(formerly Volume 02 : Number 041)



Procedures:

To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <your email address>"
   in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

Contents:
  Simple wort chiller design
  funky stringy trub in primary
  Re: Iodophor
  Crisp Marris-Otter Malt
  Agave nectar
  RE: Heineken
  Re: Crip Marris Otter & stuck sparge (Alex Santic)
  Re: Crisp Marris Otter
  CO2 -- how much?
  [No Subject Provided By Sender]
  re: sea salt (Dave Whitman
  Force Carbonation...
  SF Bay Area Brewers
  Re: Plastic Conical Fermenters
  Signs of infection
  liquid extract
  Long rest at 140 and other errors
  Problems with a fast sparge?
  large fermenters
  Inexpensive "Beer King" Taps
  Quality of cold break with immersion chillers?
  Yeast and O2
  mash and enzymes
  large fermenters


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 17:11:33 -0800
From: Fred Klassen <fredk at ibm.net>
Subject: Simple wort chiller design

I have had a few comments on my immersion chiller, so I thought I
would pass this along.  I did not waist time building connectors for
attachment to the ends of my 1/2" copper coil.  Rather, I insert  the
copper directly into my in and out 1/2" garden hoses and use hose
clamps to fasten.  The chiller took 15 minutes to make, and never leaks.

Does anyone else do this?

Fred Klassen
Vancouver, BC

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:00:52 -0500 (EST)
From: kcollins at seidata.com
Subject: funky stringy trub in primary

I recently brewed an all grain pilsner consisting of 10 lbs. DeWolf Coysns 
pilsner malt and 0.5 lbs CaraPils.  After cooling the wort and transfering it to 
the primary, I observed the formation of a horizontal layer of "stuff" I think 
is protein or trub, about 1.5 inches thick.  This layer of trub is in addition 
to the material that normally collects at the bottom of my primary fermentation 
vessel.  It has been 2.5 days now, and the layer has not settled down to the 
bottom of the fermenter yet.  Do I need to change my mashing procedure?  Here is 
how I mashed it:

122 deg. protein rest, 20 min.
140 deg. rest, 15 min.
1st decoction, then add to main mash to get 150 deg. rest 
150 deg. to conversion
2nd decoction to achieve mashout temperature of 168 deg.

Any advice?
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:09:21 +0000
From: John Hicks <jon_tiff at computer-services.com>
Subject: Re: Iodophor

Hello,
  I'm new to the list and have probally what is a very simple question 
to those of you who know what your doing.  I just got through with my 
first attempt at this home brew stuff and ran into a little or maybe a 
big problem, I don't know.  Anyways when it told me to add the yeast to 
the wort when it was around 80 degrees I accidentally added it to soon 
when it was still at about 95 degrees..  is my first batch ruined 
already or what?

would some one please HELP

first time homebrewer,

John

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:26:19 -0500
From: Mike Dowd <mikedowd at geocities.com>
Subject: Crisp Marris-Otter Malt

Alex Santic proposes that my technique is not well adapted to my equipment.

I'm not quite sure what he means by this.  As I wrote in my post, I have
been using this technique with this equipment since I began doing all-grain
brewing.  I do a _short_ (20-25 minutes) rest at 104 F to gelatinize the
grain a bit before proceeding to saccrification temperatures.  This
technique is suggested by George Fix as a method for improving extraction
rates, and I have found that it works quite well.

I cannot think of any conflict between the equipment that I use and this
technique.  As I have mentioned, this technique has worked for me for quite
a while, usually using a British malt like Munton & Fison's, but
occasionally using a North American malt like Gambrinus.

Additionally, I prefer a thick mash (~1.1 quarts/pound) during
saccrification, as it tends to hold temperature better than a thin mash.
By the time I get to mashing out and lautering, though, my mash is pretty
thin (~1.4 quarts/pound), because I add boiling water to help heat the mash
to mashout temperatures.

I can't stress enough that something seemed wrong with this mash -- the
grain just wasn't behaving the way good pale ale malt should.  It is hard
to describe (for me at least), but any all-grain brewer would have known
that something was wrong by looking at it.  As an example:  during
saccrification and later while doing the mashout rest, the grist usually
settles a bit in the mash/lauter tun so that when you look in, you see a
layer of wort liquid atop the grist, and when you stir it up, the grist
feels somewhat packed down.  During the mash with the Crisp malt, that
never happened  --  it never settled, and felt _very_ loose when stirred.

I realize that there shouldn't be any great trick to getting a good mash
and lauter with this malt, and contrary to what Alex seems to assume, I do
know what I'm doing.  That's why I was so surprised when my brew did not go
well.

As an added note, I received an e-mail from a homebrewer in Texas named Ben
Pollard yesterday.  He wrote that he had also recently used some Crisp
malt, and said that though he used the same procedures that he always had,
he had the same sparging problems with it that I did.  This makes me a
little more comfortable with my hypothesis that I received a sack that was
part of a bad batch of grain.

Mike

Michael Dowd                       Whoever makes a poor beer is transferred
Yeastie Boy Brewing               to the dung-hill.
Pittsburgh, PA
mikedowd at geocities.com         -Edict, City of Danzig, 11th Century

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 12:45:24 UT
From: Don Van Valkenburg <DONVANV at msn.com>
Subject: Agave nectar

Does anyone know anything about brewing with agave?   Agave is the plant that 
tequila is made from.  I recently came across a supplier for this product and 
I'm thinking of stocking it in my brewing supply store.  It sounds interesting 
but, I don't know anything about this stuff.   I got small samples of clear 
agave and dark agave (the color is something between amber and dark malt 
extract) the taste of the clear is not very distinctive, however the dark has 
lots of flavor.   Got any ideas?  I would appreciate any information or 
speculation as to how to use agave nectar. 

    The product information sheet says:
Agave Nectar is a natural food sweetener.  It may be used to sweeten any type 
of beverage or food.  

It is derived from the carbohydrates present in the Blue Agave (Tequilana 
Weber) through a form of fructose called inulin or fructosan.  

These carbohydrates are broken down to produce a syrup with a high content of 
fructose (90- 93%). 

	Solids%----	75-77
	Humidity%---	23 - 25
	pH (Undiluted)	5 - 6
	Ash gr./dl.	0.13 - 1.64*
		*(depends on the level of clarification and color desired)

Any input or ideas would be appreciated.
Don Van Valkenburg
Stein Fillers Brewing Supply
	
   

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:57:31 -0800
From: Alan Rodgers <alanr at greyware.com>
Subject: RE: Heineken

On Friday, January 17, 1997 11:06 AM, Bob =
Bessette/PicTel[SMTP:Bob_Bessette at smtpnotes.pictel.com] wrote:

>  Up until I went to Holland about a month ago and stayed about 2
>  miles from the Heineken brewery I would've agreed with you
>  about Heineken being skunk beer. But after having tried it in
>  Holland I would have to say that it is much different there. It's
>  like comparing Guiness here to Guiness in Ireland. You can't
>  really compare the two. But good point... Any Heineken I
>  have tried here has been skunk beer and I can't imagine
>  wanting to clone it.=20

	I've never had green-bottled beer imported from Europe that _didn't_ =
have that skunky flavor.

	I'm not sure why, but the couple of European imports I've had that've =
come in clear bottles weren't anywhere near so skunky. Maybe the green =
glass filters some special quality of light into the bear?

	I can't remember ever getting that particular flavor out of =
brown-bottled beer. Why do they use green glass for beer bottles, =
anyway?
- --=20
http://www.sff.net/people/alanr/
news://news.sff.net/sff.people.alan-rodgers

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:35:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Subject: Re: Crip Marris Otter & stuck sparge (Alex Santic)

Sayeth Mike Dowd:
>I realize that there shouldn't be any great trick to getting a good mash
>and lauter with this malt, and contrary to what Alex seems to assume, I do
>know what I'm doing.  That's why I was so surprised when my brew did not go
>well.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to hurt your pride. You had asked for
suggestions and it's hard for anyone who hasn't got the stuff in their
hands to say, "Don't worry Mike, you just got a bad batch of grain." I
didn't think many bad batches of grain got around, and the other likely
alternative was procedural. 

What I am curious about now is whether you can confirm this hypothesis
with your senses. Maybe the grain is old, improperly malted, or somehow
mistreated. How does it look/fell/smell/taste? Since it's behaving so 
strangely in the mash, I'd think there'd be some defect evident in it. 

- --
Alex Santic - alex at salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:55:44 -0500
From: David Reynolds <dreynolds at cyburban.com>
Subject: Re: Crisp Marris Otter

In HBD V2 #37 Mike Dowd reports his problems with Marris Otter Pale
Malt.  I've used this malt in 2 batches with no problems, in fact both
ales (ESB and a Best Bitter) have a great malt character.  I did a
single infusion of 1.33 qts/lb  resulting in a thinner mash than Mike's
method (adding up his infusions gives 1.1 qts/lb.)  The saccharification
was at 152 deg for 1 hour.  I didn't write down the sparge duration but
it was not long.

David Reynolds

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 01:32:56 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: CO2 -- how much?

Jeremy Bergsman points out that I flipped my fraction in my earlier
posting.

CO2 weighs 2 grams per liter, so divide all my numbers by 4.  You'll
get 7-8 kegs from a 5lb bottle of CO2, not 30.

=Spencer

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 03:40 CST
From: postmaster at swpe06.sw.lucent.com
Subject: [No Subject Provided By Sender]

>From postmaster Wed Jan 22 03:40:45 1997
Subject: smtp mail failed
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2463

Your mail to swen01.lucent.com is undeliverable.
- ---------- diagnosis ----------
<<< 554 Transaction failed -- I/O error
- ---------- unsent mail ----------
>From uucp Wed Jan 22 03:40 CST 1997 remote from swpe06
>From homebrew Tue Jan 21 18:38:29 0700 1997 remote from dionysus.aob.org
Received: from dionysus.aob.org by swpe06.sw.lucent.com; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 03:40 CST
Received: by ihgp0.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
	id DAA00590; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 03:48:28 -0600
Received: from ihig1.firewall.lucent.com by ihgp0.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
	id DAA00585; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 03:48:24 -0600
Received: by ihig1.firewall.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-L sol2)
	id DAA28952; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 03:52:51 -0600
Received: by ihgw1.lucent.com; Wed Jan 22 03:41 CST 1997
Received: (from dionysus at localhost) by dionysus.aob.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA20190 for homebrew-digest-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:38:29 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:38:29 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199701220138.SAA20190 at dionysus.aob.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: dionysus.aob.org: dionysus set sender to owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org using -f
From: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org (Homebrew Digest)
To: homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #40
Reply-To: homebrew at dionysus.aob.org
Sender: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Errors-To: owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 41910


Homebrew Digest       Tuesday, January 21 1997       Volume 02 : Number 040



Procedures:

To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <your email address>"
   in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

1	Post-brew water adjustments
2	Killing yeast with O2 (Alex Santic)
3	Homebrew Digest V2 #38

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 07:49:10 -0500
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com>
Subject: re: sea salt (Dave Whitman

 In HBD#40, Nathan L. Kanous II <nkanous at tir.com> says:

>With regards to sea salt and iodine, iodine is added to 
>Morton's iodized salt.  It does not naturally accompany "salt" (i.e.
NaCl).  Iodine was 
>added to salt in an attempt to supplement the diet in areas with low
iodine contents in 
>the soil and thus in foods.  Geographic areas came to be known for
"endemic goiters" 
>because of the lack of iodine in the local diet.  Iodine in iodized salt
would have a 
>negative effect on yeast, just as with iodophor.  Sea salt, on the other
hand, should 
>not have iodine in it unless it has been fortified.

Nathan is confusing his oxidation states.  Iodized salt contains added
sodium iodide, NOT iodine. Iodine is I(0), whereas iodide is the reduced
form I(-1).    Unlike Iodine, Iodide is unreactive, and probably has little
or no toxicity to yeast.  Iodide occurs naturally (albeit at low levels) in
sea water.  Sodium iodide is produced commercially by extraction from sea
water, or from natural salt deposits (which are basically dried up sea
water).  Iodized salt contains a higher than normal level of iodide
relative to sea salt.

Iodophore is a complexed form of iodine (I(0)), with reactivity similar to
free iodine.
Dave Whitman     dwhitman at rohmhaas.com
"The opinions expressed are those of the author, and not Rohm and Haas Co."

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:53:24 -0500
From: Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan at bmd.cpii.com>
Subject: Force Carbonation...

Joe Rolfe said:
>well from my and several other commercial brewers there IS a big difference.
>forced/jacked up co2 take more time to mellow out, no i dont have technical
>articles on this (does anyone?) but it is very apparent thru blind taste
panels 
>we have done (and others).  actually artifical co2 produces large bubbles for
>a period of time, top yeast tended to produce smaller bubbles and bottom
>yeast <seemed> to produce the finest bubbles of all.  the yeasted beers
>were (of course) bottle conditioned, same beer, same primings(both were
>fermented out). from this the only difference was bottle conditioning
>temperature.
>taste wise all the panelist mentioned a harsh (carbonic??) bite to the
>artificial
>carb and smooth carbonation to the yeasted beers. over time the carbonic bite 
>does mellow and the head is better but the retention was still much better
>in yeasted beers.

Hi Joe.

My (limited) homebrew experience has been that there is no significant
difference between naturally carbonating and force carbonating.  Of course,
I don't have to get my beer ready for market and may give it more time than
a commercial brewer can reasonably give and still make money...

I have wondered if the coarse carbonation is caused by filtering the beer.
I would *guess* that breweries that filter their beer heavily will force
carbonate.  Maybe the lack of fine particles in the filtered beer is
responsible for the coarse carbonation - after all, look how coarse the
bubbles are in club soda.

Bob

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McCowan                            
                                     
ATG/Receiver-Protector            voice:  (508)-922-6000 x208
CPI BMD				    fax:  (508)-922-8914
Beverly, MA  01915               e-mail:  bob.mccowan at bmd.cpii.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 07:44:28 -0600
From: "J. Nasiatka" <Jwylde at interaccess.com>
Subject: SF Bay Area Brewers

Hey all!

Looks like the Homo-Heights Brewery is uprooting and leaving
Chicago for San Francisco - any other Bay Area Brewers out
there interested in linking up?

Jamie

All the money in the world is no match for hard work and ingenuity...
 ____
 \  /   Nothing is so strong as Gentleness;       JWylde at interaccess.com
  \/       nothing so gentle as real strength           Nasiatka at anl.gov

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:13:19 -0500
From: Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering <gmoore at wacko.East.Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Plastic Conical Fermenters

> came accross a web page that had 30 gallon 2 hole plastic barrels for ~$27,
> and thought  Hmm..  30 gallons of beer...  wow!
> 
> my questions are this...
> 
> 1) has anyone tried this?  
> 2) how do think i could steralize these things?  they are not open, but
> have to holes fist sized in the top.  hard to get into them.


A local "Brew-On-Premisses" business uses big plastic drums.  Since the
batches are 13.5 gallons, I'd estimate that the drums have about 20 Gal
capacity.  They used a plastic bag insert in the drum.   The plastic is
clear, not white or black like a garbage bag.  I don't know if this was
something they have custom made or what.  The plastic bag was brought
out the hole in the top and a rubber stoppered airlock placed in the
hole for fermentation.

Since the wort never directly touched the plastic drum, there was no
need to sterilize the drum itself.

- -=G

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:07:45 -0500
From: "Kevin R. Sinn" <skinner at MNSi.Net>
Subject: Signs of infection

Fellow Brewers:

About a week ago, I posted an article concerning a seemingly prolonged
fermentation.  I brewed a red ale using Wyeast 1084, and the fermentation
process seemed to take a long time.  The primary was vigorous, and lasted
about 3 days before it started to slow down.  I racked to secondary after 7
days, and still had signs of activity.  The beer sat in secondary for about
10 days, and there was always a little foam on top, and the airlock was
still going at about 1 bubble/minute.

I kegged this batch this past Monday evening, and when I sampled the beer,
it was slightly carbonated.  Previous batches have been flat (or nearly so)
when bottling time came.

Is this a sign of some sort of bacterial action, or is it just a lengthy
fermentation?  Am I reading too much into this?

Not worried, just curious.

Thanks!

- -KRS

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:42:20 -0500
From: Keith Hazen <105063.2531 at compuserve.com>
Subject: liquid extract

Al writes:
>Why anyone would have liquid malt extract sitting around at all is beyond
me...<

What's the reason Al? I have a 50# bucket (wholesale prices) that I've been
brewing from for quite a while. I have noticed that when I bought DME from
the homebrew store that my beers were a little better, so I've been
thinking my most recent batches might be a result of that liquid extract
aging a bit. Maybe, since bacteria like extract in any form that they are
contributing to some off flavors before I even add it to my brew. What do
you think?

I am currently making my all grain set-up, so I expect to switch on my next
batch. I planned on keeping the extract around to dial in gravities or
prime with on the occasions when I bottle. Any thoughts.

Keith Hazen
Bremerton WA

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 11:03:59 -0500
From: DENNIS WALTMAN <PDWALTMAN at sablaw.com>
Subject: Long rest at 140 and other errors

For our second all-grain brewing attempt, my father (my brewing
partner) and I were going to try a simple infusion mash, using the no
sparge method.  Our first all-grain was a double decotion mash, shown
to us by my much more experienced brother around Christmas.

Once again when the water and grain were mixed the temp was too low. 
We added near boiling water, mixing well, and it was still too low,
and we were near 1.5 quarts per pound.  The temp was at or around 140.
 By this time we suspected our thermometers and were using three
[140F, 142F, 140F].  We decided to do a decotion.  Through a comedy of
errors (including running out of propane and having to drive out and
get a refill), the grain remained in the mash tun for nearly 90
minutes at 140 F.  We took the third of the thick, did the decotion
which brought it up to 158 F.  After 30 minutes the iodine test showed
no starch.  The mashout was done with a thin decotion.  The no sparge
got 3 gallons of 1.080 wort which we diluted to 5 gallons of 1.050;
added extra for boil, and went as normal.

The grain bill was: 6 lbs of munich, 6 lbs of vienna (more on this
later), 2.5 lbs of crystal (1/2 30L, 1/2 50L), .1 lb of black patent.

What did the rest at 140 F for nearly 90 minutes do to the beer?  Any
serious harm?  And will the "double decotion, no sparge" make a beer
too malty?  It is for a dark lager, and we are using the Wyeast
Bavarian Lager yeast.

For the grain bill I had wanted 6 lbs of dark munich, and 6 lbs of
light munich.  The homebrew store owner had said that he sometimes
gets bags of light munich and sometimes vienna, and that is all the
same.  That was not the impression I got from reading, but perhaps
they are close enough for homebrew purposes?

I have acid blend I have used for mead making.  Can I use that to
acidify my sparge water (when next I sparge)?  Lactic acid seems not
in supply in the two shops I frequent.  I've been told to use gypsum
in the sparge water, but again it was my understanding that it was not
effective as using acid.

Anyone know of a place to get a good, digital thermometer, or two?

Thanks in Advance, private email is OK.

Dennis Waltman
PDWALTMAN at SABLAW.COM
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:11:02 +0000
From: George Schamel <george.schamel at ast.lmco.com>
Subject: Problems with a fast sparge?

<lurker mode off>

Hello all,

I've been brewing a while and am currently using a RIMS system in a 
15.5 gal. keg, stainless steel false bottom, bottom fired, & 
recirculated to the top.  On Sunday, due to a lack of attention, my
initial sparge went very fast and then I slowed it down for the 
last 4 gallons.  Total sparge time was about 35 min to collect 12 gal.
of sweet wort.  I know that total extraction efficiency suffers with
a fast sparge but are there any other negative effects on the beer?

More info
8 lbs DWC Pils malt
8 lbs Gam. Brown Malt
0.5 lbs British Chocolate malt

roughly a 40-60-70 mash schedule

30 min initial boil
3.5 oz. Cascade alpha=4.3% 60 min
2 oz cascade 10 min
2 oz cascade 2 min

OG = 1.046 with 10 gal. in the fermenters

this amounts to 460points/16.5 lbs = 27.8 pts/lb
usual yield for this system and a 60 min sparge is 31 pts/lb

So I did loose some sugar extract, but what are any other ill effects
observed or known???


George Schamel   High Altitude Homebrew
                 10000 ft and still brewin'

<lurker mode on>

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:54:01 -0700
From: Jeff Sturman <brewshop at coffey.com>
Subject: large fermenters

A couple of recent posts have brought up the subject of large, affordable
fermenters.  I have a wine making customer who bought two 55 gallon hdpe
drums for about $35 each.  He uses them to make 40 gallon batches of wine
and mead and is completely satisfied with the performance.  Look under
"Barrels and Drums" in your yellow pages for a close supplier.  I believe
the drums are 15 mil in thickness, but I'm not quite sure on that.  I have
seen them however and they are at least 1/8" in thickness with a removable
top which is fastened to the drum with a metal ring and a screw clamp.  The
lids also have a removable plug which allows you to attach a length of 1"
diameter hose.

jeff
casper, wy

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 11:58:23 -0500
From: Rory Stenerson <71762.1664 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Inexpensive "Beer King" Taps

Greetings everyone,

About fifteen years ago I purchased a "Beer King" 5litre keg tap for
drinking imported beer.  At the time I paid roughly $12-15.00 for it.  It
was made in W. Germany and it's made mostly of black plastic except for a
stainless column that sits inside the black plastic column that is inserted
into the keg.  It uses either 16g or 8g CO2 cartidges.  The tap handle was
just a little plastic lever that snaps on to the end of the it (that I've
since misplaced or lost.)

The taps currently being sold by most homebrew supply shops are more
elaborate and made of aluminum but cost in the neighborhood of $35-55.00. 
I can no longer find the inexpensive variety that I have and I would like
to buy another for times when I want to entertain with two different beer
styles.  It seems like the only ones you can get now for less than $20 are
the really cheap (and worthless) gravity taps.  I bought mine originally at
a liquor store in the Chicago area.  Does anyone know of a beer retailer
that sells these inexpensive "Beer King" taps?  I would be interested in
buying a used tap if someone has one laying around collecting dust also

Rory Stenerson,
State College Underground Maltsters (S.C.U.M.), Board Member
State College, PA, U.S.A.

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:25:35 -0800
From: "Stuart E. Strand" <sstrand at saul.u.washington.edu>
Subject: Quality of cold break with immersion chillers?

I have been thinking about how to get rid of more trub in my brewing
without introducing additional steps and possibly saving one.  

Presently I use a counterflow chiller and ferment for about 5-7 days in
the primary, prior to racking to secondary.  I would like to remove the
cold break trub to give me more freedom in when I rack to secondary but I
don't want to introduce an addditional sedimentation and racking step
after chilling. So I am considering using an immersion chiller in the
boiler to bring the wort to 60-70F, then allowing the cold break to settle
out on the hop bed with the hot bread before I transfer through a screened
tap to the fermenters.  Minimizing the trub in this way I might be able to
eliminate the secondary racking and let the brew ferment out and clarify
in the primary for 2 weeks before racking directly to kegs.  

However, I have been told that to get a good cold break the wort needs to
be chilled rapidly, within a few seconds.  For this reason immersion
chillers are supposed to produce a poorly settling cold break. 

Can anyone with experience with immersion chillers enlighten me on this 
point?

Stuart Strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sstrand at u.washington.edu
Box 352100, U. Washington, Seattle WA 98195  voice/fax: 206-543-5350

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:56:06 -0500
From: Ed & Laura Hitchcock <ehitchcock at oise.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Yeast and O2

Alex Santic writes:
>Do you know what happens if you give a starter flask a good blast of O2 >after the Wyeast pack has already been poured into it, and then give it a >shake? Nada. Murderized yeast. 

	Was this a wyeast pack that had already puffed up, ie do you know the
yeast was viable beforehand?  In a non-pressurized vessel there is a
limit to how much O2 can dissolve in wort, and that limit should not be
toxic to yeast.  How much liquid did you have, and what constitutes a
"good blast"?

>If I add a starter to the primary after
>oxygenating with an airstone, do I need to worry? Normally I'd shake the
>carboy a little bit just to mix the yeast into the wort, but what about
>the O2 in the headspace and the O2 foam...does it cause casualties when it
>mixes into the wort? Should there be a waiting period before pitching? 

	Shouldn't be a problem, but let's try to figure out what happened with
your starter just in case.

	***

Eric.Fouch writes:
> The other coil, I just worked the existing
>coil into smaller concentrically increasing spirals by hand.  I ended up with
>a 25 foot coil with about a 3 inch wide open spot in the center that aint
>pretty, but fits my kettle.  It cooled both worts (at different times) to 85F
>from 190F in about 15-20 minutes.  No stirring.  Not bad.

	The no stirring part is what I like best, it lets the break and hops
settle nicely.  And to set the record straight, yes I did start the use
of the term "planispiral" (from snail shell coiling morphology), no I
didn't invent the flat coil chiller (check out the Zymurgy 1992 special
edition) but I may have been first to suggest suspending it at the top
of the wort.

	***
David R. Burley writes:
>CO2 is one of those creatures that forms structures with hydrogen bonding
>liquids that you don't learn about in freshman chemistry.  These clathrates can
>be pressure dependent and can have unusual physical properies.  Surfactants
>(such as proteins, etc.) can affect clathrate rate of formation and
>disappearance.  CO2 can also form association complexes with any number of
>compounds, which could theoretically aid in producing a more stable CO2
>solution.

	CO2 from Yeast and CO2 from a can are both CO2.  The only difference is
that in one case it is released into solution from suspended yeast, and
the other it dissolves into solution from the surface.  Once it is in
solution, given that everything els is equal, the same bizzarre
complexes should form in either case.

>How do you explain the stability of CO2 in beer in terms of basic principles?
>Pour a glass one day and it may still be fizzy the next day, particularly if it
>is a beer which has good head forming properties and especially if it is
>naturally conditioned. Filtered, force carbonated beer like BudMilloors will
>likely be flat.        ^^^^^^^^

	I think this is the key.  Filtered beer definitely has fewer proteins
in solution, and has larger bubbles and poor head retention.

> Perhaps the
>CO2 formation from a yeast has a different  solvent cluster formation pathway
>than just dissolving the CO2 in the liquid and it remains in a sort of complex
>solvent state which has an energy barrier and therefore is slower to break up. I
>only speculate since I don't know and don't know anyone who does.  

	Doubtful.  CO2 released from the reactions in the mitochondria in yeast
diffuses into the cytoplasm, and from there diffuse out through the cell
membrane. even if active transport is used the stuff is pumped out one
carbonat ion at a time.  Besides, bubble size is not so much a property
of the rate of gas release, but of viscocity and surface tension.

>It may also be that yeast decomposition products provide a better surface active
>group of compounds that somehow affect the size of the bead.  As you know, the
>diacetyl rest has several activites - to carbonate the beer, purge undesirable
>volatiles, reduce many compounds chemically and take up all the dissolved
>oxygen. Extending the yeast activity through natural carbonation could bring

	What about the quick & dirty ale brewers among us who don't use a
diacetyl rest?

>about other chemical changes not found in filtered and force carbonated beer.
                                           ^^^^^^^^
>Such chemical changes could affect the chemical compostion and the bubble size
>formation.

	There's that word filtered again!  When you filter it you strip not
only yeast but proteins as well, reducing the heading properties,
decreasing viscocity and increasing bubble size.

>It may also be something as simple as the naturally carbonated beers have more
>yeast in them which acts as nucleation sites producing finer bubbles than the
>relatively cleaner beer which has been filtered and force carbonated, fewer
                                        ^^^^^^^^
>nucleation sites and fewer, bigger bubbles.

>In short, I don't know. I have never done an actual experiment to prove it one
>way or another ( other than drink lots of beer of both kinds).  I can only ( as
>can most of us) depend on what other, supposedly reputable people impart to us
>until we are energized enough to do a proper ( and in this case difficult with
>so many parameters) experiment ourselves.

	Here's the experiment:  Brew one batch of beer, split it into four
parts. Filter two parts, let the other two parts drop clear.  In one of
each of the filtered and non-filtered portions bottle with a small dose
of fresh yeast and corn sugaer, the other portion of each carbonate
artificially.  This way we end  up with four combinations: 1) filtered
naturally carbonated, 2) filtered artificially carbonated, 3)
un-filtered naturally carbonated, 4) un-filtered artificially
carbonated.  If anyone has four 5 L minikegs they want put to good
scientific use that would be great, and the more sample data we get the
better.  My money is on both filtered samples having larger bubbles and
less head retention, but if I'm wrong, at least it gives us something
more than annecdotal musing to go on!

	Cheers
	ed.

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:22 -0600
From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com>
Subject: mash and enzymes

collective homebrew conscience:

gdp recently wrote:

>     Eric asks for comments about his technique of starting 
>     saccharification at 158F and letting the temp drop to 140F.
     
>     Well, in short, you can't work backwards with mash enzymes.
     
>     The high initial heat will denature the beta amylase.  As the 
>     temperature drops all that you will achieve is slowing down the 
>     surviving alpha amylase.  You'll get conversion, but a highly 
>     dextrinous wort.

an added point on this topic:  alpha and beta attack different links in the
starch chains.  very generally, alpha works best on big starch chains, and 
beta handles smaller pieces.  if you wanted to maximize enzyme activity, it
would be advantageous to let alpha work first, then turn the beta loose on
the results of alpha's work.  as george points out above, this is hard to do
with an infusion mash, as alpha's highest activity occurs at a temperature
that denatures beta rather quickly.  a decoction mash, however,  achieves
the goal of letting alpha do considerable starch reduction (in the pulled
decoction) before beta does its work (at recombination).  if carried to an
extreme, this can create quite a  dry beer, since a larger fraction of
the available starch is reduced to maltose as compared with an infusion 
mashed beer.  

i find that i achieve drier finishes in general with my decoction mashed 
beers, compared to infusion beers saccharified at similar temperatures.
i suppose this is due in part to the preservation of beta in the rest mash 
past the alpha activity that occurs on the stovetop.  this doesn't mean a 
decoction mashed beer can't be dextrinous and full bodied with a higher 
finishing gravity, of course.


al k wrote:
          

> Yes, perhaps your air is cleaner than mine, or perhaps you
>simply have a high sensory threshold for phenolic aromas/flavours.


i would guess that my wintertime air is probably cleaner than your summertime
air.  i don't have the most sensitive palate in the world, but i've never
picked up phenolics where they weren't supposed to be, and neither have any
of the judges.  but, again, i don't brew in the summer.  this is an important
difference, probably.

and by the way, i don't see anything wrong with filtering air for aeration.  i
find that if i don't take precautions such as this, i end up worrying after
the fact, when the beer is in the fermenter.  i'd rather be concerned ahead
of time, take appropriate action to relieve my concerns, and then relax and
have a brew later.  

by the way, for all you guys using air to aerate, how much foam over do you 
get, typically?  just curious.

brew hard, 

mark bayer

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 10:25:27 PST
From: mikehu at lmc.com
Subject: large fermenters

Greetings -
Brander R. asks the following about large batches:
>....Fermenting in large batchs.  so i got to
>thinking....  (i know it gets me in trouble. :)
>
>what to ferment in?  i wanted to do Oak Cask, but the price is
>prohibitive.  so i was thinking of acceptable substitutes and came
>accross a web page that had 30 gallon 2 hole plastic barrels for ~$27,
>and thought  Hmm..  30 gallons of beer...  wow!
>
>my questions are this...
>
>1) has anyone tried this?
>2) how do think i could steralize these things?  they are not open, but
>have to holes fist sized in the top.  hard to get into them.
>3) how would i scale up batch size, and work in 30 gallon batches using
>a 15 gallon converted keg brewing kettle (when i get it set up)?
>4) comments, other ideas?

Brander, I would suggest 15.5 Gal. sankey kegs with the down-tube removed.
I brew in a converted keg system (15 gallons at a time) and it just made
sense to use these. I've got two sankey's that I have been using as large
fermenters for at least a year now. They work great. If I feel the need to 
rack to a secondary, I just reattach the down-tube, connect a tap, and then
use CO2 to push the beer out. (no oxidation - nada) I cut off about 1" from
the bottom of this down-tube so that the yeast on the bottom is left behind.
I got a large cork and drilled a hole in the center big enough for a 1" 
blow-off tube, and another rubber stopper with a smaller hole for an air-lock.
(size 11, I believe) It's very important to use a large blow-off tube at first,
due to the much more vigorous ferment you will experience with 15 gallons. If
you don't believe me, check out my first experience with one of these in the 
HBD archives at: http://alpha.rollanet.org/hbd/archive/1983.html#1983-27

You can use any sanitizer except bleach to sanitize these.(bleach corrodes SS) 
Scaling up is not a problem, but I don't know if you are using extract or grain
I routinely brew 30 gallons and sometimes 45 gallons in a single day with this
system. I mash in one converted keg, open a valve (2" ball-valve) and let the
grains flow into my lauter tun (90 quart cooler). while I'm sparging this batch
I start the mash for the next batch. The wort flows from the cooler into the
next converted keg, where it is boiled. Works like a champ. 
Mike H. 
Portland, OR

Return to table of contents


End of HOMEBREW Digest #2321