HOMEBREW Digest #1976 Tue 05 March 1996

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Librarys and Book Reviews (D & S Painter)
  Temperature resistance properties for Plastic boilers (Geza T Szenes/IPL)
  Re: How to clean those really gross bottles (Zucchini Dave)
  Diacetyl is a noun (Brattstrom)
  Diacetyl - it is really a noun! (Mark Roberson)
  Bleach concentration (korz)
  scotch ale recipe / info (Jeff)
  stuck ferment (korz)
  re:  Alt questions (DEBOLT BRUCE)
  chocolate (Margaret Kelly)
  Brita Filters (Robert Bloodworth)
  Time Spent in Secondary (Scott Nichols)
  brewpubs in west/central tennessee (Robert Rogers)
  Specialty Grains (Simonzip)
  Water Ion Concentrations (ArnoldWa)
  Wheat DME / Head retention (Derek Lyons)
  Re: Just fridging around... (Regan Pallandi)
  Recycling Yeast (JAWeld)
  Questioning my latest brew. (Kelly Heflin)
  Netscape - nonbrewing question (Peter Thomford)
  Copper (A. J. deLange)
  Re: Brewers Companion (Paul Hoppenjans)
  Channeling (Kirk Fleming)
  Brita Filters / Trub Recycling / Mosher's Book (KennyEddy)
  Re: Quassia (Pierre Jelenc)
  REALLY high kraeusen (Darren Jetton)
  Musings on recipe posting ("Dave Draper")
  Channeling Momily (Jack Schmidling)

****************************************************************** * 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: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 13:04:38 -0500 From: D & S Painter <painter at CAM.ORG> Subject: Librarys and Book Reviews Hi again, Thanks again for all those who responded to the Mosher,_The Brewers Companion_ thread. Tracy Aquilla asked in HBD 1972 if we could continue the Mosher discussion. I forwarded all of my personal messages to him/her; but I'm intrieged by this idea of discussing USEFUL books. I am a beginner advanced homebrewer with 7 all grain mashes under my belt but I still feel the need to expand my library. So I would like to show you all what I have and ask you to inform me, and hopefully others, on the value (pros/cons) of the books I have and what I "should" get to increase my knowledge and resorces. (an example is that I have Papazians The New Complete Joy ... some have said that this is filled with errors ... what are they? Is Miller good or what ... some say that his Home Brewing book is too optimistic interms of efficiency?) My Library: Line, Dave _The Big Book of Brewing_ Line, Dave _Brewing Beers Like Those You Buy_ Line, Dave _Kits and Brewing_ Papazian, Charlie _The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing_ ** Papazian, Charlie _The Home Brewer's Companion_ *** McCall, Peter _Brewer's Dictionary_ Foster, Terry _Pale Ale_ * Burch, Byron _Brewing Quality Beers_ ** Miller, Dave _The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing_ *** Owens, Bill _How to Build a Small Brewery_ Jackson, Michael _Beer Companion_ * (but its really ***) Jackson, Michael _Pocket Guide to Beer_ Leistad, Rog _Yeast Culturing_ * _Evaluating Beer_ ($33.95 CND) *** _Victory Beer Recipes_ * (All 1995 Zymurgys and all past special isses except the "Yeast" issue)**** (All net FAQ's and Glenn Tinseth's Brewcalc 1.1 ... I use his calculations and have put in either my local stores #'s for their hops and lovibond or I fall back on The Great Grain Issue) * = The rating I give ... all interms of which I turn to first. Thanks in advance for your imput! I feel that everyone could benefit from a "frank" discussion on the usefullness of some of the books I've mentioned as well as those I, probably as a Canadian, know nothing about; Mosher is one of many I'm sure. Cheers! Douglas <painter at cam.org> Montreal, PQ Return to table of contents
Date: 1 Mar 96 11:01:12 From: Geza T Szenes/IPL <Geza_T_Szenes/IPL.IPL at notes.ipl.ca> Subject: Temperature resistance properties for Plastic boilers Greetings to the collective; A little while ago someone posted a summary of the temperature resistance properties of the various plastics, so that they can be used for electric boilers. Could someone please repost these or mail them to me, or point me to the digest that they appeared in. I have recently obtained a 30 liter HDPE (high density polyethylene) bucket that is specifically made for the homebrewing industry and I would like to use this to construct a boiler with an electric element. I was told that HDPE is able to withstand 120 degrees Celsius, which would be OK for boiling. If I recall correctly the suggestion was that polypropylene was the plastic of choice for electric boilers, but I'm having a hell of a time finding a food grade one that large enough. TIA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:20:32 -0700 (MST) From: Zucchini Dave <woodstok at rupert.oscs.montana.edu> Subject: Re: How to clean those really gross bottles Fellow bottle/carboy cleaners For those who have access to some chemical supplies, try this next time you exhaust your cleaner/solvent resources for cleaning bottles. We use a 1 molar solution of sodium hydroxide [NaOH] (potassium hydroxide [KOH] works well too) in 95% ethanol to clean those REALLY grimy bottles. If this stuff doesn't get it off, you just don't need to worry about it. The best thing about it is that you can just save it and use it over and over again. And a little goes a loooooong way. Actually, i believe that i read in a past issue of Zymurgy that some oven cleaners contain sodium hydroxide in them and work well. As Zymurgy put it, "This is the elephant gun of solvents..." Always use protection!!! B) Happy cleaning! Dave Why should I Weep, wail, or sigh? What if luck has passed me by? What if my hopes are dead,- My pleasures fled? Have I not still My fill Of right good cheer,- From "Beer" by George Arnold Cigars and beer? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:24:59 -0500 From: Brattstrom at aol.com Subject: Diacetyl is a noun Yes Bob, Diacetyl is a noun. Diacetyle is the name of an organic compound. "diacetyl and the homologous compound 2,3-pentanedione are called vicinal diketones (VDKs). Both produce buttery and butterscotch flavors and aromas Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:33:31 -0700 From: roberson at alkali.chem.utah.edu (Mark Roberson) Subject: Diacetyl - it is really a noun! OOH! OOH! I know this one! Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan at cfrp.varian.com> wrote: >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? An acetyl group is the radical H O \ ( ) H - C - C - R / H where R is the rest of the molecule it is attached to; if that happens to be another acetyl group, you get diacetyl. I never thought of it as an adjective before but that does make a certain amount of sense, as in the case of acetylbenzene. I failed to leap into the pronounciation thread a while back so I'll put in my two cents here: I say it by analogy to di-acetylene. Hoppy brewing, Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 14:20:18 CST From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com Subject: Bleach concentration John writes: >Use household bleach in the 250 - 330 ml range per 20 l of water. That's WAY TOO MUCH bleach! In US measures, 1 tablespoon per gallon is plenty. From memory, I believe that would be about 15ml per 4 liters. Using more bleach than you need not only costs you more, but it also means you dump more bleach into your sewage system. Incidentally, this is not only the concentration I use for sanitaion but also for removing labels (it takes about a 48 hour soak and then a quick scrape with a razor scraper). Al. Nothing worth copyrighting here, although it technically is, anyway. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:28:08 -0500 From: mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff) Subject: scotch ale recipe / info Hi Everyone, I've noticed a recent increase in the amount of recipes being posted and thought that I'd share this one with the collective. I've also included a short description of the technique/equipment that I use to do partial mashes on my electric stove. This recipe was formulated after looking at many scotch ale recipes (cat's meow, Noonan's book, HBD, etc.) and posting some questions to the digest (#1833). I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this great forum we call the HBD, and in particular those who have helped answer questions that I have had. I've sent this recipe to several people via private email in the past and one of these people (Gabrielle Palmer <gabriellepalmer at e-mail.com>) recently posted a question about his version of this brew (in #1960) that has prompted the recent "scottish ale/hoppiness" thread. Since I have recently entered this brew in a homebrew competition, I've also included the judges comments. BTW, this took first place in the combined english and scottish ale category at the war-of-the-worts homebrew competition sponsored by the Keystone Hops (1/20/96). Recipe: 6.6 lb Ireks munich light LME 2.0 lb Ireks munich malt (10L ?) 0.5 lb M&F crystal malt (60L) 0.5 lb Ireks crystal malt (20L) 3.0 oz M&F chocolate malt (350L) 4.0 oz white wheat malt (2L) 2.0 oz Hugh Baird peat smoked malt (2L) 1.0 oz East Kent Goldings (whole, 60 min boil) 1.0 oz Fuggles (whole, 15 min boil) 1 tsp Irish moss (rehydrated, 15 min boil) Wyeast 1338 (european ale, 1 qt starter) 4.5 oz corn sugar (primimg) - mashed all the grains in 4 qts of 156F water for 1 hr - sparged with 4 qts of 170F water - SG of runnings: 1.036 in ~7 qts - added LME, made volume up to 3 gal, boiled for 1 hr - chilled with immersion chiller, aerated, made volume up to 5 gal, aerated some more, pitched 1 qt starter - fermented at 65 - 68F OG = 1.055 FG = 1.018 - 4 days in primary, racked to secondary (SG=1.022) for 8 days, bottled Partial mash technique/equipment: I use a grain bag from Williams Brewing (800-759-6025) that is made to fit inside a bucket type lauter tun. It also fits perfectly inside my 3 gallon SS kettle. To do the mash on my stove, I just heat up the mash water to ~165F (in my kettle) then drop in the grain bag containing the crushed grains. Stir real well, let it sit for a minute, then check the temp. If its to low (which it will be) either add small amounts of boiling water (1 cup at a time, stir, let it sit for a minute, then check the temp) or add heat with the stove burner on medium heat while gently stirring constantly. After you hit the mash temp, cover it up and let it sit for 1 hour. At the end of the 1 hour, I lift the grain bag just above the surface of the wort and sparge by pouring the sparge water over the grains gently with a measuring cup. As you can see, my mash setup/technique is pretty simple and does'nt require a lot of extra equipment. I'm not trying to get the max possible extraction from the grains, only the flavor/body that was missing before I started doing these partial mashes. Since this setup/technique produces wort that is rather cloudy with grain particles, I've often wondered if it will lead to some astringency in the finished beer. Some of the judges comments (see below) lead me to believe that this does happen. Kirk Fleming asked about this in HBD #1968. Does this stovetop mashing sound similar to what you do? Tasting notes / judges comments: When I put together this recipe (my first Scotch ale), I was trying to clone St. Andrews Scotch Ale (Belhaven Brewery, Edinburg). It ended up with a little to much smokey flavor and not quite enough hop bitterness. In general it came out almost identical to Sam Adams Scotch Ale (Boston Beer Co., Boston). Here are the judges comments. I've separated the two judge's comments with a slash (/): bouquet/aroma: pleasant malt, low hop / malt, no hop OK appearance: good clarity, head retention, overcarbonated / slight reddish brown, good clarity, head good flavor: nice for scottish, light smoke, pleasant sweetness, just slightly overcarbonated for scottish ex, lingering aftertaste slight astringent / malt OK, low hops OK, condition OK but would lower a little to make smooth, needs more malt sweetness & caramel, to dry for style, slight phenolic or solvent body: good body / carb level thins a bit drinkability & overall impression: lingering aftertaste from other than malt or hops / it is drinkable but needs fullness (more malt or less atten yeast) scores: 34 / 30 Thanks for the bandwidth. I hope that this helps some newer brewers to try some more advanced brewing techniques and also sheds some light on the recent scotch ale/hoppiness thread. If you end up making this recipe, let me know how it comes out. Hoppy brewing, Jeff ============================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 841-7210 x152 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 841-7250 Launcher Technology & Analysis Branch email: mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Naval Undersea Warfare Center Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2 Newport, RI 02841-1708 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 13:59:05 CST From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com Subject: stuck ferment Russell writes: >> 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. > >Shake shake shake, shake shake shake, shake your carboy. (I do this with the >carboy on the ground to minimize risk of breaking.) It depends on the yeast. Some yeasts make greate beer if you aerate them during fermentation and others don't. I don't know why. Wyeast #1968 (London ESB) and the Samuel Smith's yeast (available from the Yeast Culture Kit Company) seem to respond well to aeration during fermentation, but many others don't. Oxidizing the wort is not the worry here, I feel. If you have already made significant alcohol, there is a risk of oxidizing the alcohols into aldehydes and those are particularly nasty-tasting (remember the flavour of the beer the morning after a Kegger party in which you pumped air into the keg to dispense?). Furthermore, shaking the carboy with the airlock on will not aerate, but rather it will rouse the yeast (remember that the headspace of the carboy is all CO2 at this point). Rousing does help some very flocculent yeasts (like Wyeast #2007 Pilsen Lager or the Wyeast #1968 or the Samuel Smith's yeast) finish faster and gives a slightly lower final gravity than if you did not rouse. No, I think that if your yeast pooped-out because you did not aerate the wort well enough, I think that the solution is to add some more yeast. Dry yeast (as another poster said) is dried after being fed a lot of oxygen, so some rehydrated dry yeast may be an option. If you want to use the same yeast strain you used initially, make up a BIG starter -- like 2 or even 4 liters, let it ferment out, pour off the spent wort, add 500 ml of fresh wort and then pitch the whole thing shortly after it reaches high kraeusen. If that doesn't work, then you just have a wort that is very, very high in unfermentables (from crystal malts, malto-dextrin, lactose, etc.). Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at pubs.att.com Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 16:19:04 -0600 From: DEBOLT BRUCE <bdebolt at dow.com> Subject: re: Alt questions On Tues, 27 Feb. Al Korzonas wrote: >... would agree with Jim (Busch) that you really need continental Munich malt to make a decent traditional Alt. Alt continues to be one of the fascinating style to me. Two years ago I was in Vermont and drank Otter Creek Copper Ale and loved it. The label said something about inspired by the ales/alts of Dusseldorf (can't remember the quote). Since then I've been trying to brew it without a real reference point from actually drinking the Dusseldorf beers. I tasted one at the '94 Dixie Cup brought in by Brad Kraus from Rio Bravo Brewpub in Albuquerque, that was truly fantastic - malty, bitter, with a dry finish. Last year zymurgy had an article on alt, and Al wrote about his German tasting experiences. I read what I find but still wonder about the best way to make it. I typically use about 6 lb pale domestic 2-row, 1-2 lb Munich malt (sometimes substituting 1 lb Vienna for 1 lb Munich), 1/2-1 lb various crystals (usually CaraMunich), and sometimes 1 oz. roasted barley (I detected a roast flavor in Otter Creek). All this in a single temp infusion mash with essentially d.i. water and lots of low alpha hops. I've used Wyeast European, German Ale, and Irish Ale. My favorite (and others who tasted it) was the Irish Ale version. It took first in a local contest, go figure. Al and the collective - what are the recommendations on the content of the grist? - - continental Munich? - - pale malt - DWC, German, domestic? - - other malts, like crystal? Should you do a decoction for optimum maltiness without sweetness? Perplexed but enjoying the experiments, Bruce DeBolt Lake Jackson, TX bdebolt at dow.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 17:13:27 -0600 From: Margaret Kelly <mkelly at piper.hamline.edu> Subject: chocolate I recently brewed a cherry chocolate stout (Mon Cheri Stout). This was the first time I used chocolate in a recipe. I used the baking chocolate you buy at the grocery store and threw it in the brew pot to melt. After I racked to the secondary a layer of something (cream in color) formed on the top--I assumed it was leftover fermentation but this layer never subsided. I bottled anyways. A similar layer formed on the top of the beer in the bottles after 3 weeks. Never tasted any off flavors. I'm guessing it was just the fats/oils in the chocolate separating out. Anyone else have this experience with chocolate? Do you think baking cocoa would have a similar effect? And does baking cocoa yield similar taste results? Thanks--Margaret at mkelly at piper.hamline.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 01 Mar 96 17:40:56 EST From: Robert Bloodworth <100334.664 at compuserve.com> Subject: Brita Filters Don Walsh asked about Brita filters, The Brita filter consists basically of the following: 1. A weak cation-exchange resin in the acid form which reduces water hardness and lowers pH by replacing some of the calcium and and magnesium ions with H+. 2. Active carbon to adsorb trace organics and other oderous chemicals 3. Silver salts which act as a disinfectant to inhibit bacterial growth in the filter. The Brita filters do not completely deionize water and are therefore probably a good choice for brewers who make small batches and are just interested in reducing water hardness or unpleasant oders. This water is good for mashing, but be sure to boil any water that you plan to use for diluting your wort after boiling. Old Brita filters can actually be a source of bacteria! Boiling also works well with very hard water, but you have to separate the precipitated calcium salts from the water shortly after cooling to RT. Otherwise, given enough time, they can redissolve. This may explain the pH Rise you observed. Boiling the water without removing the salts does not reduce the hardness of the brewing water because the salts redissolve in the wort. Hope that helps.., Interesting watching how the german language changes in the hands of english speaking brewers. Malz became malt maischen became mashing Wuerze became wort Lautertonne became lauter tun Trueb (rhymes with boob) becomes trub So please allow me to nip a new anglism from Rob L. in the bud: >This is sometimes called 'top-dough' or by the German word 'tieg' >(prounounced 'teague' ;-) which means dough or paste. Handy word just >'cause it's shorter. The german word for dough is actually Teig and is pronounced like tide with a hard g in place of the d. German brewers actually use the word Mehlschicht (literally:flour layer) to describe what Neal Christensen so aptly described as a 'flour' layer :-) Cheers, Bob Bloodworth Koeln Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 16:26:27 -0700 From: Scott Nichols <snichols at harman-dod.com> Subject: Time Spent in Secondary Hello, I can't resist the first post accolades to this group... I honestly have found the dialog level in this group to be refreshing, and informative, two qualities seemingly in short supply on mail lists. However, the reason for the post: I would like to know what this group feels to be the ideal maturation time in the secondary. I know this will vary be style and possible gravity. Can generalities be made? Three months in the secondary is too long? It doesn't matter as long as there is a positive CO2 pressure? I am kegging the beer after the secondary and I'm also curious if the beer matures differently in the keg under pressure, beside the obvious carbonation :-), verses in the secondary. If there is no difference between the secondary and the keg could you simply rack to the secondary decrease the temperature to facilitate the precipitation of yeast and then keg? Or, does the glass in the secondary help the beer to mature differently than the stainless of the keg? TIA -Scott Nichols Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 19:15:25 -0500 From: bob at carol.net (Robert Rogers) Subject: brewpubs in west/central tennessee having searched online for brewpubs and being unhappy with the results: i will be spending a few days in memphis and then driving to nashville, and then to lynchburg if i have time. then back to nashville and memphis. 5 or 6 days. any suggestions? tia bob rogers bob at carol.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 19:23:32 -0500 From: Simonzip at aol.com Subject: Specialty Grains In HBD #1972, Al K. points out that my steeping flaked barley and Quaker oats probably isn't contributing much to the flavor/body of my stout. With a big fat beer like that, it's tough for my amature taste buds to decipher whether it did or didn't. The beer was very good though. I'm content to make extract based beers and color/flavor with adjuncts and specialty grains. Now, what I would like to know is, what grains/adjuncts can just be steeped by themselves, and how can I use other grains in combination to extract flavor/body/sugar/color? Will one kind of grain help another extract goodness? I'm ok with crystal, chocolate, black patent etc., but what about pale malt (Klages?), flaked barley, and oats? I've been brewing with all these grains (0.5 to 2 lb. steeped at 150 for 20-50 min. in 2 gal. water) as per recipes, and making good beer. I just wonder now if I might not be getting as much out of some of them as I could be. Perhaps it's time to re-read Papazians books. Other suggested readings? Thanks in advance, Darrin "lookin' back in front of me..." SRV Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 19:51:41 EST From: XXBX78A at prodigy.com (MR PAUL G KURJANSKI) Subject: HBD I have a quick question for my first post. Although I think I have seen this question raised before, I can't recall the posting of any replies. I usually use hop bags when brewing. Does the use of hop bags effect hop utilization significantly? TIA Paul Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 20:07:32 -0500 From: ArnoldWa at aol.com Subject: Water Ion Concentrations Dear Collective, I have seen tables in various publications that list the ion concentrations found in the water of various famous brewing cities (Dublin, Burton, etc.). Has anyone developed a table of what they consider to be ideal ion concentrations for various beer styles? A post or private e mail of such a table would be great! Thanks, Happy Friday, and Cheers! Don Walsh Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 20:00:10 -0800 From: Derek Lyons <elde at hurricane.net> Subject: Wheat DME / Head retention Would adding 1 Lb Wheat DME add to head retention? (As oppossed to adding wheat malt). Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 16:09:06 +1100 (EDT) From: Regan Pallandi <reganp at iris.bio.uts.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: Just fridging around... Hello all - I have got my hands on a Johnson Controls thermostat, and now is the time to have sensible control of fermentation temps. However, as most of you have noticed, no doubt, the average fridge doesn't fit more than one fermenter at a time. I seem to remember somewhere, that you can "explode" the body of the fridge forward with plywood and insulation. Fair enough. What I'd like to know is: will the extra volume wreak havoc on the compressor? Will this configuration add an extra zero to my electricity bill? Has anyone tried this? Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Regan in Sydney Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 09:04:43 -0500 From: JAWeld at aol.com Subject: Recycling Yeast Fellow Brewers, I know this has been covered before, but that doesn't mean I was paying attention. Could someone give some tips on recycling yeast from one batch to the next. My questions are: -After racking off, what needs to be done to the sediment? I would use the sediment from the secondary, which I assume would be "cleaner". How do I get it floating again? What do I use to rinse it out of the carboy with? Do I need to convert my washing machine to a centrifuge (with more power, I think the spin cycle would work) to try and separate it? -Once it is in a sanitized flask, do I need to "feed" it with fresh wort? If not, how long will it stay dormant without feeding? If I don't feed it do I need to use an airlock or just a stopper?? What should the storage temp be? _There was a thread awhile back about freezing yeast in a solution of glycerine (glycerol). What is the recipe for that.? How does one prepare the frozen yeast for use? Sorry for the number of questions, but I am trying to stretch my brewing dollars. If this is too much to ask, perhaps you could suggest a good reference source on this topic. Private email is good, and will post a summary if anyone else is interested. Thanks in advance. Amos Welder JA Weld at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 09:22:06 -0500 From: Kelly Heflin <kheflin at monmouth.com> Subject: Questioning my latest brew. Thanks to everyone who responded to my question on calculating yield. I've been reading all the talk about grain bed depths. I realize that the main reason is for knowing what your method will yield for future brews. I'm a little baffled at the number I got though. There is also this one question. Do you multiply the garavity by the gallons of sparge (6.5) or after the boil, (5.0). I got 2 different opinions on this . Of couse it makes a big difference. I'm expecting the number to be the (6.5 after sparge). The problem is the number I got is too high, based on that magic # of 30 or 33 being "good" . I got 35.6? Here's the details. 10 lbs helles 1.5 lbs crystal 1 lb munich .25 chocalate temp at 125 for 30 min, raise temp to 137 for 15 min raise temp to 150to 155 for 1 hour. I have a 1 inch false bottom so I can recirculate the water at bottom to help regulate temp, I do this quite a few times(is this an approved method.?) Raise temp to about 170. start sparge with 190 deg water. I recirculate the first pitcher just for good luck. This sparge took exactly 30 minutes to get to 6.5 gallons. I was expecting only 1.06 to 1.065. I checked it a couple of times at the right temp. about 65. and got 1.07. ******** Oh by the way I have a 10 gallon stainless mash/sparge pot. It is 15.2 inches in diameter. 12 lbs of grain only adds up to about 6 inches at most. (I add this because of all that has been written about 16 inch grain beds..) This is only my 3rd all grain batch, so please critic my metods. I gotta say the taste of this stuff was great. The best unfermented stuff I've tasted. Very sweet. My next post will talk about the strange yeast behavior for this batch. Kelly Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 09:27:36 -0800 From: Peter Thomford <pthomfor at execpc.com> Subject: Netscape - nonbrewing question Does anyone have trouble dragging Homebrew Digests into folders in Netscape Ver 2.0? Mine seem to disappear once they are dropped into a folder. Seems to be due to their large size. Private E-mail is fine (pthomfor at execpc.com) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 11:37:32 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Copper Kelly Jones, in # 1974, asks for some hard data on the soft metal, copper. The following are about as hard as anything of this sort gets. Adults require from 0.5 to 1.3 mg/day. A "safe and adequate" intake is 1.5 to 3 mg/day. A 10 mg dose can cause nausea in some adults but chronic intake of 10 - 35 mg/day without detriment has been observed. Overdoses at the milligram level can be caused by prolonged exposure of acidic foods and beverages to copper vessels, pipes, valves etc. These usually cause only the nausea with vomiting and diarrhoea and do not require treatment. The lethal dose for humans is 3.5 to 5 grams, usually by injestion of a copper salt, with death resulting from hemolytic anemia and anuria. British beers contain 0.3 - 0.8 mg/L; German beers 0.04 - 0.8 (mean 0.19) and lagers 0.01 - 0.41 (mean 0.11). My run-of-the-mill Pilsner, made with RO water, mashed and boiled in stainless but chilled in a copper chiller has 0.2 mg/L (presumaby mostly from the malt - see below).Thus we could drink about a gallon of the most coppery beer before exceding the safe and adequate level (assuming no copper from other dietary sources but then my experience with people who drink a gallon of beer a day on a regular basis is that they don't eat much). Copper is very important in the diet being a component of many enzymes (such as cytochrome a and cytochrome oxidase which are key players in respiration), is involved in the formation of colagen, the cross linking of keratin, catecholamine production, melanin production, free radical detoxification, etc. Copper deficiency causes a variety of miseries simiar to those of scurvy. Most foods contain some copper with liver, legumes, nuts, raisins, WHOLE GRAINS, shellfish and shrimp being excellent sources. Those who want to consume more beer and who are concerned about excessive copper intake may wish to avoid these foods. My neutralized and softened well water picks up 1.25 mg/L in running through the copper pipes in the house. Based on studies of diet it is estimated that the US population consumes between 0.7 and 7.5 mg/day. Absorbtion ranges from 56% at low intake levels (0.8 mg/da) down to 12% when intake levels are around 8 mg/da. Unabsorbed copper is excreted in the feces as is about 2 mg/da bilary copper. Thus, unless beer gives you the symptoms described above I'd say RDWHAHBEIITWBIC. A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 11:31:44 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Hoppenjans <phoppe at mail.erols.com> Subject: Re: Brewers Companion >Mark Thompson <markt at hpdocp3.cup.hp.com> wrote: >All in all i wouldn't recommend it. In defense of Mosher: this book was in my kit, and when I first read it I wasn't even a novice homebrewer yet. Its numerous charts, tables, graphs, and other geekish presentations raced over my head. Now that I've been at this for about a year, I find the geekish stuff in the book not so geekish anymore. My recommendation is that once a new homebrewer reaches the point at which he is designing his own recipes, tinkering with technique, and has learned some of the more key factors in brewing, he is ready for Mosher's book. This is a reference book, not a how-to guide. IMHO, it's a great reference book. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 10:01:24 +0000 From: flemingkr at market1.com (Kirk Fleming) Subject: Channeling Al suggests mash stirring increases channeling, and describes the troughs or gorges left in the bed behind the rake blades, which then fill with mostly water. This description of what can happen really can't be questioned--it's easily demonstrated and I think anyone who's ever stirred anything such as paint, plaster, batter, etc., has seen it. But here's how I think the description applies... First, Al's description is more applicable with thicker mashes. In thin to very thin mashes it's less applicable; as the mash thickness approaches pure water, it's obvious the description doesn't apply at all. So, my first premise is the thinner the mash, the less effect stirring has on creating channels. Second, we're now talking two completely different kinds of channeling. From an extraction perspective only, static channeling in a static grain bed using recirculation is a problem. But dynamic channeling in a stirred grain bed, is NOT a problem. Static channeling is a problem because in the steady state there are significant areas of the bed receiving no agitation from wort flow and no extract carry-off. Dynamic channeling (thru stirring, for example) simply means (to me) that the regions of the bed experiencing wort flow and extract carry-off are continuous changing--on average, the entire bed will experience about the same kind of flow. I'd argue than in a properly designed recirculation system, you can either re-admit the recirculated wort in a static way, using ample distribution points, and hope you don't get any channeling, OR, you can use some sparge-arm scheme where the recirculated wort is admitted thru far fewer holes that are continuously moved relative to the grain bed. In either of these two schemes you may not know if channeling is occuring or not, but you depend on the way the wort is re-admitted to the tun to avoid setting up channels in the first place, or to make them dynamic. Finally, if you have channeling in a static bed, then *continuous* stirring will certainly eliminate the problem. Al does have a good point though--I'd say *occassional* stirring in a thick mash would probably just set up different static channels. But that's an improvement, just the same. KRF Colorado Springs Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 12:28:18 -0500 From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: Brita Filters / Trub Recycling / Mosher's Book Thanks, David Muzidal, for your excellent analysis of the Brita filter. However, there is one piece of the puzzle that I would like to see clarified a bit. You said: > h. The Brita filter produces water that is practically ion free, at > least for the water tested, and should be treated like pure > (distilled) water. This is supported by the fact that the pH of > the Brita water rose from pH ~5.5 to pH ~7 after boiling (due to > dissolved CO2 being driven off). Now, I'm certainly no chemist, but in the last couple weeks I've been doing some research and getting MUCH help from others on the topic. I would venture to say that a pH of 7.0 does NOT necessarily mean "ion-free", only that it is H+/OH- balanced. The presence of certain other ions wouldn't necessarily tip the balance. I should've put a question mark on that last sentence since I really don't know...any opinions? In any event, it does appear that the Brita does a FAR more efficient job of "cleaning up" tap water than your everyday charcoal filter. Perhaps a before-and-after lab analysis of ion content would be telling (or *is* your statement the result of an ion analysis?). And as far as the slow processing action, running enough water for brewing a day or two in advance shouldn't be a big deal, as long as you have a spare carboy or bucket to store it. ***** Darcy Munger wants to recycle trub: > Hello there fellow brewers!!!! I was wondering if anyone knows anything > about saving trub from a primary (in sanitized bottles kept in the fridge of > course) for use in another batch of beer. I woul suggest recycling trub only if it was mixed with yeast! It's the yeast you want, not the splunge. But yes, you can collect the "sludge" from the primary, and repitch to recycle the *yeast*. ***** Just my own $0.02 on Mosher's book: I consider it another piece of the puzzle...another reference is always of use. Sure it's got a lot of filler (one page for the charts, suitable for photoreproduciton, would've sufficed) but as others have said it does fill in a few areas. I like it for that at least. Ken Schwartz KennyEddy at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 96 10:55:02 EST From: Pierre Jelenc <pcj1 at columbia.edu> Subject: Re: Quassia In HOMEBREW Digest #1974 ac051 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller) says: > > I think the spelling you're looking for is "cassia," a plant whose bark is > more commonly known as "cinnamon." Are you sure this brewer isn't pulling > your leg? "Cassia" and "quassia" are altogether different beasts. The former is indeed a cinnamon substitute (_not_ real cinnamon, which is practically unavailable except at extortionate prices in specialty shops) while the latter, Picrasma excelsa or Quassia amara (two related trees from the Caribean and northern South America) yields an intensely bitter wood that is used in folk medicine as a vermifuge (or anthelmintic). It has been used a substitute for hops. Pierre Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:08:20 -0600 From: darrenjet at ipa.net (Darren Jetton) Subject: REALLY high kraeusen Howdy ya'll. Thanks for all the great info out there. This is my first post: Well, last night I brewed my second batch of beer. For this batch I decided to make a 5 gal recipe for an India Pale Ale that called for a whopping 9.3 Lb of malt extract. I also decided to use Wyeast British Ale #1098 and make a starter using 1/4 cup of light DME in 1 quart of water. This was my first experiance with liquid yeasts/starters. Heated the water, added the DME, boiled for 15 minutes, cooled, and pitch the swollen packet of Wyeast. The next day I brewed. Cooled the wort, poured it into 3 gallons cold water in a 6.5 gal. carboy, and pitch the starter(only slightly after the highest point of it's kraeusen). I then shook the carboy well to aerate it, and set it in my "closet brewery" to quietly ferment away undesturbed. By the time I went to bed, "all was quiet on the yeastern front." Come morning, I peeked in on my brew. There before my eyes was the kraeusen from hell. It stood a good 7 inches tall! It has managed to bubble up into my three piece fermentation lock. I'm just gonna let the thing do whatever it wants to (don't mess with a 7 inch kraeusen! - I'm only 5'4"!), and maybe wrap a towel around the neck of the carboy. The fermentation lock is only about half full, but the bubbles are seeping out of the top. I'll rack to a secondary in 3-4 days anyway. I don't worry- I'll just pop open a cold one from my first batch! All of that to ask this: Is it common for activity that vigorous to take place when using liquid yeast w/starters? I had always heard I wouldn't need a blow-off hose with the 6.5 gal. carboy. (for 5 gal. of beer) Or did this happen due to the combination of good yeast and the large quantity of malt extract (higher O.G. beers - mine was 1.062)? Just wanted to know for future reference. -Thanks again, Darren "That man has none of the vices I adore and all of the virtues I hate" - Theodore Roosevelt (I think.) Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 10:24:46 +10 From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper at mq.edu.au> Subject: Musings on recipe posting Dear Friends, I find the recent posts interesting regarding an injection of middle-ground lore into the HBD, and as specifically suggested by one poster (sorry, didn't record your name), in the form of recipes. So far we have seen several since then (not necessarily because of that call of course) and a couple of opinions expressed for or against. My post here is simply some thoughts about potential reasons why some prefer one way or the other--I emphasize that I am *not* calling for one policy over the other. This issue reminds me of the way things are in my field--I'm a geologist who does lab experiments to try to help solve puzzles posed by the real rocks. In my wing of geology, and indeed in most, people are divided between those who prefer to read and write about the fundamentals and general principles, with reasonable attempts at applying these things to specific examples; and those who prefer to read and write about detailed case studies and examples, and in the end spending a reasonable amount of space trying to generalize from those observations. Obviously, both kinds of work are important and useful; it turns out that, at least in my field these days, a bigger impact is made by the former camp than by the latter. That is, people in the former camp find it easier to get funded than do the latter (let's get down to brass tacks here!). I would speculate that here in HBDland, there is a large group of brewers (many of whom have been on HBD for quite a while) who are analogous to the former camp as outlined above, and these would prefer to see fewer rather than more recipes. But a constantly growing number of (possibly more recently joined) members fall into the latter camp and might favor seeing more recipes rather than fewer. Clearly there is good stuff to be gained by and from both groups. Personally, I would place myself in the former group; but when I first joined HBD some years back I was firmly in the latter. I too generally page down past recipes, unless they are for styles I have been giving particular thought to at the time. But fortunately, with the fast computers we have these days, that page-down happens plenty quickly! :-} Just my ramblings. Cheers, Dave in Sydney "That's all very well in practice; but will it work in *theory*?" - ---Ken Willing - --- *************************************************************************** David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au WWW: http://audio.apana.org.au/ddraper/home.html ...I'm not from here, I just live here... Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 96 18:11 CST From: arf at mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Channeling Momily >From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com >Subject: Channelling >Rob writes (regarding the stirring of the grain bed): <The stirring also counter-acts channelling. >Here comes this thread again... I would like some soil scientists or civil engineers........... Why not ask a brewer who has had channeling problems? If you can find one. Better yet, ask those who haven't a clue why this even becomes a contested thread. Stirring is extremely important during the mash process because it insures even temperature distribution and keeps enzymes and starch in maximum contact. Once the mash is complete and sparging commences, stirring is a bit like slapping your wife or girlfriend around before hopping into bed. It is counter productive to say the least. If an inch or so of water is maintained above the mash during lautering, channeling is a non issue and stirring will only disturb the filter bed and cause my phone to ring with folks complaining about "stuck sparges" with their EASYMASHERS (R). js p.s. To save a lot of spurious responses, please note that the above applies to homebrew sized batches and what megabrewers do with megabarrel mash tuns is not relevant. jjs Return to table of contents