HOMEBREW Digest #2477 Tue 05 August 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

  Re: Legal brewing of Eisbocks (Oliver Weatherbee)
  Re: Rob Kienle: Yeast Starters, Botulism and Paranoia (Daniel S McConnell)
  Re: Legal brewing of Eisbocks (Richard Stueven)
  Sweaty subject (Some Guy)
  "Negra" Modelo (MCI)" <Todd.W.Wilson at mci.com>
  fermentables vs. dextrins ("Jeff Hailey")
  plambic at the GABF (Jeff Sturman)
  Botulism (Mike Hughes)
  Eisbock - The BATF Speaks..... ("Ian Wilson")
  botulism, aha, plambics (Jim Liddil)
  Re:priming (Jim English)
  US Tettnang really Fuggle! ("Andy Walsh")
  chillers, racking & sterile water ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Notso silly, ("David R. Burley")
  Home-pelletized hops (GuyG4)
  questions on 5l mini-kegs (checked HBD archives...) (Jim Graham)
  Easy Off Labels (Red Wheeler)
  Wit recipes (Red Wheeler)
  Eisbock & the BATF (Bill Watt)
  A Somewhat Sleazy Idea For Color Correction (Rob Kienle)
  Corona Grain Mill; Quinoa (Mark Thomson)
  Trappist Style Brew - help ("Jackson.Bill")
  Re: legal definitions - EISBOCK (Spencer W Thomas)
  Re: A little more on Blue Moon (John_E_Schnupp)
  Water PH and differnt temps. (Mike Spinelli)
  Re: starters ("Charles L. Ehlers")

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 brewery at realbeer.com 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: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:38:20 -0400 From: oliver at triton.cms.udel.edu (Oliver Weatherbee) Subject: Re: Legal brewing of Eisbocks Kudos to Jeff who in hbd #2475 posted the url of a wonderful resource for looking into some of the legal issues of alcohol. However, I looked through the codes and found what I think are some important ommissions in his excerpts which seem to support my interpretation of this particular issue. Jeff cited 27 CFR 252.11 (Meaning of Terms): "(a) Conditions on concentration. A brewer may not employ any process of concentration which separates alcohol spirits from any fermented substance." However, the rest of the section describes the reconstitution of "Beer Concentrate" such as "reconstitution of beer will consist of the addition to the concentrate of carbon dioxide and water only." This would seem to indicate that a brewer can concentrate beer. This is verified in 27 CFR 25.263 [Subpart R] (Production of concentrate and reconstitution of beer): "(a) Operations at brewery. A brewer may concentrate beer or reconstitute beer only at a brewery." The rest of the provisions regards labelling, transfer, and reconstitution. Also in 27 CFR 252.11 (Meaning of Terms) we find the definition of Concentrate: "Concentrate. Concentrate produced from beer by the removal of water under the provisions of Subpart R of this part. The processes of concentration of beer and reconstitution of beer are considered authorized processes in the production of beer." So what this definition and the condition statement earlier say is that a brewer can concentrate beer through the removal of water but not through distillation (removal of alcohol). It also recognizes this procedure as a beer brewing process. I suspect that these provisions are meant to cover the activities of such brewers as Coors who ship concentrate to be reconsituted at various nationwide bottling plants. However, it seems to me these provisions provide for the distinction between freezing and distilling with the former permitted. The catch is that there is no provision for selling "beer concentrate" in a retail market. Not to mention some strict records and reporting requirements. Also, it only provides for the transfer to another brewery of the same ownership. Since the definition of concentrate does not list any quantitative measurements, it likely includes Eisbock style beers and this would affect commercial production of this style (e.g. not allowed to sell it). However, it doesn't say you can't give it away like HOTD Eve. I can find no other areas that seem to relate to freezing/concentrating beer. There is also no mention of this type of procedure under the definition of distillation (19.316). So concentrating beer through the removal of water is a recognized process in brewing and is defined and treated separately from distilling. It is also important to note that homebrewers are not considered brewers under these regulations: "Brewer. Any person who brews beer (except a person who produces only beer exempt from tax under 26 U.S.C. 5053(e)) and any person who produces beer for sale." So, again I argue that the Code of Federal Regulations distinguishes concentrating beer from distilling and therefor I am not distilling when I make an Eisbock or Eve knockoff. Disclaimer: This is only submitted for discussion's sake and as an explaination of my stand on this issue. I am not giving legal advice. - Oliver Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:30:19 -0400 From: danmcc at umich.edu (Daniel S McConnell) Subject: Re: Rob Kienle: Yeast Starters, Botulism and Paranoia >From: Rob Kienle <rkienle at interaccess.com> >What happened was that when I opened the wort starter to add >the yeast, I noticed a fairly pronounced scent coming from it that was >probably more "dirty socklike" than anything else. > I had a nice krausen going in the subsequent step a >day later, even without having had any evidence that such would occur in >the original vial. Rob, what you might be smelling is either Yeast Nitrogen Base which is used as one of the nutrients in the media or the plastic tube as a result of heating. These tubes contain very low gravity enriched wort. At his low gravity little, if any krausen forms. Depending on the temprature (is it summer where you live?), these tubes can ferment out overnight. The media is designed to grow yeast rapidly. It is definately not something that will make a drinkable (or wonderful smelling) beverage. >Now for the paranoia; with all this talk about botulism, and after I >smelled the yucky situation in the first vial I tried last night, I at >first feared that the dreaded *b-beast* is in my starter vials, which >were canned by YCKC and shipped to me along with the slants. Not canned. Autoclaved for 20 min at 15 psi. Sterile. Even the Pediococcus are dead....... Thanks to all of you who forwarded this message to me! DanMcC Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 08:30:53 -1000 From: Richard Stueven <gak at molokaibrewing.com> Subject: Re: Legal brewing of Eisbocks Jeff notes: > According to US law ( 27 CFR part 25 section 25.262 "Restrictions and > conditions on processes of concentration and reconstitution"): > > "(a) Conditions on concentration. A brewer may not employ any > process of concentration which separates alcohol spirits from any > fermented substance." But the alcohol isn't separated from the fermented substance in the freezing process...only water is. have fun gak - -- Richard Stueven gak at beerismylife.com http://www.aloha.net/~gak The Moloka`i Brewing Company http://molokaibrewing.com Beer Is My Life! http://beerismylife.com Breweries On The Web http://www.aloha.net/~gak/beer/brewwww.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:22:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Sweaty subject Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... Spencer rants on a peeve... Ah! But "pore" is also "a tiny opening, as in plant leaves or skin, for absorbing or discharging fluids". Like a sweat gland. Olde English, they used to say "Don't sweat gland over that data" from whence derived our modern colloquialism: "Don't sweat over it." Ah! English! I prefer to use multifunctional languages. For instance, I could say: "As I po'ed ober mah e-mail, I beginned to feel wahm and de sweat dun po'ed out o' mah po'es until I hadda swim. Po me, po me." See the beauty? I hit all the meanings, without mispelling or misusing one! Back to po'ing ober mah e-mail... ;-) See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:46:25 -0600 From: "Wilson, Todd (MCI)" <Todd.W.Wilson at mci.com> Subject: "Negra" Modelo Thanks to all who responded to my question of how to classify "Negra" Modelo. Not only did I learn how to correctly spell the beer but everyone who responded indicated that it is a Vienna style lager and everyone recommended George and Laurie Fix's book on lagers as a good place to start. I have always been an ale brewer but I will pick up this book and try my hand at the recommended "Graf-style" lager. Thanks also to Charlie Marino who offered the following historical background on Vienna style beers/brewers "Most of the Viennese brewers migrated to Mexico after the collapse of the Ottoman empire." Certainly an the most interesting beer in a squat brown bottle! Thanks Todd Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 97 13:09:14 EDT From: "Jeff Hailey" <jeff_hailey at ccmail.ray.com> Subject: fermentables vs. dextrins Reading the HBD the last few days has got me thinking about the sugars present in wort. First, John Carsten has had a bit of trouble with the body in his porter. Consensus seems to be that he let it mash at too low of a temperature, creating too many fermentable sugars. Second, Ken Schwartz created his own specialty malts at home. He states that, according to Randy Mosher, the process favors the creation of dextrins over ferementables. Also, I have read that crystal malt and cara-pils malt contain a high proportion of dextrins. Some brewers use these malts, especially cara- pils, to add body to their beer (obviously, crystal adds color and flavor components as well due to the fact that it has been caramelized to an extent). All of this leads me to a question. What keeps the beta-amalysases from breaking down the dextrins provided by speciality malts? Or, maybe the question should be, why add cara-pils when you can just raise your mash temperature to contribute to a more dextrinous wort? Please help to enlighten this brewer. Cheers! Jeff Hailey, Brewing in Tulsa, OK Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:09:11 -0700 From: brewshop at coffey.com (Jeff Sturman) Subject: plambic at the GABF Here's a thought that just occurred to me. At last year's GABF John Fahrer (sp?) (1996 hboy) of Nebraska was on hand with a keg of his award winning beer, offering samples to anyone who wished to savor a good home brew. Several hundred people tasted that beer and exchanged a few words with John. Good publicity for home brewing. This year Charlie Gottenkjeny (sp?) may be at the GABF offering samples of his plambic to the public. Probably not good for home brewing. I think offering non-home brewers plambic is going to do more harm than good. They might get the impression that all home brew tastes like that. The fact is most people haven't tried lambic, and most people cringe the first time they do. I think maybe Charlie should offer something a little more subtle at the GABF. And don't tell me that offering the plambic would be very beneficial and educational. That's crap. Every amateur beer lover at the festival will go home thinking home brew sucks. At the very least there should be two beers to choose from; the plambic and a pale ale, or a pilsner, or maybe a wheat beer. I have nothing against lambic, I even enjoy one from time to time. And I'm sure Charlie's is an excellent example of the style. But giving it to unsuspecting, potential home brewers would not be wise. jeff casper, wy Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 14:42:43 -0700 From: Mike Hughes <mikehu at synopsys.com> Subject: Botulism Salutations - Since we're talking about botulism, anybody see 48 Hours last night? They did a story on a doctor that is using live botulism to remove wrinkles from peoples faces. He injects the live bacteria into their faces where wrinkles are present. The toxin produced paralizyes the muscles, removing the wrinkles. So what are you guys worried about? If you have botulism in your beer, it will be impossible for you or your friends to get "Bitter Beer Face"!!! - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding Eisbock: > According to US law ( 27 CFR part 25 section 25.262 "Restrictions and > conditions on processes of concentration and reconstitution"): > "(a) Conditions on concentration. A brewer may not employ any > process of concentration which separates alcohol spirits from any > fermented substance." The Brewer is not removing any alcohol spirits from the fermented substance. The Brewer is removing water and proteins that freeze, right? The alcohol stays in the fermented beer. If any of you feel guilty about taking advantage of this free legal advice, you may clear your conscience by sending me a case of the first Eisbock that you brew. Mike H. Portland, Or "Life is short. Grain is cheep. Just Brew It!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:44:56 -0700 From: "Ian Wilson" <ianw at sosinet.net> Subject: Eisbock - The BATF Speaks..... With all due respects to all the posters, and there have been many - some good ones, too: Spouting of statistics is a relative subject! For example, one can determine the odds of being the winner of the California Lottery by dividing the number of tickets one buys by the total number of tickets sold. However, the person who manages to win is a one-hundred percent winner! Statistics work well when predicting the behavior of a function over a large population. For example: if 1 in 10 million people poke their eye with a sharp stick, today, some 27 people will do so in this country. The chances of me doing it are indeed slim, but if I am one of the unlucky ones, it bloody hurts. This letter was sent to me by Mr. Charles N. Bacon, of the Bureau of Alchohol, Tabacoo and Fire Arms in reposne to my request for an opinion: The story of eisboch is obviously lost to time although a few German brewers continue to produce the style. More recently, American Brewers "discovered" the style in Canada; Labatt claims to have invented it although the Niagara Falls Brewery apparently produced it before anyone else in recent times in North America. I have seen evidence that this type of beer was produced by local brewers in the 1930's and 1940's. Hard cider has been produced throughout the east by this method since colonial times. Because of the uncanny resemblance to a concentrate made from beer, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has written a formal ruling on "ice beer." Essentially, it states that if a brewer superchills beer and removes ice or water, the product will be considered to be ordinary "beer" if the volume of material removed is not more than 1/2 of 1% of the original volume, and if the resultant product resembles "beer." This ruling was issued to prevent brewers from producing an "ice beer" which is seriously concentrated by the removal of water or ice. Classic beer concentrates often are 15% alc/vol or more and may have only 1/4 of their original volume. These products are taxed as distilled spirits if they are removed from a brewery or imported without being reconstituted with water. The eisbock or ice beer method of production would be considered as ordinary home beer making and home brewers could use the method if they wished. ATF's primary interest would be, as usual, to ensure home brewers were not selling the beer they make. Mr. Bacon goes on to list the actual ruling, which would be too long to post here. I will make if available for those of you who want a private e-mail of the document. Carry on brewing, gentlepersons! Go to the source when in doubt! Ian Wilson Relaxin' and havin' anotha..... Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:45:42 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU> Subject: botulism, aha, plambics First on the Botulism thread. As has ben pointed out life is a risk. But one thing that everybody has been ignoring is that Clostidium botulinum is a strict anaerobe. It won't grow nor will it sporulate when air is present. So for all of you who use the simple hot water immersion method to "can" your wort just loosen the lids after the jars have had cooled to allow air into the jar. Then tighten the lid and put it into the refrigerator. >Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:03:18 -0400 >From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> >Subject: AHA Commitments >We did spend a great deal of time talking about how the AHA and Zymurgy >can be of more value to brewers. How to get and retain members. How to >better work with clubs and with the homebrew suppliers. How to make the >AHA more meaningful to its members. A number of ideas have been >brought forward and the AHA's new staff professes a very real desire and >willingness to work with us. They are very "client" oriented. Many are >new to the AHA so we may have to account for some learning curve, but I >was satisfied with their commitment. So can you outline what some of the "hows" will be? Gee I go on vacation and come back to more comments lambic than the issues of the AHA. I know that more than one BofA person reads the hbd. So did the AHA put a gag order on all of you? I guess we have to wait for the Official Party Line to appear on the AOB web site and in Zymurgy? It makes me wonder who is looking out for who's best interests. >complete report. If one of the other BOA members can do that from >memory (I didn't take notes) go right ahead; don't wait on me -- I off >on some business trips. All I hear is silence. >Of course results are what counts but I can assure you that the new BOA >(some 12+) are committed to working with the AHA to make significant >changes. Again what are the chnages going to be? What are some of the proposals to implement them? Or are the questions I'm asking one that can only be answered on the AHA Member Only section? >From: John Kessel >RE: Lambic >In response to my slam on Jim Liddil's "quiet joke" about plambic, I must >say that it went right over my head. Sorry, but please be a little less >subtle for those of us who don't know the complete history of the >homebrew world. For those that didn't know, Jim won best of show at >nationals with a lambic and, I assume, he faced a lot of serious comments >like his light-hearted one from the July 25 HBD. Apology excepted. It's great to go on vacation and have a bunch of people defending what you say. :-) But I can also speak for myself. Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:41:55 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: Lambic BOS >Knowing Jim, I don't think that he was being intentionally offensive. >Jim has judged pLambics in the nationals and I believe that he simply >sets an unrealistically high standard for pLambics. I judged his >pGueuze in the 1st round (at Oldenburg) and since I had one in the >2nd round (from Chicago) too, we could discuss what I wrote on his >scoresheet. He disagreed with my comments and said that the score >(47, I believe) was too high. Well, not only did it win 1st place >in the second round, but also BOS. What this proves is that Jim is >far too critical of homebrewed pLambics. An N=1 does not a theory prove. :-) And I might argue that everyone elses standards are unrealistically low. I also know that Al is not the only one who disagrees with my view of the world. >No doubt Jim felt the >homebrewed pLambic was over-rated, as he feels all are (including >his) and his comment was a (undeserved) criticism of the judges rather >than the entrants. Personally, I think Jim sets far too high a standard >to be an impartial judge in this category. As impartial and objective as we would all like to think we are, we are not. And judging and competitions are still a crapshoot. Jim www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 19:48:15 -0400 From: Jim English <jimebob at mindspring.com> Subject: Re:priming O foam-flecked wise ones, lend me your ears. Mine is a tale or woe and ESB gone awry. I made an extract, generic ESB using the ingredient guidelines in CP's tome using the table of beer style guidelines. IOW no specific recipe, just the "generic" ingredients. So far, so good. Pitched a half-gallon Wyeast 1028 starter and was cookin' in 3 hours. I racked it to secondary not quite 72 hours later, even though I was getting 8-10 bubbles a minute. It had dropped from 1.060 to 1.010 in that period of time!!! Left it in secondary a week. Primed and bottled it and tried it today, 12 days later. FLAT. Did I rack it too soon and leave too much yeast in the primary trub? If I choose to prime each(thankfully flip-top) bottle, would I be better served to just sprinkle some dry yeast into each bottle(how much???), or, would it be better to use a starter because of the level of alcohol(+5%) in the bottles now, and if so how much? A teaspoon. A tablespoon. This stuff is GOOD and, by God I'm'a'gonna drink it, flat or not, but if I could just get a little head, I could share it with some of my less astute buddies. Thanx JRE Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:00:29 +1000 From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh at crl.com.au> Subject: US Tettnang really Fuggle! This one is bound to ruffle a few feathers... Colin Green of the reknowned Hop Research Unit, Wye College, Kent, claims that most, if not all of the US (and Australian) Tettnang crop appears to be Fuggle, in the July/Aug 1997 issue of the Journal of the Institute of Brewing. Gas chromatograms of 16 "Tettnang" samples from around the US show the characteristic chromatograms of UK Fuggle, rather than German Tettnanger. In addition, single samples of USA Tettnanger and USA Hallertauer Mittelfruher clones grown in Australia also appeared to be Fuggle. Samples of (European) Saaz and Tettnanger were also of the same variety. The USA Saaz sample was indistinguishable from that grown at Wye. (ie. UK Saaz = US Saaz = German Tettnanger)! GLC analysis of essential oils is a well established method for determining the variety of a hop sample. The most likely explanation of the results is that mistakes were made many years ago during the propagation and selection of the varieties. Andy. (ref - JIB v103 1997 pp239-243) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 11:10:42 +0700 From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net> Subject: chillers, racking & sterile water Miguel de Salas posted: >I used an immersion chiller made of 7 yards of coiled copper tubing, >and it took less than 20 minutes to chill the wort. I really wonder >why people go to the trouble of building counterflow chillers for a >volume of 5 gallons. It seems to me that it doesen't save much time, >and the risks involved by more difficult sanitation makes it less >worthwile.... I have never used a counterflow chiller, so maybe >someone who has used both can elaborate. If you think 20 minutes is fast- add a powered stirrer to the boiler. It's one of the best additions I've made to my brewery and I'll never go back to using a counterflow chiller. Moving the hot wort over the immersion chiller coils *greatly* speeds cooling- e.g. 6 gallons of boiling wort to 68 degF with 64 degF tap water (vs. Migel's ~ 58 degF water) in 15 minutes. If you want a lower final wort temp. or a faster chill, use tap water 'til the wort temp drops to ~ tap water temp. + 10 degF then run the tap water through a prechiller (a coil in a ice water bath) or use a cheap bilge pump to recirc. ice water through the immersion chiller. If your HLT has a pump and is insulated, fill it with ice/water and it'll likely make a good source of cooling water. Used during the boil, the stirrer also increases bitterness derived from the hops, eliminates any concern with wort carmelization or burning. If it's important to ya, it also allows more of the cold break to remain in the boiler since the cooling is quicker and you can cool the wort way down and then raise the temp. back up to pitching temp. by circulating warm water in the chiller. Stirrer details are at: http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/boiler.htm - --------------------- Joe Stone described his very nice (but tall) cylindriconical fermenter he made from a 10 gal. SS keg and said: > I probably won't be able to fill the fermenter directly from my >counter-flow chiller due to the height of the fermenter. I will >probably have to chill into a 6.5 G glass carboy and rack into the >cylindriconical fermenter. Or invest in another pump. Fill via the >bottom drain? Just a brain fart: rack to a 5 or 10 liter keg (maybe tilted to reduce the effective height) and use compressed air to push the brew up to the fermenter. By using a long dip tube/air stone attached to the CO2-in fitting to deliver the air to the keg, you can oxygenate the wort as you rack. FWIW, it takes ~0.46 psig to raise sg-1.060 wort one foot. I was going to suggest using O2 to rack, but I don't know how the gaskets in the keg would react to it. Also, it'd be expensive unless you've a welding rig already. I wouldn't trust a pump for pumping wort unless it's sanitized by recirculating boiling wort through it for awhile. I wouldn't depend on sanitizing solutions to get in all of the nooks and crannies (and possibily scratches) in the pump. YM (or degree of anal-retentiveness) MV... Per Occam's Razor, simply raising the boiler is probably the best solution. - --------------------- On a racking related note, Layne Rossi described about a gizmo that racks brew by pressurizing a carboy with compressed air from am aquarium pump. Sounds like a way to perhaps rupture a carboy to me- particuliarly a scratched one. Scratches act as stress risers and weaken the glass. Also, if you've ever broken a carboy, you'll have noted how surprising thin the side walls are. I'd at least want a pressure relief valve in the system... Maybe a secondary racking tube with it's open, outboard end attached to tubing raised to a height slightly above the highest point of the "real" racking hose. (The extra height is needed to account for friction loss in the racking hose.) Overpressure from a clogged or crimped racking hose would force wort out of this tube and indicate that you need to shut off the pump. vent-->| flow |+--->----+ +-+||+-+ +-+|+-+ | || | | | | | || | | | | | || | | | | +------+ +-----+ air pump ommited for clarity (and due to laziness....) - --------------------- Finally, Dave Burley said: >You should try storing your yeast under sterile water... A *RHETORICAL* question : Would water canned in a boiling water be OK or (like starter wort) does one need to can water with a pressure cooker? <g> c.d. pritchard cdp at mail.chattanooga.net http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 12:28:03 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Notso silly, Brewsters: I still remember my first drink of my homebrew and the courage it took to= believe that I wasn't poisoning myself in some manner. Those were in the days ( 1969) when almost nothing was known about beer making except rumo= rs by homebrewer wannabees. The fact that I have survived and prospered ( I= 'm a much better chemist)) from brewing is a testament to homebrewing. Nevertheless, lately we have been asking ourselves about the safety of o= ur method of brewing, which I believe is overall a good thing, as long as we= pursue it to the end and not shy away from brewing before we know the who= le story. Michael Baum asks a question I asked myself long ago. "If botulism is a= problem with wort stored under vacuum, then beer which is anaerobic, bein= g under CO2 , could also be a problem , nichtr wahr??" = Well, thankfully, I answered the question with a negative response. Its t= he pH. As wort ferments, the pH drops into the safe range which prevents th= e Clostridium spores from growing into bacteria and forming the toxin. The alcohol may help. As far as I know, the hops which are effective some of= the time on some of the lactobacilli are not reputed to be effective against Clostridium. Perhaps because it doesn't appear to be a problem. The high sugar content of CONCENTRATED extract likewise inhibits clostridium growth in the anaerobic environment of the tin can, oxygen prevents it when diluted and when the yeast consume the oxygen and begin fermentation the pH drops. So as the Ozzies in the outback near 'Alice' say "No weirries". As far as not hearing about people involved with homebrew and death goes,= I recall that I was saddened at the early deaths of H.E. Bravery ( British Pioneer of homebrewing in the 1960's) and Dave Line (British author of a= number of HB books). I recall wondering at the time if homebrew poisoning= was the problem. I managed to convince myself that it was more likely other problems. Perhaps over consumption of homebrew and other alcoholic beverages or other things such as heart attacks or automobile accidents which bring on early death are more likely to blame. As far as the comment that C. Papazian made that beer contains no known pathogens goes, Malting and Brewing Science made the same statement long before Charlie ever stirred a mash. My conclusion? As long as beer is brewed along normal lines of concentrations, known yeasts, temperatures, etc. it is not only a safe beverage but can improve your lifestyle both intellectually and hedonistically, taken in moderation. - --------------------------------------- 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: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 17:06:50 -0400 (EDT) From: GuyG4 at aol.com Subject: Home-pelletized hops I discovered a way to get the flavor of leaf hops and the conveninence of pellet hops by total accident! Home Pelletization! Here's how. Attempt to put 1 oz. leaf hops (any variety) into a secondary carboy through the neck. Get a bright idea! Use a funnel!...Sanitize the funnel, but don't dry. Dump hops into funnel. Attempt to force the hops through the funnel using, progressively, a old siphon hose, a old racking cane, a long pencil, and finally a fiberglass muzzleloader ramrod. After entire ounce of hops jammed hopelessly in funnel, cut open neck of funnel lenghtwise with appropriate device. My funnel was plastic, so I used a utility knife. You may need a cold chisel if your funnel is metal. Viola! a perfectly shaped hop pellet that drops in your fermenter effortlessly!! And you now have total control on how your leaf hops have been pelletized...no more guesswork. Obviously, kids should do this under adult supervision. Cheers! GuyG4 at aol.com Guy Gregory Lightining Creek Home Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:25:50 -0600 (CDT) From: Jim Graham <jim at n5ial.gnt.com> Subject: questions on 5l mini-kegs (checked HBD archives...) After looking through the HBD archives (back to 1995 so far), I have a few questions on the 5l mini-kegs. If you believe that your reply might not be of general interest to the group, feel free to respond via e-mail. I've also got some questions (last) about a beer that's recently appeared in town, Diebels Alt.... First, some background. I live in a small apartment, and it's going to be a few years before I'm in a position to buy a house (that, of course, assumes that one can still get insurance in Florida, but that's another issue). I do *NOT* have room for a fridge large enough for a real keg, but my dorm-sized beer fridge holds 5l mini-kegs nicely. Unfortunately, I also don't have much time to spend bottling.... In fact, this has become a big enough problem lately that I haven't brewed a batch in quite some time. ;-( Solution (I hope): 5l mini-kegs for most of the batch. I also very much prefer beer on tap (who doesn't?). I just ordered a tap, bungs, and CO2 cartridges (16 gram) from one of the mail-order places I found on the net. The tap is a Beer King tap ($47 from Bacchus & Barleycorn, Ltd.). I'd already planned on probably buying a second tap eventually (e.g., for parties, etc., when I might want two kegs tapped at once), and based on comments I found in the archives (about plastic taps), I will probably buy their other tap, the Party Star Deluxe ($75), or something similar, and use it as my primary tap. And now for the questions that I haven't found answers to.... 1) Is there a FAQ or good set of instructions out there on using 5l mini-kegs? If so, that's probably enough to cover the rest of this.... 2) Is there any difference in how I need to handle store-bought mini-kegs that already have beer in them (the Diebels Alt comes to mind---I'll probably use that as a good, cheap, and tasty way to buy kegs). What I'm mainly concerned about is the fact that it's already carbonated, and probably more than homebrew would be. Then again, I've never kegged anything, so I could be way off-base here.... 3) I've read a lot of comments about the Carbonator. Where would I find such a beast? From the comments I've read, it sounds like something worth having. The same place I bought the tap from has the following listed (just now saw it): CARBONATOR, VALVE COUPLIN $ 15.00 Does this sound like it's the whole setup? Or is it likely to just be an adapter? 4) I've read and heard a *LOT* of different suggestions for the amount of priming sugar to use. Ideally, I'd like to keg most of a batch, and leave about 12 bottles. I've gotten numbers for priming each keg individually (nothing much on what to do with for priming the remaining bit for bottles, though), and for priming the whole batch. If I've understood correctly, the general consensus seems to be to use 1/2 cup of corn sugar for the entire batch (I'm assuming that's for either a 5 or 6 gallon batch), and then kegging part of it and bottling the rest. Is that about right? 5) I've heard that the kegged beer doesn't take as long to clear as bottled beer (6--10 days, as opposed to 2--3 weeks). Is this true? Do I get the added bonus of a (slightly) smaller requirement for patience when waiting to sample a new batch? :-) 6) Do the taps come with instructions? I hope so, because I need them.... Again, I've helped empty some kegs before, but I've never filled one! Well, I think that about wraps it up for now. Any other comments and suggestions for someone who is about to start using 5l mini-kegs, and has never kegged anything in his life, would also be more than welcome! Finally, I mentioned the Diebels Alt that's just come into the area. This beer, in fact, was what finally pushed me into getting started with the 5l mini-kegs. IMHO, it's a very nice beer, particularly when on tap, but I just don't want that much at one time...I'd like to buy a 5l keg of the Diebels Alt, and have it to enjoy over a week or so. I would also like to clone this beer, and that's where my final question comes into the picture. Does anyone have any suggestions for an extract brew that gets close to this beer? Thanks, --jim - -- 73 DE N5IAL (/4) MiSTie #49997 < Running Linux 2.0.21 > jim at n5ial.gnt.net || j.graham at ieee.org ICBM / Hurricane: 30.39735N 86.60439W Jack: DS B+Bd+O+W Y+G 1 Y L W C+ I+++ A++ S V+ F- Q++ P++ PA PL-- SC++++ Shadow: DS B+C Y+B 1 Y L++ W+ C+ I+++ A++ S+ V-- F+++ Q++ P++ PA++ PL+ SC++++ Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 21:17:26 -0400 From: Red Wheeler <fwheeler at mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> Subject: Easy Off Labels Christopher D. Hutton asked, "What are the best labels to use on bottles? I'm looking for easy removal." A while back I read somewhere on the net about using milk to attach labels. After trying it with several cases I can tell you that it works great. Whoever had the idea it is very good. The labels stay on until you want to peal them off and the bottles clean easily. As easy as that was, I seldom put labels on anymore. Putting labels on several cases got old fast so I now write a number on the cap to identify the batch. It isn't fancy but it is quick and a lot less work. Red Wheeler Blue Bell, PA Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 08:03:40 -0400 From: Red Wheeler <fwheeler at mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> Subject: Wit recipes Thanks to everyone who has posted a wit recipe. Wit beers are among my favorite brews. However. What I would really like to see is an all grain recipe for Blanche de Bruges. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Red Wheeler Blue Bell, PA Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 09:52:53 -0700 From: Bill Watt <wattbrew at buffnet.net> Subject: Eisbock & the BATF Seems to me that if the BATF guideline prohibits separating the alcohol from any fermented product, then the "legal" thing to do would be to separate the "water" from the fermented product by freezing and removing the ice crystals. - -- Brewing beer in Lancaster, NY Watt's Brewing Bill Watt - wattbrew at buffnet.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 10:31:52 -0500 From: Rob Kienle <rkienle at interaccess.com> Subject: A Somewhat Sleazy Idea For Color Correction Yesterday I brewed an altbier I had been planning for several months and for which I had run three other test batches to refine the recipe and procedure. In ordering the ingredients, however, I decided to go with German grains instead of the Belgium ones I had used in my most successful test (deciding that the decoction sequence used in that batch was the biggest difference between it and the others). Everything went fine except that the color of the final batch appears to have come out about a shade or two lighter than I had intended. Normally I wouldn't care, but this beer is for a big wedding party in late September, hence I desire to make it as perfect as possible. So now I'm thinking about whether I can still do something to modify the color. My choices thus far: take an ounce of Black Patent malt (which does not require mashing and adds no unnecessary fermentables) and steep it in a couple cups of hot water, strain and boil the water, cool and add it to the carboys (there are two of them for this 10 gallon batch). Or, boil the water beforehand, add the malt to it as it cools, strain and add to the carboys. Has anyone tried anything like this before to provide color corrections to a batch that's come out a little too light? Seems to me that it should be safe (if the water has been boiled) and effective (if I use enough malt). - ----------- Cheers4beers, Rob Kienle Chicago, IL rkienle at interaccess.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 22:14:05 -0600 From: Mark Thomson <mthomson at mail.xula.edu> Subject: Corona Grain Mill; Quinoa I have two questions I need some help with. First, I purchased a Corona grain mill assuming there would be a set of instructions on how to use it. Wrong. Can anyone please help me get started. Second, I would like to make a beer using Quinoa. Has anyone tried this? Any suggestions? - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Mark Thomson I was supposed to have been a Jesuit priest, Department of Chemistry or a naval academy grad. Xavier University That was the way that my parents perceived it, New Orleans, Louisiana Yes, those were the plans that they had. mthomson at mail.xula.edu --Jimmy Buffett ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 11:20:21 +0930 From: "Jackson.Bill" <Jackson.Bill at etsa.com.au> Subject: Trappist Style Brew - help I am looking to brew an all grain Chimay style ale in the near future. I have looked in Miller, Cats Meow and Gambrinous Mug with the following being the outline: Yeast: Culture from Chimay bottle (the 7% one) or Wyeast High Gravity Belgian Ale Yeast. For 22litres (~6 usg) Grain: 6-9kg Pale Malt (ideally Belgian but nut not here in OZ), .5 kg Crystal .25 - 5 kg Wheat ? Extras: .5 kg Brown Sugar Hops: 7 HBU mixed Fuggles and Hallertau (or was it Hersbrucker) OG: 1.070 - 1.090 FG : 1.015? Any recipes, pitfalls, fermentation temp rec's... would be greatly appreciated. Bill Jackson Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 03:15:07 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: legal definitions - EISBOCK But, but, and but.... A couple of years ago, the BATF issued a ruling that the "ice beer" process *did not* constitute illegal concentration of alcohol, in that the amount of ice removed was insignificant. (This is my recollection of what it said, I've been unable to find the original ruling.) To me, the fact that they felt they had to issue this ruling implies that concentrating alcohol significantly by freezing may be illegal. If anyone can has, or manages to dig up, a copy of that ruling, I'd be quite grateful if you can send me a copy or a pointer. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 01:04:31 -0700 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: Re: A little more on Blue Moon >time defending these guys. They're not trying to make good beer. They're >just trying to make more money. Now I'm an ardent capitalist, and the goal >of almost any business is to make money, so don't get me wrong. I'm just >saying that we, as homebrewers and craft beer lovers, shouldn't support >their efforts either in word nor voice nor dollar. IMHO, Graham has hit it squarely on the head. John Schnupp, N3CNL Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 97 08:57:01 est From: paa3983 at dpsc.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli) Subject: Water PH and differnt temps. HBDers, I saw a reference a few HBDs back that said that the temp. of the water can substantially alter the ph reading. Is this true? I use ColorpHast ph strips and typically dip them in the sparge water at temps. anywhere from 120 to 160F. Thanks Mike Spinelli Cherry Hill NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:10:07 -0500 From: "Charles L. Ehlers" <clehlers at flinthills.com> Subject: Re: starters <<Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 11:24:42 -0400 <<From: Greg.Moore at East.Sun.COM (Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware <<Engineering) <<Subject: starters <<I hope the collective experience of HBD can help me on this one. <<For my last two batches of beer, I've made starters. Also, for my last <<two batches of beer, I've had very cloudy beer. The beer tastes fine, <<and clears after a month or two in the bottle/keg. Since one of the <<batches was a repeat batch, and my actual brewing process has not <<changed from before, I feel that I've done something wrong in the <<starter process. I'd like to avoid the 1-2 month settling if possible. Actually, it doesn't sound as if you're doing anything wrong. I have always followed the instructions on the back of the WYeast package to make a starter. However, I double the amount of water and DME, brings it to 2/3 cup DME and 2 qt. water. I use Clorox to sanitize everything and use hot tap water to rinse. I don't force cool the wort, I just let is sit, covered, for a few hours in the pan I boiled it in. It takes anywhere from 18-48 hours to get the starter solution going, depending on how old the WYeast was to begin with. I also pitch the entire starter solution, not just the yeast slurry. This has always worked for me :) Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/05/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96