HOMEBREW Digest #1761 Wed 21 June 1995
Digest #1760
Digest #1762
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
all-grain brewing times (Steve Peters)
Water Synthesis Part 1 (A. J. deLange)
Water Synthesis Part 2 (A. J. deLange)
Re: #2(2) Homebrew Digest #1759 (June 19, 1995) (TimFunn)
How to decompress FAQs at ftc.stanford.com (MZemenick)
Re-using yeast sediment ("Kevin A. Kutskill")
rollermills/dry versus liquid yeasts/slow Wyeast package/water woes (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
New brewer. (GOLDBERG_DAVID)
Christoffel Blond (Robert Lauriston/Patricia Bennett)
Melvico Pressure Bottler (MR RON PETERSON)
Gott , Igloo, Coleman coolers (Rich Hampo)
MEAD USING FRUIT (Arthur_S_Ward.henr801h)
Kirk's Quirks ("Dave Ebert")
Rye Ale Wanted (Joseph.Fleming)
Rogue Nut Brown Ale (Barry M Wertheimer)
Oktoberfest (Gary Plank)
Propane Cookers / All Grain (Gary Plank)
great new gadget on the way! (SPEAKER.CURTIS)
Primary -> Secondary (larry.carden)
Open decoction efficiency acquired. (Russell Mast)
Pale Ale (Jeff Stampes)
RE:Verb - Collapsing Foam (Don Rudolph)
******************************************************************
* 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.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
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.
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
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:14:57 -0700
From: stevep at pcx.ncd.com (Steve Peters)
Subject: all-grain brewing times
>:FWIW, I believe the time commitment associated with all-grain brewing has
been
>:severely underestimated in the late thread on that subject----either that or
>
>
> Earlier this week I cooked up a batch of oatmeal/chocolate/coffeee stout
>and kept my eye on the clock to see just how long it took: one hour the night
>before to crack the grain, cook the oatmeal, and boil the water, and five
hours
>in the morning to mash, sparge, boil, chill, and pitch. The yeast ranching
and
>stepping up of the starter to 3qt took a couple of minutes over the course of
Regarding brewing times: Two weeks ago I brewed my first balls-out
how-much-can-I-crank-through-this-baby all-grain batch in my new system. Total
time from heating the water & grinding the grains until the last cleaning step
was eleven (11) hours. Of course, I did get 15 gallons of beer, which, for the
volume of beer compares favorably with the time I would spend making 3 5-gallon
batches of extract in my old system - approx 12 hrs or so.
Also, I ran out of propane in the middle, which slowed me down, and I suspect
the JS Easymasher I'm currently just doesn't have sufficient throughput for a
batch that size.
For over two years I did 5 gallon extract batches on the stove top. That
worked pretty well, and I got good at it. Then I slowly worked my way into
stove-top 5 gallon all-grain. I learned quite a bit about what can go wrong
with brewing beer this way and found myself making extracts again because it
was simply too much effort with the equipment I had. Then a breakthrough! I
managed to move to a place with a garage/basement I could dedicate to brewing.
At the same time I met someone selling his brewing equipment. Between him &
some scrounging in other places I have assembled the following: two 30,000BTU
propane burners, two firestone (the ones with the bung in the side) kegs
converted to kettles with drains installed (one for boiling, one for sparge
water), one picnic cooler/mash/lauter tun, a counter-flow wort chiller, a
motorized malt mill, and a kegging system with a number of kegs. Add to this
my old equipment and a bunch of hoses and connectors and suddenly we're Big
Time!
I've brewed three batches so far and I find the biggest change is that brewing
is far less stressful. Spilled water or beer is no longer a problem, and the
whole process is no longer in my long-suffering girlfriend's way. Also, while
I still have to clean, there is no setup/teardown, and if it's a sunny day
while I brew I can step two feet to the left and be outside instead of locked
inside the house. Yeast isn't a big deal since I repitch from the last batch
providing plenty good yeast for a strong ferment.
Also, I have three 50-lb bags of malt so I don't waste much time at the
homebrew store ;-) and even less once my hop plants get going!
It has taken me three years to get to this point and I have probably spent
$400-500 dollars on equipment total. I don't always make beer as good as the
stuff you can buy, and it hasn't always been cheaper, but darn if that
homebrewed stuff doesn't make me feel better than any commercial beer I can
get, and it sure is a nice ego boost to take a pile of grain and turn it into
something my close pals say tastes great!
>two weeks, and is a joy in itself. But then, "consuming passion" is a deep
>understatement in my case.
hear, hear
Steve "Am I obsessed yet?" Peters
- --
Steve Peters
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:15:39 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Water Synthesis Part 1
This is kind of long but as the Digest has been rather thin recently I
thought it might help to get the page count up.
Gregory Egle in # 1759 asked about how to synthesize water with a given
ion profile and wondered why there isn't much in the literature about
how to compute the salt additions required to do this. The reason is
that it's a fairly tough (or at least complex) problem. I'll enumerate
some of the reasons why this is so and then talk a bit about an approach
to solving it.
1. The chemistry gets a little involved. It's nothing beyond college
freshman level stuff but that is further than most homebrewing
books/magazines are willing to go.
2. Given that the chemistry is understood it is easy to model the
problem (a system of linear equations) to be solved for the amounts
of each type of salts to give the desired concetrations of ions but
the solution is difficult to obtain because it is constrained: all answers
must be positive; no permissible answer must require the addition of more
of a salt than can be dissolved; the pH of the resultant water must be
controlled.
3. As the salts contain ions in fixed ratios (e.g. 40% calcium, 60% carbonate
in calcium carbonate) one cannot expect to get exactly the solution
which matches the desired profile.
4. To get around 3 to some extent we use a lot of different salts but this
makes the
problem one of solving n (the number of ions of interest) equations in m (the
number of salts) unknows where m > n. This pushes the math still further
out of
reach.
5. Because of 3 and 4 there are literally an infinite number of solutions
which are
about equally good. How do we pick one and what is the critertion of
goodness?
6. In most water specifications the target pH is not given. It is
impossible to solve
the problem without knowing what the pH of, say, the Burton water we are
trying
to duplicate should be (so we usually use 7 or the first pK for carbonate).
7. Water specifications don't tell us what other ions may be involved (for
example
potassium or phosphate). As you will see from one of the examples below
I cannot
synthesize Munich water without adding some acid (necessary to get all the
carbonate to dissolve).
8. Having gone to the trouble of synthesizing water which resembles that of
a famous
brewing city will you then undo it? For example I give the "formula" for
a water
which is close that of Burton below. All ion contents are within 20% of those
specified for Burton water. The alkalinity is 100 ppm as CaCO3 which is about
twice the desired level. Will I boil this water to remove the carbonate
I just
put in or should I just not put it in in the first place? The point I'm
trying
to make here is that you need to understand what the Burton brewers are
doing to
the water they use so you can do the same.
9. Some of the salts are hard to come by and are difficult to use e.g. calcium
carbonate is extremely deliquescent. Put it in the weigh boat on a humid day
and you'll have soup in a few minutes. How much of the weight is water
and how
much CaCl2 at this point? You can make it up from chalk and hydrochloric acid
but that's an additional complication. There are concerns about untrained
people handling the acids required.
I've been thinking about this problem ever since Dave Draper published that
tidy list of water profiles earlier this year. Wouldn't it be neat to have
a matching table of salt additions to get these profiles? I'm not sure that
I will ever get that far but I've made some progress (and perhaps others are
or will work on this problem). The table below gives a synthesis of Burton1
(his designation) from distilled water. It is based on some software I'm
experimenting with. IT IS NOT FULLY DEBUGGED so I don't guarantee that
all is perfect yet but preliminary checks seem OK. Treat these examples as
examples and let me know if you see anything fishy.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burton1
pH: 6.38
ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 268.000 217.485 -18.85 NaCl 45.828
Mg 62.000 58.889 -5.02 Na2CO3.10H2O 144.972
Na 54.000 51.561 -4.52 CaCL2 0.000
K 0.000 0.867 0.87 CaSO4.2H2O 336.931
CO3 275.000 254.839 -7.33 CaCO3 347.254
SO4 638.000 712.612 11.69 MgCL2 6.268
CL 36.000 35.581 -1.16 MgCO3 22.699
H 6.367 6.367 0.00 KCl 1.653
0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 31.643
0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 514.312
0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 309.031
0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 2.401
Carbonic: 2.1306 Bicarbonate: 2.1306 Carbonate: 0.000245 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 6.3919 Sulfuric Hydronium: 6.2856
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1063 mEq
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.32E-09 MgCO3: 4.89E-10
Alkalinity: 2.09 mEq; 104.35 ppm as CaCO3.
Temporary hardness: 15.70 mEq; 784.77 ppm as CaCO3
Permanent hardness: 7.17 mEq; 358.62 ppm as CaCO3
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All salt amounts are in mg/l and ion concentrations are in ppm as the
ion (e.g. mg/l of the species). The ERR% column indicates the error
in the realized concentration as a percentage of the desired
concentration with the exception of potassium which is never (it seems)
specified and is generally OK up to about 10 ppm. One ppm potassium is
treated the same way as 1% error in any other ion. The algorithm used
makes a mad stab at a solution and calculates the square root of the
sum of the squares of the percentage errors (called the "rms error".)
It then randomly tweaks the solution to get a new one.
Hydrochloric acid is not tweaked. It is computed to maintain the pH of
the resultant water at the desired value (pH = 6.38 in this example).If
the new solution requires more carbonate than will dissolve, it is dis-
carded. If not, the rms percent error is again computed. If it is less
than before this solution is a better one than the original and is
retained. If it is more maybe the solution is retained and maybe it isn't.
(I don't want to get into the details here. Readers who would understand
probably already recognize the Metropolis algorithm.) The process is
repeated using the new solution if retained and the old if not.
These results are pleasing but as we have said, this is not the only
synthesis of about this quality. The quality here is based on the
rms % error which is about 10%. There are an infinite number of
other solutions about this good. The algorithm finally settles
out rambling among these solutions. It is probably (and
that word has special meaning here) not possible to find better
solutions using rms % error as a measure of goodness.
-MORE-
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel at interramp.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:16:08 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Water Synthesis Part 2
Here's another solution for Burton1 which has about 11% rms error:
pH: 6.38
ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 268.000 261.196 -2.54 NaCl 3.745
Mg 62.000 53.618 -13.52 Na2CO3.10H2O 159.278
Na 54.000 51.907 -3.88 CaCL2 5.935
K 0.000 0.706 0.71 CaSO4.2H2O 541.259
CO3 275.000 284.932 3.61 CaCO3 332.281
SO4 638.000 782.740 22.69 MgCL2 39.596
CL 36.000 37.286 3.57 MgCO3 73.374
H 7.119 7.119 0.00 KCl 1.346
0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 76.750
0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 226.487
0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 347.607
0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 1.134
Carbonic: 2.3731 Bicarbonate: 2.3731 Carbonate: 0.000272 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 7.1193 Sulfuric Hydronium: 7.0882
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.0311 mEq
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.78E-09 MgCO3: 5.45E-10
Alkalinity: 2.32 mEq; 116.22 ppm as CaCO3.
Temporary hardness: 17.44 mEq; 872.15 ppm as CaCO3
Permanent hardness: 7.95 mEq; 397.50 ppm as CaCO3
Here we have decided (arbitrarily) that what we really care about is
calcium, so we made each percent error in the amount of calcium
count as 10% in computing the total error. The result is that the
algorithm accepts tweaks which suppress calcium error at the
expense of allowing more error in other ion concentrations (sulfate
in this case). Thus we have two solutions for the synthesis of
Burton1 one of which just tries to be all-around best and the
other of which tries to be best with emphasis on calcium.
Here now is an example where the algorithm as given above does not work
at all well. It is for Munich water (and is taken from "Water Treatment:
Philosophy, Approach and Calculations" by Karl King in Sept/Oct. '93
Brewing Techniques.
pH: 7.50
ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
Ca 75.000 11.140 -85.15 NaCl 1.160
Mg 18.000 0.820 -95.44 Na2CO3.10H2O 0.000
Na 2.000 2.346 17.29 CaCL2 1.964
K 0.000 1.234 1.23 CaSO4.2H2O 6.569
CO3 150.000 13.333 -91.11 CaCO3 22.231
SO4 10.000 21.565 115.65 MgCL2 0.000
CL 2.000 3.589 79.46 MgCO3 0.000
H 0.237 0.237 0.00 KCl 2.353
0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 5.837
0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 8.311
0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 10.935
0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 0.527
Carbonic: 0.0156 Bicarbonate: 0.2062 Carbonate: 0.000312 mM
Total Required Hydronium: 0.2374 Sulfuric Hydronium: 0.2230
Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.0144 mEq
Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
Ion Products - CaCO3: 8.67E-11 MgCO3: 0.00E+00
Alkalinity: 0.20 mEq; 10.22 ppm as CaCO3.
Temporary hardness: 0.62 mEq; 31.17 ppm as CaCO3
Permanent hardness: 0.18 mEq; 8.96 ppm as CaCO3
Why is the result so dismal (79 % rms)? The answer is because you CAN'T
MAKE MUNICH WATER WITH THE SALTS AND ACIDS LISTED. But Mother Nature
makes Munich water. True, but she doesn't make it with the salts
and acids on our list. So what does she use? I don't know but let's
suppose she used phosphoric acid. For brief illustration, let us
focus on calcium again as it is probably the most important mash ion.
We need 64 ppm more calcium to get the desired 75 ppm. As CaCO3 is
40% calcium let's add 64/0.4 = 160 mg/l CaCO3. When you add 160 mg/l
CaCO3 you add 160*0.6 = 96 mg/l carbonate. As you can see from
looking at the relative concentrations of the carbonyl species
nearly all the added carbonate is converted to bicarbonate IF THE
pH IS TO BE MAINTAINED at 7.5 (the value for this example). If this
carbonate is NOT converted it will NOT dissolve. The author of the
article from which this example was taken was aware of this and
recommended that the chalk be added to the mash because it wouldn't
dissolve in the water. One can accept or reject this approach as
desired (if done right the end result should be the same) but it is clear
that this approach does not synthesize Munich water and that is what
we are trying to do here.
160ppm CaCO3 is 160/100 = 1.6 millimoles of CaCO3 which contain
1.6 millimoles of CO3-- ion which, as most of it is converted
to bicarbonate at pH 7.5 and very little to carbonic, requires
about 1.6 mEq of hydronium ion. This must come from an acid other than
hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid (the ones on the list) because
addition of more of those will drive up chlorides and sulfate both
of which are already about double what we want. The algorithm added
as much of these as it could, trading off error in sulfate and
chloride for error in calcium. The compromise listed above is the
probably the best that can be done.
Thus, if we add 1.6 mEq phosphoric acid (1.6*32.7 = 52 ppm) we could
get our calcium up to 75 ppm, carbonate would go up to 13.33 + 96 =
109.33, the pH would stay at 7.5 and we would have a phosphate ion
concentration of 51 ppm.
It should also be clear that we could get the sulfate and chloride
down by reducing HCl and H2SO4 and making up the lost hydronium
with more H3PO4 which would allow more epsom salts to get the
magnesium up and etc. The proper approach to this problem is
to modify the algorithm to float HCl and adjust pH with H3PO4
and perhaps one day soon I'll do just that.
If anyone is still with me I hope I have acheived the following:
- Conveyed a feel for the nature and complexity of the water
synthesis problem.
- Shown that it does not have a correct solution but rather an
infinity of approximately correct solutions.
- Illustrated that getting these solutions is tricky in some ways
but that it can be done.
- Shown that within a set of solutions of approximately equal
quality there may be reasons for picking one over another.
-END-
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel at interramp.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 18:49:31 -0400
From: TimFunn at aol.com
Subject: Re: #2(2) Homebrew Digest #1759 (June 19, 1995)
Getting ready to brew my second batch and looking for the Ultimate "Newcastle
Brown Ale" recipe. If you have something good, please feel free to E-mail at
Tim Funn at aol.com. Thanks.
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 21:21:58 -0400
From: MZemenick at aol.com
Subject: How to decompress FAQs at ftc.stanford.com
Fellow brewers,
I have been able to download many FAQs that I am interested in; Yeast, Hops,
Grain...
I do not know how to uncode a .Z file. I tried Winzip but apparently these
are not Zip files?. Is there a shareware product I need? What is it's name &
how do I use it. Private E-Mail is welcome. I brew much better than I operate
the computer.
Thanks,
Mike Z from GP MI
Return to table of contents
Date: 19 Jun 95 22:10:25 EDT
From: "Kevin A. Kutskill" <75233.500 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Re-using yeast sediment
Here is a question that has to be answered quickly (I need to get another
brew going in a couple of days). I have read about the technique of using
the yeast sediment from the last batch of beer to inoculate the wort for the
next batch of beer, and I want to try this myself. Here's the problem: I just
fined the finished beer with gelatin. Will the gelatin in the yeast sediment
keep the yeast from suspending in the new wort, thereby preventing the
fermentation from proceeding as it should? I know my beer is not ruined
<g>, but what about the yeast cake?
TIA,
Kevin A. Kutskill ("Dr. Rottguts")
Clinton Township, MI
"A homebrew a day keeps the doctor happy"
Return to table of contents
Date: 19 Jun 95 11:42:00 -0500
From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: rollermills/dry versus liquid yeasts/slow Wyeast package/water woes
Sorry about the lateness of this reponse, but I just got back from
the AHA Conference in Baltimore.
Rob writes:
>Terence Tegner(tegbrew at iaccess.za)
>Yep, this is the guy from Africa. Terence engineered a 2 roller mill
>that will handle 10kg/min. <WOW!> Obviously motor driven it has 2
>unknurled 6" diam X 10" length rollers made of mild steel. It spins one
>roller at 350rpm while using a different sized pulley (driven by the back
>of the same round pulley belt) to give the second roller a slightly diferent
>speed. This rolls/turns the grain as it is being crushed.
While I have not made any tests on a rollermill where the rollers turn at
slightly different speeds, I have tried crushing grain with an UNmodified
Marcado mill which is actually made for breadmaking. This mill has two
diagonally knurled rollers which seem to turn at the same rate, but the
knurling twists the grain as it is pulled through the mill. I found that
this twisting shredded the husks much more than I felt appropriate for
brewing. Therefore, I personally feel that minimizing any twisting that
occurs would be desired. Subsequently, I believe that having the rollers
turn at the same speed would be better than having them turn at different
speeds. Terence-- have you tried turning them at the same speed and was
this abandonded due to an inferior crush to the current design. Remember
(take a look at George Fix's article in Zymurgy on malt crushing criteria)
that what we would like to do is to have the husks mostly intact and the
insides (starchy part) broken into many small pieces (flour, ideally).
***
troussos writes:
>Will somebody please clearly explain the benefits of liquid vs. dry yeast?
>I've been hearing for sometime how great liquid is. However, I haven't heard
>what it does that is different than dry. Are the benefits real or is liquid
>yeast just marketing hype ??
The biggest benefits, I personally feel, are that the liquid yeasts (slants,
Wyeast packages, etc.) are that you get a much wider variety of yeast strains
from which to choose. Dry yeasts cannot be made from all strains. The
yeast strain has a much bigger effect on the flavour of your finished beer
than most people think. Other than adding dark malts to a pale recipe,
changing your yeast strain (IMO) will have the biggest impact on your beer
flavour. Go to a handful of brewpubs. Ask them how many yeasts they use.
I'll bet that those that say they use only one or two strains will have much
less variety in their beers than those who use 4 or 5 yeast strains.
10 years ago, dry brewing yeasts were made using the same equipment as that
used to make dry breadmaking yeasts and the conditions were not quite sanitary
enough for brewing purposes. Infected batches of beer were the norm and you
could not make commercial quality beer from those yeasts. You may have
noticed that Red Star Ale yeast reappeared for a year or two and then
suddenly disappeared. I was very happy with their new yeast and felt that
great beer could be made with it. My sources tell me the reason that it
suddenly disappeared was because quality assurance caught a problem and
pulled the plug on a batch. If indeed this is the case, I'm sure that we
can be confident of the quality of Red Star if and when it does hit the
shelves again.
In more recent years, most of the dry brewing yeast makers have cleaned up
their acts and are making yeast that will give you great-tasting beer. I
have not tried all the dried yeasts, but I know of several that will make
very clean beer. These are Nottingham, Windsor, Coopers and Pasteur (Champagne
yeast). If I have not mentioned a yeast, it mearly means that I have not tried
it and NOT that it is a lousy yeast. While there still may be some bad yeasts
on the market, there are quite a few good ones and you can get decent variety
in your beers just using dry yeasts, but if you are trying to make Anchor
Steam, for example, you will get a lot closer with Wyeast #2112 than you will
using dry yeast.
In a word, yes, I believe that the benefits are real and NOT just marketing
hype.
***
>Yesterday, after 6 weeks, I noticed that the yeast
>packet was swollen. Has anyone else ever experienced this, and, more
>importantly, do you feel it is salvagable?
While you may be able to find a few million live yeasts in there, most of
them have expired. It seems to me that a very low viability ratio means a
potentially high mutant-to-nonmutant yeast ratio. Comments? George?
***
Chris writes:
>What arrives at the house is still hard and high pH. I have a water softener
>and have heard softened water is unsuitable for brewing. What does the
>water softener do to the water?
It replaces Calcium ions with Sodium ions. The explaination for why we
would want Calcium in our brewing water is not a short one -- it depends
a lot on whether you have permanent hardness (from Sulphates) or temporary
hardness (from Carbonates). Check back issues of HBD and hopefully it will
be clear. If not, post your water analysis and somone will probably be
able to walk you through the things you need to do to your water. There
is a good chance (except for the iron, which can be removed in other
ways) that although your water may be very hard and rather high in pH
(mine is medium hard and higher pH than yours) it still may be great
water for brewing. Consider how hard Burton-upon-Trent water is! You
may still have to use bottled water for some styles (like Bohemian Pilsner).
Al.
Return to table of contents
Date: 19 Jun 95 23:50:00 +1700
From: GOLDBERG_DAVID at Tandem.COM
Subject: New brewer.
All,
I am wanting to start brewing my own beer. What are your suggestions for an
inexpensive, easy to use brewing kit for a novice. Also, I live in Austin,
Texas, if anyone knows where the do-it-yourself shops are here I would
appreciate any information on them.
Thanks in advance,
David Goldberg Tandem Computers
Phone: 512/432-8770 14231 Tandem Blvd
Fax: 512/432-8247 Austin Tx 78728-6699
E-Mail: GOLDBERG_DAVID at Tandem.COM
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 01:44:31 -0700
From: robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca (Robert Lauriston/Patricia Bennett)
Subject: Christoffel Blond
Derek Elde wrote:
> Picked up a beer called 'Christoffel Blond' yesterday, and found it quite
good!
> What kind (style) of beer is this? (my brewing buddy thinks that it may be
a Pilsner)
> Does anyone have an extract recipe for this (or a similiar) beer?
Your buddy wins a beer!
Michael Jackson's Beer Companion has a blurb about the beer in the
pilsener section. "all-malt, firm-bodied, extremely dry, a truly assertive
Pilsener" Jackson quotes the brewmaster as saying, "Some people say the
beer is too bitter for them, but I am not trying to brew for everyone.
Plenty of brewers already do that." Hopping is given as Perle and
Hersbruck, 43-44 IBU. I don't know what you have available in the way of
extract, so I can't make any recommendations there. (Did Al K. mention
recently that Laaglander extract had lots of unfermentables? That might
give the body). If you were mashing, I'd suggest a decoction. What might
give a similar effect with extract is to do a small mash in a pot on the
side. A few cupfuls of ground pale malt in water at 65'C for 15 minutes or
more, then brought to a boil. You could separate the liquid from the grain
with any clean strainer. I wouldn't worry about it being cloudy, since the
usual drawbacks of cloudy wort wouldn't apply here. (The Christoffel I had
was quite cloudy in the bottle). I think I'd put a fair number of hops in
the middle of the boil to get lots of hop flavour without overpowering
bitterness. This isn't a recipe, but I hope it helps you make one up.
I had this beer on a honeymoon cycling trip through Holland in 1989. I
too liked it with the (then) dominant flavour of noble-type hops. Some
other brewers scorned it because (what was available then and there) was
bottled unfiltered at what they thought was a very young age, meaning that
there was lots of stuff on the bottom of the bottle. I got a couple of good
Dutch homebrew books, but since the brewery only began in 1986, and the
books were from '87 and '88, they don't mention it, so no recipe. The
recipes they give for Dutch pilseners are for products from larger breweries
with 20% adjunct. -- Rob.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 05:07:09 EDT
From: EAJB74A at prodigy.com (MR RON PETERSON)
Subject: Melvico Pressure Bottler
- -- [ From: Ron Peterson * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --
Has anyone ever heard of/used/owned the Melvico Pressure Bottler? It's
a bit expensive (~$300) to consider purchasing blind. Regular email
would be fine.
Cheers,
Ron Peterson
P.S. Thanks to the many comments/suggestions from my previous posting
on yeast pitching rates.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 07:36:09 -0400
From: captain at vulcan.srl.ford.com (Rich Hampo)
Subject: Gott , Igloo, Coleman coolers
Howdy!
I am looking to make a lauter tun from a gott-type cooler.
So far, I have only found Igloo (round) and Coleman (kind of square)
brand coolers, and both of those say to use to keep cold, not hot.
I recall discussion sometime back that Gott was the only one
that was OK for hot stuff too. Is this correct? Anyone have
good experience with the Igloo or Coleman brands?
Now a local question: Anyone know where I can find the Gott
brand cooler in the suburban Detroit area? The local mega-sporting
goods store had only the igloo and coleman.
TIA,
Richard Hampo
Ford Research Lab
and
H & H Brewing Ltd.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 05:58:51 PDT
From: Arthur_S_Ward.henr801h at xerox.com
Subject: MEAD USING FRUIT
I will be making a mead using fruit, most likely raspberries. I would like to
know the BEST way, and time to add the fruit to the MEAD to get more of a
fruit taste. Please respond by private E-mail to.
Arthur_S_Ward.henr801h%xerox.com at
vmsmail:SMTP
Thanks,
Art.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 07:13:29 MST-0700
From: "Dave Ebert" <DNE at Data.HSC.Colorado.edu>
Subject: Kirk's Quirks
Hey Kirk!
I hope you took the time to photograph your triangles. That picture
would make great graphics for bottle labels. A little like the
Korean Ying/Yang circle. Your could name your brew Kirk's Quirks.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 09:33:54 est
From: Joseph.Fleming at gsa.gov
Subject: Rye Ale Wanted
Hey All-
Yes it's another dreaded recipe request. I'm looking for a good (no
bad ones, please!) all-grain rye ale recipe. I found one in the Cat's
Meow, but was hoping the luminaries of the HBD could provide others with
their comments. BTW, the one I found was like 8# pale ale malt, 4# rye
malt (a lot, no?), Cascades & Hallertau, California Common yeast. Was
thinking about dry hopping, subbing 2# of wheat and adding some lemon
(Rick Gontarek's got me on this lemon kick now). TIA.
A.J. deLange on 3068:
|I have never observed a lull with this strain...
There was mention a bit ago about the lull by myself and other folks;
start off fine, lulls, explodes into your airlock.
|I've been working it at about 64F...
From the Wyeast fact sheet: "Best results are achieved when
fermentations are held around 68F. Flocculation - low; apparent
attenuation - 73-77% (64-70F)" Don't know, but the slight temperature
difference could be a factor in the performance. My ferment was at a
constant 68F, Venturi/Bernoulli tube aeration (I'm more confused than ever
on this nomenclature!), starter used.
The beer is *fantastic*. Phenolics and esters are perfectly in balance
resulting in a spicy taste & aroma with the clove and hint of bannana.
I'd like to credit my brewing acumen, but as Mars Beermon says, "It's
gotta be the yeast!"
Rich Hill:
|..the battle of the bulge is beginning...Is there something we can do
|about it?
Sit-ups maybe? Place a bottle of homebrew on a table in front of you
for incentive.
Joe - joseph.fleming at gsa.gov
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 10:04:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Barry M Wertheimer <wertheim at UTKVX.UTCC.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Rogue Nut Brown Ale
Had the good fortune to taste some of Rogue's Nut Brown Ale while
traveling through a neighboring state. Very nice nutty, chocalate
flavor, plus something else that was very familiar, but I could not
place. Any comments on this brew or speculation as to its ingredients?
Barry, who wishes you could find such things in Tennessee
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 09:05:29 -0500
From: plankg at dgabby.mfldclin.edu (Gary Plank)
Subject: Oktoberfest
From: plankg Tue Jun 20, 1995 -- 09:02:06 AM
To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com~ at
I've never tried my hand at decoction mashing but will be giving it a try
with this year's rendition of Oktoberfest which for various reasons needs to
be in the fridge by July 1. Wondering if anybody has words of wisdom and /
or recipes they're willing to share....thanks in advance.
-=gsp=-
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 09:05:23 -0500
From: plankg at dgabby.mfldclin.edu (Gary Plank)
Subject: Propane Cookers / All Grain
From: plankg Tue Jun 20, 1995 -- 08:34:15 AM
To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com~ at
There has recently been a fair amount of traffic re/ time required for all
grain brewing and recommendations for propane cookers.....I found the two to
be related this past weekend.
We're enjoying a quite unseasonably warm June up here in Wisconsin. This
past Saturday (95F) my loving wife DEMANDED that I go buy an outdoor cooker
if I was going to brew that day....she reasoned that we'd spend almost as
much as the cost of the cooker trying to cool down the house during the brew
session....needless to say I didn't argue the point, in fact I added that it
would be PERFECT for canning later in the season as well as blackening all
year long....her response was that I should quit sucking up and go get the
cooker before "the guys" came over.....what a woman!!
Got a Masterbuilt Outdoor Gas Cooker from Masterbuilt Manufacturing Inc.,
Columbus GA. This is a 160,000BTU cooker with a fully adjustable regulator
and an adjustable air shutter for the venturi (much less soot). IMO, this
addition has had the biggest impact on my brewing since my first wort
chiller. Went from sparge to rolling boil in just under 10 minutes and had
no scortching....was able to hit mash temps with relative ease due to range
of adjustment at regulator....and the BEST news....cost was ~ $45.00 at my
local Fleet Farm......(no affiliation with manufacturer...blah blah)
We also decided to time this batch (a brown ale) with the following
results:
Step infustion mash from dough in to beginning of sparge.....90 min
Sparge.......................................................50 min
Lag Time to Boil.............................................10 min
Boil.........................................................60 min
Chill........................................................15 min
Transfer to Primary, Aerate, Pitch...........................20 min
Final clean up (things not cleaned as we went)...............20 min
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TIME...................................................265 min
The cooker knocked at least 30 minutes off the total time required to brew
this batch and will add years of life to the calrods in the kitchen.....YMMV,
but I'm one happy camper.
-=gsp=-
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 10:24 EDT
From: CSS2 at OAS.PSU.EDU (SPEAKER.CURTIS)
Subject: great new gadget on the way!
I saw a great new gadget at Planet Beer that should be on the market in a few
months. It comes to us from the folks who brought you the PhilMill, Phils
Phalse Bottom, etc. (BTW, Phil is a kid who hates beer).
It is a rediculously simple idea. They took a standard racking cane and
attached a check valve to the bottom of it. You attach the hose to the short
arm of the racking cane and stick the long end into your fermenter. By gently
shaking the cane up and down in the wort/beer, the cane fills with liquid and
starts the siphon on its own. Neat! Should sell for $3-4.
I have no vested interest in the Phil<tm> line of products, but I will order
this one as soon as it's available. No more sucking on the hose ...
Finally, many thanks to Charlie Papazian, Karen Barela and the rest of the
AOB/AHA staff for a wonderful time in Baltimore. It was my first Homebrewers
Conference, but definitely not my last!
Reentering the Earth's atmosphere after orbiting Planet Beer :-)
Curt
css2 at oas.psu.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: 20 Jun 95 08:18:00 -0500
From: larry.carden at pscmail.ps.net
Subject: Primary -> Secondary
> I'm brewing my third batch of beer. The first two were single-stage
> ferments, but I'm going with a two-stage this time, as it's a fruit
beer.
> What I'd like to do is this: siphon the wort from the primary into a
> sanitized bucket, clean the primary (a 6 1/2 g carboy), and pour the
wort
> back into the sanitized carboy, using it as my secondary. So, 3
questions:
>
> 1) Can I just pour the wort through a funnel back into the carboy,
or do I
> have to siphon it?
>
> 2) Can I leave the wort in the bucket and use that as my secondary?
>
> 3) Should I just buy another carboy ($)?
1) Wouldn't pour it, which causes aeration/oxidation and adversely
affects flavor. Siphoning is the appropriate technique.
2) Plastic buckets are not recommended for secondary fermentation.
Your intention to clean the primary 6.5 carboy and reuse it as the
secondary is a good approach. Especially since you are putting fruit
in the secondary. That will add to the volume, and will also cause a
mild reactivation of fermentation activity (the 6.5 allows you to
"seal" with a fermentation lock, due to extra room for fruit and yeast
krausening). I use a 6.5 gal. carboy for both the primary and
secondary (after cleaning) fermentation of fruit beers, with a
fermentation lock all the way. Made a great amber beer with
raspberries.
3) You don't need to buy another carboy, if you don't mind siphoning
to the bucket temporarily, cleaning the primary, and reusing it as the
secondary.
Larry Carden
Englewood, CO
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 09:54:55 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com>
Subject: Open decoction efficiency acquired.
> From: "RUCKER, WILLIAM G." <ruckewg at naesco.com>
> Subject: Comments on Open Fermentation
> A little while back I asked for some personal experiences from those
> who had tried open fermentation.
I think I was skimming the thread. I've heard that open fermentation is
easier than closed and make beer "just as good" but I haven't heard that
it can make beer better. Can it? ANyone have pet theories about why and
how?
btw, I tried "dropping" a stout recently. I did the whole batch rather than
split for a controlled study, but I will say the batch is great.
> From: "RUCKER, WILLIAM G." <ruckewg at naesco.com>
> Subject: Decoction mashing
> the temperature increase was not what I expected
There's always the possibility of temperature change of the rest of the mash
while you're heating the decoction. What do you do to maintain temp? I
use a Gott and it works okay, but I don't generally do a decoction unless
the thing is full and I can't just add more hot water. (5-gallon Gott does
get a bit small for high-gravity batches, but no horror-stories yet.)
> From: jds at equinox.shaysnet.com (John Shearer)
> Subject: efficiency/storage
> First - Concerning lautering efficiency. How do I determine it?
Hydrometer.
> What is considered good?
Interesting question. Some of my very tastiest beers have been made with
really poor extraction rates. Of course, there wasn't much alcohol in them,
but they were quite the yum.
> If it's bad, what are the common problems?
My extraction rate went WAY up when I started using a Gott cooler as my
mash/lauter tun. Basically, my mashes always cooled way down during my
multi-hour sparges.
> Third - Regarding dirty deep frier grease... IMBR?
Taste it. I'd bet it'll taste fine and have no head whatsoever.
Domenick Venezia:
> >Also, I ran across a product called "Marmite"
> Oh NO!! This sounds suspiciously like Vegamite
It's the same basic product. A couple of the Brits had some in the office
the day of the post, but the fart lost my post on it. They were trying to
get yanks to eat the stuff. I fell for that one once already, thank you.
> It must be a continent-wide Aussie practical joke played on
> the rest of the world, and actually no natives eat the stuff, but by law
> every household must have a jar for visitors.
Nope, it's an acquired taste. They get real weird if they go for a few weeks
without it, and start trying to find substitutes. The best thing one chap
found was used chewing gum on subway seats.
-R
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 10:37:53 MDT
From: stampes at neocad.com (Jeff Stampes)
Subject: Pale Ale
To all that responded to my request for the ULTIMATE pale ale recipe,
I say THANK YOU! I was rather astounded at the quantity of recipes
I received, and the amazing variety among these recipes. After reading
through them all, and doing some calculations on my own, I think I have
nailed down what I'm going to try. I'm using the concept from
Bob Talkiewicz of doing a large mash/extract brew that I can dilute
into a 10 gallon batch...one keg for the wedding, one for me! I've
also incorporated a lot of suggestions from others to arrive at the
following:
10 lbs. Pale Malt
.5 lb Cara-Pils Dextrine
.5 Lbs Crystal - 20L
.5 Lbs Wheat Malt
1.25 lbs Munich Light Malt
.66 lbs Flaked Barley
1 Lb. Rice
I intend to boil the rice with enough water to gelatanize it prior
to the mash. Protein Rest for 30, 155F for 90 in a THICK mash.
To the boil, I'll add:
4 lb. Honey
3.3 Lb M&F extra light extract
1 oz. Chinook - 60 minutes
1 oz. Tettnang - 20 minutes
1 oz. Tettnang - 1 minute
Dry Hop with 1 oz. Hallertau
Use Wyeast English Ale Yeast
This seems like it would result in a pretty universally acceptable brew,
both for the homebrew/microbrew snobs among us, as well as the BudMilloors
swilling crew. Please feel free to comment, criticize, or abuse this
recipe via e-mail...Although, I did receive MANY requests from hbd readers
to forward this recipe when I was done, so I think it's a good thread to
bat around.
Related topic: Bridgeport Extra Pale Ale! I love this stuff! It's
the closest thing to a Bass Ale on the American Microbrew Market (IMNSHO).
Anyone have any suggestions on nailing this recipe at home?
Return to table of contents
Date: 20 Jun 95 13:06:30 EDT
From: Don Rudolph <DON at nova.mhs.compuserve.com>
Subject: RE:Verb - Collapsing Foam
Dan Listermann, Cinci OH <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> posits:
>I am trying to find the correct scientific term for collapsing foam. I
am sure
>it is out there and this august forum will find it.
I think the correct term is FOOP POOP.
Don Rudolph
Seattle, WA
don at nova.mhs.compuserve.com
Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1761, 06/21/95