HOMEBREW Digest #3008 Mon 19 April 1999

[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

  Sanitizers, corny "O" rings, MHCs (Joy Hansen)
  Coriander Vs. Coriander seed ("Steven W. Smith")
  spelling etc. ("Bayer, Mark A")
  homebrew cooking - Irish stout beef (Scott Murman)
  Where to inject steam in a RIMS...Part I ("William W. Macher")
  Where to inject steam in a RIMS...Part II ("William W. Macher")
  Split-batch boiling (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM>
  Beer Heaven in Atlanta ("Scott Moore")
  crystal (Vachom)
  first wort hopping (jim williams)
  Storing Dilute Iodophor ("Fred L. Johnson")
  reply to HBD#3006, Hallertau Hops, (BreslerHS)
  Rice CAP?? ("J.Kish")
  Priming Cider (Bill Jankowski)
  Sanitizing Oxy-caps ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  O-ring deodorizing ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Re: Priming cider ("Charles T. Major")
  Subject: RE: Sweet! (WayneM38)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Enter the Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99. Details at http://burp.org/SoFB99. 2000 MCAB Qualifier! Enter the Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99. Details on the HBD Competition Calendar for June 1999 (http://hbd.org). 2000 MCAB qualifier! Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org 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 COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:17:57 +0000 From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen at scronline.com> Subject: Sanitizers, corny "O" rings, MHCs Paul Haaf, in past #3006, indicates that he's using a 12.5 ppm idophor solution for sanitizing? G.Fix published some statistics on the effectiveness of various popular sanitizers used for both home and commercial breweries. IMHO, 12.5 ppm would take about an hour of contact time to effect marginal sanitation for beer spoilage organisms. I don't have the knowledge or the equipment to test the sanitizers. Possibly most home brewers don't? I suggest that home brewers accept the test results and recommendations of recognized individuals such as G. Fix. The contact time for beer organisms using idophor is at least 5 minutes at 25 ppm. The concentration for Star San is about 100 ppm with the same contact time. It's important to recognize that the declarations for sanitizing on most packages are for E. Coli and NOT FOR THE COMMON BEER SPOILAGE ORGANISMS. New to home brewing and achients should read G. Fix's book. It's tough to teach me new tricks, but Star San has so much going for it that I couldn't resist. Unlike most other sanitizers that leave chemical tests in the brew is used as "NO RINSE", Star San is neutral to the flavor of beer. If you don't believe this, a private communication from a knowledgible source recommended doctoring a brew with a trace amount of idophor and another with Star San. You'll become a believer! On the "TsP" thread, I posted the HBD request for information some time ago and finally got one response to the original question. Is the carbonate "TsP" identical to PBW. The answer came back that PBW is a percarbonate/metasilicate. The "TsP" is sodium carbonate/susquecarbonate (NOT BAKING SODA, please). I must stick with Five Star's PBW - the greatest! Anthony and Julie Brown asked about replacing "O" rings when the service of corny kegs are changed to beer. IMHO, the siphon and inlet "o" rings are so small that appropriate cleaning/sanitizing takes care of the problem. However, the closure "O" ring cannot be cleaned!!! There will always be some flavor imparted to the brew. I recommend replacing the hard "O" ring with a William's soft (larger diameter) "O" ring. This product seals at low temperature (30 degrees) and adapts for imperfect fit on used kegs. As for the special socket for the valves, provided the fitting is a hex shape and pin lock, just buy a deep socket and heat the rim enough to destroy the temper. Then cut the slot in the appropriate places. With a little vision, the same wrench will fit the two and three pin configuration. Ball lock fittings having a hex shape just need a deep reach socket. Buy the sockets at any hardware or automotive store. Or, ask you local brewshop to sell them to you. I've seen some corny keg valves that require special shaped tools much like locking wheel lug nuts. I guess these types have to be removed and tossed; however, replacement of any part will cost at least half the cost of the used corny keg! Foxx and other companies will be glad to sell you any parts needed for the several types of kegs. And RIMS controllers, my favorite necessary electronics to hate? Well, not quite, R. Morris did an outstanding service to home brewers when he spent what must have been thousands of hours developing a workable system. The mash container I use is a modified keg rather than the picnic cooler mash tun. I have never approached the through flow of R. Morris' original design. With the addition of mechanized stirring and a false bottom scraper blade, I can achieve great through flow. When the stirring stops - very, very, very slow! The rate of flow is critical because a reduction of flow (like with a motor control or valve) with full heat in the heat exchanger will scorch the heating element. You know, the scorched area insulates the element from the cooling liquor and the carbon gets thicker and thicker and the brew just keeps getting more nasty - talk about a raunchy brew. The R. Morris design published in Zymurgy works just fine! It's easy to get a PC board and some parts from Radio Shack and others from DigiKey. Then wire wrap. R. Morris explains the fabrication is sufficient detail so that anyone with a little soldering experience can do the job. The most expensive parts are the heat sink and the 10 turn pot and the associated dial. The dial isn't necessary! The heat sink is critical. I think this design is an adequate starting point for anyone applying the RMRC (Rodney Morris RIMMS Controller). I've built five of these units. Two are dual circuits in the same case, and one is an individual case. I use two because I have two 5000W 220v heaters operated at 110 volts and each draws a max of 10 amps. I had problems with one of my controllers and posted a request to the HBD for help with isolating the problem. It seemed that the least problematic solution was to remove the expensive parts (the heat sink and the the pots) and trash the board and start over. That is, unless a straight forward replacement of the thermister, zero volt crossing switch, or the 555 timer didn't resolve the problem. So, why not just use an on/off switch? Well, the objective is to reach the enzymatic (saccharification) temperature with out serious over shoot. If you just consider the temperature of the mash, the temperature in the heat exchanger could reach near boiling with a simple on/off switch. Recirculaton could denature most of the enzymes in a very short time. You could achieve mash out and think you were in a saccharification rest! Talk about chewy cloying sweetness! The R. Morris controller is an on/off switch that is regulated by a thermister in the heat exchanger. The timer pulses full current to the heating element only when the temperature is quite different from the set temperture. As the temperature within the heat exchanger approaches the set temperature, the controller reduces the current to the heater to limit over shooting the set point. This controller must have some attention and a read out in the mash; however, it is an comparitively inexpensive and tested solution. An additional bit of wisdom learned from years of home built RMRC failures, stick with the original picnic cooler designed mash tun. That is, unless you choose a vessel which provides about 250 square inches of open space in the false bottom. Otherwise, you'll never regret not changing to a converted sanke keg. Sure wish I were back in Scottsburg, VA and had access to my homebrews and brewing more big beers! Strong Scotch Ales, Strong Belgian Ales, and Barley Wines in lieu of Sierra Nevada's GREAT Pale Ale. Uhmmm, time for a brew, Joy"T"Brew Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:31:22 -0700 (MST) From: "Steven W. Smith" <SYSSWS at gc.maricopa.edu> Subject: Coriander Vs. Coriander seed Nosy sod that I am, I wanted to point out for those brewers who might be "herbally challenged" (non-cooks) that there's a difference between "Coriander" (aka cilantro) and "Coriander Seed". My experience is that the whole seed, crushed, is a dandy addition to many beers (Tooncinator M.C., for ex.) - never had a problem finding the whole seeds in the spice racks locally. Coriander/Cilantro, OTOH, the green, leafy stuff that looks kinda like Italian parsley (or li'l dry green flakes in a jar) is nicely suited to salsa, frijoles, carne asada, etc. Tasty, but I haven't tried brewing with it. Thus spake the venerable Al: >Nathan writes: >>Couldn't get any whole coriander at the brewshop or "natural" foods store. >>Found some ground coriander. Very aromatic. Not quite as fresh as >>crushing my own. Has anyone used commercially ground coriander in a wit ... >I don't know how fresh the ground coriander was, but I've found that old >ground coriander smells "meaty" where as freshly-ground smells citrusy. >... >Oh, and if you want to grow it yourself, don't buy seeds... just buy some >whole coriander at the store and plant that. It's the same stuff and a Hmm, hadn't thought of that one, thx! Resuming stealth scan. Eieio, y'all. Steven W. Smith, Systems Programmer, caring nurturer, not a licensed therapist Glendale Community College. Glendale Az. syssws at gc.maricopa.edu Will answer rhetorical questions for food. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:43:51 -0700 From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com> Subject: spelling etc. collective homebrew conscience_ dan listermann wrote: >Reading the digest this morning I noticed that I misspelled Harrington in >my post yesterday. I never could spell. that's phunny. phrom what i've phound, dan's spelling has always been phantastic. al k took exception to my implying that moving to a non-blow-off fermentation procedure caused increases in my beers' hop flavor and head retention. i concede that it is only a *correlation* between my change in method and the perceived differences in the beers. there are definitely other variables that could have played roles to produce the differences, but since the only major procedural method i changed was the removal of the blowoff method, i attributed the changes in the finished beers to it. nearly all of the beers were low gravity bitters and standard gravity (1.046 - 1.048) lagers. there is a billboard on interstate 70 in st. charles county, missouri, that shows a bird dog in the middle of a tall grassy field "pointing" to a cooler emblazoned with the budweiser logo. the caption to the ad is "because it's budweiser". i have this creative urge to edit the billboard and repaint the dog in another position next to the cooler, but being back in the stl area, i'd probably get a visit from a couple of hired goons..... brew hard, mark bayer saint louis missouri (back at last) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:25:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: homebrew cooking - Irish stout beef This is your basic cheap, hearty plain meal. Similar to a stew. Will feed 4 people for about $5. My sweetie is native Irish, and she said that this is an authentic dish, in that it is eaten in some Irish homes. 1-1/2 to 2 lb. cheap cut of beef. I used tri-tip, which might not mean much to those outside of Central California, but it's a cheap cut that really responds to slow cooking. Maybe someone can fill in some details here. Don't use a nice cut, as it's simply a waste for this recipe. 1 med white onion, diced ?? carrots, diced 2-3 potatoes, peeled and sliced thick 12 oz. dry Irish stout (you know the one) large, covered baking dish sear the meat on all sides (except the inside) for 3-4 min. with a light dose of salt and pepper. remove the meat and place it in the baking dish. brown the onions for a few minutes, then place over the meat. de-glaze the pan with some of the stout, and pour over the meat and onions. add the sliced carrots and potatoes, and pour the rest of the stout over everything. cover and bake at 275F for 2-1/2 to 3 hours. there is a noticeable lack of seasonings, which is intentional. both because the Irish aren't known for using much, and also to highlight the stout flavor. enjoy, -SM- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:30:13 From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com> Subject: Where to inject steam in a RIMS...Part I Hi All, [I broke this into two posts as I am pretty sure it would have bounced as one...] Dave Burley [Dave_Burley at compuserve.com], in response to my question about what the ideal RIMS wort return temperature might be, offers some advice and observes: >I guess I really don't understand how >you are heating your wort. Are you >passing steam into a vessel containing >a vessel of recirculating wort? I >thought the point of using steam was >reduce the chance for enzyme >denaturization and to pass it directly >into the mash. RIMS could still be >used to even out the temperature hot spots. rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) reports in the same digest that he uses 175 F in what I assume is a HEXRIMS type setup [No term HERMS<tm> in my part of town! :-)] and offers: >In an earlier post I asked you: They say memory is the second thing to go. OR is it the first? Hmm, can't remember. Did you really ask me? If so, sorry for missing it as I try never to ignore anyone! >I wonder if you would consider >injecting the steam directly into the >mash and totally eliminate the need >for a chamber. With the chamber, the >steam could overheat the enzymes >because of hot spots. With the steam >injected into the mash, only the very >small area near the 'feathers' would >possibly get overheated to destroy the >enzymes. You are really trying to >heat the mash, so why not do it more >directly? [snip] >By heating in >the center, this would greatly aid >even heating and you would not need as >rapid flow through the RIMS. >And now I am asking again, why not just inject >directly into the mash? I have been giving a lot of thought to these kinds of things over the past weeks, after my first struggle to get a brew through my system. That experience emphasized to me how my assumptions, and things I THINK I learned from my reading on the subject, may actually not be the best fit for the reality I find myself in. I don't think that direct injection of steam into the mash tun in a rims-like system is a good option. I will lay my thoughts on the table in the following paragraphs and we will see what other opinions/experiences emerge. It is also clear that to get the best advice, one's advisors [fellow HBDers] should be aware of the details of the issues surrounding the advisee [me]. Dave asks what my system actually is. My setup is essentially a standard RIMS layout, but has a steam injector in place of the normal electrical heating element. The injection chamber is small, half-inch copper tubing a couple inches long, with a 90-degree turn right after the injector, hopefully to induce turbulence for good mixing of the heated wort. The injector itself is 0.25-inch copper tubing with five or six slots cut into in crosswise, along the last inch (or so) of its length. The end of the 0.25- inch tubing is soldered closed with no-lead solder, and has a small hole drilled into it. The 0.25-inch injector tubing enters the larger tubing through a compression fitting. Hot wort is returned to the mash tun via a standard H- shaped manifold, with four outlets facing upwards, which is positioned in the wort above the grain bed and below the surface of the liquid. Wort is drawn out of the bottom of the mash tun, using a manifold that is under a false bottom. The false bottom has 3/16 holes in it drilled on 5/16 centers. I have a thermometer on each side of the steam injection point, so I can read incoming and outgoing temperature. Steam is controlled by adjusting the flame under a pressure cooker, and/or by dumping excess steam into my HLT. This is a manually controlled system. I call it a SIRIMS. There is no <tm> :-) :-) <-- note there are 2... Part II of this post (the meat, I hope) follows somewhere... Bill Bill Macher Pittsburgh, PA USA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:45:21 From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com> Subject: Where to inject steam in a RIMS...Part II Hi, back again :-) Ron says why not just inject the steam into the mash directly and totally eliminate the need for an injection chamber? >With the chamber, the steam could overheat >the enzymes because of hot spots. With the steam >injected into the mash, only the very small area near >the 'feathers' would possibly get overheated to >destroy the enzymes. Dave also comments: >I thought the point of using steam was to reduce the >chance for enzyme denaturization and to pass it >directly into the mash. For me, steam offers the opportunity to eliminate the chance of scorching the wort, as steam is self-limiting at about 227 F. (in my case) with 5 PSI back pressure. Also, steam very quickly transfers its heat to the wort when it condenses, since it is water and wort is mostly water too. Since the materials are the same there is almost immediate transfer. Charlie Scandrett[hope I spelled that right] has written much about this in past HBD articles. Limiting enzyme denaturazation is also a potential benefit of steam, I think. At least as compared to the electric heating element alternative with its much higher surface temperature. In my mind (and I caution you to remember whose mind this is!) the question is how can one obtain the fastest transition from the temperature of the heat source to, or below, target temperature of the mash/liquid enzyme pool? We need to keep in mind that the transition from steam to hot water, when steam is injected into liquid that is ten's of degrees below the boiling point, is VERY FAST. If you do a test, you will find that there are no feathers of steam until the water you are injecting the steam into approaches boiling temperatures. At lower temperatures, say when the water is at or below 170 or 180 F, the steam condenses so fast that you get small "sonic booms," not gentle purring sounds. At the point of condensation, the water resulting from the condensation of steam will be at 212 degrees F., or slightly more or less, depending on elevation of your brewery and any pressure above atmospheric that may exist at the condensation point. In my mind the objective should be to mix this hot water (and hot wort that resulted from the phase change of steam to liquid) with the cooler wort as fast as possible, simultaneously raising the cooler wort temperature and lowering the temperature of the condensed steam (and phase-change heated wort). We also need to keep in mind that most of the energy being transferred has been imparted into the wort from the transition of the steam from the gas phase to the liquid phase. Just the opposite of the reason why it take a lot longer to boil a pot empty than it does to get it boiling in the first place. I have realized that wherever the energy is injected the effect will be the same: There will be a temperature gradient, hottest at the point of injection and lowering as one moves away from the injection point. With moving liquid in a RIMS setup, this results in the generality that the temperature felt across the filter bed in the mash tun will be about the same as the temperature felt across the chamber in which the heat is imparted into the circulating wort. This may be a side issue. The question is where to inject the heat: In the mash tun or in the recirculation line? The RIMS pump will circulate the wort at a flow rate that is dependent on the constraints of each individual setup. But a maximum flow rate will exist. Since the pump is in a loop, the flow rate will be the same throughout the loop. But the velocity will differ according to the diameter of the "pipe" at different points within the loop. The largest diameter "pipe" in my case is the converted keg. The smallest is within the half-inch copper tubing that the system is piped up with [ignoring ball valves or the steam injection chamber, which is smaller due to having the o.25-inch tubing inside it]. By injecting steam in the recirculation loop, where fluid travels at the highest velocity and just before a 90-degree turn, which offers high turbulence for good mixing, I believe I get the fastest lowering of maximum temperature within the wort. Contrast this with what would likely happen if steam was injected *without some kind of mechanical mixing* within the filter bed. Flow rate will be inversely proportional to cross sectional area, since the pump is pumping at a constant rate. This rate is set by the total resistance to flow of the system [for a given point in time]. So the top-to-bottom flow in the mash tun will be *much* slower than the flow in the much smaller recirculation line. How much slower? Well if you have a 16 inch inside diameter mash tun, and pipe with half-inch I.D. copper tubing, how does 1,000 times slower sound? When something is moving 1,000 times slower it will take A WHOLE LOT LONGER to mix the cool stuff with the hot stuff. My fear is that direction injection of steam into the mash tun [without mechanical mixing] will cause a pocket of grain/liquid to form that is heated to boiling temperatures and held at these temperatures for an extended period. The possible (likely??) negative effects of this worries me and is the reason why I have personally avoided direction injection of steam into the mash tun as the primary source of heat for temperature control. Unless mechanical stirring is done at the same time. Also, mechanical stirring does not aid in the setting up of one's filter bed, and probably negatively impacts ones ability to pump liquid at satisfactory flow rates. Dave Burley also brings up decotions, something I have been wondering about recently and wanting to ask the collective. I have been considering possibly enhancing my system by providing a "steam wand" that I could insert into the mash bed without stirring, and hopefully with minimal disturbance to the filter bed aspect. The idea would be to inject steam at one point, or maybe several points, with the hope of simulating the results of decoctions, without having to actually do them in a separate pot on a separate burner. All the while, the RIMS pump would be doing its thing. The more I think about it, the quicker I conclude that this is not likely a good thing to do. The reasons that direct injection into the mash tun (without mechanical agitation) is likely not a good thing seem to hold true for pseudo decoctions as well. On a side note, PETER.ZINGELMAN at wemail.wisenergy.com reminded me through private correspondence that I had it backwards in a previous post. Industrial filter beds normally have the small filter media on the bottom and largest on the top. And also that this makes no real difference in our one-shot mash tun filter beds...so my analogy still works. Guess that proves it, memory is the first thing to go...Hmmm, or is it the second thing? What is that other thing anyway? Better ask my wife when I get home...:-) Bill Bill Macher Pittsburgh, PA USA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:32:28 -0400 From: "Santerre, Peter (PRS) - CPC" <PRS at NA2.US.ML.COM> Subject: Split-batch boiling "Patrick Michael Flahie" <flahiepa at pilot.msu.edu> writes: "My plan is to take the first 3 gallons of runoff into one pot and bring it to a boil while I run the remaining 3 gallons into another pot. I can boil both simultaneously and stagger their finish times to accommodate cooling. I am unclear on how to handle hop additions. I was planning on just putting half of each hop addition in each pot (adjusting for time), but I don't know if the differences in gravities will make a significant difference. " Me: I have done this successfully a couple of times a while back. But, instead of starting the boil with the first 3 gallons I waited until I collected all 6 (ran off into a 6.5 gallon carboy( possibly dangerous, but I was lucky)). Gently mixed the wort and then split it into 2-3 gallon batches and split the hops in half. Now I just have a cheapo(tm) wide enamel brewpot that will hold 6 gallons (almost) comfortably. I recently moved into a small apartment which has one of those "reduced sized" stoves. This actually helps me because my wide enamel brew pot actually staggers 2 burners and boils "okay". I didn't dive into the technical aspects of this process - but it seemed to work fine for me. Peter Santerre San Francisco Tech Support Got Beer? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:48:35 -0400 From: "Scott Moore" <smoore at koyousa.com> Subject: Beer Heaven in Atlanta While on a recent business trip to Atlanta I came across what I believe are the two best beers that I have ever tasted. I know everyone's idea of the perfect beer is different, I'm just glad that I was finally able to find examples of what I've had in my head for years. The first was at the Atlanta Beer Garten in Buckhead. It was called an Alt but I don't think it was very true to style (at least what I've read so far). It was dark brown, not highly attenuated and had tons of hop flavor. The bitterness was very smooth so I suspect First Wort Hopping may have been used. If anyone has ANY info on this beer, especially the hops or grain used, PLEASE contact me (private e-mail is fine). I am now on a personal quest to duplicate this beer. The other beer was a Pilsner Urquell on tap at the Atlanta Fish Market. I know that time and temperature are no friend to any beer, especially something this delicate in green bottles, but I had no idea what I had been missing. It was as if I was drinking a completely different beer. I now know why this is regarded as a world class beer. (It's not that I didn't believe M. Jackson, I just couldn't see what all the fuss was about). It looks like I'm going to need a lot more computer training in Atlanta than I originally thought. ;-> Regards, Scott Moore The still unnamed brewery Medina, Ohio Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:59:36 -0500 From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us> Subject: crystal Two posts about two completely separate topics appeared in yesterday's HBD. In a post about big, cloying crystal bills, Tim Holland writes, "the longer I brew, the pickier I get." In a post about recent disagreements between two frequent posters (or should I say, post-sters), Phil Yates contends, "Homebrewing is supposed to be fun." Mr. Holland's statement is the de facto motto of this digest. Homebrewing, HBD-style, is fun like a Woody Allen film, suffused with neurosis, second-guessing, hyperbole, experimentation and tempered by epiphanies. The HBD is all about "taking things too seriously" in an effort to make great beer, a goal that is always just beyond one's grasp. Mr. Yates further contends that "it is not too difficult to produce a beer that leaves the average commercial version for dead." I contend that, because of the paradox Mr. Holland mentions and because of the fact that there are some excellent commercial beers out there, it's a bitch to brew something as good as SNPA or Obsidian Stout or even something better than the last batch of your own bitter that you thought was pretty good. A homebrewer's first attempts are like ugly babies; people find something nice to say about them or they just outright lie. Somewhere along the line, though, homebrewers begin to notice that the houseplants are smelling malty. And that's where the kind of fun that flies on this digest begins, when you find yourself not scrolling past posts on mash pH or getting emotional about open fermentation. Mike New Orleans, LA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:11:26 -0800 From: jim williams <jim&amy at macol.net> Subject: first wort hopping hello, I'm trying to understand the proper way of doing this. I've heard a couple of different ways to do this. I have no idea who or what ois correct. I've heard to figure 1/3 of the total hop bill as fwh. I've also heard that the bittering addition is used as fwh. In which case, what would you use for utilization? I'm not an idiot, but I think I need an idiot proof explanantion of what to do here. The process sounds really good, and I want to do it right. What happens if I add all of the bittering hops to the runoff? (alright, I admit, that's what I did this morning) Thanks, jim Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:12:29 -0400 From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Storing Dilute Iodophor Regarding storage of diluted Iodophor, someone wrote: >how long will iodophor diluted to 12.5ppm and stored in an airtight bucket >stay potent? To which Robert Arguello responded: > Assuming your water contains even trace amounts of chlorine....probably not > much more than a day or two. > > According to the manufacturers of BTF Iodophor, light and chlorine will > degrade the sanitizer quickly. I have stored a 12.5 ppm solution of iodophor > and city water in a sealed corny keg and found that the amber color, (which > according to the manufacturer, indicates viability), will fade within 48 > hours. It would probably last longer if using distilled or chorine-free water. To which I respond: But the same solution kept in a sealed, glass carboy appears to last indefinitely. It's not the chlorine in the water that consumes the Iodophor, it's the container. And I'm not so sure that even if the Iodophor in the plastic bucket "disappears" that it is really gone. It has reacted with the bucket, i.e., the bucket can become stained (but sanitized). I am curious if items initially treated with Iodophor in a sealed plastic bucket will remain sanitized for weeks after the amber color disappears. My guess is that there is a lot of iodine lingering around in the plastic of the bucket itself and in the other items in the bucket which may be able to to kill organisms for weeks--a testable hypothesis. - -- Fred L. Johnson Apex, North Carolina USA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:04:05 EDT From: BreslerHS at aol.com Subject: reply to HBD#3006, Hallertau Hops, Jeffrey A. F. Hittinger wrote asking about Hallertau Hops: Jef asks: 1) Does Hallertau Hallertau actually exist, or is this just really sloppy nomenclature? If the latter, when one refers to Hallertau or Hallertau Hallertau, which strain do they actually mean? I would tend to think that it is the latter, and what is meant by the vague appelation is a nobel Hallertau hop like Mittelfrueh or it's closest descendent, since strains like Tradition are meant to provide Mittelfrueh-like characteristics from a heartier plant. me: According to Garetz (Using Hops, published by Hop Tech, 1994) European Hops were named according to the region from which they originated. If a hop variety was originally from Hersbruck, it would be called Hersbrucker. [The 'er' ending is (as Garetz puts it) like calling someone from New York a New Yorker.] It should still be called Hersbrucker even if it isn't grown in Hersbruck; it's the variety name. If the Hersbrucker hops were grown in Hallertau, then they would be called Hallertau Hersbrucker. If they were grown in Hersbruck, they'd be called Hersbruck Hersbrucker. It gets even more confusing because there is also a variety of hops commonly (but not properly) called Hallertau. These hops are more properly called Hallertauer ('er' i.e, originally from Hallertau). If they are grown in Hallertau, they should be called Hallertau Hallertauer. Now the really tricky part. What is commonly called Hallertau Mittelfruh is really Hallertauer Mittelfruh, or even more properly Hallertau Hallertauer Mittelfruh. That is, Hallertau (grown there) Hallertauer (the variety originally from there) Mittelfruh (middle-early, referring to the part of the growing season when it is harvested). Most people shorten this to Hallertauer Mittelfruh or (improperly) Hallertau Mittelfruh. We tend to shorten the traditional names of European hops for convenience, but this causes confusion. So, you're confused, no suprise. So, to answer your original question, yes, it is sloppy nomenclature. There is a Hallertau Hallertauer, but technically, it should not be called Hallertau Hallertau. Jeff again: The Hallertau region in Bavaria grows a variety of hop strains. Specifically, I have read about (and/or used) Hallertau Hersbrucker, Hallertau Mittelfrueh, Hallertau Tradition, and Hallertau Northern Brewer. Now, often one sees references to just "Hallertau" hops, which I find very misleading as each of the above varieties has quite distinct characteristics. me: Right you are! And now you know why. The first word in the variety name tells where it was grown; the second is the variety. So, it's no suprise that Hallertau Tradition is very different from Hallertau Northern Brewer. They are two different varieties that both happen to be grown in Hallertau region. If you grew two different hops in your back yard, they'd be different, too, even though they were grown in the "Jeffrey region." You'd have Jeffrey Hallertauer, Jeffrey Tradition, etc. If you harvested your Hallertauer in the mid-early part of the growing season, you'd have Jeffrey Hallertauer Mittelfruh. [Sorry, I got carried away.] Jeff again: 2) Is there a definitive book on hops out there which someone can recommend? I find that most of the books on homebrewing overly simplify the discussion on hops. me again: I really like the Garetz book (no affiliation, yadda), but, definitive, I don't know. I have nothing to compare it to since it's the only hops book in my library. It covers hop history, its use in beer, some plant biology, hop processing, hop strorage, buying and evaluating hops, use for bittering, use for flavoring and aroma, how to grow them, and a detailed variety-by-variety section that I find very helpful. It's easy to read and I think it cost me less than $20. Good luck and good brewing, Herb Bexley, Ohio P.S. I have changed e-mail addresses. If you have my old one, please update. Thanks-HB Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:28:04 -0700 From: "J.Kish" <jjkish at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Rice CAP?? To: Chuck Mayglot, You would consider brewing a Rice CAP? Using Rice, you will be brewing an AP; nothing but an American Pilsener--- In fact, a Bud!! Who, in thier right mind would brew a Bud? Yucch!! In that case, use about 50% rice and keep the hops so low you can't taste it. There's nothing in the world like CAP, Classic American Pilsner, a la Renner. I'm now trying Polenta, a form of corn grits. Unbelieveable flavor. Joe Kish Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 07:25:58 -0400 From: Bill Jankowski <wjankowski at snet.net> Subject: Priming Cider As a data point, I brewed two X 3 Gallon batches of cider last year using Pasteur Champagne Yeast. The first batch I primed using a half gallon of fresh cider, the second with a whole gallon. The first batch had carbonation similar to an ale, the second batch was similar to good champagne (Carbonation wise.) The cider was from a local orchard, and had been pasteurized but not filtered. This was quite possibly my easiest brewing experience ever. Bill Jankowski Colchester, CT Texan in Exile Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 08:31:26 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: Sanitizing Oxy-caps I spoke to a technician at one of the companies that manufacture oxygen scavenging crown caps. His comments were that the only good way to do it was with gamma radiation. Since the DOE permit process for maintaining a gamma source is cost prohitive, the only aqueous solution to use for sanitizing caps would be a sodium or potassium metabisulphite solution at 10%. The sulphite solution is a strong reducing agent and will not affect the oxygen scavenging ability of the caps. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 08:31:33 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: O-ring deodorizing I have found that you don't need to replace the o-rings and poppets to remove the odor/flavor from the rubber in your cornie kegs. Simply place the offending parts in a saucepan with about an inch of water and two tablespoons of baking-soda, simmer the parts in this solution for about 10 to 15 minutes. After that the rubber will be free of any flavors or odors. Remember how baking soda removes smells from a refrigerator or coffee Thermos? This works! I sell the parts and could bring in more money by telling everyone that rubber parts must be replaced but it is just not true. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 07:45:50 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: "Charles T. Major" <ctmajor at samford.edu> Subject: Re: Priming cider Gail Elber provides some information on sugar content of apples to answer Marc's question about priming with cider. Why not just measure the SG of the juice? Papazian's book contains a formula for priming with wort based on SG, which seems like it would at least come close with apple juice, which I believe is more fermentable than wort. Tidmarsh Major Birmingham, Alabama Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:14:21 EDT From: WayneM38 at aol.com Subject: Subject: RE: Sweet! From: Tim Holland <tholland at alaskalife.net> writes: Subject: RE: Sweet! <<snip>> <<Can anybody else answer the question about so many published recipes using a LOT of crystal? Another Tim >> When I converted my old 'standby' extract recipes to all grain, my first few batches did have more 'crystal' character than I liked. I began cutting back from that point to about 1/2 to 3/4 the amounts that I used in the past. Much happier with the current results. The 1 + lbs of crystal in 'extract' batches helps hide that 'extract tang' IMHO. Certainly not needed in those amounts when brewing all grain batches using quality malts like DWC, etc... Good control of all grain mash temps reduces the need to use excessive amount of crystal. Wayne Big Fun Brewing Milwaukee Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 04/19/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96