HOMEBREW Digest #1764 Sat 24 June 1995

Digest #1763 Digest #1765

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Brown Rye Ale recipe (Jacob Galley)
  FG, proteins, a propos Christoffel Blond (Robert Lauriston)
  Fridge vs Freezer (Pat Loughery)
  Real Ale Festival (Martin Wilde)
  food grade sealant/caulk/silicone? (Netromancr)
  Late Malto- (ppatino)
  Burton 1 - Part 1 (A. J. deLange)
  Burton 1 - Part 2 (A. J. deLange)
  Chris "Barny" Barnhart returned mail (Robert Brown)
  Third Coast Old Ale Yeast (nr706)
  water treatment (Spliffo)
  Searching past HBD via WWW (Rich Hampo)
  Not many micros here in the Bible belt! (Brian Pickerill)
  New to Homebrewing (Jeffrey Johnson)
  re: collapsing kraeusen (Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna)
  Hop Plugs (Norman C. Pyle)
  Re: Re: Water Woes HBD #1758 (Art Steinmetz)
  dropping vs aeration (Btalk)
  Re: Stuck fermentation and amylase (harry)
  Blank Mail Note (Tom_Tills.wbst214)
  slow yeast? (Bryan L. Gros)
  Hop Vines Out of Control ("Glyn Crossno")
  Phil's self starting siphon (HT-MS)" <mkempisty at gic.gi.com>
  Japan Behind Alien Brewer Scare ("Palmer.John")
  Amateur Questions ("Lawson, Eric")
  Water Woes Revisited/Water series (Chris Barnhart)
  RIMS (Eamonn McKernan)
  Re: Malt profile (Jim Dipalma)

****************************************************************** * 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: Thu, 22 Jun 95 14:33:49 CDT From: Jacob Galley <gal2 at midway.uchicago.edu> Subject: Brown Rye Ale recipe Okay, folks, my friend Russ has been forwarding me the last few requests for rye beer recipes (since I don't subscribe to HBD anymore). So now I've finally brought my brew-log in to work so I can share my recipe with you. The inspiration for this recipe is the recipe for Brown Ale in the back of Dave Miller's book. The rye flavor is prominent, even with this small amount of rye. I think that more than two pounds would be overpowering in this style. (Maybe more in a stout??) BROWN RYE ALE Mash at ~142^F for 90 minutes: 5 lbs Mild Ale Malt (Munton & Fison) 1.5 lbs Rye Flakes (in the bulk section of your health food store) 8 oz Cara-Munich (DeWolf-Cosyns) 3 oz Roasted Barley (DeWolf-Cosyns) The three times I've made this, the mash temperature has always been on the low side. The beer came out great every time, so I'm not worried. Sparge as usual. Boil wort for 60 minutes with: 1 lb of Sucanat (evaporated cane juice, ie. natural brown sugar) 2.0 oz = 8.0 AAU Fuggles (60 min) 1.5 oz = 5.2 AAU Spalt (10 min) Chill as usual. The original gravity comes to 1.048 (for 5 gallons). Pitch London Ale or German Ale Wyeast. Actually, I'm going to try the California Steam/Lager yeast next time. It sounds like the steamy esters would complement the rye flavor quite nicely. Have fun, Jake. Stand up and use your ears like a man! <-- Charles Ives Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 13:44:20 -0700 From: robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca (Robert Lauriston) Subject: FG, proteins, a propos Christoffel Blond Fellow members of the Virtual Homebrew Club, What's the effect of the proteins in beer on gravity? The more the higher? Spencer Thomas (spencer at umich.edu) caught something in a post of mine that didn't jive for him. I wrote, about Christoffel Blond, "Michael Jackson's Beer Companion says "all-malt, firm-bodied, extremely dry, a truly assertive pilsener" "didn't Al K mention that Laaglander extract has lots of unfermentables? That might give the body." Spencer replied in # 1762: >Nope. It would give undesirable sweetness. Note "extremely dry". You want high attenuation (e.g., low FG); the body more likely comes from short peptide chains (e.g., degraded proteins). I don't know what is in Laaglander, so it may give sweetness. But in the quest for accuracy and Truth (knowing that Beauty and Wisdom are out of my reach) I have some theoretical followups: Some sugars are sweet, some aren't. Some unfermentables are sugars, some aren't (e.g. short peptide chains, degraded proteins). Some body comes from proteins, some doesn't (e.g. diacetyl, though not in Christoffel). Some perceived dryness comes from low FG, some doesn't. For example, wouldn't high bitterness create an overall sensation of dryness? Is it correct to say that an "extremely dry" beer has a low FG? Rob Lauriston, The Low Overhead Brewery (Hoist 'em between the joists) Vernon, British Columbia <robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca> Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 16:44 PDT From: patl at isc-br.isc-br.com (Pat Loughery) Subject: Fridge vs Freezer I'm a fairly new brewer still, and am looking at a kegging system. My question is about fridges and freezers. I have access to an upright freezer, a 1-door type, which needs a new motor. Is there any reason to choose a fridge over a freezer for a garage-kept brewcooler, except that it's nice to have a separate fridge/freezer section so that you can store your hops in the freezer part? Thanks! - --- Pat Loughery (patl at mom.isc-br.com) http://mom.isc-br.com/~patl/ Somewhere in the wilds of Northern ID '91 VFR750, '82 R100RS, '6? Duc bits, '49 Dodge, '93 Yellow Lab Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 15:07:00 PDT From: Martin Wilde <Martin_Wilde at ccm.jf.intel.com> Subject: Real Ale Festival Is the Real Ale Festival still planned for this October in Chicago? I have not heard anything since last year... thanks Martin Wilde Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 20:00:20 -0400 From: Netromancr at aol.com Subject: food grade sealant/caulk/silicone? the subject says it all... i haven't been active on this list in a while, so forgive me if this subject came up recently. I need to seal up a very old cider barrel which is now to be used to collect rain water for my hop garden. Suggested sources/brands/types? thanks in advance george (ty) tempel g.tempel at xpedite.com dosgatos at injersey.com netromancr at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 20:32:03 EDT From: ppatino <PPATINO at UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Subject: Late Malto- Hi Folks! I currently have a Barleywine in my fermenter. I began with an O.G. of 1.108. My Ale yeast (Wyeast ESB) pooped out at a S.G. of 1.040. I have ju st pitched some of Wyeast's Pasteur Champaign yeast into it. Despite the high O.G., I am a bit concerned about the F.G. being a bit low. I thought that one way to bring the body up a bit would be to add a few ounces of maltodextrine to the solution of DME that I normally boil up at bottling time; my intuition bein g that this might boost the body without the danger of overcarbonating. Has anyone out there tried this, or heard of anyone who has? TIA - Paul Patino Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 17:53:18 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Burton 1 - Part 1 Burton 1 This is the first in what may be a series of posts on the formulation of waters similar to those of famous brewing cities of the world. They are based on ion concentration profiles given by Dave Draper in his post in #1704 (10 April 95). See my recent post "Water Series" for explanatory material. Quick reminders: all ion concentrations and salt quantities are in ppm which is the same as mg/l. The water to which the salts are added is assumed to be ION FREE (i.e. it is DISTILLED WATER or REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER). As this is the first in the series it is much longer than subsequent ones should be. What we will do in this series is present a few formulations for each water type listed in the original post of 10 April. A formulation gives the amounts of salts and acids which are to be added to ion free water to approximate a desired ionic profile. Hydrochloric and sulfuric acid are used both to control pH and adjust, respectively, chloride and sulfate ion concentrations. We sometimes also employ what we call an "external" acid (for lack of a better term) i.e. an acid in addition to the hydrochloric and sulfuric acids. External acid aids in setting the desired pH and it does this by supplying hydronium ions to convert carbonate to bicarbonate thus allowing more carbonate to dissolve. Its use also makes the other acids available mostly for sulfate and chloride adjustment and thus often results in a more accurate approximation to the ion profile. But it also introduces another cation such as lactic or phosphoric. Our goal is to provide a simple formulation (i.e. one that only uses a few salts) at pH 7 without the use of external acid. We regard such a formulation as the most natural one as it contains only the ions in the specification and it is at what we assume to be the natural pH of the water being imitated. pH 7 is a good guess for the pH of a brewing water, especially one that is heavy in both carbonate and calcium. Burton is actually one of the few cities for which we have pH information. Terry Foster, in his "Pale Ale" monograph states that Burton water is at pH 7.0 - 7.2. Where we cannot meet our accuracy desires (rms % error less than 10%, maximum error in any salt concentration less that 15%) we will first try adding additional salts and then external acid in an attempt to improve the synthesis. Finally we will try formulations at pH 6.38 which often improves accuracy because calcium and carbonate levels are set more by the errors in their concentrations than by saturation considerations. We will usually present a couple of these trial formulations. A water that is synthesized simply at pH 7 without acid is an "easy" water. One that requires pH 6.38, all salts and external acid is a "difficult" one The specification for Burton 1 was taken from V1 p206 of Malting and Brewing Science; Briggs, et al. They list bicarbonate as 280 ppm of which 5 must have escaped as CO2 on the trip to Sydney and back because Dave's post lists 275. We will use 280. This is a "dfficult" water. It cannot be synthesized to our accuracy desires with a subset of the salts. A formulation with a full set of salts and no external acid is: Formulation I n: 752428 Temp: 0.000863 Energy (rms %): 10.004655 Burton 1 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 268.000 228.116 -14.88 NaCl 31.965 Mg 62.000 59.989 -3.24 Na2CO3.10H2O 191.885 Na 54.000 53.039 -1.78 CaCL2 20.757 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 639.599 CO3 280.000 237.790 -15.08 CaCO3 179.140 SO4 638.000 691.881 8.45 MgCL2 0.167 CL 36.000 36.323 0.90 MgCO3 126.566 H 4.726 4.726 0.00 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 29.767 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 237.644 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 226.836 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 3.654 Carbonic: 0.7661 Bicarbonate: 3.1936 Carbonate: 0.001529 mM Total Required Hydronium: 4.7257 Sulfuric Hydronium: 4.6255 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1002 mEq H2SO4 perturbed. HCl adjusted to maintain pH 7.00 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 3.06E-09 Alkalinity: 3.16 mEq; 157.78 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 7.92 mEq; 396.12 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 8.39 mEq; 419.70 ppm as CaCO3 This formulation is just a shade over our accuracy limits and we had to tweak the weight on the calcium ion error to balance the error between calcim and carbonate (Ca weight: 1.75 all others: 1). Note that the water is saturated (the CaCO3 ion product is equal to the solubility product) and that even so we have 15% less calcium and carbonate than desired. Addition of external acid improves the rms accuracy of the synthesis only a couple of percent: Formulation II n: 743437 Temp: 0.000952 Energy (rms %): 8.009748 Burton 1 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 268.000 227.737 -15.02 NaCl 6.916 Mg 62.000 62.064 0.10 Na2CO3.10H2O 316.674 Na 54.000 53.897 -0.19 CaCL2 12.956 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 638.669 CO3 280.000 238.181 -14.94 CaCO3 185.769 SO4 638.000 641.343 0.52 MgCL2 22.809 CL 36.000 35.980 -0.06 MgCO3 84.757 H 4.734 3.488 -26.31 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 0.910 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 322.273 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 162.026 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 6.715 Carbonic: 0.7673 Bicarbonate: 3.1988 Carbonate: 0.001531 mM Total Required Hydronium: 4.7335 Sulfuric Hydronium: 3.3040 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1841 mEq 1.2454 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 7.00 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 3.06E-09 Alkalinity: 3.16 mEq; 158.04 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 7.94 mEq; 396.77 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 8.53 mEq; 426.63 ppm as CaCO3 - MORE - A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 17:53:27 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Burton 1 - Part 2 Note that all the improvement is in the sodium and magnesium errors. The fact that it is hard to get the specified level of calcium and carbonate into solution at what we know to be close to the actual pH of Burton water makes us a little suspicious of this spec. Knocking 15% off the specs for these two ions would make a better approximation possible.The Burton 2 spec is 30% lower in carbonate and, as we will see in the next post, it is an "easy" water. Following the planned progression we now try full salts, pH 6.38 but with no external acid: Formulation III n: 790000 Temp: 0.000948 Energy (rms %): 7.993754 Burton 1 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 268.000 229.714 -14.29 NaCl 11.185 Mg 62.000 58.708 -5.31 Na2CO3.10H2O 10.194 Na 54.000 52.836 -2.16 CaCL2 8.951 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 494.837 CO3 280.000 288.092 2.89 CaCO3 277.929 SO4 638.000 728.282 14.15 MgCL2 11.478 CL 36.000 36.481 1.34 MgCO3 167.540 H 7.198 7.198 0.00 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 144.589 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 75.608 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 331.654 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 15.877 Carbonic: 2.3994 Bicarbonate: 2.3994 Carbonate: 0.000275 mM Total Required Hydronium: 7.1983 Sulfuric Hydronium: 6.7629 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.4354 mEq H2SO4 perturbed. HCl adjusted to maintain pH 6.38 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.58E-09 MgCO3: 5.51E-10 Alkalinity: 2.35 mEq; 117.51 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 9.60 mEq; 479.91 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 6.69 mEq; 334.62 ppm as CaCO3 This formulation provides no appreciable improvement over Formulation II. As a final formulation for Burton 1 we offer the following which is synthesized for pH 6.38 with the full set of salts and external acid: Formulation IV n: 760000 Temp: 0.000991 Energy (rms %): 0.028369 Burton 1 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 268.000 267.992 0.00 NaCl 45.052 Mg 62.000 61.988 -0.02 Na2CO3.10H2O 112.653 Na 54.000 53.987 -0.02 CaCL2 2.335 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 662.731 CO3 280.000 279.837 -0.06 CaCO3 281.886 SO4 638.000 638.152 0.02 MgCL2 1.309 CL 36.000 35.990 -0.03 MgCO3 122.415 H 6.992 2.803 -59.91 KCl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 56.126 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 267.083 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 128.900 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 6.378 Carbonic: 2.3307 Bicarbonate: 2.3307 Carbonate: 0.000268 mM Total Required Hydronium: 6.9920 Sulfuric Hydronium: 2.6285 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1749 mEq 4.1887 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 6.38 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.79E-09 MgCO3: 5.35E-10 Alkalinity: 2.28 mEq; 114.15 ppm as CaCO3. Temporary hardness: 9.32 mEq; 466.16 ppm as CaCO3 Permanent hardness: 9.15 mEq; 457.37 ppm as CaCO3 This formulation obviously gives excellent agreement for all ions. Note that the alkalinity of the pH 6.38 formulation is around 115 whereas for the pH 7 formulations it was around 158. If you think of formulation at reduced pH and acid addition as part of compensation for high alkalinity you will have no objection to the use of these techniques for the sake of an accurate ion profile. If, on the other hand, you don't want to add acid or are fearful of overly low mash pH resulting from water at 6.38 then you will use Formulation II or, better, still use the Burton 2 profile for your Burton Ales. Please e-mail me if you like this and want to see more. I have already done Burton 2 and will post it but will terminate after that if there is no demand. A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 22:07:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Brown <rbrown00 at uoguelph.ca> Subject: Chris "Barny" Barnhart returned mail So how do I e-mail you and not get bounced. Even my fool proof "Reply" feature has failed me. Drop me a line. <rbrown00 at uoguelph.ca> Rob Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 02:19 CDT From: nr706 at mcs.com Subject: Third Coast Old Ale Yeast To the collective wisdom: I just made a starter from the dregs of a Third Coast Old Ale from Kalamzoo Brewing. Does anyone know what I have? Does this yeast have an equivalent in the Wyeast line? Any info appreciated. Tom Keith Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 05:49:41 EDT From: uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com Subject: O2 Dissolution I've read a lot about the value of adding oxygen to the wort before pitching. I'd like to throw out an idea about the most efficient way to do this if you're already kegging and force carbonating. How about pressurizing the keg with oxygen through the same line that you run CO2 through? I don't know how much dissolves in what period of time at what temperatures, but surely you'd get more dissolved than bubbling ambient atmosphere (only 16% O2, and mostly nitrogen) through the wort. O2 is readily available for/from welders (is welding O2 sterile?) home medical supply services supply small portable bottles , doctors, dentists, EMT's, chemical labs etc. have access to large cylinders. How desireable is extra oxygen during fermentation? Is there an optimum concentration? Is there a point of diminishing return? Wallie Meisner uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com Subject: Surplus SS 60's As long as I'm here... Since selling stainless steel containers is not my occupation, I've decided that this post is a service to fellow brewmeisters and NOT "crass commercialism" I hope y'all agree. I have some 60-gallon stainless containers, about 20" wide and 5' tall with one 2" opening in the top. They are unused and I have to get rid of them. The scrap yard will give me $150.00 each. I'd sooner ship them to a brewer who could use them for good purpose. If you're interested enough to meet the scap-yard price, let me know, and give me an address so I can get a freight rate quote (I get great freight rates). If you want technical details, drawings, etc, let me know that too. I can probably wait a month or so before I absolutely have to move them. (I've got one 250 gallon w/ a 22" manway in the top as well, but I expect that that's too big for a homebrewer?). Wallie Meisner uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:56:35 -0400 From: Spliffo at aol.com Subject: water treatment Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth on the water treatment issue. As in any trade some know a lot more than others and are up to date on the latest technology. Most qualified water treatment specialists will take a water sample, no charge, have it analyzed, design a proper system according to what you need, and give you an estimate of cost. Get as many opinions as you can. It's quite interesting seeing the differences! Maintenance costs and longevity are a factor, depending on the chemistry of the water. For example, how long would a reverse osmosis membrane last. They stopped giving those away a while ago! For what it's worth!!! I enjoy a good beer, don't have any equipment, never brewed a batch in my life, but sure would like to start! Any tips, advice, or info out there from the World of Brewing?!!! E-mail or HBD is fine!! Thanks in advance!!! If only beer would flow thru phone lines! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:42:38 -0400 From: captain at vulcan.srl.ford.com (Rich Hampo) Subject: Searching past HBD via WWW Hi gang, I just found something really cool (in my quest for Gott info). Off of Spencer's Beer page, there is a link to a WWW page called "Thread Searches of Brewing Mailing Lists". This WWW page lets you search the HBD, Judge, Lambic, and Mead Digest back issues for keywords. You just select which digest, pick a year, and type in a keyword or two and voila! A complete document with all occurrances of the keyword you wanted. Check it out at http://guraldi.itn.med.umich.edu/cgi-bin/dothread BTW, Thanks to all who replied with cooler info! Richard Hampo Ford Research Lab H & H Brewing Ltd. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 09:15:52 -0600 From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) Subject: Not many micros here in the Bible belt! Jim Busch said: >You've *obviously* not tried to open a microbrewery!!! Not yet Jim. Gotta get the homebrewing down first. ;-) BTW, I am not advocating that more stupid fed or state regulations be put on micros. Spencer told me what some of his friends went through to open their micro, so have some idea of what's required now. It is a lot, but it's not too surprising, IMHO. Maybe I have a different perspective living here in the "Bible belt". I actually was cited for child abuse because I allowed my four year old to take a sip of homebrew! SIPPING it mind you--not allowing him to really swallow any of it. It was quickly dismissed and didn't get in the paper or anything, but you can't imagine how upset I was. I wonder what the Europeans would say about THAT! - --Brian K. Pickerill <00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu> Munice, IN Return to table of contents
Date: 23 Jun 95 10:22:13 EDT From: Jeffrey Johnson <76416.3306 at compuserve.com> Subject: New to Homebrewing Hello All, Capt. Kirk says: << and I want to prevent airborne cat dander or other 'stuff' from getting in the beer (dead bats, for example).>> I also have cats who love to "investigate" any brewing activities that I do. I love 'em but what pests! re: dead bats...what a name for a beer...Dead Bat Brew. I'm very new to homebrewing (one batch just bottled) and I'm planning a all-extract Pale Ale for my next batch this weekend. I've been lurking around the digest for some time, and I think there is not a better compendium (sp.?) of brewing lore around. Thanks to all. and especially to Rob Gerdner. Hoppy Brewing, Jeff Atlanta, GA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 10:21:08 EST From: Tim_Fields_at_Relay__Tech__Vienna at relay.com Subject: re: collapsing kraeusen Foamus Wortus Collapsus :-) Tim Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 8:52:28 MDT From: Norman C. Pyle <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM> Subject: Hop Plugs Russ Brodeur asks about hop plugs: >I contacted one of the hop houses on the west coast, and inquired about >availability of plugs, since I personally prefer them. I was told they were >of inferior quality to both whole and pellet hops. > >Is this true?? This is likely true of domestic (U.S.) hops. I'm told that there is no commercial "hop plugging" outfit in the U.S. So to get hop plugs of domestic varieties they are shipped to Europe (U.K., likely) and plugged. Then, sent back to the states. It wouldn't surprise me that these hops would be inferior to fresh whole hops or even pellets made from fresh hops. Cheers, Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 18:17:46 EDT From: (Art Steinmetz) Subject: Re: Re: Water Woes HBD #1758 It occured to me I may not have made clear what was the test and what was the control in the previous post on this topic. Indulge me in a recap. Control Batch: Water: Pre-treated water w/ 350ppm total dissolved solids and pH 8.0. Treated by boiling and racking off substantial precip. Recipe: IPA with 75% Breiss Klages. No dark grains. 40/60/70 deg C. mash. 20 minutes each step. Starch test negative after last step. OG 1.060. Test Batch: Water: Pre-treated water from ion-exchange water softener (salt used to replace calcium with sodium) Treated by boiling. No precipiate (none expected). Recipe: Same as above. Starch test still positive 45 minutes into last step. Sparged anyway. OG 1.058. Side by side taste tests tainted by different yeast pitching rates. Conclusion: Softening my high-temporary-hardness base water resulted in severe enzyme impairment. Is this what's predicted? Folks just say it's bad without saying why. Next I-gotta-learn-the-hard-way experiment: Dark grains will lower the pH of the mash and can be used in hard water situtions to ensure good extraction rates. So they say. I plan to use untreated water and compare extraction rates of recipes that differ only in the pct. of dark grains. Advice please: Will swapping light crystal for dark crystal be a good way to do this? Thanks. - -- Art asteinm at pipeline.com 76044,3204 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:28:45 -0400 From: Btalk at aol.com Subject: dropping vs aeration I thought that the 'dropping' thread from a few months ago made it clear that it referred to racking early with minimal aeration. At least that was the way I understood it. (DId this evolve out of the recent question by someone who wanted to dump into secondary using a funnel?) The whole dropping idea intrigued me so much that I've done it recently with a Strong Scotch Ale and also an IPA. Both were fermented with Wyeast ESB, which is supposed to be one of the highly flocculant yeasts that can stand to be 'roused' a little. Rousing the yeast was not my primary objective. What I was really after was the second result of dropping, which is to increase the level of diacetyl. The Scotch Ale was racked earlier than the IPA in order to get the medium to high diacetyl level as described in the style guideline. At first I thought this had worked too well since I'm not used to alot of diacetyl in my own brews, but I think it is within the guidelines. I'll see how it does in a contest. BTW, rousing yeast doesn't imply aeration. The yeast just needs to get back in suspension to finish its job. Later, Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk at aol.com> Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:35:21 -0400 From: hbush at pppl.gov (harry) Subject: Re: Stuck fermentation and amylase Keith Royster asks about my "stuck-ferment-fixing-drug-of-choice", amylase: >So I guess my first question is, why did >it work? I understand basically that amylase is an enzyme for >breaking down larger sugars into smaller ones. Does this imply that my DME >was >under modified by the manufacturer? I don't think under modified is the term. Maybe under converted? But you've got the idea- lots of unfermentable carbos. I (and many others who've posted to the HBD) have had this experience with DME. > Also, over a week later (maybe 2 weeks), small bubbles continued to rise as >if >the fermentation now would not stop.... I'm not worried about >exploding bottles later because I plan on kegging, but what might be >happening here? Amylase enzymes work best at mashing temperatures. They also work (as you've discovered) at room temp, albeit S-L-O-W-L-Y. I have an IPA (made with DME) that was stuck at 1.038. Two months ago, I tossed in amylase and its STILL bubbling. My latest S.G. reading was a week ago at 1.016, a 4 point drop from the previous week. I think I'm getting my patience from the fact the I'd given up on the batch entirely before I put in the amylase. Now I'm just happy that I've saved it. Most likely your lowering of the temp. stopped the fermentation with a combination of yeast shock plus amylase inhibition ( I assume that amylase works slower the lower the temp. is). A good source of amylase info. has been put together for us by Kevin Hass (thanks, Kevin) and can be ftp'd from ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer/docs/using_enzymes.Z Harry ................................................................. "But what does it all mean?"- Flakey Foont "Don't mean sh*t"- Mr. Natural .................................................................. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:50:33 PDT From: Tom_Tills.wbst214 at xerox.com Subject: Blank Mail Note IN HBD 1762, Al says: >Aldehydes would be my biggest concern. Remember how bad frat party beer >tasted the next morning? That's aldehydes from the air you pumped into >The keg the night before. Acutally, I remember the beer tasting pretty bad the night of the party, but that's cuz our Frat rarely had anything better than Milwaukee's Best. ; ) TNT Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 09:16:37 -0700 From: bgros at mindseye.berkeley.edu (Bryan L. Gros) Subject: slow yeast? >From: Andrew McGowan <AMCGOWAN at WPO.HCC.COM> > >Is 1084 Irish Stout a slow yeast? The smack pack was 45 days >old and took 36 hours to swell moderately. Other yeasts I've >used were ready to burst at 20 hrs. Also, the starters were not > Andrew and others: What was the date on your Wyeast pack? I noticed packs with dates within a week or two of smacking it work much faster than packs with dates two months or so old. I never noticed a problem with the older yeasts, just that they swelled much slower. Always check the dates when you buy yeast. - Bryan bgros at mindseye.berkeley.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:25:46 CST From: "Glyn Crossno" <CROSSNO at novell2.tn.cubic.com> Subject: Hop Vines Out of Control >What to do with vines growing off of the main vine(s)? Private E-mail replies: 2 - Let them go! 1- Cut IF they get in the way of the main vine(s) I've dropped a bunch of new vertical lines for the offshoots to climb. Glyn Crossno Recycle the BS, put it around your hops! Crossno at novell2.tn.cubic.com "To make the Fates laugh, tell them you have a plan." Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 12:57:00 PDT From: "Kempisty, Mark (HT-MS)" <mkempisty at gic.gi.com> Subject: Phil's self starting siphon Being a bit of a gadget lover but fortunetely not buying everything I see, I have seen things that are functionally similar to the Phils (tm) sipon starter thingy. I have seen ones for fish-tanks and gasoline. They go on the end of a tube and you jiggle the who thing up and down several times to pump the water over the top of the siphon. Gravity then does the rest and the siphon's suction holds the valve open. If I remember correctly. the aquarium one was for 1/2" diameter tubing. But it has been a long time since I have looked for one. I pulled out my bottle filler last night. If I was to pull off the spring, I suspect it might serve the same purpose. I also remember seeing bottle fillers without any springs in my favorite homebrew shop. Those would just use gravity and the weight of the beer in the filler tube to hold them shut. The only down side to using these (provided they seal well enough to work) is the small diameter of their opeings. It would be pretty easy to plug them up with trub, break or hops. Happy brewing Mark Return to table of contents
Date: 23 Jun 1995 10:03:06 U From: "Palmer.John" <palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com> Subject: Japan Behind Alien Brewer Scare (JP) Last week, Capt. Kirk Fleming reported an unusual sighting in the krausen and yeast of his open fermentation. The krausen was partioning itself into distinct quadrants, which at first glance resembled a Bow Tie. Analysis of the patterns revealed a probable connection to the so-called "Crop Circles" of Britain, North America and Australia. From this evidence it was deduced that the Aliens, thought to be responsible for these circles, were in fact brewers trying to contact the home brewing community with special yeast strains. The yeast was codenamed Stardust and the aliens were theorized to be from the Vegan star group. This quickly led to a BATF probe of the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegs, which denied having any connection to the incident. Several bottles of beer were confiscated for evidence. Further investigation revealed that the Fleming Fermenter had foamed into a new pattern. Capt. Kirk issued the following statement: >Now, although I think John P was a bit out-of-line with his cut about >naming the yeast Stardust, I agreed with his suggestion that there may >be an attempt being made to communicate. Therefore, I wired the >fermenter to my satellite dish and it trained on NGC 5139. Now, gummygoo >coalescing on the surface of the current batch is clearly forming the >pattern of a star group which I simply have not yet identified. This >is scaring the hell out of me. Upon consultation with astronomers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA, the star pattern was FAX'd out for identification. An ASCII representation is shown below: * * * * * \ / * The cluster was discussed during a noontime meeting between several leading aerospace officials. At the conclusion of the meeting, several officials identified the star cluster upon returning to the parking lot. As a result of their work, the entire Fermenter Fiasco has been revealed to be the latest advertizing campaign of the Subaru Corporation. ***** John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-SSD M&P johnj at primenet.com Huntington Beach, California Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:41:00 PDT From: "Lawson, Eric" <lawson at elmo.rff.org> Subject: Amateur Questions Hello, I am new to homebrewing in general and HBD in specific. I have completed 4 batches (3 successfully) and tried my hand at mashing on the last batch. I must say that homebrewing has done wonders for my palate (my wife now refers to me as a "beer snob"). I also enjoy the articles in HBD, but am amazed at the amount of expertise that you all have in the art of brewing. Some of the conversations go right over my head, which never lasts long enough but that's another problem. At the risk of sounding naive, I'd like to pose a few questions that I hope will help bring me and other rookies up to speed. 1) What is the benefit of splitting the fermentation into two steps--primary and secondary? 2) What do the terms "decoction" and "racking" mean? I have an introductory book by Williams, but I haven't come across these terms. 3) I have had a consistent problem with weak head, or as Mark Schmitt suggested, a loss of persistence. Do I simply need to add more sugar when priming, or should I look elsewhere in the process? I'm sure I'll have more basic questions later, but these should do for now. Ric Lawson Resources For the Future Washington, DC Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 12:54:42 CDT From: Chris Barnhart <cbarnhar at ria-emh2.army.mil> Subject: Water Woes Revisited/Water series A few days back I posted about my water woes. Thanks to those that posted advice on how to properly deal with it. Thought I'd post those insights. Everyone unanimously agreed I need to reduce the iron content of the water. I have installed a taste/odor/rust/sedimement filter to accomplish that. Also, ion exchange softened water is a poor choice for brewing. The water softener works by exchanging sodium for calcium and magnesium (other?) ions. Sodium is poisonous to yeast and makes for harsh tasting beer when found at higher concentrations. I'll draw all my water off ahead of the softener and treat it myself. The hardness can be dealt with by boiling my water and decanting off the percipitate. This reduces the levels of bicarbonate. From what I understand, the reduction of temporary hardness is limited to the amount of free calcium/ magnesium available to combine with bicarbonate and the soluability of the salts produced: 20ppm for calcium carbonate and 300ppm for magnesium carbonate. Question: Would adding more calcium before the boil and decant, say in the form of Gypsum (I can stand the sulfate), help carry away more bicarbonate? I ask because my calcium levels (98ppm) are rather low versus the alkalinity (239ppm). Bicarbonate is a strong buffer. It is important to reduce the buffering capacity of the water to allow simple infusion mashes to acidify to the proper pH. When brewing dark beers, dark malts help to overcome the bicarbonate buffering and acidify the mash due to thier natural acidity. Additional calcium may be required to stimulate enzyme production, insure proper yeast nutrition, etc. There's a lot more that could be added to this discussion but I'd better cut it off here. Any corrections/insights appreciated. A.J. - I vote yes for continuing the water series. Barny Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:21:46 -0400 From: eamonn at chinook.physics.utoronto.ca (Eamonn McKernan) Subject: RIMS Okay folks, I've been testing the now leakproof new RIMS. Before plugging it into the computer, I wanted to run a few tests. So right now I have an on/off switch for the heater (yes on and off are labeled on the switch :> ), and variable speed control as Morris described in the '92 (?) Zymurgy special issue. I was wondering if any RIMS owners out there noticed hot patches on the outside of the heating chamber? I found after 10 minutes of heating 4 gal of water from 17 - 27 Celcius (1 Degree per min ~= 1.2KW heat. 2 degree Temp rise upon exiting heating chamber => 2 gal/minute flow rate approximately ) that VERY hot patches developed on the top side of the 1 1/2" copper heating chamber (flow enters and leaves from the bottom through 1/2" copper pipe). I mean burning hot patches about 3" long along the top of the pipe. Their location varied with pump speed. Is this normal? My heat input and flow rate are standard. I can crank up the flow some more, but don't really want super high pressure hot fluids whipping around. I'm worried because my soldered joints might melt if a hot patch developed in their vicinity (not too likely, but still possible), as well as possible scorching. Clearly the heat is not mixing well throughout the flowing fluid. I don't know if this is relevant or not, but the heater is oriented horizontally, as opposed to vertically. If anything, I'd expect these hot areas to be on the bottom, where the heater could be resting on the pipe. Though the fact that flow enters and leaves through the bottom could be the real source of my problem, as fluid is not forced upwards. Comments? Thanks for the washing info Domenick! And Norm, is sitting in my room drinking supposed to be PUNISHMENT for being so stupid about hop storage? Hey, I'll give it a try since you think it might help my beer out! Eamonn McKernan eamonn at atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:43:37 EDT From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: Re: Malt profile Hi All, Picking up the thread on liquid yeast packs that are slow to swell: About a month ago, I set out to brew a porter, and discovered to my horror that I had used my last slant of Wyeast 1084 without reculturing. I bought a fresh package from the local homebrew supplier that was only about a month old, and smacked the pack. Three days later, nothing, the pack showed no sign of swelling. Since my planned brewday was quickly approaching, I gave up on waiting for the pack to swell, and simply pitched its contents into 6 oz of sterile wort. About 7 hours later, the starter wort was fermenting vigorously!! I stepped the culture up to a 1/2 gallon starter, and two days later brewed 11 gallons of porter. The fermentation was fine, started quickly, good attenuation, etc. My experience with Wyeast packs has been that the date code has little or no bearing on how long it takes the yeast to activate. I've had 9 month old packages swell up in 2 days, 1 month old packages fail to swell at all. I don't have any idea what sort of "nutrients" Wyeast puts in these packages, but in the future I'm not going to bother waiting for them to swell. I'm just going to smack the pack, and pitch directly into my starter. ********************************************************** In HBD#1763, Nir Navot asks: >I just bought some Munton & Fison malt and received with it the analysis >certificate. Can you help me understand what these names & figures signify >and how they might affect the way I treat this malt and the types of beer I >can use it for? >Here is the analysis: >Coarse/Fine Difference % 0.10 This is the fine/coarse grind extract difference, a measure of the degree of starch modification. The lower this number is, the higher the degree of starch modification. A reading of 0.10 indicates *extreme* modification, so much so that I wonder if this is a typo. >Colour EBC units 25 mm Cell 3.00 EBC stands for, I believe, European Brewing Congress. It's a measure of how much color the malt will contribute. My understanding is that the method used to obtain this measurement is completely different from that used to obtain degrees Lovibond, and thus there is no direct way of converting between the two systems. However, an EBC rating of 3 means wort produced from this malt would be quite pale. >Kolbach Index 43.70 The Kolbach is the ratio of the percentage of wort nitrogen to malt nitrogen. It is commonly used to express the extent of protein modification. Anything over 40 is considered highly modified. >Diastatic power w.k. units =BAL 258 Not sure about the "BAL" units, I usually see this expressed in degrees Litner. If these units are the same, then 258 is very high. The mash should convert quickly, and a high percantage of unmalted adjuncts can be used. >Total protein d.w. % 10.30 This one is self explanatory, the percentage of protein. 10.3 is fairly low, it indicates this malt should be mashed without a protein rest. In summary, what you have is a malt with a high degree of both starch and protein modification. It should convert readily with a single infusion mash, and has enough diastatic power to convert unmalted adjuncts as well. It should provide good extraction, and produce a very pale colored wort. Hope this helps, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1764, 06/24/95