Homebrew Digest Friday, 25 October 1996 Number 2247
![[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
Mike Donald, Digest Janitor-in-training
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Re: zen of homebrew ((Scott Abene))
Lactoagain (RUSt1d?)
Re: HBD + AHA = BFD ("Robert Perron")
RE: zen of homebrew (Cuchulain Libby)
BT, AHA ("Bryan L. Gros")
Guiness in UK/AHA (Thomas Penn)
Carbonator Caps (Thomas Penn)
re: Killer Chiller Question (AJN)
Yeast (Kurjanski)
The Best Equipment ((Bill Giffin))
Columbus + Fuggle compatibility (Gregory King)
HBD ("Dave Hinkle")
[none] ()
Oxygen Solubility Sensability (eric fouch)
[none] ()
[none] ()
Cold Side Down ((Curt Schroeder))
[none] ()
[none] ()
[none] ()
[none] ()
[none] ()
BT and brewing level (Jim Busch)
[none] ()
[none] ()
[none] ()
[none] ()
[none] ()
Re: Primary fermentations and Playdoh ("David R. Burley")
Ca++ from Hardness info ("David R. Burley")
Re:AHA: non-profit? (ThE-HoMeBrEw-RaT)
Split Mash/Sparge; 5 liter Selections (cgoll at PICA.ARMY.MIL)
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew at aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org
and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.
Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor,
homebrew-digest-owner at aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
info at aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.
ARCHIVES:
At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp. Also
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.
COPYRIGHT:
As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sabene at fcg.net (Scott Abene)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:58:09 -0600
Subject: Re: zen of homebrew
Tom writes:
>
> In HBD#2242, Cuchulain Libby (a most impressive name) imparts
> acquired knowledge that full wort boils and liquid yeasties really
> do make a difference, then hedges on all-grain because of currently
> trying to make the "best beer with the least effort". Although an
> arguable point, I purport that the "best beer" CAN'T be made without
> going to all-grain, let me impart the Zen spin on why all-grain is
> preferable.
>
> "You can't be enlightened about where you are unless you experience
> the journey of getting there."
>
> Or... you'll never experience the "best" beer you can make unless
> you cook the grain yourself... adding your own effort into the
> process. With extract you have a nameless, faceless brewing partner
> you know nothing about. It robs your product of some of its
> history.
>
Wouldn't a true Zen Brewer actually grow the grain and hops and do all the
malting also? Not to mention growing the trees to start the fire for the
kettle (which he/she crafted themself with the raw materials of the earth).
I brew all grain (and always have) but I have had many fantastic extract
brews made by friends or whatever that were just as good and brewed to
style.
Are you saying that extract brewers can't get the same results as all-grain
brewers? FROGWASH! If you are, that isn't very ZEN of you at all.
- -Scott
Return to table of contents
From: RUSt1d? <rust1d at li.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:35:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Lactoagain
Furture reading has me considering the following:
Mash in at 110F and let sit overnight (12 hours) to encourage
lactobacillus growth.
Acidify sparge water to ph of 5.7.
After boiling, put 1/2 gallon of wort in an open fermentor at
125F and toss in small handful of grain to introduce lactobacillus.
After 1 week, pasteurize and add back to main batch. I read that
lactobacillus will survive the 125F temps but other bugs on the
grains wouldn't. Should I simply add a teaspoon of yogurt to get
a purer lactobacillus culture?
At bottling, add lactic acid to ph of 4.5 if not already there.
John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady/index.html
Boneyard Brewing Co. "The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program"
"Ale today, Gone tomorrow."
Return to table of contents
From: "Robert Perron" <robert at lclcan.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:35:25 -0400
Subject: Re: HBD + AHA = BFD
I think that you guys are way off the mark trying to blame someone for the
deterioration of HBD.
What we have witnessed is the usual dilution from over popularity (lots of
newbies who all need/want to learn the same material) coupled with an increase
in expertise. The HB community has sufficiently mastered the art of making beer
that most posts look tired or redundant.
>From: Carl Hattenburg <CHattenburg at Perstorp-us.com>
>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:35:56 -0400
>Subject: HBD + AHA = BFD....
>
>[Bill]>>HBD was much better before the advent of the AHA into our world.
>
>
>I don't get it. Does the AHA edit the HBD, or ban good posters from
>posting?
>
>- - Carlos,
>(w) 301.680.7276; (fx) 301.236.0134; (h) 301.942.3756
>(e) CHattenburg at Perstorp-us.com (e) CHatten at Erols.com
>(www) http://theweeds.smxcorp.com/carlos/carlos.html
- --
Robert Perron <robert at lclcan.com>
Return to table of contents
From: Cuchulain Libby <hogan at connecti.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:45:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: RE: zen of homebrew
Tom,
Just as a bullet fired from a gun can't be recalled, neither can posts to
HBD.I would amend my statement to read "......possible, while learning the
art...".
I am very eager to move the to science aspect of brewing...all-grain. Any
and all assistance is much appreciated.
Thanks All,
Cuchulain
"Aside from their contribution to the art of brewing, I've no use for the
f***ng Brits...."
Anon.
Return to table of contents
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:18:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: BT, AHA
Somebody wrote:
>BT is nice. *IF* you are an all grain brewer, or a LARGE scale homebrewer,
>or a REALLY anal-scientific brewer, or a brewpub brewer, or a small
>microbrewery brewer...... But that leaves out about 90% of the brewing
>community. More importantly BT totally ignores the newbie brewer.
I disagree. I think they have done a good job in the last year or two at
addressing issues that newer brewers have as they try to improve each
batch. They do, however, ignore the "newbie brewer" who is making
his next batch the same way he makes all his batches and isn't interested
in things like hydrometers, IBUs and liquid yeast. These brewers are
probably not on this digest and are not who the magazine is aimed at.
*******
Thanks to Jim Liddl for responding to my questions on his anti-AHA views.
I agree for the most part, and I don't feel I am getting much out of my
membership and will not be renewing.
Pro-AHA note: We in Tennessee are trying to get homebrewing legalized
this year. We have a contact at the AHA who has the legislation drafted
and will be helping us contact TN homebrewers and getting the ball
rolling. This legislation was successfully passed in FL. While we could
do this without the AHA help, it would be re-inventing the wheel to
some extent.
Anti-AHA note: When I registered my new club with the AHA, they
sent me, among other things, coupons for club members to join for 15%
off. Turns out these "coupons" are available in any issue of Zymurgy.
In addition, the one they sent expired months before I received it, and
the membership fee has gone up since then. So this coupon is as
worthless as the ads for pre-ordering new books at a discount (discount
less than shipping cost).
******
Incidentally, our legal contact mentioned that a recent Massachusetts
hb competition was shut down since the Mass. law doesn't allow for
transportation of homebrew. I hadn't heard of this. Anyone else have
details?
- Bryan
grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville, TN
Return to table of contents
From: Thomas Penn <tjpenn at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:56:11 -0500
Subject: Guiness in UK/AHA
Some comments on recent discussions:
My understanding is that beverages in the UK are taxed on the amount of
alcohol, so a low-alcohol drink is less expensive to the consumer than a
high-alcohol drink. Thus, Guiness Stout (and most ordinary bitters)
have a lower alcohol content than the export versions. Ordinary bitters
are the *working man's* beer, and you can quaff a pint or two at lunch
without being impaired. The US seems to have a double standard,
(previously) banning alcohol % on the label while the intent of
breweries seems to be to supply a reasonable high alcohol product (ice,
ice light, etc). NA beer is a novelty-where are low-alcohol beers with
taste?
Regarding the AHA sniping, whining, and legitimate beef-airing;
What I see happening is the natural result of the success and popularity
of homebrewing. If you had labored for years with no reward as a
promoter of brewing, wouldn't you have fun running your own little club
when it goes pop? A local homebrew retailer calls this *The Golden Age
of Homebrewing*-you never know what new product or ingredient will
become available. And all this success DOES have some up-sides: Better
ingredients, better information, better equipment. All of this
popularity WILL invariably put off the independent types, many of whom
started the homebrew movement. Sorry, that is the price of success.
The same thing happened with the internet-I have hacker friends who
don't even use browsers-they just surf the old-fashioned way.
In terms of the AHA manipulating or editing the HBD, my experience with
the government and big corporations suggest that gestapo-type
surveillance and manipulation is not usually the cause of bad policies
or customer service-it is usually benign neglect or the squeaky wheel
getting the grease. I have found that deliberate oppression requires
lots of money and lots of organization-2 things that the financially
struggling, explosively growing AHA does not have. I guess you can
defect if you want, but why not move for change in the organization?
Band together with other homebrew clubs, get an audience with the
officers, etc. Show you care, don't just show that you're pissed. The
guy who wrote long letters to AHA about backpacks at the GABF was
thorough and sincere, but he came across as angry and single-issue-like
(is that a word?). Enough already-we can use our energy to criticize
the system, evade the system, or improve the system. I prefer the
latter, and non-profit organizations never turn down offers of help
Tom Penn
Bordentown, NJ
tjpenn at aol.com
Return to table of contents
From: Thomas Penn <tjpenn at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:06:40 -0500
Subject: Carbonator Caps
I had a carbonator cap fall apart too. I called Liquid Bread, mailed it
back, and they replaced it PLUS they threw in another one for my
trouble-MADE MY DAY! Apparently they have fixed this problem now.
Just a happy customer
Tom Penn
Bordentown, NJ tjpenn at aol.com
Return to table of contents
From: AJN <neitzkea at frc.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: re: Killer Chiller Question
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Derek Lyons wrote:
> If the water exiting your chiller is cold, then your chiller is not
> functioning. The water should be *warm*, indicating that it has indeed
> picked up heat while flowing thru the chiller.
>
It must be working, since the temperature is is down to 70 degrees in
about 20 minutes.
> >
> >So, what do you gain from running the inlet to the bottom of the coil?
> >water conservation, you can slow the water flow down and still chill.
> >(say that three times fast:)
> >
>
> Nope, you lose overall, because the coldest part of the chiller remains in
> contact with the coldest part of the wort. Any water savings is illusory.
I guess I have to disagree, look at the way a counter-flow chiller
works. The cold water in from the fawcet, contacts the coldest part
of the wort first and migrates to the hot wort in.
If you did it the other way around, you would be chasing the hot wort,
and this would not be a good thing.
It is the fact that the coldest part of the coil is in the coldest part
of the wort that allows for efficient chilling, as the wort cools from
the bottom up it allow more cool water to take heat out of the top.
If you do it the other way around, your sending hot water to the bottom
of the coil. This will still work, but your recurulating heat and since
heat rises, why not let it do the natural thing?
>
> The most efficient method is to flow from the top. Check your outlet
> temprature and modulate water flow for maximum outlet temprature.
>
As I said before:
>water conservation, you can slow the water flow down and still chill.
_________________________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com
Return to table of contents
From: Kurjanski <Kurjan at bcl.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:17:55 -0500
Subject: Yeast
- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBC1A5.65096620
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBC1A5.65096620
Content-Type: text/plain; name="Hdsubmit.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Our homebrew club toured a number of brewpubs last weekend. At one =
stop, I was surprised to learn that the brewmaster uses California =
Common yeast in all the beers they brew (both lagers and ales). =
Although I myself would not use this yeast for ales, I have been =
considering using this yeast to brew a few lagers, say a Munich Dunkel =
or something similar. Any comments ??
Paul Kurjanski
- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBC1A5.65096620--
Return to table of contents
From: bill-giffin at juno.com (Bill Giffin)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:23:14 cst
Subject: The Best Equipment
Good morning.
What is the first thing you should buy for your new brewery? The most
important? Mills? Mash tuns? Lauter tuns? Kettles? Plastic ;-) or glass
fermenters? Refrigeration? No none of the above.
BOOKS!!! That is the first item to purchase for your new brewery!!!
Having taught at the college level I am a firm believer that the only
stupid question is the one you don't ask. It is also important to learn
where to find the answers to stupid questions. Books are by far the
least embarrassing way to find the answer to a stupid question. Before
you waste the bandwidth on the HBD with a question try to find the answer
for yourself. If you don't have the resources to do so then ask the
question of the group here at HBD. Remember that many of the answers you
receive here will be either right, partially incorrect or totally
incorrect and no one will tell you even if they know the answer.
Bill
Richmond, Maine
Return to table of contents
From: Gregory King <GKING at ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:29:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Columbus + Fuggle compatibility
Dear HBD Collective,
Have any of you tried combining Columbus hops with Fuggle or East Kent
Goldings hops in a pale ale? Do they "get along" or do their flavors
clash with each other?
Thanks!
Greg King
Philadelphia, PA
gking at arserrc.gov
Return to table of contents
From: "Dave Hinkle" <Dave.Hinkle at aexp.com>
Date: 24 Oct 1996 11:52:26 -0700
Subject: HBD
Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> writes:
"I think that two factors are responsible for much of the decline in the
perceived quality of the HBD since the move to the AOB. These are:
1. removing the daily distribution limit, and
2. adding an undigested distribution mode.
A third factor is simply the steadily increasing number of
subscribers. Even with the best of intentions on everyone's part, the
more people subscribe, the more postings will be sent." <snip>
I AGREE. Normally, I wouldn't waste bandwidth with a "me too" type of post,
but I am at the point of unsubscribing unless the situation changes. It has
become too time consuming to keep up with HBD. Two (or more) a day? Gimme a
break. The S/N ratio has gone way up as a result of redundant postings. It
also appears that the number of contributors has declined. Does that tell you
something?
My local homebrew supplier, Paul Gunn of Gunnbrew, said he rarely reads it
anymore. That means he can't contribute either, since he no longer keeps up
with the discussion. I don't blame him for tuning out. People that make beer
or sell homebrewing stuff for a living work long hours, so I wonder how many
experts and their expert advice we miss out on because HBD has become such a
time-consuming bear.
Rob took a long time to build the pieces required to keep HBD manageable for
both himself and the subscribers. Why are his scripts, programs or whatever
not being used by AOB? I know I am not the only person who feels that the size
limit and ability to cancel posts were an important part of keeping HBD a
useful, semi-elegant forum for information. Like Spencer said, undigested list
server format is NOT helping the situation. The urge to do an immediate reply
is just too great for some people. Instead of a "digest", we now get people
carrying on conversations apparently oblivious to the notion that they could
use private e-mail instead.
Having the size limit & cancel feature is a bit like traveling with a single,
small suitcase. You start packing, and then see what fits, leaving the
unimportant stuff out. Not having the size limit & cancel feature is like a
corporate relocation package where they provide professional packers and
movers. You let them move EVERYTHING. Even the kitchen trash gets packed in a
box if you're not paying attention. (BTW, this really happened) But then you
have the huge unpacking nightmare from hell, sifting through the crap to find
the good stuff you need right away.
I, for one, would like to see HBD start packing lightly again.
Dave Hinkle
Phoenix, AZ
"An anecdote is just a statistic with a sample size of one." - Bob Lewis,
Infoworld
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From: eric fouch <S=eric_fouch%S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021+pefouch%Steelcase-Inc at mcimail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 14:16 EST
Subject: Oxygen Solubility Sensability
Date: Thursday, 24 October 1996 3:06pm ET
To: STC012.HONLY at STC010.SNADS
From: Eric.Fouch at STC001
Subject: Oxygen Solubility Sensability
In-Reply-To: HBD
In reply to Daves Lamentations:
>I have been trying to get a number which will represent the solubility of
oxygen
in water in ppm so I can figure out if 10 ppm is the maximum solubility,
1) Oxygen solubility in water is 2.3 X 10- -5 as mole fraction solubility at
one atmosphere.( Chem Rubber Handbook p 6-3) To convert this to ppm, a mole of
water weighs 18 g/ mole so 2.3 x 10- -5 moles of oxygen (2.3 X32X10- -5 ) =
x1-- -5 g of oxygen in 18 gr of water or 1000000/18 = 55555 so (5.55 X 10- 4
)X7.36X- -5 = 4.08 grams of oxygen per million grams of water. So the
solubility of oxygen at RT and 1ATM is 4.08 ppm of oxygen. This is what I
calculate as thesolubility of oxygen in water. How can a level of 10 ppm be
achieved unless themeter was wrong or I converted this incorrectly or the
solubility of oxygen in wort is higher than in water?
>
Dear Dave,
Somewhere you must have misplaced a decimal point: According to my
calculations:
Mole fraction to Grams solute/liter=
1000 * density of solution * mole fract. * MW solute
- --------------------------------------------------
mole fract. * MW solute + (1-mole fract.)*MW solvent
or
1000 * 1 * 2.3x10--5 * 32
- ---------------------------------= 0.04089 grams O2 or 40.89 mgs O2
2.3x10--5 * 32 + (1-2.3x10--5)*18
Since we all know 1 ppm = 1 mg/liter, 2.3x10--5 mole fraction O2 = 40.89ppm.
This figure makes more sense in regards to previously mentioned DO levels
in cooled wort.
E-man
Head of Conversions
Bent Dick YactoBrewery
Kentwood, MI
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From: cschroed at ball.com (Curt Schroeder)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:00:04 -0600
Subject: Cold Side Down
I guess I have to chime in on the chiller thread. I believe the question is
whether the inlet water of an immersion chiller should go to the top of the
cooling coil or the bottom of the cooling coil.
Answer: The inlet should go to the lower coil.
With heat exchangers, when the working (cooling) fluid runs in the opposite
direction as the flow of the cooled fluid it is called a counterflow heat
exchanger. When the working fluid runs in the same direction as the cooled
fluid it is called a parallel flow heat exchanger. The counter flow heat
exchanger has an effectiveness of 0.8 compared to 0.5 for a parallel flow
heat exchanger (the higher number is better heat transfer). In this case the
supply water going to the bottom coil is analogous to a counterflow heat
exchanger since the cooling water is flowing up and the cooling wort is
flowing down.
These effects may be small, especially in instances where the wort is
stirred with the chiller or the chiller is flowing fast enough that the
inlet and outlet temperatures are only a few degrees different.
Zum Wohl!
Curt Schroeder
Longmont,. Colorado
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: BT and brewing level
Derek Lyons writes:
<BT is nice. *IF* you are an all grain brewer, or a LARGE scale homebrewer,
<or a REALLY anal-scientific brewer, or a brewpub brewer, or a small
<microbrewery brewer...... But that leaves out about 90% of the brewing
<community. More importantly BT totally ignores the newbie brewer.
As someone who spends a considerable amount of my time writing for BT
I wanted to respond to this viewpoint.
BT has several regular columns that are in almost every issue.
Home Brewery Basics: written by HBD contributer and Space Station
guru John Palmer. Very accessable information to all levels of brewers.
Aimed directly at the newer brewers.
My column, Home Brewery Advancement: Here I aim at a bridge between the
very new brewers and more advanced brewers or even pro/micro brewers.
I try to mix it up, at times its probably too technical for first year
brewers but I like to look at this as a way to advance the art, if a
reader doesnt get it now maybe he would in a year or two. Some of
my stuff is dirt simple. Othertimes its simple but also includes more
challenging chemistry or techniques. BTW, Im always looking for feedback
and suggestions on topics. This is the hardest part of writing.
Home Brewery Innovation: occaisonal piece that deals with many facets of
brewing, often simple home techinques that are worth sharing.
Millers troubleshooter. You ask the questions, Dave gives his views.
This reflects all levels of the audience, its up to you.
Brewing In Styles: Martin Lodahls style column. Are not all brewers
interested in this? Didnt we just have a discussion on IPAs that
meshed perfectly with Dave Brockingtons writing in this column?
Craft brewery ops: Norm Pyles reviews and overviews of the industry.
Are not all brewers interested in this?
Craft brewery marketing: OK, so maybe this is on the inside for us
industry folks. Is it not interesting, how many homebrewers out there
are dreaming of going pro?
The Last Wort: somewhat light material very well written by Alan
Moen. I also feel this is of great interest to most beer lovers.
Add to this the features that may or may not be of interest to newer
brewers. I love the ones on history. Also they have done a great
series on the various professional brewing schools in the world. This
should be of great interest to homebrewers dreaming of turning pro,
now or later as reference.
I feel your statement regarding 90% of brewing community is way off
base. The subject matter I listed above is good no matter what scale
one brews in or the sugar source chosen.
There is plenty of general interest material in BT, go find
me a single magazine that routinely provides this level of information,
and at a very low price.
I dont think ignoring the newbe brewer is what takes place at Brewing
Techniques, rather they respect the potential out there for people to
advance and learn in a positive and often interactive, responsive
publication. What they dont do is dumb down the material to knee
jerk simplistic banter. Oh, and the folks who write for BT do seem
to actually know a thing or two about beer and brewing. Many of
them won awards at the GABF from the North American Guild of Beer
Writers.
Jim Busch
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Oct 96 20:22:30 EDT
Subject: Re: Primary fermentations and Playdoh
Brewsters:
AlK says:
> glass. Glass is fragile and costs more, but it is far easier to sanitize
> reliably than a plastic fermenter. Don't tell me you lager in plastic too?
> Eight weeks in a plastic fermenter is sure to allow enough oxygen in to
> oxidize the alcohols to aldehydes. Yuck! Ever taste air-pumped megabrew
> beer the morning after? THAT'S aldehydes. To me they smell a little like
> "Playdoh."
Well, I agree that glass surfaces that you can get to, are capable of being
mechanically cleaned easily, but, of course, down inside a carboy, even the
best
carboy brush (of which I own three) has trouble with the sticky, gooey oily
mess
left over from a primary fermentation.
And, of course, all those bad things you say about plastic apply directly to
that big friggin' overflow hose which is virtually impossible to clean and if
you deeply scratch the inside ( say with a bottle brush) of the soft plastic of
which it is made, I agree it can be, and I say is, the major source of
infection
in the majority of spoiled batches.
My system is to use an open plastic fermenter for the primary fermentation
which
I can easily clean with bleach and any residual material can be seen and
removed
mechanically, usually I use a piece of wet paper towel and on occasion a small
nylon brush. I use a small amount straight bleach directly applied (gloves and
glasses in place) as a method of dissolving residual stuff after a hot water
rinse to loosen the majority of the remains of the fermentation. The point is,
I
can see it and clean it without difficulty. I don't have to have all my stuff
sitting around in all that bleach solution for a week to clean it. I can rack
from the primary and reload in just a few minutes, if I want to, because I can
easily clean the primary fermenter. I would be very happy to use a fermenter
made of say glass or stainless steel or outer non-porous, non-reactive
substance
as long as its surfaces were open and accessible to mechanical cleaning and it
was about 6 gallons or so in volume. Polyethylene plastic is convenient,
available, light, non-breakable or chippable, chemically non-reactive and
hasn't
caused me any trouble in 27 years of home brewing.
I sterilize, yes sterilize, with pure bleach ( name me anything that can
survive pure bleach), diluted bleach and then boiling or near boiling water (
which although it has been kept at 180F for hours, may have a few bugs or
spores, but not many and unlikely any of interest to us) when I am ready to use
the fermenter. Although the final product may flt in the "sanitized" class by
your definition, it is many orders of magnitude away from used beer glasses
dipped in dilute iodophor or toilet seats, so until a better word is invented
( maybe "santile"?) I will continue to call this "sterile" as a way of
distinguishing this virtually, and for all practical beer fermentation
purposes,
infection-free condition of the equipment.
After the major activity in the primary is finished in 3 to 5 days, I rack the
still quietly fermenting beer off the trub and yeast residuum to a carboy under
airlock. I am able to have a full five gallons in the secondary because I was
able to put 5.5 gallons in the primary.
I have been brewing this way since 1969, summer and winter, and have NEVER had
a
spoiled batch. I suspect all that trouble you had this summer with spoiled
batches had more to do with bacteria residing in the crap in the overflow tube
than the "bad air" you assumed was the cause.
You went a little off the deep end there about plastic lagering and playdoh, I
wouldn't know much about that and I don't really understand your point. I
pretty
much follow standard procedure either bottling or kegging my beer as soon as
the
fermentation has dropped down and Clinitest reads less than 1/4%. I add a
krausened starter, made with 1 oz of malt extract and 4 oz of corn sugar,
actively fermenting with yeast siphoned from the bottom of the secondary, into
a 5 gallon Corny flushed with CO2, rack the beer from the glass carboy
secondary, let it sit at 70F for a few days and then, for lagers, put it in the
lagering refrigerator in the 40s and drop the temperature to 33F over a week
and
let it sit until it is ready.
My point of all this is, if you can't get to the wall of your primary fermenter
easily, to clean it mechanically, you can't clean it easily of solid residue.
If you can't clean it, you can't sanitize it and for sure not sterilize it.
Primary fermenting in a carboy with an overflow tube loses out on all counts.
In my opinion, poorly cleaned carboy primary fermenters and overflow tubes are
the major source of infection and have ruined more batches of beer than any
other source.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3203 at compuserve.com
Return to table of contents
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Oct 96 20:22:26 EDT
Subject: Ca++ from Hardness info
Brewsters:
Steve Gravel asks for a recommendation on his water.
This is a recurring question here and needs addresssing as
best as possible. There are lots better experts on this than I
am, but I'll put in my $0.02 just in case they don't have time
and don't care to address it from a theoretical perspective.
I also show below how to estimate the calcium ion concentration
in your water from just a hardness value.
- --------
If you don't want to read it or don't have enough chemistry to understand it ,
page down and just use this formula if you only have hardness information:
To estimate the calcium ion content from hardness only data:
{Ca++} in ppm = Hardness in ppm /4.14
- ---------
The question we all ask is how much and what kind of a
calcium salt do I need to add if my analysis shows X?
With few exceptions, you would like about 50 ppm calcium in the mash and a pH
in
the region of 5.2-5.3. Pilsen breaks this rule because they have soft water AND
low alkalinity and have mashes successfully operating in the region pH= 5.7.
Steve's results on his water
(values in ppm)
Alkalinity 1
PH 6.4
Hardness 14.7
Sodium 9
Magnesium 1.3
Chloride 14.9
Iron .09
Potassium 2.39
Sulfate 13.4
Calcium 3.1
My major comment is the water is very soft
( expressed as hardness in ppm as CaCO3
even though it is Mg and Ca) and has very low
bicarbonates (expressed as alkalinity in ppm HCO3).
C Papazian in NJHB says:
Hardness Classification
0 - 50 Soft
51 - 110 medium hard
11- 200 hard
> 200 very hard
To give you an idea, Pilsen has a calcium content of
12 ppm Ca versus your 3 ppm, so your water can
be used for all beers with the appropriate
adjustment for style, simply by adding the appropriate salt.
An alkalinity ( i.e. a bicarbonate content) greater than
100 ppm will alkalize the mash and you would need to add
lactic or phosphoric acid or use lots of highly roasted
malts to get a pH = 5.2-5.2 in the mash.
To help understand this better and to give you some
equations to allow you to do some calculations on your
own water I make the following presentation:
Hardness is expressed as ppm CaCO3 as though all
the hardness came from Ca. Alkalinity is expresssed as ppm HCO3.
Since:
40 is the gram atomic weight for the Calcium
plus 60 (the GMW for CO3) 40 +60 = 100 the GMW for CaCO3
100/40 is the conversion of {Ca++} to {CaCO3}
24 is the gram atomic weight for the Magnesium
plus 60 as above = 84, the GMW for MgCO3
84/24 is the conversion of {Mg++} to {MgCO3}
{CaCO3} + {MgCO3} = Hardness as ppm CaCO3
So to calculate hardness from {Ca++} and { Mg++}:
From Steve's results:
3.1 ppm calcium will give (100/40)* 3.1 = 2.5 *3.1 =
7.75ppm of CaCO3
and 1.3 ppm of MgCO3 will give
(84/24)*1.3 = 3.5 * 1.3 =4.55 ppm MgCO3.
This now neeeds to be corrected from MgCO3 to CaCO3
so the ratio CaCO3/MgCO3 = 100/84 = 1.19.
So 7.75 + 1.19X 4.55 = 7.75 +5.41 =
13. 2 ppm of hardness expressed as CaCO3.
Which is approximately equal to the 14.7 ppm reported as hardness.
The official equation I was given is
2.496 X Ca ppm + 4.118 x Mg ppm = Hardness in ppm CaCO3
this gives 2.496 * 3.1 + 4.118 * 1.3 = 13.1ppm compared to
the reported result of 14.7 ppm.
The Ca multiplier at 2.496 checks with the above number at 2.5.
and the Mg multiplier is 3.5 +X 1.19 = 4.165 which checks with 4.118.
To make sense of your own water analysis:
If you only have a hardness number,
assume the ratio of Calcium to Magnesium is in
the range 2 to 3 ( i.e. 2.5), so Mg =Ca/2.5 and
you can approximate the calcium content close
enough for use in brewing with this equation:
If you use the equation above then:
2.5 {Ca++} + 4.1({Ca++}/2.5) = Hardness
and
{Ca++} X(2.5+ 4.1/(2.5)) = Hardness
SO {Ca++} = Hardness/4.14
which is how I approximate the calcium ion
concentration from the hardness value.
As a test in Steve's case: {Ca++} = 14.7/4.14 = 3.5
versus the reported value of 3.1.
So it works pretty well in the absence of actual
measurements of calcium ion concentration
and is well within normal calcium variations of water supplies.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3203 at compuserve.com
Return to table of contents
From: ThE-HoMeBrEw-RaT <skotrat at wwa.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:34:22 -0500
Subject: Re:AHA: non-profit?
Derek Lyons Wrote
>Rather than simply throwing vauge unsubstantiated stones, why not specify
>what you expect the AHA to *do* for you.
>
Do you think they could stop by once a week and do my lawn?
- -Scott "Just couldn't pass this one by" Abene
################################################################
# ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT #
# Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com> #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page) #
# OR #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat/Brew-Rat-Chat/ (Brew-Rat-Chat) #
# "Get off your dead ass and brew" #
# "If beer is liquid bread, maybe bread is solid beer" #
################################################################
Return to table of contents
From: cgoll at PICA.ARMY.MIL
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:31:00 -0400
Subject: Split Mash/Sparge; 5 liter Selections
Herb wrote:
>The following question was posted a while back, but with zero
>responses I figured I'd try again...
>If a mash tun will not hold all the necessary
>grain for a batch, would it be ok to split the mash/sparge operation?
>Ok, it would take hours longer; but someone with a 5 gallon Gott
>could brew a barleywine. Is there any reason not to collect/sparge
>the first half, and let it sit quietly in the unheated, covered brew
>kettle until the second half is added later? I recently collected
>data from folks about the limitations of their mash tun, and this
>idea might help alot of brewers. Has anyone done this?
>Cheers,
>Herb
>herb at zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us
I used this procedure for a 15 gallon batch of APA my (then) fiance
(now wife) and I brewed to give out as favors at our wedding. I have
a five gal Gott with a slotted copper manifold and a 0.5 barrel
boiler. We did two parallel infusion mashes; one in the Gott, one in
a 20 qt SS pot kept in the oven at 'warm', each with 12 pounds of
grain. Drained/Sparged the Gott into the boiler, began the boil, then
transferred the grain from the pot into the Gott and lautered the
second half. It worked like a charm; ended up with 15 gal at 1.048.
Then I realized there was no head space in the boiler, so I drained
3.5 gal off and boiled it separately on the stove. Now, more than
ever, I appreciate my propane cooker!
So, yes, it has been done. I would do the mashes in parallel rather
than in series so that brew day is less than 12 hours!
Related note: The beer was a big hit. However, one confirmed Silver
Bullet fan pronounced later "...it was a bit chewy."
Non-related question: I now have a 5 l minikeg tap and am building an
inventory of empty kegs for future brews. The only brands I can find
are Dab, Dinkel Acker and Bitburger. Anyone else in northern NJ know
where I can get something else? I'm craving a Pale Ale or Stout on
tap!
Chris Goll
cgoll at pica.army.mil
Return to table of contents