HOMEBREW Digest #2665 Thu 19 March 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

  Priming, Chill Haze, Saltiness (Kirk Lund)
  Berliner Weiss, ("David R. Burley")
  Can Beer Fight Cancer? ("David Russell")
  Overmodified malts (Norman Odette)
  Re: All-grain to extract conversions (brian_dixon)
  half/half, filtering, chlorine, O2 caps, protein (Samuel Mize)
  [ANNOUNCE] New toys in my recipe calculator. (Joseph S. Sellinger (R))
  BLUEBONNET BREW-OFF -- meeting plan (Samuel Mize)
  sanitising O2-absorbing bottlecaps (Al Korzonas)
  Phase Contrast (AJ)
  Be careful, don't drown kitty! (Mark Berman)
  brett, food safe (by way of Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>)
  first partial mash questions (Adam Holmes)
  rice syrup ("David Hill")
  Re: Bleach and SS/Lactic acid (Chris North)
  pH msytery solved ("Frederick L. Pauly")
  re: hop prices ("Michel J. Brown")
  re: Axe Grinding ("Michel J. Brown")
  re: Big Brew '98 ("Michel J. Brown")
  spicy-assed mudbugs (bthumm)
  VICTORY India Pale Ale ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
  foam control & aeration (Domenick Venezia)
  Re: microscope equipment..... (Joe Rolfe)
  Extract attenuation ("Hans E. Hansen")
  Cajun cooking (Charles Hudak)

Be sure to enter the 7th NYC Spring Regional Competition 3/22/98. Surf to http://www.wp.com/hosi/companno.html for more information... 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, 17 Mar 1998 11:27:23 -0600 From: Kirk Lund <klund at technologist.com> Subject: Priming, Chill Haze, Saltiness 1) Several batches back while bottling, I followed the advice of one my books (Dave Miller's?) and poured the hot sugar water in the bottom of my bottling bucket. I then racked the beer from secondary onto it and bottled without stirring. Basically, I read in the book that stirring needlessly increases the risk of oxidation and that you should simply rack the beer on top of the priming sugar since that will (supposedly) mix the sugar sufficiently. That particular batch resulted in half the bottles overcarbonated and half that are flat, so I've gone back to stirring. Any opinions, personal experiences, etc. regarding stirring vs not stirring when priming? Before moving on to my next two problems, let give some more background. I discovered (much to my irritation) that my first four all grain batches were mashed too hot. I had been using the simple floating thermometer that I'd been using for general brewing purposes ever since 1994. Some of the alcohol had separated in the thermometer. Having compared it to my new assortment of thermometers including one calibration therm., it appears that my old therm. reads about 10 F too low! Now how do you suppose I actually got conversion... (I knew that I was mashing too hot because my final gravities were too high). 2) I recently moved to all grain batches and have just completed my 7th one. The first four batches are now bottled. Two are stouts, the other two are a Dubbel and an IPA. Both of these latter two beers have chill haze. Prior to going all grain, I was doing partial mash batches with approx. 4 lbs. of grain and never experienced chill haze. Not that I'm overly concerned about it, but I am still curious why it's occuring. My method involved mashing in at sugar rest (~153 F according to the faulty therm.) holding for an hour and raising temp up to mash out. IE no protein rest. Any ideas? Can overly high mash or mash-out temp contribute to this? 3) Another strange characteristic of that Dubbel and IPA is some sort of flavor that my mouth seems to interpret as saltiness, or at least very similar to saltiness. Others who try those beers don't relate the flavor to salt. I used Reverse Osmosis water and added 1 tsp yeast nutrient, 1/4 tsp Calcium Chloride (to adjust mash pH). The sparge water was only treated with a few drops of Phosphoric Acid to adjust the pH. Surely 1/4 tsp of Ca Chloride isn't enough to produce a salty effect! Is it possible that what I'm detecting is grain astringency (due to the hot mashing temps)? How do other people interpret the description of "puckering" as described in books? I'm not sure I know what this effect would be like... Thanks for any useful feedback or opinions! Good Cheer, Home: kirklund at home.com Work: klund at technologist.com http://members.home.net/kirklund/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:46:02 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Berliner Weiss, Brewsters: I received this post from Tom Briden which I copy here. It remarkably substantiates everyone's observations. Mine of no delbruckii or brettanomyces in the BWs I tasted in Berlin and George DePiro and Spencer Thomas' observation of a Brett taste at least in some BWs. >Just as a note to your HBD post, >We (my brew partner and myself) brewed a Berliner Weisse last year from >a culture obtained from the VLB in Berlin. It is the banked culture of >the Schultheiss brewery, and contains numerous organisms, including a >saccharomyces, lactobacillus delbruecki, and a brettanomyces strain. The >culture arrived in four slants to separate the acidic strains from the >non-acidic ones. According to Dr. Zufall (our VLB contact), the >Schultheiss culture is the traditional culture used for brewing BW, and >that the Brett character is desirable and should become more pronounced >as the beer ages (BW can supposedly be aged up to 25 years). The Kindl >brewery uses two blended beers, one fermented with ale yeast, one >fermented with pure Lacto. delb., which is considered by connoseurs to >produce a harsher and less complex product. So yes, brettanomyces is >appropriate in a Berliner Weisse. >By the way, if you feel that this information is useful to the >collective, feel free to post it to the HBD. Thanks Tom - ----------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:05:07 -0500 From: "David Russell" <drussel3 at ford.com> Subject: Can Beer Fight Cancer? This is from a Yahoo Health News story, sorry for the length. Another health benefit of beer. Monday March 16 6:20 PM EST NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The hops used to flavor and preserve beer appear to be toxic to some cancer cells, according to researchers at Oregon State University (OSU). The hops contain antioxidant compounds called flavonoids. When applied to different types of cancer cells in laboratory dishes, one particular flavonoid -- xanthohumol -- was toxic to cancer cells. "We treated human breast, colon, and ovarian cells that were cancerous with concentrations (of flavonoids) that were not harmful to normal cells and found that some of the hops flavonoids were toxic to cancer cells," said Donald Buhler, an agricultural chemist with OSU's Agricultural Experiment Station. In one experiment, the researchers found that the flavonoids inhibited cytochrome P450, an enzyme that plays a role in cancer development. And a second experiment in mouse cells showed that the flavonoids enhanced quinone reductase, an enzyme that detoxifies potential carcinogens. The findings were presented at the recent International Society of Toxicology meeting in Seattle, Washington. The researchers are planning additional studies and caution that their conclusions do not encourage excessive beer consumption. "Obviously, there's a down side to drinking," said Buhler. "It might be possible to find a way to get (the flavonoids) to people in capsules or some other concentrated form," he said. The study was funded by the Hop Research Council, the Medical Research Foundation of Oregon, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the US Department of Agriculture, and OSU's Environmental Health Sciences Center. - -- David Russell drussel3 at ford.com Plymouth, MI Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:14:45 -0800 From: Norman Odette <nodette at earthlink.net> Subject: Overmodified malts In HBD #2663, George De Piro complains about Marris Otter Malt being overmodified. I just finished my third batch of pale ale from a sack of Hugh Baird & Sons Pale Ale Malt that the retailer swore was Marris Otter, and I also have had below normal yields. I ran the last batch through the mill thice and got a some what finer crush than normal, but was still 6 points below target even though I added slightly more grain than my recipe called for. I measured the Hugh Baird malt and found the grains, with hulls to be between 5/16 to 3/8 inch with a lot of broken and very small, discolored pieces. Just to compare, samples of Briess pale ale malt were 3/8 to 13/32 inch in lenght and half again (scientific term) as plump. In the fermentor, big masses of fluffy material 1" in diameter are floating all through the fermenting beer. The last batches turned out all right, but slightly lower in OG than I'd expected. I've used Marris Otter before, but never noticed anything amiss. This Malt, if it is Marris Otter, sure isn't anything to brag about. Norm Daggett Brewing and Lawn Care Co. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 10:35:12 -0800 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: All-grain to extract conversions >This has probably been discussed before but how about one more time >for me . > . . . > >What is the conversion ratio so I can figure out how to adapt an >all-grain >recipe to an extract recipe? All responses much appreciated! > >Cliff Hicks >simtech at ka.net Cliff, Unfortunately, performing a proper conversion is not quite that straight forward, unless you want to brew and tune many times to get the recipe straight (from a flavor and color perspective). Also, if there is a change in boil volume between how the extract brew is to be brewed versus the full-volume boil used for the all-grain version, you'll need to adjust hop charges too. First, I'll mention the information and method you'd want to use if you really wanted to go for maximum accuracy in your conversion (usually not possible). Here's the information you need: - The yields of each component of the all-grain recipe, as derived in the mash used by the original brewer (base malt, specialty grains, adjuncts) - The yields of extracts that you intend to use, and the yields of steeped specialty grains (using your steeping method), and the yields of any adjuncts (utilized the way you intend to utilize them). - Boil volume and time for the all-grain version, intended boil volume and time for the extract version. - Miscellaneous info such as the yeast type and starter size, fermentation schedule and what not. Before moving on to the promised method, note that anyone can guess by the above statements that there are many opportunities for discussion about what I've just stated above. Most of these will center around exactly what products end up in the brew from the various extraction methods and whether or not they are the same (largely unstudied in this world) and the expected affect of the different brewing techniques. Ok, so the method would be to first find the contribution, in terms of points, from each of the ingredients in the original brew. Then to determine how much of the ingredients in the extract recipe should be used to produce this same number of points in the converted recipe (noting of course that in spite of matching points, flavor and color will still vary as compared to the original because of all the other variables involved). That should give you as best a starting point as you can expect for a first conversion brew. After that you'll want to do side by side taste testing and fine tuning of the conversion as appropriate. The only thing left to do now would be to make sure you are getting equivalent extract from your hops, and to reproduce as closely as possible the original brewer's fermentation technique and schedule (yeast, amount of yeast, method of aeration, temperature schedule, yadda yadda yadda ... variations here will have an affect also, and yes, I know that nearly 100% of the time you just don't have all the pertinent info). Hop conversion is simply done by comparing the hop utilization in the full-volume boil to that in the partial boil that you intend to use, if you are using one. If the extract brew will use a full volume boil, then there's no reason to mess with the hop charge amounts. Anyway, assuming the utilizations are different, then just calculate the ratio and adjust the hops appropriately. For example, if the utilization in the full-boil is 25% and the partial boil is 20%, then you would use 1.25 times the hops in the partial boil (found by dividing 25% by 20%). This will produce the same amount of extract for your brew. So, with all that said (and a lot more _could_ be said), let me state that a more realistic technique would be to use the all-grain brewer's extract efficiency as a guide for determining the individual contributions stated above. Since this could be confusing, let me work through a _very_ simple example conversion: Given a 5-gallon recipe that has 7 lbs 2-row, and 1 lb 40L Crystal, and an original gravity of 1.046. Let's convert to an extract recipe based on liquid malt extract (only) and steeped Crystal-40. (The hop conversion is straight forward and I won't bore you with that any further). 1) There are 230 pts in the recipe (5 gallons times 46 specific gravity points). 2) If the brewer had gotten the max. number of points theoretically possible, he'd have had 293 pts in the recipe (7 lbs times 37 pts/lb for 2-row, plus 34 pts for the lb of crystal-40). 3) The brewer's extraction efficiency is then 78.5% (found by dividing 230 by 293). 4) The actual contribution from the 2-row base malt would then be 203.3 points. This is from 7 lbs (of 2-row) times 37 pts/lb (max. possible) times 0.785 (efficiency). You'll use a pale malt extract to provide these points in your conversion. 5) The actual contribution from the crystal malt would be 26.7 pts. This is from 34 pts (max. possible) times 0.785 (efficiency). Note that the total points adds to 230 pts as expected for 1.046 wort. 6) The amount of base malt needed would be 5.5 lbs. This is found by dividing the 203.3 pts provided by the original base malt by an assumed 37 pts/lb for liquid malt extract (check manufacturer's data for a more accurate number for your choice of extract). 7) Assuming a steeping yield of 25 pts/lb for the crystal-40, using your steeping method, the amount of 40L Crystal you'd use in the converted recipe would be 1 lb and 1 oz (1.07 lbs). This is found by dividing the actual points provided by this malt in the original recipe by the pts/lb of the malt when steeped, or 26.7 / 25. So that's the basic technique. But note that not all grains steep equally, so be sure to use proper yields for each individual malt. The best way to find these values is to buy some grain and to steep it. That'll tell you what your system provides. What we don't know here is how the various malts yield individually in a _mash_. To date, I am not aware of any work being done in this area to determine this info. Anyone in HBD-land know of data on this topic? Good luck, Brian Dixon Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:30:03 -0600 (CST) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: half/half, filtering, chlorine, O2 caps, protein Greetings to all, and especially to: >From: DGofus <DGofus at aol.com> >Subject: Half and Half (Bob Fesmire) > >I am wondering if the stouts and ales or lagers that we brew as homebrewers >can be made as half and halfs. Can they be mixed? Sure. Can you do a single recipe that will taste like a half-n-half? Sure, something like a porter -- which was developed as a one-pour substitute for pouring together darker and lighter beers. - - - - - >From: Charles Peterson <chasp at digex.net> >Subject: Homebrew Filtering > >I also had a strange occurance with my filtered beers. They seemed to >overcarbonate. ... (note: I would filter 90% of >the bottled volume and reserve 10% of it unfiltered to provide the yeast >necessary for bottle conditioning). Here's a wild guess for the microbiologists to confirm or deny. Normally, there are already plenty of yeast, so they don't try to multiply, they just ferment the sugar. With 90% filtered, the population would be sparse, so they'd tend to reproduce. Does that make any sense? - - - - - >From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com >Subject: Chlorine removal > > I have only detected obvious chlorophenols (the kind that smell like a > swimming pool) once in homebrewed beer Wouldn't that be free chlorine? Chlorophenols give a plastic or medicine taste. I thought that was the risk with chlorine in brewing water. That's certainly the taste I eliminated with an activated-charcoal filter. - - - - - >From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hhanghof at netbeer.co.at> >Subject: Re: yeast storage / priming and FAN > >IMHO Dave's "controversial" priming method should be discussed in a >serious and constructive way and not being pilloried on web pages. I had the impression that Al and he HAD discussed it, and "agreed to disagree." Al was saying he should put his side on a web page, instead of reiterating it all on HBD again every time Dave mentions it. - - - - - >From: Ted Chilcoat <tedc at xcaliber.com> >Subject: Sanitizing O2 Barrier Caps > >I read the comments that Al K. made about this. > >Wouldn't it be just as easy to give the cap a quick swab >with a cotton ball dipped in grain alcohol and then cap the >beer? This way you wouldn't have to worry about getting >bleach or idophore solution into the product. I had understood that grain alcohol has a longer contact time than that. We always expect it to be a fast sanitizer because of the medical use of isopropyl alcohol. Also, it's flammable, and breathing the fumes may get you woozy enough to do a poor job of capping. - - - - - >From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com >Subject: Protein rests and break material/overmodified malts from M&F > It seems that the common homebrew book notion that protein rests are > good for reducing chill haze is not correct. Kunze talks about how it > is the degradation products of high molecular weight proteins that > cause haze. Doing a protein rest will actually increase haze > potential! Aren't the degradation products of high-weight proteins smaller proteins? Doesn't the protein rest break THEM up too? I really don't know, I'm asking for background info here. Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Multi-part MIME message: " ", " ", " " (hands waving) Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:41:54 -0500 From: jselling at ford.com (Joseph S. Sellinger (R)) Subject: [ANNOUNCE] New toys in my recipe calculator. Hey hbd I have some new beer toys. Check it out. http://www.jrock.com/recipe_calc I have just recently added a much faster method of entering recipes. I just added a better indexing structure. You can now see what percent of the grain in the recipe needs to be mashed. 0% is an all extract brew. 0-50% are partial mash recipes.50-100% are all grain. There may be exceptions to this rule but this is fairly close. I have also added a couple more index points. The color of the final product and a link to the authors web page. All I think very useful. I have also done some minor house cleaning. Little things like notes and prompts. You might notice if you add a recipe. Another thing... I have a mailing list for my recipe calculator. Please join it. I am the only person that sends things to the list. You may get one or two email messages a month for it. I only currently use the list to announce changes. Again Please join the list. Thanks for your time. Joe Sellinger Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:36:50 -0600 (CST) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: BLUEBONNET BREW-OFF -- meeting plan Greetings to all. There was no objection raised, so the plan to meet at the Bluebonnet Brew-Off is to get together after Greg Noonan's talk Saturday morning on Scotish Ales. I'll be outside whatever room that's in, at 10:30 (when it ends). I'll be wearing a blue windbreaker that says "Team Pegasus." We may be able to stay together for the pub crawl. I look forward to seeing as many as possible there! Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Multi-part MIME message: " ", " ", " " (hands waving) Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:57:55 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: sanitising O2-absorbing bottlecaps Ted writes: >Wouldn't it be just as easy to give the cap a quick swab >with a cotton ball dipped in grain alcohol and then cap the >beer? This way you wouldn't have to worry about getting >bleach or iodophor solution into the product. Not a bad idea, but the snag is that the contact time for sanitising with 70% alcohol (better than 100%, incidentally) is 15 minutes. Bleach solution contact time is also 15 minutes. I've seen everything from 1 minute to 15 minutes for iodophor, so I usually use 15 minutes for fermenters, hoses, airlocks, etc. whereas I use 1 minute for oxygen-absorbing bottlecaps because once they are wet, they begin absorbing oxygen, so the meter is running. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:03:46 -0500 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Phase Contrast RE: some comments on phase contrast vs. brightfield microscopes I made recently. Last night I did a viability check on some yeast from my last batch and, with the post in mind, looked at the cells with brightfield as well as phase contrast at 400X. Phase contrast may make things a little easier to see but the vacuoles were plainly visible with brightfield as well. Based on last night's experience I'd relegate phase contrast to "nice to have" status but definitely not necessary. I've also checked the Edmund catalog. They have 400X "Student" 'scopes for $210. "Laboratory Biological" 400X scopes for $275; 1000X "Laboratory" scopes with mechanical stage (i.e. you turn knobs to position the slide rather than sliding manually under some clips) for $595 and a binocular version of the "Lab" scope for $695. I have no idea as to the quality of these. They are made overseas to Edmunds specs. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:38:19 -0500 From: Mark Berman <mberman at bbn.com> Subject: Be careful, don't drown kitty! AJ (and several others who sent private e-mail) points out the problem with my kitty bowl sparge control technique. Unless I'm maintaining an air-tight HLT, the proposed technique will simply transfer the entire contents of the HLT directly into the sparge vessel. Oh well, I'll just go back to the "pour in another potful" sparge method for now. (If we weren't all friends here, this would be kind of embarrassing for someone who makes his living as a scientist.) > >If I'm picturing the kitty gadget correctly it works the way a water >cooler does i.e. when the water level in the bowl gets low enough that >the mouth of the bottle is above the surface of the water air can enter >the bottle and does so causing water to run out. After the water rises >to the point where the mouth is sealed again water continues to flow >until the pressure at the top of the bottle plus the hydrostatic head >equals atmospheric pressure and flow stops. If you cut the top off the >bottle, the water would all run out as there would be pressure >differential between the top and bottom of the water column to support >it. Mark Berman Somerville, MA berman at banet.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:06:29 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> (by way of Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>) Subject: brett, food safe First off the discussion of brett in weisse has me bugged. So first I'll say that in more than one of the references I have on brettanomyces there is mention of it's use in berliner weiss. Also in BT Vol 4 No. 3 in the article by Brian Nummer there is a reference that as I recall talks about brett in berliner wiesse and finally: >From the Lambic digest >Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 21:36:04 -0500 (CDT) >From: BAN5845 at tntech.edu >Subject: Brian Nummer returns >I have returned! After a little more than a month in Germany and nearly >40 brewpubs I am exhausted so I'll offer only a brief report. I searched >Germany for Lambic breweries and didn't find any. SO I guess that's all >I can write here :-). It is the lambic digest, right? Actually I will >offer this tidbit: >After visiting nearly 40 brewpubs I have found that there exists so really >nice brewers and some really *\)$ at & brewers. At one brewpub in >Dusseldorf I stayed 6 hours as the brewer fed me beer and could not stop >talking. At another the brewer asked me "just who ARE you?". I say this >for those of you visiting breweries. Search out the brewer and don't be >intimidated by the snobby "Diplom Braumeister". >Well, more about the one nice brewer. It turns out he has worked at both >the Berliner Kindl and Schultheiss breweries. We talked at length about >Berliner weiss beers and the differences between the two beers. It seems >we struck up a friendship and I think I talked him into visiting the US >I almost forgot... Schultheiss uses a Berliner ale yeast and Lactobacillus >as expected, but they also use Brett brux. ^^^^^^^^^^ George DePiro gripes about crappy malt. Well welcome to the consumer activist club. Unfortunately there is no one looking out for the little guys. Getting malt analysis is tough. I recently got some Czech malt and the spec sheet was largely blank except for a listing for the kolbach index. No organization is going to act as a Ralph nader for us. We have to do it ourselves. Hops are another fine example. There are no hop varietal labeling regs. As long as they are hops the seller can call them what ever variety they want. Fuggle as tettnager for example. and of course we have the issue of yeast and producers who mislabel the packages as something they are not. Or saying there is a lot more yeast in the package than there really is. And until we as consumer start demanding things nothing will change. Harass the wholesalers, call the USDA and the FDA. The various hop brokers have web pages. Send them e-mail demanding they enforce a voluntary varietal labeling program. It's insane the discussions that occur here about water chemistry yet we don't DEMAND the same tech specs on all out other ingredients. duh. Then there is the issue of "food safe". This subject has come up a few time lately and I thought I'd add a few things. When we talk about safe for food use we fail to ask "for what food" and "under what conditions" . The Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html) has the info on materials that are safe for use with food and under what conditions. Also the FDA (fda.gov) site has info on how these regs are developed. Here is the info on types of food: TABLE 3TYPES OF FOOD I. Nonacid (pH above 5.0), aqueous products; may contain salt or sugar or both, and including oil-in-water emulsions of low- or high-fat content. II. Acidic (pH 5.0 or below), aqueous products; may contain salt or sugar or both, and including oil-in-water emulsions of low- or high-fat content. III. Aqueous, acid or nonacid products containing free oil or fat; may contain salt, and including water-in-oil emulsions of low- or high-fat content. IV. Dairy products and modifications: A. Water-in-oil emulsions, high- or low-fat. B. Oil-in-water emulsions, high- or low-fat. V. Low-moisture fats and oils. VI. Beverages: A. Containing alcohol. B. Nonalcoholic. VII. Bakery products. VIII. Dry solids (no end-test required). There is also info on conditions for testing material with each food. The info I am referring to is plastics in food use. 21CFR177. So it depends on what food you are talking about under what conditions wrt whether the material is "food safe" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:58:21 -0700 (MST) From: Adam Holmes <adamholm at holly.ColoState.EDU> Subject: first partial mash questions I was going to try my first partial mash recipe. I think it will be a good opportunity to try out the process of all-grain brewing without getting much more equipment. I'll get grains crushed by someone else. I'll use the techniques described in Dave Miller's "Brwwing the World's Greatest Beers". My question is: What kind of an improvement or difference should I see using partial mash versus all-extract? Is a partial mash only good as a learning tool before going all-grain or will it truly improve my extract recipes (just like step culuturing yeast or doing full boils improves extract recipes). Let me know how your experiences with partial mashes improved your beer (or perhaps made it worse). Private e-mail OK. Adam Holmes Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:15:45 +1000 From: "David Hill" <davidh at melbpc.org.au> Subject: rice syrup I have just discovered that the local health food store sells a rice syrup product as a substitute for honey. specifically for those on a gluten free diet. Does anyone in the collective know...... 1....... whether this stuff is fermentable? 2........should it be added to beer? 3....... what is the malting process where by rice starch is converted to sugar. TIA - -- David Hill :-)> David Hill. davidh at melbpc.org.au :-)> Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:11:32 +0000 From: Chris North <chrisn at infohwy.com> Subject: Re: Bleach and SS/Lactic acid Mike Spinelli Wrote: >HBDers, >Can someone out there (like John Palmer) tell us the real poop >on how really bad bleach is to SS and other metals? > >I know all the "books" say bleach is a no-no, but I've also heard >that bleach is OK when the contact time is kept to a minimum >and the solution is weak. I've been submersing my copper helical >coil heat exchanger CF chiller in bleach water for about 5-10 mins. >prior to use. Am I wreckin' it? Well, I'm not a John Palmer, but I play a metallurgist at work ;^) Anyway, Bleach is a No-No with stainless steel because the chlorides tend to undermind the chromium oxide that gives the SS its corrosion resistance. With low concentrations and short contact times, you _might_ get away with using bleach in contact with stainless steel. But, then again, you might not. IF you rinse well and prevent long term contact, and keep the temperature low, you might not ever experience a problem. But then again, problems may occur and pitting is only the first observable signs. Now, the attack of chlorides towards SS is fairly specific. Chlorides increase the attack on other steels because iron cloride (actually ferric chloride) is water soluable where iron oxide (rust) is not. With copper, I do not think you have the same problem. Copper cloride (cupric chloride) may form, but this has a definite green tint and would be obvious. If your copper has a dull brown color, then it is oxidized, or tarnished. If it is bright redddish-orange, then it is clean. A acidic solution (such as boiled wort) is naturally acidic, so typically you will see your wort cooler bright when you remove it from the wort, but this will quickly oxidize (on the surface) during storage. I have never heard of a problem with the small amount of copper that dissolves in the wort from the oxidized copper surface of the wort cooler, but this question does surface on the HBD from time to time (as does botulism). I don't think you have a problem with your copper wort cooler, but you could have one if you used bleach with your stainless brewpot. Chris North | I always think I'm right although I know that | Metallurgist | I must be wrong sometimes, I think. | Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:36:25 -0500 From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m at avery.med.virginia.edu> Subject: pH msytery solved In post #2653 I asked for help in solving a pH msytery where my tap water had a very low pH ( plus some other mysteries). I use "colorpHast" strips and in the small print it says that in weakly-buffered solutions the color change may take up to 10 minutes. When I left the strip in the water for 10-15 minutes I got a color indicating close to 7 for my boiled and cooled tap water. I have not yet repeated my mini mashes to check for slow changes. I just wanted to pass this info along incase others out there might be missusing these strips. rick Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:55:27 -0800 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: re: hop prices > >>Michel Brown writes: >>This just in from the local University extension office: > >>"A worldwide glut of hops has driven prices so low that some Northwest >>growers say they might not string up their vines this year. "We've got a >>poor market, and acres are going to come out this year, that is for sure'" > >If this is true, howcome prices on hops haven't fallen any for consumers? > That's the easy part -- HIGHER PROFITS! > >If they have, why aren't beer prices lower? > That's the tough one -- bull market economy coupled with low supply side prices make for higher dividends to investors so that consumer prices remain flat. Same results, different etiologies. These are the facts, do what you will with them. Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. homemade at spiritone.com http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.shtml "In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind" L. Pasteur Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:29:16 -0800 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: re: Axe Grinding >Don't even get me started on the fact that ol' Bob shows insensitivity by not offering the >wrenches rating in kilograms! Correct me if i'm wrong (which is frequent enough), but shouldn't that be in Newton-Meters :-) Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. homemade at spiritone.com http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.shtml "In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind" L. Pasteur Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:08:36 -0800 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: re: Big Brew '98 >Because of their support, there's is no cost to homebrewers to participate in Big Brew '98. So I assume that the AHA picks up the tab for the ingredients, or did I miss something fundemental here (again). I don't mind buying the ingredients, as I buy my grain by the 100# load, so that's not an isue for me :^) Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. homemade at spiritone.com http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.shtml "In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind" L. Pasteur Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 08:40:01 CST From: bthumm at entergy.com Subject: spicy-assed mudbugs >Bodie in #2662 mentions how IPAs and spicy-assed >mudbugs go so well together. >Can you south'nas enlighten me as to what >this creature is? >Thanks >Mike Mudbugs are crawfish. Little shrimp/lobster looking things whose tails are used in a multitude of recipes, notably in dishes like crawfish pie and crawfish etouffe. This time of year, especially, large parties are centered around boiled crawfish. The crawfish are boiled (whole) in huge batches (several hundred pounds at a time) with a good amount of spice in the water. The crawfish are dumped out on tables, and people gather around to drink beer and eat the crawfish right out of the shells. Most people pull the meat out of the tail with their teeth, but one must not forget the yummy stuff (guts) in the main body of the mudbug. Suck the head ... squeeze the tip! Brian Thumm Baton Rouge, LA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:12:44 -0600 From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu> Subject: VICTORY India Pale Ale HBD'ers: I tasted Victory IPA for the first time last night. Let me tell you, this beer is great. I realize that many of you cannot get your hands on this beer for various reasons. Let me try to tell you how it tastes. Imagine getting deluged with hop bitterness and aroma for the first thirty seconds after sipping. Then, very rapidly in my case, this sensation goes away. What happens for the next minute is very perplexing indeed. A sensation of tartness/light sourness steadily builds until it reaches a most pleasing, lasting level. I personally love tartness, so the end of the bottle was reached in small sips to achieve the desired effect. Even so, a single 12 oz. bottle is not enough. Great work Jim Busch, and keep it up. (You would think that since I can compress all of the files on my hard drive, someone would have developed a way to compress liquids. Where do all of my tax dollars go? :-)) I described the effect to another person like this: There is a commercial for a kids pasta where the father tells the son "put a little bit of sauce, then a little bit of cheese" into each can. Quickly, the kid decides a little isn't enough and his mantra changes to "a little bit of sauce, a lotta bit of cheese." Using this metaphor, Victory puts "a little bit of malt, a lotta bit of hops" in this beer. (Don't let me fool you, this beer has more body than any other commerical beer I have tasted) Just an unsolicited product evaluation. I wish I could brew this well. Jeff Jeff Kenton Ames, Iowa jkenton at iastate.edu brewer at iastate.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:13:44 -0800 (PST) From: Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: foam control & aeration "Spies, James" <Jams at mlis.state.md.us> >I used to regularly use this in my beers ... >... One final note - if you oxygenate using a stone, USE >THIS STUFF. Adding it to the wort beforehand allows you to literally >blast the hell out of the beer with O2 for as long as you want without >having foam mountains rise out of the wort. Greetings, Thanks to Jay for the information regarding "foam control". I emailed HopTech and asked what was in this product and recieved a non-informative reply. Does anyone know what the active ingredient is and how it works? Finally a short reminder to all that A.J. deLange (Wed, 3 Jan 1996) showed that aeration with a stone and gentle swirling will bring 2.5 gallons of water to 98% O2 saturation in 8 minutes, and 92% in 6 minutes. Domenick Venezia demonick at zgi.antispam.com (remove .antispam) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:52:55 -0500 (EST) From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net> Subject: Re: microscope equipment..... AJ - you missed some things in equipment list - i think..... the counting chamber (hemocytometer - about 100 bucks) a good (accurate) pipet and test tubes. (maybe 50buck) the methods for use are specified in a number of publications. in using a microscope, i found that after a while of training the eye, you could quickly "see unwanted visitors". upon first peeks your gonna see all kinds of crap. there are stains thast will help isolate these as well. the scope i had was a piece o crap, and the back lighting sucked badly, but was good enuff for most operations i had to perform. true that to really see the "guts" you need phase contrast, but with a proper mblue "concoction" (an acid/water dilution added - i think) you can see some of the bigger guts (the vacuole/cell wall). these are a big indicator of general overall health. although i used mblue to determine viability, it really is a quick and dirty method, depending on how old the yeast is and from what i had seen even strain dependent, you could get mixed results. there are other stains that had been reported to work "better", - never tried them (the red to be specific). a method that i learned whilst at siebels was a plating method (palmer if my memory serves). you need some lab equipment to do it and it does take longer to get the results, but was more exact as to viability than mblue. if your looking for bugs and you see them under the scope - your generally screwed - if the ones you really are seeing are wort/beer spoilers. when get to the point where you cant find these bugs anymore, then switch to differential medias. good luck joe rolfe Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 09:54:28 From: "Hans E. Hansen" <hansh at teleport.com> Subject: Extract attenuation Does anyone have any information on the comparitive attenuation characteristics of the different brands of extract? i.e. - which will make a thinner or richer brew? I know Laaglanders tends to finish with a higher gravity, but what about M&F, Telefords, Edme, John Bull, etc.? Any info on Breiss bulk (barrel) malt? Does dry extract finish higher or lower than liquid - or does it matter? I have seen people reference some ancient issues of Zymurgy, but I don't have access to these. Also, the info could be obsolete. Thanks. Hans E. Hansen hansh at teleport.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:56:13 -0800 From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com> Subject: Cajun cooking >From: paa3983 at dscp.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli) >Subject: What are spicy-assed mudbugs? > >JBDers, >Bodie in #2662 mentions how IPAs and spicy-assed >mudbugs go so well together. > >Can you south'nas enlighten me as to what this creature is? > Well, I ain't no south'na but I *can* tell you that mudbugs is crawdads and they is might tasty. Still caint figger out how sumwon with a lovin of spicy food ended up here blandsville. I should be living in Thailand, Loosiana or the Caribbean, not Bland Diego, hehe. 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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/19/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96