many ex- periments and much brainstorming I arrived at a method which seems to work well, is simple, and is efficient. After I have cooled my wort I rack it to a carboy and allow it to settle overnight. Then I carefully siphon off the top, clear layer of wort into the fermenter. At that point I aerate and pitch. I then arrange a special funnel arran- gement which I constructed from one half of a 5 gallon plastic carboy, used for bottled water. I then stuff some window screen in the neck of the carboy, for support, and lay a doubly folded, cheesecloth hopsbag over the screen. Pour in the remaining wort, trub and all(including pellet hops remains) and let it drip out overnight. All the wort will filter out given time. I then re-boil the filtered wort, cool it, and pour it into the fermenter. Although this is not really a simple process it has the virtue of working well. If care is taken with sanitation the delay in pitching is not really a problem. You can prove this to yourself by making a small fermenter from a gallon jug and a lock and introducing some wort to it in the normal way without pitching. I can do this without experiencing any microflora growth for many weeks, especially with high gravity worts where the os- motic pressure *may* be enough to discourage some organisms. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:59:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Darren Robert Gergle <dgergle at umich.edu> Subject: yeast strains anybody know of any good documentation on yeast strains and the differences in many different types of yeast available to us homebrewers. so far i've only found the basic intro stuff, and the hyper-technical. looking for something in the middle. thanks, -d Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:18:06 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Safe Houses > Subject: Re: drinking water safe hoses? When I first read that, I thought it said something about "safe-houses". > From: BierDude at aol.com > Subject: Yeast starter/Lurking > My question is - at the 4 hour mark there is alot of sediment at the bottom > of the bottle. When I pitch - do shake the bottle to resuspend the sediment > or not?? I always tried to get the sediment in there as well. Certainly, in the solution there is a lot of yeast, and in the sediment there is other stuff, but I'd go ahead with the whole thing. > BTW - Now that I have posted, can I go back to just lurking? There is some > perverse (voyeuristic) joy in just stay out here and lurking. I've always found lurking about as exciting as drinking in moderation. It's okay, if you like that sort of thing. > From: akeig at library.adelaide.edu.au (Alan Keig) > Subject: Corn sugar/To boil or not to boil/Two Dogs > American 'corn sugar' seems to be exactly the same as what we in Australia > know as 'white > sugar'/'table sugar'/'sucrose' -- in other words, that white crystalline > stuff that you can use to sweeten your coffee. Nope, that's what we call "white sugar" or "cane sugar". (I've read that most "cane sugar" in the US actually comes from beets, but is still labelled "cane". Go figure.) Corn sugar = dextrose, made from maize/corn. > I actually use Dextrose [often called 'Brewers' Sugar in Australia] We call it that, too. And one other name, candy related, I think. -R Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:46:42 -0500 (CDT) From: "Dale L. Orth" <orth at post.its.mcw.edu> Subject: gas mix I don't have a corny kegging system, but I am curious as to how these gas mixes work. Nitrogen in a gas tank remains a gas (at least I think it does) whereas carbon dioxide is a liquid/gas mix depending on temperature and pressure. How in the world is it predictable what the mix coming out will be?!? It seems as long as there was enough carbon dioxide to have some as liquid the mixture percentages would depend only on temperature and total pressure. Anyone care to straighten out my understanding of this? I know it works, because I love the creaminess as much as anyone else! Dale L. Orth orth at post.its.mcw.edu Chemistry & Physics Departments Wisconsin Lutheran College Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:53:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Kempisty - 957-8365 <MKEMPISTY at gic.GI.COM> Subject: Sam Adams Extract Recipe Whoops, sent this without any comment. Let's try again. An issue or two ago Dave Peterson asked for a Sam Adams recipe. Well, here is one. I have not tried it exactly. But I did make one with Williamette hops and Laaglander amber extract. I did note that the taste was similar to Sam Adams. SAMUAL ADAMS TASTE-ALIKE LAGER 1 Can Munton & Fison Hopped Premium malt extract (3 lbs 5 oz) 2 lbs Amber dried malt extract 1 oz Halleutaur hops (plug OK) 40 minute boil 1 oz Tettinger hops (plug OK) 10 minute finish 1 pkg Munton & Fison homebrew yeast (normally included with M & F extract kit) Boil in 2 gallons of water. Sparge into 3 gallons of cold water. Ferment in primary fermenter for four days. Ferment in secondary for six to ten days. - -- Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 16:31:04 -0400 From: av257 at freenet.carleton.ca (Stephen Schryburt) Subject: Refrigerating wort Dear fellow brewers, I would like to preserve a five gallon volume of wort for fermentation at a later date. I have read about a technique in one of CP's books to preserve a small volume of sterile wort in a capped, refrigerated beer bottle. The wort is later used to prime the beer for carbonating without adding sugar. The wort can also be used to propagate yeast. There is no mention of how long the wort will keep refrigerated. I would like to use a food grade five gallon bucket (the type that is often used as a primary) to contain the wort. There will be an air-space of about three inches between the surface of the wort and the lid. The mash will be a full grain step-infusion. I have had success in the past refrigerating ten gallons of wort in a grief, but it was only for twenty four hours and the mash was made from concentrate. Now a few questions: Do you think the airspace in the bucket could be a problem for contamination? Should I flush the air out with CO2? Would I have to re-aerate the wort before fermentation or could I just pitch the yeast when it reaches room temperature? Would it be better to freeze it or would that deteriorate the wort? What types of deterioration would the wort likely undergo if it was refrigerated for an extended period? (hop aroma, etc.) Thanks in advance for any advice. - -- Stephen av257 at freenet.carleton.ca Return to table of contents
Date: 24 May 1995 16:09:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ellsworth, Brian" <ELLSWORB at osc2.otis.utc.com> Subject: FW: Returned mail: Host unknown Alan asked about boiling kits. I tried to send this reply to Allen's email address directly, but for some reason my mail server couldn't fine his. After a couple of minor edits i'll risk embarrassment and possibly even harassment and post the reply I tried to send to him...... I'm an extract brewer too. Your sugar discussion was interesting, but I must admit that i've never used any type of sugar in my brews. Perhaps some dried malt extract once in a while, but never sugar. For sugar or rice beer, it's easier to just go down to the liquor store. For the homebrew, the preferred recipe would typically call for 6-7 lbs of canned malt extract, and about a pound to 1.5 pounds of crystal or some other specialty grain. If you want to try to boosting the SG a bit, for fun, add 2 to 4 cups of dried malt. (4 cups and things are getting pretty heavy!! :) I boil. Always. BUT, I also use a fairly large quantity of hops. Mostly pellets for flavoring and bitterness and dry hopping some leaf for aroma. If you are using a pre-hopped kit and not adding any of your own hops defiantly DON'T boil it. Boiling the pre-hopped kit will reduce the aroma significantly, and probably increase the bitterness and reduce flavor. (gees, this is going on hbd.... should I be calling that wonderful aroma 'the-hop-nose'? At least I didn't call it smell :) Just my opinion, but you are missing out if you stick to the pre-hopped kits. Hops are relatively cheep, and developing a schedule for bittering, flavor and aroma hopping is half the fun. I have found that in order to get good performance from my hops a 60 to 90 min boil is required. Without a good full rolling boil, the full bitterness does seem to be achieved. My last batch used about 5 or 6 oz of a variety of hop pellets distributed into the boiling wort from the 60 min mark up until the last 2 mins. I put in about 1/4 oz at a time, and basically just keep sprinkling them in for the whole hour. (By now some of the more refined HBers are saying "my god, what an animal!", oh well, it's good for 'em :) One other hint. If you start using hops, try not to let the SG get too high during the boil. I found out the hard way that if you use at least one gallon of water for each 3.3lbs of canned malt extract you'll get reasonable results from your hops. If the mix gets much 'thicker', the hops utilization goes down. My boil volume is typically 4 gallons or more. Another note: If you are dumping hot wort directly into the fermentor you may get some strange flavors or smells. (and they really are smells this time!) Make a chiller of one type or another. A simple suggestion is to use about 20 feet of 3/8 copper tubing bent around and around in a circle as an immersion chiller. It works great. My setup can bring the wort from 200 degs F down to 75 or 80F in about 40 mins. THEN dump it through a BIG sanitized strainer into the fermenter. 70% to 80% of the hop mess is filtered out, and the mix is ready for the yeast. You might find that you'll start racking into a second stage of fermentation when you start using hops.... The hops and any trub from the specialty grains you use will be left behind when you rack. Let the first stage go a week or so, depending on temp, yeast activity and convenience. Then rack it to the secondary. A glass carboy is a good choice for the secondary. I'd stay away from prolonged storage in plastic. Back into the woodwork with the rest of the extract brewers! Please, please master(-brewers), don't beat me... -be Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 16:58:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Dave Bradley::IC742::6-2556" <BRADLEY_DAVID_A at Lilly.com> Subject: Some mercury details Heavy Metals: In response to the continuing mercury thread, and at risk of dropping my AI score even lower, let me first apologize for not checking the logic in a post I made several weeks ago about Hg's toxicity. And thanks to Domenick for succinctly noting there is an obvious error in the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for mercury. I apologize for not having checked this normally accurate (legally required) info before passing it on to the Collective of the HBD! Shoot me now... (missed! I go on to detail...) Mercury toxicity continues to be a topic on the digest. ITS TOXIC! Believe this. It is the truth. However, it is NOT A POTENT TOXIN. After my last post, I checked this Q more closely. Mercury is toxic just as most transition metals are. In fact, the toxicity data from the Merck Index, from a variety of MSDS sources (OHS Inc., Cutin-Matheson Scientific, Aldrich), from the Handbook of Chemical Hazards, among others, describing such toxicity in detail reveals that mercury's toxic symptoms closely resemble the toxicity of many metals, including lead, zinc, cadmium, aluminum, and tin. I'M NOT SAYING THESE ARE ALL EQUALLY TOXIC... Some of these we avoid while others we don't. Exposure guidelines given for these metals (above sources) reflect what we intuitively know. Here are some elements and their TLV's and PEL's (*): _Metal_ _TLV_ _PEL_ (in mg per cubic meter) Aluminum 10.0 ----- Iron 5.0 10.0 Tin 2.0 ----- Note: metal dust Copper 1.0 ----- inhalation is the Arsenic 0.20 0.010 cause for some of Lead 0.15 0.050 these toxicities, Mercury 0.05 0.100 versus ingestion! Cadmium 0.05 0.005 (!) (*- Threshold Limit Values are provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Permissible Exposure Limits are established by OSHA. All numbers are time-weighted average limits for a 40 hour work week. The OSHA PEL's are enforceable by law.) What the heck does this matter? Yes indeed. My thinking led me to consider that if everyone agrees ("shields up Captn!") lead solder is NOT to be used to sweat copper joints in, say, one's lauter tun, how much sense does it make to use an amalgamated kettle? The answer lies in the physical properties of mercury as well as the type of exposure... The physical properties of elemental mercury make it insoluble in all but strong acids (ie nitric) at room temperature. When heated in weak acid (beer),it is simply unknown to what extent mercury may be extracted. However, much less soluble yet are amalgams with iron, zinc, gold, etc. The issue is acute versus chronic exposure. The tiny amounts leachable into a single batch of brew are certainly WELL below the quantities OSHA/ACGIH say are "OK" for 40 hours/week (ie chronic) exposure. And I don't even drink 5 gallons of beer/week (do I?)! And the quantities needed to qualify for acute exposure could only be met by drinking a large thermometer's worth of the stuff, so its not an issue in this discussion. Towards explaining the unknown, science teaches us to extrapolate from what's known. In this case, my belief is that mercury in a kettle (or my teeth) is tightly bound via an amalgam and will not appreciably leach into the wort (or beer), even during the boil. I wouldn't have said this earlier, but I do now after reviewing the data. Sorry if my earlier note scared you mercury users! I will not use mercury in the lab or at home if I can help it. Others have said the same. Avoid it and there's no problem :-)! Now that the AI Police have come knocking on my EtherNet card, sorry for the BW. Use this data to guide you into your PERSONAL comfort zone w/ mercury, lead, whatever. db >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>THESE OPINIONS ARE MINE ALONE AND DO NOT<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>REFLECT THOSE OF ELI LILLY AND CO.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< From: BRADLEY DAVID A (MCVAX0::RC65036) To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com") cc: BRADLEY DAVID A (MCVAX0::RC65036) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 09:36:19 +1000 From: nigelt at delm.tas.gov.au (Nigel Townsend) Subject: plastic carboys Mark Evans asked several days ago about using plastic carboys as primary fermenters. Except for Harry's brief omments on 16 May 1995, there doesnt appear to have been an answer. My father and I have been brewing beer in plastic fermenters for around 30 years without any recent problem relating to the plastic or the shape. The fermenters are dustbin (garbage can?) shaped. My father uses open brewing techniques, I prefer closed lids and airlocks. My father had problems with some early fermenters as he really was using plastic dustbins and he found the dark coloured ones imparted strange flavours to the beer, but he soon moved onto a source of food grade plastic. I use plastic for primary and secondary fermenters without obvious oxidation problems. My personal (not technically qualified) opinion is that the brew is not in there long enough for the oxygen permeablity to be a significant problem. I even use a plastic keg to store the beer for serving. As a slow drinker the 5 gallons can sit there for several months pressurised with Co2. I have not noticed any oxidation flavours. However, I use it only for ales as I bottle lagers. Plastic fermenters and kegs are commonly used in UK and in Australia. I understand that many people here use steel containers for the keg as they prefer higher pressures for their beer (mainly lager style presentation). hope this is useful Nigel from Tasmania, Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 20:41:01 -0400 From: SMKRANZ at aol.com Subject: Kegging question Terry McGravey wrote: >My kegs are kept in a fridge and are fed by the CO2 tank which is >outside the fridge (to prevent moisture in the regulator and leave >enough room for 2 kegs in the fridge). I don't keg now, but am inching closer to doing so (once I can justify or rationalize the initial cost to my ever-loving but not-quite-as- understanding-as-she-used-to-be wife). The current issue of Zymurgy had a nice introductory article about kegging, but did not answer one question: is it ok to keep the CO2 tank in the fridge with the kegs or does it need to be kept at room temp.? What if any are the problems and/or dangers of doing so? If *really* necessary I could probably run the gas line through the side of the spare fridge, but would prefer not to. The HBD is great, and I look forward to help on this from keggers. Thanks, Steve Kranz smkranz at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 21:06:22 EDT From: brewzer at peanut.mv.com (Bill Rucker) Subject: Open fermentation To all, My homebrew club is having a a topic discussion on open fermentation and related topic, cleanliness at our next meeting. I have downloaded the paper by Jim Busch on Open Fermentation. It gives me a great place to start but I would like to hear from some others who have experience using open fermentation or even some more info from Jim himself. Also awhile back there was a comment about homebrewers being too cautious about cleanliness. I would like to hear some other opinions and facts from those who care to comment, especially from those who would lose the most from not being cautious enough, professional brewers. Our club is new and there are a large number of beginners with questions about the level of sanitization necessary to create good beer. I am intrigued by the thought of open fermentation and as these topics are somewhat interrelated I thought they would go well together. Private Email or digest response is welcome. Bill Rucker brewzer at peanut.mv.com ruckewg at naesco.com Homebrew, beer in it's purest form. BREW ON! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 22:28:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "Philip Gravel" <pgravel at mcs.com> Subject: Corn Sugar ===> Alan Keig writes about corn sugar: >American 'corn sugar' seems to be exactly the same as what we in Australia >know as 'white sugar'/'table sugar'/'sucrose' -- in other words, that white >crystalline stuff that you can use to sweeten your coffee. Australians >(and English) use the word 'corn' to mean 'wheat' where Americans use it in >the American Indian Maize sense. So, American corn sugar is Maize (corn) >sugar (fermentable), or sucrose. In Australia, sucrose is derived from >sugar cane, rather than maize, and I believe that in Europe they use sugar >beet to produce the same product. Not quite. Some terminology need to be corrected, at least as we use it here in the States. Corn sugar is *not* table sugar or sucrose. We use the following terms: Table sugar = cane or beet sugar = sucrose Corn sugar = glucose aka dextrose Thus, we use the same terminology here in the States as you do in Australia for table sugar/sucrose. That is *not* corn sugar. Corn sugar (derived from maize) is composed of glucose otherwise known as dextrose. Glucose is a monosaccharide. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of one glucose and one fructose. On another note... Sucrose is dextrorotatory -- it turns polarized light to the right. When heated with a mild acid, sucrose is hydrolyzed to glucose and fructose. Glucose is dextrorotatory whereas fructose is levorotatory (turns polarized light to the left). Since fructose is more levorotatory than glucose is dextrorotatory, the overall mixture is levo- rotatory. Hence, when sucrose is hydrolyzed by heating with mild acid it is inverted from dextrorotatory to levorotatory. Hence the name 'invert sugar' for hydrolyzed sucrose. - -- Phil _____________________________________________________________ Philip Gravel Lisle, Illinois pgravel at mcs.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 00:47:48 -0400 From: Elde at aol.com Subject: Cost/Starters/Extracts On Costs; >>deteriorate, resulting in a 220v arc. At $20-30 a pop for >>burners, plus the $27 for the receptacle, this got pricey Over a three year period? That's not bad. Bet most people spend more/year on brew gadgets. IMHO, homebrewers spend to much time worrying about relatively minor amounts of $$. (Witness the heroic efforts expended to reculture yeast.) On Starters; >>My question is - at the 4 hour mark there is alot of >>sediment at the bottom of the bottle. When I pitch - do >>shake the bottle to resuspend the sediment or not?? I shake and pitch... it's the cells at the bottom that you want. On Extract Brewers; From: akeig at library.adelaide.edu.au (Alan Keig) >>Thanks to Ruth Hegelson and Kirk Fleming, I can now admit >>to being -only- an extract brewer, but I make great use of From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) >>I feel that far too many people look down on extract >>brewers -- even many extract brewers appologize for being >>extract brewers. Amen! The situation here is such that we (local begining extract brewers) are considering forming our OWN club. The local all grainers are not too keen on us.... Which is sad because of the experience not available to us. On Boiling; >>Does anyone have any thoughts on whether to boil the wort >>or not, and if so, for how long? Since the extract that I >>use has, I guess, already been through all those arcane >>mashing and steeping procedures that I read about in HBD, >>I wouldn't imagine that boiling would do anything useful, >>but I'd be grateful for any feedback. Boil Away! For at least an hour. Yes the extract has already been mashed.. But it has not been boiled. While we do not need to reduce volume, (as sometimes needed with all grain), we still need to get the 'break', etc.. (And if hopping your own, how are you going to extract the bitter without the boil?) On Stupid Aeration Tricks; Ok, Ok, mea culpa. Whipping the hot starter *seemed* like a good idea.... Derek A *proud* extract brewer. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 13:08:16 +0300 (IDT) From: Lenny Garfinkel <lenny at zeus.datasrv.co.il> Subject: mutating yeast David Boe writes: Bill also says he was on the 14th generation of yeast in that particular batch. This also flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of only repitching yeast 3 generations. I believe that if one has the capability of keeping things sterile he/she can get many more generations from a single starter. I often hear it claimed that there is a possibility of the yeast mutating but I find it hard to believe that yeast is any more likely to mutate in a carboy than in a petri dish. I do, however, agree it *is* less likely to get *contaminated* in a laboratory than in your kitchen. A yeast lab (generic sense) is also capable of analyzing the yeast to ensure the strain is correct and not contaminated. Am I way off base here? David Boe Pacific Gas & Electric Co. DCB2 at pge.com - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- First, yeast sitting on a petri dish are not likely to mutate. Mutations occur primarily during growth. If one yeast cell in a colony on a petri dish mutated, you would not notice it UNLESS the mutation conferred some advantage to the cell. Anyone who grows microorganisms for a living knows that if you want to make sure that each batch is the same as the last, your best bet is to go back to the original petri dish, and pick a fresh colony. Never pass your cells from one culture to another. However, making beer does not have the rigorous requirements present in the pharmaceutical industry and as long as the beer made by passing cultures from one fermentation to the next meets your standards, why not do it? Especially if it means getting your fermentation going almost immediately, which is insurance against some other nasty bug taking over your wort. Second, David assumes that a yeast lab has the capability of testing the yeast to make sure that it is not contaminated and has not changed. It is true that one can easily test for contamination. However, testing for subtle changes in other characteristics can only be done by doing fermentations just like you do at home. Yeasts are described as giving a drier finish, a fruity taste, etc. You can test these at home. A good lab can quantitate biochemically several factors which may contribute to these characteristics, but the increase or decrease in the level of a particular ester is not necessarily due to a mutation, nor does it necessarily correlate with any of the subjective taste characteristics for which we value certain yeast strains. Now that we are on the subject of mutations, I'd like to hear from anyone who knows how the professionals select their yeast for certain traits. I mentioned above that mutations will only show themselves if they give some selective advantage to the mutated cells. Otherwise, they will grow at the same rate as the rest of the cells. Now, here in Israel, we have HOT summers. I tried brewing last summer with wet towels around my bucket fermentor with ok results. But it's a hassle. I am currently brewing a batch with Cooper's yeast (thanks to Andy Walsh in Australia for the suggestion and the yeast-thanks, Andy!). We had a couple days this week where the temp was 30C in the house. The fermentation went just fine. I would like to keep passing the yeast from batch to batch and hopefully select a strain which is even happier at higher temperatures than the Coopers. Yeast which had mutated would be more prevalent since they are better able to grow at higher temps (selective advantage). Any comments? Lenny Garfinkel p.s. I also happen to grow yeast in my lab for experiments unrelated to beer (!). They are happiest at 30C, although I should point out that we grow them aerobically. _______________________________________________________________ Dr. Leonard Garfinkel | Internet: lenny at zeus.datasrv.co.il Bio-Technology General | Office Phone: 972-8-381256 Kiryat Weizmann | Home Phone: 972-8-451505 Rehovot, Israel | FAX: 972-8-409041 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 7:41 EDT From: Gerald_Wirtz at vos.stratus.com Subject: re: Styles & Creativity Excellent article that I FULLY agree with! I brew beer that I like not really caring what it's style is. A few years ago I was involved with a club that ONLY brewed to style - these folks were obsessed with trying to create one style or other. With every meeting being a contest to see who could brew to the 'style of the month' - I hated it. My beers never fit into their styles, and thus I never fit into their club. Now I'm part of a club that just enjoys beer - anykind of beer. We all kinda brew our OWN styles and we enjoy them all. Isn't this what brewing beer is all about? If I was to open my own brewery I wouldn't brew a beer and say 'It's just like SA, or Pete's' - NO, I'd say here's my style of amber, or brown, or whatever. And then you style-makers would be trying to copy me. Joe Wirtz - Future owner of 'Tiggers Tail Brewery' Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 07:19:44 +0000 From: "Lee C. Bussy" <leeb at southwind.net> Subject: Piper's stand I just know I'm going to be shown in the minority on this one but here goes anyway. Flames will be silently ignored (a new trick I'm trying). Sam Piper's comments were not new and certainly not unique but widely believed and felt by a significant number of homebrewers. Who made the styles? Commercial brewers, true enough. I dissagree heartily with the comment about the recipes being developed out of economic considerations. You think Thomas Hardy's is a cheap beer to make? American Lagers for the most part yes, European brews are less likely to be brewed or changed for that matter in order to save money. In that market they would loose their asses if they put out a sub-standard beer. About the comments about judging and judging to style. If you are a homebrewer and love homebrewed beer but will not or at least have not brewed one to style then fine. It does not make you less the brewer. However, if you want to compete and/or be judged then there simply must be a standard to compete with/be judged against. There is a growing practice in the HB competition community to acnowledge the vast diversity of Homebrew and provide a "No Commercial Equivalent" style to provide for this. This allows *any* beer to be entered but without standards it becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. It does provide feedback for the brewer though which I suppose is the idea of competitions anyway. Anyway, the reason for this rather lengthy post was to make one point..... Homebrewers don't need the support of the commercial world to justify their efforts. Many a homebrew that was simply divine defied any attempts at classification. These are meant to be enjoyed. If you are of the other type of brewer, one who enjoys the challenge of conformity to style, then competitions provide valuable feedback. It's not perfect but it's better than anarchy. - -- -Lee Bussy | Screaming on the Internet with | leeb at southwind.net | Windows 95!!!! 32 Bit made simple! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 07:42:53 -0600 From: mark evans<evanms at lcac1.loras.edu> Subject: Speltsbier: who's done it? Collective wisdom: I'm in the middle of my Belgian brewing frenzy (saion... white... ) and I am planning to brew a speltsbier that was featured in a recent issue of Zymurgy (love those quirky brews with wacky grains... and belgian yeasts). My question is: has anyone brewed this or any beer using the spelt grain. I am especially interested in the 17th century dutch speltsbier that was sketched out. I noted that they breewed it and served it very 'green' from a keg. I want to hear any opinion/reactions to the brew after it was allowed to age a bit. ******************************** also... a general observation on the digest of late: are we not having fun anymore? have we lost our adventuresome spirit? Posts seem to have gotten dull and technical (for the most part). Is it the fear of getting booted? Will I get booted for expressing an opinion? :^) Stay tuned for more... brewfully, mark Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 10:33 EDT From: dfaucher at miranda.com (Daniel Faucher) Subject: Trapist beer recipes. Hi, guys I'm searching some good Trapist or "Abbayes" beer recipes. If you have good recipes, please post it to the Digest. I'll wait for it... Thanks Dan Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 08:22:25 -0500 (EST) From: Sandy Cockerham__Mc625__6-0412 <COCKERHAM_SANDRA_L at Lilly.com> Subject: Grain bed as a filter Hi fellow brewers, I have used the grain bed successfully as a filter. Last year I made a pumpkin beer with canned pumpkin. I had heard the horror stories of thick sludge in the bottom of the fermenter. My beer was only a partial mash, about 5 or 6 lbs. in my 5 gal. Gott jug (I used a trimmed-to-fit colander as a false bottom.) Anyway, I put the foundation water in, added the grain, then added the pumpkin in the rest of the mash water and added it in on top of the grain. Result--no sludge and a very good beer. In fact I just may have to make that Pumpkin Dunkle Weizenbock again soon.... Sandy C. From: COCKERHAM SANDRA L (MCVAX0::RX31852) To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com") Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 09:24:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Generations of yeast David writes: <Bill also says he was on the 14th generation of yeast in that particular <batch. This also flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of only <repitching yeast 3 generations. Conventional wisdom of homebrewers is around 3 times. This is due to the difficulty of storing and maintaining non infected/wild yeast slurry in most homebreweries. Professionally, there is a rule of thumb to repitch 6 generations for lager yeast and as many as you want for ale yeast. Note this is a generation, so in most micros the same gen will be used to start many tanks. I know of ale breweries on the 200th gen of the same ale yeast. Jim Busch "DE HOPPEDUIVEL DRINKT MET ZWIER 'T GEZONDE BLOND HOPPEBIER!" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 10:36:00 -0400 From: marc.faubert at canrem.com (Marc Faubert) Subject: CONFIG DROP 6611 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 00:01:13 EST From: ibishop at tanus.oz.au (Ian Bishop) Subject: ARMSTRONG KITS Just a little line for the resident kit brewers (I know, I know, I should be more creative, but in Mount Isa, the temperatures favour very estery beers and I don't want to risk high-cost failures) that the Arnstrong line of kits seem to be really good in terms of final product. I have had one in the bottle for a couple of weeks and it is starting to taste wonderful. One hint with the Lager kit. Mix the pre-supplied yeast, with a packet of Wander yeast and rehydrate. I used no finings but you can dring this brew directly from the bottle because the sediment has stuck perfectly to the bottoms! Go on, 'ave another 'omebrew! - -------------------------------------------------------------- >From the desk of Ian Bishop - The Mad Muso of Mount Isa, Aust. Please Direct All Flames to \DEV\NUL or 0:0/0 - Thanks!! All Real Replies to IBISHOP at TANUS.OZ.AU or 3:640/706 - -------------------------------------------------------------- - --- * RM 1.3 A1824 * "Bother," said Pooh, as he received his Compuserve bill. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1741, 05/26/95