HOMEBREW Digest #1751 Wed 07 June 1995

Digest #1750 Digest #1752

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  barrel exper./sherrylike/barrier bags/raspberries/lauter time/oak casks (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  CO2 Regulator Pressure (Larry Bristol                 )
  Brewpubs at the Jersey Shore (Ted Benning)
  Wit beer oranges (david lawrence shea)
  HOP FRESHNESS ("ED KENDALL         252-3436")
  Re: barrel experiment ("Dr. Gillian Grafton")
  fruit beer (Larry Lowe)
  Re: Forget the Mercury - Leaded Crystal Once Again (McKee Smith)
  Did I do something wrong? (Mark Montminy)
  trub removal, yeast, liquid level sighting tubes ("Keith Royster")
  Re: sanitizing caps (Art Steinmetz)
  Glenbrew yeast contains enzymes (kevin)
  RE plugged steeping bag/stuck IPA ferment (Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna)
  Labatt's buyout (Robin Hanson)
  Diacetyl / Diacetyl rests ("Lee A. Menegoni")
  Muddy trub with gypsum steeped furry monsters in iodophur ("Pat Babcock")
  Diacetyl and lagering (Rich Larsen)
  sanitizing with bleach-how much and how long? (Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna)
  Weizen (Russell Mast)
  McMennimin's Hammerhead Ale Clone Recipie (Curiouser and curiouser...)
  NYC brewing water (Btalk)
  Gluing corny keg bottoms? (D. Kris Rovell-Rixx)

****************************************************************** * 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: 5 Jun 95 15:17:00 -0500 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: barrel exper./sherrylike/barrier bags/raspberries/lauter time/oak casks Terry writes about an experiment done by Jim Mosser: >I then sterilized the barrel with a >blend of sodium metabisulfite and citric acid (following the >instructions on the package), and re-rinsed the barrel about a half- >dozen times after that with clean cold tap water. Sodium metabisulfite solution does not sterilize. It does not even sanitize. It *inhibits* yeast growth. However, since this was a new, charred barrel, I don't think there was much in there that wasn't killed by the lye. I just don't want to have anyone get the idea that you can sterilize with sodium metabisulfite (aka Campden tablets). On the other hand, once you've put beer in the barrel, unless you *sanitize* you may get some character from the previous yeasts/bacteria in subsequent batches (especially if you try to make a special bitter after making a pseudo-lambik!). *** Derek writes: >Recently I ran across a reference, (can't remember where), that stated; > "beers that undergo a secondary fermentation in the bottle often have port >or sherry-like notes". My suspicion is that whoever stated this tasted a rather old bottle of a bottle-conditioned beer that was in a corked bottle (e.g. Chimay Grand Reserve) and associated the sherrylike character with the fact that the beer was refermented in the bottle. In fact, it is the cork closure and it's oxygen permiability that caused the beer to oxidize a bit and develop the sherrylike notes. I'm just speculating regarding the source of this misinformation, but in any case, it is wrong. Note also, that even crown caps are not 100% oxygen-barrier and given enough age, virtually all beers will develop some oxidiation. *** Art writes: >Most of the heat sealable plastic bags mentioned in the catalog are >polyethylene, but I don't know if this material an oxygen barrier. Polyethylene is notorious for being one of the most oxygen-permiable plastics. also: > He said that many of the bags that come with vacuum sealing >machines (retail version) are often barrier bags. They have a slick or >slippery feel to them. I don't recall the wording in the article, but I believe that the "slick or slippery feel" bags are polyethylene. Compare whatever bags you suspect may be oxygen-barrier to garden variety sandwich bags or freezer bags. They are kind of milky and not 100% crystal clear. These are polyethylene and, as such, not O2-barrier. All the O2-barrier bags I've seen have been shiny (glassy, polished), both the metallic and non-metallic bags. Finally, if you can smell hops through the bags, then they are definately not O2-barrier. I would recommend going to your local HB supply store and asking them if you can just buy some O2-barrier bags empty. If they don't have them, try a couple of mailorder shops. Finally, Art writes: >On another note, I tried to reuse some of the barrier grain bags, etc. that my >supplies from the homebrew store are sold in, and found... I seriously doubt that any store would bother to use O2-barrier bags for grain. When it comes to grain, a moisture-barrier is sufficient and polyethylene bags do just fine for keeping moisture out. *** Eric writes: >Add wort and frozen raspberries to AT LEAST a six (6) gallon primary >fermenter. CO2 scrubs aromatics out of your beer. To maximize raspberry aroma/flavour, add it to your beer after the primary (malt) fermentation is over. Also, if you add fruit at this time, the chances of wild yeast or bacteria from the skins of the fruit are going to be less likely to make a significant contribution to your beer. The alcohol and low pH of the beer is a much less hospitible environment for wild beasties than wort. For more details, see my article on adding fruit to beer in the last Special Issue of Zymurgy. Oh yes, I second Eric's concern regarding using a blowoff tube in stead of an airlock. *** Richard writes: >Generally the sparge is completed in about 10 minutes at most. > >I've recently read that most sparges take people an hour or more. I wonder, >do most of you throttle down the valve so that the sparge goes slowly, or do >the grain beds in other tuns tend to really slow the process? Why are my >sparges going so fast? > >I should add that my extraction generally results in wort that is a bit >lower than predicted, sometimes by 0.003 to as much as 0.010. I feel that you *should* throttle-down your runoff and you will get back at least some of the missing 0.003 to 0.010. Rob Reed posted a few weeks ago about an experiment he did regarding runoff speed and mashout. There indeed was an improvement in extract from a slower runoff. *** writes: >My conclusion is American white oak kegs provide an affordable alt to >importing English oak casks at over twice the price. European oak, and especially Russian oak, impart *far* less flavour to beer than American oak. Many homebrewers, believing that oak flavour is necessary for certain styles, use oak chips and/or oak extract to add oak flavour to styles that don't require it. The only styles of beer that I've tasted that have had a significant oaky character are Gueuze and Flanders Red (specifically Rodenbach). What do these have in common? Long (years!) periods of aging in oak casks. Judging from this, I would venture to guess that India Pale Ales (the real ones that went by ship to India) might have a *little* oak character, even if the casks were made from European oak. One other beer that I have not tasted, but have read that it had an oaky character was Ballentine's. Not surprizingly, this beer was aged in American oak casks. I have had several English Bitters from oak (in the UK) and they had no oak character. Recently, I had a Samuel Smith's Old Brewery Pale Ale (which I reported in an earlier HBD that it had a woody character when served from an oak cask at Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese pub in London) from a *bottle*. It had a similar woody (mahogany, NOT oak) character, in spite of the fact that the beer never saw wood. My advice regarding oak casks: 1. If you want oak character, use american oak chips or go ahead and buy that American oak cask, but store the beer in it for only a very short time at first. 2. If you are seeking the oxygen permiability of the wood for something like a plambik, then may I suggest polyethylene for a long primary, then glass for a secondary (after two or three months) and then American oak chips or cask years later, just for flavour? 3. If you want to maintain your fermentation cultures in the wood (i.e. for a plambik), then I think you might as well go for the European oak cask. Alternatively, you could store them on an American oak staff (some handrail stock maybe?) which you can use to innoculate your wort. If you were to store any beer in an American oak cask for three years on a plambik, I think it would be undrinkable. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 15:50:44 cdt From: Larry Bristol <larry at bristolpc.bmc.com> Subject: CO2 Regulator Pressure Kirk Fleming <flemingk at usa.net> comments: > Larry suggests the regulator's low press guage indicates the pressure in > the line at the regulator itself, but not the pressure of the keg to which > the line is attached. Regardless of any other issue discussed in this > ongoing thread, I assert there can be only ONE pressure in the entire system > between the regulator and the keg, regardless of what temperatures any of the > system components are. My reasoning is this is a static system, and unless > gas is moving in the line between the keg and the regulator, there is one and > only one equilibrium pressure for any given regulator setting. If someone > will explain how this could be otherwise, I'm all ears...er, eyes. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that this is what I said. I'll attempt to clarify my statement, and simultaneously explain why the pressure on one end of a gas line can be different than the other. This all started because of a question concerning the placement of the CO2 bottle and regulator (inside or outside the fridge). We all know that the amount of CO2 that will dissolve into your beer depends on both the temperature of the beer and the gas pressure applied to it. It is important to know how to do this. The question is merely one of how to interpret the reading on the pressure gauge. If your CO2 bottle and regulator are placed inside the fridge, then the gas, bottle, regulator, pressure lines, fittings, kegs, and liquid beer will reach equilibrium at a uniform temperature and pressure. It will be quite easy to measure the temperature of the beer, and the pressure gauge on the CO2 regulator (being at the same temperature) accurately reads the CO2 pressure being applied to the keg. Computing the appropriate pressure to achieve a target degree of carbonation is relatively easy. If your CO2 bottle and regulator are placed outside the fridge, however, then parts of the system will be at one temperature and parts of it will be at another. The gauge on the regulator tells you the gas pressure at the gauge, but that does *NOT* give you a (direct) reading on the CO2 being applied to the keg. This is because the gas at the gauge and keg are at a different temperatures. However, the system is at equilibrium (gas is not flowing from one end to the other), and the equivalent pressure can be computed for any point in the system if we know the temperature at that point and at the gauge. Have you noticed that the high pressure gauge on a bottle of CO2 at 75F reads about 850psi, but that the pressure will "drop" to only about 500psi when it is cooled to 45F? Why is this true? Is there any less CO2 in the bottle? No, it is because (for CO2) 500psi at 45F is equivalent to 850psi at 75F. This is simply the effect of the physical laws pertaining to the behavior of gasses. Play with this hypotechtical - suppose we have one CO2 bottle at 850psi/75F and another at 500psi/45F and we put a line between them. Will gas flow from one to the other? No - they are at equilibrium. Have you noticed that the pressure of the earth's atmosphere drops as one gains altitude? Shouldn't the higher pressure gasses at sea level rush to "equalize" the low pressure gas at higher altitudes? Obviously, the force of gravity prevents the gas from escaping completely. But also observe that in spite of the differences in pressure, the gasses are actually in a state of equilibrium, achieved because the temperature also drops as altitude increases. I'm going on and on about about what I hope is obvious by now. The reading on a pressure gauge alone simply does not tell you enough about what the gas inside that system is doing. Gas systems are dependent on both pressure *AND* temperature, and you must know both in order to know what is happening in the system. How come CO2 at 17psi/75F does not "flow" to the keg where the CO2 is only at 10psi/45F? Because these are equivalent pressures. The lower the temperature, the lower the pressure of the gas. My original statement was simply this. You have to interpret the pressure reading on your pressure gauge in relation to the temperature of the gas being measured. In order to achieve the desired amount of carbonation, if your CO2 is at 45F, you want one pressure, and if it is at 75F, you want another. Information on how to determine the equivalent pressures is available in almost any standard text on the behavior of gasses. Whew! :-) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:53:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Ted Benning <tedben at csn.net> Subject: Brewpubs at the Jersey Shore Does anyone know of the existence of any brewpubs at the Jersey Shore area??? Primarily the Seaside heights area or anywhere else in the middle/southern portion of the state. I grew up back there and I am tired of Budweiser and Michelob! Thanks! Ted Benning Solution Systems Technologies, Inc. 303-442-3686 THE VME VERTICAL MARKET SPECIALISTS 2897 Mapleton Ave., Suite Two, Boulder, CO 80301 tedben at solusys.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 17:29:19 -0500 (EST) From: david lawrence shea <dshea at indiana.edu> Subject: Wit beer oranges I am not going to be able to get the small bitter oranges to brew my Wit beer later this week, curacao oranges I think they are. Could I use a combination of sweet orange and lemon or lime peels for the recipe? or has somebody brewed a good Wit with normal table oranges? I am at my wit's end (sorry about that). I read the earlier posts by Lee Bussy and company and learned a lot, thanks guys!! Any suggestions and advice before I make my first Wit attempt at the end of the week would be appreciated. David L. Shea dshea at nickel.indiana.edu Indiana University Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 11:34:00 JST From: "ED KENDALL 252-3436" <C375 at gollum.sas.mrms.navy.mil> Subject: HOP FRESHNESS Hello again, This time I would like to ask a question about hops. All the hops i have used previously have had a very strong hop spicy aroma when received from the supplier. I just got three varieties I have never used before, Spalt, Saaz and Tettnanger. The Spalt has a somewhat unpleasant but hoppy odor and it is not very strong. The Saaz has a very low level earthy/woody smell. The Tettnanger I received at the same time has a powerful, spicy, hoppy aroma. These are all pellets. Is what I smell in the Spalt and Saaz normal? If not, are they useable? TIA Ed Kendall Sasebo, Japan Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:11:48 From: "Dr. Gillian Grafton" <GRAFTONG at novell2.bham.ac.uk> Subject: Re: barrel experiment Nigel Townsend wrote: <snip> >The only problem was cloudiness in stormy weather. The publican >in my local pub said that he had to stop serving the beer whenever >the weather was stormy as the beer became hazy. He believed that >the fluctuating air pressures disturbed the materials deposited at the >bottom of the cask. >I do not know whether this is a common problem with wooden >barrels. It certainly is, and not only with wooden casks, cask conditioned beer drunk in a thunderstorm is very soupy! >Perhaps someone in the UK could find out more from companies still >serving beer in barrels. I am looking out for a small barrel to see if I >can get a clone like Old Timer! You should have a look at the UK-homebrew web page: http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/GraftonG/homebrew.htm It has a list of cask and beer engine suppliers and also a guide on how to cask condition your beer. Gillian Dr. Gillian Grafton Department of Immunology University of Birmingham Birmingham, UK Email: GraftonG at novell2.bham.ac.uk Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 5:47:36 CDT From: Larry Lowe <lnl at apwk01g3.abrfc.noaa.gov> Subject: fruit beer Full-Name: Larry Lowe i had a few questions 3 or 4 weeks ago about strawberry beer. a belated thanks to all who responded. i finally gat to brew the beer. i added 5 to 6 pounds of strawberries...suggestions ranged from 2 to 10 pounds with most suggesting ~5. i am beginning to wish i had listened to the person...sorry forgot the name... who suggested moderation. the beer has a good flavor except there is too much strawberry flavor. it pretty much masks the taste of the beer. i should mention i am talking about the f.g. sample (yes i too drink it). can i expect this strong flavor to persist or will it lessen with aging? at any rate, it won't go to waste, but i would prefer a little less strawberry flavor. in other words this is not a IMBR question. notes: used 5 - 6 pounds of berries added the berries after primary..they were heated to near boiling for 15 min. left in secondary only 4 days...i am going out of town tia - -- from: Larry N. Lowe NOAA, National Weather Service Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center 10159 East 11th St, Suite 300 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128-3050 lnl at apwk01g3.abrfc.noaa.gov Off: (918)832-4109 FAX: (918)832-4101 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:39:09 -0500 From: mcksmith at iadfw.net (McKee Smith) Subject: Re: Forget the Mercury - Leaded Crystal Once Again daniel eugene gates wrote: >One conclusion was that the longer the wine and spirits sat the greater >the lead levels. Sounds like we should drink beer, wine and everything else sooner! That's always good advice. McKee Smith Email: Mcksmith at iadfw.net "If all the worlds a stage, then who's got my residual checks?" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 9:49:38 EDT From: Mark Montminy <markm at dev.cdx.mot.com> Subject: Did I do something wrong? In my months of lurking, I've seen this familiar all grain excuse come up several times, which also happens to be my excuse (time, not equip). > I don't see myself going to all grain ever mostly do to the time and > equipment that seem to go along with what appears to be a great > undertaking as compared to the 3-4 hours I personally spend now. To which I've seen several of these replies; > RE time, however, I have your answer: brew 10 GAL+ all-grain > batches. 4 hrs for (I assume) 5 Gal extract brew, or 8 hrs for 10 > gal of all-grain brew - samesame! And (just thought of this) only > one cleanup. My 2 cents here... you're missing the point. 8 hours is 8 hours, regardless of the batch size. For me, it's not a question of how much I can make in a given time, it's the time period. Now, the real reason I've turned to the all knowing HBD... I've recently taken the plunge to liquid yeast. While I've always thought my dry yeast brews were great, I figured I'd see if the liquid makes the difference people claim. My 2nd batch using the yeast seems to have stuck. While my method isn't perfect, I'm trying to use a process that's practical. If it becomes too much work, I'll just go back to dry, since I'm happy with it's results and ease of use. What I'm looking for, is did I do something wrong, or did I just happen to end up with a stuck batch? My first batch appears to have gone well. After a week long primary (a little long, that time thing again) I racked. I then poured the remaining half inch or so into a sanitized 2 liter soda bottle, purged some air by squeezing, and capped. I stuck this in the fridge for later re-use. 2 weeks later, I made up a "starter" by boiling up 2 tbl/cup of light DME in about 6 or 8 cups of water. I cooled this to about 80F, and poured it into another sanitized 2 liter bottle. I capped, then shook the heck out of it to aerate. I then swirled up the yeast bottle, and poured it into the starter, and capped with an airlock. Within a few hours the airlock was slowly bubbling, nothing major. It seemed to poop out sometime that night, and never seemed to reach any level of serious activity. The starter sat for a total of 48 hours after having the yeast pitched into it. I pitched the starter (which was almost 2 liters) into the brew, which was 3lbs light DME, 3lbs amber DME, and various specialty grains/hops. Pitching temp was about 70F. There was pressure in the airlock within a few hours, and within about 12 hours (I was sleeping) it proceded to blow most of the water out of the airlock, then pretty much stopped, with little to no activity since. I racked last night (a week later) and the gravity was at 1.032, from a start of 1.052. While it tasted OK, I expected a much lower gravity after a week. I'm hoping the racking is going to give it a boost. So I'm curious if I missed something handling the yeast. I was cautious to observe good sanitation, though wasn't ar about it. I'm leaning toward the yeast due to the quiet starter, thinking I underpitched, but I didn't think underpitching caused stuck ferments, just increased contamination risks. The yeast was Wyeast American Ale. It seemed to ferment the 1st batch great, bottled last night. Tasted a little dry, but very nice, a brown ale. - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Motorola ISG (508)261-5684 Email: markm at dev.cdx.mot.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The world is coming to an end ... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!!! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:54:40 EST From: "Keith Royster" <Royster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: trub removal, yeast, liquid level sighting tubes Ed Kendall writes asking about trub removal methods. I have had similar problems trying to pour the wort into the fermenter through a filter (cheese cloth) and having it plug up from the tiny trub particles. I finally got it to work when I switched to whole/plugged hops instead of pellets. I put the cheese cloth over the primary bucket and then put a collander over that. When I poured the wort through this, the collander caught the hops and the hops then acted as a filter bed catching the trub/cold break. The cheese cloth then caught everthing that the hop bed didn't. Worked fine. As far as siphoning, I've heard of putting a scrubby pad as a filter on the end of the siphon tube works, but I have not tried it. A few comments and questions on yeast: First, I would like to play devil's advocate on building yeast starters. It seems that every time you boil up a small batch of wort and pitch a yeast slurry, which can be many times if starting from a culture, you are exposing your wort to the air thus significantly increasing the chances of infection. However, if you pitch only once into your full batch of beer, and you have practiced good sanitation, your chances of contamination seem much smaller. Why is the starter less likely to get infected from X number of yeast cells than the a full batch is from the same number? Can the yeast 'see' the wort/cell ratio? Like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate. I have always made startes, and will continue to do so. Gut instinct says starters are best, but I'd like to better understand why. Some ideas as to why are: 1) the yeast can build up levels of alcohol and other infection inhibitors quicker in a smaller batch, where as contaminants would have a fighting chance in an underpitched 5gal batch (in other words, they CAN 'see' the wort/cell ratio; and 2) the benefits of a quick ferment for flavor (not just outcompeting contaminants) is worth the relatively small risk of contamination. Other notes on yeast: I recently brewed a Pale Ale and simply siphoned it through my chiller onto the sediment of a just tranfered primary of another Pale Ale (American WYeast #1056). The blowoff tube was bubbling faster than one/second before I had the garage cleaned up!!! Four hours later it was a constant stream of CO2 coming out!! Essentially NO LAG TIME! Everyone should try this at least once if you are comfortable with your sanitation procedures. I also recently tasted two identical ESB's, one fermented with dry yeast, the other with liquid. I've always heard how much better liquid yeast is and only brewed maybe my first two batches with dry, but had never compared the difference. I use to think people possibly exagerated the difference, but not so. There was a definate difference that even my untrained tongue could notice blind folded. The analogy of liquid VS dry yeast to bakery-fresh VS store-bought bread is a good one. One more quick question. I would like to build a liquid level sighting tube on the side of my brewing sankey keg. I already have the fitting welded, but am having trouble finding plastic tubing that can hold up to the heat, unless I want to spend $45 on about 50 feet from a lab supply catalog, when I only need ~2 feet. I read about placing a metal tube aver the plastic tube with slits cut lengthwise so you can see the tubing inside (I think this was Kirk Flemming's idea, but am not sure). I like this idea, but wonder if the metal tubing will be enough of a heat barrier / heat sink to protect 'normal' - hardware type plastic tubing. Any help is appreciated. +------------------------------+-------------------------+ | Keith Royster, E.I.T. | The selling of bad beer | | Environmental Engineer | is a crime against | | NC-DEHNR / Air Quality | Christian love. | | (704) 663-1699 | -Law, City of Augsburg, | | Royster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us | 13th century | +------------------------------+-------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 95 22:33:45 EDT From: (Art Steinmetz) Subject: Re: sanitizing caps > From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh at roadnet.ups.com> > Subject: Smoking grain, dude/sanitizing caps/styles/kits > > On sanitation -- I used to boil my bottle caps, but it was a big > mistake. I boil my caps, or did, before I started kegging. The only problem I ever had with liner separation was when I used overrun "contest" caps. You know, peel off the liner to see if you win a prize. Boiling ruined the lot of them. I didn't even win anything :-(. - -- Art asteinm at pipeline.com 76044,3204 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:18:58 -0600 (MDT) From: kevin at wheels.aar.com Subject: Glenbrew yeast contains enzymes After having seen the results of the big yeast experiment, and that the Glenbrew yeast fermented down to the lowest FG of all yeasts tested, that made me wonder if that was the same yeast mentioned in the yeast.faq. In the yeast.faq, it has one yeast listed as "Glenbrew Special Ale Yeast", which it says "contains a special enzyme to obtain extremely low terminal gravities." I wonder if that is the same yeast that was used in the yeast experiment? The yeast.faq lists only one yeast by the name of Glenbrew, and it is this special ale yeast. I suspect that the low FG produced by this yeast is not due entirely to the yeast strain, but also is enhanced by the enzymes that are packaged with the yeast. I bet this brand of yeast would be a good candidate to help those with "stuck ferments". Kevin - -- Kevin Hass WB0DPN ! ! PGP public key by request via email kevin at wheels.aar.com ! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 95 10:32:18 EST From: Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna at relay.com Subject: RE plugged steeping bag/stuck IPA ferment >From HBD 1750: Ken asks: >I have tried to strain the stuff through a >steeping bag but it plugs up solidly. Very frustrating I use the same procedure without problems. The straining bag i use is large enough to fit inside the plastic primary. After adding the wort, I grasp the top of the bag (sort of like Santa-Claus) and lift about halfway out. Unplugging it is a matter of grasping the bottom and lifting, thus "sliding" the trub back and forth inside the bag. The wort strains out fine. This does open up possibilities for contamination, but I've not had a problem yet. Harry discusses his "stuck" ferments: >Now how does an extract brew achieve such a high level of >unfermentables? I recently made an IPA (Papazian Palilalia recipe) and experienced what I *called* a stuck fermentation. My situation sounds allot like Harry's: His OG=1064 and stuck at 1038. My OG was 1063 and FG=1025. I used Wyeast 1098 British Ale/pitched slurry from a pint starter; don't know what Harry used. The recipe targets were OG=1048-1052; FG=1014-1017. The advice I received made allot of sense *to me*, but I have not "tested" it yet. Synopsis of the advice: "unfermentables" had nothing to do with the problem. The OG was too high for the 1098 yeast. The high OG (1063 compared to target of 1050) gave the 1098 yeast more ferementables, resulting in higher alcohol production, resulting in alcohol levels that the yeast could not tolerate. In effect, the yeast fermented itself to death before reaching the target FG (what a way to go). So, lowering the OG to target levels (reducing the fermentables) should allow the 1098 yeast to ferment down to the target FG. Alternatively, I could choose a more alcohol-tolerant yeast and maintain the higher OG. What do you other brewers think? I now pitch more than a pint slurry (learned that lesson), but I doubt more yeast would have brought the FG down to a target of 1015 in this case. Tim Fields, Relay Technology, Inc., Vienna, VA, USA Timf at relay.com "The smell of wet Irish moss is like a trip to the beach" ... James Ray "Reeb !" ... Cask-Conditioned Cole & Old Speckled Clyde Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:19:36 -0600 From: rhanson at nmsu.edu (Robin Hanson) Subject: Labatt's buyout I heard on CNN that Labatt's has been bought out by the largest Belgian brewery. What brewery is it? Robin Hanson Rhanson at nmsu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 11:34:29 -0400 (EDT) From: POLA_DBD at ACCESS.OECN.OHIO.GOV Subject: SIGNOFF SIGNOFF Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 11:08:06 EDT From: "Lee A. Menegoni" <lmenegoni at nectech.com> Subject: Diacetyl / Diacetyl rests A recent discussion of diacetyl production and reduction presented what I considered to be misleading information, one poster contended that daicetyl isn't reduced at lagering temps and that is why one does a dacetyl rest, this is not true. Diacetyl is produced in the early stages of fermentation and later reduced by the yeast in the late stages of fermentation. George Fix wrote a fine article on this topic for Brewing Techniques, refer to it for a detailed discussion. Many factors influence the level of diacetyl produced. One of the major factors is the fermentation temp. A common fault is to pitch into warm wort to "let the yeast get going". This is a recipe for production of elevated levels of diacetyl, levels beyond which the yeast can reduce and is a common reason why lagers have this flavor /aroma flaw.. The yeast will later reduce the diacetyl to other compounds with higher taste and aroma thresholds. This reduction too is directly related to temp. One does a diacetyl rest to hasten the reduction and thus reduce lagering time by weeks. The yeast will reduce diacetyl at lagering temps, low 30sF, but at a much slower rate. Personally I do a diacetyl rest at 52-55F for 48 hours after fermenting at 45-47F. Lee Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 11:41:36 +0000 From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Muddy trub with gypsum steeped furry monsters in iodophur In HBD #1750: >Andy Walsh gives the treatment necessary to duplicate Adelaide, Au >tap water: "1 handful of dirt" Anyone know a source for imported Australian dirt?!? <G> >Ed Kendall asks about trub removal... This is sort of one of those 'religious' things. I recommend *NOT* removing the trub from the primary. If your aeration practices are poor, the trub helps supply wort components necessary for the yeast's activity. I brew both lagers and ales in this manner. I cannot tell you whether doing so has imparted any particular flavor components that would not be present had I racked off the sediment prior to pitching as I've never done it. In any transfer (and this is applicable to all phases of the brewing process), don't risk your entire batch by trying do get every available driblet of beer or wort from the trub. More harm can be done than good by making herculean effort to regain a few ounces of liquid from the bottom of the fermentor/settling tank. Jsut for starters, you can induce infection in the wort or beer, and aerate the finished beer through such methods. Just my $.02... >Sandy Cockerham provides a 'Pumpkin Dunkel Weizenbock' recipe... Sorry yours is the 'Target Recipe', Sandy - this is not intended as a flame... Like many other recipes, this one calls for an amount of gypsum to be added to the mash water without reference to the base mineral content of the water to which this was added. I know this comes up every once in a while, but I'd rather you tell me what ion make up or regional water supply you're targeting than tell me to add an amount of gypsum to water you know nothing about. Adding 1T of gypsum to my brewing water may have a drastically different effect on my attempt at this brew than it did in yours. Honestly, I'd like to try this recipe. I'm just leary of the gypsum... (Flames to i_like_lots_of at calcium_sulfate.in.my.beer please. Pulling asbestos suit on now...) >Tim Fields asks about mashing specialty grains for extract brews... Well, Tim, no easy answer but... o Any MALTED grain can be steeped to extract some of the malt sugars. This is nowhere near the sugar potential for that grain had it been mashed (with possible exception offered to fully modified grains). o Unmalted grains should be mashed with pale malt to convert starched to sugar. Pale ale - 'diastaticly powerful', ie has a lot of enzymes to spare. Including saome pale malt will 'ensure' conversion; particularly with non-barley grains - wheat, oats, etc. o Generally speaking, the temperature used by most for 'steeping' grains is roughly the same temperature most all-grainers use for mash-out. The enzymes are denatured (de-activated) at these temperatures; therefor, it is doubtful that your steeping practices are performing the same function. > Jeff Stampes asks about sanitary conditions within his sealed > kegs... No. As long as the seal remains unbroken, the interior will remain in the same state you left it. Whether or not this is sanitary is another issue. In a similar adventure, I had used BEST Iodofur (pardon if miss-spelled. Can never keep the spelling straight on that stuff!) to sanitize the wort lines of my CF chiller. The solution was made to the specifiactions for 25 ppm as I intended to leave the chiller unused for quite a while (I though a month; ended up being 6 months). Upon pulling the puppy off its rack for use, I saw the Iodophur solution was clear (clear hose). No big deal, right? there were fitting on each end preventing solution from leaving or air from entering. Well, there was a 'creature' resembling a dandelion-gone-to-seed evident through the wort line. This cleaned out real easily, and I resanitized with fresh Iodophur. The beer I rtan through the chiller is 'flawless' (in terms of infection, anyway). To make a short story even longer, I'd recommend resanitizing at time of use. I can't tell you when the fuzzy white creature popped into existance in the line, but I know I can't see through stainless steel. Better safe than sorry, I always say! And, yow! Where'd you get that sig line? Nyah! > Speaking of which, Frank Caico asks about making Iodophur > solution... I use BEST iodophur. Don't know if there are others and what their concentrations should be, but I use 0.5 oz in 5 gals with a few minutes contact time (12.5 PPM). For storage, I use 1 oz in 5 gals (25 ppm); however, see above. > Dave Bradley talks about a BT tip in which a jury-rigged milk jug > is used as a bellows to start siphon. Cool! If you clean and sanitize the jug carefully, I see no risk! Watch the foot pump, though! You don't want to start the 'Amazing Exploding Carboy Thread' again ;-) "Drink all you want - I'll brew more!" Patrick (Pat) G. Babcock | "Yup, Kit's (Anderson) a brewer... President, Brew-Master | What he isn't is a woman." - Dan Hall and Chief Taste-Tester | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery | at the end of your day as every sentence pbabcock at oeonline.com | requires proper punctuation." -PGB SYSOP on The HomeBrew University - Motor City Campus BBS (313)397-9758 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:15:36 -0500 From: rlarsen at squeaky.free.org (Rich Larsen) Subject: Diacetyl and lagering CSS2 at OAS.PSU.EDU (SPEAKER.CURTIS) writes to jwolf at smtplink.penril.com : >Diacetyl is another chemical that will give you >a butter/butterscotch flavor in beer; lagering at a low temp (<50F) will cause >the yeast to reabsorb the diacetyl for food. > This is incorrect. The cool fermentation results in lower ester production thus a less fruity, more crisp beer. The diacetyl is reabsorbed when the temperature is raised up to around 60-70. This is sometimes refered to a diacetyl rest. Some lager yeasts will require this rest otherwise you'll wind up with a beer that would taste pretty darn good poured over popcorn. => Rich <rlarsen at squeaky.free.org> ________________________________________________________________________ Rich Larsen, Midlothian, IL. Also on HomeBrew University (708) 705-7263 Spice is the varity of life. ________________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 95 11:51:24 EST From: Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna at relay.com Subject: sanitizing with bleach-how much and how long? I'm considering changing from b-brite-type sanitizers to bleach for sanitizing my non-plastic brewing equipment, bottles, and caps. (I'm concerned about bleach aroma remaining in the plastic). Should be pretty easy to research amounts and soaking times, thought I, so I pulled CP's New Complete Joy and Dave Miller's Brewing the Worlds Great Beers off the shelf. I also searched past HBDs via WWW. Suffice to say, the results differed. Following is a summary of what I found. For those of you who use bleach, what amounts and soaking times do you recommend? Yeah, this is a tad retentive, but that's me when it comes to sanitizing :-) For bottles and carboys: method 1: 2 oz.(4 TBS) per 5 gal; soak for 1 hr. method 2: 2 TBS per 1 gal; no time specified. For caps: method 1: solution of 200 ppm, soak for 15 mins (parts per million? i have no conversion method) method 2: 1-2 tsp per gal, no time specified. method 3: 1/3 to 1.5 tsp per 5 gal, soak for 1/2 hr to 1 hr. If you are good enough to respond, be assured I will post summary of responses. Thanks! Tim Fields, Relay Technology, Inc., Vienna, VA, USA Timf at relay.com "The smell of wet Irish moss is like a trip to the beach" ... James Ray "Reeb !" ... Cask-Conditioned Cole & Old Speckled Clyde Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 11:36:47 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Weizen > From: "Timothy P. Laatsch <LAATSCH at kbs.msu.edu>" <LAATSCH at kbs.msu.edu> > Subject: Weizen/Wyeast 3056 > A few quick questions: Any special considerations when using Wyeast 3056 > Bavarian Wheat? I'd push you towards using the Weihenstephan, I forget the number. (3688?) I've made a couple of fantastic beers with this, and sampled a couple others. I don't have any firsthand (or firstmouth?) experience with 3056, but I see no reason not to use the volldelbruckii. > The recipes I've been able to find seem to be very low in IBUs. That's the way a traditional Weissbeer is done. One thing I've noticed, especially if your grain bill is high in wheat (like my 100%), wheat malt doesn't cover the taste of hops as much as barley malt, so you'll still be able to detect them a bit, and overhopping will be noticed. If you want to win prizes, don't overhop a weizen. But, brew it the way you want it. I will say that my wheat beers have been low hopped and fantastic. Would I like them as much with more hops? Maybe. > I was planning to use 0.5 oz. > Tettnanger at each of 60, 40, and 20 min in the boil (13.5 IBU) and finishing > with 0.5 oz. Hallertauer. Does this look to be in the ballpark? Yes, but I wouldn't use any finishing. I used 2 oz. of Hallertau at 60 mins. and their contribution, while subtle, is detectable. There _is_ a flavor component left after that length of a boil. Of course, if you do use finishing hops, and you like the effect, let me know. I'll be in K-zoo a couple times this summer and might be up for a couple of bottle exchanges. Of course, I'm just an all-grain brewer, so take all this with a grain of salt. (And a teaspoon of gypsum.) -R Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:17:48 -0700 From: ruderman at esca.com (Curiouser and curiouser...) Subject: McMennimin's Hammerhead Ale Clone Recipie Hi, Recently a McMennimins Brewpub openned here in Seattle. I found one of their ales, Hammerhead Ale, to be truely delightful. A terrific dose of citrusy, hoppy aroma; a nice red amber colour; and a taste of citrus in the ale to match the aroma. I assume that the citrus qualities come from the hops (Cascade?). McMennimins is a chain of brewpubs, originating from the suburbs of Portland, Ore. I believe. Does anyone have a clone recipie of Hammerhead ale? I'd like to take a shot at making such a brew at home. Thanks! Robert Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:49:45 -0400 From: Btalk at aol.com Subject: NYC brewing water David wonders what is in his water! Check with the water dep't. It may take a few calls to get to the right person (lab). Outside of having it te$ted your self, this is the way to go. I stopped by the city water plant last week and the guys were more than helpful. They were curious about homebrewing and water. Surface water supplies here in upstate NY, like the Susquehanna River where Binghamton gets its water, tend to be moderately hard. It is the well water here that is very hard while springs can be very soft. Anyhow, I would -guess- that NYC water would be roughly similar (how's that for vagueness), incase you can't find out anything else. NYC's water comes from reservoirs in the Catskills, one reservoir is about 40 miles from here. I think they all may be a part of the Delaware RIver drainage system. The water dep't doesn't routinely analyze for all the ions we brewers may be interested in, but they may get that info in reports done by outside labs. Binghamton water (ppm): total hardness ranges 50 - 90. This is lower after heavy rain dilutes the river. Nitrate around 1. Total alkalinity 28-34. Sulfate around 24. Sodium around 10. Calcium 18. Calcium as CaCO3 111. I just got this info last Friday, so I haven't had a chance to figure what it means. Hopefully my water chem text book is stillaround ;) My 2 cents worth, Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk at aol.com> Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 14:28:32 EDT From: D. Kris Rovell-Rixx <rovell at hpana0.an.hp.com> Subject: Gluing corny keg bottoms? Anyone know how the hard rubber bottoms of soda kegs are bonded to the stainless steel of the keg? I recently borrowed a couple of cornelius pin-lock kegs from a friend. One has a loose base that I need to rebond to the keg. I'll try epoxy, unless the experts of hbd know of a better way. Thanks, - -- __________________________________________________________________________ Kris Rovell-Rixx rovell at an.hp.com (508)659-2096 __________________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1751, 06/07/95