HOMEBREW Digest #2647 Thu 26 February 1998

[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

  European swallow/US Pints (Paul n Shelley)
  RIMS inline heater question (Brad Johnson)
  Re: Modified RIMS heater / Expanding foam around LT (Dion Hollenbeck)
  RE:Hazy beer ("Jim Busch")
  ppms ("C.W. Hudak")
  Re: RIMS inline heater question (hollen)
  glatt grain mill (Greg Egle)
  Aluminum and CIP ("James Hodge")
  Brewing with the Devil, IPA ideas (Matthew Arnold)
  Flatulence and Homebrew ("Myers, John")
  ppm vs. mg/L --> molal/molar (AJ)
  Long Secondaries/Spent Grain Dog Bones ("RANDY ERICKSON")
  re: Hop Plant Identification (Alan Edwards)
  Re: Water Chemistry Question (brian_dixon)
  Worried or Not?  Mead question.... (Michael Tucker)
  RE: Chloramines ("Frederick J. Wills")
  Re: Lager Ferment times/Pints (John Wilkinson)
  Where is Spencer? (Spencer W Thomas)
  carbon filters ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Re: Small-Scale Brewing (Rick Wood)
  Re:Long Secondaries (RedlackC)
  Salt Additiions: Do or Don't? (Kyle Druey)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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 hbd.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... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer 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 Feb 1998 07:48:05 -0800 From: Paul n Shelley <pracko at earthlink.net> Subject: European swallow/US Pints Kevin TenBrink wrote: > Secondly, I think the last English Unit of measure that home brewers and > beer drinkers the world over will be the most reluctant to relinquish is > the pint. Indeed. In England, pub goers are adamant about being served a complete pint. If the beer (no head allowed) doesn't reach the 1 pt. mark on the side of the glass, drinkers go ballistic. Here in the States we're getting ripped off and no one is saying a word. When I ask for a pint, I want A PINT. What we usually get is a 12oz pour in an American "pint" glass. A glass of beer is usually about 8oz. I really wish publicans would get their act together and serve a REAL pint when asked for. If I want 12 oz. I'll ask for a glass, and if 8 oz. I'll request a "half". It's like going to a gas station, asking for 16 gallons and only getting 12. Isn't this something the state departments of Weights & Measures should be enforcing? For standing up for a REAL pint of REAL ale, Paul Racko Termino Brewery Long Beach, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:04:23 -0500 From: Brad Johnson <bjohnson at berkshire.net> Subject: RIMS inline heater question I am designing my own brewing system, which I have dubbed the BrewGurney. It will utilize a 30 gal. jacketed soup kettle as a mash tun, mounted on a converted hospital gurney or stretcher on wheels. This will allow easy portability (from my 19th century barn down the hill to my open porch) as well as providing a strong platform for the entire brew set-up. I intend this to be a RIM system. The SS mash tun was salvaged from a scrap yard, sans steam system. The steam jacket will prove useful as either air insulation w/ the inlet/outlet capped off, or as an active assist to temp maintenance and temp boosts by circulating hot water through the jacket. My specific question is in response to Dion Hollenbeck's BT article on RIMS (I am cc'ing this to him). He refers to the practical limits of in-line heating elements as being 10 gal batch/20 lb grain bill. He recommends supplementing the in-line heater for larger grain bills by either doubling up with a second heater in series w/ the first, or adding direct heat by fire to the bottom of the MT. Could this heater-in-series simply be at the other end of a long heating chamber, with wort entering the chamber, passing over the first heating coil, and passing over the second coil on its way out (vs. a separate second chamber)? If the additional heater were manually switched on during temp boosts (Dion's suggestion), would the brewer want to use the second heater in series as the one controlled by the PID, to prevent overshoot? I hope to benefit by the cumulative HBD RIMS experience. Thanks. Brad Johnson Berkshire BroadArrow Brewery Bjohnson at berkshire.net Return to table of contents
Date: 24 Feb 1998 08:06:21 -0800 From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at vigra.com> Subject: Re: Modified RIMS heater / Expanding foam around LT >> Kenneth Sullivan writes: KS> I found some water heater elements at Home Depot for $10.50 each so KS> I bought a long one at 4500W/240VAC and a short one at 1500W/240VAC. KS> I have a 24" x 2" copper pipe and am thinking about putting 'Tees' KS> on both ends and inserting both heater elements on opposite ends. KS> That way I can turn on one, the other or both. Questions: Should I KS> run these at 120VAC to cut the wattage in half? Absolutely!!! KS> What other problems can you experienced RIMSers forsee? You should not use these heater elements at all!!! First, a suitable heater element of low enough watt density, when stretched out will measure about 72", these are barely 20". You will scorch your wort. Second, I do not trust the metallic coating on these in the pH of wort. They appear to be zinc which should be fine for water of pH 7 or above, but not for wort. Use the heater element that Morris recommends, a Grainger 2E675 or 2E676, which have a high nickel content alloy sheath, very like stainless steel. KS> Second item: I have a converted keg for sparge water and plan to KS> insulate the bejesus out of it. My carpenter friend suggested that KS> I build a box around it and fill the box with the expanding KS> foam-in-a-can and carve it into a nice package. I plan to use the KS> RIMs heater or a different keg to bring the sparge water to temp KS> and then pump it into the Sparge keg. Again, I would like to KS> learn from others mishaps than rediscover the obvious ;-) This is a fine use for the heater from Home Depot, run at 240v. dion Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:11:41 +0000 From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com> Subject: RE:Hazy beer Wayne writes about Hazy beer: <Amen to Carl Shipman's comments on hazy beer. The best microbrew <I've had to date comes out of Theo DeGroen's Baltimore Brewing <Company--all unfiltered! As much as I also enjoy the beers of the BBC, all of their 12 oz bottles are filtered. In my opinion, many beer styles taste better filtered, and lagers in general display the benefits of filtration, especially in the overall malt flavors. Yeast tend to obscure some of the delicate malt and hop/fermentation character of good German lagers. This is why brewers often refer to filtration as a means to "clean up" a beers flavor, it does tend to taste cleaner after a rough filtration to 1-3 microns. Try a BBC Maerzen in 12 oz filtered form next to the unfiltered draft or growler and see if you agree. Many ales also benefit from filtration, Koelsch and Alt are two that come to mind. Regarding the subject of rapid lager production, I received a note from the brewmaster I mentioned. His flagship beer, which accounts for 400,000 Hl of production annually, is a 11 day 12P Pilsner beer. It is high gravity fermented at 15.5P and diluted to 12P on day 11 when packaged. His 15P stronger dark beer requires all of 14 days cycle time! Prost! Jim Busch "A Victory for your Tastes!" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:10:03 -0800 From: "C.W. Hudak" <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com> Subject: ppms >I suspect that the term "ppm" is being substituted for "mg/kg" >(milligrams per kilogram) in the texts that you are looking at. The two >terms are often interchanged, but shouldn't be. As Gregg pointed out, ppm >is a measure of the number of molecules while mg/kg is a measure of mass. >By the way, chemistists always use mg/kg or another measure of mass to >avoid the confusion that ppm seems to be causing. Sorry but I disagree. As a chemist who used to do environmental lab work I can tell you that ppm is not a measure of "molecules". A concentration of 1 ppm is equivelent to 1 mg/kg or 1 mg/L as a mg is one millionth of either of these. There may be confusion among lay people, but not among chemists who know what the terms mean ;p. C-- Charles Hudak in San Diego, California (Living large in Ocean Beach!!) cwhudak at adnc.com ICQ# 4253902 "If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs." - --David Daye Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 08:14:31 PST From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: RIMS inline heater question >> Brad Johnson writes: BJ> My specific question is in response to Dion Hollenbeck's BT BJ> article on RIMS (I am cc'ing this to him). He refers to the BJ> practical limits of in-line heating elements as being 10 gal BJ> batch/20 lb grain bill. He recommends supplementing the in-line BJ> heater for larger grain bills by either doubling up with a second BJ> heater in series w/ the first, or adding direct heat by fire to BJ> the bottom of the MT. Could this heater-in-series simply be at BJ> the other end of a long heating chamber, with wort entering the BJ> chamber, passing over the first heating coil, and passing over the BJ> second coil on its way out (vs. a separate second chamber)? Yes, but you should watch out for dead zones in the heater chamber caused by a T being the highest point in the system. With one heater, there is only one T, with two, you have one at each end, and unless you lay the heater down, you have a potential for a trapped air bubble. BJ> If the additional heater were manually switched on during temp BJ> boosts (Dion's suggestion), would the brewer want to use the BJ> second heater in series as the one controlled by the PID, to BJ> prevent overshoot? I hope to benefit by the cumulative HBD RIMS BJ> experience. I really don't think it will matter which heater is controlled by the switch. The temperature out of the chamber will be the cumulative addition of heat input of both heaters. dion (glad somebody read my article) - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 07:36:00 -0900 From: Greg Egle <rsgje at aurora.alaska.edu> Subject: glatt grain mill I bought a glatt grain mill a few years ago and it's been great. I recently loaned it to a friend and he stripped both gears on the thing. Does anyone out there know how to get in touch with the glatt company? Their phone numbers are all disconnected and nobody seems to be able to get in touch with them. I'm hoping to find them so I can replace my gears and get grinding again. If anyone out there has any info please e-mail me. Thanks Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:31:23 -0600 From: "James Hodge" <jdhodge at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Aluminum and CIP Michael Rose asked about aluminum and CIP chemicals. I believe the primary issue is with the use of caustic. Sodium hydroxide severely attacks aluminum. Actually, NaOH dissolves the layer of aluminum oxide that spontaneously forms on aluminum metal. When this happens, the 'virgin' surface of aluminum metal is exposed. Aluminum is a very strong reducing agent and, consequently, will react/dissolve in water and liberate hydrogen in the process. It's this reaction that makes the airlines absolutely paranoid about shipping NaOH around in their mostly aluminum airframes. Jim Hodge Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:37:51 GMT From: mra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold) Subject: Brewing with the Devil, IPA ideas >From the first MCAB results . . . >Amber Lager . . . >2) Thomas J. O'Connor III MD and Satan, Rockport ME (MALT), O'fest ^^^^^ "Judges notes: Original gravity: 1.0666. Flavor reminiscent of brimstone. Slight sulphury aroma. D*mn good beer." This rather surprised me. One would think that he would brew a Helles. ObBrewing: I am considering making an IPA using Centennial for bittering and Cascade for flavor/aroma. Granted, I like Cascade a lot, but is this going to really be overwhelmingly citrusy? Here's my current plan: Lion Fan in Packerland Extremely Bitter IPA 11# English Pale Ale malt .5# 60L Crystal malt .5# Victory malt .5# Wheat malt 2.5 oz Centennial pellets (75 mins) .5 oz Centennial (10 mins) 1 oz Cascade (10 mins) 1 oz Cascade (at knockout / dry hop) #1098 British Ale yeast I realize this is going to be blindingly bitter: that's what I'm aiming for. I based it vaguely on Dave Brockington's "Sister Star of the Sun" IPA. I just fear that this will have such an overpowering Cascade character. Would I be better off using Centennial exclusively? Thanks, Matt, brewing with the Lord Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:49:30 -0500 From: "Myers, John" <JMyers at polkaudio.com> Subject: Flatulence and Homebrew Ladies and Gentlemen, To my surprise, the thread of flatulence and homebrews has surfaced not once, but twice in recent months. I would like to set the record straight for once and for all. Folks, the media fairly bombards us with statistics and testimonials stating that a daily, moderate consumption of alcohol actually lowers our risk of fart attack. Allow me to quote from the New England Journal of Medicine, which states unoquivicably.......oh. That's "heart attack". Nevermind. john John Myers Polk Audio Mechanical and Industrial Design Manager The Speaker Specialists mailto:jmyers at polkaudio.com http://www.polkaudio.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:52:27 -0500 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: ppm vs. mg/L --> molal/molar Stephen J. Van der Hoven wrote: >By the way, chemistists [sic] always use mg/kg or another measure of mass to >avoid the confusion that ppm seems to be causing. I'm not a chemist so I probably shouldn't be commenting but that's never stopped me before. From my readings I can't agree with the statement. What chemists do seem to do is carefully distinguish between the molality scale measured in mg/kg (ppm) and the molarity scale (sometines called the "concentration") scale measured in mg/L. One could argue that the former is more "correct" because in fact the all-important "chemical potential" of a species in solution from which everything else is ultimately determined depends on the fraction of molecules/ions of that species in the solution and that's more easily determined from the molal strength. It's easy to translate between the two scales the concentration scale is just so convenient that it enjoys frequent use. One determines the alkalinity of a water sample, for example, by titrating with 0.1 molar (concentration scale) hydrochloric acid. The differences in the two scales are significant in some areas of chemistry (and groundwater chemistry is an example) but in making our brewing calculations we can ignore themfor a couple of reasons: 1) We ignore the fact that the solutions we are dealing with are not "ideal" (for those familiar with the terminology, we assume the activity coefficients of all species are 1.0). 2) The main effect of 1) could be loosely said to have the effect of throwing off our pH's or pK's (what counts is the difference) by at most a couple of tenths for water as "strong" as Burton. pK's vary by that much over the temperature ranges we deal with and we ignore the effects of temperature on pK. 3) The effect of not distinguishing molality and molarity would amount to thousandths of a pH unit at the strengths we deal with. 4) The errors brewers incur in measuring water and salts and the errors in the values in water reports (usually given in mg/L, i.e. concentration units) completely swamp the errors due to sloppiness re the scale (and usually obscure the errors associated with 1 above). To sumarize: ppm (milligrams per kilogram) expresses the mass of solute per mass of solvent. mg/L (milligrams per liter) expresses the mass of solute per volume of solvent. For all practical purposes in brewing, ppm and mg/L are equivalent because 1 liter of water weighs 0.997 kg (at 25C) and the amounts of salt added to or contained in brewing water (a couple of grams per liter at most) doesn't change the volume appreciably. Note that the situation is very different in wort with respect to dissolved sugar. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:51:09 -0800 From: "RANDY ERICKSON" <RANDYE at mid.org> Subject: Long Secondaries/Spent Grain Dog Bones Paul Masson, no wait, "Paul Hockings" <phocking at pacifier.com> wrote: >> I shall Dump No beer younger than a year... Sound advice, that. Advice that's repeated here from time to time, but not often enough. *************************************************** Drew Avis <Andrew.Avis.0519423 at nt.com>, hoping to sidestep the hop toxicity in dogs thread, offers the following recipe for dog treats: Pizza & Beer dog bones: 2 cups wet spent grain cup pizza/pasta sauce 4 cloves garlic, crushed (I added 6, but Finn is a garlic lover) 1 egg 2 cups of any combination of whole wheat flour, corn flour, barley flour, soy flour, or regular flour Uh, not to rain on your (or your dog's) parade, but aren't *tomatoes* harmful to dogs too? (Not that it ever stopped our GSD from eating them off the vine). I can't remember where I first heard this, but it's stuck in back the neurons, somewhere. Anyone know for sure? Randy in Modesto Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:00:08 -0800 (PST) From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com> Subject: re: Hop Plant Identification | Hop growers, | | I have 4 different plants in my yard. I know that one of them is a | Cascade, another a Perle. I seem to remember someone giving me an American | Hallertaur (Liberty?) and the last one is maybe a Tettanang or a Nugget, I | don't quite remember. | I need someone to suggest a good book, or text or something that | will help me identify these plants so that I can label them properly on a | site plan. I noticed *some* differences in grown pattern, leaf pattern, hop | size and color; so there must be a way to identify these for sure. Even the | two most prolific plants, the Cascade and the Perle, I'm now uncertain as | to which is which. (I think the Perle produced larger flowers and leaves?) I'd be very surprised if a book on Hop ID exists. But I can relay my experiences with these plants. Cascade has definitely been the most prolific in my experience (two different home-plots). So, if you have two plants that are are growing like crazy and you are pretty sure that the other one is Perle, then crush the cones in your fingers until you have yellow sticky stuff on your fingers (Yumm!!). There definitely is a difference between these two varieties. The Cascades should smell more like grapefruit or pine than the Perle. If the difference is not obvious, then you should buy some whole-hop versions of each from the homebrew store and compare the smells to your dried homegrown hops. If you think that Nugget is among the other two plants than the test is pretty simple: boil up some wort and taste it to see which one is more bitter. Nugget is a bittering hop and has like twice the bittering power (per weight) than the aromatic varieties. A carefully measured experiment should clearly demonstrate which is which. The Nugget should stand way out as very bitter by comparison. By the way, you must boil them in wort to test this; you cannot simply eat the hops to see which is more bitter; however, you do not need to ferment the result. If both of the remaining plants turn out to be aromatic hops, than the smell test that you used to differentiate Cascade from Perl should also work for identifying the distinctive smells of Tettnanger and Hallertauer. Though it may take some practice, you should be able to identify all of your hops by their smell. One of the most rewarding part of growing your own hops, to me, is that while working with them and getting hop oils all over your fingers, you should eventually be able to identify those smells that make each one unique. (Actually, you do not have to grow them to enjoy them in this way.) Then, when you are planning a brew, you can decide which taste/aroma you are after and choose your hop accordingly (rather than simply following someone's recipe). To me, Tettnanger has a wonderful spicy aroma that I haven't found in any other hop (maybe like nutmeg?). Cascades, to me, is more citrusy--like grapefruit. (I know, that's cliche; but it is true.) Goldings have an aroma that is all their own, but I cannot describe it in text. Some of the others are harder for me to identify. Obviously, I need more practice! Oh, man! I gotta get back to brewing--it's been a few months. ;-) -Alan Edwards, Fremont, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 09:20:58 -0800 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: Water Chemistry Question [snip] >Taking Greggs example of 1 gram of CaSO4 dissolved in 1 gallon of >distilled >H2O, I will first calculate the concentration Ca based on units of >mass. > >1 gal = 4.546 liters = 4546 ml (milliters) H2O > >assuming 1 ml H2O = 1 gram then, the mass of 1 gal of H2O is 4546 g >(4.546 kg). > >The molecular weight of CaSO4 is 136 g/mole (40 g for Ca and 96 g for >the SO4 molecule). Therefore the mass of Ca in one gram of CaSO4 is: > >1 g CaSO4 X (40 g Ca/ 136 g CaSO4) = 0.294 g Ca (or 294 mg). > >294 mg Ca dissolved in 4.546 kg H2O = 64.7 mg/kg, close to the 61 >"ppm" value quoted in texts. [snip] Stephen, I agree wholeheartedly with your discussion of the ppm versus mg/kg (and versus mg/L) issue, and share your views on _not_ using ppm in the texts. It's too bad that the misuse of the term 'ppm' is so prevalent. But I wanted to point out a couple of minor discrepancies in your calculations. Don't forget that CaSO4 is a hydrolyzed salt, containing 2 water molecules for each molecule of CaSO4, as found in the food grade version sold to brewers. This gives it a gram molecular weight of 172.168 g rather than the nonhydrolyzed weight of 136 that you stated. As an example on how it affects your mg/kg calculation, consider the following for Ca: 1 g CaSO4 * (40.08 g Ca / 172.168 g CaSO4) = 0.2328 g (or 232.8 mg) And, unless I am making a mistake (!), there are 3.78531 liters per US gallon, so without correction for the density of water at any particular temperature (assume 1.0 kg/L), the mg/kg calculation becomes: 232.8 mg / (3.78531 kg H20 + 0.0002328 kg Ca) = 61.50 mg/kg This is a _lot_ closer to the "typically published" value of 61 and is actually equal to the oft quoted mg/L concentration (not quite the same as mg/kg). If you really want to express the concentration as mg/kg as you suggest, consider that water weighs 0.99913 kg/L at 59 F (sufficiently close to the 60 F usually used when making accurate specific gravity measurements). In this case, you would multiply the liters by the density in kg/L to get kg of H2O first. The mg/kg calculation becomes: kg Sol'n = 3.78531 * 0.99913 kg H2O + 0.0002328 kg Ca = 3.78225 kg mg/kg Ca = 232.8 mg / 3.78225 kg Sol'n = 61.55 mg/kg In any case, you had the right idea, but just needed a couple of minor tune ups. The point that you were making is that 'ppm' in terms of molecular counts is NOT the same as 'ppm' mentioned in brewing texts, and that mg/kg should be the preferred measurement. I couldn't agree more! And I'd even go a step further and say that mg/kg should be used instead of mg/L too, but that's because of how water density varies with temperature, and is close to being an insigificant detail. Later, Brian Dixon Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:59:00 -0500 From: Michael Tucker <mrtucker at fayettevillenc.com> Subject: Worried or Not? Mead question.... Hi all, As you might remember, I am new to the list and have my first batch of mead in the works right now. Never tried the stuff, never even saw it from a home brewer or commercially. but, as a well read young man (well, I like to think so anyway) I knew of its place historically, and since I dabble in home brewing, I of course encountered mention of it in various places associated with that, yada, yada, yada. So, I thought I'd give it a whirl...... but, keep in mind I have no idea what it tastes like, smells like, or looks like, aside from half-educated guesswork. I do have a degree in microbiology, and I spent most of my undergrad time in biotech (a while ago, and I am since out of that line of work), I figure I can manage an "unknown" fermentation process. And.... since biology is so fascinating and anything can happen..... I'm not too worried yet.... but I am a bit worried- because of an abrupt change in the batch that I seemed to cause...... <whew- am I long winded or what???> Some background on the batch- 5 gallons total volume. I used about 15-16 lbs of honey. I basically followed the "generic" recipe in the book "Mad About Mead" by Pamela Spence. I don't have exact quantities of ingredients right in front of me, but i put in a bit of acid, a bit of yeast nutrient, a bit of tannin, and I made a starter with one packet of champagne yeast. Sanitized *everything* thoroughly and boiled the must, then put the must into 5 gal. plastic primary. Pitched my yeast. foamed like crazy day one- which I skimmed as suggested by the book. I let it sit in the primary- covered- for a week. then I racked it into a glass secondary, attached the fermentation lock, and it happily bubbled and gurgled actively for two weeks or so- I could see the tiny bubbles of CO2 fizzing away- everything looks normal so far. during this time, it also threw off about an inch and a half of sediment. OK- so far so good. the book suggests that you rack the mead off of the sediment once a month or so. OK- fine. I sanitized another carboy, racked the mead off of the sediment, topped it back off with a gallon or so of clean, sanitary spring water (also suggested by the book), repositioned my ferm lock, and nada. Nothing. no visible signs of life. No glubs from the ferm lock, nothing. the mead is clear, I can see through the stuff- a dark reddish golden color. I did taste it- I was disappointed in the flavor, but it didn't taste "sour" or "off" like it had been contaminated.... I figure it was still "raw" and needs time to mellow. I guess what has me worried is that moments before I racked it, it was bubbling away- one glub every 3 minutes of so. Moments after the transfer, nada. Its almost like i wiped out the wee beastie yeasties in toto. I can't believe that to be true- but that's what its like. Its now been two solid days since the transfer and still no signs of life. Let's just say I am concerned by the extreme change in behavior...... should I be worried? - -- Michael R. Tucker Fayetteville Observer-Times New Media Online Producer mrtucker at fayettevillenc.com work- http://www.fayettevillenc.com home- http://www.frii.com/~mtucker Tel. 910-609-0635 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:08:18 -0500 From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills at compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Chloramines Jim, <<jim booth, lansing, mi>> replied in private mail: <<Subject: chloramines I had heard that the garden variety carbon filter didn't remove chloramines. I got the 800 number for the suppliers of filters to Sears and called and talked to their tech people, who confirmed I'd have to use RO water to avoid chloramines. A year or so ago on the HBD, a gent who worked for a filter co posted that it took an especially processed type of carbon to filter chloramines. if you have better info, I'd appreciate your sharing such. I keep seeing postings that suggest ordinary carbon filters remove chloramines and I wonder if people really know. cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi>> My personal experience with carbon filters was only with chlorine on a small community water system (ie 45 homes on a common well). Your reply peaked my curiosity, so I did some web surfage to see what I might turn up on this. What I found was that chloramines are conspicuously absent from every manufacturer's list of chemicals that are effectively adsorbed by carbon filter media. There is more discussion about chloramines as a hazard to the aquarist and fishkeeping than anywhere else. Most of these discussions suggest use of certain chemicals to break the chlorine ammonia bond and then treat the two chemicals seperately. This may or may not be the best approach for the brewer. One could try using this "Ammo-Lock" stuff and then running the treated water through a carbon filter. Once the chlorine is seperated from the ammonia I think a carbon filter may be effective on both elements. A good water quality analysis before and after would indicate the effectiveness. As a rule of thumb, I'd imagine that any chemicals that are safe for the little fishies to *live* in should be safe to get into a beer, but what would they taste like? A few other things of note that I found on my surf... Some manufacturers claim the superiority of granulated carbon particle type filters due to the increase in surface area. The claim is that this allows faster adsorbtion of the evils allowing faster flow through. Predictably the Carbon block style filter manufacturers refute that claim stating that the granulated carbon allows a percentage of bacteria and/or spores that becomes trapped (and breed in the media) to pass through to the end user. That is why some granulated type filters use silver as a bacteriostatic element. The carbon block guys say that their 1/2 micron filter media doesn't allow passage of any cells, so the use of these bacteria reducing techniques is unnecesary. Another interesting item was that a company that sells both RO units and carbon filters had a chart indicating that RO and even distillation is not effective at removing organic chemicals like Chlorine and Chloramine! Hmmm... Much confusion on this subject. Glad I have a private well now... Fred Wills Londonderry, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 12:54:44 CST From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: Re: Lager Ferment times/Pints Nathan wondered in HBD #2644 about lager ferment times. My most recent lager started at 1.050 and after a week at 44F was at 1.013. This was using the sizable yeast cake from a previous lager. The previous lager used a very large starter that had been fed for about three weeks before pitching at 42-45F and finished within two weeks. It still had a good head of krausen after a week and was bubbling the airlock so was still active at that point. My previous experience has been two to three weeks for my lagers, although I have not done a lot of them. My yeast was Wyeast Czech Pils and was, as I mentioned, pitched below 45F and the ferment kept below 45F. The wort was also well oxygenated with O2. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In commenting on Kevin TenBrink's earlier comment on the sanctity of the pint, Dave Kerr wrote in HBD#2645: >British Imperial (20 oz.) or U.S. (16 oz.) pint? Just to further complicate things, the imperial pint is 20 imperial ounces while the US pint is 16 US ounces. The Imperial ounce is about .96 US ounces so the Imperial pint is about 19.27 US ounces. However, most of the UK beer I buy that is not in 12 US ounce bottles is in 16.9 US ounce or 1/2 liter bottles. Some are in 18 or so ounce bottles, though. I haven't figured that one out yet. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:28:36 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Where is Spencer? Before every brewer in the known universe writes to me, let me state clearly and up front: I am NOT at the University of Utah, even though my "bio" in the latest Brewing Techniques says that I am. This error crept in somehow, and was missed through at least two proofreading cycles. I am still at the University of Michigan and have no plans to leave. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:40:25 -0800 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: carbon filters Both Andrew Quinzani and MAB <mabrooks at erols.com> stated in HBD #2645 that using active carbon filters for brewing water is bad. >...anyone who >has a carbon filter (which removes chlorine) will always have a >bacterial population on the carbon media and in any piping that follows. I don't understand why this is a problem. The purpose of the filter, in brewing, is to remove chlorine and chloramines. If you introduce a little bit of bacteria, it shouldn't matter since the boil will take care of them. So, is there any other problems with carbon filters? Why would filtered water be harmful to yeast? - Bryan Bryan Gros gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website: http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:42:59 +1100 From: Rick Wood <thewoods at netpci.com> Subject: Re: Small-Scale Brewing Hello all, I would like to anounce to the digest a book which I have just purchased. It is a book called "Small-Scale Brewing" by Ilkka Sysila. I saw reverence to the book in RCB and sent an email to Ilkka. Within a day or two I had a response with detail of the book. I ordered the book and within two weeks had a copy. (This was remarkable as I live on Guam - quite a distance from Finland!) I am finding the book a very interesting addition to my library. Its focus, as the title sugests, is small scale commercial brewing. Although much of the focus is commercial brewing there is much of interest to the home brewer. Follows is an excerpt from an email I received from Ilkka: > When it comes to the book, "Small-Scale Brewing", it certainly > is written in English and I have the pleasure of offering it to > you delivered by mail. The price for a copy is 20$. > > Mailing option 1: Ordinary surface mail 6$ (postage 4,5$ + envelope 1,5$) > Total 26,00 $ > > Mailing option 2: 1st priority air mail 10$ (postage 8,5$ + envelope 1,5$) > TOTAL 30,00 $ > > Cheers > > Ilkka Sysila > Maneesikatu 3 D 28 > 00170 HELSINKI > FINLAND > email: isysila at clinet.fi Rick Wood Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:12:01 EST From: RedlackC at aol.com Subject: Re:Long Secondaries Paul n Shelley <pracko at earthlink.net> asks: <I don't get it. A LOT of recipies call for an initial 5-10 primary <fermentation and then for a lengthier fermentation in a secondary. <Following this, the recipes usually call for packaging and priming with <corn sugar. What I don't understand, and have NEVER been able to <achieve, is successful natural carbonation of a beer after it has been <in a primary and/or secondary for longer than about two weeks. Usually <the yeast has completely autolysed by this point and can no longer <reproduce due to the alcohol content. Has anyone been successful at <bottle conditioning their beers after a long (14-20 day) fermentation <without use of additional yeast? Why do recipes call for such a lengthy <secondary fermentation when corn sugar is being used as a primer? I can <see the benefits of conditioning a beer in the secondary for a long <time, but that's only if you have a CO2 tank to force carbonate it with. Paul, I have two suggestions. Make sure that you are using corn sugar instead of malt extract when priming. I have found that corn sugar is more reliable. Secondly, try increasing the amount of corn sugar that you are pitching. I usually ferment most of my ales for 3-5 weeks before kegging or bottling so I'm accustomed to long secondary fermentations. When I bottle I use nearly a full cup of corn sugar and when I keg I use a heaping half cup. For a long period of time my kegs were not carbonating and I suspected that I had a leak in my system. However after increasing the amount of corn sugar from 1/3 cup (the recomended amount in most texts for kegging) to over 1/2 cup I have yet to encounter an uncarbonated batch. Good luck, Chris Redlack Rockville, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:47:47 -0800 From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net> Subject: Salt Additiions: Do or Don't? I have a few questins while we are on the topic of water chemistry and salt addition. 1) When do you add salt additions: to the gross brewing water volume (this is the final beer volume plus extra water to account for any losses in the brewing process), to the mash tun, to the boil kettle? 2) If you add salts to the gross brewing water volume some salts will not readily dissolve until lactic acid is added. Is this normal, or am I doing something wrong? 3) Are the salts added primarily to pre-adjust the mash pH, or for flavor effects in the finished beer? Seems as if the types/amounts of salts needed would then be a function of what your objectives are. If you just want to alter mash pH, then the famous brewing water profiles commonly found in homebrewing texts may not be very useful. 4) I have been calculating my salt additions based on the gross water volume, and adding them there. Like I mentioned above, some salts do not readily dissolve, but I add this water to the mash tun anyway. The remainder of the water is used for sparging, which is acidified with lactic acid, after which the mineral salts dissolve. What happens to the undissolved salts that are added to dough in the grist? Do they dissolve once the mash pH is adjusted, or do they somehow get 'trapped' in the grain bed? 5) Once you add the salts, and you then have to add more salts to adjust the mash pH, what happens then? Do you run the risk of adding too much of the wrong kinds of minerals? 6) Are calculating salt additions worth the time and effort? Or is it just easier, and produces the same outcome, to ignore salt additions/calculations and adjust the mash pH with lactic acid to lower the pH, and use calcium carbonate to increase the pH? I am sure most of us have read that the Bavarians originally could not brew Pilsners because when they mashed with lightly kilned malts and added their hard water (hard when compared to Pilzen) to the grist the resulting mash pH was not enzyme friendly. Perhaps designing mineral salt recipes based on the composition of the grist is more appropiate? i.e. darker malts generally lower the mash pH, design water recipes the account for this... Doesn't Daniels in his book DGB suggest that the mash pH will be lowered by 0.2 for every 10% of dark malts that comprise the grist? This topic is very confusing to me (not surprising, most things confuse me). There is very good treatment in homebrewing books concerning what types of salts to use, how much to use, etc., but explanations for my questions above have been lacking. Please step in here and fill in the blanks.. anyone, anyone, Mr. Buehler? Kyle Druey Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/26/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96