HOMEBREW Digest #1082 Mon 22 February 1993

Digest #1081 Digest #1083

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Irish Red Ale (Guy McConnell)
  Re: HELP!  Can bottle carbonation take a long time? (ali)
  Several (Norm Pyle)
  pH Meters, Sparge, MM and Extracts (Joe Rolfe)
  Re: Length of Carboy Aging (bryan)
  Re: stuck conditioning (Paul dArmond)
  Fermenters (George J Fix)
  Gelatin Finings ("Dean Roy" )
  Yeast mutation (Jacob Galley)
  London Pubs and Breweries (John E Haas +1 201 386 4376)
  2 Stage Fermentation (James Thompson)
  Re- Meeting with Pierre Cel ("Rad Equipment")
  Re: 2 stage fermantation and bottling (Eric M. Mrozek)
  The real reason we brew (Eric M. Mrozek)
  carbonation/priming/DMEvsLiquid (korz)
  sadistic bestial necrophilia (Ulick Stafford)
  queries (Kirk Anderson)
  dryhopping/books (korz)
  I heart the listermann sparger (Andy Kurtz)
  labels for laser printer (Andy Rowan)
  Malt question (Al Richer)
  Survey & Signature (James Thompson)
  Sankey Lock Ring Tool Availability??? (William M. Seliger)
  mead digest (Leo Woessner)

Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. 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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu IMPORTANT NEWS -- PLEASE READ ----------------------------- There will be nobody reading mail sent to homebrew-request during the period Feb 8 through approx. Feb 28. This means that any requests for changes or cancellations will not be handled until the end of the month. Subscription requests will continue to be handled automatically, and the digest will continue to be sent automatically, barring any computing device catastrophes. So if you send a message here and get no immediate reply, or if the digest stops suddenly, please do not panic. Just be patient. ps. and please try to behave yourselves while I'm gone ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 9:30:02 CST From: gdmcconn at mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell) Subject: Irish Red Ale Considering that I am at least partly responsible for starting (as well as carrying on) this thread, and that this (non?)style is near and dear to my heart (as well as my palate), I decided to poke around in my copy of Michael Jackson's 1977 "World Guide to Beer" to see what I could find. In the section on "Classical Beer Styles" under the "(Burton) Pale Ale" heading: "...a lively beer, faintly acidic, with a strong tang of hops...also sometimes known as 'India Pale Ale'...France has 'Irish Russett Ale', a copper colored beer..." Also, in the section on Britain and Ireland, he mentions that Lett's at Enniscorthy, county Wexford, the last small independent brewery in Ireland, ceased to produce its popular ales in 1956. The company has kept up to date its brewing license. Enniscorthy-style beer can be produced under license in France by Pelforth. There is a picture of two beer labels on that page, one from Ireland and one from France. The one from Ireland reads: "G.H. Lett & Co., LTD., Enniscorthy Ruby Ale" The one from France reads: "George Killian's Biere Rousse Brassee Par Pelforth" While the signature on the label under the horse's head is "George Killian Lett". In the fine print at the bottom it says: "Biere Brassee Par Pelforth Selon De Procede de Fermentation Haute (Irish Top Brewing) De George Killian Lett". While this certainly does not indicate that "Irish Red Ale" is considered a style unto itself, it does indicate that there exists (or existed) a type of Irish Ale with a distinctively red coloration, possibly brewed only in one area of the country. It would also appear that this type of beer is no longer produced in Ireland. I checked in the section in U.S. breweries to see if there was any mention of Coors buying the Killian's name but this book was written prior to that. It says that "while most major U.S. breweries brew multiple types of beers, Coors is adamant that they only need one; their Coors Banquet Beer". Based on this, I stand by my assertion that "Irish Red Ale" is a type of beer (perhaps "style" is not the correct word) that has been revived by micros and homebrewers in much the same way that porter was. My initial thought was that "Irish Red Ale" was a relative to, or perhaps a decendent of, a British beer style (I thought maybe Special Bitter or ESB). While that may indeed be the case, it seems that the evidence I found would indicate that it is distinctly Irish in origin though perhaps similar to IPA in character. I still found no direct reference to the type of grain used, hopping rate, or strength of this elusive brew but maybe further research will turn something up. - -- Guy McConnell gdmcconn at mspe5.b11.ingr.com "And the beer I had for breakfast wasn't bad, so I had one for dessert" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 11:04:55 EST From: ali at hicomb.hi.com Subject: Re: HELP! Can bottle carbonation take a long time? > > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 14:06:43 -0800 (PST) > From: Peter Maxwell <peterm at aoraki.dtc.hp.com> > Subject: HELP! Can bottle carbonation take a long time? > > I have a problem with my latest batch regarding virtually no bottle > carbonation. Before going further, here are the specifics of the brew: > [ Some stuff describing process deleted ] > > 4 days later, after storing at 68, there is virtually no carbonation. The > cap hissed a very little on opening, but the beer tastes REALLY flat, > subjectively only marginally, if any, more than there was when it was bottled >. I believe you should let the beer sit in the bottle a little longer. You should wait about eight days (or so I've been told). Just because you only made 3 gallons doesn't mean you wait half the time. > In an experiment I have "modified" three bottles but would like comments as > to whether this is the right thing to do or not: > > add 1/4 teaspoon extra sugar directly > add 1/16 teaspoon (roughly measured) of dried yeast directly > put 1/4 teaspoon of dried yeast in 25 ml water to rehydrate and pour 5 ml of > slurry into a bottle > Great experiment. I would love to hear how it came out. Also, I have a question of my own: I would like to put fruit flavor in my beer. I am strictly an extract brewer (for now). Is this easy to do? When should I add the fruit flavor (for example, apple)? What form should the fruit flavor take (diced apples, whole apples, apple kool-aid?)? I appreciate any help. Thanks, Shaheen - -- Shaheen H. Ali ali at hicomb.hi.com, !hicomb!ali System Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products, 1601 Trapelo Rd., Waltham, MA 02154 (617) 890 0444 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 07:30:28 MST From: pyle at intellistor.com (Norm Pyle) Subject: Several Some random ramblings: Steve brings up several very valid points in the extract vs. all-grain debate. I will explain my motivation for recently going all-grain: FUN. I have more fun brewing with grain than with extract. Everything else (lower cost, more time, less/more control, etc.) is secondary. All homebrewers clearly have more fun brewing beer than people who just go to the store and buy it. I have more fun brewing mine with grain. No big deal; just brew it and have fun (right, gak?) I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about clear beers. It seems all of the big boys are planning to make them but the people who really know beer don't think they'll sell (no color = no taste = no alcohol = no sales), or so the logic goes. The interesting part to me was the method for removing the color: charcoal. They dump a load of charcoal into the beer, filter it out and voila!: clear beer. Any volunteers to ruin a perfectly good batch of hb in the name of science? (not me) P.S. I expect it would be much more difficult to remove the color from a deep amber ale than a piss-colored well-known American swill beer. I'll bet Guiness doesn't try to make Guiness Extra Stout & Clear. Thanks for setting me straight on Miller, Ulick. Its been several homebrews since I read it... Joe, I'd be glad to participate in your ale/lager taste test. I don't pretend to be able to add much to the discussion, but it sure would be interesting for me. I live in Longmont. Just had a Vail Pale Ale last night. It had a wonderful sweet, malty base with a quite well-balanced hop kick to finish it. I've never had a 22 oz. bottle disappear so quickly. In fact, it was so good I immediately went to the store and liberated another. Cheers, Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 11:13:06 EST From: Joe Rolfe <jdr at wang.com> Subject: pH Meters, Sparge, MM and Extracts hi all, whew what a subject (forgot, yeast re-pitch, Belgian Ale Book Comments). on the subj of pH meters - i recently got one from HANNA (shucks found out it is made in italy :0). anyway does anyone have one of these? do you notice a fluctuation between hot and cold temps of the same sample? i am not sure if mine is defective or what, pH varies by .5 (even after letting it sit in the non-ambient temp sample for 1-2 mins)....the probe was calibrated with the 7 and 4 solutions minutes before....and soaked in a conditioning solution for 30 mins as recomended.... does any one have the temp diffs for pH? on sparge water - i am just beginning to go all grain (not because i feel less than a whole brewer - but for cost reasons and control over the end product). i am looking for inputs on what types of acids people use to knock down the pH of the sparge and comments on the results brought into the final product (flavour, aromas, color or anything). on the js MM, i have been using it - mostly on MF crystal - it does produce a good crush, no tearing (to speak of ) of the husks. the thruput may not be high enough for my purposes (at least in a manually operated mode) but both myself and another larger scale brewer are going to put a motor on it with a good sized hopper (in and out). anyone done any motorizing of these? what rpm did you find best (too fast the grains just roll or fall out of the sides). my 1/2 cent on extracts vs grain - what ever works for you. i think it has been said that yes - you too can make a good beer from extract and grain. one thing i have found in using the extract to date - you have a hell of a time controlling color of the final product. if your looking for the same color it seems very difficult (at least for a very pale to pale colors). the extract does brown over time ( i have yet to figure out MF date coding). i have even seen some difference in SG/lb/gallon of between 3 and 8 pts. again if you try as i do to produce the same product over and over - it makes it less "cookbook" like. i finally got a re-pitch to work. i had problems with stucks and in conversations with Mike Sharp and SHeri Almeda the major problem was O2 and areation. i never had a problem re-pitching small batches (5-10 gal) but larger batches (even when over-pitching) got stuck. pH of the wort was fine (5.2 +/- .2). no major temp changes in the yeast.. started warming the yeast up days in advance. yeast never sat for more than 5-7 days in 40F temps. so if in doubt areate the hell out it. i used an oiless compressor with .2 ucron filter and connecteded to the bottom valve of the fermenter. a hose dropped into the wort should do fine if you can get it to the bottom for top opening vessels. but always use a filter to get "sterile air". i have also heard that using pure O2 is not very good - most bottles o2 contains an additive used to prevent "stuff" growing (for hospital use), it is very explosive and too much purew o2 can be toxic to yeast..... although i have heard that divers O2 should be fine. as i have posted in the past - i will be travelling to montreal to see pierre rajotte within the next few weeks - the offer still stands about those people who thought the book "missed the mark", "lacked" wahtever... or was good in whatever....both sides of the comments are desired... so far i have posts from Brian Bliss, Jim Liddil, Jim Busch (hi jim!), Conn Copas have not gotten any specifics from Martin Lodal (not to put you on the spot:) but in LD 11 for Thur Dec 10 -you mentioned "but many experienced and capable brewers don't feel he succeeded in communicating it" [it being info on brewing beglian ales]. between you and Conn - this was the impetus to get the questions answered.... so martin - do you have any comments?? do any of the other brewers you talked to have them? these can be direct comments of questions that could be answered to remove the vague areas. as i said and pierre has agreed to answer any questions, you post them, i hand carry them and respond to all en-mass.... my god - what a long winded mess i have made - sorry for the wsted bandwidth i have not posted in a while....i feel better now:) good brewing (how ever you do it) - -- joe rolfe jdr at wang.com 508-967-5760 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 08:31:33 PST From: bryan at tekgen.bv.tek.com Subject: Re: Length of Carboy Aging I brewed an Ale a couple of years ago that had a "stuck" fermentation. It was in the winter in a unheated bedroom. After a couple of months in the secondary I kind of forgot about it and it didn't get bottled till it was 6 or 7 months old. It was great. It didn't carbonate quite as much as I thought it should have, but that didn't bother me. The ale was a nice amber with no haze and very little yeast in the bottom of the bottle. Bryan Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 09:29:25 -0800 (PST) From: Paul dArmond <paulf at henson.cc.wwu.edu> Subject: Re: stuck conditioning Peter Maxwell says his brew isn't conditioning in the bottle. I've had similar hassles. Is there any visible sediment in the bottles? This is the best gauge (other than opening a bottle) of how the yeast in the bottle is doing. My guess is that the yeast count at bottling was to low. In my case, I think this was due to fining with Polyclar. Now I swish the racking tube around the bottom of the secondary to pick up a little of the yeast sediment. I have also added 1/4 tsp of dry yeast to the bottling bucket. That's for later, this is for now: Peter, shake all your bottles and lay them on their sides in a warm (70F) place. Shake every day, until there is visible yeast in suspension. I got this trick from The Cellar in Seattle. I think it works by exposing more yeast surface area. I did this on a batch of Kropotkin Anarchist Ale and it had good carbonation in three weeks. This was after it stayed flat for a month. Let us know how it all works out. Paul. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 11:12:21 -0600 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Fermenters The following are answers to private e-mail from Cush Hamlen. My response to cush at msc.edu bounced. >A quick question on your posting today on fermenter geometry: If I follow >you right, DeClerk (sp?) found a shallow container to be better. However, >is seems to me that a large surface area is just begging for increased >likelihood of contamination (of course, this is a mute point for closed >fermentors). Is he concerned, then, about geometry as it relates to >circulation of wort during fermentation? You are absolutely right about bacteria. Those using open fermenters have to be very careful here. Anchor has theirs in an enclosed area that is under a positive pressure, and where sterile air is circulated. >If one assumes that the circulation imposed by the CO2 rising through the >liquid is akin to uniformly heating the base of a container, then the >mean number of convection cells is greater for a container with a small >depth to area ratio. This is the typical Rayleigh-Bernard convection >pattern (Gee...can you tell that a great deal of my research has been >in fluid-dynamics? :-) ) The result of increased number of convection >cells would be greater contact of unfermented sugars with yeast. >Is it then concern about convectin pattern in the fermenter that drives >the conclusion that 'shallow is better'? You are exactly right here as well. There is a nontrivial temp. gradient in a tower type fermenter which drives the Rayleigh-Bernard convection cells. This has been observed empirically, and in addition numerical simulations have been done using the (incompressible) Navier-Stokes equations at appropriate Reynold's numbers which confirm this as well. I have the most relevant references on file at home. I would be happy to send you this list if interested. In modern commercial brewing, stirring devices are added to the tower fermenters to keep yeast in suspension along the length, and to level out temperature gradients. I still do not like these type of fermenters, and they are usually only used when horizontal space comes at a premium. George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Feb 93 12:42:13 EST From: "Dean Roy" <DEAN at alpha.uwindsor.ca> Subject: Gelatin Finings Can someone tell me if there is any difference between the gelatin finings sold in homebrew stores and the plain unflavored gelatin you can buy at the supermarket. I have a supply of the supermarket variety and was considering using some on my latest batch. -------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dean Roy | Email: DEAN at UWINDSOR.CA | | Systems Programmer | Voice: (519)253-4232 Ext 2763 | | University of Windsor | Fax : (519)973-7083 | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 12:14:45 CST From: Jacob Galley <gal2 at midway.uchicago.edu> Subject: Yeast mutation Jim Busch writes: > Also, most brewers would never suggest reusing yeast from a beer of > such high OG (1.085). This level of alcohol could definetly lead to > pour yeast performance and/or mutation problems. In general, a OG of > 1.050 or less is optimum for yeast propagation. I've been wondering about this for a while. Just how does high alcohol induce mutation? I'm assuming it's just natural selection for more attenuative individual yeast cells. If so, is this necessarily a problem? Can strange esters / by-products / flavors be created by this kind of random mutation due to high-alcohol stoarge media (ie slurry)? If adverse mutations occur, can't they be detected in the starter? Is there something I'm missing? Have another beer, Jake. "JUST DO IT yourself." <------------- Jacob Galley / gal2 at midway.uchicago.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 13:32:07 EST From: whjeh at hogpa.ho.att.com (John E Haas +1 201 386 4376) Subject: London Pubs and Breweries I'll be in London and Southern England for a week in March and I'm wondering if anybody can recommend some pubs and/or breweries to visit. I'm sure I've seen this here before but at the time it didn't seem worth saving. Thanks in advance, Ted Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 11:40:39 -0800 (PST) From: James Thompson <sirjames at u.washington.edu> Subject: 2 Stage Fermentation In response to Mark Elliott's questions about adding priming sugar to secondary: The method I was taught, which works great, is siphoning the secondary ferment into another vessel -- to which you have already added the priming sugar -- just prior to bottling (to get it off the secondary trub/sediment). Since the priming sugar is added to the new vessel first, it is thoroughly mixed during the transfer. You really wouldn't want to mix up the sediment into your beer just before bottling, I should think! If this is clear as mud, and others don't explain more clearly, feel free to e-mail me directly, and I'll explain step-by-step the method I use. Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Feb 93 12:45:30 U From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU> Subject: Re- Meeting with Pierre Cel Subject: Re: Meeting with Pierre Celis Time:12:36 PM Date:2/18/93 I'd like to echo Bob Jones' comments about spending some time with the White Brewer of Austin. I spent an hour or so with Pierre at the Toronado in San Francisco on Wednesday afternoon. He is a very easy person to drink with. I felt very comfortable trading beer stories over a pint of his white. Pierre was interested to hear about our discussion groups here on-line and pleased that we had such good reports of his beers from Boston and other locations. I think homebrewers have a new friend in Austin. 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: Thu, 18 Feb 93 12:52:08 PST From: mrozek at gandalf.etdesg.TRW.COM (Eric M. Mrozek) Subject: Re: 2 stage fermantation and bottling In HBD # 1080, Markham R. Elliott asks: 2.) How important is it not to aerate the wort during the transfer from primary to secondary. 3.) By leaving behind the sediment, won't there be a tremendous (significant) amount of viable yeast left behind? ... 1.) What am I missing here? Do I accept putting all the precipitate back into suspension and into the bottles, or, 2.) Is there a method of mixing the priming sugar/equivalent without disturbing the junk in the secondary? This is my bottling procedure: 1) Make up the priming solution by boiling a mixture of about 3 cups of the beer in the secondary and 3/4 cup corn sugur or 1 cup of malt extract. 2) Carefully pour (avoid splashing/oxidation) the priming solution into a clean tertiary (originally the primary). 3) Rack the beer from the secondary onto the priming solution. 4) Immediately bottle the primed beer. This procedure leaves behind the sediment and achieves uniform mixing of the priming solution with the beer. Although most of the yeast has been separated out at this point, I don't worry about it. There is still plenty of viable yeast in suspension as long as you're bottling within 3 weeks of brewing. As for oxidation, your biggest concern should be with hot wort. At fermentation temperatures the effect is reduced by orders of magnitude. But as long as you are using a racking tube to siphon the beer off the sediment, why not avoid a little splashing and make the best beer you can? Eric Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 13:54:56 PST From: mrozek at gandalf.etdesg.TRW.COM (Eric M. Mrozek) Subject: The real reason we brew Steven Tollefsrud writes in HBD #1080: >While it was refreshing to see a few all-grain brewers come to >the defense of the extract brewer, I have yet to see one come >out in favor of extract brewing over all-grain brewing. >... >If I were an all-grain brewer >who had made all the investment in equipment and time, I too would >find it difficult to admit, afterward, that it wasn't worth it. In my post to HBD #1078, I stated that I brew both extract and all-grain. Although I didn't explicitly say "I am in favor of extract brewing over all-grain brewing," I hope I implied that extract brewing is perfectly acceptable. It simply comes down to what your goals are and how you choose to meet them. If there are snobs (whether a'g'ers or EXTRACTERs) who criticize the choice of others, all I can say is, *** Give people information, but let them choose their own goals and means ***. >One of the most common reasons given by all-grain advocates for >taking the plunge is for greater control over what goes into the beer. >But .. inconsistancy ... make me shy away from having such "control" Greater control in all-grain brewing isn't the same thing as having a process that is "in control". A'g'ers have more control available to them because they can choose the mashing procedures and temperatures, sparging temperatures and times, and many other variables. Having more control (read: choices, parameters, variables, tweak points, etc.) means it DOES take more work to stay in control. I think everybody's FIRST goal is to have fun with a hobby that interests you. If you want good beer, use good extract. If you want to play with these other controls, then play. Eric Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 15:48 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: carbonation/priming/DMEvsLiquid Peter writes: >1/2 cup corn sugar was boiled in some water, poured into a carboy and the >secondary siphoned into it. Bottling was done from this mixture. At the >time of bottling I noticed it was particularly clear - almost all suspended >cloudiness had fallen to the bottom of the secondary. > >4 days later, after storing at 68, there is virtually no carbonation. The >cap hissed a very little on opening, but the beer tastes REALLY flat, >subjectively only marginally, if any, more than there was when it was bottled. I usually wait at least a week to 10 days before expecting carbonation. That a beer appears clear (not clouded with yeast) only means that the yeast count has dropped below 10,000 cells/ml (I THINK -- I don't remember if this is the right number -- perhaps someone can verify/correct?). There's still lots of yeast in suspension and should be plenty to carbonate your beer unless you gave the yeast a temperature shock, in which case it may take a bit longer. *********************** Markham writes: > This past weekend I finally aquired a second 5 gallon glass >carboy. After three successful single-stage extract brewings, I >feel comfortable enough to take what I feel is the next step up the >brewing ladder: Doing a two-stage fermentation. Additionally, >this will be my first go at using no sugar in the process, except >for what appears to be the standard use of 3/4 cup for priming. The sugar-freeness will improve your beer a lot more than the secondary. > As I understand the procedure, after the respiration phase has >completed, and the blow-off tube has cleared, I am to siphon the >fermenting brew into the secondary fermentation vessel (with as >little aeration of the liquid as possible), leaving behind whatever >sediment is on the bottom of the primary vessel. You can, if you wish. Many a prize-winning ale has been done with single- stage fermentation. I personally feel, that a secondary is only needed for long ferments like lagers and thus I only use a secondary for lagers. Note that respiration occurs before any activity can be seen. Perhaps what you mean is "after blowoff ends" which is perhaps 1/2 to 1/3 of the way through the fermentation phase. > 1.) Must the transfer to the secondary be done immediately, or >is there a safe window of a day or two? To gain the maximum benefit (which is to get the beer off the trub) you want to go to the secondary right after blowoff ends, but if the whole ferment is going to last only a week, I feel that the added risk of infection and aeration are not outweighed by the benefits of using a secondary. Personally, I feel you're better off using the second carboy to make another (concurrent) batch. > 2.) How important is it not to aerate the wort during the >transfer from primary to secondary. If active fermentation is still ongoing, then it's less (but not much less) important. The CO2 escaping from the beer will scrub out much of any oxygen you add. If fermentation is over, then I feel it's more important. Just do your best and don't worry too much. > 3.) By leaving behind the sediment, won't there be a >tremendous (significant) amount of viable yeast left behind? My >observations of the fermentation process show that the CO2 rises >from the precipitate at the bottom of the carboy, not from the >material in suspension. There's still plenty of yeast in suspension and although I don't have a clear answer to why you see the majority of the CO2 coming from the sediment, I'm quite certain that the yeast in suspension does most of the work. Note that when by beer is actively fermenting, there so much yeast in suspension that the beer looks like chocolate milk and I can't see much more than 1/2 inch into the fermenter. > Now, all my primings to this point have been by adding a >measured amount of corn sugar to each bottle, then filling the >bottle, capping, conditioning ... enjoying (er, sort of). Hey, >what can I say, I followed the directions that came with the >extract, and those supplied with the microbrewery kit ... how was >I to know. Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks! I'm trying >to reform myself. Don't be so hard on yourself. If you like the way your beer has been turning out... great! However, we all have room for improvement and the difference between a great brewer and a good one is one that is constantly trying something new, whether it be a new procedure or a new ingredient or a new style. I feel that you'll get better consistency and less chance for infection if you bulk prime (what you are suggesting in the next paragraph). > If I understand the literature, about 3/4 cup of sugar/sugar >equivalent should be boiled in water or sterile wort, then added to >the contents of the secondary, cooled to the temperature of the >remaining 5 gal liquid (is it still called wort at this stage?), >bottled and conditioned as usual. Boil the priming sugar in water, not sterile wort. Sterile wort has fermentables in it too and you want to use just the 1/2 to 3/4 cup of corn sugar (dextrose) for priming OR a measured amount of sterile wort... not both. It's called green beer at this point -- fermentation is over, so it's not wort anymore. > > It would seem that if I add anything to the remianing 5 gal >liquid in the secondary, and mix, all the precipitate will go back >into suspension and consequently be bottled. If I don't mix, what >will be bottled will not be consistantly primed. I was under the >impression that one of the advantages of doing a two-stage >fermentation was to eliminate as much particulate from the bottled >product as possible. > > Questions: > 1.) What am I missing here? Do I accept putting all the >precipitate back into suspension and into the bottles, or, You're missing the priming vessel (aka bottling bucket). No, don't do that -- siphon the beer onto the priming solution in another sanitized container, stir very gently and then bottle from that vessel. I use another carboy since the narrow neck is a smaller opening for nasties through which to float in via the wind. > 2.) Is there a method of mixing the priming sugar/equivalent >without disturbing the junk in the secondary? Yes. See above. > 3.) Noting that the 3/4 cup is not carved in stein, if I >substitute dry malt extract for corn sugar, do I use the same 3/4 >cup? What if I substitute liquid extract? I've never used liquid since dry extract is easier to store partially opened. Dry malt extract is only about 80% fermentable, so if you use it in place of corn sugar, increase weight used by 20% or so. Malt extract syrup is about 20% water, so increase the weight used by another 20% over dry malt extract. > 4.) Lastly, if I use (for conversation sake) a 3 pound can of >a hopped liquid extract, and want to use dry malt extract (instead >of a second un-hopped can of liquid or [gasp!] sugar) to finish >off the ingredient list, what would be a reasonable amount of DME >be to use as a baseline starting point for future experimentation? As I mentioned above, the liquid is partly water, so if you substitute dry for liquid extract, cut back by about 20% by weight. NOTE THAT LAAGLANDER DRY MALT EXTRACT IS LESS FERMENTABLE THAT MUNTON & FISON, SO EXPECT A HIGH FINISHING GRAVITY AND A SWEETER BEER. I use Laaglander intentionally to make my Young's Special London Ale clone. It would be good for other high FG styles like Scotch Ale or Sweet Stout. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 17:10:59 EST From: Ulick Stafford <ulick at bernini.helios.nd.edu> Subject: sadistic bestial necrophilia I think all we all grainers should get down on our knees and pray to Steve Tollefsrud for showing us the light by telling us we are all inferior to the extract brewmeisters, but are afraid to admit it because we are embarrassed about the expense in equipment and time we spend to produce beer when the mighty extract brewers produce award winning brew in a couple of hours. The error of out ways, spending less than half what the mighty extract brewers spend on malt superbly extracted by professionals, controlling mashes so poorly that the quality must be less consistent that the sugary, corn syrupy, overdark extracts. And we never know what extract we'll get like the extract brewers, given the superb consistency of syrup (Alexanders?), or TG from attenuative dried extracts (Laaglander) on the market. Thank you for pointing this out to us. We can now plant plants in our lauter tuns, donate our mills to charity, and get most of our Saturday afternoons back again to spend $20 for 6.6lb of malt extract that isn't for pale wussy inferior beers we make now with grain. A repentant all grainer, Ulick Stafford s Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 17:34:43 -1100 From: Kirk_Anderson at wheatonma.edu (Kirk Anderson) Subject: queries Hello everybody from a new reader, but brewer for 6-7 years, in near-total isolation. Hence discovering the HBD was a mind-blower. I'll resist the temptation to comment on recent flare-ups between extracters and all-grainers. How's that for self-restraint? A few questions please. 1) hydrometer reading: at the highest level the wort climbs up the instrument, or at the bottom of the curve? I've been reading at the highest part. Crude experiments with plain tapwater at 60 degrees suggest I'm right. 2) I've counted on Papazian's book for ages. Must I buy the new revised version? What do I get that's new (besides an index)? 3) Since Charlie mis-defined krausening (and I thought I'd been krausening all this time and I've only been wort-priming! with great success too), please someone give the real definition. 4) Go ahead-convince me that Wyeast is worth the extra investment. I'm all ears. 5) Anyone tried the Brew Werk 'Abby Beer' kit? How was it? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:30 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: dryhopping/books Ulick writes: >got me thinking. Traditionally (i.e. Germany, Bohemia) lager >finishing hops are added at the end of the boil, although reading >George Fix's Brewing Science book last night he mentioned that >dry hopping may also be better for lagers. I wonder when would be best - >perhaps the whole lager, or add after krausen dies and let them sit in the >primary for the second week prior to lagering? I am not a fan of dry hopping >as I have had trouble clearing dry hopped beers, but my stema beer that never >cleared tasted just like Anchor. Anyone anyclearing suggestions >that are Reinheitsgebot? Personally, I dryhop virtually all my beers, but then again most of them are pale ales. I have never had problems clearing my dryhopped beers -- they all turn out crystal clear without *any* finings. Perhaps you should look elsewhere (besides dryhopping) for your clarity problem. For the record, I use whole hops for dryhopping because they float and I just siphon the beer out from under them. I dryhop when fermentation has gotten down to the 1 bubble/minute range and let the beer sit with the hops for exactly seven days (more or less appears to reduce bouquet). > >Norm Pyle considers Miller to be a lager book. I dispute that. It is a >good introductory text on producing many basic beers with typical American >Malts. Noonan, dispite being error riddled, is a lager book. It covers >the essential of lager brewing much better. Hell, Miller recommends priming >with corn sugar. What is Miller's Continental Pilsener book like? I feel that there are errors in Miller's "Complete Handbook of Homebrewing" albeit not as many as in Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer." I feel Charlie's NCJoHB is the most error-free, although I have a few sticking points with that too (like not recommending a strain of yeast -- I feel the yeast has more to do with the flavor then virtually anything else -- certainly more than which brand of extract!). Miller's "Continental Pilsener" is a good book with relatively few errors (IMO), but not as *great* as Guinard's "Lambic" or the Fixs' "Vienna." ********************** RANDY writes: >How long can a batch stay in the carboy (after racking once) before >bottling? Any stories out there of amazing feats like 6 month storage? Sure, but taste it before you bottle. If it has gone bad and you hate the taste, then don't bother. >I used Wyeast American Ale and it was a slow starter, and even slower >finisher, but the FG is around 1009. Due to lack of time it has been >basically ignored. I don't want to say exactly how long it has sat, but The slow finisher scares me a bit. I've found 1056 to finish quite quickly and suddenly. Now don't get worried, but the slow finish may be related to the slow start, namely, that during the slow start, something else got in there. But fear not. Taste it and trust your tastebuds -- they won't steer you wrong. ************************** Cush writes: >I have observed that every single brew that I have dry-hopped has ended >up with, apparently, a higher carbonation level in the bottle compared >to non-dry-hopped brews with the same amount of priming sugar. The result >is brews with a nice-healthy head. Not necessarily gushers....but one DOES >need to pour somewhat quickly after cracking the cap! > >Has anyone else noticed this effect? Any guesses as to the cause? > >There has been some discussion lately about apparent slow fermentation in >the secondary following dry-hopping. The two possibile causes that have been >proposed are 1) the hops act as nucleation sites for dissolved CO2, and >2) bacterial contamination on the hops. Any thoughts as to which of these >two causes the higher bottle conditioning? (I am still not convinced that >some bacteria, or more likely wild yeast, are not carried in on the hops). I haven't had this kind of effect and have brewed perhaps 40 dryhopped beers in the last two years. It took me a long time to convince myself to dryhop (I was afraid of contamination) and eventually two things (both suggested by the HBD): 1. when you dryhop, the beer already has very little sugar left, quite a bit of alcohol and the antibiotic effects of the boiling and flavoring hops, and 2. what self-respecting yeast or bacteria would live on hops!?! It's not like it's a grape skin or a cup of raspberry puree... I think that hops would tend to carry no more microbiota than the area that they have been stored in contains (i.e. the dust in the area is just as likely to infect your beer during bottle filling as the dryhops). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 18:10:38 -0500 (EST) From: Andy Kurtz <ak35+ at andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: I heart the listermann sparger I know there have been some postings in the past about the LS, but it worked out so well for me that I thought I would plug it once again. The LS (for those of you who don't know) is merely two 5 gal. plastic tubs. One is for holding sparging water; the other is a lauter tun (it has a neato false bottom insert). Both are drilled near the bottom and have lengths of plastic tubing inserted in them. The tube coming out of the water container is terminated with a couple of lenghts of pvc pipe fitted perpendicular to each other so that they sit atop the lauter tun. Water is sprayed onto the mash via a small brass pipe connected to the pvc (and the plastic tubing, of course). As water flows through the tube, the brass pipe whirls around fan-like, spraying water slowly and evenly across the grain. The grain bed is never disturbed and the water level is easy to regulate by keeping an eye on how fast the water shoots through the "fan" and out of the lauter tun. My extracts have gone from a dismal 1.035 (for 8-10 lbs of grain!!) to over 1.060! It cost me about 40 bucks, but IMHO was well worth it (I'm sure y'all who are handy would be able to make something like this for much less -- but hey, I'm into convenience). andy Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 18:13:16 EST From: rowan at ocean.rutgers.edu (Andy Rowan) Subject: labels for laser printer Has anyone found a good solution to the challenge of trying to print labels for beer bottles on a laser printer? I've got some ideas for things I could do up on the computer and print out, but I'm afraid if I use the usual mailing label type labels, I'll never get them off the bottles again. Any ideas? ================================================================= | Andy Rowan | You don't know what I'm | | Cook College Remote Sensing Center | talking about? Don't | | Rutgers University | worry, everyone tells | | rowan at ocean.rutgers.edu | me I don't either. | | (908) 932-9631 | | ================================================================= Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 14:29:31 EST From: richer at desi.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Al Richer) Subject: Malt question I am a bit confused as to the differences between 2-row British and 2-row American malts. I have a homebrew supplier that is happy to sell me Klages as suitable for British styles (bitters, pale ales, stouts...) and tells me that the major difference is that the American 2-row will convert faster. Well.... I dunno. I have traditionally used British malts in my ales and stouts, and will likely continue to do so for the specialty grains. At $40 for a 55-pound bag (as opposed to $56 for Brit 2-row), it's awfully tempting... On a related note... Anybody got any good suggestions as to where to buy bulk grain malt in the Boston area? This price is from Barleymalt and Vine in Framingham. Beer and Wine Hobby in Woburn is a bit lower, but not much. Mailorder would be fine only with a BIIIGGG price differential, considering the shipping ( I prefer dealing over the counter and shipping by Mazda pickup...<grin>). Opinions, speculation (labeled as such), and other input welcome. ajr _________________________________________________________ Alan J. Richer Mail: richer at hq.ileaf.com Interleaf, Inc. All std. disclaimers apply 9 Hillside Ave. Your mileage may vary Waltham,MA. 02154 " It's a nitwit idea. Nitwit ideas are for emergencies. The rest of the time you go by the Book, which is a collection of nitwit ideas that worked at least once." from "The Mote in God's Eye" , Niven and Pournelle _________________________________________________________ - -- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 17:00:16 -0800 (PST) From: James Thompson <sirjames at u.washington.edu> Subject: Survey & Signature Thanks, Chuck, for the survey results. As a new brewer, and as an all-extract brewer so far, I have not been intimidated by the all-grain info, but have been learning a lot from this great forum, from the simple question-and-answer stuff to the highly technical jargon. I learn more in a few days of reading HBD than I would in months trying things out at my own pace. Hurray for Internet! As a first time poster above in response to Mark Elliott's question re 2 Stage Fermentation, I forgot to put in a signature, address, disclaimer and so forth. To rectify that blatant omission: Jim Thompson sirjames at carson.u.washington.edu Disclaimer: All our opinions are only our own, aren't they my Precious? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 17:56 CST From: akcs.wseliger at vpnet.chi.il.us (William M. Seliger) Subject: Sankey Lock Ring Tool Availability??? I'm not sure if this topic has come up before, but as long as we're discussing stainless steel fermenters and fermenting in kegs: Does anyone know where to get hold of the tool to remove the lock ring that locks in the downtube in sankey kegs??? I would imagine that a toolmaker could make one at a great expense, but SnapOn or someone like that must sell these things (probably also at great expense). Just wondering, Bill Seliger H 1(312)907-9686 W 1(708)640-2718 email wseliger at chinet.chi.il.us -or- akcs.wseliger at vpnet.chi.il.us Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 20:33:01 EST From: woessner at psych.purdue.edu (Leo Woessner) Subject: mead digest I have recently tried to join the mead digest without success. I mailed mead- mead-lovers-request@ nsa.hp.com does the digest still exist. If so how can I join join?? Thanks in advance. Estes of Manang Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1082, 02/22/93