HOMEBREW Digest #2011 Mon 15 April 1996

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

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Products containing Malt Extract (BLynch6242)
  Softeners/Charcoal Filters (A. J. deLange)
  Partial Extract (Fred Waltman)
  Uncl: Bottle Baking ("Calvin Perilloux")
  Copper and RIMS (A. J. deLange)
  Efficiency, Correcting for Losses (Kirk R Fleming)
  RIMS: Incredible Find (I hope) (hollen)
  U-tubes and auto-sparge (Rob Lauriston)
  fermentation (Stetson)
  Slow secondary (Mike Kidulich)
  Open vs Closed primary (Craig Stewart)
  Now  two micros in Vegas (kcollins)
  adjusting specific gravity ("Sharon A. Ritter")
  micro-brew ("MK3052")
  The Homebrew  Digest (QABREW)
  Brewclub (Central Mass.) update (Rich Lenihan)
  The Buddy System... ("Pat Babcock")
  prohibition (Robert Rogers)

****************************************************************** * 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: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 09:08:50 -0400 From: BLynch6242 at aol.com Subject: Products containing Malt Extract In HBD #2007, Kris Perez remarks on an old can of Blue Ribbon Extract with the words "For the preparation of distinctive foods..." on it. Mention was also made of Malt-Extract pizza dough, Famous Amos cookies, Malted milkshakes and Malted milkballs. I would just like to add that the primary ingredient of Ovaltine Chocolate Drink is Malt Extract. Last year, I made an extract/specialty grain Porter using 1 cup of Ovaltine. It had a nice chocolatey flavor, although if I made it again, I would probably add another half-cup. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:26:51 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Softeners/Charcoal Filters Duffy Toler asked about water softeners for brewing in #2010. He reported 36000 grains of hardness which is equivalent to 2100 mg/L so that must be an error. He was told that the softener would leave 157 ppm sodium and wants to know if that is too much. Yes, it is, for some styles but not for others i.e. some ales have more than this. Geneally speaking, it is too much. The effect it will give depends on whether it is paired with chloride (better) or sulfate (both of which will sail through the softener). It is now modish to think of sodium as poisonous and so the water treatment companys are ready with exchangers which can be recharged with potassium chloride (actually, most of them can be). Rather than 157 ppm sodium you can have 266 ppm potassium. It's effect on the beer will be essentially the same as that of sodium i.e. to make it salty or bitter (but remember this is desireable in some ales. The big problem with softeners is that they remove calcium. This is a problem for all-grain brewers as they need calcium for proper mash acidification but less of a problem for extract brewers. Note that carbonate, the source of alkalinity, also goes through the softener so that alkalinity is unaffected but calcium which combats its effects in the mash is removed. Brewers using softeners often need to replace calcium and this must be done by adding another anion, usually sulfate, which is probably high if the water was that hard originally or chloride. The idea of using calcium gluconate which was posted the other day is interesting if my hypothesis that the yeast would metabolize the anion is correct. The bottom line is that water softeners are pretty bad news for brewers. Depending on the complete water analysis, it is probably better to bypass the softener and decarbonate/soften the brewing water by boiling unless the style being brewed is one which benefits from hard water. Iron can be removed by aeration and filtering. Other approaches are small RO systems (expensive) or small ion exchange systems (~$200) for the brewing water. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In the same number Jim Anderson asks about activated charcoal filters. These will remove organics and chlorine (both free and bound) from water. If the water does not contain objectionable levels of organic matter and if it is low in chloramines (chlorine will react with organics in water to form chloramines and some authorities now use chloramine as a disinfectant) there is not much need for such a filter. Free chlorine will leave water if the water is allowed to stand for a day or two. Activated charcoal filters do not change the mineral content of the water. Get a water report from your supplier before deciding whether to buy the filter. Note that if you and your family the chlorine smell in municipal water offensive for drinking, bathing etc. you can have a charcoal filter installed in your plumbing system which will remove the chlorine from all the water supplied to the house. A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Fred Waltman <waltman at netcom.com> Subject: Partial Extract Fred Hardy asks in #2010 about a kicker in an otherwise all grain batch: I would call it an all grain batch. After all, an Abbey beer with a couple of pounds of candi sugar would still be considered all grain, or a British Ale with golden syrup. I don't like these distinctions -- if it is a good beer, it is a good beer no matter how it was made. Fred Waltman Culver City Home Brewing Supply Co. waltman at netcom.com http://www.homebrew.inter.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 13:09:15 EDT From: "Calvin Perilloux" <dehtpkn9 at ibmmail.com> Subject: Uncl: Bottle Baking In HBD #2009 Mike Spinelli describes baking bottles to sanitize. Yep, it works great, more or less. However, my experience with it was not perfect. My father follows that method, and when I was helping him bottle about a year ago, we lost around 10% or more of our bottles! He said that's just the way it goes for him with those light non-returnables, but at least he's never had a bottle filled with homebrew crack yet. My suggestions to those of you wanting to use this method: 1) Stand the bottles up in the oven, perhaps not even touching each other. We had them stacked like a cord of firewood once for a big batch that was too many to do vertically. Bad news, when the heat expansion started pushing and grinding them together! 2) Don't crank the heat up real hot and real fast. Dad says he loses fewer bottles when he is patient and gives it low heat for an hour and then turns it up to sterilizing temp. 3) After the bottles are cool, give each one a couple of thumps on the counter as you get ready to use it. On rare occasions, the thing just cracks apart from fatigue or stress fractures. Better to have that at bottling time than in your closet later with carbonated beer inside. 4) Stick with the heavier, returnable bottles, which seemed to break less frequently. As for me, until they start making bottles out of Pyrex, I plan to continue avoiding the cracked bottle problem and stick with my mild bleach or iodophor solution, which has given me good results despite rinsing with un-sterilized tap water. Calvin Perilloux "Bayerisches Bier, dehtpkn9 at ibmmail.com Staerker als Heimweh" Erding, Germany Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 13:24:08 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Copper and RIMS About a month ago there was speculation about whether passage through a RIMS system with copper components would cause the wort to pick up a lot of copper. At that time I said I would analyze a wort sample if any RIMSer wanted to send me one and C.D. Pritchard responded. After some correspondence we decided that the copper in the malt would interfere i.e. that we would not be able to tell whether increased copper in the finished wort was that released from the malt or from the plumbing and so the test was run with tap water. Here are the particulars of what he did: >I finally ran a water sample through the RIMS. About 5 gallons of >water was obtained directly from my hot water tap and was not treated. The >pH at 70degF was between 4.6 and 4.9 as near as I can tell from the pH >papers. It was boosted to 158degF and held via recirculation and heat for >90 minutes. The temp was then boosted to 170 and left for 60 minutes. A >sample was taken after recirculating the water for a couple of minutes (the >temp. had dropped to 166 degF). > This sample measured 0.12 mg/L copper content. The pH was 7.56 The control (no RIMS) sample measured 0.01 mg/L copper and had a pH of 7.45. Thus some copper was picked up in going through the RIMS but not a startling amount. In interpreting these results remember that the agressivity of water towards copper depends not only on the pH but also on the alkalinity and calcium hardness. The control sample akalinity was 51 ppm as CaCO3 and calcium hardness 39 ppm as CaCO3 (magnesium was 20 ppm so total hardness is 59 which is pretty soft). These give a saturation pH of pHs = 8.4. Lageliers index is SI = pH - pHs = -.93 which indicates corrosion and Ryznars index: RI = 2pHs - pH = 9.32 which is in the "corrosion intolerable to metal surfaces" range. Both these values are at 25C. At 70C (where most of the circulation was done) the Ryznar index is 8.24 which is in the "heavy corrosion" range. Based on the 25C value I would have expected to see more copper in the non RIMS water. That sample must have been taken after the system was flushed. This experiment doesn't tell the whole story since a wort with pH in the starch conversion range is going to be at lower pH but, on the other hand, it also contains the buffers from the malt. The only way to tell how much the RIMS system really contributes is to brew 2 batches with the same malt and water using RIMS in one case and no copper in the other. Nonetheless, the experiment does indicate what our intuition told us: that a couple of hours of exposure of aggressive water to copper isn't long enough for it to pick up very much of the ion. A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:50:35 +0100 From: Kirk R Fleming <flemingk at usa.net> Subject: Efficiency, Correcting for Losses In #2010 Ken made some good points about how to compensate for system losses to ensure you get your targer fermenter volume and gravity. In reference to .4 gal unrecoverable kettle loss: > Note that 5.4 versus 5 gallons is nearly 10% more, so this can have a > pretty significant impact on your grain bill (you'll need 1/2 to 1 > pound more grain for a typical 5-gal batch). Neglecting this in your > formulation can lead to lower-than-expected OG's (and therefore > incorrect efficiency figures). I agree with the lower-than-expected OG's. You've computed for a 5 gal batch then added .4 gal of kettle volume to compensate for unrecoverable loss in the pan, but... Your efficiency figures should not be affected at all, since they're based on volume, gravity, and grain bill. IOW, the number of point-gals you produce with a given grain bill is what determines your efficiency, and is independent of the volume you produce, given you're talking *extraction* efficiency. I think it's important, when comparing "efficiency", to specify extraction efficiency or system efficiency. Note that Ken has to use extra grain to produce the extra .4 gal of wort that can't be recovered due to the system itself. If he were to cite efficiency numbers based on point-gallons IN THE FERMENTER per pound of grain, he'd show a lower efficiency than an identical brewer who *can* recover the .4 gal, and that's a system issue, not an extraction issue. Some readers are asking, "Who gives a flip"? Efficiency numbers are useful as a metric for brewing control and consistency. Forget about the values of the numbers themselves for a minute. I want to know if there is at least a *correlation* between my process and the product. If you keep extraction rate separated from as much system-specific stuff as you can (such as hose, pump and pan losses), then changes in the system will have minimum effect on your extraction numbers. Changes you make to your sparge/lauter techniques, for example, will reveal themselves even if you also change kettle shape or plumbing, etc. KRF Colorado Springs Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 13:24:40 PDT From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: RIMS: Incredible Find (I hope) One of the most challenging pieces of equipment on a RIMS system is the input line to the pump. It must take high heat, be food grade, and not collapse under vacuum. One outstanding alternative, SS overbraided teflon is $8 per foot, but this rather pricey for most people and also it is not readily available. I just discovered what appears to be a good alternative, and that is Nalgene Brand PVC vacuum hose. It is autoclavable, food grade, and the 1/2" stuff is 1.25 OD so that it will not collapse under vacuum. I am hoping that someone who currently does not have a good input hose, or who has a poor one which should be replaced, could try this out and let me know how it works. I already have the SS/teflon hose, so I can't get any better input hose. thanks, dion Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 15:56 PDT From: robtrish at mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston) Subject: U-tubes and auto-sparge Harlan <blacksab at siu.edu> mentioned U-tubes a few issues ago. I build my lautering run-off lines to imitate the modified U-tube used at Upper Canada Brewing in Toronto. There, the wort from under the lauter screen travels from the outlet at the bottom of the vessel up to about a foot above the level of the screen. It then has a short horizontal run where there is a six foot vertical tube (small diameter) open to the air. This acts as a siphon breaker. The run-off then goes down to the kettle. This arrangement reduces the sucking pressure on the bed because the wort is effectively being drawn from the top of the inverted 'U' where the siphon breaker is. *** The problem I had in scaling down this arrangement came from using 1/2" ID pipe and tubing. Say the wort was running at a rate that would make the tube half full. What happens is that the capilliary action (?) of the liquid does not allow it to remain only half full. Instead, the wort gathers together to fill the tubing for a certain length, then there's a big bubble and no wort for the next bit, and then another section of tube completely filled with wort. The sections that are completely full push the bubbles ahead of them, meaning that I got a lot of bubbling in my collection pot. If the outlet from the tube wasn't in the wort, then I'd get splashing. I'm trying to avoid HSA as is the fashion <g>, so I don't like this bubbling. This arrangement _does_ reduce the sucking on the bed. (Hey, I'm talking lauter tun here!). The only problem is what to do with the wort after the siphon-breaker. Is there a way to break the siphon without having the line open to the air? For now, I've plugged the opening to my siphon-breaker and regulate the flow with ball-valves. In short, I found that a valve is an easier way to control run-off. Okanagan Spring brewery here in Vernon used to have a U-tube. There was a sight glass and siphon breaker in a 4" ID tube at the top of the inverted 'U', and the whole think was moved up and down with hydraulics like a big trombone. When the hydraulics became unreliable, we started regulating the flow with a butterfly valve on the line, and it worked just fine. >QUESTION #1: Is this what I am seeing (or something like it) in the picture on p.67 of Eric Warner's GERMAN WHEAT BEER? This looks like a close-up of the same sort of thing that's on p.91 of Richman's Bock. Since the tube in the picture(s) goes up and down the same distance and is completely filled with liquid, it would have no effect on the hydrostatic head. Perhaps it is intended to reduce splashing? I looked at the picture in J.S. Hough's THE BIOTECHNOLOGY OF MALTING AND BREWING p.58 too. Harlan wrote: >... what seems to be happening is this tube takes the liquid from the bottom of the mash-tun (the highest gravity), but not until the head has exceeded the top of the grain-bed. As such, the flow of sparge water dictates the outflow of wort from the mash tun since there is no longer any siphon. I have never done a mash where the results matched the description of the classical British 'floating' mash, so I'm guessing here. I think that the top of the U-tube would be at a point where you have some runoff before you have any sparge added. Hough does write on p. 61 that "... the rate of sparging more or less compensates for the rate of wort run-off from the tun." The 'U'-tube is described as a "device for _adjusting_ hydrostatic head..." so I take it that the U-tube is adjustable. (Okanagan Springs was, Upper Canada wasn't). I'm guessing that even a floating mash does contract, and so the top of the mash becomes lower and the U-tube is adjusted to match this. I don't know if a U-tube can help automate your sparging. If there was only water and no grain, for every drop of sparge in, you'd get a drop out. But with the grain, you _can_ add lots of sparge without getting _anything_ out. You're relying on the bed remaining very fluffy and permeable. It's a great idea, though, and I hope it works for you. Please keep up posted. - -- Rob Lauriston. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:24:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Stetson <stetson at globalone.net> Subject: fermentation Hello, I saw a possible answer to my question, but I couldn't find itin the past issues. My question is about fermentation. I just check all 3 of my batches tonight, and they have been sitting for 8 days, and the hydrometer is reading fairly high from the starting gravity. I think the fermentation stopped so I opened up the buckets, and stirred it up some to ajitate the wort, hoping to start the fermentation up again. Well, I guess my question is was this the correct thing to do? Should I try adding more yeast if the fermentation doesn't start up again? Thanks! Eric stetson at global1.net Happy Brewing! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:25:57 -0400 From: Mike Kidulich <mjkid at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Slow secondary To the collective, I have a stout which has been in the secondary for 12 days, following a one week primary. Temp is a steady 62F. It shows a persistent, very thin collar of tan foam where the liquid meets the glass. If I shine a flashlight into the carboy, I can see a steady stream of tiny bubbles. The OG was 1.070, and the SG today was 1.024. The yeast is Wyeast Scottish, pitched from a starter. The airlock shows barely any activity. I haven't seen activity like this in a secondary before. When will it be safe to bottle? SG is pretty close to predicted. TIA - -- Mike Kidulich mjkid at ix.netcom.com mjk at rfc.comm.harris.com DNRC Minister of Home Brewing, Relaxation, and Really Cool Toys Holder of Previous Knowledge O- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:15:33 -0300 (ADT) From: Craig Stewart <foghorn1 at quartz.nbnet.nb.ca> Subject: Open vs Closed primary Ladies and Gentlebrewers, A while back, I started using a 'closed' primary fermentation system with a blow off tube, in hopes of 'improving' my beer. I have been getting very low % alc, and a very sweet final product. This last batch, I followed my proceedure for a pale ale, but I went back to the 'ole plastic bucket open primary. I just racked into my glass secondary today, and the SG has gone lower than it has in a long time. Would the fact that the krausen and the very active yeast it contains fell back into the fermenting ale contribute to this? I'm going to wait and see if it will work to compleation in the secondary. That was another thing, when I ferment in glass, after going into the secondary, it works for a day or so, and stops with a high SG. I've tried rousing the settled yeast, but that doesn't do much either. I'm about to go back to the 'primitive' system of open fermentation. If the "Big Boys" can do it without a problem, so can I. BTW, and FWIW, I don't wear plaid unless I'm doing a Scotish Ale, and so honour my ancestors! The secret to this though is to either find a strain or condition a strain of yeast to react well to bag pipe music! <grin> Happy Brewday! - -- ************************************************************************** Non-Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.) ************************************************************************** flames to /dev/null Craig Stewart foghorn1 at mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 07:10:16 -0500 (EST) From: kcollins at seidata.com Subject: Now two micros in Vegas Greetings everyone. Just for everyones information, I recently read in THE NEW BREWER of a new "microbrewery/casino" that opened 01/18/96. It is located in the community of Green Valley, just 8 miles from the Las Vegas strip. It is called Barley's Casino and Brewing Co., and without paraphrasing the whole article, it appears there intention was german authenticity. I would also like to thank everyone for the responses on my original query for microbreweries in the Las Vegas area... The Holy Cow casino/brewery. Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Apr 96 11:34:01 EDT From: "Sharon A. Ritter" <102446.3717 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: adjusting specific gravity >Would someone out there please help? I would like to< >reduce the O.G. from .60 to about .45. I would like to do this< >at priming time....Can someone send more accurate calculations?< Check out pgs. 380-381 in Papazian's The New Complete Joy of Homebrewing book. He includes a table with rates of dilution to hit target specfic gravity reductions. I have used these figures many times with success (I make any needed wort dilutions before pitching). Charlie notes that the rate of dilution and the change in specific gravity are not the same at different wort densities. The table reflects these differences. By applying the data in the table to the above example, one would add approximately .8 gallons water, or 30% of 2.75 gallons, to reduce SG by .014. Dan Ritter in Grangeville, Idaho 102446.3717 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 12:08:49 EST From: "MK3052" <MK3052AC at stem.indstate.edu> Subject: micro-brew Just wondering if anyone can let me know of any micro-brew's in southern Indiana? Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:11:16 -0400 From: QABREW at aol.com Subject: The Homebrew Digest Please put my name on the list to receive the Digest. Thanks, QABREW Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:22:39 -0500 From: Rich Lenihan <richl at zipnet.net> Subject: Brewclub (Central Mass.) update - -- [ From: Rich Lenihan * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- Just a brief note to inform you that the the Worry Worts homebrew club has found a new home (both real and virtual). We will be be meeting at 7:30 pm on the 3rd Wednesday of every month at Memorial Hall, Milford MA. Also, our new web site can be found at: http://www.zipnet.net/users/richl/worry-worts.html Carry on... -Rich Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:46:44 +0500 From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: The Buddy System... Greetings, Beerlings! Mail me your lager... The deed is done. If you'll point your browser in the general direction of http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brewbuds.html to see the new Brew Buddies page. The web-impaired can send an e-mail note with the words "send buddies" on the subject line to receive a paltry text version of it. Though I kept the individual graphics on the small size, there's a few o' them on the page folks... - ------------ In other news, there's a very good reason why the HomeBrew University - Motor City Campus Bulletin Board System doesn't pick up if you just happen to dial it up: Immediately after sending this message, I intend to euthanize it... - ----------- And how was YOUR weekend?!? See ya! Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit) pbabcock at oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/ Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as every sentence requires proper punctuation. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:37:58 -0400 From: bob at carol.net (Robert Rogers) Subject: prohibition [snip] Well, I am not sure about beer, it was probably illegal to make at home during prohibition, but wine was quite legal to make for family use in many states. As mentioned in a post if the April 12 HBD, most of [end snip] correct me if i'm wrong, but the following seems very clear, and i don't see any exceptions: [quote] Amendment XVIII (1919) Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article byappropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. [end quote] i have used some of those old blue ribbon malt extract cans to brew with. they work. bob bob rogers, bob at carol.net Return to table of contents