HOMEBREW Digest #1057 Mon 18 January 1993

Digest #1056 Digest #1058

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Homebrew supplies (Rick Michael)
  re:decoction mashing (Jim Busch)
  decoction mashing (Roy Styan)
  skimming ("Knight,Jonathan G")
  Sears coolers ("Daniel F McConnell")
  Bottle filler info wanted (Joe Rolfe)
  Re: arf's Incredible Knowledge (David Van Iderstine)
  Re: enzymes in pale malt (Jeff Benjamin)
  HSA not a problem if chilled? (Martin Wilde)
  Simple (low-cost) Kegging system (Frank Jones)
  Computer error (George J Fix)
  Paul Edwards ("Rad Equipment")
  Cleaning agents, Papazian (doug)
  RE: HBD 1056 (James Dipalma)
  zymurgy (Charlie Papazian/Boulder)
  Re: Jack's floating coins (Dennis J. Templeton)
  Bottle Filler (John Hartman)
  re: Rikard's Red  (R.) Cavasin" <cav at bnr.ca>
  GIF Files and Labels (Mike Leclere)
  Under Pressure... (Lou Casagrande)
  Sparge Temperatures (George J Fix)
  Dangers of a High-temp Sparge (korz)
  Please help me convert mg/L to ppm (jim ogilvie)
  Daytona Beach and Jacksonville FL (Scott Weintraub)
  questions (Gary Cote)

Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) **Please do not send me requests for back issues!** *********(They will be silenty discarded!)********* **For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 08:25:34 EST From: Rick Michael <rmichael at sesky4102b.pl.osd.mil> Subject: Homebrew supplies I have just started homebrewing, and looking for any information on mailorder suppliers, and monthly publications dedicated to homebrewing. Any information would be appreciated. My e-mail address is rmichael at sesky4102a.pl.osd.mil Thank -- Rick Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 9:29:26 EST From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: re:decoction mashing In the last digest: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 09:43:53 PST From: rstya at mda.ca (Roy Styan) Subject: decoction mashing <I have been experimenting with decoction mashes for the last 5 or 6 brews, and <have been experiencing a common problem with each. The final gravities have <all been very high, typically 1025. This seems to be independant of yeast <strain (I've used several different ones, both lager and ale) and only somewhat <dependent of mash temperature. With very low temps (64C - 65C) I have brought <the gravity down to 1018, but this is not always the case. I would suspect an inadequate rest time at around 64C for the saacharification rest of the decoction prior to boiling the decoction. Maybe you are resting at this temperature, it is hard to tell without more details. Possibly, you need to rest for a longer period prior to the actual boiling of the decoction. 1.018 would seem a bit high depending on style, but not out of range. Certainly 1.025 is quite high. My weizen decoctions have been ending around 1.013-1.017 but I am certain of the quality and quantity of viable yeast at pitching time. I assume you are pitching a large healthy starter? FGs of 1.012 are possible with decoctions but the rest temps can be tricky to hit and maintain. on another subject: From: "Knight,Jonathan G" <KNIGHTJ at AC.GRIN.EDU> Subject: skimming <I've been following the discussion on skimming with interest. Tell me, <someone, would this skimming at the beginning of the boil be recommended for <extract brews as well? So far it has been discussed only in relation to all- <grain procedures. Not important since the extract manufacturer has already processed the wort for you, including the hot break which will remove many of the particles that would coat the hops if you were all grain brewing. Best of luck, and yet another point: From: woessner at psych.purdue.edu (Leo Woessner) <re coffee stouts try using small amounts of Roasted barley and/or very small amounts of black patent malt to increase the coffee notes. Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: 15 Jan 1993 10:03:10 -0500 From: "Daniel F McConnell" <Daniel.F.McConnell at med.umich.edu> Subject: Sears coolers Subject: Time:9:45 AM OFFICE MEMO Sears coolers Date:1/15/93 Arthur Evans writes: >The local Sears sells 5-gallon coolers, but I suspect that's too small for making 5-gallons batches. Can anyone who has this kind of mash tun tell me 1) what size they have, 2) what size batches they make (how much grain, how many gallons), and 3) where they scored the damn thing? I used to brew in a 5 gal Gott Water cooler (K-Mart, about 25$). This was capable of mashing 13 lb of malt in a single infusion (1 qt H2O/lb)- plenty for a 5 gal all grain batch and even enough for the occasional 10 gal of low gravity beer (milds). It works great-loosing less than 1C over a 60 min mash. By draining the thin mash, heating and adding back you can hit a mash out temp prior to sparging. I now make 10-15 gal at a time and use a 10 gal Gott of the type that football players like to dump on their coaches (sez Gatoraid on the side, but who cares). This big boy can do step mashes, decoctions and single infusions. 25 lbs is as far as I have gone, but that's plenty for my taste. DanMcC Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:45:41 EST From: Joe Rolfe <jdr at wang.com> Subject: Bottle filler info wanted hi all, this is not yur average request for info - what i am looking for is 2 items: 1) anyone know of a company in New York under the name of Prospero Equipment Company?????? 2) that failing any one know of where i could aquire a multi spout siphon bottle filler, similar to the one offered by the Compleat Winemaker? the specs i need to meet are: good polished tank welds, sanitary 1.5" triclover inlet floor standing easily cleaned some type of float valve or mechanism to set the liquid level in the tank able to fill 12 oz, 16 oz, 22 oz, 750ml bottles multi spouts 6 or more (up to 12) - capacity of 12+ bottle/min not going to cost more than a few grand these type of contraptions are not counter pressure devices, are mainly used in the wine/champagne industry.... any help??? joe rolfe - -- joe rolfe jdr at wang.com 508-967-5760 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:48:06 EST From: orgasm!davevi at uunet.UU.NET (David Van Iderstine) Subject: Re: arf's Incredible Knowledge I posted: >>I've had some experience with these things, which was not good. I made the mistake of adding ice over the cold plate before I had beer running through it. It seems that ice crystals formed *inside* the plate's tubes, with the result being incredibly foamy beer at the tap that did not go away for days (it was a looong party! :-). Jack posted: > I am not sure how or why ice crystals would form inside but they would quickly go away when the warm beer hit them and they certainly are not the reason for the foaming. Well, Jack, I spent many hours talking with the owner of The Spirit Haus in Amherst, Ma, who rented it to me, as well as others, who said that was the cause. It ran foamy for three days. Now, I want to know, what makes YOU so God Damned Smart, huh? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 9:31:47 MST From: Jeff Benjamin <benji at hpfcbug.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: enzymes in pale malt > <Also, make sure your later grain bills didn't include disproportionately > <high percentages of specialty malts like Munich or crystal. If you > <don't have enough pale malt, you won't get enough enzymatic activity to > <get a full conversion. (Try the iodine test next time if you're not > <sure -- a drop of iodine in a bit of mash liquid will turn purple/black > <if there are still unconverted starches. > > In general, this is not true. Domestic malts will contain more enzyme > potential than you could ever use. Even modern continental malts will > have enough enzymes for just about any all malt beer. The use of Munich > and crystal malts in just about any reasonable percentage will work fine. Whoops, sorry if I mislead anybody. When I said "disporportionately high percentages" I was thinking of ridiculous percentages, like *replacing* your pale male with Munich. I'm sure someone out there has tried it (no, not me :-). > My complaint > with the Phils system is that the tube from the false botom has to > rise up out of the false bottom to then exit the bucket. This can lead > to a problem with an air bubble forming inside the tube. I have seen > extremely slow runoffs that I think are due to this design. So back to lauter tuns. I lauter with a slotted copper manifold system that drains via a ~24 inch standpipe connected to a siphon. I don't know exactly how the Phils system works, but I imagine my setup could have a similar problem. However, I almost always get >30 pts/lb/gal yield. Perhaps the siphoning pressure removes any air bubbles that might get in the way. On another note, Arthur Evans asks about picnic-cooler mash tuns. I believe Gott manufactures 10-gallon (40 qt) liquid coolers, the kind you see on the back of construction-company pickups. You can also use rectangular food coolers, which I've seen in sizes up to 54 qts, though you probably don't need anything larger than 28 qts. I mash in a 40 qt stainless kettle, and my mashes usually amount to no more than 20 qts or so for an eventual 5 to 6 gallon batch of beer. Which brings us back to lautering. If you're moving to all-grain you need a way to lauter. I've used both the Zapap double-bucket setup and the slotted copper manifold setup, and the manifold wins hands down both in speed, ease of use, and efficiency. Stuck sparges due to grain bed compaction were common with my Zapap; I've had nary a one with my manifold (even when making beers with >50% wheat). Both lautering setups have been discussed many times in the digest, so check back issues or email me if you want more info. - -- Jeff Benjamin benji at hpfcla.fc.hp.com Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado "Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium." - T.S. Eliot Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 16:35:43 GMT From: Martin Wilde <martin at gamma.intel.com> Subject: HSA not a problem if chilled? As a bunch of us were recently talking at a brewing club meeting the other night, the topic swung to HSA (hot side aeration). I had mentioned the talk which has been going on in HBD about this and how most people thought it was a nasty thing. I then recalled pictures I had seen of Sierra Nevada and English breweries using a hop back and watched some local brew pubs using them also. Someone came up with a reason why these breweries products do not have the nasty tastes associated with HSA. Could it be after you dump the wort over the hops and then immediately chill it to ~70 degrees the nasty phenols do not have time to develop? thanks Martin Wilde | So many beers... martin at gamma.hf.intel.com | So little time... uunet!intelhf!gamma!martin | Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:20:17 MST From: frank at Solbourne.COM (Frank Jones) Subject: Simple (low-cost) Kegging system Greetings, This is a long one, but useful I think... I recently found a low-cost kegging system which I wanted to share with the Digest. It is very new to the market; I found out about it at our local brew club (The Unfermentables, Denver) when the manufacturer came and gave us a short talk on their product. (The manufacturer, QUOIN, is based in Golden, CO.) I was looking to go to a kegging system, and this caught my attention. I purchased one keg as a trial and filled it with Christmas Ale, which was consumed (decimated?) at a party the weekend before Christmas. This past weekend I filled it again, and if anything it was easier. All went as advertised, and I am very pleased with its performance. Well enough of that, but I wanted to establish that I *had* used this system, not just heard about it. I've delayed announcing this for two reasons: 1) I just changed jobs, and now have a real Internet connection, and 2) I was about to use the keg a second time, and wanted to wait until that was behind me to see if anything else cropped up. The Keg system is produced by Quoin (pronounced "coin") Systems Inc., (address below). The bottle was developed by Coors Inc. originally as a take home cheap returnable keg for their distributors (e.g. like a party ball), but the system was abandoned by them, I believe, because of the difficulity with the charging system. Quoin Systems (consisting of former Coors employees) bought the kegging system, and came up with their own charging system, which is unique (and patented). The charging system is a pouch which contains a (food grade) mild acid & sodium salts in a multi-compartmented pouch. The acid is kept separate from the salts by a pressure sensitive barrier, which is triggered once the keg is pressurized (with a small hand pump). Once the pouch is activated the chemicals mix, producing CO2, which makes the pouch expand, filling the head space in the keg. The contents of the pouch are totally isolated from the brew. The beer is primed as normal with sugar/wort. The pouch is only to keep the brew under pressure, about 15psi, and the head space filled. When the keg is empty, you simply puncture the pouch, remove it and throw it away. The Keg is made of brown PET plastic, with removable aluminum clamp rings for the plastic valve system. These things were designed for public use, so are of very stout construction. The keg holds 10 liters total, but only about 8 liters (about half a 5 gal batch) of brew with the required head space. Quoin is marketing the keg to home brewers and micro-breweries. They are a very small operation, but they tell me they are selling quite a few, and are staying up with the demand. I understand that the Breckenridge Brewery (a local Colorado Micro-brewery) has purchased some for take-home/returnable customer use. I'll try and head off some of the obvious questions: _how much does it cost?_ $29.50 .. 8 liter Keg, valve assembly, horizonal stand with carrying strap (neat design) & 2 pouches $ 4.00 .. 2 plastic sleeves for standing the keg upright for filling $ 5.00 .. activation pump $ 3.00 .. 1 pouch ($33.00 for 12 of them) (normal startup requires the keg, pump, and stand $38.95, additional kegs don't require the pump or stand) $ 5.00 .. shipping per keg. Colorado residents add 4.3% tax. They accept Master Card & Visa or checks payable to QUOIN. _what about contamination?_ The pouches are pre-sterilized, and are sealed in a second pouch. The air that is introduced to activate the pouch, once the pouch is in the keg, is just outside air; however it is bled off immediately after activation, so shouldn't be much of a factor. The keg itself is easily disassembled, with the mouth opening being about 2 1/2" in diam, and is very easily cleaned. Since it is PET plastic, care should be taken not to scour/scratch it. but it cleans up quickly and easily. _What is it called?_ The best part: "The Party Pig"(tm) :) When the keg is assembled with valve, and is in the horizontal stand, it does indeed look like a pig. the only things missing are ears, eyes & tail (aftermarket options???). Where to order? Quoin Systems Inc. 401 Violet St. Golden, CO 80401 phone (303) 279-8731 _Disclaimer?_ Yeah, I guess I should. I do not have *any* monetary affiliation with Quoin Systems (damn it), other than being a customer. Problems: A brew buddy of mine purchased one at the same time I did, and had a problem assembling the valve/restrictor assembly which ended up damaging the valve. After looking at it the problem appeared to be that, when the two parts are pushed together the valve was depressed (opened) in the process which pinched it between the two parts. She replaced the entire assembly for $5 but I think that the valve itself might have fixed it. If care is taken when assembling the restrictor, e.g. pushing on the valve body itself, this shouldn't re-occur. If you have any questions that I can answer please feel free to post either directly to me, or to the Digest, and I will answer all that I can. Also since Quoin is a local call for me I would be happy to forward any questions/queries to them that I don't feel qualified to answer. fj.. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin R. Jones National Technical Support Engineer frank at Solbourn.COM <-Internet...snail-> Solbourne Computer Inc. 303.678.4769 1900 Pike Road fax 303.772.3646 Longmont, CO 80501 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we are not supposed to play with words... then why do we have so many?? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 10:55:28 -0600 From: gjfix at utamat (George J Fix) Subject: Computer error During the week of 1/11-1/15, utamat, our local workstation, frequently down so the operating system could be upgraded and additional memory installed. To make a long story short, selected mail to gjfix at utamat.uta.edu was trashed due to a failure to properly backup the system during these changes. I was told that some of the lost mail was to me, and at least a couple had the term "HSA" in the subject title. I would be grateful if anyone who sent e-mail to this node and has not received a response could resend their message. More generally, I would be grateful to anyone who requested but has not received the original HSA article could do the same. I believe it was either Steve Stroud or his wife who gave the following sage advice. "One can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many backups". I believe the same applies to CO2 tanks, but that is a another matter! I hope everyone caught CP's post in HBD#1055 about Zymurgy. I believe these folks are quite sincere about these matters. This would mean that the ball is now in our court, and those interested should definitely respond. George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: 15 Jan 93 10:06:25 U From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU> Subject: Paul Edwards Subject: Paul Edwards Time:10:01 AM Date:1/15/93 Paul; I am unable to successfully contact you via the address I have, please send me some E-mail so I can try a reply, or correct my address. Thanks, RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 14:11:43 EDT From: doug <doug at metabolism.bitstream.com> Subject: Cleaning agents, Papazian Sorry this is a bit late, but my mail was down for a day. C. Papazians article struck me as somewhat odd in HBD #1055. I agree with his general point that people who have problems with Zymurgy should contact Zymurgy, of course that is NOT to say that they that they shouldn't use this forum as well.... the point that struck me as odd was that it sounded like nobody on the Zymurgy staff was a regular reader of the HBD. If that's the case, they certainly are missing many great ideas for articles... Secondly, Scott the BadAssAstronomer was looking for a new cleanser. I've been told by a local brewer that DRANO contains something that is very similar to what is used to clean hop residue out the industrial aging tanks. I've never tried it, but he suggested a teaspoon in 5 gallons really cleans up nicely. I suggest a lot of rinsing... good luck doug at bitstream.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 15:01:34 EST From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma) Subject: RE: HBD 1056 Hi All, In HBD #1056, Roy Styan asks: I have been experimenting with decoction mashes for the last 5 or 6 brews, and have been experiencing a common problem with each. The final gravities have all been very high, typically 1025. This seems to be independant of yeast strain (I've used several different ones, both lager and ale) and only somewhat dependent of mash temperature. With very low temps (64C - 65C) I have brought the gravity down to 1018, but this is not always the case. So what gives? Does docoction destroy more of the alpha enzymes than beta, yielding full conversion, but with lots of dextrins? Is it possible to get a low final gravity with decoction? I've used decoction mashing extensively, generally for Bohemian pilsners and German festbiers. I've also experimented with styles that do not traditionally call for decoction mashing, such as pale ales. Both the pilsners and the pale ales typically finish around 1.015. I'm also aware that wheat beers are commonly brewed using decoction mashing, and can finish as low as 1.010, though I've never done this. A few suggestions come to mind, some of which you've already covered. Yeast attenuation: Roy mentions trying several different yeast strains, I assume they had different attenuation ratings. If so, then yeast performance may be eliminated as a factor, and the discussion focused on mashing procedures. Water/grist ratio: a higher water to grist ratio will produce a thinner mash, which favors the beta amylase enzyme. I use 1.3 - 1.5 qts/lb (I can hear the gasps from the infusion mashing crowd), which also helps reduce the darkening effect of decoction. This is very important in preserving the pale, delicate color in a pilsner. Conversion temperature: the lower end of the sugar rest temperature range also favors the amylase enzyme. 65C is ~149F, still sounds a little too high if you're after a thinner bodied beer. Quoting from Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer": "temperatures below 149F(65C), on the other hand, seriously limit dextrin formation while favoring the formation of maltose by Beta amylase. Because starch granules are not gelatinized or dispersed below 149F, Beta amylase activity at lower temperatures serves only to eliminate the dextrins formed in the decoction, without further significant starch reduction." Try a brief rest at 140F-145F, should result in a less dextrinous wort. ************************************************************************* Also in HBD #1056, Al. Korz on sparge temperatures: > The ususal argument against >using sparge water over 170F is that additional tannins are extracted >from the grain above this temperature. I agree that a too-hot >sparge will make your beer a bit astringent (due to the increased >tannins), but there's another reason for keeping the sparge water >below 170F, and that is STARCH EXTRACTION. Point well taken, I'd agree that water that is actually in contact with the grain should never exceed 170F. My use of sparge water at ~190 is a result of the characteristics of my own brewing equipment. As stated in a previous post, I mount a collander atop the lauter tun as a means of diffusing sparge water, minimizing disturbance of the grain bed. This setup cools the water rapidly, as the temperature at the top of the grain bed is 160-165. I believe this is the hottest point in the system, and still maintain that this is the key data point. What difference does the temperature of the sparge water make when it's not in contact with the grain? Extraction of tannins and unconverted starch is not likely to occur when the sparge water is sitting in a pot on the stove. Cheers, Jim Return to table of contents
Date: 15 Jan 93 12:15:40 EST From: Charlie Papazian/Boulder <72210.2754 at compuserve.com> Subject: zymurgy So far I've received about a dozen responses to my last posting. I'd like to say that we really appreciate the time you all have taken to send them our way. Thanks again Fermently, Charlie P. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 15:28:08 -0500 From: djt2 at po.CWRU.Edu (Dennis J. Templeton) Subject: Re: Jack's floating coins Jack writes >>>I didn't have a silver dollar handy this afternoon but I had no problem >>>floating a Costa Rican 25 Centimos piece on a glass of the World's Greatest >>>Beer. >>Is that anyting like a wooden nickel??? :^) > Who me? No, actually it is about the size of a quarter but is made of > aluminum. ^^^^^^^^ ! After all the anti-aluminum histeria to emanate from this source, I can only assume that he promptly deposited the tainted WGB in the nearest potted plant! (pity the plant :=)] dt Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 11:05:04 PST From: hartman at varian.varian.com (John Hartman) Subject: Bottle Filler Allow me to suggest yet another counter pressure bottle filler. It's simple, inexpensive, and effective. Call it John's Cheaper Filler. To make this filler you will need the following: Standard 3-piece plastic airlock $.95 No. 2 rubber stopper w/hole (beer bottle size) $.30 3/8" ID vinyl tubing, 9" in length $.30. 3/8" ID vinyl tubing, 2" in length $.05. The total capital outlay for this little project is $1.60, leaving extra fun money for the rest of the brewery. Use a saw of some sort (I used a hack saw) to turn the 3-piece airlock into a 4-piece airlock. Cut the stem of the airlock off at the top, where it meets the bleach water reservoir. Keep the stem and discard the rest of the airlock. Slid the stopper over the stem so that the stem protrudes from both the top and bottom of the stopper. Attach the 9" length of tubing to the stem below the stopper. Attach the 2" length of tubing to the stem above the stopper. You've done it. You now have your very own bottle filler and you're ready to bottle. To bottle a beer from your keg attach the 3/8" tube on the top of the stopper to a plastic cobra/picnic tap coming from your keg. Insert the assembly into the bottle. Place 20 PSI of pressure on the keg. You may need a different keg pressure for your system, but I bet it'll be close to 20 PSI. Hold the stopper down and open the tap. Beer will fill the bottle to about 1/4 full and then the flow will stop as the pressure in the bottle reaches the keg pressure. You should see some foam. Wait about 10 seconds and the foam will subside. Now carefully loosen your grip on the stopper so that a little air escapes from the bottle. The tap should still be open and as the air escapes beer will gently fill the bottle with no additional foaming. As the beer appoaches the neck slow down. There will be about 1" of foam. Loosen your grip again to allow the foam to be displaced by beer. Be careful or you'll be wearing that foam. If you do get foamed remember you're a homebrewer and you like this kind of stuff. Once the foam is displaced you can close the tap and then slowly remove the filler. If you pull it out too quickly the beer will foam and you'll loose carbonanation. You can now cap the bottle. One obvious draw back to this filler is that the beer will potentially be oxidized by the air in the bottle when you start. For those concerned with oxidation, a second filler could be attached to a second keg filled with CO2. Just before a bottle is filled you could blast the bottle free of O2 and then proceed as above. I haven't found this to be necessary, but I thought I'd mention it as we never seem to stop talking about the evils of oxidation. It works for me. Try it! Cheers, John hartman at varian.varian.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 15:58:00 +0000 From: "Rick (R.) Cavasin" <cav at bnr.ca> Subject: re: Rikard's Red A few people have asked about Rikard's Red which is widely available in Ontario. It is brewed by MOLSON'S, and IMHO is an attempt to prevent the micro's grabbing too big a segment of the market. They try to downplay who makes it in an attempt to cash in on the microbrewery mystique. All this wouldn't be so bad except that the beer tastes more or less like generic Molson's (Canadian, Export, etc.) with a touch more flavour and body. It can't hold a candle to any of the good micro-beers like Wellington, Conners, or Hart. This is a matter of taste however, and some who like a more mainstream beer may appreciate Rikard's. Labatt's attempted to do the same thing a while back. The beer was called something like 'Duffys' and was particularly vile. Haven't seen it in quite a while. I must confess to a certain bias against such imitation micro-beers in that the big breweries have a lot of leverage (who's kidding who, they have a government sanctioned monopoly on beer sales and distribution and MAKE the rules) that they already use to make life hard for the micro's. Also, the whole thing smacks of dishonesty. Is it any wonder that many beer lovers view Molson and Labatts as the 'great satans'? Cheers, Rick C. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 13:16:31 PST From: Mike Leclere <msl at orca.rose.hp.com> Subject: GIF Files and Labels I recall seeing a blurb somewhere about beer logos or labels having been scanned into GIF files. I think it was in the HBD, but I'm not sure. I made a note of it at the time (around New Year's so the memory is vague at best) with the promise to myself that when I had the time I'd go get them to play with. Well, I've finally gotten around to it, but I can't find the note I made as to where they are. I have tried to consult the archives, but I have a feeling it is too recent to be listed there - at least I can't seem to find it in the index. Does anyone remember the details about this? If so I would appreciate e-mail on it, or just a repost to HBD with an appropriate title line like "Where to find beer logo GIFs." Mike (msl at hprnd.hp.com) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 16:39:59 EST From: casagran at gdstech.grumman.com (Lou Casagrande) Subject: Under Pressure... Bruce writes: >Lou in the same issue "accused" :) me of pressurizing my HDPE jugs. Okay, okay, so the airline does the actual work, but the result is the same. ;^) He says he has extrapolated from this ~1/2 atm vacuum to determine if the jugs would withstand priming pressure. But how much pressure is generated by priming? My assumption before reading his posting was that there would not be too much. However, it seems that this might not be correct: Assume 1 lb priming sugar, glucose (C6H12O6), or 454.5 g at 180 g/mol gives us 2.53 mol. Now assume that every glucose molecule gives us 2 ethanol and 2 CO2 (I'm not sure about this): C6H12O6 --> 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. Now we have 5.05 mol CO2. Using the perfect gas law (imperfect, yes, but sufficient for our purposes), pV=nRT, rearranging gives p=nRT/V. n=5.05 mol R=0.0821 l atm/mol-K T=298 K V=4 l (I'm assuming you're using 5 gal of a 6 gal jug) p=30.9 atm! Am I going bonkers, or is this a lot? Even if I'm off by a factor of 2 somewhere, there is still 15 atm of pressure generated. Is Bruce's extrapolation still good? Maybe. Is there anyone out there who knows for sure? Bruce or Ulick? Your turn. Hopping Along, Lou Casagrande Physical Inorganic Chemist by training Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 16:28:25 -0600 From: gjfix at utamat (George J Fix) Subject: Sparge Temperatures It is possible that the time honored temperature range 168-172F for sparging seen in many books on home brewing are a carry over from older commercial practice. I know from direct experience at some regionals using older brewing practices (e.g., Straubs in St. Marys, Pa. and Pittsburgh Brewing to cite two examples), considerable effort was extended to achieve this temperature range throughout the grain bed. The rational behind the procedure was to terminate all enzyme activity in a predictable way. Both breweries were sensitive to even small changes in the wort % fermentability as well as to yield. I use to do the same until a few years ago Mark Carpenter of Anchor suggested an alternative. At Anchor, after conversion they raise the mash to only 160F, and sparge with water at 168F. (Russ, please help if my numbers are not current). I tried this and found that for most beer styles the change was positive in terms of finished beer flavors. In my system there was a drop in yield, but also less husk based material was extracted. (Russ, does Anchor have any other reasons for using this procedure?) A very radical procedure that was discussed in the commercial literature, was to lower the mash temperature to 32F-34F, hold for a definite period, and then sparge with water at that temperature. After that the mash was heated back up and boiled as usual. The authors claimed only small reductions in yield, and at the same time a ten fold reduction in anthocyanogen levels. This article appeared in a peer reviewed journal, which means their results were likely checked with care. I have personally tried the procedure for a 5 liter batch, and the results were consistent with their findings. Having said that, let also say that I have zero interest in trying it with a 50 liter batch for obvious reasons. I now believe that the traditional numbers should not be seen as engraved in stone. If a particular brewer finds a particular combination of temperatures which consistently gives beers to their liking, then to quote a well known personality from my neck of the woods, "end of story". ( Well, at least I didn't use the phrase "you people" in this post.) George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 16:34 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Dangers of a High-temp Sparge I wrote: > Darryl, what sparge temp is used for > Pilsner Urquell? Two brewers wrote to me suggesting that knowing the sparge temperature used to make Pilsner Urquell would probably not be as useful as I had initially theorized. For example, Spencer wrote: >Is this a relevant question? PU is heavily decoction mashed, so it >seems to me that the sparge conditions wouldn't yield the same result >as when applied to our typical infusion mash. My initial response to both was something like this: > Well, yes -- I feel we can learn and adapt from every source. > After you dump your mash into the lauter tun, does it really > matter which method of mashing was used to convert the grains? And then I thought (in my reply to Spencer): > Hmmm... then again, decoction mashed grains will have much less > unconverted and trapped starch than infusion mashed, so they > could probably get away with a hotter sparge than us infusion > mashers. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps my earlier argument > is the key to the demise of my PU comparison. In any event, > maybe it will start some new discussions. In Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer," he says that the primary advantage of decoction mashing (and the reason that it yields slightly higher extract efficiencies) is because as the during the decoctions, the heat causes the starch grains burst and become available to be converted. This was the basis for my contention that too-high a sparge temperature could cause unconverted starch to be sparged out of the grains. Miller advises against high-temp sparges also (for the same reason, I believe) in his "Continental Pilsener" book from the AHA Classic Style Series. That I asked Darryl if he knew the sparge temp for PU was a mistake, since as Spencer (and the other person (sorry)) noted, the fact that PU is decoction mashed means that its mash's grains have much less unconverted (and unavailable) starch than our typical single- or step-infusion mashes. Therefore, knowing their sparge temperature would not be as useful as I had initially anticipated (not that I'm not still interested). Bottom line, the point I was trying to make was, that I feel that the best way to lauter is to: 1. take the mash that you have raised to 170F during mashout, 2. put it in an insulated lauter tun, 3. sparge with 170F water (acidified if necessary), and 4. if your runoff is too cold (heck, I don't know, say, below 140F), then insulate your tun better, rather than raising your sparge water temperature. ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ Comments? Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri Jan 15 17:34:05 1993 From: ogilvie at ficc.ferranti.com (jim ogilvie) Subject: Please help me convert mg/L to ppm I recently reqested and recevied a report from my water suplier listing all the junk in my tap water. Now I could use a little help interpreting what they sent me. What I expected was a breakdown of how much junk in parts-per-million is in the water; what I got was how much junk in MG/L is in there. Assuming MG/L means milligrams-per-Liter (bad assumption?), can I read that as being pretty close to parts-per-million? Since a liter of tap water has a mass really close to 1kg, can I say that 1 mg/L is 1mg/kg here? mg/kg looks a lot like parts-per-million, if the ratio is a mass-of-junk to mass-of-water ratio. Does "ppm" mean normally mean "mass-of-one-part-junk to mass-of-one-million-parts-water? The person that sent me the report couldn't help me convert MG/L to ppm. Any help is appreciated. Jim (ogilvie at ferranti.com) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 9:43:40 EST From: sfw at trionix.com (Scott Weintraub) Subject: Daytona Beach and Jacksonville FL Im off to the land of spring break...any chance of real beer there (or in nearby Jacksonville? - --Scott Weintraub TRIONIX ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Scott Weintraub | TRIONIX Research Laboratory, Inc. | | Software Engineer | 8037 Bavaria Road | | | Twinsburg, OH 44087 | | e-mail: sfw at trionix.com | Voice: 1-216-425-9055 Fax: 1-216-425-9059 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 11:51:41 From: Gary.Cote at leotech.MV.COM (Gary Cote) Subject: questions I am looking for three receipes for brews. One is for "Taddy porter" The second is for a "New castle brown ale" and third is for a "corona" (not for me). All are for extract brews. Also is there any problems with the way that I cool my wort? Here it goes.. I put 3.5 gollons water into a plastic fermanter and put it in my large chast freezer, Yes I cover and seal it tight. I boil the wort then strain it into the 33 degree water. It brings the temp down to around 65 degrees. then pitch the yeast Also is there any problems with using those 5 gal. slightly tinted water bottles thet spring water comes in as a secondary? Thanks Gary Cote gcote at leotech.mv.com - -- Gary Cote gcote at leotech.mv.com * Origin: Leo Technology (603)432-2517/432-0922 (HST/V32) (1:132/189) Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1057, 01/18/93