FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor


Contents:
  Iodophor revisited ("Lee Bussy")
  EBC & Lovibond ratings (Jim Grady)
  two questions: carboys and bags ("Lee A. Kirkpatrick"                       )
  RE: Mash Temperature Control (Terry Terfinko)
  not quite mystery yeast ("Daniel F McConnell")
  Fat Tire Recipe Request (Roger Grow)
  Adhesive Thermometers (Karel Chaloupka)
  2-Qs: yeast/sparge (RONALD DWELLE)
  Re:  Red Dog (Keith Frank)
  Chloramines in Water ("Edmund C. Hack")
  Stainless cyclindroconicals (Louis K. Bonham)
  Anderson valley products ("Jeff M. Michalski, MD")
  Sierra Nevada ingredients / Low alcohol beer (Keith Frank)
  Iodine Starch Test (Larry Barras)
  air filters (Btalk)
  rogue saint red ale (MFOR8178)
  Water Question, mostly (npyle)
  Damn that Chlorine! (Daniel Cook)
  Better Sparger? (Jeff Bonner)
  RE: Damn that Chlorine! (Tim Lacy)
  another correction (Jim Busch)
  RE: Damn that Chlorine! (Michael Larosa)
  More on Sam Adams (STROUD)
  full boils/dextrins vs. proteins/clogged blowoff tubes/iodophor (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Cent. ILL HB Comp Announcement (Tony McCauley)



******************************************************************
* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
* 
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
 
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.
FAQs, archives and other files 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


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date:          Thu, 22 Dec 1994 06:31:56 +0000
From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb at southwind.net>
Subject:       Iodophor revisited

Greetings!

Norm Pyle hat trouble with a line that Al K wrote about Iodophor, 
specifically wheather or not it was 12.5 ppm free Iodine or 12.5 ppm 
titratable Iodine.

In my original post about it I indicated 12.5 ppm titratable Iodine 
for a no rinse sanitization.  This equates to 1/2 oz per 5 gallons or 
3 teaspoons.

This is from Ecolab's trade literature on Mikroklene, their Iodine 
based sanitizer.


 -Lee Bussy           |   The Homebrew Television Workshop Presents:         |
 leeb at southwind.net  |   The 4 Basic Foodgroups... Salt, Fat, Beer & Women  |
 Wichita, Kansas     |   A Special Documentary on Proper Diet.  This Week   |
 Super Brewer!       |   On your local PBS Station.  Check local listings.  |


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 8:07:06 EST
From: Jim Grady <grady at hpangrt.an.hp.com>
Subject: EBC & Lovibond ratings

How do I convert from EBC color units to Lovibond?  In "Old British
Beers & How To Brew Them" I see that Brown Malt is 100 - 200 EBC with
150 being typical.  All the malt specifications I see rate malt color by
degrees Lovibond.

Thanks.
- --

Jim Grady
grady at hp-mpg.an.hp.com

Return to table of contents


Date:    Thu, 22 Dec 94 09:12 EST
From: "Lee A. Kirkpatrick" <WPSSLAK%WMMVS.BITNET at VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: two questions: carboys and bags

I've received some very helpful replies to some questions I've
posted recently about brewing techniques, so thought I'd ask
for advice on a couple of other issues.  I've been extract-
brewing for a couple of years and have been very satisfied with
my results, but I'm looking to improve my technique in various
ways.  Here are the questions:

   (1) Until recently I've been using a simple, single-stage
process with a plastic fermenter, but I finally broke down and
bought a 5 gal. carboy to use as a secondary (for all the obvious
reasons).  How important is the fill level in the carboy when I
rack the beer to it for secondary fermentation (or just storage
until I have time to bottle)?  My understanding is that one
advantage of the carboy is that you can fill it to the bottom of
the neck (in the secondary, not the primary), thus minimizing the
air space and the surface area to reduce contact of the beer with
oxygen.  However, does this matter much, or is the important thing
just to get the beer off the layer of spent yeast and into glass?
The first batch I racked to secondary didn't fill the carboy
quite this high, and I'm wondering if I should make an adjustment
in the future to ensure that when I get to the secondary my fill
line is at the neck of the carboy.

   (2) I just discovered grain and hop bags, and it was like a
religious experience.  I've previously used adjunct grains by
slowly heating in the cookpot (or second pot) and straining them
out when the water begins to boil; to remove hops, I've poured the
concentrated wort from the cookpot through a strainer into my
primary fermenter.  The latter is a real nuisance when I use hop
pellets because they clog up the strainer.  And, in any case, this
process results in all sorts of splashing and a big mess.
So, in my last batch I put my adjunct grains in a grain
bag and used it like a tea bag, and was impressed with how convenient
this was.  I later emptied the bag and put my pelletized finishing
hops in it.  (The grain bag was a little large for this purpose,
but worked fine.)  It now seems to me that if I got some hop bags
and did all my hop additions this way, and also used a grain bag
for the adjunct grains, I wouldn't have to use a strainer later on,
which would have a number of other advantages.  I like this a lot.
My question is:  Is there anything else I need to know about the
use of grain and hop bags to use them properly?  How important is
it to run extra water through them to extract the last of the
goodies from the grain or hops?  Does a bag work as well if you're
adding finishing hops for only a minute or two, or is it important
to stir the bag around to ensure extraction of all the goodies?
Are there disadvantages to using bags that I haven't thought of?

   Thanks for your replies.  Private e-mail probably best.

   --Lee Kirkpatrick
     wpsslak at wmmvs.cc.wm.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 9:43:41 EST
From: terfintt at ttown.apci.com (Terry Terfinko)
Subject: RE: Mash Temperature Control

In Digest #1610, berkun at decwet.enet.dec.com asks about mash 
temperature control. 

>Specifically, I can't add enough hot water to get it from, say, 150
>degrees to 170 for mashout.  Nor can I get it from 122 to 150.  I even
>add full boiling water!  My best results have been when I start with a
>very small amount of water and a thick mash.  Then adding hot water
>produces the greatest movement.  But once I have more water in there,
>then it becomes harder for further movement.

I have experienced the same problem.  I use an insulated Sankey keg 
for a mash tun with a perforated screen on the bottom.  It does a good 
job of holding a temperature, but raising the temperature after mash in is
tough.  I have tried steam infusing through the valve under the mash 
screen.  This did raise the temp.  To move from 150F to 170F it took 25 
minutes and requires stirring to avoid hot spots.  I was concerned about 
HSA with this method.  It seams like allot of bubbling is going on as the 
steam moves through the mash.

I do mostly infusion mashing at 150F +-.  I pretty much gave up on trying 
to raise the mash to 170F for mash out.  Since the main purpose of 
mash out is to get the grain bed warm enough for the 170F sparge, I just 
started sparging with 180F water to compensate.

I have considered building a RIMS setup to raise the temp at the end of 
the mash and also for the occasional step mashes.  I have hesitated to 
move on this since the only way to obtain the electronic temp controller 
is to build it from scratch.

Happy Brewing
Terry Terfinko - Emmaus, PA
terfintt at ttown.apci.com

Return to table of contents


Date: 22 Dec 1994 09:39:18 -0500
From: "Daniel F McConnell" <Daniel.F.McConnell at med.umich.edu>
Subject: not quite mystery yeast

Subject:  not quite mystery yeast


Tim (tstaiano at ultrix.ramapo.edu) writes:

>Well, the subject heading sounds wierd but it's true.  Now, I work at the 
>Mtn. Valley Brew Pub in Suffern, NY; we just started getting a new yeast 
>strain from Yeast Lab (according to brewer Jay Misson).  He told me that 
>it's a new strain from England and gave me about 8-10oz to take home 
>(watta guy!).

The culture is from The National Collection of Yeast Cultures, a Yeast bank 
in England.  NCYC 1187.  I'm sorry that it doesn't' have a cute name.  Maybe 
we should have a name-that-yeast contest here on the HBD-something PC, 
obscure, that gives only the slightest hint to its true origins  ;-)  The 
culture was purchased a few months ago at the request of a micro who's 
name I don't recall at the moment.  I don't have much experience with this 
one yet,although I am doing my best to try to convince people to use it.  
Jeff Renner (among others) has, and will probably speak up.  

Here is what I know:
Max. Temp. 37.0#161#C, Min. Temp. 13.4#161#C, Optimum Temp. 32.0#161#C.
moderate attenuation, fast fermentation, high flocculation.  From my 
experience it does not produce much top crop.  The taste seems rather 
neutral, but this could be that I am comparing it in a split batch with 
Shepherd Neame and Gales cultures, both of which are far from neutral.  
1187 appears to be excellent primarily from mechanical standpoint.

Your turn.  How does it work for Mt Valley?  

DanMcC




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 07:53:06 -0700
From: grow at sumatra.mcae.stortek.com (Roger Grow)
Subject: Fat Tire Recipe Request


Greetings,
	I thought I had a recipe for Fat Tire, but I cant
find it. If anyone has one could they repost it?

Thanks
	Roger

Santas' got to be a homebrewer, where do you think that bowl
full of jelly belly came from!



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 09:13:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Karel Chaloupka <KCHALOUP at lrlmccer.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Adhesive Thermometers

Does  anybody have any opinions on using adhesive thermometers with 
glass carboys during fermentation?.


Karel Chaloupka
Houston,TX
email:  kchaloup at lrlmccer.jsc.nasa.gov
           KJC NET at aol.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 10:18:09 EST
From: dweller at GVSU.EDU (RONALD DWELLE)
Subject: 2-Qs: yeast/sparge

     I heard that Bell's beers (a micro in Kalamazoo) as well as Sierra 
     Nevada are yeast carbonated in the bottle. Can we recover good yeast 
     from a bottle? Dependably? What's the best technique?
     
     I read Dennis's comment on "batch sparging" with much interest, since 
     the amount of time for a normal sparge is one of the chief 
     shortcomings of mashing for me. Was there an original post on this 
     technique that I missed? Could I get more detail on the technique?
     
     TIA
     Beery Xmas and Hoppy Etcetera
     Ron Dwelle (dweller at gvsu.edu)

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 08:39:38 -0600
From: keithfrank at dow.com (Keith Frank)
Subject: Re:  Red Dog

Kirk Harralson of Bel Air, Maryland writes:

>I think "red dog" is an interesting name for a beer, because it's football 
>slang for an all-out blitz.  Thats the term we used to use for people 
>drinking as much beer as they possibly could with the single purpose of 
>getting incredibly drunk, or blitzed. Coincidence???

"Red Dog" is also a card game known for generating excessively large pots.  
You are delt 4 cards and bet that you can beat the next card delt by suit.  
It's a much better card game than it is a beer.

Keith Frank (keithfrank at dow.com)

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 07:41:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "Edmund C. Hack" <echack at crl.com>
Subject: Chloramines in Water 

I recently sent off for a water analysis from the City Water Department. 
The staff was quite helpful and prompt. The lab tech that I talked to was 
interested to know that water chemistry was important in making Real Beer 
(not tm BBC). Most of their inquiries, I gathered, were from health nuts 
and fishkeepers. I mentioned that I also kept fish, and he replied that 
the water in my area was treated with chloramines. The use of chloramines 
is increasing all over the country, from what I understand.

Apparently chloramines are not removable by boiling. I do have chemicals 
that will convert them to something that the bacteria in the fish tank 
can eat, but I doubt that I want them in my Real Beer. Any suggestions on 
what I can do to remove them from my brewing water?  (I'm an 
extract/speciality grain brewer right now.)

Edmund Hack  \  "The great prince issues commands,
echack at crl.com \  Founds states, vests families with fiefs.
Houston, TX      \ Inferior people should not be employed."-regnaD kciN

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 09:55:22
From: lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net (Louis K. Bonham)
Subject: Stainless cyclindroconicals

There has been a bit of traffic lately regarding cyclindroconical
fermenters.  If anyone is interested in obtaining a half barrel
(20 gallon nominal capacity, 16 gallon batch capacity) stainless
(304) fermenter, please drop me a line -- I've got three
prototypes I've been experimenting with that I need to liquidate to
fund fabrication of the next prototype.

lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net 


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 10:03:52 -0500
From: "Jeff M. Michalski, MD" <michalski_jm at rophys.wustl.edu>
Subject: Anderson valley products

Recently a local supermarket has begun carrying products
from the Anderson Valley Brewing company in Mendocino 
California.  I initially tried their Barney flats oatmeal
stout which was incredible!  Well worth the gold medal
they received last year.  I've also tried their Boont amber
American style pale ale which was equally terrific.  It had
a dominant caramel aroma and flavor with a great hop aroma
and flavor.  Their porter was also very good.  I noticed 
when drinking the porter that the beers appear to be bottle
conditioned.  I am curious if anyone has had success 
cloning these beers.  If you have been succesful, did you 
use the yeast sediment in the bottles to make a starter?
Does anyone have any other information about the hops, and
grain bill they use?  These are great beers but at $4 for a 
22 oz. bottle I would like to take a crack at brewing my own!
JEFF M. MICHALSKI
michalski_jm at rophys.wustl.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 08:58:27 -0600
From: keithfrank at dow.com (Keith Frank)
Subject: Sierra Nevada ingredients / Low alcohol beer

******* from Bruce DeBolt  *********
Information from a Sierra Nevada brochure picked up at the local homebrew 
shop.  No date on it.  There are also photos, including the kettles, open 
square fermenters and tasting room.  

Ales unless otherwise noted.  All beers made from 2-row barley, caramel 
and dextrin malts.  In addition Porter has black and chocolate malt, and 
Stout has black malt.  Bigfoot is the only beer which does not contain 
dextrin malt.  OG and SG in degrees Plato.

                WT.%                              HOPS
STYLE           ALC.    OG      SG      BITTERING       FINISHING       

Pale Ale        4.4     13      2.8     Perle           Cascade                 
                                        
Celebration     5.1     16      3.9     Chinook         Cascade*        
  Ale                                                                   
                                                                             
Porter          4.7     14.5    3.5     Nugget          Willamette            
                                                
Stout           4.8     16      4.5     Chinook         Cascade                 

Bigfoot         10.1    23      6.0     Nugget          Cascade*        
Barley Wine

Pale Bock**     5.2     16      3.7     Perle           Mt. Hood        

Summerfest**    3.5     11.5    2.7     Perle           Hallertauer     


*Dry hopped with Centennial and Cascade
**Lagers
                
- -------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone replied to my low alcohol post and asked if I thought the results 
were transferable to higher volumes, i.e. one gallon.  From reading other 
posts on this (Jack Schmidling, Maribeth Raines) it seems there is 
tremendous variability based on how you do it.  I think you have to 
analyze the beer to know what you've got.  I put one bottle in a 2 qt. pot, 
if I had put 2-3 bottles in the same pot I don't think the reduction in 
alcohol would have been as great because the surface area to volume ratio 
would be smaller.  Based on some lab work I've done in the past on volatile 
compounds I know this ratio can have a big impact on evaporation rates.  
You will have to lose a fair amount of water to significantly lower the 
alcohol content.  That's why I included the volume loss in my post.  

Another question was did I correct for evaporation of water.  The answer is 
no correction was needed.  The GC measured concentration of alcohol of each 
sample taken right out of the pot.  What was analyzed is what I would have 
drank had I taken the solution and carbonated it.  I did not take the heated 
liquid and add water back to the original volume.  But this brings up an 
easy short cut - heat your regular beer for awhile, then dilute with water 
to lower the alcohol content further.  

I also want to re-emphasize that the absolute numbers in my post shouldn't 
be taken as is.  The original alcohol content of the pale ale was listed as 
6.1%, but I know from the gravity readings (1.043 OG, 1.006 FG) that this 
was high.  Even with 20-30% error on the high side the alcohol levels were 
clearly reduced to much lower levels than the original concentration.  If I 
had more time we could maximize the accuracy of the chromatography, but this 
was a favor in a very busy commercial lab so I don't think I'll be doing 
much more work.  

Bruce DeBolt
Lake Jackson, TX
(c/o keithfrank at dow.com)

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 10:04:39 -0600
From: larry at merakusa.com (Larry Barras)
Subject: Iodine Starch Test

Here is how I do the iodine starch test:

I use a clean white porcelain tile (left-over building material) and put a
few drops of the mash liquor on the tile.  Then I take the iodine and put a
few drops on the tile close to the mash liquid but not directly in it.  Tilt
the tile and let the iodine slowly run into the mash liquid.  Take your
reading from the interface of the iodine and mash liquid.

This is kinda what it looks like:  (use a mono-spaced font to see this)

    ----         ----
- --- Mash --- ||--Iodine--- 
- ----------- ||-----------
- ------------||------------
  -------       -- 

Judge the conversion by the color between the || where the liquids meet.
Remember that husk will give a dark reaction like starch.  When the idodine
doesn't darken, the conversion is complete.   

Larry Barras
Merak Projects, Inc.
(713) 850-1633


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 11:52:28 -0500
From: Btalk at aol.com
Subject: air filters

Bones asks about air filters to use with his aquarium pump aerator.

I went to a respiratory health supply place and got an inline disc shaped
filter for about $3.00. No idea of filtering efficiency, but it has to be
better than cotton balls or any thing similar.

Regards,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk at aol.com>

Return to table of contents


Date:         Thu, 22 Dec 94 12:50:37 EST
From: MFOR8178 at URIACC.URI.EDU
Subject:      rogue saint red ale

I just relized (after reading my post) that when I requested info on Rogue Sain
t recipies, I posted the wrong reply address, starting on monday, the 26th, I c
an be reached at csan0459 at URIACC.URI.EDU
sorry for this waste of bandwidth
Merry XMAS and a happy New Year. See you all in cyBEERspace

========================================================================
Michael Formica    "Were all Grooving to the      CSAN0459 at URIACC.URI.ED
57 Diane Drive        Weight of the World"        (401)789-5833
Kingston, RI                 -WSP
02881-1211         Video Killed the Radio Star
========================================================================

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 12:08:07 MST
From: npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM
Subject: Water Question, mostly

Duke Nukem? writes:

>Do people wire down their
>bungs like champagne bottles? Wouldn't the building CO2 pressure either blow
>out the bung or whatever's plugging the tube before the carboy went boom? I
>realize that the thickness of the glass in a carboy may not give an
>indication of just how sturdy the carboy is, but I'm having trouble
>visualizing this problem. On the other hand, I have had a fermentation lock
>bubble off a carboy before.

I had this same question once.  No, people don't tie down their bungs.  The
answer seems to be that the krauesen dries to the bung/glass interface,
effectively glueing it in place.  It doesn't release before the glass breaks,
in some cases.  I've never seen this problem myself, thank God.

**

Kevin Fons writes:

>Can anyone create a WATER.FAQ, it would be very useful.

There doesn't seem to be great interest in doing this.  I suspect it is
because nobody is much of an authority in this area, or perhaps just because
it's a boring subject.  Questions on water often go unanswered, so I'll give
it a shot:

>Hardness 143ppm

Moderate hardness, I would say.

>Ph    7.5ppm

Meaningless.  The pH of the water has no bearing on the pH of the mash or
runoff.  Buffering action of the mash ions controls the pH.  BTW, it isn't
"ppm".  pH is used like a unitless number, although it somehow stands for the
hydrogen ion concentration (a log of it, hmmm, I'm grasping at straws now...).
I _do_ know it means "power of Hygrogen".  I think.

>Chlorine 1.2ppm

Pretty normal, or at least similar to mine.

>Calcium  96ppm

Again, moderate hardness.  The difference between the 143 ppm total hardness,
and the 96 ppm calcium hardness is mostly magnesium, or so I'm told.

>Floride     1.1ppm

Also similar to mine.

>Chlorides   16ppm

?

>Sodium   7ppm

Nice and low.  It is always good to have less of something, than too much of
it, as it is easier to add ions than subtract them from water.

>Which additional measurements should I request?

I would ask for numbers on carbonates, sometimes called alkalinity, or
temporary hardness.  I'm guessing what they call "Hardness" above is only
permanent hardness.  You might also try to find out numbers on sulfates.  The
bottom line is you want as much info as possible on the ions that contribute
to permanent and temporary hardness:  calcium, magnesium, potassium, sulfates,
carbonates, and bicarbonates.

As far as adjustments, do nothing at first, and take pH measurements of the
mash and runoff.  You probably don't need to do anything to your water, since
it seems to be pretty "middle of the road".  I'm no expert in this area BTW,
not by any stretch of the imagination.  I highly recommend you read Dave
Miller's "Complete Handbook of Home Brewing".  He has a very good chapter on
water that explains things much better than I can.  And he's probably right,
to boot!

Cheers,
Norm

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 11:27:12 TZ
From: Daniel Cook <dancook at microsoft.com>
Subject: Damn that Chlorine!

Fellow brewmakers,

Admittedly, my routine for cleaning bottles has usually been to stick 
as many as I can in my plastic bucket, add water and bleach, and leave 
it overnight. Sometimes I am busy and overnight becomes next week. 
Typically I need to do this twice to clean enough bottles for one 
batch, so I'd calculate I've done this 16 times with one plastic 
bucket, which is also my primary fermenter.

My most recent batch, a nifty Christmas ale with nutmeg and raspberry, 
was first tasted on 12/17, and it seemed a little young but certainly 
on its way.

Last night, 12/21, the 2nd tasting was hopeless. Like a wheat beer gone 
bad. After much reading, I suspect CHLOROPHENOL.  I've seem to recall 
postings about chlorine leeching into the plastic of a fermenter and 
then back into a fermenting wort. If thisis true, I'm certain to 
experience it. It does seem like my last few brews have tended towards 
that phenolic taste.

Should I just get a new bucket and use the old one strictly for 
cleaning? My guess is Yes.

Dan Cook
dancook at microsoft.com

Dan

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 13:33:58 PST
From: Jeff Bonner <t3345 at fel1.nfuel.com>
Subject: Better Sparger?

I use two picnic coolers in my all grain brewery.  One is used as the mash tun,
the other is my lauter tun.  I sparge by opening and closing the cooler value to
regulate flow.  The sparge water streams out and I mix as appropiate.  The
sparging process is SLOW!  It takes about 1 hour to sparge.  Does anyone have
a better way to sparge without using high temperature pumps?

- --
Jeffrey B. Bonner - BWR Nuclear Engineering


Office: (509)375-8741, Rm. 867
email: jbb at fred.nfuel.com (work)
       nukebrewer at aol.com (home)
       


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 13:37:09 TZ
From: Tim Lacy <timla at microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Damn that Chlorine!

I went through a similar process.  I don't know if it was chlorine or 
infection, but all of a sudden, every batch tasted the same - 
borderline drinkable, but not good.

My buckets are now strictly for cleaning and catching blowoff.  My 
primary and secondary are glass carboys.

 -T
- ----------
| From: Daniel Cook
| To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
| Cc: SOC Home Brewers At Microsoft
| Subject: Damn that Chlorine!
| Date: Thursday, December 22, 1994 11:27AM
|
| Fellow brewmakers,
|
| Admittedly, my routine for cleaning bottles has usually been
| to stick as many as I can in my plastic bucket, add water and
| bleach, and leave it overnight. Sometimes I am busy and
| overnight becomes next week. Typically I need to do this twice
| to clean enough bottles for one batch, so I'd calculate I've
| done this 16 times with one plastic bucket, which is also my
| primary fermenter.
|
| My most recent batch, a nifty Christmas ale with nutmeg and
| raspberry, was first tasted on 12/17, and it seemed a little
| young but certainly on its way.
|
| Last night, 12/21, the 2nd tasting was hopeless. Like a wheat
| beer gone bad. After much reading, I suspect CHLOROPHENOL.
| I've seem to recall postings about chlorine leeching into the
| plastic of a fermenter and then back into a fermenting wort.
| If thisis true, I'm certain to experience it. It does seem
| like my last few brews have tended towards that phenolic
| taste.
|
| Should I just get a new bucket and use the old one strictly
| for cleaning? My guess is Yes.
|
| Dan Cook
| dancook at microsoft.com
|
| Dan
|
| 

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 16:55:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: another correction

I see that I totally butchered the name of the town where the SA ales
are now made.  It should have read the old Stroh brewery in Lehigh Valley, Pa.
Thats what you get when you ask an engineer to spell!

Jim Busch

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 14:08:57 PST
From: Michael Larosa <mikelar at microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Damn that Chlorine!

You might also look into using an antimicrobal iodine chemical sold for just
this purpose at your local brewer supply store.

 - mike

- ----------
|From: Daniel Cook
|To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
|Cc: SOC Home Brewers At Microsoft
|Subject: Damn that Chlorine!
|Date: Thursday, December 22, 1994 11:27AM
|
|Fellow brewmakers,
|
|Admittedly, my routine for cleaning bottles has usually been to
|stick as many as I can in my plastic bucket, add water and
|bleach, and leave it overnight. Sometimes I am busy and
|overnight becomes next week. Typically I need to do this twice
|to clean enough bottles for one batch, so I'd calculate I've
|done this 16 times with one plastic bucket, which is also my
|primary fermenter.
|
|My most recent batch, a nifty Christmas ale with nutmeg and
|raspberry, was first tasted on 12/17, and it seemed a little
|young but certainly on its way.
|
|Last night, 12/21, the 2nd tasting was hopeless. Like a wheat
|beer gone bad. After much reading, I suspect CHLOROPHENOL.
|I've seem to recall postings about chlorine leeching into the
|plastic of a fermenter and then back into a fermenting wort. If
|thisis true, I'm certain to experience it. It does seem like my
|last few brews have tended towards that phenolic taste.
|
|Should I just get a new bucket and use the old one strictly for
|cleaning? My guess is Yes.
|
|Dan Cook
|dancook at microsoft.com
|
|Dan
|
|

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 17:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: STROUD%GAIA at cliffy.polaroid.com
Subject: More on Sam Adams

Jim Busch asks:

>any idea/comments on why SA dropped the FX Matt brewery
>from their contracts?

Nothing definite, but I heard speculation that it was a $$$ thing, Matt's
wanted to up the cost of doing business with the Boston (tm) Beer Company and
BBC balked.  Considering that Stroh's has quite a bit of excess capacity, it 
probably wasn't too hard to get them to cut a deal.


RE: the beers that BBC is having brewed under contract for the Oregon Ale and 
Beer Brewery, Jim Larsen is correct.  I heard an ad on the radio today which 
claimed that the beers are produced in Lake Oswego, OR, (home of Saxer).  I am 
not sure why the bottles indicate the brewery is in Portland.

Steve Stroud


Return to table of contents


Date: 22 Dec 94 20:26:00 GMT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: full boils/dextrins vs. proteins/clogged blowoff tubes/iodophor

BOB writes:
>IN THE "SPECIAL INGREDIENTS AND INDIGENOUS BEER"
>EDITION THERE WAS A RECIPE FOR A "GIVING THANKS
>CRANBERRY BEER" (P. 67).  THE RECIPE CALLS FOR BOILING
>THE WHOLE 5 GALLONS VICE THE NORMAL 1 TO 1. 5 GALLONS
>NORMALLY DONE IN AN EXTRACT RECIPE.  IS THERE A
>COMPELLING REASON TO BOIL THE  WHOLE 5 GALLONS?  IF SO
>WHAT IS IT.  

Doing a full boil (the whole batch) is not necessarily bound to all-grain
brewing as many extract brewers believe.  Doing a full boil will give you
better hop utilization, better hot and cold break formation, less darkening
and less caramelization.  It does, however mean that you need to use some
kind of force chilling (wort chiller, sink full of ice, etc) or you won't
be able to pitch for hours and hours.  If you have a 8 or 10 (or larger)
gallon kettle, then I recommend you build yourself a chiller and go to
full boils.

*******
Kirk writes:
>In HBD 1609, Algis R Korzonas writes:
>
>>>Body is what I'm after here.  Should I bother with higher mash 
>>>temperatures?
>
>>Higher mash temperatures will decrease fermentability and subsequently
>>increase the body of a beer a little, but MOST of the body of a beer comes
>>from proteins not dextrins.
>
>I've wondered about this, but never had anything to back it up.  Does this
>mean that I'm wasting my time adding Cara Pils (<= 1 pound) to my mash to
>get more body?

No.  There are soluble proteins in CaraPils and since all the crystal malts
add some head retention and mouthfeel, I take this as an indication that there
are, indeed, small proteins (the good, head-retaining, body-improving ones)
in crystal malts.

**************
Allen writes:
>In HBD 1609, Al Korzonas wrote:
>
>>MOST of the body of a beer comes from proteins not dextrins.
>
>Please quote your source(s) of this information.  I would like to read more
>on this subject.

Here's my source:
  Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 12:34:04 CDT
  From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
  Message-Id: <9107101734.AA11342 at utamat>
  Apparently-To: korz at ihlpl.att.com
  Status: R
 
  Al: 
  Both unfermentable dextrins (alpha-glucans) and proteins
  Contribute to a beer's body.  Of the two, viscosity measurements
  show that proteins are more important.  This can be directly verified 
  in small volume brewing experiments.  Try a normally mashed all malt
  beer as the control.  Then do a "diat" version with a long and extended
  low temperature mash.  The finished beer will have almost the same
  protein spectrum, but much less alpha-glucans.  It will be stronger
  in alcohol content but thinner in body.  This illustrates the effect of 
  dextrins.  Next do a third brew where, say, 15% of the malt is replaced with
  a dextrin corn starch.  The latter has no proteins and approximately the
  same carbohydrate structure as crystal malt.  Compare the three test brews
  taking their different alcohol content into account.

  A point I forgot to mention in my last message is that the main reason
  I use crystal malt is for color and for its special flavoring.  Mashing
  crystal malt is the best way I know to get both.  Other procedures that
  have been put forward --e.g.,boiling-- tend to extract husk constituents
  that I find unpleasant in finished beer.
       George
 

**********
Duke writes:
>   I'd like someone to clear up something that I run across periodically in
>the HBD. People mention that a clogged blowoff tube in your carboy could
>lead to glass grenades( i.e., carboy explodes). Do people wire down their
>bungs like champagne bottles? Wouldn't the building CO2 pressure either blow
>out the bung or whatever's plugging the tube before the carboy went boom? I

I think that exploding carboys are a rare occurrance, but they still can be
a hazard.  No, I don't think anyone except the people using the *new*
BrewCap *imitator* are actually "wiring down" anything onto their carboys.
Note that the mess is no smaller when the blowoff hose/airlock ejects.  The
three times that my blowoff hoses have clogged, the pressure had built up
quite high before ejection: 1-to-3 gallons of highly carbonated, sticky,
partially-fermented beer all over the ceiling, walls and floor.  No, you
definately don't need the glass to break to make a big mess with a clogged
blowoff tube.

************
Norm writes (correcting me):
>This 5 ppm of *free* iodine can be obtained if you have 12.5 ppm of
>*titratable* iodine.  Does this sound better?

Yes, I should have wrote 12.5 ppm *titratable* iodine.  The "phor" in
iodophor stands for "carrier" and my understanding of the way that it
works is that the carrier releases *free* iodine as it is depleated.

Hoppy Holidays.
Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 23:37:59 -0600 (CST)
From: afmccaul at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Tony McCauley)
Subject: Cent. ILL HB Comp Announcement

The 4th Annual Central Illinois Homebrew Competition will be held on March 4,
1995 in Bloomington, IL.  (If you pay attention to the competition schedule in
ZYMURGY, you may note the different date.  The competition date was changed due
to a schedule conflict.)

The basics are:  March 4, 1995 is the competition date.  Entries are due by
Febrewary 18.

This is also a call for judges.

If you are interested, contact Tony McCauley at afmccaul at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
and I'll send you more details about the competition.

This event is being sponsored by the Association of Bloomington-Normal Brewers
or as we prefer the ABNormal Brewers.

Tony

 .

Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1612, 12/23/94