Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 6 November 1996 Number 2265
![[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:
[none] ()
[none] ()
[none] ()
[none] ()
Re: Homebrew Shootout (Mark Groshek)
[none] ()
Can I convert a PIN to a BALL valve ??? ((Raymond P Kasprowicz))
altenmuenster ((joe kline))
Re: cajun cooker ("Keith Royster")
High temp fermentation ((Bill Giffin))
re:enzymes ((Bill Giffin))
Re: Second Try Again (Denis Barsalo)
two questions ((Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering))
RE: no sparge brewing ("Bridges, Scott")
O2 ((A. J. deLange))
Re: Yeasts ((patricia hust))
RE: Why is one beer hazy and the other not ((George De Piro))
Re: Corn as an adjunct (Kit Anderson)
brewing with inedible corn (Larry Johnson)
Re: Mashing problems ("PAUL SHICK (216) 932-6196")
Koelsch yeast (Jim Busch)
false bottoms ("Bryan L. Gros")
homemade MICRO- keg system ("Taber, Bruce")
RE: no sparge technique ("Bridges, Scott")
Stupid questions (Jorgen Toftered)
Oxygenation ((Maribeth_Raines, Asst_Prof))
Breiss: Klages vs. Malted Barley (Marty Tippin)
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:
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: Mark Groshek <theshek at rmii.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 22:35:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Homebrew Shootout
The Fifth Annual Homebrew Shootout took place on November 1 and 2, 1996,
at the Tivoli Brewery in Denver, Colorado. There were
217 entries, from 8 states, from 81 individuals. Thanks to all who
entered, to our many sponsors, and to all who helped organize and
judge! Prizes and judging sheets are expected to be mailed out by
November 9th. The Shootout can also be encountered on the web at
http://members.aol.com/moreyeel/beer/index.htm
Shootout 96 Winners
Place Winner Club
City State
Barleywine and Strong Ales
1st Todd WallingerDeep Wort
Colorado SpringsCO
2nd Roger Grow The Tribe
Johnstown CO
3rd Ray Poarch Unfermentables
Arvada CO
Stouts
1st David Gray Derby Brew Club
Wichita KS
2nd Glen Taul Texoma Brews
Denison TX
3rd Jim JacobsonUnfermentables
Broomfield CO
Lighter German Lagers and Kolsch
1st George Fix Arlington Homebrewers
Arlington TX
2nd David Gray Derby Brew Club
Wichita KS
3rd Dale Lyneis none
Thornton CO
Darker and Stronger German Lager and Alt
1st John Landreman Deep Wort
Colorado SpringsCO
2nd David Gray Derby Brew Club
Wichita KS
3rd David Gray Derby Brew Club
Wichita KS
German Wheat Beers
1st Ron Hoskinson Foam on the Range
Franktown CO
2nd Mark Groshek Unfermentables
Denver CO
3rd Jay Reeves none
Huntsville AL
Belgian Beers
BOS Beer1st Jay Reeves none
Huntsville AL
2nd Kevin Schutz Deep Wort
Colorado SpringsCO
3rd Mark Groshek Unfermentables
Denver CO
English Mild and Brown Ales
1st Steve Dougherty none
Denver CO
2nd Jim Jacobson Unfermentables
Broomfield CO
3rd Ray Poarch Unfermentables
Arvada CO
English Pale Ales
1st Roger Whyman Unfermentables
Englewood CO
2nd Thomas Kosinski none
Littleton CO
3rd Chuck Jones none
Roswell GA
American Ales and California Common
1st John Huie Central Florida Homebrewers
Lakewood CO
2nd John Huie Central Florida Homebrewers
Lakewood CO
3rd Mark Groshek Unfermentables
Denver CO
English Bitters and Scottish Ales
1st Steve Dougherty none
Denver CO
2nd Tony DeMarse Brewnion Colony
Greeley CO
3rd Paul Dey High Plains Drafters
Cheyenne WY
Porter
1st Joe Bocchino none
Littleton CO
2nd Sean O'Connell none
Lakewood CO
3rd Andrea Songey-Neff Unfermentables
Denver CO
Fruit and Vegetable Beers
1st Nathan Moore none
Denver CO
2nd Jay and Julie Carter none
Denver CO
3rd Ron Thomas none
Silverton OR
Specialty Beers
1st Tony DeMarse Brewnion Colony
Greeley CO
2nd Kevin Schutz Deep Wort
Colorado SpringsCO
3rd Steve Dougherty none
Denver CO
Smoked and Herb and Spice Beers
1st Ron Thomas none
Silverton OR
2nd Dennis Flaherty none
Boulder CO
3rd Roger Whyman Unfermentables
Englewood CO
Traditional and Herb and Spice Meads
1st Keith Schwols Mash Tongues
Fort Collins CO
2nd Mark Groshek Unfermentables
Denver CO
3rd Andy LaMorte Hop Barley and the Ale'rs
Denver CO
Fruit and Vegetable Meads
BOS Mead1st Paul Gatza Hop Barley and the Ale'rs
Boulder CO
2nd Roger Clark Derby Brew Club
Derby KS
3rd Darragh Nagle none
Longmont CO
- --
Mark Groshek 303-757-8394
6535 East Colorado Drive theshek at rmii.com
Denver, CO 80224
Return to table of contents
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
Return to table of contents
From: habanero at juno.com (Raymond P Kasprowicz)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 02:08:50 EST
Subject: Can I convert a PIN to a BALL valve ???
I just got my first soda keg. $15 for a Pin valve and in pretty good
shape. It seems that everyone that replied to my "what should I get.
balll or pin" question said BALL. So now I have a Pin keg and need to
know what's involved with converting, if possible.
What is the cost to switch between the two ? Say I have a ball and a pin,
with one C02 bottle. I know the fittings on the lines are different, but
what would the cost be to have an extra set of lines so I could switch
back and forth ? Is it worth it ?
Should I trade my pin on a ball if possible. Maybe the local homebrew
store will let me, who knows.
Thanks again.
Return to table of contents
From: jkline7 at juno.com (joe kline)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:04:29 EST
Subject: altenmuenster
hey gang,
about a couple of weeks ago someone was inquiring about a beer they had
drank.
they spelled it pretty close to altenmuenster (note the ue is really an
u with an umlaut for you non-linguistically inclined types).
the bar i work at has this beer and i decided to copy what little info
there was on the bottle, which follows:
Brauer Bier
das Altenmuenster
Privatbrauerei Franz Joseph Sailer
D-87616 Marktoberdorf, Germany
i'm not sure if it is an alt beer or not, when i tried about a month
ago(as i recall)
it was moderately malty and moderately hoppy.
just hoping this is somewhat useful
==================================================================
Joe Kline: bartender, rocket scientist, philosopher, etc /
jkline7 at juno.com
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc. /
We gladly feast on those who would subdue us /
Return to table of contents
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at pex.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 07:20:21 +0500
Subject: Re: cajun cooker
John Schnupp says:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a gas stove consume O2 in the
> same way as a propane cooker? Maybe there is something different
> about the combustion between the two that I wasn't taught in
> chemistry class.
Yes, the chemical reactions are the same, but their efficiencies are
different. Cajun cookers are *much* less efficient than stove
burners, especially when you start adjusting the flame. They seem
to be engineered for full blast only, and become even more
inefficient when you try to turn them down.
But to answer your question more precisely, the combustion of fuel
such as natural gas (CH3) and oxygen (O2) results in the production
of CO2 and H20. The problem is when the fuel-to-air ratio is not
chemically balanced you get inefficient combustion which can lead to
other dangerous products such as CO. In short, cajun cookers can
produce a lot more CO than your oven and should be used in well
ventilated areas.
- ----------------
PS - Pat Babcock, your email is still bouncing back to me.
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina
"Where if the kudzu don't gitcha, the Baptists will!"
mailto:keith.royster at pex.net
http://dezines.com/ at your.service - at your.service
http://dezines.com/ at your.service/cbm -Carolina BrewMasters
http://dezines.com/ at your.service/RIMS -My RIMS page, rated COOL! by the Brewery
Return to table of contents
From: bill-giffin at juno.com (Bill Giffin)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:40:39 cst
Subject: High temp fermentation
Good morning,
>>> Jim Liddil says in regard to Chimay yeast:
I caution you against such a high temp ferment, but I'll let you decide.
I
prefer not to make headache, banana beer.
<<<
I have brewed a couple of trippels at 80 F with very few higher alcohols
and only enough banana and clove to be appropriate to the style. Both
the primary and the secondary of these beers were at 80 F and they were
bottle conditioned at 90 F. Primary fermentation took a week for a
trippel with a an O. G. of 1.080. I feel that the key is that you
maintain the temperature at a constant 80 F, if you vary up and down too
much that is where the high esters and higher alcohols come from.
Yeast Lab's Canadian yeast requires a higher temperature to reduce the
amounts of fruitiness. I found that using a temperature of 75 F that
this yeast produced a much cleaner beer then when fermented at 65 F.
Bill
Richmond, Maine
P. S. Will this post make it to the digest???
Return to table of contents
From: bill-giffin at juno.com (Bill Giffin)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:47:54 cst
Subject: re:enzymes
Good evening,
>>>Al K had this as point to clarify:
1) that in a low-calcium environment you would get "poor efficiency and a
more fermentable wort than expected because the alpha amylase is less
stable than in a higher calcium environment.
<<<
If the pH is correct the alpha amylase will be stable and the efficiency
is what you would expect for the malt being used. You will find that in
Principles of Brewing Science in sort of a left handed way.
2) "Most true Pilzens use a lager malt low in husk tannins..."
So do most German, British, and any other beer that is brewed with
European malts.
3) "They [malts] will slowly lose their enzymatic powers, but it will
take several years, based on my personal experience."
I don't know how long several years is but I have used some malts that
have been stored in Rubbermaid bins with a cover that was not air tight
at all for five years and I found little or no lose of efficiency and the
resulting beer tasted just fine.
Bill
Richmond, Maine
Return to table of contents
From: Denis Barsalo <denisb at cam.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:30:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Second Try Again
In #2264, Mark said:
>i brewed 2 batches of almost identical bitter the past two weekends.
With all the differences you mention below, I would not consider those two
beers almost identical!
>1. didn't utilize a protein rest
>2. didn't have irish moss added
>3. had an 80 minute sparge (very slow, on purpose)
>4. used ekg hop pellets
>
>the second batch:
>
>1. utilized a 20 minute protein rest at 122 F
>2. used irish moss 30 minutes BEOB
>3. had a 55 minute sparge ( a little faster flow)
>4. used all whole hops (my preference, actually)
>
>wait, there was one more difference: batch one used no additional salts in
>the
>mash, and batch two used 1 teaspoon of gypsum.
I'm not sure about the protein rest, although it could make a difference in
the amount of break material.
Irish moss will help clear your beer, so the lack of it in batch could
definetely be one of the causes.
I don't think a slow sparge would create a hazier beer.
Using whole hops would create a kind of filter catching a lot of the break
material in the kettle. You didn't mention how you transfer from kettle to
fermenter. If you whirlpool then siphon, the hops used could make a
difference.
I have skipped protein rests often and never noticed a difference in
clarity of beer. I always use irish moss and at least one addition of whole
hops during my boil. I syphon after stirring and most of the break material
clings to the flower hops. I found this technique quite effective.
Denis
Return to table of contents
From: gmoore at wacko.East.Sun.COM (Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:47:15 -0500
Subject: two questions
1) Anyone have any experience with using maple syrup/sugar to make a beer?
(real, not the fake stuff or stuff with 'butter flavour' or other crap
added)
2) What's the difference between 2-row malt and 6-row malt?
TIA
- -G
Return to table of contents
From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess at mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 96 08:40:00 PST
Subject: RE: no sparge brewing
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
>[snippage throughout]
>He recommends adding 25 to 30 % more malt to the mash to make up for the
loss
>
>If we take 10# of malt and 2 1/2 gallons of mash liquor (1 qt/lb) and
assume a
>mash will produce 11 oz of sugar per pound of malt then we have 110 oz of
sugar
>total ( OG of 1.065 in 5 gals).
>
>If the 10 # of malt holds one gallon of water even after it has been
drained
>(according to C. Papazian), then 1/2.5 = 0.4 or 40% of the sugar is still
in the
>grains. You have a choice of brewing only three gallons of beer at a
serious OG
>or being satisfied with 5 gallons of a 3.2% type beer (OG 1.035).
>
>This is a tremendous loss and I really can't suggest it be done as a
>continuing practice. If you want to do a "no sparge" brew, I would suggest
you
>dilute the mash,during or after mashout, as much as possible by adding
another
>gallon or more of water.( Ken suggests this also) This would at least only
give
>you a loss of 1/3.5 = 0.285 = 28.5% You could then make a brew of 3.5
gallons
>of serious beer or 5 gallons of a "driver's choice", session beer.
>
>Why go to the time and trouble of making a brew if you're going to throw a
lot
>of it away just to save a few minutes? Would you pour two gallons of your
beer
>down the sink?
Dave,
I think that you're missing the point. No one is suggesting "throwing away
beer", or making a sissy beer. If my normal batch is 5 gallons, I can make
a 5 gallon batch using a no-sparge technique. If my normal gravity for beer
style X is 1.050, I can make a 1.050 beer using a no-sparge technique. The
difference is to add more grain to the mash, calculated by the expected
residual sugars that you leave in the grains. I'll grant you that it would
be possible to make more beer from those sugars, but it ain't beer yet.
Also, in the Fix article that spawned this debate, he notes that he
*does* continue to sparge and uses the wort from the residual sugars for
yeast propagation. I've never done this, but frankly, it looks like a
worthwhile option to me. I'll try to list the pros and cons as they appear
to me.
PRO's
1. Time savings, due to eliminated sparge time (important, for those of us
with families).
2. Additional maltiness in profile, which was the premise for the Fix
article in the first place.
3. Potential for less tannin extraction during sparging (a real pro for me,
given the carbonates of my water).
4. Potential for eliminating the need for a hot liquor tank (can heat the
mash water in the boil kettle).
5. Others?
CON's
1. More grain required
1a. Additional cost (by increasing grain bill about 30%)
1b. Additional solid waste to dispose of (not a problem if you have a
compost pile)
1c. Potential for requiring a larger mash tun.
2. Others?
Due to the small additional cost per batch, potentially recouped if you use
the residual wort for yeast ranching, I don't any problem with doing this.
Just another opinion....
Scott
Return to table of contents
From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:54:12 -0500
Subject: O2
Mark Bayer had some additional questions about oxygenation:
1. how long does it take for the super saturated wort to reach an equilibrium
state with regard to its dissolved oxygen level?
This is going to depend on many variables. I have to do some DO
measurements in the next couple of days and will overxygenate and see how
long it takes to get back to equilibrium for at least a nominal example
case. The wiseguy answer is that it never gets back to equilibrium but
rather assyptotically approaches it. That aside, oxygen will flow from the
wort to the air at a rate per unit area proportional to the difference of
partial pressures of oxygen in the air and the wort. Thus the DO level in
the wort in shallow coolship with a fan lowing over its surface would be
much greater than the rate of exchange in a tall carboy with a water lock
on it. In ordinary circumstances I think we are talking in the order of a
few minutes.
2. what would this final equilibrium dissolved oxygen level be at some nominal
temperature, say 65 deg. F, and 1 atm?
That's the only one I can answer definitely. Under a standard atmosphere
(1013 mbar) DO levels in air saturated water are as follows:
0C 5C 10C 15C 20C 25C 30C 35C 40C
14.64 12.75 11.25 10.06 9.08 8.25 7.55 6.94 6.41 mg/l
It's widely reported that O2 is less soluble in wort and so it is but not
appreciably so in the range of gravities seen in normal (12 degree or so)
beers.
3. at what level of dissolved oxygen does yeast cease normal activity and
begin the "dying" process? or the "not optimal for a good beer
fermentation" state?
I don't know the answer to either of these. The "not optimal" is an
especially arguable one. British brewers, for example, fiddle with
oxygenation of wort and pitching slurry to control ester levels. They want
an ester profile which would be anathema to a lager brewer.
4. is there an oxygen level at which yeast becomes unable or unwilling to
consume the oxygen? even if it's not a toxic level, it would surely
affect the fermentation.
I believe that they will continue to consume it as long as other nutrients
are available and even though it is at a toxic (but not lethally so) level.
I'm extrapolating from my very sketchy knowledge of humans here.
Mark also comments that there must have been lots of research and there has
been and Tracy Aquila has poured over it so Tracy, come in please.
A. J. deLange
- - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
Please Note New e-mail Address
Return to table of contents
From: phust at unlinfo.unl.edu (patricia hust)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 07:57:36 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Yeasts
Just a quick question about yeasts. This is one I thought about at 3
A.M when I could not sleep. What happens when multiple strains of
yeast are pitched in the same brew? Does each retain it's own
characteristics? Does one become dominant? Do the yeasts mutate into
something unrecognizable and unpredictable? Anybody have any
experience with this?
Jim Hust
Return to table of contents
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:27:48 -0800
Subject: RE: Why is one beer hazy and the other not
Hi all!
Mark asks why one of his beers is hazy while another similar batch is
clear. He lists the differences between the two batches.
The differences that I feel are relevant to the clarity of the beer
are:
1. The clear beer had a 20 min. protein rest at 122F (50C)
2. The clear beer utilized Irish moss
3. The clear beer had a shorter sparge
The reason the first batch is not clear is because of the larger
quantity of tannins and proteins that are in solution. This is
illustrated nicely by the fact that the cloudy batch didn't produce as
much trub as the clear batch (i.e., the proteins and tannins are still
in solution, not resting at the bottom as part of the trub).
Looking at it point by point:
1. The protein rest helped to degrade proteins that contribute to
haze, allowing for better protein/tannin coagulation during the boil.
2. The Irish moss aided the coagulation/precipitation of proteins,
3. The shorter sparge MAY have (not necessarily) reduced the
extraction of husk tannins. If the sparge water pH was acidic, this
was not an issue.
This would be a good BJCP exam question.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
Return to table of contents
From: Kit Anderson <kit at maine.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 09:37:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Corn as an adjunct
>>I still have a lot of old ears
>>of corn left on the stalks. It's too old
>>to eat so I was thinking about fermenting it in my next batch of beer.
>
>A useful maxim I heard is "Don't cook with wine you wouldn't drink."
>- -- Art
"I adhere to Sweinheitsgebot. I don't put anything in my beer a pig wouln't
eat." -David Geary
- ---
Kit Anderson
<kit at maine.com>
Bath, Maine
The Maine Beer Page http://www.maine.com/brew
Return to table of contents
From: Larry Johnson <Maltster at ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 06:41:10 -0800
Subject: brewing with inedible corn
Someone (sorry, I don't know who) said:
>>I still have a lot of old ears
>>of corn left on the stalks. It's too old
>>to eat so I was thinking about fermenting it in my next batch of beer.
To which Art said in HBD #2264:
>A useful maxim I heard is "Don't cook with wine you wouldn't drink."
To which I say:
Does that mean "Don't make wine with grapes you wouldn't enjoy eating?"
Bad-tasting wine will make food taste bad; ergo, the cooking axiom. But just
because corn is too old (meaning - dry and tough) to eat doesn't mean it's
not a perfectly good fermentable. I don't know that it *is*, but it's
suitability as
a side dish shouldn't be a factor. Just one guy's opinion.
Larry Johnson / Athens, GA / http://www.ix.netcom.com/~maltster
Return to table of contents
From: "PAUL SHICK (216) 932-6196" <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 10:10:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Mashing problems
My first attempt at posting this was eaten by the [none] bug. Here's a second
try:
Dean Mueller in #2262 mentioned several problems with his early all-grain
batches. In particular, he found his 5 gallon plastic bucket mash/lauter tun
to be too small for stronger beers. An easier/cheaper solution (than the 10
gallon Gott cooler) would be just to move to a 6.5 gallon plastic bucket and
use the same false bottom (that I assume you already have.) I've handled up to
16 lbs with no trouble in this set up, although I may be using a thicker mash
than Dean. I usually mash in my kettle, using at most two infusions and
direct heat to move to mash-out temperatures. Ladling (carefully) into the
lauter tun is a bit of a pain, but it works in the end. The 6.5 gallon
buckets are also very cheap and easy to find.
George De Piro raises a very good point in #2263, in response to Dean. The
much-maligned enamel on steel canning kettles have a lot of advantages. They
usually fit over two stove burners, so that boiling in the kitchen is feasible
(although I'm impressed that George can do 12+ gallons. He must have a better
stove than I do.) Also, they're generally much more "squat" in design than
SS kettles, so that an 8+ gallon kettle fits comfortably in my oven. This
makes overnight mashes easy, shortening my brewing day by about two hours.
Finally, spending $30-40 for a kettle, as opposed to $120-200, is pretty
attractive.
Paul Shick
Return to table of contents
From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:19:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Koelsch yeast
Ken writes:
<Both California Common ("Steam") and Kolsch lager yeasts perform well in the
<55F - 60F range, which should be easily achievable this time of year. These
<are true lager yeasts.
Koelsch is made with a top fermenting ale yeast in Koeln. It is a warm
(65F) fermented cold lagered beer. While the distinctions between lager
and ale yeasts are debated by taxonomists I would still prefer to call
the top fermenting yeasts ale yeasts.
I have yet to sample a koelsch in the US that compares favorably with
that served in Koeln. Its no wonder that the GABF withheld medals in
this category.
Anton asks about yeast pitching:
< He gave me about a 20 oz jar
<filled with nice creamy yeast sediment from his fermenter.
<He told me to use about 1/4 of it, which I did. About an
<hour or so after pitching yeast I had 3 inches of foam
What you did was fine, you pitched the proper amount of yeast cells
which very few homebrewers do without repitching or a visit to the
local micro. As Ive heard many times from many brewers, "Im a
firm believer in overpitching". Im also a firm believer in lots
of O2. Grapefruit is often a result of using wonderfully pungent
hops from the Pacific Northwest, Cascades, Centennials and Columbus.
Jim Busch
See Victory Brewing at:
http://www.victorybeer.com/
Return to table of contents
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 09:08:00 -0600 (CST)
Subject: false bottoms
Posted for Chuck Bernard.
>Third attempt at posting. Apologies in advance if duplicate postings happen.
>
>Comments from the collective please.
>
>What are the advantages and disadvantages to installing a false bottom (to
>"filter" wort) into my boil kettle. I own a 8.5 gallon or so pot with a
>fitting on the side at the bottom for a ball valve. This valve is what I use
>to rack from kettle to carboy. Problem is the hops (plugs and whole, no
>pellets), break material and stuff pass through the valve into the fermenter.
> I've tried placing a Chore-Boy brand copper scrubby thing in front of the
>valve with mixed results. What I propose would look something like this.
>
> kettle diameter = 15"
> | |
> | |
> | |
> |-------false bottom------------|
> | =|= valve opening
> |--------kettle bottom-----------|
>
>The false botom would be tightly fit around the sides of the kettle and have
>some stand offs (not shown) to keep it off the bottom and not be permanently
>fixed to the kettle (ie removable). Material would be perforated stainless
>steel 1/16" or so thick, with 1/8" or so diameter holes and about 60-70% open
>area.
>
>How might this react when boiling commences? Will it need to be weighted
>down so it doesn't move during the boil? Has anyone tried this? After the
>boil as the hops and stuff settle, would this allow drawing off fairly clean
>wort into the carboy. Would the hops help filter the break material (I think
>they would settle first)? Is this similar to a hop-back device.
>
>The sheet metal contractor I use at work will probably do this for me at
>little or no cost. Is it worth the effort.
>
>Thaks in advance for responses from the collective brain trust.
>
>With the recent rash of <none> posting this meaasge is cross posted to r.c.b.
>
>Thank you
>
>Chuck
>BernardCh at aol.com
>Nashville, TN
>Music City USA
Return to table of contents
From: "Taber, Bruce" <Bruce.Taber at nrc.ca>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:20:00 -0500
Subject: homemade MICRO- keg system
Problem:
Don't like to clean, fill, and wash all those glass bottles. Kegging
sounds great but I don't have a beer fridge. Even if I did I would have
to put it in the basement and walk down there every time I want a beer
(some days that's pretty often). Thought about the 5 liter mini keg
system but even that's a bit big for my kitchen fridge, and I could only
have one type of beer on tap (heaven forbid).
Solution:
I built a kegging system using 2 liter (65oz) PET soft drink bottles.
Sounds crazy? Well can't say I'd argue with you. But it allows me to
have two types of beer on tap in my kitchen fridge and it takes up less
space than two rows of bottles. Each micro-keg holds about 6 servings.
They are easy to handle, clean, and fill, and they are FREE.
For those who haven't paged-down because you think I'm nuts, here's a
brief description of my system. I took a 5/8" bolt and drilled a 1/4"
hole down through it. I put a length of 1/4" cooper pipe through the
hole and soldered it in. The bolt is then put through a 5/8" hole that
I drilled into the plastic bottle cap. When it is tightened down it is
a leak-proof seal. when the cap is screwed onto the PET bottle the
copper pipe is cut so that it reaches to the bottom of the bottle. I
put a bend in the bottom so that it actually reaches into the bottom
corner of the bottle.
On the outside of the cap I installed a small 3-way valve. The common
leg of the valve goes on the copper pipe. Another leg goes to a CO2
line. My CO2 bottle is in the basement. I have been using about 10 psi
so far. I have cheap plastic tubing coming up through the floor behind
the fridge and going in through a small hole drilled in the side of the
fridge (try to sound convincing when you tell your wife that it's just a
SMALL hole, don't worry). The other side of the 3-way valve goes to a
short tube which is my spout.
The micro-kegs (PET bottles) are stacked in a plexiglass holder that I
built for the top shelf of the fridge. The two bottles lie on their
sides on an angle so that the bottom of the bottles are a bit lower than
the top. This keeps any sediment at the bottom edge and also lets me
get the last bit of beer out using that bent copper pipe.
To use the system I simply open a 2 liter bottle of brew and screw on
one of my custom made keg tops. I put it in the fridge and hook up the
CO2. When I turn the 3-way valve one way I get CO2 coming in to
pressurize the bottle. When I turn it the other way I get a glass of
beer coming out. After every glass is tapped I simply turn the valve
the other way to get a fresh shot of CO2 to repressurize.
It works great. It allows me to have two types of beer on tap at any
time and it takes up very little space in our fridge. As with any new
system, I am experimenting with minor modifications such as nozzle
design, delivery pressure, etc..
Ain't brewin fun!
Bruce Taber
Almonte, Ontario
bruce.taber at nrc.ca
Return to table of contents
From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess at mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 96 09:20:00 PST
Subject: RE: no sparge technique
Art wrote about me writing....
>> As I recall Dr. Fix's article (supported by his own experience, no doubt)
>>was that you leave about 30% of the extract. Or stated another way, you
>>need 30% more grain to get the same OG. <<
>
>Sorry to be anal but you'll need 43% more grain to get the same OG if you
>expect 30% less extract.
>
>1/(1-0.30) = 1.43.
>-- Art
Picky, picky, picky. I was paraphrasing. I knew that wasn't quite right
when I posted it. I figured that someone would call me on it. OK, I just
looked up the article, which is what I should have done before posting. In
the control batch using standard mashing/sparging technique, he used 27.55
lbs of grain, to get a 1.060 wort in a 13.2 gal batch (28.7 pts). In the
experimental batch using a no-sparge technique, he used 36.75 lbs of grain
to get the same OG (21.6 pts). So, in fact, he used 9.2 lbs more grain -
which I make out to be 33% more grain. The difference in extract is 25%
less extract. How'd I do this time?
Kind of like the difference between "mark-up" and "margin" in pricing.
Nyah, Nyah, Nyah. Are you a math teacher? ...
Scott
Return to table of contents
From: Jorgen Toftered <Jorgen.Toftered.7785 at student.uu.se>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 17:42:35 +0000
Subject: Stupid questions
Cheers, everyone...
I want to make a partial mash lager or pilsner resulting in beer with
very pronounced bread-taste, such as Gron Tuborg or Konig Pilsener. What
Wyeast-strain and malt composition shall I use? Or, even better, can
someone of you brewing fans all over the world share me a receipt?
I am also considering the use of asorbic acid as an antioxidant in my
brewing experiments. Does anyone know how much acid can be added to a 5
gallon batch without severely affecting the taste? I suppose this is
variable depending on what kind of beer you are emulating.
Private e-mail is OK but not necessary.
Once again, cheers...
Jorgen.Toftered.7785 at student.uu.se
Return to table of contents
From: raines at radonc.ucla.edu (Maribeth_Raines, Asst_Prof)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:00:05 -0700
Subject: Oxygenation
The BT article on oxygenation/aeration was in no way the definitive
treatment of the subject. I too felt that were several issues that were
not addressed and that the author's results were in fact inconsistent with
what others (myself included) had observed. Although I can offer no good
explanation for these discrepancies, I also felt that what was published
will be taken as "the absolute truth" and will lead to the further
propagation of misinformation.
The optimal dissolved oxygen (DO) levels for yeast are somewhat variable.
8-12 ppm for ales and 10-14 ppm for lagers. Some of the Siebel strains
actually require up to 20 ppm. Note that these are well above the levels
at which wort is saturated with air or oxygen (8 ppm). This is why I have
been a strong advocate of continuing to aerate (0.5 -4 hours) after
pitching. Since the yeast will rapidly absorb the dissolved O2, continued
aeration post pitching this will essentially increase the net amount of O2
absorbed. This is especially applicable if using air to introduce oxygen
and really depend on your method. And in my hands, the aquarium pump
method can produce sufficient levels of oxygen to reach the 8 ppm range. I
should point out that the aeration system I use and developed (BrewTek) was
not tested in this article.
Having been frustrated with the foaming with the immersion type aerators, I
have since developed an in-line system which I use at home with welding
grade oxygen. Visible bubbling at less than 1 psi of O2 only yields about
4 ppm while setting of 4-6 psi consistently gives levels of 13 ppm. This
level tends to be stable for 10-15 minutes. O2 is clearly being released
from the wort and using a flame when pitching your yeast (and the ensuing
explosion) will verify this. (I don't recommend trying this).
What do these levels mean in terms of fermentation performance. Well first
off, I routinely pitch 15-25 million cells/ml which is well above
recommended pitching rates for ales and lagers. These beers take off
within 2-4 hours irrespective of the O2 levels and I do not think that this
is really a good endpoint for fermentation. What is perhaps the most
dramatic difference is the time at which it takes to complete fermentation.
The 13 ppm worts (all are around 1.050 O.G.) are finished within 2-3 days
while the 4 ppm continue to bubble away for several more days. The
terminal gravities also seem to be 1-3 gravity points higher than they
should be.
As far as Dion's oxygenating under pressure, I question how much oxygen
actually gets dissolved in your system. Do you shake? You may be getting
less O2 than you think. Dennis Davidson's data with the Oxygenator
suggest that the equilibration rate is much slower if it is sufficiently
dissolved. Again I find this hard to believe based on my own personal
experience but plan to test for myself.
The real dilemma is how to settle the confusion that has been generated
from the discrepancies in the article. The actual work was funded by the
AHA but not published in Zymurgy because of its technical nature so an
article in Zymurgy is out. Since it was published in BT, I'm sure they will
not do another one for at least another year. Perhaps George's new book
will shed some light on this subject.
I should point out that the above statements are my personal opinion and
are not meant to be inflammatory to Dennis Davidson or BT. I expressed
similar concerns to them prior to publication. And I would add that
Dennis did alot of work and should be applauded for that. Moreover if the
article stimulates more research, it is a good thing. My problem is that
unlike more classical scientific disciplines, we are somewhat limited as to
where conflicting or even supporting views may be published.
Return to table of contents
From: Marty Tippin <MartyT at geoaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:57:49 -0600
Subject: Breiss: Klages vs. Malted Barley
I just bought a bag of Breiss Malted Barley (the 6-row stuff) instead of
the usual Klages (the 2-row stuff) that I normally use as the base malt
for all my beers.
What differences I might expect to see both in my mashing/lautering
(extraction rates, interaction with adjuncts, etc.) and in the finished
beer (clarity, FG, body, etc.) by making this switch?
Private e-mail is fine and I'll post a summary - Please reply to the
address below, not the one in the HBD header..
- -Marty Tippin
martyt at wwgv.com
http://www.wwi.net/martyt - Marty's Homebrew Gadgets Page
Return to table of contents