HOMEBREW Digest #3855 Sat 02 February 2002

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  Superbowl brews ("Kevin Kutskill")
  Where online to buy beer kits? ("Tray Bourgoyne")
  Re: Fermenters (Marc Tiar)
  Re: Further stuck fermentation ("RJ")
  Re: FWH & boilover ("Steve Alexander")
  Gott Cooler Thermometer ("Rogers, Mike")
  rice solids substitute ("Brad Boes")
  Fw: historical beer /yeast ("Chad Gould")
  re: Grain/water ratio ("Steve Alexander")
  CHERMS ("Drew Avis")
  PBW as a sanitizer ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  Re: PTOs and IBUs ("Steve Alexander")
  RE: Moving Brews Company? (Bill Tobler)
  Alternative BT Addresses (mohrstrom)
  Fermenters ("Kirk Fleming")
  How long can I save this yeast??? ("Smith,Brian H")
  Re: Fermenters ("Larry Bristol")
  Sour Cherry Concentrate (Nathan Kanous)
  RE: BT Back Issues ("Paul Kensler")
  Thermometers (Dave Larsen)
  New Ottawa homebrewing mailing list ("Drew Avis")
  Bottles for Barleywine ("Sieja, Edward M")
  Newbie question ("Hodges, Walt")
  Hop Floaties (Dave Larsen)
  Good mailorder beer kit locations? (Al Klein)
  Indoor automated brewing (Al Klein)

* * Ft. Lauderdale Beer Fest to benefit the homeless * 1/25/02 info: http://www.homebreweronline.com * * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:31:31 -0500 From: "Kevin Kutskill" <beer-geek at home.com> Subject: Superbowl brews What is everybody planning on drinking during Superbowl? Purely by chance, I have a doppelbock on tap for the game (going for the Rams theme). Kevin beer-geek at home.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:57:44 -0600 From: "Tray Bourgoyne" <tray at netdoor.com> Subject: Where online to buy beer kits? Looking for a place to buy another kit so I can make more brew! Where do you use? Thanks, Tray Bourgoyne Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:11:12 -0800 From: Marc Tiar <marc at tiar.reno.nv.us> Subject: Re: Fermenters I don't know that I count as an experienced brewer, but I've done my share. I'll put a pitch in for cornelius kegs. I've never used a carboy. Cornies don't break, don't let light in, are easily cleaned, seal well, are not terribly expensive, and you can go straight from secondary to dispensing with CO2 with no transfer. Built-in handles for carrying, too. I guess the only downside I see is that you can't see into them and know what your brew looks like, or what's going on in there. No big deal. Let's hear it for the kegs! Marc Tiar Reno NV [1874.4, 276.4] Apparent Rennerian >Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:20:36 -0800 >From: John Maylone <mrkoala at mac.com> >Subject: Fermenters > > >I am new to home brewing, and have been lurking here on the list for a week >or two. I would like some input from experienced brewers on fermenters. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:49:10 -0500 From: "RJ" <wortsup at metrocast.net> Subject: Re: Further stuck fermentation John McGowan of NJ: john.mcgowan at us.abb.com wrote: "All this talk of stuck fermentation compels me to write to ask the collective about my current dilemma. I brewed 10 gallons of IPA with the following grain bill: 25# Pale 2# Munich 2# Crystal 60L 1# CaraPils OG: 1.072 Split batch: 5 gal with WLP005 (British Ale); 5 gal with WLP051 (California V) Aerated very well, but didn't have time to build up starters, so pitched directly from vials. After six days gravity was down to 1.030 (in both carboys), with no activity in the airlock. Roused the yeast -- No further activity. One day later added 2.5 tsp of yeast nutrient (ID Carlson) to each and shook. No change. Repeated previous step two days later. Still nothing. After 14 days, gravity of both is still 1.030 The beer is still a bit sweet and even masks the 10 oz of Centennial. I was shooting for a FG of 1.018 - 1.022. Your thoughts?" "PS: I was intending to dump a stout on this yeast this weekend. Good or bad idea?" Well John, 1st two things I'd like to know is what temp(s) did you mash at & how old was the yeast? 2nd, until you can find the common cause of the current problem, I wouldn't re-use that yeast. Ciao, RJ 43:30:3.298N x 71:39:9.911W Lakes Region of NH Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:36:58 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: FWH & boilover Glen Pannicke notes .. re hops and boilovers ... > My biggest question is that why hasn't this been noticed by others and why > is the advice to "add hops only after your wort is boiling" still > persisting? I've heard a lot of suggestions as to why, but nothing convincing. Someone has noticed though. M&BS pp 510 states ... "Boiling worts in the absence of hop material presents a problem for the brewer. The surface tension of the wort is sufficiently high to encourage foaming and there have been catastrophic incidents when coppers have boiled over because hop material was not present". It doesn't explain the reason for the surface tension changes, but coagulation of protein or introduction of hop oils may be the factors. The following pages in M&BS describe typical practice of adding some of the hops at the beginning of the boil. That's different than many of HB sources. > Maybe we're talking about the difference between isomerizations at boiling > vs. isomerizations at temperatures below boiling. Maybe the oils extracted > below boiling temperatures isomerize differently or not at all during > boiling. But then wouldn't that effect flavor, aroma or bitterness, > spoiling the above assertion that there is no difference? No - the bittering alpha acid resins of hops (humulone, cohumulone, adhumulone, ...) are involved in isomerizations that improve available bittering. FWH is more about the flavor and aroma components - volatile oils like myrcene, farnesene, carophyllene, humulene. Actually Hubert Hanghofer posted the technical reasons why FWH is supposed to work in 1997, HBD#2479. Volatile hop oils, the aroma factors, oxidize forming epoxides and alcohols in the warm wort and survive the boil and fermentation. Normally these volatile oils (terpenes, sesquiterpenes) boil off or are lost during fermentation, but not the more soluble epoxides & alcohols. These epoxides are quite reactive chemically so there is a whole complex manifold chemistry nugget buried here. Hubert sites L.Narziss, "Abriss der Bierbrauerei", as a reference. The epoxides and oil-alcohols are major players in dry-hopping, but there are a lot of herbal flavors added by dry-hopping that are totally out of place in a lager. In fact dry-hopping only works well in a pale-ale I think. Marc Sedam (I think it's Marc) has been experimenting with mash-hopping, and he may be on the right track, since there are lipo-oxidase enzymes active in the mash which promote lipid oxidation. - -- Dennis Lewis adds ... >I recall thinking that it was just adding >nucleation sites for the boil so that no large bubbles would form. I don't buy that. I use whole hops, which give relatively little particulate to the brew, and I can and do get a full 'thumping' boil with hops added or without and the foam level is quite different. >[...] >I have read in this digest that FWH with harsh bittering hops can lead >to less than desirable aroma in the finished beer, so be careful what >you're throwing in. It's regularly suggested that one add the aroma hops for FWH - exactly because we are using FWH to extract and preserve aroma factors into the beer. I can't imagine that FWH would produce anything awful. Maybe a pils with aroma of Northern Brewer rather than Saaz, is less than ideal, but it's not "less than desirable". -S Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:58:42 -0500 From: "Rogers, Mike" <mike.rogers at eds.com> Subject: Gott Cooler Thermometer I have a 10 gal. Gott cooler that works excellent for mashing, however, I would like to take temperature readings without uncapping and submersing a float thermometer. I see that Zymico (http://www.bobbrews.com/zymico.html) carries a $10 bulk head fitting for adding a thermometer. Does anyone have a thermometer installed in their Gott cooler? Has anyone used the Zymico fitting? Any experiences, good/bad? Mike Rogers Cass River Homebrewers - Mid Michigan www.hbd.org/cassriverhomebrewers mailto:mike01_rogers at yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:05:31 -0600 From: "Brad Boes" <gerald.boes at verizon.net> Subject: rice solids substitute Hey, I want to brew a beer that calls for a third pound of rice solids, but there are none available. Is there a good substitute? I'm doing the extract version of the Dixie Blackened Voodoo Lager from the Clonebrews book. I thought I might just grind up a third pound of rice and throw it in with the grains at the start. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated- Brad Boes Princeton, Il [297.5, 257.7] Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17:54 -0500 From: "Chad Gould" <cgould11 at tampabay.rr.com> Subject: Fw: historical beer /yeast > whatever else finds its way in there.THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION.I'm trying to > find out how breweries from relatively resent times,say from the time IPA's > were brewed for those guys in India.Or the miners from the gold rush > days.All those hundreds of breweries,if not thousands of breweries needed > yeast.WHERE DID THEY GET THERE YEAST?----and once they did have some HOW > DID THEY KEEP IT HEALTHY?-we know as brewers that you can only reuse the I believe it was the mid 19th century when Louis Pasteur did his work on yeast, of which commercial brewers eagerly copied later, isolating strands for better quality control. So it's safe to say that after, oh, the late 1800s, all breweries were able to use isolated strands, and control the beer this way. Prior to that, I'm not sure, but I imagine it was open fermentation (I'm not even sure brewers back then knew enough to use a starter). One technique I've read about which may help is continually refilling a batch of brewing beer with fresh wort - which might prolong a good batch for a longer period of time. Still, I've read bad batches were very common then - 20% loss wasn't untypical. Plus, it is not as easy to notice off flavors in ales, especially stronger-gravity and spiced ales, which I gather were more typical back then. The pilsner is relatively new in beer history, certainly you notice sanitation problems with this. But with something like an IPA, of which speculation is that it was *more* hopped back in the 1800s, you would certainly have some infection (from the wood cask, from open fermentation methods, etc.) but the hop flavor would cancel some of that out. Beyond that, I'm unaware... maybe there's a beer historian out there with more info. :) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:46:56 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: Grain/water ratio chris eidson asks about the amount of water in the mash. Mash thickness or the water:grist ratio is expressed in the US HB world in terms of quarts of water per pound of grain(qt/lb). The metric world and the pro lit use liters per kg(L/kg). 1qt/lb is a little more than 2 L/kg. >Being relatively new to all-grain brewing (3 batches so far), I was >wondering what the collective would suggest for water to grain ratios on hot >(~ 154f - 158f) single infusion mashes. How does variation in the ratio >manifest in terms of quality of the finished product? There is an impact on enzyme activity and stability with mash thickness. Very thick mashes have little free water (most is loosely bound to starch). Water is one of the reaction chemicals and not just a solvent for the hydrolytic enzymes, so in thick mashes the enzyme reaction rates are slowed considerably. Also some enzymes are more stable when the amount of free water is low. The impact of this becomes very significant below about 0.9qt/lb (1.8L/kg). In a very thick mash you can get more proteolysis at 150F/65C than you would in a thin mash since the proteases are more stable, but proteases, amylases and other hydrolases are as slow as molasses and the extraction rate is poor in thicker mashes. The typical range of mash thickness is 1.25-1.5qt/lb (2.5-3L/kg) , and light colored lagers up to 2.5qt.lb(5L/kg). In this range the enzymes have sufficient water to act quickly, yet are relatively stable. For very thin mashes, the enzymes and substrate are diluted and the reaction rates drop so mashes take longer to complete, Also enzymes are less stable in thin mashes so you are losing enzymes faster. It's a double whammy - a lower enzyme activity rate, and the enzymes are denaturing faster so very thin mashes convert more slowly. Thin mashes do not cause as much wort browning as occurs in thicker mashes and also get a few percent higher extraction rate from the grist. If you want a light colored pils the 2.5qt/lb will help the color, but a temperature overshoot could easily ruin the mash by destroying the less stable enzymes. If you have a mash with a lot of cereal (low enzyme content) do not use a very thin mash as it may fail to convert. For a 154-158F single infusion .... If the mash was thicker you'd get more fermentables, but it would take longer to convert. At conventional thickness you'd get a quick conversion giving wort with considerable but not overwhelming dextrins, since the beta-amylase would cut out fairly quickly. In a thin mash the beta amylase will cut-out very quickly leaving more unfermentable dextrins and the conversion time will be a bit longer. My advise is to pick any value between 1.25qt/lb and 1.5qt/lb and stick with it for all of your conventional mashes. It's a good range for quick conversion and relatively stable enzyme operation. Using a fixed thickness value will help you understand the other variables of the mash - like strike temperature, conversion time and extraction rate without having too many things changing at once. OTOH if there is a good reason for it feel free to play around - but expect differences. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:48:08 -0500 From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis at hotmail.com> Subject: CHERMS Many thanks to the folks who responded about mounting elements in a sankey keg. There is certainly a wealth of information out there, and some amazing systems! I was particularly inspired by Tony Verhulst's system which is based on an off-the-shelf controller. Simplicity is important as I have no understanding of PIDs, solenoids, etc. I've started to order the parts I'll need to build a simple HERMS system based on a counterflow chiller (CHERMS) and one heated vessel, a kettle which doubles as an HLT. It also will require a second pump. I plan to use an off the shelf hot water tank thermostat on the HTL/kettle to maintain a constant temperature, and continuously pump HLT water and mash liquor through the chiller. I'm not sure of the efficiency of a counterflow chiller for this application, but I assume that it's at least as good as the coil in the HLT approach. It would be great to get some feedback on this approach - anyone who is interested can check out my schematics at http://www.strangebrew.ca/Drew/cherms/ - can anyone see any obvious flaws or complications that I'm missing? Cheers! Drew Avis ~ http://www.strangebrew.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:06:44 -0500 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: PBW as a sanitizer David Craft asked: > I soak the bottles in a standard solution of PBW and rinse well in hot >water. Are they sanitzed after a certain time? >I hoped that the Ph of solution is high enough to kill any critters......... I would not doubt that there is a degree of sanitzation being performed by using PBW. The extent of which, however is not known. Remember that sanitization is the act of reducing the microbial load by some factor. Well ANY factor. If I reduce my load from 1,000 colony forming units per milliliter (CFU/ml) to 100 CFU/ml, I have performed a type of santization. Is it effective? No. I still have 100 CFU/ml. It is effective if I reduce the count to a manageable level, which may be as high as 1 CFU/ml in one case or 0.01 CFU/ml in another. I would go as far to say that I believe there to be a degree of sanitizing action in using non-caustic alkaline oxygen cleansers (such as PBW) due to the action of the free oxygen content, heat and pH of the solution (between 9-12). However, this sanitizing action has not been demonstrated to be an effective sanitizer of hard surfaces in brewing when used alone. David might not encounter much of a problem in his case because he follows Jim Birminghams well-put advice and keeps his bottles clean to begin with, then soaks them in hot PBW before use. Since he rinses with hot tap water, the bottles should be no more clean than his tap water is but that may be clean enough so as not to pose a problem. As for the AHA BOA's political infighting: Please, please, please keep it on Beertown - where it belongs. Carpe cerevisiae! Glen A. Pannicke glen at pannicke.net http://www.pannicke.net 75CE 0DED 59E1 55AB 830F 214D 17D7 192D 8384 00DD "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:11:24 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: PTOs and IBUs Mark writes ... > And the takeaway message on the Hop Clock: > > [..] then 1hr at boiling > > is equivalent to 9 hours at 80C or [...] > > See, I knew that if I kept asking the question in different ways, I'd pry > out an answer ... I think that this confirms what both Ray Daniels and I > were thinking - Immersion chiller in the kettle to knock down the high heat > out of the wort, and the CFC to get it where you want for pitching. Let me embellish my comments. M&BS and Kunze report figures for high temp high pressure boilers that give similar values as above, but I just came across a table in M&BS which compares a 90minute boil vs a 90 minute rest at 85C(185F). The wort ended up with 45.9IBU when boiled and 37.5IBU after the rest. The final beers were 20.9IBU and 16.3IBU. That's less than a 25% difference for a 15C drop. I do think that chilling the kettle wort (I just turn on the pump & CFC water and recycle wort) does help prevent the volatile hops oils from being stripped. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 09:06:33 -0600 From: Bill Tobler <WCTobler at brazoria.net> Subject: RE: Moving Brews Company? Andrew, From what I understand, Bill did not leave a return date, but I'm pretty sure he did not go out of business. I talked to him just before the Holidays, and although he did not mention he was going away for an extended period, he sounded like his old self. I hope to see him back soon, as I need a pump also. (But not as bad you.) Cheers Bill Tobler Lake Jackson, TX (1129.7, 219.9) Apparent Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:02:02 -0500 From: mohrstrom at humphrey-products.com Subject: Alternative BT Addresses Mike Maag is on the trail of his BT issues: > I emailed Consumer's Edge Network, from their site > using the site link info at consumersedgenetwork.com > and got a failure notice Try these: c.e.n. at netzero.net technokween at yahoo.com gadgetkween at yahoo.com Please report back on your satisfaction, or lack thereof. Mark in Kalamazoo Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17:41 -0800 From: "Kirk Fleming" <kirkfleming at earthlink.net> Subject: Fermenters In #8354 John Maylone <mrkoala at mac.com> asks for opinions on fermenters--since I doubt you'll get many opinons on this topic (heh, heh, heh) here's mine. I've used many, including the glass carboy, the converted stainless steel keg, Cornelius soda kegs, plastic buckets, stoneware crocks, picnic coolers and large food containers. What I LIKE best is an 8-gallon food-grade plastic container that I bought at Sam's Club. When filled with 5 to 7 gallons of the nectar, the aspect ratio (diameter-to-depth ratio) is about 5:4, which I like. It's semi-clear plastic, cylindrical (no neck) with a snap-on lid. In lieu of something like that, where it's a little shorter than it is wide, I'd recommend sticking with your white plastic food bucket. I ferment with the container open, sometimes just leaving the lid lay loosely on top of the container, sometimes removing it completely. The choice for me depends on how active the ferment is--the kraeusen often gets 6 or more inches thick--and how much of the nectar I've brewed. Just starting out, you may be skeptical of open fermentation, which I understand. I'd never do it any other way, ever again. Air locks, blow-off tubes and so on don't do anything for me and I eliminated all that stuff long, long ago. Finally, unless you're brewing more beer than you can lift alone or with your brew buddy, I can't see any need or benefit to going nuts with conical fermenters, pressure relief valves, or other semi-pro gear. I hate having gear around, but I understand perfectly the enthusiast who likes a permanent setup--it makes sense and can cut down on overall brew time, etc. Cleanup of a cylindrical, open bucket after racking takes about 3 minutes, however. Kirk Fleming FRSE, FRSL Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:51:33 -0600 From: "Smith,Brian H" <bhsmith at bogmil.gylrd.com> Subject: How long can I save this yeast??? To the collective.... I have saved the "bottoms" from an American Brown Ale (White Labs California ale yeast) with the intention to reuse the yeast. As luck would have it I have not been able to brew and this sediment is now about 2-3 weeks old. Now before you start shouting it is still in the carboy with a fermentaion lock attached. It looks uninfected and still smells of hops (ie no off odors). There is no visible fungal growth on the top and still pressure on the airlock. It has been relatively cool in the brewery. So, my question is, can I still reuse this stuff? Brian Smith Big Ring Brewery and Winery Bogalusa, La Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:06:10 -0600 From: "Larry Bristol" <Larry at DoubleLuck.com> Subject: Re: Fermenters John Maylone <mrkoala at mac.com> queries: >I am overwhelmed by the variety of equipment available for fermenting and >would like to hear what the voice of experience says about the pros and cons >of plastic buckets vs. carboys vs. conical steel vs. conical plastic. The >negatives of the carboy are obvious, and yet a lot of you seem to use them. Plastic buckets are fine to use as a primary fermentation vessel. On the plus side, they are cheap and easy to come by in a lot of different sizes. There are a few problems with them. First of all, unless made from a high density plastic (read: more expensive) they will be gas permeable. This means that oxygen will be able to permeate through the walls of the vessel over time. Oxygen is bad for the beer (after the initial fermentation stage), making these vessels undesirable for use during the longer secondary fermentation phase. The second problem with plastic is that it is easily scratched. To bacteria and other undesirable critters (I like to use technical terms like that), these tiny scratches are like canyons in which they can hide. Over time, it becomes much more difficult to thoroughly sanitize a plastic fermenter. Finally, plastic can brittle over time, causing it to crack and fail. Consider plastic buckets temporary and replace them as often as necessary. Glass carboys also make excellent fermentation vessels. Glass is not gas permeable and is easy to clean and sanitize. The only downside to glass vessels are that they are heavy, not easy to manipulate, and have this unfortunate tendency to get broken (with undesirable side effects). Other than this, consider them permanent pieces of equipment. Since the pros use conical fermenters, this is obviously the best shape. (Someone else will have to explain why fermentation works better in a conical vessel, because I cannot.) Mechanically, however, the shape offers offers some nice advantages for separating the wort/beer from trub. Ideally, you want (1) a butterfly valve at the bottom of the cone, enabling you to dump the trub that will settle after primary fermentation, and (2) a side port valve a short distance higher up, allowing you to draw clear beer after fermentation completes without disturbing the trub below (it is even better if the side port has the ability to modify the depth at which the beer is drawn, so that you can get it just above the surface of the trub). These things are so much nicer than all the bother it is to syphon from one vessel to another that it is not funny! While much less expensive, plastic conical fermenters unfortunately have the same disadvantages mentioned above for plastic buckets. I would not go out on a limb and say that I would recommend avoiding them, as I am sure there are many people reading this who use them successfully and are quite happy with them. It just did not make sense (in my situation) to spend the extra money for a plastic conical, since I figured it would eventually get scratched enough that I would have to replace it, just like a plastic bucket. [I am sure I will get an earful about this from someone! <g>] At least this argument worked with my wife, and I get her permission to buy a S/S conical! Happy happy joy joy!!! The only downside to steel, of course, is the expense. But it is nice to know that my great great grandson will someday be fermenting his beer in the antique stainless steel conical fermentation vessel he got from that crazy old man in Bellville. My advice, assuming you do not want to shell out the bucks for the steel conical, is to go the tried and true route homebrewers have been using for years. Use a plastic bucket for a primary fermenter. Replace it regularly, especially when you see that the surface is scratched and notice that it is getting more difficult to clean. After the primary fermentation subsides, transfer the beer to a glass carboy for secondary fermentation. Do not even consider attempting to save the costs of the appropriate handles you need to move and manipulate a carboy safely. If you have more than one carboy, get the handles for EACH carboy. I recommend both a neck handle and a harness made of nylon straps, although some of the other solutions discussed in the HBD are just as effective. Larry Bristol Bellville, TX http://www.doubleluck.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:21:29 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Sour Cherry Concentrate Hi, I'm seeing posts about using dried cherries in your beer. I will post based on my own experience. Trial #1 was 8 oz of dried cherries in the secondary of a brown ale. Mild cherry aroma and flavor. Just at threshold. Trial #2 was a quart of that famous sour cherry concentrate. This made cherry beer. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that I made New Glarus Belgian Cherry Red. However, this beer had HUGE cherry flavor and aroma. Ask some of those guys in the Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild. My opinion (for what it's worth)? I'll stick with the sour cherry concentrate. The mead I made is doing quite well also. nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:13:21 -0500 From: "Paul Kensler" <pkensler at home.com> Subject: RE: BT Back Issues Mike, I was able to send an email to c.e.n. at netzero.net, but I had to send it a few times to get a response. The response I finally received was: "Thanks for contacting us about the unfulfilled "make good" back issues offer from BrewingTechniques. Consumer's Edge Network (CEN) will be handling the fulfillment of these orders, pending two things: 1) confirmation of contact information so we can send packages without concern of loss, and 2) regular sales of back issues to fund shipping costs (no cost to you). This is a liquidation effort; the publisher earnestly desires to make good on all accounts, but must fund the high overall cost of fulfillment through regular sales of back issues. Response to our public announcements and website updates has been good, data base updates are in progress, and we expect to be able to start fulfilling make-good orders in the next four to six weeks." So I figure they want to sell as many of the back issues as they can, and if there are any left over then the subscribers would be taken care of. I don't know as I'd waste any money on long distance calls at this point, but thats just my opinion. PK - -----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:50:45 -0500 From: "Mike Maag" <maagm at rica.net> Subject: BT Back Issues & Do you scoop? I emailed Consumer's Edge Network, from their site using the site link info at consumersedgenetwork.com and got a failure notice...I don't know if I should waste a phone call. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:53:22 -0700 From: Dave Larsen <HunahpuMonkey at home.com> Subject: Thermometers Having just moved into all-grain brewing within the last six months, I've noticed that one of the most important pieces of equipment is the thermometer. I've got one of those deep fry thermometers with the long poker, and I love is for that. I can stick it in my mash and get deep down in there to see what is really going on, and I can stick it in various places to see how the temp changes throughout my mash. What I don't like is that because it is a deep fry thermometer, the temp goes up to 750 F, and the range I need is so small on the damn thing. In fact, each notch on it is ten degrees. As a result, I can not get pin-point accuracy. The other thing that I noticed is that, at least at the lower temps, the thermometer is not that accurate anyway. The thermostat in the house registers 72F and the thermometer registers 67ish. On the flip side of that, all my all-grain batches have turned out very good, so it must be doing something right. What does everyone else use? Dave Larsen Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 16:13:12 -0500 From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis at hotmail.com> Subject: New Ottawa homebrewing mailing list Greetings brewers - for those of you in and around Ottawa, homebrewer Alan McKay has resurrected the Ottawa Homebrewers list. To subscribe, send an email message with this command: subscribe brewers to majordomo at mail dot yashy dot com If we get enough participation, this could be the genesis of a homebrewing club in the Capital region (finally). Cheers! Drew Avis, Merrickville, Ontario ~ http://www.strangebrew.ca I don't understand people who say life is a mystery, because what is it they want to know Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:43:00 -0600 From: "Sieja, Edward M" <EMSieja at ingr.com> Subject: Bottles for Barleywine Our club has recently brewed a barleywine and are looking for possible sources for 7oz nip bottles or something similar. This is for a 5 gallon batch, so our purchase would be limited. Anyone know of a good source for these ?? - -- Ed Sieja - -- Madison, AL Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:46:38 -0600 From: "Hodges, Walt" <whodges at teamists.com> Subject: Newbie question This collective is awesome! Searching the archives, I find instructions to rehydrate dried yeast in 90 Degree - 100 Degree water ( I know the high end is bad so will try 90 - 92), wait thirty minutes and pitch into chilled wert. Other searches say when pitching liquid or starter yeast to try and match the temperature of the yeast to that of the wert. Other searches say the wert needs to be cooled to approx. 70 Degrees. I need to come to grips with the correct temperature combo of wert with rehydrated yeast. Thanks, Walt Hodges Brewing in Ankeny IA (502.8, 268.8) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:16:12 -0700 From: Dave Larsen <HunahpuMonkey at home.com> Subject: Hop Floaties I just started dry hopping within the last couple of batches I've done. Where I love the better flavor, this has introduced a new problem. I get an excess amount of hop chunks that never settle out. Even worse, they sink within the top three inches of the surface of the fermenting wort, bobbing around. This makes it so that I get an amount of these annoying globules that get siphoned off from rack to rack and eventually into my kegged beer. Now, if it goes into the keg, eventually it is going to end up in someone's glass, and that really sucks. There is nothing more of a reminder that what you are drinking is not a professional product than when you swallow something chunky. I though about rubber-banding a hop bag onto the end of the siphon hose, or maybe just keeping the hops themselves in a hop bag when I dry hop, but I thought I'd ask here first. Obviously, I'm not the only one who has had this problem. Dave Larsen Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:20:27 -0500 From: Al Klein <rukbat at optonline.net> Subject: Good mailorder beer kit locations? Tray Bourgoyne asks: >Where is a good place to mail order all-extract kits from? I've had good luck with www.austinhomebrew.com. - --- [Apparent Rennerian 567.7, 95.9] Al - rukbat at optonline dot net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:20:27 -0500 From: Al Klein <rukbat at optonline.net> Subject: Indoor automated brewing Beaverplt wrote: >My suggestion really is that there must be used >restaurant supply places in most major towns. If a >stove can be purchased at a reasonable cost it might >be worth running a natural gas line into your >basement. Am I missing something? Or is the main difference between a "restaurant" stove heat output and a regular kitchen stove heat output the burner? IOW, why not just replace one burner (and control) on the regular kitchen stove? (Assuming that there's nothing overhead that would cause a fire hazard.) - --- [Apparent Rennerian 567.7, 95.9] Al - rukbat at optonline dot net Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/02/02, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96