Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 12 June 1996 Number 2068

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

        Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

  chlorine + acid = ? , and thanks. (robtrish at mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston))
  California Common? (RBoland at aol.com)
  Eudora tip thanks (darryl.davidson at uvm.edu (Darryl Davidson))
  A good Crush (Carrick Legrismith)
  Oil Barrel (Wallinger)
  Request (Schwab_Bryan at CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil)
  Basic variables (Dave Greenlee)
  Re: dogs and hops again ("Tracy Aquilla")
  RE: World's Fines Microbrewery ("Decker, Robin E.")
  Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:52:27 GMT (jltaylor at ix.netcom.com (John Taylor))
  Re: yeast respire?  NOT!  (dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma))
  Silly troob question ("David K. Schafer")
  Response to newbie potpourri . . . (Steve_Rosenzweig at wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve))
  recipe info (mwtoczek at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu)
  Re: When is it beer? (jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo))
  liability (David Raitt)
  "homemade" taste/protein rest/respiration/flkd brly vs. crystl/blowoff (korz at pubs.ih.att.com)
  Ominous moves in the Great White North . . . (Steve_Rosenzweig at wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve))
  5 liter mini kegs (Todd_Etzel at ccmail.leos.loral.com)
  Dogs+ Hops= Malignant Hyperthermia (Rob Moline)
  Esters and O2 (Jim Busch)
  Australian Yeast (lheavner at tcmail.frco.com)
  Re: Wort Chilling (lheavner at tcmail.frco.com)
  Results (WOLFF%eclus.DNET at tron.bwi.wec.com)
  Re: Fly-in homebrew (Cory Wright)
  Longshot American Pale Ale, misfire ? (Steve Alexander)
  Re: Ester's saga, O2 and diacetyl ("Tracy Aquilla")
  Hydrometer vessel - any differences? (Michael Mahler/Shiva Corporation)
  Re: Thanks (Aaron Sepanski)
  Brewers Workshop correction. ("Rich Byrnes")
  Re: Wort chilling (Aaron Sepanski)
  Re: Trub (Aaron Sepanski)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES homebrew at aob.org (SUBMISSIONS only) homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org (for REQUESTS only) Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at aob.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via BEER-L NET, you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L This list service is now being provided by majordomo at aob.org, so some of the commands may have changed. For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org. If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION 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 or visit http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web. Othere information is available by e-mail from info at aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob. 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 at /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. Some archives are available via majordomo at aob.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: robtrish at mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 22:29 PDT Subject: chlorine + acid = ? , and thanks. chlorine + acid = ? death? My question is: what is the reaction between chlorine and acids which are harmful to people? I'd like to have some firm info on what quantities of reactants produce something harmful to humans. My ingnorant guess is that chlorine, in the miniscule quantities neede to sanitize homebrew equipment, poses no threat when mixed with acid. But I'd prefer not to be dead wrong <g!> Thanks to Russell Mast for helping me get re-subscribed. For those of you who wish I weren't, flame him (he loves it) [<g>e2!]. Also Steve A. Thanks for your help on water info; my thanks were e-bounced. - -- Rob Lauriston at fifty-plus latitude. My longitude is impolite in mixed company. Return to table of contents
From: RBoland at aol.com Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 01:40:43 -0400 Subject: California Common? I've been told that Anchor Steam is the only beer brewed true to the California Common style.(Category 24a). I'd like to compare some other beers, if any, to Anchor. Any suggestions? As I am in St. Louis, national (or close to it) distribution is required. Thanks for the help! Return to table of contents
From: darryl.davidson at uvm.edu (Darryl Davidson) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 02:00:44 -0600 Subject: Eudora tip thanks Has anyone taken their CO2-based kegging wisdom and done anything to emulate nitro-dispensed Guinness? I'm getting hitched and wanted to include Guinness at the after-wedding party. Quick-n-dirty ways of faking a good pour for a few hours of party service come to mind first. For example, perhaps doing the appropriate amount of nitrogen pressure into a second (empty) keg connected to the gas-in point of the Guinness keg might work to get me thru the night more or less. Or (though this one seems doomed by the absorption rate of CO2, etc.) somehow using CO2 and getting the pour I want. Second would be advice from anyone that's done a home- cobbled nitrogen regulator setup. As I understand, US bars that are serving Guinness under nitrogen are doing a high-p.s.i. (70p.s.i.g.?) system, since that much pressure is needed to get the nitrogen to dissolve into solution (compared to the 8-12p.s.i.g. range needed for similar solubility with CO2). Then, there's a mechanism at the tap they fiddle with that seems to be acting as another pressure drop to avoid Guinness geysers. A home job of this would seem to involve a nitrogen tank, dual regulator, perhaps that pressure-valve tap... whew... just to get that remarkable head and taste... Come to think of it, maybe I'll just buy six dozen widget cans... DIRECT REPLIES to darryl.davidson at uvm.edu, since I'm gettin' swamped by these weddin' plans and HBD will likely take a back seat for the next while. I'll recap to HBD and/or pass-along requests, as seems fitting. Thanks, in advance, PS: to the guy that ranted about the internet not being anyone's mom, I just gotta say that the Eudora-split-HBD question asked and answered was useful to me, it is UNIX that isn't my mother (as any unix junkie knows), and the internet-at-large and the HBD resemble mom more than he knows. In fact, _he_ even sounded like mom for a moment there. ;-) - - -- DL Davidson, UVM Environ. Engineering, darryl.davidson at uvm.edu Fill with mingled cream and amber, I will dram that glass again, Such hilarious visions clamber, Through the chamber of my brain-- Quaintest thoughts--queerest fancies, Come to life and fade away; Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. Return to table of contents
From: Carrick Legrismith <hiscope at c4systm.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:58:06 -0700 Subject: A good Crush From: Michael Owings <mikey at waste.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:35:17 -0500 Subject: Home-Built Roller Mills >I have found this setup to give an adequate crush. >Note that while the diamond cylinders can be found with reasonable >ease, you'll need a good machine shop to machine the knurling onto >the cylinder's surface, and to hollow the cylinders (if not already >hollow). Lots of times they'll do the work for a six pack or so of >homebrew. Obtaining the uranium cores _can_ be somewhat difficult; >check defunct nuclear power programs, your local classified ads (look >under "Rods, Fuel") or keep an eye open at garage sales. My cores >came from the Government of Pakistan (no affiliation, just a satisfied >customer, etc.). IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTE: for goodness sake, make >sure the uranium is actually _spent_ before attempting to use it in >constructing your mill -- you may be able to borrow a geiger counter >from a friendly local university, medical center, or other facility >that handles nuclear materials. And of course, make sure the uranium >cores cannot come into contact with your grain; the resulting beer >could end up toxic, carcinogenic, or astringent. >I recently motorized this mill; if there is sufficient interest, I >shall post a report at a future date. ============================================================================= Michael Owings Chief of Operations Uncle Leroi's Hazardous Materials Storage and FemtoBrewery New Orleans, LA ============================================================================= Michael--I have two questions: 1. What size screen did you use to determine that it was indeed a good crush? 2. How did you get Pakistan to sell you the core material? We have to get ours from China which isn't too hard or expensive; but that slave labor thing has my societal self spinning. Carrick Legrismith Hiscope Brewery hiscope at c4systm.com Return to table of contents
From: Wallinger <wawa at datasync.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 06:59:20 -0500 Subject: Oil Barrel Kyle says, "An oil barrel is 32 gal, a beer gallon is 31 gal (US). A = barrel is not a recognized international amount, whereas a hectoliter (100l) is." Actually, an oil barrel (abbreviated Bbl) is 42 US gallons. And oil = trades internationally in US dollars per barrel. By the way, is there = any truth to the rumor that the abbreviation Bbl came from "beer = barrel", since that's all that was available in Pennsylvania during the = mid-1800s oil boom? Wade Wallinger Pascagoula, Mississippi http://www.datasync.com/~wawa Return to table of contents
From: Schwab_Bryan at CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 07:34:08 CDT Subject: Request Greetings, Was wondering who out there within the West Chester PA area knows of some tried and Proven Brew Pubs as well as Homebrew Supply shops wort visiting while out that way next week. E-Mail: schwab_bryan at ccmail.navy.ncsc.mil Thanks Bryan Return to table of contents
From: Dave Greenlee <daveg at mail.airmail.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:24:14 -0500 Subject: Basic variables I was perusing the list of winners of the National Homebrew Competition in the last special issue of Zymurgy and happened to note the following facts: + Not one of the winners was brewed in a single-stage fermentation, every one used a secondary fermentation and a substantial number went on to a tertiary. + Not one was brewed at a fermentation temperature of over 72F, and all but one were at 70F or below. + Plastic fermenters were all but absent; in the few cases where they did appear they were used only for the primary fermentation with the secondary and tertiary, if any, in glass or stainless. + Not one (I'm working from memory and am not positive about this) used extract as its primary malt base, though some used it to supplement their grain bill. (The foregoing comments do not include the mead, cider, or saki winners, but they do apply to all the others, ales and lagers alike.) Being a beginning brewer who is getting ready to do an extract-plus-steeped-specialty-malts brew in a single-stage plastic fermenter at a fermentation temperature of 72-79F, should this be telling me something? If I wanted to change one or more of these factors, and presuming that I'm currently interested only in brewing ales, how would you rank them in importance? My guess would be that the plastic issue would be last, presuming that I properly control sanitation and avoid scratching the plastic. The secondary fermentation would probably be next from the bottom, since I'm limiting myself to ales (i.e. short periods of time on the yeast and trub). The other two, I'm not so certain about. I'm just not certain which would have the more important impact on the finished product. I _suspect_ it would be grain vs. extract, but the longer conditioning made possible by the lower temperatures could be just as important. In fact, instinct tells me that the temperature and secondary fermentation issues are, per se, less important than extract vs. grain because, I suspect, they just don't have as much effect on an extract or extract+specialties brew as they do on a partial mash or all-grain brew. Your comments would be much appreciated... Dave Greenlee Return to table of contents
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 10:36:41 CDT Subject: Re: dogs and hops again In Digest #2066: "Dave Hinkle" <Dave.Hinkle at aexp.com> wrote: [snip] >Sorry to hear about this near tragic happening. I remember reading about a >(human) drug that can be administered that will quickly stop the run-away >hyper-thermic condition as an antidote to hop poisoning. I think it was a post >to RCB several months ago? Does anyone have this information? All I remember >was it was some kind of "[?]-blocker" given to humans to treat some specific >condition (something to do with the kidneys?). I would like to get this info >so I can forward it to my vet. Because the drug isn't normally given to >ANIMALS, it seems my vet has never heard of such a thing. If there is such an >antidote, getting this info to the veterinary community would be a great >public service. No matter how careful we are, accidents can happen. Malignant hyperthermia is rare, but has been fairly well-characterized (particularly in pigs) and approximately one in ten-thousand anesthetized individuals develop the chain reaction of symptoms: the muscles contract uncontrollably and get very hot, causing a high fever, then muscular rigidity, rapid heartbeat, increased blood CO2 levels, and convulsions soon follow. Usually it occurs during surgery under general anesthesia, and thus is often not fatal, since the victim is already in the hospital and doctors are readily available to treat the condition. Administration of dantrolene (a calcium-channel blocker) has proved effective in saving 93% of hospitalized patients (mostly humans and pigs) exhibiting this reaction. In pigs, a mutation (somatic dominant) has been identified in one of the genes (calcium release channel, aka ryanodine receptor [RYR]) controlling muscle contraction. This mutation has been shown to be the cause of predisposition to malignant hyperthermia in pigs. However, the prevalence of this mutation is unknown in all species, and it would be prudent to assume that all animals, including humans, dogs (all breeds, not just Greyhounds), cats, livestock, etc. are potentially susceptible to hops poisoning, until more data are collected and analyzed. Tracy Return to table of contents
From: "Decker, Robin E." <robind at rmtgvl.rmtinc.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 10:44:00 -0500 Subject: RE: World's Fines Microbrewery Okay, I've been trying to send this for days, and I just realized I've been sending it to aob.COM instead of aob.ORG!!! Sometimes it really is just operator error (as hard as it is for me to admit that <g>). This is a little late, but I've updated it somewhat: --------- (Bob at Flour Daniel in Greenville, SC provided a critique of a local brewery) Bob, Bob, Bob, <shaking head in dismay> The place you visited was NOT a microbrewery! You were in one of the THREE BrewPUBS in Greenville. And since there IS also a Microbrewery in Greenville, I think you owe Dave Bracken, head brewer of same, a public apology for casting aspersions upon his product and his practices. BTW, Dave started out as a homebrewer (I suspect he even owns a copy of "TCJHB") and he is currently producing 2 excellent beers: Caesar's Head Amber, and Caesar's Head Pale Ale, both available at local restaurants (e.g. Macaroni Grill) on tap and at Biermeisters in bottles. Bob, next time you want to slam someone, either name them or make sure that noone will be confused about your target. You may want to visit the Downtown Brewing Company or the Blue Ridge Brewery for technical advice (and I bet our local homebrew shop, aka Biermeisters, would be happy to answer questions), as The Chicago Brew Pub has closed its doors. It seems there were just too many obstacles for them to overcome, ranging from lack of a knowledgable brewer, to inattention to details like service and quality. Additionally, with 2 more professionally run brewpubs slated to open here soon, there wasn't enough time to turn the operation around. (This is entirely my own opinion, based on very slim info gleaned from locals "in-the-know"). And I bet I know where there's a reasonably priced brewpub available if anyone is interested... <g> As for the newest brewer having the "TCJHB" at his side, considering the lack of training he received, I give him credit for at least trying to learn what his new job was about. And face it, who do we regularly refer newbies to? He learned enough from Charlie to know that he needed help, and then he went looking for help. It was just too little, too late. Sorry if my being rubbed the wrong way chafes anyone else...its just that the specialty beer industry is an infant here in Greenville, and I for one, would like to see it flourish. Goldings "Don't even think about asking for a disclaimer" Return to table of contents
From: jltaylor at ix.netcom.com (John Taylor) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:52:27 GMT Subject: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:52:27 GMT Has anyone used gelatin to clear beer. How? Return to table of contents
From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 10:56:45 EDT Subject: Re: yeast respire? NOT! Hi All, In HBD #2066, Dominic Venezia writes: <excellent, informative post on yeast metabolism snipped> >On the other hand, the >Fuller's ESB yeast, rumored to be one of the Wyeast's (which?) has a Wyeast 1968 is the Fuller's ESB yeast. >very high aeration requirement and I have yet to get it to finish >lower than 1.020 starting around 1.056 even with massive and periodic >(during fermentation) aeration at pitch time. My 1.055ish ESB's typically ferment down to 1.015 or so with this yeast. It is extremely flocculant, and needs to be roused 3-4 days after pitching. ***************************************************************** Also in HBD #2066, Russell Mast writes: >I think it's important to ask yourself - can you still enjoy the beer >despite of the defect? If not, you are poorer for having that knowledge. Gee, I dunno Russ. I can't conceive of any situation in life where a person is worse off by virtue of being knowledgable. Of course, some people actually believe ignorance is bliss, so I guess such people would not share that opinion. >> >But I wouldn't >> >give up the knowledge for the world... >Neither would I. But, I think I'd still be able to appreciate the joys >of a beer with whatever problem it may have. Consider then how you would feel when you encounter a beer that's free of defects, a perfect example of a style. Like the time I wandered into a pub in Bath, England just as a fresh cask of Worthington's IPA was being tapped. Pronounced, clean hop bitterness, beautifully balanced by a malt character with slight caramel notes, and a dry, hoppy finish that lingered forever - heaven! Or last fall at a cider picnic I attended where a keg of fresh Spaten Ur Octoberfest was served. Clean, incredibly smooth malt character, felt like silk on the palate. I don't think I moved more than 10 feet from that keg all afternoon. Of course, if one doesn't have enough knowledge to appreciate what's in the glass on such occasions, the whole, joyous experience is lost. Now who's the poorer?? Cheers, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
From: "David K. Schafer" <DSCHAFER at museum.nysed.gov> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:04:25 EDT Subject: Silly troob question Hi all, First, I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my query regarding dry yeast vs. liquid yeast cultures. The 100% opinion is that I should use liquid yeast and it will be the biggest improvement to my home brewing that I will make. Even a larger improvement than going to all-grain! I'll be making the switch. Cheers! Anyway, on with my silly question. I am still having a slight troob problem. After boiling my wort I use an immersion wort chiller and cool the wort to +-70 f in about 15 min. There is a definite / visible cold break. However, not all of the coagulated proteins drop to the bottom, a significant amount is free floating. Also, after racking or transferring to a secondary there is still a significant amount of troob in the bottom of my primary. BTW, I use hop pellets in a bag, so I don't have a natural filter bed of leaves. Question: Should I let my cooled wort settle in the brewpot for an unspecified amount of time (in order to let the troob settle) before I transfer to my primary? Even more trivial.... *How* should I transfer the cooled wort from my brew pot to the secondary??? I can pick the silly pot up and pour it through a funnel right into the primary, but this may transfer the troob as well if I'm not careful. I seem to recall in Papazian that the wort was transferred via a smaller (2 quart pot??). Is this the way people do it? Any advice people could offer would be appreciated. Maybe I'm missing some simple piece of information. Thanks in advance. Happy Brewing!!! Dave - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - David Schafer Cultural Resource Survey Program dschafer at museum.nysed.gov New York State Museum 518/473-1503 3118 Cultural Education Center FAX 518/473-8496 Albany, NY 12230 Return to table of contents
From: Steve_Rosenzweig at wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:10:02 PDT Subject: Response to newbie potpourri . . . Duckdog: >Hey, first homebrew attempt yielded a very palatable (albeit young) dark beer >with a good hop aroma and pleasing taste, the head was decent and clung to >the sides of the glass. Congrats!! Your life will never be the same . . . >I seem to have a problem with specific gravity. My >first batch-the aforementioned-was bottled after 10 days of fermentation and >an ending SG of 1.022, hmmm, as a rookie I didn't take a starting gravity but >the end result is o.k. The latest batch is extract, all malt and started at >1.048 and appears stuck at 1.018 after like 9 days, I racked to a secondary >and activity is minimal. I don't think you have a problem. I have been an all extract/specialty grain brewer for over 6 years now, and those gravities seem acceptable for that type of brewing. 1.048 to 1.018 is quite acceptable. The first batch, (dark = stout or porter?), may have had an even higher starting gravity, so 1.022 is ok as well. Most importantly - how does the beer taste? Is it good? Is it the best damn beer you've ever made? Does it make you want to keep brewing? If so, you're on the right track! There are a couple of things that you may already have picked up through HBD and r.c.b. If not, I'll give you a brief starting point: pitching sufficient amounts of liquid yeast and aeration of your cooled wort; I've found that these have improved my beer immensely!! >My understanding is that SG denotes density of >particles in solution, is it possible that all malt brews (meaning all malt >extract-no sugar until priming) would have a higher overall ending SG? Be aware that different extracts provide different amounts of fermentables. I've found that Munton&Fison seems to ferment out more fully than John Bull (but in the JB Amber - I *like* that quality!). >Should I throw away the hydrometer and have a homebrew? No, and yes!! You don't need to master (or even use) use the tools of the trade; but I am an advocate of *learning* about them for process, form, and function; then if you decide that it's not a step necessary in _your_ process, at least you will have made an informed decision! >What would be a good transition to malt extract/partial grain brew? Is it too >soon to attempt it? Never! I suggest a porter or a stout - my first specialty grain brew was Sparrow Hawk Porter from CP's first book, and it came out damn good! Stepping from all malt to specialty grain to partial grain to all grain is a good way to gauge your brewing interest/experience. My own experience was that I got *really* into extract brewing the first couple of years (30-40 batches), then I moved out of my house, went back to school, found that I didn't have the time, space, or interest to continue brewing for a couple of years (besides - I still had *cases* of reserve to drink through - and I have ;->). Now that I am back working and bought another house, I'm back into brewing (12 batches since last T'giving), still extract/specialty grain to get my chops back, but with the knowlegde from HBD and r.c.b, I'm planning on making the move to all grain starting in the fall . . . >Any direction is certainly appreciated, thanks in advance. One of the best parts about brewing is bringing others into it and along through the processes. >Dean Dckdog at aol.com (short for duck dog, y'know, labrador.....) Brew On!! Stephen Return to table of contents
From: mwtoczek at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:12:30 -0400 Subject: recipe info I am looking for a recipe for a wheat beer, flavored with orange and coriander. Can someone point me in the right direction? Private e-mail is fine. TIA Michael Return to table of contents
From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 11:05:26 -0400 Subject: Re: When is it beer? After catching up on this discussion, let me just add one more question. When is wort no longer wort? When discussing the process in between boiling and bottling, you have the question of when is it legally beer, but you also have the question, when is it no longer wort? Unless you have an intermediate stage "in fermentation" with a name, it presumably stops being wort at about the same time as it becomes beer. I think it is no longer wort after fermentation has begun. I say this happens after the "lag time" has finished, though I can see why legal types would opt for something simpler. In the meantime, I call it wort until I see signs of fermentation and then I call it beer. Return to table of contents
From: David Raitt <draitt at scri.fsu.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:29:05 -0400 Subject: liability In HBD 2066, Robert Uhl writes: > [...regarding club meetings in brew shops...] > Personally, I would trust my fellows not to sue me > for their own problems. I remain The issue is often not your fellows so much as your fellows' insurance company. If someone gets in an accident leaving any event, the insurance company would like to spread the cost out as much as possible, and will often initiate a law suit under a state's dram shop laws. The approach that our club takes is to find a willing local bar with a back room that they will let us use. It is good advertising for them, since we are obviously people who like beer. The club meetings are then covered (we believe) under the massive liability insurance that all bars carry, so that we have to worry less about that issue. I'm not a lawyer, so take that into account when considering the above advice. David draitt at sci.fsu.edu Return to table of contents
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 10:29:14 CDT Subject: "homemade" taste/protein rest/respiration/flkd brly vs. crystl/blowoff Brian writes: >I want to take the "homemade" beer taste off my beer. How do I do that? The four things that I found removed that "homemade" taste were: 1. reducing Hot-Side Aeration (I used to aerate the wort when it was still hot -- cooling before aerating improved my beer more than anything else), 2. using *fresh* malt extract (old extract gives a similar flavour to HSA and has been blamed by some for that "extract twang"), 3. switching to good yeast (at the time, the dry yeast I was using was pretty bad -- when I switched to liquid there was a big improvement... since then I've often used Nottingham, Windsor, Coopers, Muntona... all with very good results), and 4. steeping the crystal malts in no more than a gallon of water per pound (if you steep them in any more than that, you will extract excessive tannins which will take a long time to mellow out). *** Howard writes: >What is the protein rest for? I take it that it's to break down proteins, but >why? What significance does it have in final beer...clarity? body? head >retention?? Quick question, longer answer. The protein rest is for breaking big proteins into medium and small proteins and amino acids. If you have excessive big proteins you increase your hot and cold break (and the associated beer losses) and your risk of chill haze. Medium-sized and small proteins increase head retention and body. If you already have well-modified malt (most modern malt is well-modified) you can break your medium and small proteins down to amino acids -- good for yeast nutrition, but bad for body and head retention. *** George writes: Yeast, in the presence of oxygen, WILL RESPIRE. Respiring yeast DO NOT produce alcohol, and they do produce compounds that cause off flavors but these compound are later metabolized by the yeast (or, in the case of volatiles, purged from the beer by CO2), so they do not usually make it to the serving vessel. Tracy's right, George. Kirk, Miller and Noonan are wrong (at least regarding yeast and respiration). Look in more bio (not homebrew!) books till you find "Crabtree Effect." It is because of the Crabtree Effect that yeast do not respire. They do use oxygen for sterol synthesis which is essential to healthy cell membranes which, in turn, are important for alcohol tolerance, among other things. *** Bill writes: >I've heard people say that flaked barley will add "body, mouthfeel, >and head retention", and that crystal malt will do the same, in >addition to adding residual sweetness. > >So here are my questions: > >1. Which is right? Are both correct (regarding the body/mouthfeel >part)? Can anyone provide a definitive answer? Both, but Fix says that proteins have a bigger effect on body/mouthfeel than dextrins. I believe that only proteins increase head retention, although I would be interested in a reference or experience that indicates otherwise. I believe that there are plenty of medium and small proteins in crystal malt which is why it helps with head retention. >2. I don't understand how crystal and carapils provide higher >dextrins. Say we are mashing with a significant amount of 2-row, and >we're doing a long enough 60C rest that we're converting a significant >amount of the 2-row starches into simple(sque) sugars. Why wouldn't >the beta-amylase, presumably largely concentrated, now, in the liquor, >convert the sugars in the crystal or carapils as well? Would one do >better to add these malts at the 70C rest, or during mashout? If >dextrins are responsible for body/mouthfeel, should flaked adjuncts be >added later, as well? I believe that some would be converted and some would not. Limit dextrins are not converted by beta amylase. I have it on my list of things to do to find out what percentage of crystal malts' dextrins are limit dextrins. Flaked adjuncts MUST be mashed. They contain starch, so you cannot add them later in the mash as you can with crystal malts. *** Darrel writes: >Given that I will be out of town during this time, can I establish my >blowoff setup (discharge end of blowoff tube submerged in weak chlorine >solution) before I leave and then replace with airlock when I return >without risking infection or chlorophenols in my beer ? Should I >reschedule by brewing session ? Unless your setup is set up such that your fermenter can suck back liquid from the vessel that catches the blowoff (i.e. unless you are using narrow ID tubing, which is not recommended for MANY reasons) there should be no risk. This is a closed system and therefore there is no more risk of infection with a blowoff system than with an airlock. Personally, I prefer to use plain water in airlocks and blowoff buckets, because if I do get suckback of airlock water, I would rather it be plain water than bleach. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at pubs.att.com Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas Return to table of contents
From: Steve_Rosenzweig at wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:27:35 PDT Subject: Ominous moves in the Great White North . . . No disrespect meant to our Canadian friends, but what the hell ???? I hope this doesn't give our US State and Federal weasels any bright ideas! Seems like we may be playing right into their hands - sure, we'll make it legal in every state - then they can tax it!!! Now that the cherry has been popped in North America we can't hide our heads in the sand any more!! I think we should raise this as a platform plank for all parties in the 1996 election!!! Forget those petty issues of abortion rights, the budget, the deficit, depleted entitlement programs, foreign policy, old geezers, womanizing, . . . now there's a real issue of interest!!! Read My Lips - No Brew Taxes!!!! Stephen (Looking to buy a few acres in Montana . . . ) - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------ >From RBPMail 2.6, June, 1996 Real Beer Page Mail, The Monthly Brew News Digest For the Online Brew Enthusiast. CANADIAN TAX ON BEER & WINE MAKING FOOD ITEMS The government of Quebec announced in its budget Thursday that starting May 16, the 6.5-per-cent provincial sales tax will be added to grapes, concentrated or nonconcentrated, malt, malt extracts and similar products used to make wine or beer. Federal tax will not apply. "They want to tax food and that's not fair," said beermaker Nicolas Balikci at a supply store. He was referring to the sugar, yeast, malt and other products lining the shelves. "They sometimes sell honey in this store," said Mary Schurman, another customer. "How do they know I'm not going to put it on my toast?" Some home brewers even suggested that extending the provincial sales tax to beer and wine-making ingredients is an attack on ethnic communities. The tax will hit people like Garcia Moutinho, who estimates he spends $1,000 on grapes to make about 150 gallons of wine a year. "It's bad for me and for all the guys like me - Italians, Portuguese, Greeks." Grape-seller Claudio Porco wondered how the government can tell the difference between grapes that are eaten and those that are pressed to make wine. (Source: Yvonne Zacharias; The Gazette - Montreal; May 11, Saturday, News; Pg. A3) A local merchant due to open a microbrewery in Quebec soon insists that this is not an ethnic issue. If consumers or home brewers want food items without taxes, they can buy them at the local retail stores. The group affected by the tax and therefore most vociferous will be the home and wine making suppliers. ? copyright, Real Beer, Inc. 1996. Feel free to distribute to friends, just keep the copyright clause intact. An archive of past RBPMails is available at http://realbeer.com/newsletters/ cheers! Return to table of contents
From: Todd_Etzel at ccmail.leos.loral.com Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 08:50:07 PST Subject: 5 liter mini kegs In response to the question about the 5 liter mini kegs, I have started using them (3 batches) and have had no problems with them. Since I bottle part of the batch and put the rest in the mini kegs, I use the normal priming rates of 2/3 to 3/4 cup of corn sugar, and the carbonation has come out fine. As for the cost of the CO2 cartriges, if you can get a good seal with your tap (not always gaurenteed on the first try) it will take only one cartrige to dispense the keg, so the cost isn't significant. Overall, I like them and plan to keep using them. Todd Todd_Etzel at ccmail.leos.loral.com Return to table of contents
From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 10:45:13 -0500 Subject: Dogs+ Hops= Malignant Hyperthermia Dave Hinkle writes about the human equivalent of Hopped up Dogs- It's called Malignant Hyperthermia, or malignant hyperpyrexia, 1st identified in the 1960's. A rare, life threatening condition, triggered by succinylcholine and volatile anaesthesia agents, notably halothane, though it may also be induced by trauma, emotional stress, and strenuous exercise. The syndrome begins with a hypermetabolic state in muscle tissue and is believed to involve altered calcium mechanisms at the cellular level. Symptoms include generalized contracture of skeletal muscle, tachycardia, marked temp elevation, metabolic acidosis, hypoxia, and dysrythmias. Death rates of 50 - 80% were common until Dantrolene was introduced as a treatment. Immediate infusions and total body ice baths are used. Dantrolene is a VERY expensive drug and has a limited shelf life, and will not be found in quantities greater than that necessary to treat 1 or 2 cases at any one time. But it will be found in EVERY operating room in the developed world and further supplies are air ambulanced in, when necessary. That's why the anaesthetist asks you about 'any problems with previous anaesthesia,' that you or any family member may have had. Muscle biopsy may be required in suspected individuals. As you amy understand, this is a big concern when surgery must be done on a susceptible individual. Cheers! Rob Moline Little Apple Brewing Copmpany Manhattan, Kansas Return to table of contents
From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Esters and O2 Lots of good discussion on yeast metabolism and fermentation byproducts! Much more interesting than who has the cheesiest malt mill!! ;-} > Under oxygenation of the wort is the surest way to increase ester > production. <According to Greg Noonan, "this is another source of controversy-much of the <brewing literature states that underpitching/lack of oxygenation results in <less ester formation, but again, it just ain't so" (Greg Noonan, Barleycorn <Press 7(7):1 (1996). Greg's statement is bourne out by my reading of the <brewing literature and empirical observations. At the first Spirit of Belgium conference, Weihenstephan Diplom Braumeister Eric Toft presented some general material relating fermentation parameters to fermentation byproducts. He was careful to point out these are generalizations and each brewery/strain must be monitored to see the cause and effects. That said he did present this: Decreasing wort aeration generally results in a vast increase of esters. Late O2 injection, Drauflassen, generally results in a vast decrease of esters. In the former case, higher alcohols are decreased while in the latter case they are increased. An increase of pitching rate can either increase or decrease esters and fusel alcohols. Open fermenters also tend to increase esters. <However, for those wishing <to make exquisite Scotch Ales or Doppelbocks, I submit that some <experimentation to this effect might be well worthwhile. I know it works for <me! Maybe with Scotch ales but I would not make a doppelbock without saturation to 8 ppm of O2. Greg wrote: <Such is the case for beers like Scotch Ales and Bocks, where the original <specific gravity is usually rather high and the finished beer is generally <intended to be very clean (i.e. free from esters, fusels, and VDKs). This is <particularly important when fermenting high gravity worts, since ester <production is naturally increased during fermentation of these worts. By <pitching as much as 15-20x10E6 cells/mL, keeping the initial fermentation <temperature relatively low, and minimizing or even eliminating the aeration <step, one can avoid extensive yeast growth and excretion of the esters which <naturally accompany reproductive activity. Now it is all becoming very clear indeed! What Noonan considers "high pitching rate" is what most professionally trained brewers consider minimal pitching rate! The rule of the trade is 1 million cells/degree Plato, so a 18 P doppelbock would be pitched with 18 million cells/ml. Not what I consider high, but normal pitching rate. This is probably another example where words can be misleading when not defined in a more rigorous fashion. Good lagering! Jim Busch Return to table of contents
From: lheavner at tcmail.frco.com Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:41:04 -0500 Subject: Australian Yeast Greetings, I recently adapted a recipe (bottled yesterday) that called for dry Australian Ale Yeast. I was wondering if such a yeast has a name and if there is an equivalent liquid yeast. I ended up using 1056 because the recipe seemed like a typical Pacific Nor'west red ale, if there is such a thing. Just curious and I've seen numerous posts from down under, so I decided to kill a cat. Regards, Lou <lheavner at frmail.frco.com> Return to table of contents
From: lheavner at tcmail.frco.com Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 12:20:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Wort Chilling From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska at it.uwp.edu> Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 22:53:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Wort Chilling I was wondering.... I never use a wort chiller. I usually put my wort directly into the fermentation tank (carboy) top it up with water, then set it in the bath tub. It usually takes about three hours to cool to about 85-95 degrees F. At this time I rack off the trub, and then pitch in my yeast. This gives me a pretty short lag time. What risk am I actually running. I've only done it the last 4 or 5 batches with no problems. Any opinions? That is basically my approach. I use a galvanized washtub instead of the bathtub because I use ice and it takes a lot of ice to fill the bathtub. Also, if you can, you might want to try cooling the hot wort first before adding to carboy and water. Several benefits to this: You can cool your boiling pot much faster and with less risk of breakage than you can your carboy. Presumably, you'll get a better break by cooling faster and less HSA by pooring cooler wort rather than hotter wort. In fact, I cool the wort far enough that I can pour it vigorously (of course I ferment in a plastic bucket) to achieve some degree of aeration prior to pitching without detecting any HSA affect. I guess the only downside is if your water is not sterile, but then if that's the case, it probably won't get sterile by simply adding hot wort to it. It takes me about 30 - 45 minutes to cool 3 gal in my kettle to 80F - 90F which I add to 60F tap water (added with the sink sprayer to increase aeration) and pitch. I cool in 2 stages. First I cool with tap water in the wash tub until it feels hot (about 10 or 15 minutes. Then I remove about a gallon of the water and add 8lbs of ice. The ice is usually melted a few minutes before cooling is complete, so another bag of ice could be used. I just don't think it would help that much, because the water is still pretty cold and I'm too cheap to spend the xtra 87 cents for another bag. I swish the water around my kettle by hand to improve heat transfer and monitor water temp. Sometimes I'll move the kettle around in the tub in such a way as to get some stirring action inside of the kettle. However, I'm always worried about HSA and my back, so I usually don't. I do keep the lid on the kettle at this time to minimize the chance of contamination, since this is done on the floor. I also put a couple of bricks in the bottom of the tub under the kettle to enhance water flow under the kettle as well as around it. On another note, I find it is always useful to check a mechanical or bi-metallic thermometer against a known standard before using it. Boiling water, ice water bath, room temperature are all easy to achieve and verify them. Probably a good idea for liquid thermometers as well, but I've never found them to be innacurate. This may sound a little anal retentive, but it comes from one who usually forgoes testing SG and still manages to make pretty good brew IMHO. Lou <lheavner at frmail.frco.com> Return to table of contents
From: WOLFF%eclus.DNET at tron.bwi.wec.com Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Results I received someone else's scoresheets along with mine for the AHA preliminary round. It is entrant # 18241 and the Cat is 11 (a Dry Stout. If you want it e-mail me and I will fax it to you. I told the AHA I had it, but no response. Bob Wolff Sr. Chemical Eng. Northrop Gruman wolff at eclus.bwi.wec.com Return to table of contents
From: Cory Wright <cwright at midcom.anza.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:30:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Fly-in homebrew In HBD #2066, Steve Potter writes about fly in homebrew. Now, personally, I don't care for fly in my homebrew. But if you must, I would make sure that the fly fit the style. If you're brewing a stout, a common black fly will most likely work. If you want to brew with fruitfly, use a mildly hopped wheat beer for a base. I would personally add the fly to the secondary, though I have heard of adding it to the last couple minutes of the boil as well. Remember to freeze the fruitfly first to break down the cell walls. Anyone else have any suggestions? Cheers, Cory cwright at midcom.anza.com Return to table of contents
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:22:30 -0400 Subject: Longshot American Pale Ale, misfire ? I just tasted Sam Adam/Boston Brewing/Jim Koch - Longshot American Pale Ale. As has been reported in HBD previously Boston Brewing chose 3 homebrew contest winning beer recipes and are commercially producing these. A previous HBD post spoke about their Hazelnut ale. There are also a black lager and an american pale ale. The Amer. Pale Ale is from Jim Simpson(Simson?) recipe and altho it's a nice drinkable beer it tastes a lot more like Marzen/Octoberfest brewed with an ale yeast. The Vienna or Munich malt is the dominant flavor, and the evidence of the four varieties of hops advertised on the label is minor - the label claims 31 hops units whatever that means - IBUs ? There isn't much hop aroma/flavor evident, and the bitterness is masked by the vienna malts dryness. The color is a medium brown, a bit lighter than most Octoberfest beers. It is drier and softer than an Octoberfest. I'm putting this one in the (colder) upstairs fridge with the lager beers. OK - so I'm not a purist, a good beer is a good beer - *BUT* when the label says 'American Pale Ale' a beer more in line with Sierra Nevada Pale Ale or Anchor Liberty Ale comes to mind. I expect an IPA minus the molasses/sugar cane note of a Bass, plus a heavy hit of US varietal hops aroma and flavor. Not to pick on Boston Brewing or Jim Simpson, vienna and munich malt in pale ales is becoming epidemic around here. One local brewery (Crooked River) uses this malt to excess in all of their ales that I have tried. A new local brewpub, with a German brewmaster is also adding a heavy dose of vienna to his hoppy ale. I guess I wouldn't object to vienna as a minor side note in an ales flavor, but these don't taste like APAs to me. Comments ? Am I alone ? Would a BJCP judge allow such a beer in the Amer Pale Ale category - Al ? APA=Austrian Pale Ale maybe ? - --- Robert A. Uhl writes Re: Cost of extraction losses .... >> bbl = 31 gallons > >Actually, a barrel _should_ be 32 gallons; the liquid measurement >system works by twos (2 mouthfuls=jigger, 2 jiggers=jack, 2 >jacks=gill(jill), 2 jills=cup, 2 cups=pint, 2 pints=quart, 2 >quarts=pottle, 2 pottles=gallon &c). However, in America, for some >strange reason, a barrel is reputed to be 31 1/2 gals. No-one knows >why this change occurred. Very strange indeed. I remain > >Yours, >Robert Uhl > >Chief Programmer, >CR Systems Hmmm - well there certainly seems to be a disconnect between gallons and larger units as far as powers of two go, but US pints are 16 US fl.oz., against a 20 british fluid ounces in a british pint. 3 taespoons per tablespoon loses its 2-ness as well. I can't verify all of your units, but it appears that people have very small mouths in your part of the world. From a Unix utility source we have gill or noggin = 4 floz. The 31.5 US gallons (or sometimes 31 gallon) seems to apply to brewing/fermenting. The 42 gallon barrel is a petroleum measure. I suspect that ther are several other barrel definitions. approaching barrel sizes we get back to factors of 2 ... firkin 0.25 barrel kilderkin 0.5 barrel barrel (US fermenter's) 31.5 gallon hogshead 2 barrel pipe 4 barrel tun 8 barrel Interestingly a tun of water (2016 pints) should weigh a ton (2000lbs) at some reasonable temperature. And clearly there is little reason to take offense when someone asks about your firkin homebrewery! - -- Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 14:33:02 CDT Subject: Re: Ester's saga, O2 and diacetyl In Digest #2067: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au> wrote: [snip] >even Greg Noonan in New Brewing Lager Beer spouts the conventional wisdom: >"When respiring yeast lack oxygen, fusel alcohols may be excreted or dehydrated >by acetyl Co A to esters." Greg's book was written over 10 years ago; he's probably learned a few new things since then. I discussed this with him just last month; he now sees things quite a bit differently. I seem to remember that Pierre Rajotte was also recently quoted saying at a conference that esters are produced during yeast growth. I think this is worth investigating further. >In short, I could not find *one single item* that supports the theory >that lack of wort aeration leads to lower esters, except for Greg Noonan's: >(according to Tracy) [snip mis-attributed quote] >From _Scotch Ales_, Greg Noonon, p. 95: "Dr. Brown of Scottish and Newcastle advises that oxygenation of the wort must be minimal; "low oxygen and a low initial growth temperature are necessary to control esters by reducing yeast growth. Five-fold growth is even too great for Scottish beers; the pitching growth must be great enough that the yeast needn't exceed three-fold growth, to control esters." (personal communication to the author)." >Just because Greg Noonan made some poxy IPA at his brewpub does not mean >we should disregard what appears to be the weight of worldwide scientific >opinion on this subject, does it? Greg's brewery experiences relating to this discussion were much more extensive than just "some poxy IPA". They had so many problems with their yeast at the VP&B (possibly due to following conventional wisdom?) that they were finally forced to switch strains. What was the problem? It seems that the level of esters in their ales was never up to par, unless aerated continuously throughout the fermentation. So at least in that particular brewery, with that particular yeast strain, decreased aeration led to decreased esters, while increased aeration led to increased ester synthesis. I have no motivation to synthesize this account, these are just the facts as they were reported to me by Greg Noonan. Concerning the weight of scientific opinion, are you forgetting the Copernican Revolution and the fact that it wasn't too long ago when many regulars reading the HBD thought that yeast respires in wort! Scientific opinion can (and does) change to accommodate new observations and interpretations. I'm certainly willing to take some heat on thisa(fter all, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom), however, I think this is an intriguing observation and I believe it's definitely worth further investigation. >If there is enough interest I can summarise (from the above articles) what >does influence ester production in a future post. I'm quite interested, if it's not too much trouble for you. I'm particularly interested in factors which are known to influence yeast esterase activity. ;-) korz at pubs.ih.att.com Al K. wrote: >I have read two different descriptions of how it is >created. Maybe they are related. One is that the oxygen oxidizes >alpha-acetolactic acid (I believe) into diacetyl. The other description >says that the yeast start using a different metabolic pathway which causes >the diacetyl production. Are we talking the same thing here? Is the >oxidation of the alpha-acetolactic acid *inside* or *outside* the cell? Alpha-acetolactate is produced in the cytoplasm of the yeast cell as a by-product of valine biosynthesis, and leaks from the cell into the medium at a strain-dependent rate. Alpha-acetolactate is then oxidized to diacetyl; this reaction apparently does NOT require a catalyst (eg. yeast encoded enzymes) and can be accelerated by dissolved oxygen. Hence, increased availability of O2, particularly once fermentation has started, can increase diacetyl levels, and this oxidation reaction occurs outside the cell. Interestingly, acetohydroxy acids (eg. alpha-acetolactate) can not be assimilated and reduced by the yeast until they have been oxidized to the vicinal diketone (eg. diacetyl). The rate at which VDKs are re-absorbed and reduced by the yeast is also strain-dependent. (See Malting and Brewing Science (2nd ed.) vol. II, ch. 17 for review). This brings up another interesting point. Certain yeast strains which have a very high O2 requirement (eg. Ringwood) produce the highest levels of diacetyl only when the wort is heavily aerated, often requiring aeration well into the fermentation. In fact, the Ringwood strain often requires pure O2 to perform as desired. The extremely buttery ales produced are certainly unique, however. Tracy Return to table of contents
From: Michael Mahler/Shiva Corporation <mmahler at shiva.com> Date: 12 Jun 96 14:43:57 Subject: Hydrometer vessel - any differences? I recently made a honey/wheat lager and I suddenly couldn't find the tube my hydrometer came with so I improvised with a salad dressing bottle (classic wishbone shaped one). I filled it to the top and took a reading of .1080 (7 pounds of malt in 5 gallons + 1 pound of honey). Would this have given a different reading as compared to the straight tube it came in? mmahler at shiva.com Return to table of contents
From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska at it.uwp.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:29:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Thanks I'd like to thank everyone for there replies, personal/posted. Thanks Return to table of contents
From: "Rich Byrnes" <rbyrnes2.ford at e-mail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:30:36 EDT Subject: Brewers Workshop correction. Greetings all! Yesterday I posted the e-mail address of Tom Nelson incorrectly, the address you should use to send any comments/suggestions is tnelson at slonet.org. Sorry for the confusion! if anyone has any suggestions or comments for the database updates please e-mail me directly. Again I'm adding all the grains from the great grain issue, all Yeastlab/Wyeast/RTP yeasts and all the hops listed in Garetz's book. Any other suggestions before I submit this would be welcome, thanks! Again, I have NO financial interest in this little endeavor, just want to see the databases more complete next time. Thanks! Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen \\\|/// phone #(313)323-2613, fax #390-4520_______o000_(.) (.)_000o rbyrnes2.ford at e-mail.com (_) Return to table of contents
From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska at it.uwp.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:35:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Wort chilling For the record I haven't had and problems. I got this method from the bible (it seems) Complete Handbook of Homebrewing -Miller-. Although it many cool their wort in the boiler, which obviously takes less time, it would seem to me that you are running the greater risk of infection doing it this way. Your lid on your boiler is not airtight. I put my boiling wort directly into a sealed (airtight) and sterile carboy. What do you think? Return to table of contents
From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska at it.uwp.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:40:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Trub I personally noticed a distinct difference when racking the trub in two brown ale one yes, and one no. The batch that I didn't rack the trub in there were fusels present and the beer was extremely "bitter." The batch that I racked the trub off of tastes just fine. Well, actually very good. - ------------------------------ Return to table of contents