HOMEBREW Digest #2448 Wed 25 June 1997

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

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

  bottle fill & CO2 levels - a test ("Keith Royster")
  A Pub Without Beer ("Mark K. August")
  Me? A beer judge? Oh, come on... (Charles Burns)
  Anything similar ot Beck's out there? ("Mark D. Johnson")
  CO2 Saturation  - NOT`, leaky CO2 ("David R. Burley")
  Weizen (Jim Busch)
  re:doppelbocks (dave and laurie dow)
  Re: Bottle Pasteurization (Kelly Jones)
  Yeast Starter w/ energizer vs. nutrient (GIBBONJJ)
  Mike Spinelli's weizen post (Randy Ricchi)
  Sanke keg insulation (Harlan Bauer)
  Dave Miller weighs in on botulism (SClaus4688)
  water question (faymi)
  batch vs. fly/warm kegging/beer engines/La Fin Du Monde/peaty beer (korz)
  Re: Pub Without Beer ("Paul A. Hausman")
  Motorizing MM (M.P. Manning)
  leak (John_E_Schnupp)
  Mash tun construction (Dave Thomson)
  cherry plambic redux ("Grant W. Knechtel")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 00:10:20 +0500 From: "Keith Royster" <keith at ays.net> Subject: bottle fill & CO2 levels - a test I was thinking this evening about the recent (dead?) thread concerning bottle fill levels and how this might effect carbonation levels and I think I might have come up with a test to determine if there is a relationship. I don't bottle much anymore since I have a kegging system, so I'm posting my idea so that someone else can try it. Take two bottles with clearly different fill levels that are at the same temperature and carefully open each. The pressure in the headspaces should now be equal (atmospheric). Now securely attach two identical balloons to the open neck of each bottle. Shake the bottles vigorously so that the CO2 comes out of solution and give them enough time for the CO2 to completely evolve. Measuring the size of each balloon should give you the volume of the gas that escaped. Then measure the volume of liquid in each bottle. Gas evolved divided by liquid volume will give at least a good indication for comparison reasons of the carbonation levels. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts in this experiment as well as the results if anybody tries it. I just sort of threw this together quickly, so I expect there may be some problems, but it still seems like a more objective test than simply listening to opening bottles and tasting the beer. Practically speaking, one immediate problem/difficulty I see is how to shake a full beer covered by a balloon without filling the balloon full of foam/beer, but I suppose it is possible if done carefully. Have fun! Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina "An Engineer is someone who measures it with a micrometer, marks it with a piece of chalk, and cuts it with an ax!" mailto:keith at ays.net http://www.ays.net - at your.service web design & hosting http://www.ays.net/brewmasters -Carolina BrewMasters club page http://www.ays.net/RIMS -My RIMS (rated COOL! by the Brewery) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:27:09 +0100 From: "Mark K. August" <mark.august at virgin.net> Subject: A Pub Without Beer Roy, the store 'A Pub Without Beer' is located at 35A Jubilee Market, London, WC2. Their phone number is 01713799450. At the beginning of August I shall be visiting Toronto and I was wondering if anyone out there could tell me of any good homebrew stores, micro breweries or pubs worth visiting in the area. Mark London, SE Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 97 05:25 PDT From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: Me? A beer judge? Oh, come on... Yeah, after about 18 months of brewing they ask me to be a judge. Like I'm qualified to tell other people what's wrong with the beer they so proudly entered into this contest. Sure. It was a great honor but I was very uncomfortable about it. Basically because I hadn=92t been trained to be a judge. Big deal, look at some of the idiotic comments that judges have written on some of MY entry forms. What do you mean "lactic"? That beer was **wonderful** before I submitted it to the competition, must have been really poor handling by the stewards=85 So, I mistakenly mention to someone that I=92m interested in taking the beer judging class that will be offered next year. Why mistakenly? Turns out that the person I=92m talking to just happens to be the guy (little did I know) that organized last winter=92s classes. It turned into an extremely interesting conversation after that and convinced me that yes, that=92s a= good idea, if only to gain a better understanding of what the damn style guidelines really are all about, and how to stay within them. Problem is, I repeated my conversation to a couple of other people=85 So, I somehow got invited to help judge homebrewed beer at the California State Fair this year (1997). But "says I" I=92m not trained or qualified.= But, says they, "what better way to learn than with some experts". Well, who could argue with that? So, last night (May 29th) I wander into the back room of Sunrise at the Oasis in Citrus Heights, California to help out with the judging of the first round of Pale, Bitter and Belgian ales. What did I get assigned to, Belgian! Oh yeah I remember, these are the beers that are SUPPOSED to taste BAD! I had entered a MicroBrew California Pale Ale so I was disqualified for those and also and ESB and disqualified for British too. Stuck with the Belgian. I must tell you, when "beer of the month" is Belgian, its the one month of the year I truly consider staying home for the monthly homebrew club meeting. I just don=92t like =91em, sorry. So, here I sit with 3 certified judges (thank God) pretending to know what I=92m doing. First thing I ask, "What the heck is a Wit supposed to taste= like anyway?". They all chuckle and one of them launches into a diatribe that pretty much says "anything goes dude", but certainly gotta=92 be spicey. Well, after 6 Wits, 4 Pales and 1 Lambic Kriek, I now know next to nothing about what Belgians are supposed to taste like (I don=92t think anyone= really does). I=92m glad that my input really didn=92t count. Although by the end= of the evening (2 hours to judge 11 beers) I really did begin to feel like I could match their comments and scores - I wasn=92t far off from them at the end. If they scored high, I scored higher, if they scored low, I scored lower. So I think I was overcompensating, but had the general feel of the process.=20 Anyhow, if you=92re thinking about becoming a judge, I advise you to start somewhere other than Belgians. They=92re just too weird and unpredictable. Start with some American Pale Ale or Porters or Stouts. I know that the beers our panel passed on to the final round are good beers. There were over 20 Belgians in the group (two panels) and about 12 of them made it past us and will be judged on June 8th, well before the publication of this writeup, thank goodness. I=92m really looking forward to going to class next January and learning all the aspects of judging. Both for my own beers and also to contribute as much as I can to the sport of Homebrewing! More coming... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:19:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mark D. Johnson" <mdjohnso at cs.millersv.edu> Subject: Anything similar ot Beck's out there? Hi, I would like to try to brew a light German Lager, but with a little twist...I can't lager yet! I would like to try to imitate something like Beck's or Spaten. Can anyone give me a approximate grain and or extract bill and what hops are used. Also, what would be a good ale yeast that may still produce similar results to the lager yeast? It was suggested to me to use the California Common...I have not had experience with this particular yeast, has anyone out there had good/bad results? Thanks, Mark D. Johnson Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:55:01 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: CO2 Saturation - NOT`, leaky CO2 Brewsters: Gary Knull's observations that he got improved attenuation by adding nucleation sites for CO2 (in the form of nutrient crystals) and by shaking the carboy do not definitively indicate that CO2 supersaturation of the wort is a cause of poor attenuation. All his observations can be explained quite simply by yeast flocculation in his wort slowing the fermentation prematurely, followed by deflocculation as a result of the CO2 agitation = of the wort or by shaking the carboy which has the same effect. If he were using top fermenting yeast in a high calcium ion= enviroment ( say a British Burton-style bitter), this could explain some = of the difficulties, as this highly ionic ( especially calcium ion) environment seems to encourage flocculation. Perhaps the problem lies in his water supply, since, as even he observes, most others do not have this problem.= This cause is fully borne out by historical fact and observation. The problem with trubless ferments can easily be a result of insufficient agitation of the wort by= escaping CO2 from a smooth sided vessel with no nucleation sites normally provided by the trub. This is an explanation of a well known observation that different vessels produce different attentuations, especially with ale yeasts because of this flocculation tendency. The taller vessels provide a more complete attentuation, since the flocced yeast take longer to fal= l to the bottom and still convert the sugars as they fall. This indicates that the problem is not CO2 poisoning, since the yeast are still converting sugars, rather one of prematurely removing th= e "catalyst" from the reaction by flocculation and preventing further conversion of the raw materials. Powdery yeasts (i.e. non-flocculating yeasts) are often added= to yeast blends to keep the fermentation going to the end. Sometimes "dropping " is resorted to as a means of agitating the wort and in other agitation paddles are used to ensure a uniform fermentation and complete attenuation. This is not to say that CO2 solutions cannot become supersaturated and th= at CO2 cannot be slow to come out of solution. Witness my previous example of popping the top= on a beer bottle. When you do, the CO2 is supersaturated, relative to the new head pressure and stays that way for several hours, sometimes days -thank goodness- otherwise neither beer nor champagne would be very popular with the well dressed consumer. Several years ago a deep volcanic lake in Africa erupted when CO2 = and other gases in a supersaturated state came out violently and killed people and animals.by suffocation. Despite this observation that CO2 supersaturation is a real possibility, yeast still ferments in the bottle where the CO2 concentration is substantially above one atmosphere = to produce naturally conditioned beer. If the yeast were de-activated by CO2 it would not be possible to have homebrew carbonated by this method. Also, witness the example given here recently about fermentation under CO= 2 pressure. I would like to hear more facts from that article in BT or Zymurgy. Anyone care to commen= t on examples of fermentation under CO2 pressure? Also, more information of what causes yeast floccuation, like pH, salts, etc. would be most appreciated. - ------------------------------------------------- Hardpipe writes that he has had several tanks of CO2 leak away into the atmosphere without passing through his beer first. I had this problem an= d it turned out the hard fiber washer (you do have one?) that forms the connection between the tank and the regulator was not compressed enough. = Try turning the coupling nut a LITTLE tighter. Also you can check for leaks with a soap solution made from foamy dishwashing detergent and wate= r. Liberally apply it to the various connections and if you see bubbles, yo= u have a leak. Always close the main valve when the tank is not in use. - ------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:04:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Weizen <Anyway, if I'm making a weizen with the standard 60/40 split of readily <available U.S. pale and Weyermann german wheat malt, Standard in Germany is 60-70% Wheat malz to 40-30% pils malz. I prefer 70% Wheat malz. <what would be the LEAST <troublesome mash schedule to use, but still get a decent product? Dough in at 40-45C. Raise to 50C for 20 mins, 60-62C for 15 min, 68-70C for 45-60 mins, 75-77C and lauter. Or you can decoct. <Are all these 40/50/60/etc./etc. programs overkill when using the highly <modified malts we can all get? No. Be sure to keep the kettle hops below 18 IBUs. Prost! Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:27:53 -0400 From: dave and laurie dow <dlkd at agate.net> Subject: re:doppelbocks >> >>>Subject: Dopplebocks > >>Has anyone out there in the collective made a partial-mash/extract >>dopplebock? >Yes I have . > >>Since I don't have a temperature controled refrigerator, what would happen if >>I ferment it with an Ale yeast and then "lager" in the basement, at around >>50F, for some extended time? What yeast would I use (Alt yeast? Scot >>yeast?)? >I used a lager yeast and kept the temp at about 50-55. I let it set 5 weeks. >I don't think that it hurt the taste and it definitely didn't hurt the alcohol >amount any!! I don't profess to be an expert, and I am sure that the "Dinkernator" >wouldn't win alot of medals, but I enjoyed it!!! > >dinky dave dow >belfast, me Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:04:18 -0700 From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com> Subject: Re: Bottle Pasteurization On the subject of prssure rise in bottles being Pasteurized, Charlie S. wrote: > According to Boyle-Charles' Law pV/T = constant > where T is measured in degrees absolute (K) where 0K is -273C. So the > increase in CO2 pressure at 60C is only 1.22 times the pressure at 0C. This would be correct if the bottle contained only gaseous CO2, but since the contents are actually a beer-CO2 mixture, we must take into account the beer/CO2 equilibrium. The actual pressure rise will be much greater than this, due to CO2 trying to come out of solution. For example, referring to the carbonation tables at http://alpha.rollanet.org:80/library/CO2charts.html we see that the equilibrium pressure for beer (with 2.5 volumes of CO2) at 32F is 8.2 psi, whereas the eq. pressure at 80F is 34.8 psi. The pressure increases fourfold, for only a 50F rise in temperature - much greater than what is predicted by incorrectly applying Boyle's Law. I wish I could tell you what the increase in P would be for Pasteurization, but don't have my CRC tables handy. But you should plan on a significant increase, and use only strong bottles, and avoid thermally shocking the glass. Kelly Hillsboro, OR Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:21:24 -0400 From: GIBBONJJ at apci.com Subject: Yeast Starter w/ energizer vs. nutrient I made a yeast starter late last night by bumping up a Wyeast smack pack with a third cup of DME boiled in a pint of water. I also intended to add a small pinch of yeast nutrient. This morning, I realized I had mistakenly added yeast energizer [Yeastex (?), it is a coarse, yellow powder] instead of nutrient. The starter did not look or smell like it had much activity. Does anybody have any knowledge on the effects of yeast energizer in a starter? Will the starter be adversely affected or will it turn out fine? Thanks in advance. John Gibbons Allentown, PA gibbonjj at apci.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:07:35 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: Mike Spinelli's weizen post In response to Mike Spinelli's question about a simple, yet effective mash program for Bavarian Weizens: Of the dozen or so weizens I've made, about half have been step infusion, and half have been single decoction, and I've come to the conclusion that decoction mashes for pale hefe-weizens are not worth the added time and effort. The two considerations I can think of when comparing the two programs are taste and ease of lautering. As for taste, any "theoretical" increase in maltiness is hidden by the clove and fruit provided by the yeast, at least in my experience. My own preference in pale hefe-weizens is for intense yeast character, so I brew to accentuate that characteristic. I have noticed slower than usual sparges when brewing weizens, but this has been the case whether I did decoction or step infusion, and while the sparge may be slow, it was never "stuck". When I do an infusion mash, I do a protein rest of 126 to 130 deg.F for 45 min to l hour, then boost by direct heat while stirring, to a sugar rest of around 152 deg. F. I get a beautiful, long lasting head, and eventually, the beer drops very bright. The beer drops bright with the decoction mash a little sooner, but who cares? It's a freakin' weizen! You're probably going to dump the dregs in your glass anyway. One problem with decoction mashing (although it is avoidable, you just have to be careful about rest times) is some brewers spend too much time doing their decoction, while leaving the main mash at protein rest for way too long a time, resulting in thin head which disappears quickly. This can happen even in a high protein weizen. Mike mentioned he would be using U.S. pale malt, and German wheat malt. Although I prefer German pils malt over U.S. malt because it's lower in protein, and you already have a lot of protein from the wheat malt, I have successfully used American 2-row lager malt with the procedure outlined above. Just make sure you use U.S. LAGER malt, and not the new U.S. pale ALE malt that has just come on the market. Assuming the new pale ale malts are like their British counterparts in flavor, the flavor profile wouldn't be right for a weizen. Now I know that there are die-hard decoction heads out there who will want to blast what I've said, but keep in mind that Mike is looking for an EASIER way, to make good weizen. Step infusion IS easier, and there are many, I'm sure who will feel that it is THE way to go for brewing weizens. I am not saying decoction mashing is wrong in any way, after all, who am I to question the Germans on brewing good weizen? To each his own. "Should anyone thirst, let them come unto me and drink" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:09:11 -0500 From: blacksab at midwest.net (Harlan Bauer) Subject: Sanke keg insulation Mark Hagen wrote: >A local homebrew supply owner mentioned to me that it would be nice >to come up with some way of insulating the Sabco sparge/mash/boil >kettles. Another option is a product made by CertainTeed. It is a rigid fiberglass duct insulation used in commercial construction. It comes in 1-2-inch thicknesses and can be got in 16-in diameter, the exact diameter of a sanke keg. It has a slit down the length and is simply a larger version of the pipe insulation sold for 1/2-in. copper water pipe that is sold in any hardware store. This is what I used for my mash tun (and then covered with sheet aluminium), and it withstands the heat from my gas-fired burner. I found mine at a commercial insulation outfit in Chicago, but it should be available in any urban area. Look in the BUSINESS yellow pages under "insulation". It's sold in 3-ft. sections. Hope this helps, Harlan Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man. <blacksab at midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:54:35 -0400 (EDT) From: SClaus4688 at aol.com Subject: Dave Miller weighs in on botulism It's the thread that wouldn't die! As those of you who've been following the botulism discussion know, Dave Miller's books recommend a wort canning method that some believe is susceptible to botulism infection. Enough noise has been generated on the HBD on this issue that Miller will put in his 2 cents in the upcoming BT. Here's an advance copy that the BT editors sent me today (BTW, the editor said a number of people wrote to Dave on this issue as a result of the HBD posts): "Botulism in Canned Wort "Q. I imagine you have seen this question already, but here goes: A recent thread in the Home Brew Digest asserts that typical canning procedures used to package sterile wort (as described in your books) are not safe because the pH of the *food* is higher than 4.5. The contributors mention that botulism spores withstand the heat of boiling and the hot water bath. They say that to truly can wort safely a pressure cooker is required. Otherwise, wort prepared in a hot water bath using normal canning procedures must be boiled and cooled just before use, making it less convenient than boiling up a starter from dried malt extract each time. I have been using your canning method for two or three years now without any problems. Should I be concerned? "A. Thank you for an intriguing and important question. I spoke with Dr. Joe Power of the Siebel Institute of Technology (Chicago) about this one. The standard brewing microbiology texts contain no specific reference to botulism growth in wort, so he could not rule out the possibility that botulism spores might survive and grow in canned wort. Botulism, however, is a Gram-positive organism, and most Gram-positive bacteria are inhibited by hop resins. So if you have been putting hops in your wort, there is probably little cause for concern. "I would also point out that if bugs start to grow in wort or any other growth medium they show signs of their activity -- clouding of the wort, bubbles on the surface, and strange odors, for example. Obviously, if a jar of wort shows any of these symptoms it should not be used. Botulism is usually associated with home canned vegetables and low-acid fruits, and one could understand how the appearance of microbial activity could be missed in a jar full of tomatoes or green beans, but in jars of clear wort, the signs should be much easier to read. "If you are very concerned, you can use an alternative procedure that does not require a pressure cooker. It is called Tyndallization and was used in laboratories in the days before autoclaves became widely available. Basically, you would cook the wort in the jars as usual on the first day, then let them cool in the water bath. The second day, repeat the procedure -- heat, boil, cool -- just as on the first. The third day, do it all again. This is more tedious than simple canning, but it requires no additional equipment and allows you to process a large number of jars at the same time rather than going through the wort preparation routine every time you want to propagate some yeast. The reason Tyndallization works is that any spores that survive boiling will begin to germinate fairly soon. They will produce vegetative organisms which can be killed by boiling. That's what you do when you come after them again on the second day. The third day? Well, that's just to be doubly sure. It's based on the same reasoning behind running a sanitizer rinse for 10 minutes on a unitank, even though all the tests provethat iodophor will kill the bugs in 2. "Another procedure you could use, as an alternative to pressure cooking or Tyndallization, would be to adjust the pH of your wort to 4.5 before canning. Boiled wort is usually around 5.2 so it wouldn't require much acid to bring the pH down to 4.5, and the slightly lower-than-normal pH would have no effect on the brewers yeast when you propagated it. "I used sterile canned wort, made up exactly as described in the Complete Handbook (4), for about six years -- from the time I started using liquid yeast cultures until I got into commercial brewing. I never had a bit of trouble; I never saw even the slightest hint that anything was alive in those jars -- including some jars that were as much as two years old. I doubt you have anything to worry about. But if you are at all uneasy, you might want to Tyndallize any jars of canned wort (steps two and three; you did step one when you canned them) that you have on hand, and use Tyndallization for future batches." -Steve Claussen in PDX Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:49:00 EST From: faymi at earlham.edu Subject: water question I've been spectating (with an occasional post) for about nine months now. I think I've learned quite a lot, so keep posting everyone! Where I'm staying this summer, the water supply comes from a well which has a lot of iron in it. I seem to recall that iron is very bad for beer flavor. So I'm wondering if softened water is any good for making beer? Any water experts have ideas? I suppose water analysis might help a lot but since that would cost over a hundred dollars-ain't gonna happen. Any suggestions as to the lesser of the two evils or should I just buy spring water or r/o water? Thanks Michael Fay Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:23:28 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: batch vs. fly/warm kegging/beer engines/La Fin Du Monde/peaty beer Ken writes: >AlK chimed in with: > >"Saying that batch sparging "can be almost as efficient" as >fly sparging, assumes that the fly sparging is 100% efficient. >In most cases, it is not. The factor you have forgotten Ken, >is *channeling*." > >I thought I did indicate that my term "efficiency" meant that compared with >"fly sparging", not conversion efficiency. If batch sparging is 90% as >efficient as a fly sparge on a 70% efficient conversion, then my total >efficiency is 90% of 70% or 63%. That's what I meant. > >As for channelling, batch-sparging should alleviate this problem to an extent >since the stirring of the grain bed after the first runoff and prior to the >second would redistribute the grain bed. Channelling may again occur, but >the lost wort would be considerably more dilute, meaning less sugar is lost. My post seems to have been unclear. What I meant was, that if you are fly sparging and are having a lot of channeling, then you may actually get *better* efficiency when you batch sparge. My gut feeling is that it won't take a lot of channeling to make batch sparging more efficient than fly sparging. *** Lord Fredrick Badger writes: >I have been trying to get into kegging, and been having problem with >FOAMing in a big way. I have been told that i need to keep the kegs >cool, but i cannot afford (space and money) to get a beer fridge, plus i >wanna take them camping and stuff with me (medieval style, i do SCA) so >thats not really an option either... It seems to me that the only option you may have is to shoot for a very low carbonation level (like Real Ale). Carbonate to about 1.25 volumes of CO2 at whatever temperature you happen to be and then cool the kegs with ice before serving. Conceivably, you can carbonate to any level, but it's much more practical to try to get kegs from 75F to 55 or 60F than to get them all the way down to 45F. If you get foam, increase the length and decrease the diameter of the serving hose. *** Roy writes: >I'm interested in possibly obtaining and using a beer engine with a >"corny" keg instead of a CO2 bottle. I know that many of the pubs draw >their ales...with these 'pumps' in the UK. I have a couple of questions >about them though as I'm still a relatively new homebrewer. If a beer >engine is used, will the beer have to be used in a short period of time >to keep it from going flat? Or assuming that priming sugar was used, will >the CO2 formed be sufficient to keep the beer pressurized and 'fresh'? If >this is too basic, I apologize, as I said I've only been brewing for a >short period of time........Roy Ideally, you should finish the keg quickly. A way to cheat, that no respectable CAMRA member would ever do (;^), is to: 1. vent the keg and leave the vent open, 2. connect the handpump, 3. serve the beer, 4. disconnect the hanpump, 5. purge the headspace with CO2, 6. close the vent, and 7. store the beer at 55F till the next drinking session. Beer will keep quite long this way, but is time-consuming, non-traditional, and wastes a lot of CO2. Ooop... prime/force-carb the beer only to about 1.25 volumes... otherwise you will pour foam throught the beer engine. You need not go to Britain for a beer engine... they are available from a place in eastern Canada (PEI? NS?)... there was an article in Zymurgy on Real Ale (not the very last article, a previous one) which gave a few addresses. Ray Daniels had some beer engines for sale (very nice ones) after the last Real Ale Fest. See the RAF home page... I don't know the website URL, but you can get to it from the CBS home page: http://www.mcs.com/~shamburg/cbs/cbshome.html *** Dave writes: >Belgian style beers were right on the money. Following Jacques' >instructions we went to a supermarket (!!!) to buy these beers. La Fin Du >Monde - a Gueuze style was exceptional but all were extremely good and to La Fin Du Monde (The End of the World, gotta love that name) is a Belgian-style Strong Ale, not a Gueuze, but indeed it is a great beer! *** Charles writes: >Subject: Re. Peat Taste in Extract Brews > >>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:36:41 -0400 >>From: "Lee Carpenter" <leec at redrose.net> >>Subject: Peat Taste in Extract Brews >>Fellow stir-doctors, >>What is the best way to impart a natural peat taste in an extract beer? I >>want to attempt a clone of S.A. Scotch Ale. >>Lee C. Carpenter > >Lee, > I've heard of two ways and have tried one. Either will work only if >you're doing "intermediate brewing", using some specialty grains in along >w/ the malt extract. > WYeast makes a "Scottish Ale" yeast that helps to impart the taste you're >looking for. I used that with 5lb. DME, 1lb. crystal malt, and 1/4lb. >toasted (350 degrees F, 10 minutes before crushing) malt. It turned out >nicely. The toasted malt may have added a touch of flavour, but mostly it added starch and haze. The use of toasted malt in extract brews was popularised by Charlie P. and really should be avoided. As for the Wyeast Scottish Ale yeast, the Wyeast brochure says that it imparts a peaty aroma, and I've read in HBD from several brewers who got a peaty/phenolic aroma from it. However, I posted a question about this yeast on HBD a while ago and something like two brewers wrote me that they got a smoky character from they yeast whereas 10 wrote me that it is one of the cleanest yeasts they have used. I have not brewed with it yet, but I made two starters (one at 68F, the other at 58F) and neither had any smoky character. Perhaps it has something to do with the amount of ferulic acid in the wort (this is what gets turned into 4-vinyl guaiacol in Bavarian Weizens and imparts that clovey/phenolic aroma). You can increase your ferulic acid level by adding some wheat or rye and resting at 104F (I believe... or is it 112F? Check Warner's German Wheat book) for 15 minutes. Oops... just forgot... you wanted this for an extract batch. Well, you can add some wheat extract and take your chances, or you can be sure and home-smoke some crystal malt. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:55:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Paul A. Hausman" <paul at lion> Subject: Re: Pub Without Beer According to the British Telecommunications plc. website (www.eyp.co.uk), there is a business called: The Pub With No Beer they are located at: 30a Jubilee Market Covent Garden London WC2E 8BE Tel: 0171 379 9450 There is also an interesting-sounding place called Pub Paraphernalia (U.K) Unit 6 Newington Ind Est,Crampton St London SE17 3AZ Tel: 0171 701 8913 Let me know what you find out about them. > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 97 12:06:26 -0400 > From: "Roy R. Rimmele" <flossbos at mindport.net> > Subject: Pub Without Beer Help > > I've been fortunate enough to be in London several times in the past > couple of years. Unfortunately, when I was there I was not a home brewer, > hence my query for help. Does anyone out there have any information about > a store in the Convent Garden area of London, called 'A Pub Without > Beer'. I'm interested in either writing or calling them. They carry > anything you can think of beer/pub related. (I don't think they do home > brew supplies). i.e. glasses, coasters, pitchers, towels, > mirrors........and I think beer engines. I'm looking for a correct > mailing address, and or telephone number so I can contact them. Can > anyone help. Thanks.......Roy - -- Paul A. Hausman <Paul at Lion.com> Lion Technology Inc., Lafayette, NJ, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:46:14 -0400 From: manning at one.net (M.P. Manning) Subject: Motorizing MM From: "Mike Kidulich" <mjkid at ix12.ix.netcom.com> >I own a Schmidling MaltMill, which I would like to >motorize. Towards this end, I have acquired a Dayton model 4Z613 >motor. The specifications are as follows: >1/25 input motor hp >F/L torque: 12 in/lbs >full load rpm: 154 >Does this motor have the guts to power a MM? I am planning a belt I'd say not. The MM seems to have a pretty high starting torque, and If I remember correctly, JS once said he tried a 60 in-lb gearmotor without success in a standing start, loaded condition. I have a 30 in-lb 150 RPM motor driving a Glatt mill, which works fine, at about 1 lb of grain per minute. The Glatt's rollers, however, are only about 4 in long compared to the MM's 10" (effective length being somewhat less). You may be able to reduce the speed using pulleys, thus multiplying the torque, but at a loss of through-put. Look for a bigger motor. Martin Manning Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:13:09 -0700 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: leak Hardpipe and fellow Digesters, Get a bottle of a liquid leak detector. The brand we use here at my job is called Snoop. You should probably be able to find this at plumbing supply house. Other alternatives are making a solution of water and liquid dish detergent. Add just enough detergent to make it bubble. I also suspect that child's bubble liquid that you can buy in department and drug stores would also work . Use this solution on all your fittings and regulator. There will be steady supply of bubbles if there is a leak. Make sure you check the fitting on the bottle too. My CO2 supplier give fiber type seals with each bottle. I have found it very hard to get a good seal with them (they almost always leak). Use a teflon seal if you can get one. I have been using teflon seals and have never had a leak with one. I use my CO2 for many purposes including racking and carbonating beverages other than beer. I brew about 10-12 batches a year and a 5# bottle will last me for about 9 months, it would last even longer if I was using if for force carbonation and dispensing only. If you have a leak and the bottle/regulator and can't get a teflon (or other soft seal) you will need to turn the bottle on/off each time you are going to tap beer in order to not lose it into thin air. 5 Gallon Brewer John Schnupp, N3CNL Colchester, VT '95 XLH 1200 john_e_schnupp at amat.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:54:22 -0400 From: Dave Thomson <dlt at ici.net> Subject: Mash tun construction I am trying to construct an mash tun out of a 10 gal igloo industrial cooler. I am planning to buy a phils phase bottom. my question is what should I replace the push valve with? thanks Dave T Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:58:23 -0700 From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com> Subject: cherry plambic redux Several issues ago I asked about using local cherries in plambic. To summarize the private and public responses: 1. Definitely leave the pits in. 2. Choke cherries came highly to lukewarm recommended. I'm not sure I'll be able to find any, but will make the attempt. No one recommended "Bing" type cherries. 3. The Belgian Schaarbeek cherries prized for Kriek lambic are scarce even in Belgium, and it doesn't sound like there are any close analogs readily available in the US as fruit. The combination of dark color and intense flavor is pretty rare here. 4. For those further interested, with Internet access, check out the Lambic FAQ at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb/lambic/lambic.html for more information on cherries. Thanks for your replies, -Grant Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei Des Moines, Washington Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/25/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96