HOMEBREW Digest #1785 Wed 19 July 1995

Digest #1784 Digest #1786

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Fining in the keg... (00bkpickeril)
  Tim Laatsch's sparge ???'s (Lee Allison)
  SCAM??? (dflagg)
  Alcohol swabs (dflagg)
  Blowoff hoses (DCB2)
  Hot water/Gott coolers (Philip Gravel)
  SS whirlpool with lead solder (Mark C. Bellefeuille)
  London Well 1 (A. J. deLange)
  Re: Definition of Solution (Dave Whitman)
  wooden cask fittings (Jonathan Labaree)
  Keep it Cool (Joseph.Fleming)
  Re: the Age-Old Question (Jim Dipalma)
  RE Republican Suburban  ;-) (Brian Pickerill)
  Brass is okay in beer. ("Palmer.John")
  Hard water deposit removal from carboys (Jack Stafford)
  Society. (Russell Mast)
  Grapefruit Taste (Jeffrey Johnson)
  Beer stone and vinegar (Harralson, Kirk)
  Re-using gelatinized yeast / Old Foghorn ("Kevin A. Kutskill")
  flaked grains (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Solutions to disolutions (Eric Archer)
  London Well 2 (A. J. deLange)
  pear beers (Sylverre Polhemus)

****************************************************************** * 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 alpha.rollanet.org 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: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 02:26:14 -0500 (EST) From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu Subject: Fining in the keg... Larry Hawley writes: >Could some knowledgeable soul please help me. My kegged beer has not been as >clear as I would like (all extract) and I am considering using polyclar, >inisglass, silica gel or gelatin. Every source I have sists a different >way to use these finings. Do you add to the primed beer, or in the secondary? >How much do you use and for how long? If there is a Finings.FAQ around I >would appreciate knowing where. By the way I do use Irish Moss in my boil. Most of the time I don't use any finings, but my weizen looked really hideous so I decided to prime with gelatin. Since I was almost out of HB, I didn't use a secondary either and it was really cloudy in the keg--I had hoped it would clear in the keg but it didn't. I just boiled about 2-3 oz of water to sanitize it, dissolved a package of Knox gelatin in that, cooled it and added it to the keg. A day later the beer is much clearer and it definitely improve the look of the beer. Perhaps it will clear some more--I only added the gelatin last night. WYeast 3068 is incredibly violent. This has been a great experience BTW trying my hand at a weizen for the first time. At first I didn't know if I would really like it, but it's starting to grow on me. Fermentation was a trip--temp fluctuated from about 60F to 70F usually around 65F and I had to insulate the plastic fermenter with a foam jacket since the only way to keep it relatively close to 68F for me was to put it in the fridge during the day and leave it out in the garage at night. It would have been impossible to ferment this way without the "fermometer" type thermometer on the outside of the fermenter or if I had hit a heat wave. I know the temp is supposed to be kept constant, but this worked well enough for me and I have a good balance (IMHO) of banana and clove flavors in the beer. Perhaps a bit on the clove side, but my beer is not ruined. ;-) Cheers, - --Brian Pickerill <00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu> Muncie, IN Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 08:24:03 -0700 From: grandcru at ix.netcom.com (Lee Allison) Subject: Tim Laatsch's sparge ???'s Tim, I have also had problems chilling runnoff samples until my dad came up with the solution: We have an old plastic 1 gallon milk jug with the top cout out (but not the handle) to form a large scoop. We grab some runoff in this (just enough to fill the hydrometer glass) and drop the jug into a plastic carboy that is filled with water and maybe some ice. If you swirl the milk jug in the ice water this will cool the two or three ounces of runoff in just a minute. Presto! Accurate reading soon enough that you haven't dropped the CURRENT runoff readings somewhere down below the OG of water!! Lee Allison Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 13:15:53 -0400 From: DRBROOK at aol.com Subject: SCAM??? ON JULY 13, "DAVID" == DAVID ALLISON a1gw at gene.com writes DAVID> Talk about a scam (potentially) David> I received in the mail a notice for a "Win your own Brewery Contest" I too received a mailing for a "Brewery Contest". Whether it was a "scam" or simply good advertising for selling a business, I do not know. The secret for understanding whether this is a random drawing as opposed to a "skill" or "judged" event is in the name. To use the word "Sweepstakes", the sponsor must follow federal laws which require that it be a random drawing. While fraud can still occur in a sweepstakes it is relatively rare in comparison to a "contest". While fraud is illegal, the rules for a "contest" are not very restrictive. In my mailing, there was an entry fee of $100.00 and an essay required. In sweepstakes, you will find no fees and " No purchase Required" in the rules. While the contest sounded appealing, I stick to sweepstakes. DRBROOK at aol.com (Roger Brooks) Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 15:22:37 -0400 From: dflagg at agate.net Subject: SCAM??? David A. writes (in HBD #1780): > I received in the mail a notice for a "Win your own Brewery" contest > Anybody else get this letter or am I the only sucker I got it, but once I figured out what it was all about it did not stay in my hands long enough to determine what list it came from. I have a powerful junk mail disposal unit and it just sucked it out of my hands, it was soooo junky. If the sender of that junk is reading this, please note that you wasted your postage on me (and probably most of the HomeBrew Community) ************************************************************ Doug Flagg | "A Homebrew a day... dflagg at orono.sdi.agate.net | Keeps the Worries away!" ************************************************************ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 15:22:37 -0400 From: dflagg at agate.net Subject: Alcohol swabs In HBD #1777 Ken B. mentions using leftover alcohol swabs for sanitizing yeast packs and such. In HBD #1778 Mark K. Adds: "...alcohol is merely used as a solvent to make sure the skin is clean and does not guarantee sterility." For My two-cents: Maribeth Raines (in her article "Methods of Sanitation and Sterilization", Brewing Techniques, Vol. 1, No 2) states that alcohol is a -sanitizing- agent that is useful to home brewers. Alcohol kills bacteria by denaturing proteins and disrupting their cell membranes. She also states isopropyl and ethyl alcohol are best at disinfecting. The chart that accompanies the article shows, however, that the contact time required for alcohol is 10-30 minutes. I would highly recommend this article to ALL homebrewers as it talks about most all methods of sanitation. ************************************************************ Doug Flagg | "A Homebrew a day... dflagg at orono.sdi.agate.net | Keeps the Worries away!" ************************************************************ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 95 15:10:35 PDT From: DCB2%OPS%DCPP at bangate.pge.com Subject: Blowoff hoses FWIW, here is a fairly simple way to assure that you don't suck back liquid into your fermenter via the blowoff hose. If you are using a glass carboy get yourself a piece of clear plastic hose big enough to just fit the inside of your carboy's mouth (I think 1"ID should work). Stick the other end into a small glass (vice bucket) and add enough water to just cover the end. As the water gets sucked into the hose the end will become uncovered and and air bubble will enter breaking the vacuum and causing the water that's in the hose to partially fall back into the glass. If you make sure that the internal volume of the hose is several times the volume of water in your glass you'll be safe. Now this won't work with hose smaller than 1/4 inch unless the amount of water you use is very small and the inflow is very slow because the water has too much surface tention. The slug of water will just get sucked in but larger diameter hose should be safe. For hoses between 1/4" and 1" the bigger the hose is the more flow it can take before the water gets sucked in. If you wish to use a bucket you can substitute one as soon as your yeast starts working and you get outflow. Now if you're using a plastic bucket the same process will work but you'll have to decide how to put a larger hose on it. The larger hose also has the advantage of not getting plugged with hops as easily (for those who dry hop in the primary). David Boe David Boe | "She turned me into a newt!" | Pacific Gas & Electric Co. | "A Newt?!" | DCB2 at pge.com | "I got better." | Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 95 18:02 CDT From: pgravel at mcs.com (Philip Gravel) Subject: Hot water/Gott coolers ===> Russell Mast comments about water under pressure: >Water's always under _some_ amount of pressure. If they had a 250F water >bath that didn't boil, they had to increase pressure or use a solution. >But, there's a broad range of pressures at which you can have a 250F pure >water bath. If you get the same pressure at each, pressure's not the issue. At any particular temperature, water has a certain vapor pressure. As you heat water, the vapor pressure will increase. When the point at which the vapor pressure of the water equals the ambient (atmosphere) pressure is reached, boiling occurs. That is, in fact, the definition of the boiling point. For water, it has a vapor pressure of 14.7 psi at 212^F. In order to achieve a water temperature (for pure water) of 250^F, you need to close the system and keep it under pressure. There is one and only one vapor pressure of water at 250^F and you need to have this pressure present in order to get water to this temperature. You could, of course, have higher pressures (not of water), but you need this pressure at a minimum. ===> Harry (hbush at pppl.gov) asks if he got the right Gott cooler: >1) Just mail ordered the famous 10 gal. Gott (now part of Rubbermaid) >cooler and I have a question. I was under the impression from the >discussions on the HBD, etc., that the Gott cooler was rated for hot as >well as cold beverages, but there is nothing to indicate this on the box >that it came in (the only literature is what's printed on the box). Did I >buy the WRONG Gott cooler?- I think the model # is 1610. Is my beer ruined? That's the right one. It should say something on the box about keeping drinks hot or cold for hours. - -- Phil _____________________________________________________________ Philip Gravel Lisle, Illinois pgravel at mcs.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 09:00:17 -0700 (MST) From: mcb at abrams.abrams.com (Mark C. Bellefeuille) Subject: SS whirlpool with lead solder (hmmm 'Lead Free' on my beer labels. Might work to keep the riff/raff out of my homebrew...:-) I wasn't going to comment; but, considering all the notes on pregnancy and homebrew I figured God would punish me if I didn't get involved. Do you remember the stories about Ancient Rome and the leaded glazes they used on eating/drinking utensils? The acidic nature of the foods consumed leached the lead into the food/drink(wine especially). I've read that the drop in fertility (coupled with the drop in IQ's) was the result of the lead glazes being leached. Have you noticed how every HBD has someone asking about water chemistry? And the questions acidity of the mash/sparge/boil/ferment? Yep you're going to leach lead into your brew. If you plan on serving your beer to anything other than snails: avoid using that whirlpool in brewing. $10.00 is not a bad loss. Kids IQ points (and lack of viable sperm/eggs if you ever want to have any children) would be a great loss. Maybe the junkyard will buy it back for $5.00? I bought my 1st straight sided keg from a scrapyard for $15.00, keep looking you'll find one. later, Mark - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark C. Bellefeuille (520) 887 1727 Abrams Airborne Mfg mcb at abrams.com Tucson AZ - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 20:25:43 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: London Well 1 London Well 1 This is the twelfth in 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 post "Water Series" (#1763) for explanatory material (correction: in the Line 3 explanation read 1.8 ml of 1 N sulfuric acid, not 18 ml). 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). The London Well 1 profile is from Westerman and Huige, "Fermentation Technology". It is a problem profile like several of the others we have had in that its anion/cation ratio is very unbalanced at pH 7 but in this case the imbalance is not, as is usual case, because there is insufficient carbonate for the calcium but because there is insufficient sulfate and chloride to balance the sodium and magnesium reqirements. Nevertheless there is a large anion deficit and the only sensible way to make that up that we know of is to let the carbonate float as we have done before. Even when this is done we need to use the full complement of salts to get good approximations to the desired levels of the other ions (the best we can do with less is about 27% rms error). The result is: Formulation I: n: 860000 Temp: 0.000981 Energy (rms %): 0.064899 London Well 1 Desired Cations: 8.967 Anions: 3.023 mEq/L Ratio: 0.337 ION WT DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 1.00 52.000 52.035 0.07 NaCl 4.800 Mg 1.00 32.000 32.015 0.05 Na2CO3.10H2O 449.085 Na 1.00 86.000 86.091 0.11 CaCL2 0.289 K 1.00 0.000 0.075 0.07 CaSO4.2H2O 14.144 CO3 0.00 104.000 258.027 148.10 CaCO3 121.462 SO4 1.00 32.000 32.024 0.07 MgCL2 10.688 Cl 1.00 34.000 34.009 0.03 MgCO3 83.617 H 1.00 4.604 0.723 -84.30 KCl 0.143 Na2SO4 0.000 MgSO4.7H2O 52.410 H2SO4 3.780 NaHCO3 44.011 HCl 23.546 Carbonic: 0.8313 Bicarbonate: 3.4654 Carbonate: 0.001659 mM Total Required Hydronium: 4.6040 Sulfuric Hydronium: 0.0771 mEq Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.6456 mEq 3.8813 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 7.00 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 2.15E-09 MgCO3: 2.18E-09 Alkalinity: 3.42 mEq; 171.21 ppm as CaCO3. No permanent hardness. Temporary hardness: 5.23 mEq; 261.47 ppm as CaCO3 This formulation results in carbonate more than twice the specified amount but we could deal with this by using the carbon dioxide method we have used before and letting CO2 escape to the point where carbonate was about where we want it. This would be at a rather high pH. We do not recommend this profile for London style beers because of the difficulties the average brewer would experience in obtaining some of the required salts. We do have an alternative formulation which is taken from "Porter" by Terry Foster and will post that as London Well 2 very soon. A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 08:47:06 -0400 From: dwhitman at rohmhaas.com (Dave Whitman) Subject: Re: Definition of Solution In HBD #1783, John Palmers asks about the physical chemistry of solutions: > I am confused. Several people have responded to Sergio's post saying that the > error in his calculation was due to the difference in volume of a gallon of > 1.000 water and a gallon of water with sugar dissolved into it, say 1.040. > > I thought I learned in high school that a Solution does not change its volume > when a Solute is Dissolved into it. And yet several of you are saying that it > does... While the volume of a solution is typically less than the sum of the volumes of the things you mix to make it, there is usually at least a little increase in volume upon dissolving something in a liquid. Most generally, the volume of a solution can be the same, higher or lower than the volume of the original liquid, depending on interactions between the liquid and dissolved substance. Physical chemists quantify the effect by measuring the "partial molal volume" of a solute, and the number varies for different solvents and solutes. Sugar in water has a positive partial molal volume, so the solution volume is higher than the original water. - -- dave whitman "The opinions expressed are those of the dwhitman at rohmhaas.com author, and not Rohm and Haas Company." They made me say that. Really. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 06:13:59 -0700 From: Jonathan Labaree <jonlab at igc.apc.org> Subject: wooden cask fittings I recently purchased a 5 gallon wooden cask. Does anyone have experience dispensing beer from a wooden cask who can offer advise on proper set-up and where to purchase necessary fittings? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 09:42:38 est From: Joseph.Fleming at gsa.gov Subject: Keep it Cool Summer in the city There have been some posts about fermenting in summer heat. Take some inexpensive steps to combat that heat! The *high* temperature end for most ale yeasts is 72F. A few wildcat esters might make your brew tantalizingly unique, but I'd definitely try to stay under 80F. Take advantage of the old HBD tactic evaporative cooling. Place your carboy in a large bucket or plastic trashcan and fill with enough water to cover 1/2 to 3/4 of your carboy - don't let it float! Cover the fermenter with a cloth (Tshirt, sheet, ect.) that drapes into the water. This method works best in non-humid climates, or in an area with a dehumidifier; expect around a 10F drop in temperature. It also resists temperature shifts better. For that extra boost, drop ice or freezer packs in the water. Maybe a fan blowing on the carboy as well. Buy a fridge, new or used, and attach one of those $60 temp controllers (now you can lager!). Excavate that basement you've been meaning to build. Tom WIlliams requests contract brewing info: Tom, if you compile any information, please post a notice to the digest. I'm sure there are others that are interested in your findings, if only for curiosity's sake. Perhaps the Digest could bear the posting. God forbid there be any peripheral information here! FAQ of the matter: Who feels like compiling that Finings FAQ? How about a comprehensive Kegging FAQ (one I'd like to see)? Iodophor shelf life: Folks have mentioned that they store equipment in an Iodophor solution. I've noticed that after a week the tint of the solution fades and once saw "other" material in a bucket. I suspect that an Iodophor & water does not age well. Does anyone have the facts on how long an Iodophor solution remains effective? Joe - joseph.fleming at gsa.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 13:11:48 EDT From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: Re: the Age-Old Question Hi All, In HBD#1782, Tim Laatsch asks the Age-Old Question: >"When do I stop sparging?" >I know about the standard indicators for stopping the sparge: > > 1. When the pH starts increasing rapidly and rises above 6.0 > 2. When the gravity of the runoff falls below 1.008 > >If the gravity is read >while the solution is hot, do the standard temperature correction formulas >remain linear near 180 F? Or does the gravity cutoff value refer to the >uncorrected hot reading? Elementary questions, I am sure. I think the standard temperature correction formulae are linear approximations of a non-linear process. In any event, the gravity cutoff value of 1.008 is a corrected reading. In addition to using the hydrometer, you can also use your palate to determine when to stop collecting wort. In my experience, when the corrected gravity reading hits about 1.015, there's just a little sweetness in the flavor of the runoff. There follows a phase where the runoff starts to taste pretty much like hot water, no sugar detectable. The hydrometer reads about 1.010 - 1.008 at this point, so there's *something* in solution, maybe even sugars below the taste threshold. I generally stop sparging at this point. If I continue, after a few minutes I start to notice a slight tannic flavor, the runoff starts to taste like weak, hot tea. Palates vary from person to person, so YMMV, but if you're sure the rough malt flavors you're getting are from oversparging, this decidely unscientific method can help. If you stop sparging before tasting tannin in the runoff, you won't get it in your beer. ********************************************************** Also in HBD#1782, Tim Laatsch asks about APA: > Grain: 9.0 lbs US 2-row pale malt (Briess) > 1.0 lbs crystal malt (combo of British 50L, US 40L, Special B) > 0.5 lbs US dextrin malt > Mash: 1.5 qts per pound total water > 90 min at 152 F > Hops: 27-32 IBU from Goldings > 0.5 oz Cascade or Goldings (flavor) > 0.5-1.0 oz Cascade or Goldings (aroma) > 0.5-1.0 oz Cascade or Goldings (dry-hop) > 1 tsp rehydrated IM > Boil: 90 min > Ferment: Wyeast Irish 1084 repitched (I know, I know....but I like it) > 1 week primary > 2-week secondary, one of which is for dry-hopping > gelatin finings 2 days before kegging > >Is this appropriate for the nebulous American Pale style? > >But I believe the hops and malt are slightly >out of balance and I'm getting quite a fair amount of residual sweetness from >the copious quantities of crystal malt. A couple of comments. First, Special B is not the right malt for this style. It is essentially crystal malt, but has a Lovibond rating of ~220. It will contribute too much color and sweetness for an APA. A half-pound of two-row crystal rated at 40L-60L is about right for a 5 gallon brewlength. Also, Wyeast 1084, while a great yeast for stouts and porters, is not the right yeast for the style. It is not attenuative enough, and leaves a fair amount of diacetyl as well. I suspect the high residual sweetness you are getting is as much due to the yeast as to the grain bill. You'll get closer to the style with Wyeast 1056. Cheers, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 12:35:51 -0600 From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) Subject: RE Republican Suburban ;-) >Even better, *IF* the former owner listened Rush Limbaugh on the >Suburban's radio, you may have some *really really good* beer there. Were I >you, I'd garage the Suburban and turn it into a brewery. I think it would only result in terminally high gravity beers. That could be a good thing, especially if it were the former owner who had to listen to Rush Slimeball. I wouldn't want to suffer though it myself. I like Denis Miller's comment about Rush Limbaugh... "I find it karmacly ironic that someone with such an obviously slow metabolism is named "Rush". ;-) Brew on, - --Brian K. Pickerill <00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu> Muncie, IN Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Jul 1995 10:46:38 U From: "Palmer.John" <palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com> Subject: Brass is okay in beer. Richard wanted to know if using brass fittings in a 3 tier stainless steel system is okay. "Yes." I use a few brass fittings in mine. Its not a corrosion or contamination problem. I would not be so quick to recommend them for high usage commercial systems, but they are commonly used there also. If you use the 2:1 vinegar/hydrogen peroxide soak for 15 minutes to remove any surface lead, then you will have absolutely nothing to worry about. No Fear. -John 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: Mon, 17 Jul 95 10:57:54 PDT From: stafford at alcor.hac.com (Jack Stafford) Subject: Hard water deposit removal from carboys I've bought a couple carboys from the local swap meet for $5.00 each. One of them was real crusty looking with a hazy white "fog" on the inside. After brushing, rinsing and bleach soaking it was still foggy. I used about 3 oz. of Extra Strength Lime-a-way cleaner and sloshed it around inside, let it soak 15 minutes. It's perfectly clear now. Over the weekend I mentioned my homebrewing craft to an old friend of mine. He said that his grandmother used to use homebrew to kill the snails on her ivy. I mentioned that I'll bring some homebrew over next time I visit. If it tastes like crap to you, just pour it in your ivy then. Jack stafford at alcor.hac.com Member of the Yeast of Eden Homebrewing Club Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 14:04:56 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Society. > From: hbush at pppl.gov (harry) > Subject: RE: Brewing and society > > No offense intended, but I don't see the overwhelming need to > expend energy in order to promote a positive image of homebrewing. I wouldn't say "overwhelming", but I do see it as a reasonable thing to do. As you mentioned, I think this is a "regional" thing. > Going out of your way to try to drum up interest in homebrewing on > college campuses probably wouldn't help our reputation, because people who > have an objection to homebrewing most likely still consider college > campuses as a breeding ground for communism, atheism, drug abuse, > lascivious behavior and "just the sort of place" you'd expect an outbreak > of the homebrewing disease. Whoah. What country are you from? This is definately a regional thing. Most people who have an objection to homebrewing that _I_ know consider college an honorable, respectable, and desiarable thing. This is a midwest thing, maybe. Also, we're not trying to convince any hard-asses that homebrewing is okay, we're trying to convince regular people (especially college chicks) that what we're doing is classy or at least interesting, and that homebrewers aren't a bunch of swilling swine too cheap to spring for Budwiper. > I don't know, but maybe we are just seeing the difference in > attitude between the conservative South where Kenn is from and the > "liberal?" Northeast (New York/ New Jersey) where I'm from. Definately. Not just liberal, though. In the Northeast, most of your conservatives are probably Catholic, and have a much less judgemental view of alcohol than conservative protestants. Most conservatives in the midwest and south are protestant. Sure, there's a wider range of alcohol-tolerance amongst protestant sects than amongst yeast strains, but all in all alcohol has less respect here. Alcohol itself is perceived as a crude thing for low-class people, beer even more so. On the whole, homebrewers are neat people. (Even if you include those that listen to Rush, Gott-help-them.) There are a lot of neat people who don't make their own beer, but could, if they only knew how cool it was. Then, I'd have more people to trade brews with. It's not something to get upset about, but I think that working towards greater acceptibility and understanding of our craft can only do good. -R Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Jul 95 16:21:57 EDT From: Jeffrey Johnson <76416.3306 at compuserve.com> Subject: Grapefruit Taste Hi All, I recently (7/3/95) brewed an Imperial Stout that at bottling time had an overpowering grapefruit taste. I mean STRONG!! I couldn't taste anything else. I don't know if it was due to the receipe or my technique or what. I'll give a run down on what I did and maybe some kind person can help me out. I used: 9 lb "Dutch" amber dry malt extract 1 lb Medium Brown Sugar 1/2 lb roasted barley 1/2 lb chocolate barley 4 oz Northern Brewer hop pellets AA 8.8% 2 oz Cascade hop pellets AA 5.4% 1" piece of brewers licorish 1 tsp irish moss Wyeast #1084 Irish Ale yeast I steeped roasted/chocolate barley in 1 gal 160 deg F water for 30 min, strained into kettle, and sparged with 1/2 gal 170 deg F water. Added an additional gal of water and brought to a boil. Removed from heat and dissolved extract and sugar, returned to burner and brought to boil. Added licorish and Northern Brewer hops. Added irish moss at 45 min. Boiled for 55 min and then added Cascade hops. Boiled for additional 5 min and cooled in ice water bath. (total boil 60 min) Strained cooled wort into 2.5 gal of previously boiled and cooled water in primary fermenter (6.7 gal plastic, closed fermentation). O.G. 1.078. Pitched yeast directly from smack pack at 78 deg F. Active fermentation noticable after 12 hours. Primary fermentation was at approx 72 deg for five days. Racked to secondary (5 gal glass) S.G 1.042, tasted fruity but not overpowering. After 13 days total, all fermentation activity ceased. Bottled with 3/4 cup honey. F.G. 1.030. Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to get all the info here. I know Cascade hops are supposed to have a grapefruit taste but this is crazy. TIA, Jeff Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 17:31:04 EST From: kwh at roadnet.ups.com (Harralson, Kirk) Subject: Beer stone and vinegar Over the past several months, my 33qt enamel-on-steel kettle developed beer stone deposits. I did not want to get too rough on scrubbing it because I thought I may chip the enamel. As suggested in the HBD, I soaked it in vinegar (versatile stuff these days...). After a day, I checked it, and it did not appear to be any better, so I left it for several days. The good news is that the beer stone practically wiped off with a rag. The bad news is that the internal connection to my spigot (part of my Easymasher) turned greenish and corroded. The green stuff came off OK, but the corrosion and pitting are there to stay. This was not submersed, or even touching the vinegar; it is mounted approximately an inch above the bottom of the kettle. I suppose the fumes from the vinegar were enough to do the damage. I had no idea that vinegar was that strong. Looking back, I should have scrubbed it out after the first day (or just lived with the deposits). Kirk Harralson Bel Air, Maryland Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Jul 95 17:46:58 EDT From: "Kevin A. Kutskill" <75233.500 at compuserve.com> Subject: Re-using gelatinized yeast / Old Foghorn Just a follow-up on my question to the collective several weeks ago. My original question was that would there be any problems re-using the yeast cake in my secondary for my next batch of beer, even though it was fined with gelatin. Several answers were e-mailed back, and the concensus was to give it try. As always, I should have RDWHAHB. Two batches were innoculated with the fined yeast from a prior batch. Both cream ales, and both feremented fine (1.010 and 1.008 for final gravities). On another note, does anyone have a tried and true recipe (extract or all grain) for Anchor's Old Foghorn Barley Wine? Time to brew something to sip on Christmas eve. TIA Kevin A. Kutskill ("Dr. Rottguts") Clinton Township, MI "A homebrew a day keeps the doctor happy" Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Jul 95 12:33:00 -0500 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: flaked grains Andy writes: >A thread has recently been started about using flaked barley in beers. Al K. >said, and I paraphrase, that it should be ground in a roller mill. I can't >see any need for this, but this got me thinking anyway, which can be >dangerous. Actually, what I meant to say (although looking back at my post, it was not clear) was that it *might* improve conversion if you run the flaked barley through a mill and I would *only* run it through a mill if you had a true roller mill and if you *did* run it through a rollermill, I would recommend setting it to a close spacing since the flakes are already quite flat. I don't believe that milling flaked barley is absolutely necessary and it may not help improve extraction at all. >What is the purpose of using flaked, and I presume unmalted barley, in a >beer? Is it to add fermentables (why not use malted barley?) or is it to add >some specific types of dextrins or flavors or proteins that would be lost >upon malting? I hope, but won't pray, someone will open this for discussion >on the net! First of all, unmalted grains taste different from malted grains. I asked Pierre Celis why he uses unmalted wheat in his White and Grand Cru and he said because malted wheat tastes different from unmalted. Also, there is definately a different protein profile in unmalted grains since part of the reason for malting is to break down the protein matrix which binds the starch in the endosperm. This fact was my reasoning for why milling would help increase the ease of conversion. Also, since there would have been no beta-glucan breakdown which occurs during malting, I expect the beta-glucan content of unmalted grains to be higher than that of malted grains. This can be double-edged sword. Please note that all of this is speculation on my part, based upon my knowledge of the malting process and if I had my copy of Malting & Brewing Science here with me, I would have tried looking this up (however, I don't recall there being any data on the beta-glucan or protein content of unmalted grains). Oh yes -- there would certainly be less melanoidins in unmalted grains, less toasty, caramelly, flavours -- but you could have guessed that, no? Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 16:05:09 -0700 From: farcher at sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Eric Archer) Subject: Solutions to disolutions In yesterday's HBD Jonh says: >I am confused. Several people have responded to Sergio's post saying that the >error in his calculation was due to the difference in volume of a gallon of >1.000 water and a gallon of water with sugar dissolved into it, say 1.040. Let's see if I can help to clarify things a little bit. In the calculations that I presented, there was no error. But they didn't match with the ones presented by Martin Manning in his article in BT, because we were calculating DIFFERENT things. The reason was that he was disolving sugar in ENOUGH water to make a gallon of solution (what he calls, and I agree, yield), while I was disolving the same amount of sugar IN one gallon of water (what Dave Miller calls, at least in a couple of places in his books, yield. Dave Miller also makes a correct definition in a different page of one of those books. See my last post for exact references). Now, for John's question. A gallon is a gallon, no matter of what. It's a measure of volume (rather odd, I'd say, since I think in metric units), so a gallon of water is the same volume as a gallon of water with sugar, milk, CO2 or peanuts. But if you have a gallon of water, and then add something to it, you'll have MORE than one gallon. If you compare this to LESS than a gallon of water to which you added the same amount of that something, producing exactly 1 gallon of water+something, then your results won't match. >I thought I learned in high school that a Solution does not change its volume >when a Solute is Dissolved into it. And yet several of you are saying that it >does... Well, it obviously does change. What happens is that the volumes are not additive (if I mix 1 gallon of water and 1 gallon of syrup, I won't have 2 gallons of water+syrup, but I'll have more than 1 gallon of the mix). If you dissolve 1/2 barrel of syrup (yes, well may be you can't disolve it all...) into 1 liter of water, will you still have only 1 liter of mix? - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Escorza Trevi~o | Scripps Institution of Oceanography | Dormir de dia es University of California, San Diego | a lo que mas aspira sescorza at sdcc3.ucsd.edu | un tipo como yo WWW(bilingue):http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~sescorza| - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 19:10:19 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: London Well 2 London Well 2 This is the thirteenth in 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 post "Water Series" (#1763) for explanatory material (correction: in the Line 3 explanation read 1.8 ml of 1 N sulfuric acid, not 18 ml). 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). This profile does not come from Dave's list but rather from Terry Foster's monograph "Porter" (Brewer's Publications, Boulder, 1992) in which it is found on p74. It is stated to be for well water and is comparable to the London Well 1 profile in calcium and sodium content. Magnesium is about 1.5 times higher,carbonate about 1.6 times higher, and chloride and sulfate are about double. The author mentions that he has rounded the numbers and not checked for balance. The balance is not that good but is certainly better than that of the London profiles from Westerman and Huige. We were able to come up with a simple salts formulation at pH 7.3 by fiddling with the weights for sodium and chlorine: Formulation I: n: 780000 Temp: 0.000932 Energy (rms %): 8.629453 Lond Well 2 Desired Cations: 8.489 Anions: 4.550 mEq/L Ratio: 0.536 ION WT DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 1.00 50.000 47.432 -5.14 NaCl 108.316 Mg 1.00 20.000 19.302 -3.49 Na2CO3.10H2O 0.000 Na 1.25 100.000 85.072 -14.93 CaCL2 0.000 K 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 11.668 CO3 1.00 160.000 177.865 11.17 CaCO3 111.668 SO4 1.00 80.000 82.767 3.46 MgCL2 0.000 Cl 0.75 60.000 65.694 9.49 MgCO3 0.000 H 1.00 1.431 0.000 -100.00 KCl 0.000 Na2SO4 0.000 MgSO4.7H2O 195.640 H2SO4 0.000 NaHCO3 155.188 HCl 0.000 Carbonic: 0.3177 Bicarbonate: 2.6427 Carbonate: 0.002524 mM Total Required Hydronium: 1.4309 Sulfuric Hydronium: 0.0000 mEq Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.0000 mEq 1.4309 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 7.30 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 2.99E-09 MgCO3: 2.00E-09 Alkalinity: 2.62 mEq; 130.85 ppm as CaCO3. No permanent hardness. Temporary hardness: 3.95 mEq; 197.71 ppm as CaCO3 This formulation just meets our error limitation of 15% in sodium but is other wise reasonably close. As London is usually associated with darker beers we assume that the external acid can be ignored, being supplied by the malt. Not all the calcium carbonate might be dissolved untill the water is added to the malt in this case. One may, of course, use lactic or carbonic acid as the external acid but must be aware that lactic acid has a very distinctive taste. It is one that is well known to those who have had a turned pint pulled for them in a London pub so we advocate the use of carbonic acid where external acid is to be used. The CO2 process sounds more complex than it really is. Just bubble carbon dioxide until the chalk is all dissolved. Then aerate (bubble air) until the pH gets close to 7 as determined by inexpensive pH strips. Those with access to the more "exotic" salts may prefer the foloowing more accurate formulation: Formulation II n: 740000 Temp: 0.001255 Energy (rms %): 0.030229 Lond Well 2 Desired Cations: 8.489 Anions: 5.509 mEq/L Ratio: 0.649 ION WT DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT Ca 1.00 50.000 50.006 0.01 NaCl 53.990 Mg 1.00 20.000 20.009 0.04 Na2CO3.10H2O 455.742 Na 1.00 100.000 100.000 0.00 CaCL2 15.994 K 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 88.201 CO3 1.00 160.000 160.003 0.00 CaCO3 59.183 SO4 1.00 80.000 80.019 0.02 MgCL2 17.104 Cl 1.00 60.000 60.037 0.06 MgCO3 35.046 H 1.00 3.114 0.134 -95.71 KCl 0.000 Na2SO4 12.422 MgSO4.7H2O 56.089 H2SO4 0.548 NaHCO3 5.535 HCl 4.465 Carbonic: 0.5155 Bicarbonate: 2.1489 Carbonate: 0.001029 mM Total Required Hydronium: 3.1139 Sulfuric Hydronium: 0.0112 mEq Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.1224 mEq 2.9803 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 7.00 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05 Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.28E-09 MgCO3: 8.46E-10 Alkalinity: 2.12 mEq; 106.17 ppm as CaCO3. No permanent hardness. Temporary hardness: 4.14 mEq; 207.04 ppm as CaCO3 Given the wide disparity in what constitutes the specification for London well water it hardly seems that the more accurate representation of this formulation justifies the trouble of obtaining the extra salts. This formulation also requires quite a bit more (about double) external acid than the simpler formulation but it partly makes up for this by being a little less alkaline (note that it is at pH 7). All things considered we recommend Formulation I of this posting as the most reasonable for brewing London beers. A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 19:15:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Sylverre Polhemus <sylverre at tyche.lib.utexas.edu> Subject: pear beers Hey, Collective, a quick question: Do any of you have recipes (ale, stout, lager -- no lambics) using pears, pear nectar, or pear juice? A friend tried some several yeas back and hasn't yet stopped raving about it. I've gotten a bit curious myself. Tried the usual sources (Cat's Meow, etc.) I'm not all-grain yet, but I might try it with the right recipe. TIA, Sylverre at tyche.lib.utexas.edu Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Ben Franklin God gave us yeast that we might experience some of what He goes through. -- Sylverre Me? I'm an athiest. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1785, 07/19/95