HOMEBREW Digest #1992 Sat 23 March 1996
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/up_level_button.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Panama City Brew-Pubs (SCHWAB_BRYAN)
Dry Hopping in a Corny Keg ("Michael E. Ladue")
carbonation process (Alan Burgstahler)
FWH / New Miller Beer Campaign ("Palmer.John")
re: First Wort Hopping Summary (Eric W. Miller)
Slow Fermentation ("R. Smith")
Re: frustrated homebrewer (Bill Rust)
Grain. Convince me. (usbscrhc)
Newbie-rama. (Russell Mast)
More First Wort Questions, less misc. (Russell Mast)
best manifold openings? (Dave Whitman)
PLOIDY (Michael Coen)
pH adjustment in Carbonate water (Rob Reed)
FWH article summary clarifications ("Dave Draper")
Stupid Brewers Tricks/Throwing away beer (Jeff Smith)
Bottle Washing (Jon Vilhauer)
DAB Mini Kegs? (MR PAUL G KURJANSKI)
Corney keg summary (Mcgregap)
Tips for Unmalted Wheat? (Marty Tippin)
Re: Filtering (Tom Fitzpatrick)
******************************************************************
* 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: Wed, 20 Mar 96 06:54:25 CDT
From: SCHWAB_BRYAN at CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil
Subject: Panama City Brew-Pubs
Barry Finley asked about Brew-Pubs in Panama City Fl in yesterdays
post. Well Barry, GOOD LUCK in this search. ( The Holy Roller's here
only concerned with your $$ but not in your having a good time
spending them!) Yeah, down here we do have a couple of resturaunts
who claim to have good Homebrew, which is a matter of one's opinion's.
The brew they sell are contracted from Alabama and to some they may
good brews, to me they are not.
Places like Uncle Ernie, The Hawknes, and Jp. Anyone can direct you
to these locations from the beach.
If you want to venture out to Pennsacola FL, roughly a 1 hour drive
west on route 98, you'll come across McQuires Pub, now that is a place
wort visiting!! Excellant Stout's, Porters, and Ales.
Carbonation for me with 3/4 cups corn sugar to 5 gallons, usually
takes 1 to 2 weeks after bottling, provided the rest of my process was
infection free.
Bryan
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:58:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael E. Ladue" <Mike.Ladue at cle.ab.com>
Subject: Dry Hopping in a Corny Keg
What is the technique for dry hopping in a Corny keg? I know that it's
possible, I'm just not sure how to do it.
One method that I've heard of is to just put your hop pellets in the
keg...no sock, no marble, no nuthin'. Supposedly, it creates a hop bed
that floats on the beer, imparting itself in a uniform matter into the
beer. You'd be using the keg as a secondary fermenter or serving out of
it at this point.
Any info is appreciated.
Mike
mike.ladue at ab.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:00:47 -0800
From: Alan Burgstahler <wa6awd at wolfenet.com>
Subject: carbonation process
On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS wrote:
>I have just bottled my first batch of homebrew last week.
>How long does it take for the brew to carbonate? Are there any signs
>that ensure that proper carbonation is occuring? When I bottled, the
>pale ale smelled wonderful and I can't wait to find out how everything
>is going to turn out.
I have only been brewing since late 1995, but I have had the same
question as you. I think I have lucked into a good way to find out
how the carbonation is going.
I started collecting 20oz plastic soft drink bottles because I read
somewhere that these make good bottles to give away to people with your
homebrew inside because you don't have to worry about them getting
returned. So I started collecting them from a guy at work who drinks
diet coke a lot from those 20oz plastic bottles. I just take them home,
wash them out with plain water, and then put them into a sanitizing
solution made from the normal bleach and water and let them soak for
a few days. When I take them out I don't rinse them at all, just empty
them (leaving the few drops of sanitizing solution inside) and screw on
the plastic caps. Then when I get ready to bottle, I wash open them up
and wash them out with a hot water spray to get rid of any chlorine
taste inside. I then bottle them and screw the plastic cap on tight.
I bottle most of my batch in brown glass bottles but make sure I bottle
at least two plastic bottles worth of the batch.
Why do I do this? Well, have you ever squeezed a glass bottle to find
out how much carbonation pressure is inside? Had any luck? How about
a plastic soft drink bottle? Works a little different, doesn't it?
So I squeeze the plastic bottle inward a little just before tightening
the cap, to remove a bit of the excess air. Now the bottle is indented
a little. It's surprising how you can go by and check the plastic
bottles each day to see how much carbonation has occurred. The indentation
will decrease each day and finally the bottle will get almost rock hard,
much like when it contains the soft drink right from the store before
you opened it. When the bottle is almost rock hard you can be assured
that your beer is fairly well carbonated, and that goes also for the
beer that you bottled in the glass bottles as well. You're just using
the plastic bottles as a guage to see how your carbonation is going.
As long as you keep the plastic bottles out of the light for the most
part, you won't give the beer inside a bad taste, and the beer inside
is very drinkable. You can imbibe or give away as you wish.
Alan Burgstahler - WA6AWD - Kent, WA, USA
Return to table of contents
Date: 20 Mar 1996 09:10:59 U
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Subject: FWH / New Miller Beer Campaign
Hi Group,
Just a follow up to my last posting on FWH, I have sampled both my Vienna and
Steam that were FWHd looking for Aroma and my conclusion is that I did not get
a lot of Aroma from it. Now maybe I am comparing Apples and Oranges, imagining
the kind of aroma I get from robust late hop additions and/or dry hopping.
Neither Vienna or Steam are supposed to have much in the way of hop aroma, so
in that sense, the rougly 1/3 of the total Hoppage that was FWH resulted in
beers that were on target for the style. Perhaps FWH does not work as well with
higher gravity, toasted malt beers, due to the heavy malt notes?? I am guessing
here.
I will say that the hop profile for the Vienna is everything that I would have
wanted for the style but I would have preferred a bit more aroma for my taste.
**
I dont know how many of you may have seen this recently, but there was a new ad
campaign from Miller recently in which they describe Hops and how Miller is now
able to extract the Best Qualities from the Heart of the Hops to use in their
beer. (Just kills you doesnt it?!) Anyway they said that Miller is so taken
with the results (I am paraphrasing here) that they are just calling the new
beer, Miller. It has a red label, looking similar to the MGD label.
Has anyone else seen this or tried the beer? I am curious if this is Only a
marketing scam or if indeed the corporation is heading down the road to hoppier
beer.
-John
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, 20 Mar 1996 12:45:40 -0500
From: ac051 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller)
Subject: re: First Wort Hopping Summary
Dave Draper <david.draper at mq.edu.au> gave a good summary of the FWH article
in HBD #1989. However, I disagree that one of his conclusions follows from
the article.
He notes that the article says:
>At each brewery, the FWH beer was brewed with a reference beer alongside.
<snip>
>No aroma hopping was done in either brew.
and later concludes:
>The recommendation
>is to use at least 30% of the total hops as first- wort
>hops--basically, this means adding the aroma hops as first-wort hops
>rather than late kettle additions (at least for my setup, and I
>suspect for many others' too).
It seems to me the article only compares use of first wort hops with use
of *no* aroma hops, not first wort hops to normal late kettle additions.
It may be true that FWH gives better hop qualities than LKA, but it
doesn't sound like that's what was compared in the article.
Also, as George Fix noted in an earlier post, the best hop aroma can
still be had by dry hopping.
Hopefully, first wort hopping will become another item to add to our
homebrewing bag of tricks. The technique should be used in addition
to other hopping strategies, not across the board instead of the other
strategies.
Experience note: I used both FWH and dry hopping (both with Columbus hops)
in a recent APA. The Columbus (15% alpha) first wort hops definitely
added substantially to the bitterness of this infusion-mashed beer. It
is much more bitter than I targetted (more like an IPA) but wonderfully
aromatic. Unfortunately, no control batch to say how much aroma was
contributed by FWH.
Cheers,
Eric in Newport, RI
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 14:01:29 EST
From: "R. Smith" <QR1661 at trotter.USMA.EDU>
Subject: Slow Fermentation
Bob asked in HB1989:
>1. Is using DME a lot slower than corn sugar?
Yes. Check out NCJHB pages 84-85 for a quick reference on the
fermentation rate of Glucose (corn sugar) and Maltose (major fermentable
component of DME). I primed with DME a couple of times before and found
it took MUCH longer to get the same carbonation as Corn Sugar; as I
remember, about twice as long; that's why I didn't stick with it. It
will carbonate just as well in time, however. Try a bottle again in 3
weeks.
>2. Is the #1084 a slow acting yeast?
Never used it myself. I checked the literature and it says 1084 is the
least attenuative of the Wyeast line. So that would tend to slow your
carbonation but not by a whole lot; The dme is the main factor.
>3. Did the gelatin settle out to much yeast?(I Have used it
>before,worked OK)
I've used gelatin a lot and never had a problem with natural carbonation
after using it. I don't think there is a problem there as long as you
did'nt use more than 1 or 2 tablespoons per 5 gallons.
>4. What about temp for aging? I have them at constant 68-70 degs.
Good to go. Back to the literature; it says 68F is the optimum temp for
W1084.
Bob, I think your beer will be great if you can just wait it out.
-Jack in West Point
*******************************************************************
R. Smith
qr1661 at trotter.usma.edu
72154.516 at compuserve.com
*******************************************************************
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:10:55 -0500
From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com>
Subject: Re: frustrated homebrewer
Jeremy, asks in HBD #1989...
>Several times, I have used Northwestern extract. Could this be a problem?
Not likely. Northwestern extracts are very popular and have produced
predictable results for homebrewers for years. (No, they don't pay me to
say that...)
>My beers (pale ales) have been too sweet.
Sounds like a fermentation/yeast problem. What yeast, what process, and
what temps have you been using? Are you killing your yeast with heat or
freezing? Fermenting too cold?
> Actually, my last batch was
>based (very closely) on Papazian's Vallalia IPA recipe, although I used
>more hops than he suggested.... Still, not hoppy enough, didn't really
>seem like an IPA to me. There have been no infections.
Sounds like you're not boiling long enough. You typically need at least
45-60 minutes to release the hop bitterness from loose/plug/pellet hops.
>That last one was dry hopped as well. I'm not quite ready yet to throw
>in the towel on homebrewing yet, but I want to figure out why I seem to
>be getting similar results with significantly different recipes.
The above two problems would certainly explain your consistent problem.
>Would amylase enzyme eliminate the sweetness? Or is this just inherent in
>extract beers?
Amylase enzyme *creates* sweetness by converting starch into sugar.
However, extract already has the sweetness converted (hence the name).
>Also, if I were to construct a somewhat crude wort chiller, what is the
>recommended diameter of the copper tubing (for an immersion chiller)?
3/8" seems to be the norm, in lengths of 25 to 50'.
>Is there a formula for calculating the proper amount of priming sugar
>required after taking into consideration beer lost due to blowoff, etc.? My
>lPA was extremely overcarbonated (1 part ale to 3 parts foam).
Yes, 3/4 corn sugar or brown sugar (my favorite) to 5 gallons will carbonate
to the desired level for pale ales/IPAs. I'm sure there is a formula
somewhere, but I've used this ratio for 10 years with great success.
>Finally, when using grains in a strainer bag before adding extracts, is it
>necessary or desirable to 'sparge' and/or wring out the sack of grain into
>the boiling kettle?
That's not really what sparging is. Sparging is the rinsing of extracted
sugars from mashed grain while using the grain hulls to act as a filter bed
that strains your beer. When our group uses a grain bag, we just let it
drain and toss it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rust, Master Brewer |
Jack Pine Savage Brewery | The Brew Cru
Shiloh, IL (NACE) | 'Get Off Your Dead Ass and Brew!'
------------------------------------------------------------
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:25:00 EST
From: usbscrhc at ibmmail.com
Subject: Grain. Convince me.
Ok Group,
I read all the posts about grain brewing and need some convincing. I've extract
brewed around 35 batches over several years and have gotten excellent results.
I'm told as much by others and have been kegging for about the last 10 or
12 batches.
Is it cheaper? I know I don't brew a perfect batch every time, but they're
most about as good as it gets. If it's just for the 'fun' of the process, I
can understand some people enjoying it, but....is it cheaper? better results?
almost as easy as extract?? Someone who's made the switch, please let me know
what the deal is! Thanks.
Howard
Balt., MD
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:36:25 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com>
Subject: Newbie-rama.
My big piece of advice to newbies is that a one-time experience will teach
you more than a stack of textbooks. (And, that includes second-hand experience
of others, at least compared to their summaries of textbooks.)
> From: Bucket99 at aol.com
> Subject: Advise for the lurkers.
> 1. HBD is a GOLDMINE of information for the new brewer,
It's also got a lot of stuff in it that you most brewers will never concern
themselves with, at least not for the first several dozen batches.
> 2. Local Brew supply shops are usually a good place for information also,
I've gotten some TERRIBLE advice at these places. (Some good, though.)
Often, these people aren't brewers themselves, or are winemakers, or are
just plain wrong. If they have beer they've made available to taste, use
that as a litmus.
> From: Bucket99 at aol.com
> Subject: Honey Wheat Beer.
> Frankly I believe it will turn out okay, but am worried it may be a little
> darker than
> I plan, what with all the fermentables involved.
Do a full boil, and your color will be much lighter. (That is, for a 5 gallon
batch, boil all 5-6 gallons in one pot, rather than boiling half and adding
to cold water, a la Papazian.)
> From: flemingkr at market1.com (Kirk Fleming)
> Subject: Keith's Newbie Advice
>
> In #1983 Keith advised brewers who have been intimidate by all-grain
> to 'just do it'. I just had to butt in and second that advice.
I just want to say make sure you have plenty of time. My first all-grain
attempt took about 5 times as long as the previous batch, including cleanup
and everything. Of course, the beer was fantastic, and the experience in
general was a lot of fun. I just got a lot less done that weekend than I
had planned. (Like that's something new?)
> more thing I want to say: 5 gallons is not a magic number and if you
> have been reluctant to do a grain-based batch due to equipment limits,
> then for heaven's sake do a smaller batch. Try 3 gallons!
I've made several one-gallon all-grain batches, using improvised equipment.
(Often as "yeast starters" but, hey, why dump the liquid, especially if it's
not that much extra trouble to make it tasty?)
> From: Richard Gardner <rgardner at monarch.papillion.ne.us>
> Subject: Re: Advice needed for teaching a beginning homebrew class
> - AVOID adding large amounts of corn sugar to the recipe.
I'd say avoid adding -any- at all, except to pime the bottles for carbonation.
> From: Chris Storey <cstorey at mail.peterboro.net>
> Subject: light ale
> Maybe there is some
> adjunct I can add that will make it lighter, but not sacrifice taste or
> alcohol. My fermenter is 23 litres or 6 gallons. Thanks. E-mail is fine.
Use 1-2 lbs of clover honey. A little extra age is good for these.
> From: jmglenn at grove.iup.edu (James M. Glenn)
> Subject: Re: Breakers & Electricity & Suchlike
>
> A note on the electrics question: BREAKERS are NOT there to protect YOU -
> they were created to protect PROPERTY from fire!
But, if you're -in- the property when it doesn't catch on fire, that's a
form of protection, right? (But, yeah, it won't help for electrocution.
I think the main worry all along has been house fires, not shocks.)
> From: David.Whitwell at f255.n138.z1.fidonet.org (David Whitwell)
> Subject: Straining
> Whenever I try to strain the trub from the wort......
> any creative solutions that have been useful for you?
I never worry about the trub. At all. Ever. My beer is fine. (Some batches
are even "great", if I may toot my own horn here.)
-R
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:38:30 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com>
Subject: More First Wort Questions, less misc.
Oh, the pain of rejection!
--Contains line(s) greater than 80 chars in length --
> From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
> Subject: Re: First wort hopping and decoction mashes
> This is not the first person to tell me they are confused by my description
> of this procedure. I can't quite understand what all the confusion is
> about.
Well, for me, it's because I'm just dumb. But, I find it hard to believe
that's what's happening to everyone. So, a couple more questions -
> No, the hops are added at the start of the sparge, not the start of the
>boil,
> and allowed to steep in the wort for the duration of the sparge. This is
> done to provide hop flavor, *instead* of the traditional method of using a
> late addition.
If you're doing all-grain, you don't have a sparge. What would you recommend
for those folks?
Is it the lower temperature of steeping them that allows more of the flavor
chemicals to come through than just boiling them? I'm really confused why
this steep will do more (or less?) than simply adding them at the start of
the boil.
> As far as adding hops at the start of the boil, no, we don't all do that.
> There are a number of advantages to boiling the wort for 15-30 minutes before
> adding bittering hops. I don't want to drift too far off topic,
Let me try to drift back ON topic, and ask - do you remove the first wort hops
after they've steeped, or do you leave them in for the boil, also. (And, if
you do that, have you, in effect, added some bittering hops at the start of
the boil?)
> so I'll refer
> you to Jim Busch's excellent article on kettle reactions, which appeared in
> Brewing Techniques about 6 months ago.
I look forward to it, when I track down a copy.
> From: liquori at ACC.FAU.EDU
> Subject: Advice on Cherry Beer
Use more cherries.
> From: TMartyn at aol.com
> Subject: 2,3 Pentanedione, La Chouffe
>
> >there is a Belgian beer that has a very prominent 2,3 pentanedione character
> Could be, but I don't think so. I was at the Brasserie d'Achouffe last week
> and in talking with Kris Bouwaert, the owner, understood that they use only
> malted barley and candi sugar (light and dark). We had a very comprehensive
> tour, and I didn't see any signs of honey containers.
I was under the impression that, at least in this beer, the 2,3 pd was presumed
to come not from honey itself but as a fermentation by-product. Honey-like,
not honey-origin.
-R
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 15:42:56 -0500
From: dwhitman at rohmhaas.com (Dave Whitman)
Subject: best manifold openings?
I'm building a copper manifold for my combined brewpot/lautertun. I
(obviously) need to provide openings on the underside of the manifold to
allow liquid to flow in, but I can't decide between drilling small holes or
cutting slots. I've seen people post about doing it both ways.
I speculate that holes would do a better job of siphoning off the last
traces of wort before the siphon breaks. However, I worry about the holes
getting plugged by grain during lautering.
Anyone have advice or opinions on which sort of opening works best? If I
went with holes, what size would you recommend? With slots, how deep
should I make the cuts?
- ---
Dave Whitman
Rohm and Haas Specialty Materials
dwhitman at rohmhaas.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:51:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Coen <COEN.MICHAEL at igate.pprd.abbott.com>
Subject: PLOIDY
All this talk of mutations and genetic drift. I would think, naively
maybe, that a brewing yeast would be unusually stable in its genetic
makeup since there are multiple copies of each gene. Unless a mutation
was dominant I would think the chances of getting a really detrimental
change in brewing character would be extremly remote. Just a
thought.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 15:46:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Reed <rhreed at icdc.delcoelect.com>
Subject: pH adjustment in Carbonate water
I have a question about pH adjustment in water with moderate to high
carbonate hardness:
I am aware that some homebrewers and professional brewers adjust
their carbonate brewing water with various acids to obtain the
proper pH for mashing and sparging. My question is that given
sufficient Ca ions available, most or all of the bi/carbonate ions
will be precipitated during the boil as calcium carbonate, no? So
if I adjust my carbonate brewing water with acid for mashing and
sparging purposes, won't I obtain different results, that I would
had I pre-treated (boiled) my brewing water to remove carbonate
hardness? It seems to me that I would end up with a lower wort pH
at knockout if I acidify carbonate brewing water (due to
precipitation of carbonate hardness during the boil). Am I off
base here?
One motivation for this question is that before I pre-treated my
carbonate brewing water (boiling with CaSO4), I could not make very
elegant highly hopped pale beers: these beers always had a coarse
hop bitterness, regardless of the variety of bittering hops
employed. Thanks.
Cheers,
Rob Reed
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:50:03 +10
From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper at mq.edu.au>
Subject: FWH article summary clarifications
Dear Friends, not surprisingly my coverage of the Brauwelt article in
a recent digest was not *quite* thorough enough, and several
questions have come my way via private email.
Several people wondered at my comment that decoction was not used.
In a careful re-examination, I find that no mention is made of the
mashing procedure at all. For all I know, they *were* decocted.
Whichever is true, the exact same procedures and ingredients were
used in all the beers described--FWH and reference. This is stated
very clearly. So there *is* a common baseline, and hopefully we can
somehow find out which mashing procedure was used sometime...
Gregg Howard asked about how long the worts were boiled. Brew A was
boiled for 90 minutes and Brew B for 80 minutes, both at atmospheric
pressure.
Wade Wallinger asked whether my wording of X% of hops as FWH meant of
the total or of what would have been used as aroma hops. It is the
former; as stated in my post, no aroma additions were used in the FWH
beers. So in the FWH beers, only FW and bittering hops were used.
Eric Miller suggested that the valid comparison is between FWH beers
and bittering-hop only beers, and not with bittering + late-kettle
hopped beers. This is my fault, I was not complete enough in my
description. The reference beers were hopped normally (for the
breweries in question), meaning there were two late kettle additions.
In Brew A, it says "34% of [the total hop addition] (corresponding
to the two last additions originally used) into the first wort in the
form of Tettnanger type 45 and Saazer type 45 in the test brew".
Similarly for FWH Brew B it was 52%. This wording seems to clearly
imply that the reference beers were hopped with late kettle
additions. Sorry for the incompleteness of my summary in this
regard.
Eric goes on to attribute a conclusion to me rather than to the
article: not so, this is straight reporting on the piece, the only
thing not in the article is the parenthetical comment that in my
setup the described procedure corresponds to shifting late-kettle
additions to first-wort additions. The conclusion in question is of
this particular idea, and here I quote the original article (p. 315):
"...But we recommend that first wort hopping be carried out with at
least 30% of the total hop addition, using the later aroma
additions. [New paragraph] As far as the use of hops is concerned,
the alpha-acid quantity should not be reduced even in the case of an
improved bitterness utilisation. The results of the tastings showed
that the bitterness of the beers is regarded as very good and also
as very mild. A reduction of the hop quantity added [to compensate
for the presence of more hops early in the boil--this note added by
Dave, it is clear from the context of the preceding paragraphs]
could result in the bitterness being excessively weakened, and the
good "hop flavor impression" could be totally lost."
Eric also points out George Fix's assertion that the best aroma comes
from dry hopping. Although I am inclined to agree with this, what is
"best" is subjective--there are hop heads and there are malt heads,
and not everyone will agree on what constitutes the "best" hop aroma.
Tracy Aquilla also asked about whether IBUs corresponding to the FWH
addition should be subtracted from the total, and noted that with
high-alpha hops one would of course get more bitterness. The hops
used in the reported beers were Tettnang and Saaz, both low to medium
alpha varieties. No comments were given in the article for use of
higher alpha hops. However, because the results were discussed in
terms of mg of iso-alphas per unit volume of wort and percentage of
total hops added as FWH, there is at least the implicit suggestion
that the concepts are general; that is, if one was using high alpha
hops, then less would be used anyway in order to achieve a given
bitterness. Obviously one must apply some common sense and knowledge
of one's own setup to this. Eric Miller included in his message his
experience that using very high-alpha hops as FW additions increased
his bitterness more than he wanted, for example.
Tracy also expressed confusion that the level of bitterness should
affect the perceptions of aroma and flavor. Yup, Tracy, it *does*
seem counter-intuitive. It would seem that despite this, there is in
fact an effect, and as noted by both the Brauwelt authors and by Dr.
George last year, the complexity of the aroma producing reactions is
immense and no one fully understands why it appears to work the way
it does.
Hope this goes some way toward tying up some loose ends from my first
post. Keep those comments coming, I look forward to seeing what we
all determine for applying the FWH principle to our home setups.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"We [HBDers] are like the Borg" ---Chris Geden
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au WWW: http://audio.apana.org.au/ddraper/home.html
...I'm not from here, I just live here...
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 16:52:47 -0600 (CST)
From: snsi at win.bright.net (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Stupid Brewers Tricks/Throwing away beer
About two years ago I decided it was time to my first traditional weizen.
My Batch was partial mash and 3 lb. 2-row 1 lb. wheat malt with a 3.3 lb.
pack of Northwest weizen added. I used Yeast lab Bavarian Weizen (W51)
yeast in a 2 cup starter. Everything had went well until I racked it. It
was just awful. I let it sit in the secondary for six months, got my nerve
and tried it again. Still bad. I needed the carboy by then so I dumped it.
I'm sure this is often told tale. The batch so bad it ended in the loo.
But as Paul Harvey says, "Here is the rest of the story.". Where as I had
made wheat beers before they had always been made with dry ale yeast. And
to be truthful I don't think I had tried any commercial wheat beer of any
type. If you can't see where this is going, last summer I spent some time at
lake with my wife's family from Milwaukee. Some of the beer they brought
was Speacers Bavarian Wheat (?). By the second drink I had realized my
weizen of the year before wasn't bad, I just don't like weizens.
Jeff Smith | '71 HD Sprint 350SX | snsi at win.bright.net | Barnes, WI
"It's just like tractors, some tractors do some tractors don't."
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 16:28:31 GMT
From: jon.vilhauer at drcss.com (Jon Vilhauer)
Subject: Bottle Washing
Bottle washing doesn't need to be complicated or time
consuming, if you have room for a bottle tree and a container large
enough to soak several bottles at a time. Naturally, the bottles
must be thoroughly rinsed. If you do this as soon as you empty
them, most of the work is already done.
When you have accumulated a few bottles, soak them in dilute
iodophor solution. If the bottles are clean and soak a long time,
the iodophor needs to be only strong enough to have a pale orange
color. Unless you are disinfecting after a contaminated batch, 12
ppm ought to be more than enough - send for the free test strips
that come with a large bottle of BTF (tm) sanitizer. At normal
room temperatures 20 or 30 min would probably be long enough, but
I soak them at least a day - the bottles stay there till I need
to put some more in. Drain and place on your bottle tree.
That's all. You can get away without rinsing because any iodophor
remaining in the bottle will gassify - dissolve into the air and
go away. After a couple of days on the bottle tree, I'd
challenge anybody to taste it or smell it.
As long as your iodophor solution is reasonably clean,
there's no need to dump it. Just add a little more as needed to
keep a nice pale orange color. In a container with a tight
fitting lid, the iodophor lasts a long time.
I've never been able to see much sense in using a dishwasher
for beer bottles. It seems unlikely that much wash water ever gets
inside. If it's heat we want, wouldn't the oven be better?
Jon Vilhauer
A prohibitionist is the sort of man one wouldn't care to drink
with, even if he drank. H.L. Mencken
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 19:35:08 EST
From: XXBX78A at prodigy.com (MR PAUL G KURJANSKI)
Subject: DAB Mini Kegs?
I saw some 5 liter DAB mini-kegs at the store today. Has
anyone tried to reuse these for their homebrew? If so, how
is it done?
TIA,
Paul
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:34:56 -0500
From: Mcgregap at aol.com
Subject: Corney keg summary
Hi Everyone! Wow did I get lots of good help on my questions on
cornelius kegs and equipment. Sorry this summary is so late, had too much
going on. Thanks again for all the great HBD help, hope I didn't leave off
anything.
Hoppy Brewing,
Art McGregor
Day: mcgregap at acq.osd.mil
Evening: mcgregap at aol.com
* * * * *
A number of responses were that pin-lock or ball-losks differnce wasn't
that significant, see what is locally available. Many comments on two guage
vs one guage regulators were that the only came in handy just before the CO2
was gone, but most felt the 2nd guage was at least somewhat useful. Check
valves are not standard with all regualtors, so make sure to check before
buying, it can be very helpful. Check the 1995 Zymurgy issue on kegging ...
lots of good info.
Some of the specifc comments were:
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: dharsh at aol.com
My homebrew club bought bunch of kegs from a regional Pepsi distributor when
they started phasing out the metal kegs ... Apparently many distributors
won't sell them (they insist on selling them as scrap) due to liability
concerns. You can use a deep socket wrench to take the ball lock
fitting apart and you need a special tool for the pin lock.
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: Terence McGravey {91942}
> One disadvantage - THEY say - of ball locks is that you could
accidentally swap the CO2 and beer lines because they will fit on either side
(I've never done it). The disadvantage to pin lock kegs - THEY say - is that
the pins where the connector goes on could get bent and need replacement. You
cannot accidentally swap the CO2 and beer lines on these because the pin
setup
is different ... I got my kegs used from an add I saw in the paper where the
guy was selling some restaurant equip. I called and he had some ! I got 3
Corny kegs - mint condition - for $50 !
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: Chris Kaufman
> I posted a very inexpensive used cornelious keg source a few issues back
(HBD #1959).
> As for single vs. double guage regulators ... if you
want the second guage, there is a port to add one. I stumbled across a
2000 psi max guage at a local surplus store for around $4. As for the second
guage, I had to go to the local hardware store and buy a 60 cent adaptor for
the threads, as the second guage's threads were smaller than the regulator's
port threads. A little teflon tape and I was in business. works like a charm.
Another method is weight. The empty weight of the cylinder is stamped on it.
The difference is how much is left (ie: mine weighs 12# empty and 17# full).
> BTW, for easy cleaning of your beverage line (if you go the ball lock
route) go to your local Home Depot or garden store and look in the garden
hose
accesory section. They should have ball lock QD adaptors. Find one that will
screw onto your sink faucet (if same size as a hose end, or use an adaptor).
The beverage line will easily snap on and off, allowing you to run water
through it with no disassembly. I also put the corresponding male QD part on
a
length of vinyl hose to allow easy filling of the keg or carboys or
whatever. Then just snap off to drain and hang dry.
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: nelson at muck.isgs.uiuc.edu (Dan.Nelson)
> You might check with your local CO2 dealer. Some of them will not fill
aluminum tanks, only steel. And make sure your CO2 tank is stamped with a
current inspection date. And I suggest you start with 6 feet of dispensing
hose. This gives you some leeway with dispensing pressure. Shorter hoses
call
for lower dispensing pressures, but the lid gasket keeps a better seal if you
use a little bit higher dispensing pressure.
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: mdf at apollo.hp.com (Michael D. Fairbrother)
> I don't think I would say one keg is better than the other because
sooner or latter you might end up with some of each. To accomadate more than
one style of keg simply involves getting a manifold. I have a 3 way manifold
(2 lines for ball locks and 1 for pinlock). My beer draft system, is only
setup for ball locks, but if I have to I use a can just open the door and
pull
out a beer line to server whats in a pin lock. I usally use the pin locks
kegs to force carbonate and then after letting it settle for a week or so
force rack the beer from the pin lock into a ball lock keg. This keeps the
yeast sediment in the pinlock keg so that if I want to take a keg to a club
meeting it doesn't look like I am servering mud.
> The party pig air pump attached to a gas in value will allow you to add
preasure to your keg. Note this is only worth while if the beer is going to
be consumed fairly quickly, otherwise you will need to purge the air out when
you get back to your C02 system.
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: keith.royster at ponyexpress.com (Keith Royster)
> I found my used/reconditioned kegs at a used restaraunt supply store
(junk yard) for $5 each. Check your yellow pages. I just cleaned them out
myself with TSP from the hardware store, and bought replacement O-rings. I
also got my CO2 tank from the same restaraunt junk yard. $25 got me a 20#
cylinder that I spent another $10 on to re-certify it.
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: jlee at esd.ray.com (Jerry Lee)
> A two guage regulator ... doesn't work even close if you put it into the
fridge for cold dispensing. And it cost more....this said, I use the two
guage regulator for my outside 30# tank and a single for my inside 10# tank.
You can do by shaking the tank (It's more of a "have some left or hey...this
things empty")
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: DOUGWEISER at aol.com
> I've never used the gauge on the tank side. It basically stays at one
pressure until it's empty, than falls to zero. A better method is to weigh
the
empty tank, then weigh it full. This way, you can check peridocally to see
how
much is left. My 10 pound tank weighs 17 empty and 27 full on my bathroom
scale.
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: JA Weld at aol.com
> Buy a *new* toilet brush and attach a piece of broom handle or wooden
dowel. This makes it easy to scrub out the stuff left on the bottom.
> Treat kegs with little respect. I learned the hard way that just
because they have a rubber bumper, they aren't dent proof. I dented the
bottom of one near the dip tube. This put stress on the weld of the tube
fitting at the top, resulting a leaky keg.
> With pin you can make a "keg tool" out of a spark plug socket. Cut
notches around the opening to accomodate the pins. One socket can be used
for
both gas and liquid sides. With out the socket it is very difficult to
remove the valves.
<<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>> <<>>
From: andy.watts at ase.com (Andy Watts)
> For small keg parts, fittings, etc, I like Beverage Equip Supply Co
(BESCO), in Toledo, OH. ... BESCO also sells a line of nice quality plastic
tubing fittings. These are not the familiar barbed hose fittings, but rather
a type where your tubing simple slides into the fitting and is held in place
by a clamping action built into the plastic fitting. I really like them and
have almost done away with barbed fittings in my kegging system. The main
think I like is you can remove and insert the plastic hose in about 2
seconds.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:38:52 -0600
From: Marty Tippin <martyt at sky.net>
Subject: Tips for Unmalted Wheat?
I've got some raw wheat (not flaked or torrified) that I'd like to use in an
American wheat beer I'll be doing on Saturday. I'm wondering what I need to
do in order to use this stuff successfully - since it's not malted, I'll
guess I'm going to have trouble getting conversion. The plan is to use it
at about 40% of the grain bill, and use Klages for the rest. Any advice
would be appreciated. Please e-mail and I'll summarize.
-Marty
=======================================================================
Marty Tippin | Tippin's Law #8: No matter where you
martyt at sky.net (preferred) | are, you can always tune in a bad
martyt at geoaccess.com | radio station.
http://www.sky.net/~martyt/2tier.html
=======================================================================
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 16:03:55 -0600 (CST)
From: fitz at fasicsv.fnal.gov (Tom Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Re: Filtering
Bob McCowan writes about filtering:
<I don't, and none of the homebrewers that I know filter their beer either.
Jim Busch replies:
>I know several very accomplished homebrewers who do filter, one as a
>routine procedure.
I would like to comment on Jim's post and on his excellent
article on filtering in Brewing Techniques. (Jan/Feb '96)
I was going to e-mail Jim but thought this might be of general interest.
Jim:
>As for lackluster beers from filtering, this can be a result of micro-
>filtration which is sterile filtration below 1 micron. I feel this is
>very undesirable.
Why do you feel it very undesirable? I think there is a definite point
where micro-filtration strips beer of too much protein, but I have not
found any definitive guide as to what level is harmful. The level may
depend on the number and sizes of proteins left in the finished, pre-
filtered beer, which of course varies widely based on process and
ingredients. I currently use 1 micron and .5 micron absolute (99.9% eff.)
filters for lagers and some light ales (pale ale, IPA, Koelsch, etc.) and
have not noticed a lack of body or head retention. I've also done some
side by side comparison with filtered and unfiltered versions of the same
batch. I did not notice any difference in the mouth feel of the two beers,
but I could easily taste the difference, even blind. With a recent hoppy
pale ale, I much preferred the filtered version; there was no yeast bite,
the hop bitterness seemed cleaner, and the hop aroma more refined. I
especially recommend filtering for lagers, where clean flavors are the
goal.
I was also under the impression (sorry, no reference) that "sterile"
filtration was accomplished below .3 micron (also called "cold" filter-
ing, like MGD lite ice?). Anyone out there have any firm numbers on
filtering to remove all yeast and bacteria?
Jim writes on p. 24 of BT Jan/Feb '96:
"Yeast cell sizes tend to fall in the 5 - 10 micron range, which is why
a rough or polish filtration is usually done at 5 microns."
Do you have a reference for the range of yeast sizes? Anybody? The range
I remember but don't have a reference for is .8 - 5 micron.
Jim:
>While I dont filter much beer, its
>a great tool to have as an option and I feel it improves some beers,
>assuming we are talking a 3-5 micron filtration and not sterile.
Agreed, I don't filter a lot either and it's not appropriate for a
lot of styles, but it *does* improve some beers. I also would like
to point out that filtering at the 3-5 micron level produces clear
but not brilliant beer. There is no comparison in clarity between a
.5 micron filtered and a 5 micron filtered beer. I toyed with numerous
filtering cartridges and configurations before settling on my current
setup, and there was a definite improvement in clarity at the 1 micron
level. I'd like to have a 3 micron filter for some styles too, but those
cartridges are expensive!
Prospective filterers:
Please follow Jim's advice and use the pleated polypropylene cartrides
with a 99.9% efficiency rating (absolute), no matter what level you're
filtering to (such as available from the Filter Store). From my exper-
ience the cheap spun or resin cartridges do not deliver the performance
for the money. They are usually rated as something like "3 micron
nominal", the nominal meaning they are 80% efficient. This means that
80% of particles larger than 3 microns are trapped. The other 20% are
still in your beer and the result is you wasted your time and money.
I'd like to comment on some of Jim's filtering techniques as related
in his BT article (especially when filtering below 1 micron), but I
don't have any more time today. If there's any mileage to this thread
I'll follow up.
Here's to a clear beer!
-Tom Fitzpatrick
Return to table of contents