HOMEBREW Digest #2406 Mon 28 April 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  hbd and search engines (Tumarkin)
  Brewshop local to Parsippany, NJ (MIchael Cukrow)
  Mash efficiency and pt/lb/g (Jason Henning)
  Re: Dry hopping  -- sterilisation. ("Braam Greyling")
  Extraction points and %s ("Raymond Estrella")
  slotted manifold/H&W book (Barrowman)
  Early use of hops ("Ted Major")
  Part 1, S.Claus, nippy questions ("David R. Burley")
  Part 2, temp holds,reading and reporting, insulating ("David R. Burley")
  Saliva brews,Wyeast 3942, gravity loss, Marris-Otter ("David R. Burley")
  Widmer Yeast (Dean Larson)
  Canning wort, CP fillers, CF chiller use (Rob Kienle)
  Dry Hopping - Hop Sterlisation ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Oak species (Heiner Lieth)
  re:dry hopping (Charles Burns)
  HSA during sparge/lauter ("Houseman, David L")
  Request for Kegging Information (BernardCh)
  Yeast Culturing Media Recipe? ("George Schamel")
  Part 2 - Questioning Saccharification Temperature Range (Charles Burns)
  Casks, Chips ("Rob Moline")
  Dark Malts in Mash ..When to add ??? (Jim Wallace)
  10 gal. GOTT False Bottom for RIMS ("John  Slavik")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at: http://brew.oeonline.com/ If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send 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 from: brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer 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: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:54:49 -0400 From: Tumarkin at ix.netcom.com Subject: hbd and search engines Chris Ragaisis writes: >About a month or so ago, someone on this list posted a web site where >we could pick up a FileMaker Pro-based brewing calculator to be used on >the Mac. I grabbed the file, but it was only compatible with a later >version of FM Pro than I had. Since then I've upgraded my FM Pro, but >I've deleted the database file. Could someone please tell me where to >find it so I can download another? None of the standard web search >engines have been any help. Try going to http://brew.oeonline.com - our own Homebrew Digest web site (thanks Pat and all!!), there is a search engine specifically for our Digest. It works great. I used it recently to check hops sources that I recalled being mentioned in earlier digests. You might also take a look at EchoSearch - http://www.echosearch.com - it is a program that checks 6 or 8 of the leading net search engines at one time and gives you the results. It is downloadable for free (although it is shareware, and as such they want you to pay for it if you like it). I just started using it so I'm not really familiar yet with all it's features but so far it seems great. (no affiliation, just satisfied yada). I've got a batch of American Amber Ale in the primary now, it's real hoppy & looking pretty good. I used Wyeast 1056 in it. I was planning on putting a batch of porter onto the yeast from it when I move it into the secondary this weekend. Now I'm thinking about turning the porter into a barleywine. I haven't done a barleywine yet. I'm wondering if 1056 is a good choice to stand up to the high alcohol of the barleywine. If it's not a good choice, what would you suggest? Thanks in advance, Mark Tumarkin The Brewery in the Jungle Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:28:53 -0400 From: MIchael Cukrow <mcukrow at nac.net> Subject: Brewshop local to Parsippany, NJ There is a brewshop in Morristown, NJ called Hop & Vine which is very helpful. I am currently on my second batch and they have been very helpful every step of the way. A question for everyone out there - I have recently seen something called the Brewtap in a book which basically allows you to keep the carboy upside down and has a cap on it with two tubes - one goes to the air on top to release any pressure, the other allows all of the trub to drain from the bottom. Has anyone tried this device? Does it produce beer that is as good as two step fermentation? Thanks for your help. Mike Cukrow Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:15:52 -0700 From: Jason Henning <no.spam.huskers at coo.net> Subject: Mash efficiency and pt/lb/g Jorge Blasig asks about mash efficiency in terms of percent and points per pound per gallon. First you'll do the math on you're recipe. Second, you'll get readings after mashing/sparging. Then the ratios of these numbers give us the numbers. For the recipe, you'll need to know the potential extract of each of the malts. Of instance, British two-row is 38 (by the way, I express gravities in terms 38 instead of 1.038 for ease of calculations). This means your sg would be 38 if you could get 100% extract from one pound of malt in one gallon of water (pts/lb/g). Take the recipe: 4 lbs British two-row (38) 2 lbs Belgian Munich (38) 1 American soft-wheat (40) If we take points times pounds and total, we get (4*38) + (2*38) + (1*40) = 268. This is of course the at 100% extraction. Unrelated to these calculation, in a five gallon batch, 268/5 = 53.6 -> 1.054 sg. If you get 80% with a similar mash schedule and recipe, your could predicted the og, 54*.80 = 43.2 -> 1.043. That's the long and hard part. Now go mash, sparge, measure gravity and volume, boil, measure gravity and volume, pitch yeast (optional) and come back. Let say you got 1.029 with 7 gallons boiled down to 5 gallons of 1.040. If you take gravities times volumes you get the actual total points, 29*7 = 203 and 40*5 = 200. These number should be the same in theory. They seldom are do to shrinkage, wort lost to hops, hydro readings, spillage, samples. Using the actual total points divided by the 100% extract potential will give the mash tun efficiency, 200/268 = .746 -> 75%. Again using the actual total points and divide by the number of pounds of grain, 200/7 = 28.6 -> 29 pt/lb/g. Work through another recipe and I'll make a point about pt/lb/g vs mash efficiency. 5.5 lb American Rye (30) 2.75 lb Lager malt (six-row) (31) 5 gallons of 1.045 Pt/lb/g -> 45*5 / (5.5+2.75) = 27.3 -> 27 pt/lb/g Mash efficiency -> (5*45) / [ (30*5.5) + (2.75*31) ] = 89.9 -> 90% So the two recipes were about a point different when expressed as pt/lb/g but the efficiency for the rye was 90% as compared to 75%. So it important to keep in mind the extract potential of the grains. Zymurgy's _The_Great_Grain_Issue_, has an excellent list of malts and extract numbers. There are several books that have list as well. Be sure to ask your hb shop if they have the numbers from the maltster. Cheers, Jason Henning (huskers at cco.net) Big Red Alchemy and Brewing Olympia, Washington - "It's the water" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:39:31 +200 From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azona.co.za> Subject: Re: Dry hopping -- sterilisation. Anthony wrote: >>>>> I added the secondary hops in a muslin bag after hop sparging, but prior to cooling. The wort was at roughly 80'C so I thought the bugs would die. I pitched the yeast starter at 25'C, but by the following morning I could smell the wild yeast. I left the beer for a week in case, but it was definitely infected. How do you sterilise hops for dry hopping? >>>>>>>> Anthony, It sounds to me as if your infection has a different source. I would say you should check your whole brewing procedure for possible infections. Normal dry hopping should not cause infections in my opinion. Hope this helps. Braam Greyling I.C. Design Engineer Azona(Pty)Ltd tel +27 12 6641910 fax +27 12 6641393 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 97 00:22:37 UT From: "Raymond Estrella" <ray-estrella at msn.com> Subject: Extraction points and %s Hello to all, Jorge Blasig asks, >I would appreciate if any of you can send an article explaining >efficiency and extraction calculations in points, %, etc. and how these >expressions can be related to each other. Using 2-row Barley as an example: 2-row has the potential to give 36 points per pound of grain, in one gallon of water. In other words if you could get 100% extraction efficiency mashing that one pound of malt your gravity would be 1.036 Here is another way of looking at it as you get ready for your jump into all-grain. If you use 9 lb of 2-row and collect 6. gallons of wort, which you then boiled down to 5. gal., you have the possibility of achieving a gravity of 1.065, (36*9=324, /5=64.8) But in reality we can only expect to get around 75% efficiency, so your actual gravity will most likely be 1.049 (65*.75=48.75) As you use your system and take your gravity readings you can figure out your extraction percentages and use those to estimate how much malt will be needed to achieve the target gravity of your brews. Different malts have different point contributions, so you will need to hit the books and magazines to make a list. Different mashing techniques will give different numbers also. I brewed last week with some friends, and we used a Sabco with a false bottom for 18 gal. of Pils, and got a 92% extraction rate. Then used a cooler mash/lauter tun for 20 gal. of Belgian Wit and only got 75%. Good luck with your brewing. Jim Thomas also talks about efficiency, >Generally, you can measure efficiency in a couple of ways, 1) by taking >a reading before the boil or 2) after the boil--thus accounting for >kettle losses. >I'm guessing many brewers are taking measurements after the boil and are >looking for Dave Miller-like 32 ppg efficiency and getting say, 25. >Then they run through the gambit of various fixes; mash ph, sparge water >temp, sparge rates, crush, etc. They probably make miniscule >improvements. And they're probably frustrated about their efficiency >rates. >Here's the point. When Zymurgy did their field test of mash/lautering >systems in "The Great Grain Issue," they measured efficiency BEFORE the >boil. And as I recall, in their findings they achieved efficiency of 30 >to 34 ppg on a wide range of systems I am not sure that I understand what you are saying, how can you measure efficiency *before* the boil? You could sparge 10 pounds of grain with 30 gal. of water and have 1.012 wort at 100% extraction rate. But then would have to boil it 25 hours to get it to batch size. I sparge until I have the volume I want, or until the gravity of my runnings gets to low, boil, and then check my O.G., using that number to check my efficiency. Am I missing something? Ray Estrella Cottage Grove MN ray-estrella at msn.com *******Never relax, constantly worry, have a better homebrew.******* Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 07:27:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Barrowman at aol.com Subject: slotted manifold/H&W book If I am making a mash tun out of a cooler with a slotted manifold in the bottom, do the slots face up or down and why? Thanks to the person who put that funky old book on the web. Too bad it is out of print. It is very interesting. Laura Charlotte NC Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:38:14 -0400 From: "Ted Major"<tmajor at exrhub.exr.com> Subject: Early use of hops Mike Hughes <mikehu at synopsys.com> asks about early references to hops. Saint Hildegard of Germany mentions the preservative effect of hops on beer in the 11th C, and in England, Bald's _Leechbook_ mentions medicinal uses of hops sometime in the 9th or 10th century. For a much more detailed argument of hop usage as early as the 8th century, check out Ann Hagens's book, which makes a strong case and cites a number of original sources. TITLE: A second handbook of Anglo-Saxon food & drink : production & distribution / Ann Hagen. AUTHOR: Hagen, Ann. PUBLISHED: Frithgarth, Hockwold cum Wilton, Norfolk, England : Anglo- Saxon Books, 1995. DESCRIPTION: iii, 409 p. ; 21 cm. OTHER TITLES: Handbook of Anglo-Saxon food and drink Second handbook of Anglo-Saxon food and drink SUBJECTS: Anglo-Saxons--Social life and customs. Food habits--England--History. Civilization, Anglo-Saxon. England--Social life and customs--To 1066. NOTES: "Companion volume to A Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Food : processing and consumption, published in 1992"--P. 1 Includes bibliographical references (p. 367-381) and index. ISBN: 1898281122 (pbk.) : LOC call number: DA152.2.H29 1995 Cheers, Ted Major, Athens, Georgia tmajor at exr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:32:16 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Part 1, S.Claus, nippy questions Brewsters: S. Claus, I tried to respond to your questions by return mail but my e-mail was rejected. Please send me the correct address. The 34th Street Address didn't work either.<| {8-)> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- James Layton points out: >Dave Burley writes: >>are caused by poor milling. Pass the malt through a nip of about 0.008 In. >>and again through 0.006 in. Measure the nip with a spark plug gauge. >Maybe I don't understand the terminology (sorry, I'm from the South). >Is the "nip" the gap between the rollers? If so, .008 inches seems a >Bit tight. My "pre-adjusted" roller mill has a much wider gap than this >(I haven't measured it but it looks to be around .050 inches). Two passes >Through my mill give a pretty fine crush. Please clarify. Sorry about that, I should have looked at my notebook The numbers I gave Are are ten times too small. They should read 0.08in for the first pass and 0.06 in for the second pass. Thanks for pointing this out. The idea behind this is to simulate a 4 roll mill as closely as possible to Get a commercial crush. The first pass cracks the malt but does not really Crush it too much and removes most of the husks whole. Some of the husk Remains whole but attached to the cracked grain. The second pass removes Most of the cracked malt from the husk and crushes the malt finer. Basically you will get a whole husk, fine, low flour grist with this Method. To use this same method with other malts which have different sized Grains, close the nip and then open it slowly until you just have the grain Feeding into the nip reliably. Crush all the grain at this nip. With Barley malt this is about 0.08 in as I measure it, other malts are different, but The principle is the same. Then close the nip to about 0.06 - 0.055 in. and repeat it. Unfortunately a dual pass or even a single pass through a non-adjustable mill, likely 0.055 in., will not give you the same results. I know from personal experience. It was finally when I said "There has to be a better way" that I developed This technique which works amazingly well for such a simple modification. It also cuts down total milling time compared to a single pass through a narrow Nip, believe it or not. BTW I used to work in a plant that used roller mills and the separation Of the rollers at the minimum distance between the surfaces of the rollers Was called the "nip". Mebee it's Yankee tawlk but I doubt it. Maybe it is related to the rubber, Ink and plastic industries where it was the standard usage. As AlK points out "gap" Could be used, but I somehow associate that with a negative thing, except In spark plugs, where a gap is good if it just right. - -------------------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:32:23 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Part 2, temp holds,reading and reporting, insulating Brewsters: Mr. Rich points out: I said: >> For highly modified malts like the British Pale Ale malts it is not >> necessary to hold in the proteinase regions below 140F, as this will Often >> be detrimental to the head forming capabilities. He said: >While a Pale Ale malt base won't benefit as much as a Pale or Pils base, >I would like to know how a rest in upper proteolytic temps (132-135F, >55-57C) could possibly be detrimental to head forming capabilities. >High molecular weight proteins which are degraded here can only benefit >The beer's head, body and chill haze. Well, it was plain stupid what I said if you only confine the temperature Range to the mid-130's. I knew what I meant but didn't express it well at All. And as you pointed out it is misleading. I was trying to make a point that the more highly modified malts do Not need these lower temperature holds as the work has been done at the Maltsters. As you know the British brewers typically practice the single Temperature infusion mash to this day and can get away with it only because The maltster has prepared the malts. He is very careful to select his Barley for low nitrogen and carefully malts the barley with a lower Temperature profile to guard against developing chill haze while providing Good head forming proteins.. Holding in the proteinase ranges below 140F ( I include both 122 and 131F holds) risks modifying these protein derived Factors such as amino acid content and mid-weight proteins. Also, I Suspect too long a hold in the 131F region might lead to an increased Chance of chill haze, but as you point out it probably wouldn't reduce the Head forming properties. A little more on this subject is the proteolytic enzyme content in British Malt compared to Lager malts , according to DeClerk ( 1950's info) is 0.6 :1, so for a given set of holds it would presumably take nearly twice as Long for the British malt to have the same amount of protein degraded at The brewery. DeClerk also makes the point that the majority of the protein Conversion takes place at the maltsters ( 1:0.6) in British malts and the Majority of the carbohydrate conversion takes place at the brewers (1:10). I have to strongly disagree with your comment about how glad we should be That Charlie or anyone is reporting an experiment he carried out. A bad experiment Reported is really worse than no experiment. A single uncontrolled Experiment which purports to challenge years of experience by brewing Professionals could only be interpreted so by someone who is stupid or Doesn't know the basis for the science. I prefer to believe Charlie is not Stupid ( in fact, I know it), just doesn't know the scientific basis for All the enzyme holds. There is nothing wrong with that since he is trying to correct it. I suggested he get up to speed by reading more about This stuff first and THEN he can challenge dogma with experiments, which, Like you, I also encourage. - ------------------------------------------------------ Alk writes: >Charley writes: >And you can bet I'll taste the mash during protein rest to see if it is >also Sweet at that low temp. >Dave pretty much summed it up (although the crack about reading more >Could have been worded a bit more nicely) and I pretty much agree with Well I probably shouldn't have made that remark in public, since this medium doesn't let you see the smile on my face and since you nor Anyone else knows that Charlie and I have been having off-line, wide -ranging discussions for some weeks on these subjects with the goal being To straighten out his understanding of the various holds, etc. This was an Extension of a teasing comment I made to Charlie off-line about his seeming Propensity to mis-read both SteveA's and my epistles and to publish this Mis-understanding. However, I was serious About his need to expand his reading of serious authors - see above. I have checked since My comment was published and he took it in the fun way I intended it. Sorry to raise your concern. I am sincerely glad we all are watching our (And other's) gentlemanly behavior here. Thanks for the comment and the Chance to explain myself. - ----------------------------------------------------------- On the subject of insulating pots and converted kegs, I built a break down Box of six pieces of 1 " thick stiff polystyrene foam house insulation. The pieces are taped together. I put the mash kettle on the table holding The bottom of the box. I then "build" the box around the kettle with tape on the corners. This way I can have a small box for better insulation and Don't have to lift the kettle in and out of a permanent box. It typically Holds the temperature within 2 degrees for 30 or more minutes. This box When broken down is also easier to store.The table is the same height as The burner and I can move the kettle without much strain. This is of Course for a 5 gallon batch and doesn't weigh that much. I have been Tempted to build a thermal insulating jacket which would fit around the Kettle or converted keg with long rectangular pieces of foam the height of The kettle and about 3 or 4 inches wide held together by rope. The long Edges will have to beveled to get a tight fit. The jacket can be tied on During a hold and removed when heating. If you try it let us know. I Concur that bubble stuff is not really effective as an insulator - at least Compared to the polystyrene foam. I guess it is because it is only one Layer thick and convection inside the bubbles moves heat to the very thin Walls of the bubble. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:32:19 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Saliva brews,Wyeast 3942, gravity loss, Marris-Otter Brewsters: Scott Dornsett says in response to AlK's comment that saliva has amylase in it: >COOL! So if I am having troubles with my conversion I can just spit alot i>nto my mash? Yep! Chicha, made from corn in South America, Africa from a number of grains and in the south Pacific from taro root the starch is (used to be) converted before fermentation by chewing and spitting into a communal pot. This was typically a job for women and for some ceremonial drinks it was a job reserved for virgins. These cloudy drinks are often consumed within 24- 48 hours and are low in alcohol. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Timusiak says: >Greetings all...I was curious about whether anyone has had any >experience with the new Wyeast Belgian Wheat strain, 3942 - As part of my program of exploring warm fermentations, I used it in a brew consisting of Rye malt, wheat malt and pils malt. I did a pseudo-decoction before the mashing with some of these to reduce the viscosity of the rye mash and develop some malty character. It produced a really nice clear, dark brown beer with Eugenol (clove - like) character, but not mouth numbing. My wife, very difficult to please with beers, desribed it as "smooooth!" and it did have a nice full mouth with an interesting character. I also fermented it at around 70F. I would use it again this summer without hesitation. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott asks: > what else is robbing me of gravity points between the >beginning of the boil and the end? Hot break. - -------------------------------------------------------- all types of grain with great success, until we used Marris-Otter. Different strains of barley can produce different physical physical characteristics in the malt. Perhaps Marris-Otter produces a mealy malt and your milling procedures milled it too fine. - -------------------------------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:19:03 -0700 From: Dean Larson <Dean.Larson at gonzaga.edu> Subject: Widmer Yeast Nicholas asks: >Does anyone know if the yeast in a bottle of Widmer Hefeweizen is the >fermentation yeast, or actually a bottle conditioning yeast? I'd think >it's the fermentation yeast, but my starter fermented out *very* >clear...could it be because the starter is a DME starter, and not American >Wheat beer wort? There's an article in the Jan 1997 issue of Brew Your Own, "Charting the New American Wheat Beer" by Jeff Frane in which the following statement appears: "Widmer, for example, uses a German top-fermenting strain from a Dusseldorf alt brewery (try culturing some from the bottle) that emphasizes malt." Without coming right out and saying it, this seems to imply that the yeast in a Widmer Hefeweizen bottle is the primary fermentation yeast. I've plated out some yeast recovered from a Widmer and have it stored on a slant, but have yet to brew with it. Skol, Dean Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:42:57 -0500 From: Rob Kienle <rkienle at interaccess.com> Subject: Canning wort, CP fillers, CF chiller use On wort canning, Scott says... > If you don't have a pressure canner, and you insist on saving your > wort, I would suggest just pouring it into a 22oz. bottle (after it's > been cooled), capping it, stick it in the fridge or freezer, and then > re-boiling it when you need it (and cooling, pitching, etc.). This, for me, was the bottom line on the canning/botulism thread that seems dangerously close to being resurrected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole issue seemed to *boil* down to refrigerating or freezing the wort, and possibly reboiling it the next time around. Thus, as long as you refrigerate or freeze the wort, the risk of botulism is nill and any other resident nasties will be sent back to their maker via the reboiling. Personally the last thing my kitchen needs is another device like a pressure cooker. Although I've got to admit that I find it just as easy to boil up a couple of cups of starter wort using DME as it is to reboil *canned* wort, and usually go that route. On CP fillers, Bryan says... > Why do people tend to say that these things take three hands? Mine > (Braukunst) takes one hand to hold it and one hand to turn the valves. > First I open the pressure valve, flush the bottle and pressurize it. > Then I close the pressure valve and, with the same hand (look ma, > one hand!) I open the beer valve. As I'm the one who originally posted the question, I thought I'd throw in an update on my responses. I've had several people write in as users of the Braukunst model, one Melvico user, and yesterday Ray mentioned the Hoptech model. All have been satisfied with their respective decisions though some modifications (adding a needle valve here, a new stopper there) have also been mentioned. I'm still intrigued by the Hoptech design, incorporating a dual valve system for controlling liquid/gas flow, however, and would be interested in hearing from other users of that system. On CF chiller use, Richard wrote... > Just to be safe, I start the flow of cold water before starting the > flow of hot wort or water. (Although flooding my mouth with > boiling water would probably be an effective method of pre-siphon > sanitation...) I should emphasize that I built my chiller with about 20' of copper tubing inside a 3/4" garden hose. Given a couple feet of racking hose on the top and bottom of the unit, the water's got a long ways to go before hitting my mouth, and I've only got to get the stuff up and over about a foot of hose to get the siphon going. Anyone will a smaller system should be much more careful. The system I'm using now, however, has drain valves on the bottom of the vessels so I don't have to mess with any of that anymore. A highly recommended alternative, which leaves one's mouth (sanitary or not) conveniently free to suck down more homebrew. - -- Cheers4beers, Rob Kienle Chicago, IL rkienle at interaccess.com Return to table of contents
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu> Subject: Dry Hopping - Hop Sterlisation Antony Hayes <anthayes at geocities.com> wrote: >My first attempt at dry hopping was a disaster, as wild yeasts on the >hops got going before my Gervin yeast, and spolied the brew. > >I added the secondary hops in a muslin bag after hop sparging, but prior >to cooling. The wort was at roughly 80'C so I thought the bugs would >die. I pitched the yeast starter at 25'C, but by the following morning I >could smell the wild yeast. I left the beer for a week in case, but it >was definitely infected. As I'm sure you've heard from others, most people don't "sterilize" their hops when dry hopping. However, what you have described is not what is meant by "dry hopping". To add "finishing hops", which contribute hop aroma in a similar way to dry hopping, we add the hops before cooling. The near boiling wort will sterilize them. Much of their aroma, however, will be lost during primary fermentation with the CO2 produced. To add more hop aroma, we "dry hop" after primary fermentation when the airlock has settled down. The best way to dry hop is to put your hops, preferably whole hops (hop flowers), in a sanitized carboy. Then rack your beer from the primary fermenter on top of the hops and let sit for a week or two. The alcohol and low pH in the beer after primary fermentation will help retard the growth of any unwanted wild yeast. - Bryan Gros grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Music City Brewers, Nashville TN http://www.theporch.com/~homebrew1 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:27:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org> Subject: Oak species I've been a bit confused by some messages dealing with the oak used to make oak barrels. There are hundreds of species of oak and I had always assumed that "French oak" was one of these species and that american-grown French oak was slightly different from french-grown French oak. Can anyone tell me which species of oak are the "French oak" and "American oak" that we're talking about in the cask thread? I do know that "English oak" is a species that can be found in the US, so this is not as silly as it will seem to some of you. (The same books that I found that in, did not list "American oak" or "French oak" as distinct species). I would assume that you would not simply pick any oak for making barrels. (That would be like saying any metal which is mostly iron is good enough for making kegs.) Any clues as to which species are used? Heiner. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:16:44 -0700 From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us> Subject: re:dry hopping I hbd 2405, Anthony asked about sterilizing hops... I've never sterilized hops and I dry hop all the time (well not ALL the time). Do it in the secondary. Let the primary fermentation finish because dry hopping is mostly for Aroma and the C02 generated during the primary fermentation will pretty much drive off any aroma gained by the dry hop. You might also forget the bag. Use whole hops, drop them into a sanitized secondary fermenter and then rack the beer right on top of them. A muslin bag can carry just as many bad bacteria as any hop might carry, probably more. If you must use a bag - sanitize it too. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:52:40 -0400 From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> Subject: HSA during sparge/lauter Dave Draper says: Finally, in my setup, the main source of HSA during sparging that remained was when the first runnings were returned to the lauter tun. Mine had a depth such that I was forced to pour it from 20 or 30 cm height onto a saucer atop the grain bed. I am sure there was some oxidation there; Norm Pyle indicated in these pages at the time that in many setups, the region just above the grain bed might be rich in water vapor emanating from the grain, so that there would be less oxidation than if there were no steam. Although this is sound in principle, in my setup I feel that this did not help all that much because I could still detect some of the longer-term effects of HSA, although the situation was much improved by taking the other steps outlined above. This is interesting and one I hadn't thought about but will consider. Additionally, I use a rotating arm to deliver spage water to the top of the lauter tun which in my case is a 10gal Gott cooler. What would the implications of aerating the spage water futher (since it hadn't been boiled, only heated to about 180oF (to account for 10oF temp drop)) as it is delivered via the rotating sparge arm? Does using aerated sparge water have any HSA affects or not since it's then not the wort that's splashed but the sparge water that becomes wort as it is mixed with wort that's in the lauter tun? Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:35:10 -0400 (EDT) From: BernardCh at aol.com Subject: Request for Kegging Information Greeting all. I'm just about to take delivery on a kegging system. Not knowing much about kegging, can anyone point me to either a cyber-site or old fashioned printed works describing the basics of kegging and maintaining kegs. I'm looking for info like how to hook-up, hose length, cleaning, connecting multiple kegs to one CO2 bottle, how to refurbish use kegs etc. I visited the Brewery web site and did find a very basic article and the force carbonation tables. Looking for more detail than exists there Thanks in advance Chuck BernardCh at aol.com Music City Brewers - Nashville, TN - Music City USA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 22:04:47 -0600 From: "George Schamel" <gschamel at conifer.net> Subject: Yeast Culturing Media Recipe? Hello Brewers, I have a question about the proper recipe for making your own yeast culturing plates. The first set of plates I poured worked like a charm. That was using Yeast Culture Kit Co. prepared dry culturing media pressure cooked with water and poured into plates. The last set of plates I poured I used Brewers Resource wort agar cooked and poured as before. But my streaked yeast samples have not grown. Did I need to add some DME to the agar? If so, how much? How about yeast nutrient? Any other suggestions? TIA George Schamel High Altitude Homebrew 10000 ft and still brewin' Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 97 07:05 PDT From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: Part 2 - Questioning Saccharification Temperature Range Well, now I *DO* know what starch tastes like, **bleaaahhh**! I posted the results of my poorly designed and misguided experiment a week ago in this forum. I mashed a pound of pale ALE malt at 135F-130F for an hour just to see what how much sugar would be created. The OG of 2 quarts was 1.036 giving 18 points of something per pound per gallon. I pitched a packet of Windsor dried yeast and fermented it out. The resulting beer was still very cloudy, and I assume this was starch haze, I didn't do an iodine test. The FG was 1.010 or 5 points per pound per gallon. The yeast supposedly won't eat the starch (otherwise we wouldn't have to convert it to sugar would we) so that tells me that I got 13 points per pound/gallon of fermentable sugars. The typical yield with my equipment (a real kludge of stuff) and my process (we could talk all day about that) is 26-27 points/pound/gallon. This means that I was able to get half of the sugar I usually get. And all I did was a long rest at 130-135F. The main reason I did the experiment was to find out if ALL the starch would be converted at these low temperatures to very simple sugars. A lot of its apparently, but not all of it obviously. My next question is, of the starch that is still in the mash (and now the beer), if I had raised the temperature to a normal saccharification range, what type of sugar would have been created? If I had for instance raised the temp to 158F, would I have gotten dextrins? I'm of the opinion that dextrins add a lot to the "body" and "mouthfeel" of beer and without them, we get a pretty thin result. I've read that others believe that body and mouthfeel are really proteins, not sugars. I wonder what sort of proteins and potential sugars actually were left in the mash (yes that's an invitation for speculation). But, enough experimentation. I wanna make some REAL beer. A batch of porter this afternoon and a double batch tomorrow of Pale Ale and Strawberry Blonde. The wife is going out of town to a conference for a couple of days and I'm going to brew, brew brew! And this morning I'm kegging my first American Brown. I made it with a 135F rest for 5 minutes, took a 1/3 decoction and then rested for an hour at 158F. Thanks to all of you who commented on my recipe, I think its a winner. Charley (still decocting Pale ALE malt) in N. California PS - I WILL go back and reread Noonan and Miller before doing any more experiments, but I'm going to go ahead and try Dave B's suggestion of holding at 145F while taking a decoction. It seems to be agreed that 145F is pretty harmless as a holding temp while the decoction going on. Should be a porter to munch on Charley Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 97 14:11:46 PDT From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at kansas.net> Subject: Casks, Chips The Jethro Bloody Gump Report Casks, Chips... Tim DiPlacido of "Barrels, Chips, Etc." has sent a price list...American Oak 1 Gallon Toasted $47.00, Waxed $39, 2 G Toasted $51, Waxed 43, 3 G Toasted (T) $61, Waxed (W) $51, 5G T $74, W $61, 10G T $89, W $72, 15G T $107, W $88, 20G T 125 W $104, 30G T $135, W $ 110. French Oak 7.5G T $155, 15G T $205, 30G T $ 315. American 'Quercus Alba Oak from Missouri and Arkansas. Quarter Sawn and Naturally Air Dried Toast Level Medium. Delivery 4-5 weeks. Oak Chips 1-49 pounds $1.95/lb American, $3.50/lb Hungarian, $4.00/lb French..Thumbnail size or Larger, Toast level Light and Medium, No minimum order required. Whiskey Barrels 50-55 Gallons1-10 Quantity $40.00 Charred $65.00 De-Charred. Spouts German 4 inch $6.25, ^ inch $6.75 Call (216)-531-0494 to order. No afilliation, etc. Jethro Rob Moline Little Apple Brewing Company Manhattan, Kansas "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:01:30 -0500 From: Jim Wallace <jwallace at crocker.com> Subject: Dark Malts in Mash ..When to add ??? I am brewing a Porter this week and have a question on when to add the darker grains to my Mash... My GrainBill will consist of: ...To be mashed.... Brit Pale, Peat Smoked, Wheat, (Vienna/Munich?) ...To be steeped... Dark Crystal, Chocolate ,Black I am planning a single infusion mashIn at 95F and conversion at 155-6F When would be a good time to add the nomash grains? How Long? My intention is to extract the color and flavor (produced in malting) from these grains. Any comments on doing a separate steep and then adding this back to the grain bed before mashout or sparging? ________________________________________ JIM WALLACE ___ jwallace at crocker.com I travel to the wild places of this planet and would like to share what I see _____ http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace _______ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 14:02:43 -0500 From: "John Slavik" <brewer1 at airmail.net> Subject: 10 gal. GOTT False Bottom for RIMS Do any RIM's users on the digest have a recommendation about a proper false bottom ( one that has the proper open area) for use with a GOTT 10 gallon cooler. The pump for this system will be a TEEL model 1P677. There seems to be conflicting opinions about the Phils Phalse Bottom. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Private E-mail is fine as this may not be of general interest. John Slavik Desoto, TX Return to table of contents