HOMEBREW Digest #1975 Mon 04 March 1996
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/up_level_button.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
CO2 primed vs forced, month-old starter (Rob Lauriston)
BJCP guide in Macintosh format... (Brian Pickerill)
You bet it's beer, Dom. (John Carey)
Clarifying agents (Murray Tanner)
Need Phone Number for American Science Surplus (Jeff Hewit)
high finishing gravities ("Sharon A. Ritter")
re: goofy gravities/stuck fermentation? (CASteveB)
Gott infusion mashing trouble ("Sharon A. Ritter")
Which twin has the beer? or Welcome, beer lovers of all sorts (Carl Etnier)
Diacetyl What? (John W. Braue, III)
hops (PVanslyke)
Mash beyond conversion (Denis Barsalo)
Irish Moss (GSHUTELOCK)
Art/diacetyl/Special B/Oak (A. J. deLange)
Better Extract Brewing Techniques (Greg Heiler)
diacetyl what? / HB magazines / stuck fermentation ("Keith Royster")
Sierra Pale Ale clone result (Mark Redman)
"New" Clorox / Stuck Fermentation / Isinglass / Oak Beer (KennyEddy)
recipes ("Taber, Bruce")
Re: DWC Special B / Keg Leaks (Spencer W Thomas)
Diacetyl is a noun (Gary A. Meier)
categories (HOMEBRE973)
Flaked barley (Jim Busch)
Chilli Beer secrets revealed ("Dave Hinkle")
Kegging 101 - gas leak - summary of replies (Dan.Nelson)
RE: Lactobacilli from Malt Grain ("Aubrey Scott Howe, III")
Chillers ("Manning Martin MP")
******************************************************************
* 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.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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: Thu, 29 Feb 96 11:46 PST
From: robtrish at mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: CO2 primed vs forced, month-old starter
Clay Crenshaw asked:
>Can anyone give me a good reason to naturally carbonate beer in a corny keg
>rather than simply force-carbonating it? Does the method of carbonation
>affect the character of the final product at all?
>Also, I have a ~12oz starter of Wyeast London Ale that's been in my
>refrigerator for around a month. Is it worth saving, and if so, what would
>be the best way to go about doing this?
Essentially, CO2 is CO2 and it doesn't matter what the source is. There can
be exceptions though. For example, honey is reputed to give a finer head.
If this is true (and I have no idea) it is because there are other materials
(proteins) you are adding with your primings which affect the head. You
could expect to improve the head by priming with a wheat wort. Still, the
CO2 itself is the same. Priming with dextrose or the like doesn't add any
such materials. But even with dextrose, 'natural' carbonation means that
there is additional fermentation taking place and this could change the
character of the beer where force-carbonation doesn't; for example, priming
can be used to try to reduce diacetyl. I'd say, go ahead and
force-carbonate if it's more convenient, unless you are specifically aiming
to change the beer.
Your starter will be fine, but you'll need to add some fresh wort to your
starter before pitching. You could mix some up from dried extract, adding
it to warm water 'til you get a gravity of 1.035 say, then boiling and
cooling it. If there is a problem, re-starting the starter will show you.
Decanting off the old beer from the old starter is practical but not
necessary. (I've been using 1028 a lot lately too.)
- Rob L.
P.S. Thanks to Matt for correcting my dyslectic German. The pasty grey
gunk is teig, tiger without the rrr. I guess I got in too tief. I still
sort of wish it were tieg -- sounds better to me <g>.
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:06:27 -0600
From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: BJCP guide in Macintosh format...
Greg mentioned that his WP 5.1 format BJCP study guide was not working for
some Mac internet surfers. Turns out that, for some reason, the unZippers
available for the Mac were choking on it somehow. I unzipped running the
actual DOS PKUNZIP in softwindoze and then it worked great.
I sent this to Greg as a binhexed, stuffed file (ZIP isn't used much on a
Mac) but I'm not sure if it will get posted properly or not. It's hard to
deal with Mac files sometimes on a PC. If you would like a copy of the
guide in a Macintosh format, just email me. It's about 200 pages or so.
Lemme know if you want M$ word or whatever.
- --Brian
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:27:15 -0400
From: careyj at clan.TartanNET.ns.ca (John Carey)
Subject: You bet it's beer, Dom.
I have read with interest the critiques of my "simple beer recipe". This
post will be my last word on the subj. and hopefully THE last word.
I appreciate the support from some of you, but poor Domenick, the non beer
snob, did make a valid point. He states that the Raison d'etre of HBD is
for people who enjoy making better beer through exchanging ideas etc.
Having tasted American Commercial beer[?] I can see why making "better" beer
would become a national phobia, let alone a hobby. You see in Canada we
don't have that problem. We already make better beer. In this country we
are of the opinion that there is no "bad" beer, just some that is better
than others.
Admittedly I have tasted some that came awfully close to bad.
My criteria for the success of my beer is the taste and full body, which I
personally enjoy, and the fact that I never want for crew for my boat on
Sunday afternoons, evenings, or any other time that the bar is open.
If any of you aspirants to "Better beer" pass through Nova Scotia you would
be quite welcome to judge for yourselves. Even you Dom. No hard feelings.
John Carey
Clementsport, N.S.
Canada
John at Shirley Carey
Clementsport, N.S.
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:25:43 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Murray Tanner <mtanner at voyager.co.nz>
Subject: Clarifying agents
Hi,
As a newbie I've been following the HBD posts for about a month,
just getting a handle on the intracacies of homebrewing.
My efforts are confined to extract brewing for the moment until
I know a little more about mash brewing and its associated
techniques and equipment.
My question is not a problem just a general interest, as I've
not seen any postings on the subject it's probably not an issue
with you experienced brewers.
It concerns clarifying beer. What,if any, agents are used for
this process, or does mash brews not require it?. If agents are
used, are they commercial products or can they be readily made
from commonly available substances. How do commercial brewers
filter and clarify their beer?. If this subject has been covered
in previous threads I apologise in advance. Just point me in the
right direction, or E-mail is fine.
Many thanks for the high quality of knowledge out there on the
HBD being shared around. Greetings from Down Under.
NEWSBREAK: "Obesity is widespread."
Murray Tanner
mtanner at voyager.com.nz
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 23:01:38 -0500
From: jhewit at freenet.vcu.edu (Jeff Hewit)
Subject: Need Phone Number for American Science Surplus
A few months ago, or so, someone posted the 800 number for an
outfit called American Science Surplus (or something like
that), and indicated that it was a pretty good place for
getting stuff that can be used for homebrewing. Unfortunately,
I failed to write the number down. If anyone out there has the
number, could they please post it. I promise to write it down
this time. Thanks.
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hewit
Midlothian, Virginia
Return to table of contents
Date: 01 Mar 96 00:29:21 EST
From: "Sharon A. Ritter" <102446.3717 at compuserve.com>
Subject: high finishing gravities
>In HBD 1968 Kelly wrote:
>
>I allways use wyeast liquid yeast and I get a steady slow fermentation but
>usually end up with a higher finish gravity than I should have....
>Lorne P. Franklin writes:
>Ditto for me. I've been brewing for three years and mashing for two.
>I'm generally very pleased with the results of my work, but the terminal
>gravity is not as low as sources indicate that it should be....
I too was plagued with high finishing gravities but have found two factors
which have cured the problem: Pitching lots of yeast and providing plenty
of aeration.
I routinely repitch yeast saved from my primary fermentations or step up
the Wyeast smack packs at least twice. For lagers I try to pitch slurry
from 2000ml starters, for ales 1000ml starters. That has helped, but the
BIG difference came when I started using an aquarium pump aeration device.
I aerate with an airstone hooked up to the pump for an hour prior to
pitching and an hour after pitching. I haven't had a problem with high
finishing gravities since. I learned this by trial and error (mostly
error!) and reading the Digest for the past 18 months. I'll never shake
another carboy!
Dan Ritter in Grangeville, Idaho
102446.3717 at compuserve.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 00:43:36 -0500
From: CASteveB at aol.com
Subject: re: goofy gravities/stuck fermentation?
To all those that responded to my problems with goofy SG measurements, you
were right. I *did not* thorouhgly mix my wort before taking the reading. A
couple good lessons learned:
1. Mix the Wort
2. Trust my initial calculations to be at least in the ballpark
Thanks to all.
Now another question. I pitched the yeast on 19 Feb (500 ml starter) and
fermentation seemed normal (although this is only my third batch). Now, on
28 Feb, the fermentation has slowed down considerably and the SG is still at
1.060. The temperature has been maintained at 64-68F and I am getting a
bubble every 20 seconds or so. What's happening? Is this what a stuck
fermentation looks like? Will It just take longer to finish because of the
High O.G.? I used CL-50 California Pub Brewery Ale yeast from Brewers
Resource, which is supposed to have "normal attenuation". Could this be a
factor since this turned out to be a fairly high gravity beer?
With the continued support form the members of the HBD, I just know we can
end up with at least a half-way decent beer. I will certainly let you all
know what it is like once I finally pop open a finished bottle! I can hardly
wait :)
Steve
|--------------------------------------------|
| owner/operator of "Beer or Bust Brewer" |
| otherwise known as "Tiffany's Kitched" |
|--------------------------------------------|
Return to table of contents
Date: 01 Mar 96 00:29:27 EST
From: "Sharon A. Ritter" <102446.3717 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Gott infusion mashing trouble
I've been mashing in my converted 10 gallon Gott cooler for about 10,
five gallon batches. I have had excellent results with one step infusion
mashes. I get about 82% extraction and beautifully clear runoff.
However, each time I've tried a multiple step infusion mash (with a
protein rest, conversion, and mash-out) I end up with a stuck sparge. I
start my first infusion at .75 qts water/lb. grain. This is the protein
rest step. I add boiling water to reach conversion temps, and then more
boiling water to reach mash-out temps. By the time I get to the
mash-out stage, I've got 2.3 to 2.5 qts of water/lb. of grain.
Here is my theory: The sheer weight of the water causes a rapid
compaction in the grain bed. Each time this has occurred, I've had to
scarify the top of the grain bed to get the sparge running again.
My questions are:
1. Gott users: How do YOU do multiple step infusion mashes and have you
ever had this problem?
2. I normally open the brass needle valve on my cooler full blast during
the recycling stage of the runoff and then slow it way down as I start
collecting. If I start out slower, with the valve open slightly right
from the start, will the grain bed compact more loosely?
3. Nothing wrong with scraping the top of the grain bed so why worry,
right?
Dan Ritter in Grangeville, Idaho
102446.3717 at compuserve.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 09:59:43 +0100 (MET)
From: Carl Etnier <Carl.Etnier at abc.se>
Subject: Which twin has the beer? or Welcome, beer lovers of all sorts
John Carey emerged from apparently about a week of lurking to
submit a recipe with the following "grain bill":
> 4 kg white sugar,(corn if preferred)
> 2 cans (1.13kg) Brewmix malt
> 1 can doric malt
Domenick Venezia responded with some sharply worded comments,
including:
>This list is the antithesis to
>the cane sugar, molasses, and baker's yeast type beers of
>prohibition of which yours is a modern example.
Actually, we can all learn something from time to time from
completely unconventional methods. Followers of the Mead Lover's
Digest will remember Gordon Olson's recent report from the Ambrosia
Adventure contest in Denver on January 13:
>I also helped judge the Best of Show part of the competition. The
>overall winner was a "show" mead, a traditional mead that was
>brewed with Fleishman's bread yeast. That's right bread yeast!
>The woman who made the mead, Morgan Wolf, was there as a first
>time judge and I had a chance to talk to her. She does not belong
>to an brewing club and had not read much about making mead before
>she decided just to do it. No one told here not to use bread
>yeast. The fermentation is going strong within 15 minutes, which
>she thought was just great. To clarify her meads she puts them
>into the plastic two liter bottles and freezes them in her deep
>freeze. After days or weeks, when it is convenient, she thaws
>them, remixing the water and alcohol that have separated, and
>then filters it all through a wine filter.
>
>The resulting mead was teriffic! It had a wonderfull honey aroma
>and taste (Catclaw honey). It was a sweet mead that was not
>highly alcoholic, it did not have much "wine" character. It was
>very pale, crystal clear.
You've been brewing this for 20 years, John. If you've been carefully
observing and thinking about the process, and especially if you've
been keeping good notes, then you probably have some interesting
things to say about method, variation from batch to batch, etc. Your
comments will be more helpful if you are clearer and give the details
of what you do. For example, do 2 cans of "Brewmix malt" make 1.13 kg
total or are they 2 1.13 kg cans? This is malt extract syrup you are
talking about, not malt, right? How much is "1 can doric malt"? How
and when do you add your "various types of hop pellets to taste"?
Having said all that, I agree with Domenick that the recipe will not
produce good beer. The ratio of adjunct sugars to malt sugars is way
too high. It seems to be somewhere from 3:1 to 4:3. The third beer I
ever made used 1 kg white sugar with 1.8 kg malt extract syrup,
nowhere near John's recipe's ratio, and even that was far too much
sugar. The beer was anemic, watery, with no mouth feel, and had an
off flavor that is probably what people mean when they talk about
"cidery" flavors.
Since then, the most sugar I have dared to use is 0.7 kg dextrose
with 1.7 kg Cooper's Real Ale hopped malt extract syrup and 1 kg dry
malt extract. Andy Walsh had posted that this would produce something
like the genuine Cooper's Sparkling Ale. The results this time were
satisfactory. Not excellent beer, but good enough to serve to friends
who know something about beer without being ashamed. Andy had said use
0.5 kg dextrose and an Australian yeast I didn't have, so he probably
makes it much better.
The high sugar recipe that was posted is an extreme version of the
instructions found on many LME kits. I have devoted a considerable
number of hours to writing and laying out a brochure to tell
beginning or potential brewers why they should _not_ use that kind of
recipe and how to make a much better beer with little or no extra
effort. The brochure is in Swedish, so it probably wouldn't help you
much, John, but I'm sending you a well-written document in a similar
spirit from our own HBD archives, John Palmer's "How to Brew Your
First Beer." Much of it is old hat for you, but try out his ale
recipe, which calls for using _no_ sugar and 5-7 lb of hopped pale
malt extract syrup per 5 gallons of water. It is no more difficult
than your old reliable recipe and will produce beer you may like a
lot more. I know I will. ;-)
BTW, what is "doric malt"? Having finally gotten straight the
difference between doric, ionian, and corinthian columns in classical
architecture, I am eager to extend my knowledge to classical malt
types. ;-)
- --Carl
Carl.Etnier at abc.se
A Kinetic Yankee in King Harald's Port
Oslo, Norway
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 07:35:38
From: braue at ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: Diacetyl What?
>Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan at cfrp.varian.com> writes in HBD #1973:
>We brewers tend to use the term diacetyl as a noun, but from the structure
>of the word it looks like an adjective. Is it really a noun, or are we just
>trashing ( turning a noun into a verb) the language? If it's an adjective,
>then diacetyl what?
Welcome to the vague and ill-defined English language (one of my
indefinitely-deferred projects is to design a language in which the
usage of *every* word is defined by the grammar).
"Diacetyl" is. of course, an adjective, strictly speaking; it
means "characterized by the presence of two acetyl (CH[3]CH[2}-)
groups". We use it more often as an abbrievation for a noun phrase:
"one (or more) organic compound(s) containing two acetyl groups
(the compound in question is actually 2,3 butanedione; you can
see why we prefer to abbrieviate it to "diacetyl")". Just has we all
get tired of typing "dimethyl sulfide" a million times (although I
hope that no one's beer has enough DMS in it to justify typing
"dimethyl sulfide" a million times), and abbrievate it to "DMS". By
the rules of English, any abbrievation for a noun or noun phrase
can be used as a noun.
- --
John W. Braue, III braue at ratsnest.win.net
john.braue at berlinwall.org
"The water of England is not drinkable"
- -- Elizabeth of York in a letter to the Infanta Catalina of Aragon
I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 07:55:51 -0500
From: PVanslyke at aol.com
Subject: hops
Last summer I found hops growing near where I live. I harvested some and have
brewed one batch of beer with them. While I am pleased with the results, and
plan on cultivating the variety I have found, I was wondering if there is any
way to identify the strain they may have originated from. Also, how is alpha
acid determined?
TIA
Paul VanSlyke >>> brewing and relaxing in Deposit,NY
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 08:02:12 -0500
From: denisb at CAM.ORG (Denis Barsalo)
Subject: Mash beyond conversion
I've been all grain brewing for a months and have made a dozen or
so grain or partial grain recipes.
In each one of my recipes, my mash schedule hasn't varied much from
the recommended one in the CJOHB. Dough in at 130F, level off at 122F. Hold
for 30 mins. stirring every 5 mins. Step up with boiling water to 150F,
hold for 15 to 20 mins.,step up to 158F until conversion. I use an iodine
test to determine when I've achieved conversion. With this schedule, I
rarely have to go longer than 10 or 20 mins. at 158F. Usually is closer to
5 mins. when using mostly 2-row, and it was 20 mins. when I used a lot of
wheat. (I've played around with G. Fix's 40-60-70 and 50-60-70 schedules
with my last few batches, but the rest times are the same as above.)
I've seen quite a few recipes, here and elswhere, that have
recommended mash schedules with rests at 150F or 158F that last 30 mins or
60 mins or even 90 mins.
Is there an advantage to resting the grain beyond conversion? Is
the "modification" of grain an issue here? Would the grain I'm using be so
well modified that it converts faster?
Denis
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 08:37:27 -0500
From: GSHUTELOCK at aol.com
Subject: Irish Moss
First I'd like to thank all those who sent me their extract Scottish Ale
recipes. I received at least a half-dozen of good recipes and it was hard to
choose which one to go with. I brewed up a 5 gal batch last Saturday (OG
1.072) and its now in the secondary at 1.016 as of yesterday. It smells
wonderful. Now my new problem:
I've used irish moss during the last 15 minutes of the boil (2-3 gallons) and
have had terrible problems siphoning/straining the wort into the primary with
the remainder of water to make up 5 gallons. I've been relying on the aerater
cane to oxygenate my wort during the siphoning process and the moss residue
ruins the procedure. This stuff is a royal PITA as it clogs up everything -
coarse strainers, siphon tube inlets (both the little red thingy and/or the
copper scubbie device). I have not been whirlpooling the cooled wort - would
this significantly help to concentrate irish moss residue in the center of
the pot? Is there a better or more preferable fining? I'm tempted to just
pour the chilled wort with its irish moss and hops sediment into the
fermenter, possibly using a muslin grain bag as a filter, and then aerate by
shaking or use compressed O2 and diffuser. HBD post or email comments would
be appreciated.
George Shutelock
email: gshutelock at aol.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 09:46:13 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Art/diacetyl/Special B/Oak
In #1937 Greg King wrote aboout art and science in brewing. I always find
Jean DeClerk's words on this illuminating: "A distinction is frequently
drawn in the industry between the theoretical man who tries to explain
everything from a scientific point of view, and the practical man who
relies on empirical knowledge and experience. A good brewer should be able
to steer a middle course between these two extremes."
In the same number Bob McCowan asks is "diacetyl" is really a noun. Yes it
is. "Acetyl" is a noun meaning the radical CH3CO-. Put two of these
together and you get CH3COCOCH3 i.e. diacetyl. Tack on an OH- (yeah, I know
this looks funny as they both have negative charges but it works) and you
have CH3COOH; acetic acid. If you prefer you may refer to diacetyl as
"2,3,butane dione". This has certain snob appeal at homebrew club meetings.
The beginners will be really impressed.
Also in the same number Rob Reed asked "Hasn't DWC recently changed their
Special B from 220L'ish to about 150L or so?' Could be. The analysis sheet
I quoted from is at leas a year and maybe two old.
Bob Rogers asks is anyone has used oak to age beer. Pilsner Urquell has
used wood for both fermentation and lagering until the Velvet Revolution
brought them such prosperity that they had to upgrade plant to meet demand.
Now it's stainless but the beer is still superb.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel at interramp.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 08:53:59 -0500
From: gheiler at hoppy.kodak.com (Greg Heiler)
Subject: Better Extract Brewing Techniques
In a lengthy discussion covering many topics, while sampling homebrew
of course, my comrade suggested a modification to my process. The
recommendation was that I get a 2en primary fermentation vessel and
rack to it 8-12 hours after pitching the yeast, before real active
fermentation.
During the first 8-12hrs a significant amount of trub settles out. The
thought was that getting the wort of the trub, as soon as possible,
would reduce/eliminate off flavors. Is this added process refinement
being used by anyone and is it effective? Is it worth doing?
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 08:54:36 -0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at ponyexpress.com>
Subject: diacetyl what? / HB magazines / stuck fermentation
Bob McCowan asks "Diacetyl - is it really a noun?"
At first glance, I thought this seemed like a silly question. Of
course diacetyl is a noun...it is the name of a chemical compound.
But then I remembered back to when Pat Babcock polled us on our
pronunciation of the word. When I tried to look it up in chemistry
books, I could find no mention of it. I also began to notice that
there were no chemicals at all that ended in "yl". For example,
there is no Benzyl, but there is a Benzyl Chloride. There is no
Isopropyl, but there is isopropyl alcohol (or more correctly,
isopropanol). So it does seem that something should follow
Diacetyl... but what?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"John P. Linton" <0003726529 at mcimail.com> is in search of some
HomeBrewing Magazines:
IMHO, Brewing Techniques and Zymurgy are the best, in that order. BT
tends to be more technical/gadget oriented, while Zymurgy has
something for brewers at every level of experience. You can contact
them at:
Brewing Techniques - 1(800)427-2993 / 1(541)687-8534 / btcirc at aol.com /
http://www.virtumall.com/newstand/BrewingTechniques/BrewingMain.html
Zymurgy - 1(303)447-0816 / FAX:(303)447-2825 / info at aob.org /
http://www.branch.com/zymurgy/zymurgy.htm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
liquori at ACC.FAU.EDU has problems with a stuck fermentation:
>> I am assuming the stuck fermentation is due to the fact that
>> I did not aerate the wort
and Russell Mast responds:
> I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Based on the limited information in the original post I think
Russell may be jumping to conclusions. True, there is a good chance
that aeration may be the problem/solution, but there are other good
explanations also. If temperatures dropped too low, the yeast could
have gone dorment and are not easily revitalized. Warming the wort
and repitching some active yeast could help this situation. Also,
the problem could have been the result of poorly modified malt
extract. Amylase enzyme can help here by breaking down the proteins
into smaller sizes that the yeast can sink their teeth into.
Not a flame to Russell. I just wanted to point out that better
aeration is not a panacea for stuck fermentations.
Keith Royster - Keith.Royster at ponyexpress.com
at your.service - 720 Pinewood Circle
WebPage Services - Mooresville, NC 28115
Check us out at - http://www.wp.com/ at your.service/
Voice & Fax - (704) 663-1098
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 09:05:56 -0500
From: Mark Redman <brewman at vivid.net>
Subject: Sierra Pale Ale clone result
This is what this group is all about! I recently posted a request for a
recipe which clones Sierra Nevada Pale ale, and the response was fantastic.
Most of the recipes were very similar, so I would imagine they are pretty
close to the real thing. Anyway, the resulting beer was just amazing! I've
been all-grain brewing for a few years, and most of my ales have been
attempts to reproduce traditional English ales (Hugh Baird malt, Kent
Goldings and Fuggles hops, British yeast, etc), but I've always felt
something was "missing". I realize now that it is my preference for American
style ales. Whether it is the Cascade hops or the Chico yeast, I don't know,
I just prefer the taste.
Anyway, for those of you who enjoy Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, but have never
tried to brew it, here's my resulting recipe:
8 lbs. Great Western domestic 2-row malt
3/4 lb. 50L crystal malt
1/2 lb. CaraPils malt
1 oz. 8.3 AAU whole Perle hops (75 min. boil)
1/2 oz. 6.0 AAU whole Cascade hops (15 min. boil) (Total IBU is about 33)
1 oz. whole Cascade hops (steep while cooling)
1 pint starter, Wyeast #1056 (Chico)
1 1/2 tsp gypsum (my water is rather soft) in mash
Lactic acid added to sparge water for pH 5.7
122 degree protein rest for 30 min (I know I could have skipped this, but I
have never used this malt before), 155 degree saccharification rest for 60
min., mash out at 168 degrees for 10 min. Sparge, boil, pitch, etc.etc.
My pre-boil yield is about .033 pts/gal/lb, but since I whirlpool and settle
the wort after chilling, then rack off from the trub, my yield drops to
about .027 due to the amount of wort left behind in the kettle.
Original Gravity: 1.052
Final Gravity: 1.010
The resulting beer was above my expectations. Great hop aroma, nice
lingering bitterness with a balance of malt flavor. I didn't dry hop, but
the aroma is still very strong, so unless is disappears after a few weeks I
won't bother with the dry hopping. If I close my eyes, I would swear I'm
drinking the real thing. Anyway, thanks for all the input from you folks, it
was great. There is no way I could have received such great info without
this digest! Caio!
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:23:37 -0500
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: "New" Clorox / Stuck Fermentation / Isinglass / Oak Beer
Anybody know much about Clorox's "new and improved" biodegradable bleach?
It's supposedly a "blend" of sodium hypochlorite AND sodium hydroxide;
supposedly it turns to saltwater (NaCL I presume) after a while. While the
old stuff is still avalable, this might ease the minds (and conciences) of
brewers, but I'm wondering about longer-term use such as bottle soaking --
how fast does this "breakdown" occur and what effect does it have on
sanitizing qualities? The lable state "not to be used as a sanitizer". Any
ideas?
*****
Russel Mast responded to "liquori"'s question:
> > Any suggestions for getting the fermentation going again? Is this
> > actually no problem and the process is just EXTREMELY slow?
>
> It is a problem. You already have the answer, grasshopper. AERATE IT!
It's
> not too late, it's never too late. Well, sometimes it is - you might
oxidize
> the wort. However, active yeast will 'reduce' those oxidized chemicals
back
> to what you want them.
Never tried it myself but adding enzymes (for example, amylase) apparently
has the effect of breaking down larger sugars already in the beer into more
"bite-size" chunks, and can restart the fermentation. Side effects include
too-dry / too-thin beer but that's your call compared to too-swwet beer.
There's a paper by Kevin Hass on the subject at The Brewery
(http://alpha.rollanet.org/library.html).
*****
Jeff Struman asks:
> When I add this isinglass to water it puts off
> some real obnoxious odors. The smell makes my eyes water, my nose run and
> makes me sneeze. If I take a good whiff of the odor it takes my breath
> away (literally.) What's going on here?
Isinglass is fish guts. Fish guts stink. I used isinglass once in an
all-grain porter that wouldn't clear; it did a satisfactory job of clearing
but to my surprise no odor or taste was left in the beer. You have to
prepare it right, though. Put the recommended amount into a Grolsch bottle
with some clean cold water and shake the bejeezus out of it. The refer to
the following flowchart:
1. Put in fridge.
2. Wait a while.
3. Remove from fridge; shake much.
4. If arm is falling off go to 5, else go to 1.
5. Dump into offending beer.
It's not very soluble and needs lotsa contact time with the water, so this
will be at least an overnight experience. You'll end up with a thick, gooey
mass of splunge, which you'll wonder why you're tossing in your beer.
*****
Bob Rogers asks,
> are there any suggestions
> about quantity of wood (seems surface area will be the key), and
precautions
> to take?
I've never used oak; I don't ever plan to; but I do know that red oak has FAR
more tannins than white oak, so be careful about tossing in "dowels" without
knowing the wood species. Many brew stores sell oak chips; although probably
costly, I would recommend this route just to err on the side of caution.
Also, I presume the oak barrels are charred (whisky barrels usually are) --
does this change things? If it's really a light beer, perhaps it's not
charred. Couldja ask Jack, perhaps?
*****
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy at aol.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 96 10:26:00 EST
From: "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER at NRC.CA>
Subject: recipes
Last week Glenn Raudins suggested that people post more recipes. I
agree with him but I'd like to add something. When you do post a favorite
recipe, please add some notes on the finished product. Tell me what the
beer is like in your opinion(heavy, sweet, a little too bitter for my taste,
etc..). What characteristics were you trying to come up with? Why did you
use three different type of hops (just cleaning out the fridge)? The more
you expand on the"why's" and the final results of the recipe, the more I can
draw my own conclusions. When I go through the Cat's Meow recipes I find
the ones with comments to be much more useful to me.
Let the recipes begin! I'll post a couple of my favorites next week.
Bruce Taber
taber at irc.lan.nrc.ca
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 10:34:59 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: DWC Special B / Keg Leaks
Rob asks about the color variation in Special B malt from batch to batch.
>From the Schreier spec sheet for DWC malts:
Color
ASBC
Lov.
DWC Special B 75-150
Note first that the range is wide. Secondly, I have bought a bag of
DWC special B with a color (listed on the bag) of about 220.
I have seen this malt range from a very dark brown crystalized
"kernel," with a sweet, raisin-like flavor, to something that is
essentially indistinguishable from chocolate malt. YMMV.
I recently tried some 100L English (M&F?) crystal malt. It gave some
of the same "raisiny" character that I find in *good* batches of
Special B, but was a little more burnt tasting.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu)
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:40:24 -0500
From: gameier at fmc.com (Gary A. Meier)
Subject: Diacetyl is a noun
Bob McCowan asked if diacetyl can correctly be used as a noun, since it
looks suspiciously like an adjective. Indeed, diacetyl can modify a host
of other chemical names, e.g. diacetylbenzene. However, just plain
"diacetyl" is a chemical compound. 2,3-butanedione is the more proper,
systematic name, but diacetyl is generally accepted as the common name for
CH3-C(=O)-C(=O)-CH3.
Gary
**************************************************************************
Gary Meier, Ph.D. Senior Research Computational Chemist
FMC Corporation
Agricultural Products Group phone: (609) 951-3448
Box 8 fax: (609) 951-3835
Princeton, NJ 08543 email: gameier at fmc.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:54:49 -0500
From: HOMEBRE973 at aol.com
Subject: categories
I was thinking of entering some beers in contests and couldn't decide the
categories.
They are a porter and a stout that I added a small amount of peated moss to
give a slightly smoked character to. Some references say that porter can
have a slightly smoked character, but would most judges know this or will I
do better entering these in a specialty or smoked beer category? Thanks for
any advice.
Andy Kligerman
Hillsborough, NC
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:35:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Flaked barley
A question to those flaked barley users:
Im looking for any info/experience on brewing with high percentages
of flaked barley, say 25% of the fermentables. Any tips on mashing/
lautering and the results?
Thanks,
Jim Busch
Return to table of contents
Date: 01 Mar 1996 09:42:25 -0700
From: "Dave Hinkle" <Dave.Hinkle at aexp.com>
Subject: Chilli Beer secrets revealed
Scott Rudolph asks:
I would like to bottle something similar to Cave Creek chili beer; I
understand it's a matter of putting a pepper in each of the bottles when
bottling. The only thing that concerns me is sanitation. Has anyone done
this? I think I remember reading that the peppers are best sanitized by a
short microwave bath. I'm not real comfortable with that, but will probably
do it unless someone else has a better suggestion.
- ---
I asked a spokeswoman at Black Mountain Brewery (producers of 'Cave Creek Chili
Beer') how they do it. They used canned Serrano chilli peppers grown in Casa
Grande, AZ. A pepper, straight out of the can, is put in each bottle BY HAND
prior to the bottle getting filled with beer on the bottling line. The workers
wash their hands first of course...
BMB uses open fermenters, which is interesting in itself considering they only
make lagers (for the chili beer and some others, such as 'Ed's Beer'). In
their words, "the room is kept real' cold".
Ok, so my question is, WHY? They sell a lot of Chili Beer to tourists (as AZ
souvenirs), but I have never met anyone who bought it TWICE. It does seem to
be a good way to sell a lot of mediocre lager, especially to the "Corona"
crowd. Don't get me wrong though, I enjoy an ice-cold Mexican lager with a
slice of lime as much as the next zonie when it's 115F. But please, "hold" the
peppers! (couldn't resist the pun)
Dave H.
Phoenix, AZ
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:04:41 -0600
From: nelson at muck.isgs.uiuc.edu (Dan.Nelson)
Subject: Kegging 101 - gas leak - summary of replies
Howdy Brewers:
In HBD#1971, I wrote about problems with a gas leak from the lid of
of my corney keg.... Here's a summary of responses.
>I'm having one problem, though,
>which is is getting a perfect seal around the lid of the keg. It's a
>5 gal. ball-lock corney, reconditioned, new gaskets, in very nice shape.
>When force carbonating at pressures of 8-9 psi and greater there is no
>apparent leakage, but at dispensing pressure (about 5 psi) there is
>significant gas leakage around to oval lid.
I hate to say I've been
too busy to try them yet (poor guy... ain't life a bi-atch), but I'm going
to work on it this weekend. If I come up with any important developments,
I'll post yet again. Thanks to everyone who replied.
Some folks said get a longer/wider dispensing hose and dispense at
higher pressures. See HBD#1973 (From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: Re: Kegging 101, Lagering--time and S.G.) for a discussion
of some of the calculations involved. Some mentioned that 5 psi seems
to be the minimum limit at which this type of keg will hold a seal.
Some said heat the O-ring in hot water or microwave (don't melt!) just
before sealing. This will make the rubber softer and create a better seal.
Overpressurize (for force carbonization), and when reducing pressure for
dispensing, seal should remain intact.
Three gents suggested specialized, softer, gummier O-rings that will
seat better than standard ones. Vendor: (1) Large O-Ring
from Williams Brewing 1-800-759-6025, item D11, "Lid Sealing O-Ring"
($5.90/ring!!!).
Two fellas mentioned O-ring lubrication.
Dave Hensley said the following:
I had to do two things before the leaks stopped:
1) Williams Brewing (mailorder) has a soft gasket that seems to seal much
better than the hard ones. The price is outrageous (~$5), but they work.
2) I lube the o-ring with glycerin just before sealing.
Since doing this I've had no problems with leaks, even at the 2.5 pounds I'm
using to dispense some cask-conditioned bitters.
>From spencer at engin.umich.edu:
If your "clamp" is amenable, you might be able to bend it so as to
produce more closing force. You could also try buffing the rough spot
with some high-grit (400 or higher) emery paper.
A few folks suggested wankin' the lid around a bit in the horizontal
plane to get a better seat. I did try this already... no luck.
That's it for now.
Thanks to:
Jim Dipalma
Bob Rogers
Bob Knetl
Dave Hensley
Spencer
Wawa
Also, my apologies to the two other people whose replies were not included.
My e-mail went blitzo last night and I lost a couple of replies.
Dan Nelson, Boy Brewologist
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 12:20:25 EST
From: "Aubrey Scott Howe, III" <usapmash at ibmmail.com>
Subject: RE: Lactobacilli from Malt Grain
Steve Alexander writes:
<Snip out the best part telling about scoping his bacteria out...> :)
>...My conclusion is beware of those overnight acid rests - you can't tell
>*what* is growing in there.
Just curious, Did you boil some of the bad smelling "Jungle" water to see
if boiling REALLY kills the bacteria? I have yet to do an all night mash,
but am considering doing it. In talking to most of my friends who I
know are doing all night mashes, they boil the wort in the morning to
kill the bacteria. I don't have easy access to a microscope for this sort
of tests, so I can't check it myself. Anyone else done this?
Cheers!
--Aubrey Howe, III
usapmash at ibmmail.com in Santa Barbara, CA.
(or "The brewer formerly known as howe at appmag.com")
Return to table of contents
Date: 1 Mar 1996 12:23:54 U
From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp at mcst.ae.ge.com>
Subject: Chillers
Re: Brewers Resource chiller and the 25' Listermann model 19.7 gph vs. 14.9:
Dan McC said:
>equal. It must mean that either or both the diameter of the hose or the
>diameter of the coil plays an important role in the efficiency. One could
>argue that a smaller diameter coil, on the order of 12 inches might produce
>more turbulence resulting in a more rapid cooling rate than a larger
>diameter coil of 24 inches or a chiller that was linear.
I'd be really surprised if the coil diameter has much to do with this. Both
should be capable of essentially the same performance. The ID of the garden
hose will surely affect the Reynolds number, and therefore turbulence in the
coolant passage for a given coolant flow rate, but since both of these units
used Listermann fittings, they're likely both using 5/8" ID garden hose.
Something seems weird here. Is it possible that the wort flow rate through
either of these could be varied appreciably without changing the wort outlet
temperature much at all?
>It took 20+ min. to drop the temperature to 65 in the 25' and 12+ min. to
>drop the temperature to 64 in the 50'... We restricted the flow in the 25'
>model so that the output temperature would be in a usable range. This was
>less of an issue with the more efficient 50' models and that's why in the
50' >chiller we could let it flow faster.
Just an observation, but the flow rate of the wort will vary quite a bit from
beginning to end of the cooling process, due to the change in inlet pressure
(head) to the chiller. This makes the whole process pretty dynamic. If, as
it sounds from the text, you grabbed a sample as the process was going on,
the flow rate you calculated would be highly dependent on when it was taken.
Did you reconcile the measured flow rate with the total time to cool the five
gallons? Also, did the wort outlet temperature tend to drift as the cooling
proceeded? It should, if the wort flow rate is closely coupled to outlet
temperature (provided you didn't open up the restriction to hold it
constant).
In my experience, 25' is more than enough length, even though I "pull" wort
through my chiller with a pump. I'm using 25' of 3/8" OD tube with a 1/2" ID
vinyl tube around it. The coil diameter is about 10". If one uses the
average coolant passage height as the characteristic dimension, the Reynolds
number is more than 4x greater with this set-up than for a 5/8" ID jacket.
>Heart's chiller has internal baffling (not fins, per Heart's) to produce
>turbulent flow. That's that key in this instance. I suspect this unit was
>originally designed as part of another piece of equipment (oil cooler?).
There is a heat exchanger listed in McMaster Carr's catalog which looks very
much like the Heart's model. It is sold as a refrigerant condenser coil for
water-cooled refrigeration systems. The description says that it includes
spiral-wound fins applied to the inner tube.
MPM
Return to table of contents