HOMEBREW Digest #1825 Thu 07 September 1995

Digest #1824 Digest #1826


	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor


Contents:
  Extra Yeast Package (Chris Strickland)
  Water Treatment Concerns (Philip Hofstrand)
  RE: Rajotte'sSierra Blanca (MClarke950)
  Found Keg (MrMike656)
  Avery label warning   /   Red Seal Ale ("Keith Royster")
  Re: Beer labels: removing them & making them (Jack Stafford)
  Comments on Zinc ("Palmer.John")
  Labels/bottle fillers (dludwig)
  Re: Labels (SoarMoose)
  Happy Holidays Comp ("Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys")
  RE: Lurker's Rant/Lactic Critter's (MClarke950)
  Mash/Lauter-Tun design (Dave Riedel)
  Empty Fermentation Lock (Tom Neary)
  Re: Ringwood Yeast (Geoff Scott)
  absinthe (BrianE)
  Ringwood/Starters (Dan McConnell)
  larger batch size/ smaller work load (Adam Rich)
  Maris Otter Malt (hadleyse)
  Use of starters (CGEDEN)
  Re: RTP yeasts/Hops Plugs (Ken Jucks, ph # 617-496-7580)
  Re: Priming bottles (Spencer W Thomas)
  re: 5 Gal GOTT or the 10 gal? (The flame from your stage has now spread to the floor  06-Sep-1995 1038 -0400)
  Answer Posting: One Solution (Ken Schroeder)
  Poor service from St. Pats (Jay Reeves)
  labels ("Gerry Nelson")
  Labeling: a Summary (Victor Hugo)
  Bits n pieces (Joseph.Fleming)
  Poll: Open vs Closed Fermentation Practices ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  transfer bottling ("David Wright")
  Re: Labels (Shawn Steele)
  Yeast Starters/Carboy Headspace/Dual Coil Chillers ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")

****************************************************************** * 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. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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 alpha.rollanet.org 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: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:26:20 -0400 From: cstrick at iu.net (Chris Strickland) Subject: Extra Yeast Package I've found my highest contributor to a bad batch of beer is a slow starting fermentation. I have never (knock on wood) had a bad batch of beer that has been started on sludge from a previous batch. Even after six reuses. All 3 of my 5 (out of 40 batches) of bad beer have come from slow starting fermentations (over 2 days). The other two were from a carboy with a small crack that I didn't notice. Another potential suspect is that 4 of my 5 batches have come during the summer, even though I keep the house cooled to 80, and the carboy wrapped in a damp towel. Question, to speed up the fermentation start, would using two Wyeast pack to make two starters speed up the initial fermentation start time. Currently the first batch takes about 48 hours to start (even with a starter). I'm thinking that two starters might take less than 24 hours. It's only $6 and and considering I can reuse the yeast at least five more times, that's only a $1 per batch. Any thoughts? - -------------- Chris Strickland cstrick at iu.net http://www.teg.saic.com/mote/people.html Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 13:23:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Philip Hofstrand <philiph at u.washington.edu> Subject: Water Treatment Concerns Greetings, All: As a partial masher trying to establish a good working protocol for all-grain brewing, I've been pondering how to go about treating my brewing water effectively. The excellent contributions on water treatment by Dave Draper and A. J. deLange have gotten my fevered little mind gloating over the prospect of matching water profiles to appropriate styles. However, I'm not sure how best to use this information. Here's my main concern: procedural differences, especially regarding sparging, are going to influence ion concentrations in the finished product. For instance, let's assume a target volume of 5 gallons at the end of boil. If I'm an avid sparger, and start with 9 gallons in the kettle(!), I will have effectively increased the concentration of each ion by 9/5, or 180%. I know this is a strong oversimplification, but I think the basic concept is legitimate. If I'm not a sparging fan, and start with 6 gallons, I concentrate ions by 6/5, or 120%. This seems to be a very significant difference, and should cause easily detectable differences in the beer flavor profile. Has anyone come up with a reasonable approach to solving this problem, or am I nitpicking? Also, are we more concerned with concentrations during the boil, or in the finished product? For instance, differences in SO4 concentration will affect the perception of hop bitterness. Is this due to thermochemical reactions in the boil, i.e. SO4 influence on alpha acid isomerization, or does the presence of sulfate have a direct physiological effect on bitterness perception? One could ask similar questions for each ion of concern to brewers. These things have left me quite confused as to how to proceed, so anything the collective brewmind of the HBD could do to help would be most, um, helpful. Until next time, Phil - -- Philip Hofstrand (philiph at u.washington.edu) In taberna quando sumus, non curamus quid sit humus When we are in the tavern, we spare no thought for the grave --Carl Orff, "Carmina Burana" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 21:26:20 -0400 From: MClarke950 at aol.com Subject: RE: Rajotte'sSierra Blanca "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com> wrote: >I just finished up Rajotte's Belgian Ale book of the classic beer >styles series. (Yes, his writing style is tough to follow! During his >description of "Brewing with a Belgian Brewmaster", I found it >difficult to tell who was who and what was what. He kept switching >from third to first person perspective w/o warning! Yaaagggghhhh!) >Anyway, in reviewing his Sierra Blanca recipe, I noticed that the >all-grain and extract recipes are different. I mean different beers >entirely. The all-grain recipes call for pale malt and crystal malt, >while the extract recipe calls for pale malt syrup, and wheat malt >syrup. What's wrong with this picture? Any one know which way to >turn? Should it be pale malt and _wheat_ malt? Pat, I had a lot of problems understanding parts of Rajotte's book too. I think the editing could have been a lot better. There is a post on correction's to 'Belgian Ale's' in the Lambic Archives Digest. The post was dated March 13, 1995. The following is how to retrieve an archive from the Lambic Digest. to: netlib at lance.colostate.edu subject: send send d03.95 from lambic That's it. It should be in d03.95. The subject is Rajotte corrections. ps I hope this helps. Cheers, Mike Mike Clarke Seattle, WA. USA Email: MClarke950 at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 20:01:52 -0400 From: MrMike656 at aol.com Subject: Found Keg Greetings All, I remember the "what is a legal keg" thread" from some time ago and have no wish to restart it. But one thing was never addressed: finding kegs. I found an abandoned big brewery keg in a public park on Labor Day afternoon. There was nobody in the park, so it must have been sitting there a good 12 hours or so. I spoke with a friend of mine who is a beverage retailer, and he told me that nobody really keeps track of these things. He also wasn't especially interested in taking it off my hands, since I wasn't the one who bought it or left a deposit on it. So - what to do? I'd like to take the "solid citizen" route and return it to said big name brewer. But if my local beverage distributor isn't interested in taking it off my hands, what am I supposed to do? Mail it back? Of course, if I can't return it, I'll just cut the top off and add to my already well stocked brewpot collection. Any suggestions? Mike Maimone "The Great Prince issues commands, founds states, vests families with fiefs. Inferior people should not be employed." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 18:09:04 +0500 ET From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: Avery label warning / Red Seal Ale In response to Vic Hugo's question about making beer labels Pat Maloney responds: > If you really must use your computer, get some sheets of Avery (or > compatible) .75" round labels and, using any label program that includes the > Avery template, use a small font to print out sheets of labels at a time. I would warn here that I have found Avery labels (or any office-supply- store-self-adhesive-type (O.S.S.S.A.T) labels) to be VERY difficult to remove from the bottles when I'm done with 'em. The tend to have a glossy finish that is difficult for water to penetrate to soften the glue on the back of the label (even in an ammonia solution). Again, I will recommend trying plain paper and whole milk as the adhesive. And now for my quick question (actually a recipie request). I have recently discovered Red Seal Ale and I absolutely love it! It has replaced SNPA as my favorite pale ale. So, if any of you have or know of a recipie that is a good approximation of it I would appreciate it if you could pass it my way. (At $14/six-pack I can't afford to keep buying it!) I am currently extract brewing but will be moving to all grain soon, so either style is fine. I will do the conversions. TIA!! +------------------------------+----------------------+ | Keith Royster, E.I.T. | The mouth of a | | Environmental Engineer | perfectly happy man | | NC-DEHNR / Air Quality | is filled with beer. | | (704) 663-1699 | -Egyption Wisdom, | | N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us | 2200 B.C. | +------------------------------+----------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 11:55:01 PDT From: stafford at alcor.hac.com (Jack Stafford) Subject: Re: Beer labels: removing them & making them On Sun, 3 Sep, "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> writes: >using whole milk as an adhesive. Just brush it on the back of the label >and stick it to your bottles. After it dries, wipe off any excess with a >damp rag. The protiens in the milk act as an adhesive but will come loose >easily when soaked in warm water. Since the milk adhesive didn't work for me, I tried a different approach. My local stationary store has "glue in a stick". It comes in a plastic tube like ChapStik and is applied to the back of a paper label. The glue dries in a few minutes and comes off easily with a soak in warm H20. Jack stafford at alcor.hac.com Costa Mesa, CA. Return to table of contents
Date: 5 Sep 1995 16:09:19 U From: "Palmer.John" <palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com> Subject: Comments on Zinc Regarding Steve and Kirk's posts on Zinc, I will say that A) Dave Miller mentions Zinc as being toxic to yeast in relatively large quantities, B) Bodybuilders take Zinc supplements to help prevent Tearing scars, and C) It probably is toxic in relatively large amounts. I don't know if the lemonade in galvanized garbage cans is urban legend or not, but I can say that if a galvanization process incorporates any Cadmium into the melt then yes you will be dead meat. Plain zinc galvanization re. toxicity I dont have any data on. I would avoid it myself since I dont know more about it. John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-SSD M&P johnj at primenet.com Huntington Beach, California Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 00:09:40 -0400 From: dludwig at atc.ameritel.net Subject: Labels/bottle fillers Vic asked about easy off bottle labels. A few months ago, or maybe longer, someone suggested using milk or something like that. Anybody remember that? I recently found a homebrew shop in Arlington, TX. 35 bucks for a rebuilt corny keg. Almost bought one but looking for a better deal. I bought a 2.99 bottle filler, instead, which has turned out to be my best beer equipment purchase in quite a while. The device is easy to use. Just press to fill and release when full. You get consistant fills (although a bit on the low side) every time. Highly recommended. Cheers! Dave Ludwig "From the land of pleasant living" Southern MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 14:33:07 -0400 From: SoarMoose at aol.com Subject: Re: Labels In a message dated 95-09-05 03:01:44 EDT, you write: >f you really must use your computer, get some sheets of Avery (or >compatible) .75" round labels and, using any label program that includes the >Avery template, use a small font to print out sheets of labels at a time. Please excuse my rudeness, but I ABSOLUTELY NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER USE PRINTER LABELS! The darned things just don't come off. Put them on once and they will be on for the rest of the life of that bottle. My suggestion is to use regular paper and then use the cheap, water-soluable glue stick that you can buy in any stationary store, drug store, copy-center or back-to-school aisle. I have done this for a while now and it works like a charm. Best part being that it comes off in about 5 minutes of warm water soaking leaving no residue whatsoever. I have heard rumors of whole milk working well too, but I am satisfied with the glue-stick method. -Chris Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 19:43:47 -0600 (CST) From: "Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys" <WOTRING at SLUVCA.SLU.EDU> Subject: Happy Holidays Comp The St Louis Brews are pleased to announce the return of our Happy Holidays Homebrew Competition! This is an AHA sanctioned event, using the standards and categories provided by the AHA, with the addition of one special beer style, Christmas Brau. This is a winter warmer/kitchen sink type beer, with OG > 1.060, >3 malts, >4 hops, at least one adjunct. The Happy Holidays Homebrew Competition is part of the Midwest Homebrewer of the Year challenge, as well. Entries are due by 5pm 29 Nov. Judging will be held on the afternoon of Saturday 9 December, with a banquet and award ceremony following. We welcome all entries, and urge everyone interested to come judge with us! Please pass this information along to other brewers who may be interested. If you are interested in visiting us, let me know. We will have some places to stay available. - -- Ginger Wotring, HHHC coordinator internet: wotring at sluvca.slu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 21:26:28 -0400 From: MClarke950 at aol.com Subject: RE: Lurker's Rant/Lactic Critter's "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER at NRC.CA> writes: >I may not be a great homebrewer, but I am a great bitcher and >complainer so..... here are my 2 cents. <snip> >and one thing that ticks me off is the number of great questions that >are answered by private e-mail instead of by posting. <snip> >I read lots of great questions that I never see >answers for. Not all the questions asked, are answered. You're assuming that something is happening offline which may (or may not) be true. >Russell Mast asks if there is any truth to C.P.'s claim that grain husks >have lots of lactic bugs. I WANT TO KNOW TOO ! Greg Noonan also agrees with CP. I ALSO sent this to Russell offline. I did a sour mash a la Greg Noonan (Zurmurgy Special Issue, the one with UK, German, USA brewing styles). It did indeed sour the mash. I used paper test strips and it went out of the range. The reasoning was that there is plenty of lactic critters on barley. I mashed 1# of pale ale malt in 1.33 quarts of water and then added additional cool water to drop the temp to around 95F. I then added uncrushed pale barley to the mixture. The whole thing went into a sixpack cooler. I put AL foil over the top to keep out air and covered the cooler. In two days I did the main mash and just added the sour mash. I entered it in a contest and one judge said it was astringent (sp?). I don't know if it was the sour mash or my sparging. The other 2 judges really liked it. Go figure. I have seen some posts discounting this method, they said it was unreliable and made some ghastly beers. All I have is my one data point to the opposite (and the fact that Greg Noonan does this at his Vermont Brewery.) This is all off the top of my head and may not be 100%. Cheers, Mike Mike Clarke Seattle, WA. USA Email: MClarke950 at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 13:44:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca> Subject: Mash/Lauter-Tun design Having browsed through what seems to be ~43 Mb of net-info on mash/lauter tun designs, I am now suffering from overload. Therefore, I'm going to do the obvious and ask for *more* information :-) I make 5 gallon batches. Are the large rectangular coolers ok for this size or would the 5 gallon Gott, cylindrical style be better? (Note: I have a rectangular one already. Could it serve as a mash/lauter tun without giving up it's day job as a cooler?) What's better: vegetable steamer/grain bag, false bottom, copper manifold? (Keep in mind cost as I need other items to make the move to all-grain.) *sigh* all this information... it's enough to drive me to just buy my beer! Dave Riedel Victoria, BC Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 07:31:19 EDT From: uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com Subject: Maltsters, private answers I've received several helpful responses regarding bulk malt purchases and several interested in getting together on one locally (Greensboro, NC). I don't have access to Brewing Techniques at the magazine rack or at the homebrew store but I've been told that maltsters advertise in there. Maybe someone who gets it could forward me some names and numbers (or names and cities) of advertising Maltsters? I'll try the library too. Regarding private answers to public questions....I WANT TO KNOW TOO! I've been assuming that when we don't see an answer, it's not because someone answered privately, but because the "asker" didn't get an answer. I'd like to see answers to just about ANY question, and others would probably like to see the answers to the few that I'm not interested in. So, between me and any two other subscribers, it's a safe bet that one of us will appreciate the posted reply. I do like the idea of someone doing us all the service of compiling data points from multiple private replies and making a nice presentation of all info received in one issue for us. I've seen this done several times since my subscription started just a few months ago. A replyer shouldn't expect that this will happen though unless the requestor says it will (and then there's an obligation to the rest of us to follow through on providing us with the compilation). My teeth are watering while I'm trying to finish my short list of domestic projects so that I can build the brewhaus and start incorporating some of the good looking information that I've been gleaning. Thanks to all for some good reading Wallie Meisner uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com (800 334 9481 x-2410) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:34:07 -0400 From: tom.neary at peri.com (Tom Neary) Subject: Empty Fermentation Lock Hi all, My Honey Wheat beer was in its first full day of fermentatio and going real strong when I went to bed last night. I filled up the fermentation lock at 12:00 AM by 5:00 AM it was empty. I refilled the lock but it definitely wasn't bubbling like it had a few hours before. I'm not sure how long it was empty for but can being empty hurt the beer or kill the yeast? I had a cover on the S-shaped lock. thanx, TN Thomas Neary | tneary at peri.com 516-467-0500 Periphonics Corp. | 4000 Veterans Hwy. | Bohemia, NY 11716 | Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 08:50:02 -0500 From: gscott at io.org (Geoff Scott) Subject: Re: Ringwood Yeast Anthony asks about the Ringwood yeast. I have been told that YeastLabs A09 is the Ringwood strain. While I can't confirm this it does have some of the same characteristics. The Ringwood strain is very top fermenting and is usually top cropped and repitched repeatedly by the breweries that use it. I found it funny that a guy at Wild Goose gave a cup away since my experience asking for this yeast at another brewery was quite different. The brewer put his guard up and said forget it. He said that he had given his solemn pledge to Alan Pugsley not to give any away. regards, Geoff Scott gscott at io.org Brewing page http://www.io.org/~gscott Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 07:50 CST From: BrianE at anesthesia-po.anesth.uiowa.edu Subject: absinthe A year or so ago there was quite a discussion here regarding wormwood/absinthe. I would appreciate re-capturing as much of that information as possible. Private email is fine. Thanks, eddie-brian at uiowa.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:23:41 -0400 From: danmcc at umich.edu (Dan McConnell) Subject: Ringwood/Starters From: Anthony Migliore <MIGLIORE at novell.nadn.navy.miL> >Where can we get Ringwood yeast to brew at home? This yeast is >usually used at breweries set up by Alan Pugsley. This ale is always >good, although never much different than the others who use the yeast. I >have traveled around tasting beer at brewpubs and can ID the yeast >after one sip. Some of the many brewers who use the English yeast >are, Wild Goose, Shipyard, Salty Dog, and Gritty Mcduffs all in the North >East. I posted the culture ID's for all of the YeastLab yeasts a while back, but I don't know if this was before or after the English Ale strain was added. In any case, YeastLab English Ale A09 *is* the Ringwood strain. If you try a lager in one of the Pugsley influenced Pubs, chances are good that you will be tasting the results of W34/70. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: Alex Sessions <ALEXS at RIZZO.COM> >As I understand it, the main reason for using a yeast starter is to >increase the number and activity of yeast organisms when pitching, so >that the desired yeasts will ferment sugars in the wort much more >quickly than the inevitable few microbrial contaminants, minimizing >the off-flavors contributed by those bad bugs (OK so far? other >reasons for yeast starters?). >So my question is: when you make a yeast starter, aren't you >culturing those background bad organisms, as well as the desired >yeast? A qualified yes....The main reason to make a starter is to provide sufficient numbers of yeast cells in the main batch so that the fermentation starts quickly. If you start with a *clean* culture and do stepwise (10-fold) volume increases, the lag time at each step will be short allowing the yeast to predominate. The contaminants simply never get a chance. Granted, there is a small risk at each step, but if the yeast are very active, the chance of a bacterial or wild contamination is small if your procedures are sound. Yeast produce different metabolic byproducts depending on whether they are reproducing or fermenting. By underpitching you force the yeast to spend more time reproducing and consequently the beer will contain a different metabolic soup than a beer that has been properly pitched. The result is a different flavor profile. All the more reason to make a big starter (1L is an underpitch in a 5 gal batch). DanMcC Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 08:50:03 -0500 From: rich.adam at mayo.edu (Adam Rich) Subject: larger batch size/ smaller work load Hello Everyone: I have a simple question about batch size and brewing efficiency. The objective is to get more beer produced for the same amount of work using the same equipment. The simple idea is to increase the OG of the wort, account for this inrease in the hop schedule, cool and pitch a nice healthy starter. At bottling time a gallon or more of water could be added thus increaseing the total volume of beer to bottle while maintaining the desired alcohol content etc because a higher OG wort had been produced. So, maybe I could bottle say 7 gallons of beer by merely increaseing the amountof DME from 6 to 9 pounds, and doing everything else identically? Certainly this would be advantagious for makeing those special holiday beers when consumption is at its peak! Is there an obvious reason why this would dramatically alter the quality? I suspect that I may have trouble with body, but maybe not if I account for this is my grain bill (I usually do a partial mash these days) it would work out. On a related note, why is it bad to boil the wort for more then 60 minutes when makeing an extract-based beer? When makeing lighter ales would I be well-advised to boil for only 30 minutes? Than I would have to increase the amount of bittering hops, or else maybe boil the bittering hops seperately, in a smaller saucepan, in order to allow them to release the important compounds. Thanks for any and all inforamtion. I will compile the responces should they be sent to me directly. the very best, Adam Rich Adam Rich: richa at mayo.edu Department of Physiology and Biophysics Guggenheim 9, Mayo Foundation Rochester, MN 55905 507-284-0879 (lab)/ 507-252-8115 (home) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 10:06:16 EDT From: hadleyse at pweh.com Subject: Maris Otter Malt In April I brewed a Pale Ale with Maris Otter 2 row pale ale malted barley from Crisp Maltings in England. I was very impressed with the results. I achieved a 10% improvement in extraction efficiency due to the malt alone. Also, I found the flavor to be more complex and enjoyable than the other British malts I've tried. I purchased the malt (7 lbs) for the last brew from Liberty Malt in Seattle WA. I want to buy a 55 lb sack but I don't want to pay to ship it across the country to CT. Does anyone know of a homebrew shop that carries Maris Otter Malts in or near CT? Thanks in advance. Scott Hadley Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 10:11:22 EDT From: uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com Subject: Labelling Software I was trudging through the internet this morning and came across an answer to Victor's question about beer labelling software. Standard disclaimers apply, I know nothing about this product but you can order "home labeller lite", the Wine and Beer edition from: Projexis Inc. PO BOX 42 Cumberland, Ontario K4C 1E5 CANADA (613 833 8370) projexis at ottawa.net They've even got a free(?) demo version. It says that the page was last updated in May of this year. Good luck. Let us know if it's worthwhile. I also want to vouch for the ammonia soak removal method. In a Packaging Materials class, I remember hearing that breweries using returnables need labels that will not sweat off, but will wash off for cleaning/refill so they use alkalai soluble adhesive that will dissolve in their caustic wash solutions. A little ammonia in the warm soak water has always worked well for me (but don't watch them or they will never come off. The best method is to go to another room and have a cold one). Wallie Meisner Wallie Meisner uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com (800 334 9481 x-2410) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 10:02:06 EDT From: CGEDEN at NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU Subject: Use of starters First, thanks to Mutsuo Hoshido for sharing his experiences brewing in Japan. Its always interesting to hear from our international brewbretheren. Now, a question about starters. I usually use dry yeast, but recently have enjoyed the versatility of styles and flavor profiles afforded by liquid yeasts. Up until now, I've made my starters by adding the contents of an inflated slap-pack to about 750 ml (ca. 24 oz) of about 1.040 unhopped sterile wort, then pitching the yeast sediment, but not the starter "beer", after the yeast settles out in 2-3 days. This time, however, the starter has been very slow, and is still merrily bubbling through the airlock after 4 days with no clearing in sight. It smells fine and does not look contaminated. The variety of yeast is "English" ale, no. 1098. I've had great luck before with London ale yeast 1028 and the Weihenstephan weizen yeast, but this is my first time using 1098. Questions for the Collective Wisdom: 1) When using starters, is it better to pitch settled slurry (sans "beer") or to pitch the whole solution at high kreusen? How do you time these things so you can plan on brewing when you want to, rather than being at the mercy of an agenda set by one-celled organisms? 2) Is 1098 a slow fermenter? Is my starter ruined? Thanks! Chris Geden Gainesville, FL "Best place to live in the USA, 1995" Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 10:36:07 -0400 From: jucks at cfaft4.harvard.edu (Ken Jucks, ph # 617-496-7580) Subject: Re: RTP yeasts/Hops Plugs Geep writes: >All this talk lately about RTP yeast has peaked my interest. Any more info >on how to get some outside Mass? Also, I will be in Massachusetts in October >and would like to know of any shops in the area that might have a stash of >RTP. (Lowell area or Cape Cod area) I will see Seth (the person behind the RTP yeast) on Friday. I will tell him about the interest his yeasts have received on the HBD. He might be able to tell me when and if his yeasts will be available in other areas. I do know that the Modern Brewer, now in Somerville MA, carries some of his yeasts, and they do sell supplies by mail order. Their WWW site is http://www.shore.net/~modbrew/ , and their phone number is 617-629-0400. I have no connection to this store, other than being a semi-regular customer. Ken Jucks Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 10:03:43 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Priming bottles CO2 in beer is measured in "volumes". That is, 1 "volume" of CO2 is the amount of CO2 that would fill a given volume at 1 atmosphere pressure at 32F (0C). It's very close to 2 grams per liter. The pressure of dissolved CO2 depends heavily on the temperature (in a non-linear fashion). The lower the temperature, the lower the pressure. This is why an extremely cold beer seems flat, because more of the CO2 stays in solution. Finally, 4 grams of sugar will ferment to 2 grams of CO2. Thus, to add 1 volume of CO2 to your beer, you need 4 grams of sugar/liter of beer, or approximately 76 grams (2.7 ounces) per 5 gallons. The "standard" 3/4 cup of corn sugar weighs about 4 ounces, adding about 1.5 volumes of CO2 to the solution. Beer at 60F (racking temperature?) has about .9 volumes of CO2, so your primed bottles will develop about 2.4 volumes. At 50F (ale serving temperature), this gives a pressure (above atmospheric) of about 18PSI. At 40F (typical 'fridge temperature), you get about 12PSI. To get 18PSI at 40F, you need 3 volumes of CO2. Thus, you should add an additional 1.6 ounces (0.6 volumes * 2.7 ounces/volume/5gal) of corn sugar. Note that bottles thus primed are almost guaranteed to gush at higher temperatures, and that at room temperature the pressure in the bottles will be close to 40PSI. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 10:38:49 EDT From: The flame from your stage has now spread to the floor 06-Sep-1995 1038 -0400 <ferguson at zendia.ENET.dec.com> Subject: re: 5 Gal GOTT or the 10 gal? >Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 09:45:18 -0700 (PDT) >From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca> >Subject: Gott cooler size... [...] >Mash/Lauter tun set-up. My question is: Is the 5 gallon size ok? I'd like >to minimize the cost and the space requirements. Will the 5 gallon size >greatly limit the beer types I wish to make (i.e. will high gravity brews >be impossible?) BTW, I brew 5 gallon batches. I suggest going with the 10 gal model. in the future, you will eventually want to brew longer batches. i can do a 14 gal batch with my 10 gal gott and i still have room to spare in the gott during mashing/sparging. a 5 gal gott would be cutting it close and not planningh for future growth. as for size, yeah, it is bigger, but, you can store lots of stuff in the gott when you are not using it. go for the 10 ! jc Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 08:34:03 PDT From: kens at lan.nsc.com (Ken Schroeder) Subject: Answer Posting: One Solution In HBD 1821 Bruce complains of questions that go unanswered in the digest. This is not the bad thing that Bruce suggests. It has been my experience to receive many answers to each well asked question. Many of these answers provoke an off line discussion where the quality and volume of information may be stagering. The volume of answers would swamp the digest and not allow for the diversity of issues discussed in this medium. I have found, if a question interests me, I simple request the originator of the question to copy the responses to me. I have never (at least to my worn out memory) been turned down on such a request. If you receive the HBD, you can also receive private email. This approach not only answers the question, it allows for on going discussion and more bandwidth to ask more questions to the large body of brewers who subscribe. An effective use of this communication medium. Ken Schroeder Sequoia Brewing Return to table of contents
Date: 06 Sep 95 10:30:50 EDT From: Jay Reeves <73362.600 at compuserve.com> Subject: Poor service from St. Pats <Warning: griping ahead> I remember seeing a few post a month or so ago about poor service from one of the mail order houses (Hoptech I believe). Well, I'll report another one - St. Patrick's of Texas. I ordered a 7 gal carboy with the understanding that it would be shipped the following business day (Monday) which would put it at my door before the following weekend, which I desperately needed by then. I stressed this point to the salesperson at the time. 5 days after the order (Friday) I had not seen the carboy. When I called St. Pats, the reply was that it was shipped the day before on Thursday, 4 days after I ordered it and not the following business day after the order. Needless to say, the Labor Day brewing weekend was screwed. I got it the day after Labor Day (Tues.). The sales ticket had "Please ship Monday" wrote on it. It seems that these days a lot of the businesses have the attitude "if you want it, I got it. If you don't, someone else will" and they think that a few dissatisfied customers won't hurt. This has never been more wrong because of communication on net. I hope others continue to post their "poor service" experiences. I believe that posting these to the digest will eventually let these businesses know that it really does hurt. -Jay Reeves Huntsville, Alabama, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:51:50 -0600 (MDT) From: "Gerry Nelson" <GNELSON at acad.cc.whecn.edu> Subject: labels Avery makes adhesive-backed full sheets of removable adhesive (#5455.) Very easy to print labels with a word processor, easy to stick on, and easy to remove. Jerry Nelson, gnelson at acad.cc.whecn.edu Department of Geology, Casper College, Casper, Wyoming Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 09:32 EDT From: vic at iglou.com (Victor Hugo) Subject: Labeling: a Summary To the HBD Collective: Thanks to all who responded to my question concerning labels/label removal. In keeping with the spirit of shared information I will summarize my responses (both from e-mail & postings): The #1 adhesive was WHOLE MILK! A real shock to me. I was also warned that it needed to be WHOLE MILK because skimmed milk lacked enough of the stuff (protiens?) to stick the labels. The only draw back mentioned was the loss of labels when beer was chilled in icewater. The #2 adhesive was the glue type stick. Apparently this is a bit stouter than milk but still easily releases in warm soapy water. Other adhesives mentioned included spray adhesive and water soluable glues. Several people suggested labeling just the caps since they would be discarded anyway. The recomendation for labeling here included permenant marker directly on the cap or the small round labels found in office supply stores. Label Removal: The recommendation here was to use an ammonia and water solution (various dilutions) and allow the commercially labeled bottles to soak over night. Label Software: Several suggestions involving everything from desktop publishing programs to crayons. Most suggested dividing an 8x11 page into four labels and using your adhesive of choice. I have discovered that WP 6.1 (usual disclaimer applies) allows you to print a grey scale "watermark" in the background. This allows you to text in the name and other pertinant info about your beer and still have some "nice" artwork in the background. I am certain that other programs offer this option. Thanks to everyone who responded. What did we do in the dark ages of BI (before internet) when information traveled at a snails pace? I will summarize this thread again, if responses warrant. Vic Hugo vic at iglou.com "save the trails" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 95 14:55:48 est From: Joseph.Fleming at gsa.gov Subject: Bits n pieces Hey All- Got my new brewing equipment hummin' and have some questions. Strike Temp woes Seems my cooler tun (60 qt!) performs less admirably than the norm in that 170F strike water got me a 143F mash temp (eek!). My next batch I boosted the strike temp to 178F and all was kosher (at least until the gelatin is added). Does 180F water denature the either of the a-amylase or b-amylase enzymes? How bout tannin leeching? I wouldn't ask, but I broke my hydrometer (d'oh!). Cookin with Gas Ulick mentioned that he taps into his gas line & boils on an old water heater heater. After boilovers messed up my new stove (d'oh!), I am considering other arragements (i.e. I'm facing kitchen eviction). 1) Anyone have good stove cleaning methods/chemicals/sand blasting eqipment? 2) Does Ulick's method violate any generally applied codes (i.e. if I have the gas company inspect the setup will they turn off my supply)? 3) If I am not a good scrounger, how do I get one of these water heating elements? Are there ways to affix hi-low controls to these? Should I just get lots of aluminum foil for my stove? Brewer's Resource Mill Just got myself one of these jobbies. Anyone wanna write me and swap gossip about roller settings? Joe - joseph.fleming at gsa.gov "Beer, beer, beer." - my wife's musing comment as I tried to apply brewing as a paradigm to some other topic - ANY other topic. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 10:25:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: Poll: Open vs Closed Fermentation Practices I'd like to get an idea of the prevalence of the practice of open vs closed fermentation among readers of this digest. Please let me know if you: a) primarily practice open fermentation for the primary phase b) primarily practice closed fermentation c) do both routinely for the primary phase d) feel open is more (or less) prevalent than closed among your brewing associates Any other comments on the subject are also solicited, including typical fermentation times, whether you skim the kraeusen or not, any taste differences you may have noted between identical beers brewed using the two techniques, etc. I'll happily summarize the results of this informal poll and post to this digest, if you'd be kind enough to respond to me at flemingk at usa.net. Your response will be treated in strictest confidence. This request is being posted to both the UK and US HBDs. Thanks for your help. KRF Colorado Springs Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:55:27 EST5EDT From: "David Wright" <LSMAIL at osp.emory.edu> Subject: transfer bottling Bryan Schwab asked about transferring beer from grolsch type bottles to regular bottles for a contest. I have the same delema and asked some knowlegable people and they said to get the beer neer freezing then slowly pour into the new bottles. This should make the loss of carbonation negligable. I will be trying this in the next couple of days and will share the results the day after the contest (Sept. 16). David Wright Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:30:11 -0600 From: Shawn Steele <shawn at aob.org> Subject: Re: Labels I have a very simple way of labeling bottles... 1. I create labels on plain paper in any manner (usually laser printer & a pair of scissors). 2. Put a shallow film of milk in a saucer and immerse the back of each label in the milk before applying. This method has some great advantages in that the labels come off very easily when dunked in water (which happens when they get washed anyway.) It's also very easy to do. I'm not terribly certain why it works :-) One of my first thoughts was "ick, it'll smell," but for some reason it doesn't, even after months of unrefrigerated storage. I suppose that there might be problems in more humid or hotter climates, but maybe not. Labels affixed in this manner should also be easy to de-label in the event you decide to enter a competition. - shawn Shawn Steele Information Systems Administrator Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 118 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 shawn at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://www.aob.org/aob (web) Note: When replying to my messages, please include enough of my message so that I know what you're replying to! :-) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 11:37:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: Yeast Starters/Carboy Headspace/Dual Coil Chillers Alex asked why starters are helpful when it seems starter production also increases bacteria populations as well as yeast populations. I don't offer a definitive answer, but rather request a reasoning check. Assume you only take reasonable sanitization steps like those employed in wort handling, etc. I see two different scenarios here: building up a starter from a very low population slant, and starting with a huge population such as a jug-o-starter pulled from the fridge. In the first case I guess an infection is more likely--contaminant populations closer in size to the yeast cell count might indeed be able to get a foothold before the yeast can begin reduction or wort pH and production of alcohol. OTOH, although a starter jug (with say 200-500 mL of yeast solids in a dense paste) may not be devoid of contaminants, its low pH and high alcohol content would seem to be very bacteria-hostile. Pitching such a huge, relatively 'clean' starter would, I'd think, be able to rapidly turn fertile wort into a similarly hostile environment. This (hopefully sound) reasoning also suggests that 'yeast washing' shouldn't be needed to control an excess of living bacteria in a yeast farm. Tim Haby expressed concern over the extra air-filled headspace in a 7 gal carboy (with a 5 gal payload). This issue came up with me recently when I mentioned brewing a 2.5-3 gal batch of mead in a 5 gal carboy. The idea caused some concern at the homebrew shop. Again, a reasoning check. After chilling the wort the brewer is then going to aerate to the maximum practical extent--an intentional effort to dissolve as much air (O2, hopefully) as possible in the wort. The fact that the carboy has an air-filled headspace is immaterial; in fact, carboy-shakers are depending on it. Compared to aerating with a pump or by shaking the carboy, the amount of air that will go into solution by sitting on the wort surface is neglible. IF you were concerned about the air going into solution (which you are NOT), then the volume of headspace has no effect at all in this regard--only free wort surface area does. Finally, for most of the wort's lifetime in the carboy the headspace will be CO2-purged anyway; it will just take a few hours longer (guestimate) with the larger-headspace setup. Greger Olson asked about the 'dual coil' immersion chillers: mine is 'dual concentric'; ie, it's built by first winding a 4-5" diameter coil. Then, after the last turn is made on the small coil, the tubing is then wound in an 8-10" outer coil. When you finish winding the outer coil you end up back at the starting end of the inner coil. I then pull the inlet and outlet tubes together, binding them to one another with several short windings of #12 bare copper wire. A plated compression-to-hose barb fitting on both the inlet and outlet allows me to connect a washing-machine supply hose to the inlet and a short section of vinyl tubing to the outlet with no hose clamps. KRF Colorado Springs / flemingk at usa.net Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1825, 09/07/95

[Back] Back up a level. Converted, by HBD2HTML written by K.F.L.