HOMEBREW Digest #2343 Tue 11 February 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Malt Moisture,Sparging, ("David R. Burley")
  Botulism/Iodophor $$$ (jim_anderson)
  botulism ("Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM")
  Re: Drilling enamel pots (216) 397-4352" <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
  Decoction from Hell (Paul Niebergall)
  Botulism ("Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM")
  botulism ("Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM")
  Re: Botulism (smurman)
  Wyeast 3787, trappist High gravity (Mark Preston)
  re:  wyeast #2112 California Lager (Jim Bentson)
  Pumpkin Beer (nkanous)
  re: Inverted fermentation ("C.D. Pritchard")
  (Fwd) (Fwd) correction to U.SOpen announcment. ("Keith Royster")
  Errors and bitterness ("David R. Burley")
  Botulism (Katy or Delano DuGarm)
  Re:Bavarian Weizen - Recipe?  Yeast source? (Brad Anesi)
  Stainless Steel Pots (Brad Anesi)
  canning wort (Louis Gordon)
  Re: Restoring exterior of corny kegs (Ganister Fields Architects)
  Re: Beer Yeast Bread (Jeff Renner)
  Airstones/Bitter Wort/dePiro and Bile/Wheeler's Porter (Rob Moline)
  Tsing Tao Beer (Todd Dillinger)
  Extract potential of Crystal (Jim Bentson)
  How Accurate is SUDSW Color Calcs (ESB SRM)? (Charles Burns)
  Skunk Thread (Cuchulain Libby)
  typo (pedwards)
  More HSA/Package O2/Cell counts (A. J. deLange)
  re:  BORING (Bill Giffin)
  Dropping question (bdebolt)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at: http://brew.oeonline.com/ If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 08 Feb 97 11:39:55 EST From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Malt Moisture,Sparging, Brewsters: Ken Schwartz comments on the dryness of Guy Gregory's malt: > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:50:41 -0500 (EST) > A very happy Waitangi Day to our friends in New Zealand. > My experience with M&F 2-row pale ale malt is.... 5 > lb/gal. > > Guy's raw grain weighed 45/5 or 9 lb/gal. He malted ..... for a "density" .... > 8.2 lb/gal. Compare this with the 5 lb/gal "density" of commercial malt. > Looks like your moisture content was still up there. > > ***** But first - Happy Waitangi Dye to you too! even though you were a day late from their perspective - remember the date line. Having done home malting on several occasions, I was impressed by Guy's success and methods on his first go-round. If Guy started out with 10 pounds of barley and ended up with 9 pounds of malt, assuming some losses from physical ( grains and rootlets) and chemical (CO2 evolution) (( total losses around 10 -15 % on a dry weight basis are typical for commercial malting)) causes, it looks like he got back to, at least approximately, the original moisture content of the original barley (whatever that was). Hand dry malt has a moisture content of 5-8% and is then ready for curing at a higher temperature. Your calculations show a 8.5 - 5 = 3.5 or moisture content of at least 40% of the original barley or 70% on a dry weight basis, which I'm sure doesn't match Guy's original description of the barley being market ready. M&BS says barley may come to the market with a moisture content of 15-25% but in order to store it successfully it should be below this range or stored in special ventilated bins. Given this information of losses and typical moisture content in barley and malt, Guy's results have some creditbility. Either I don't understand your calculations which appear straight-forward or there's something incorrect in your assumptions or whatever. It jingles with cognative dissonance. Guy should dry small samples of both at about 212F to a constant weight to determine the actual % moisture for all of our edification. Guy?? - -------------------------------------------------------- Randy is about to leap into that all-grain universe of infininte variations and asks: > I was thinking about taking 60% of the grain bill for a 5 gallon recipe > to convert it to 3 gallons, and then adding 1/3 more grain as an offset for > the no sparge. > > Does this look workable to any of you? Yep > If so, should I use the first runnings only, or should I also think about > doing a batch sparge on top of this? To combine the sparge water with the first runnnings or to make a separate small beer, OK. If you have thoroughly converted the starch you will have more trub, but not a big deal. My feeling is that too much is being made of the difficulties of sparging. I look at it as a process step just like mashing or boiling, you wouldn't not do them, so why not sparge? Not sparging may serve as an intermediate step, but it is far from a difficult step and I would encourage all to move onto it as soon as possible - even the first all grain batch. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 97 09:36:00 -0700 From: jim_anderson at state.ut.us Subject: Botulism/Iodophor $$$ I'm pretty concerned about the botulism thread, since I've been "canning" (not pressure-cooking) wort for about 7 months now. I've got a couple more questions that I'd like to throw out: 1) Has anyone ever heard of a botulism case resulting from beer? 2) Is it possible that the well-known "preservative effects" of hops also counteract botulism? 3) What about the alcohol environment? 4) I know that there are lab tests for botulism -- does anyone know of any for *home* use? On another topic, I've found a way to save money on iodophor that I wanted to share. Many of you probably already knew about this. Go to your local restaurant supply and buy iodine-based sanitizers by the gallon. My best deal (so far) is $23.69 for a gallon of a product made by Diversey. One word of caution, however: be sure to check the dilution rates required for your desired ppm's. I found another similar product for only $6.40/gal. *but* it required five times as much to reach the same ppm. BTW, they also had some *fantastic* deals on kettles, utensils, measuring devices, thermometers, you name it. (The exact same thermometer that I'd paid $12 for in the brewshop was selling for $3.90!) A trip to your local restaurant supply will be *well* worth your while! Many of them also carry used equipment as well. - Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:53:00 -0600 From: "Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM" <GoodaleD at hood-emh3.army.mil> Subject: botulism Delano DuGarm warns: ....While botulism is quite rare, it is most often caused by home-canned food, and its effects are irreversable....... While we all agree that botulinum toxin can be hazardous to one's health, it is not a particularly stable chemical. It can easily be destroyed by heating the effected liquid to 80 C for 30 minutes or boil for 15 minutes. If your starter was crawling with botulism toxin, you may want to put it in the microwave and nuke it for 20 min. But then again, why take chances? Boltulinum toxin is several hundred thousand times more deadly than VX (a nerve agent as seen (not very accurately) in the annoying movie "The Rock"). BTW, I'd like to see what has caused more deaths, botulism or pressure canning accidents? Daniel Goodale, lagering at NTC Biohazard Brewing Company Home of the zero-gee brew in a lung brew kit. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 12:56:26 -0500 (EST) From: "PAUL SHICK (216) 397-4352" <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu> Subject: Re: Drilling enamel pots Hello all, In #2340, Greg Moore asked about drilling enamel-on-steel pots, concerned about chipping problems. I've done this twice now, and I probably worried more than necessary. First, I put some masking tape on the outside of the site, to keep the drill bit from slipping and to help hold the enamel in place. Then I drilled an 1/8th inch guide hole, with a fairly low speed cordless drill, with no problems. For the main drilling, I used a new 3/8th inch high speed bit. On my first kettle, I made the mistake of using my slow corless drill, which bent up the steel a bit. A 1200 RPM corded drill did just fine for cleaning up the first hole and drilling the second kettle. Maybe I got lucky, but I got no noticable chipping. The bare steel edges are covered up by the edges of the Easymashers that I installed. By the way, switching to the Easymasher (from a Phalse bottomed bucket) made my brewing day much more pleasant (no scooping into a lauter tun, the sweet wort cleared almost instantly, and the sparge was completely problem-free, despite lots of sticky things in the mash.) But my extraction rate fell a few points from what I had been getting. Part of this might be the lack of insulation on the kettle letting the mash cool too much, so I'll adjust my sparging temperature. Has anyone else noticed lower extraction with an Easymasher? Paul Shick Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 12:45:05 -0600 From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Decoction from Hell Hello, I've been reading for awhile and came across the post from Chuck about the decoction from hell. What Chuck is describing sounds really close to what I have been doing for the last 10 batches or so. I won't try to kid anyone and say that I regularly do decoction mashes. I call it Modified Decoction Step Mashing (MDSM). Basically, instead of adding infusions of boiling water, I pull off some of the main mash, heat it to a boil and then add it back to the main mash to acheive the next temperature rest. I use a kitchen strainer (colander?) to pull out the grain and place it in a two-gallon pot that already contains about ? gallon of boiling water. This way I am not boiling (deactivating) the ezyme rich broth in the main mash. The boiling water helps to heat the decoction quicker and it helps to bring the main mash to the next step when I add it back to the main mash. I usually don't heat the decoction much longer then it takes to get it to a good rolling boil. It has taken me quite awhile to get a good feel for the amount of decoction to pull in order to achieve the the next rest temperature. If you try this, don't be shy and pull just a little bit of main mash to see how it works. It generally takes a hell of a lot more than you would think, and them some. I good thermometer is critical so you can make sure you are not overshooting (or undershooting) your nest rest temp. Doing this quite a bit, I have found that is is a lot easier to overshoot the temp and then add ice cubes (a couple at a time) to fine tune downward to the rest temp you want. Adding ice is much preferable than pulling another dectoct. It's not really decoction, but it works great. I definately get better extraction and I have noticed a much maltier profile to all of my beers. Nazdrowie, Paul Niebergall Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:14:00 -0600 From: "Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM" <GoodaleD at hood-emh3.army.mil> Subject: Botulism Hal Ponders: .... I've heard it oft-said that there are no known pathogens in beer. Supposing that the only reason you're canning wort is to cultivate a yeast starter to make beer. If the yeast does its thing and beer is made, wouldn't that kill any botulism baddies?........ It is not the botulism baddies (Clostridium botulism) you need to worry about. They (or at least their spores) occur in soil, agricultural products, marine sediments, digestive tract of some fish and animals, in fact you may have some in your intestinal track right now! They probably will be out competed in an inoculated starter, but by then it is too late. The baddies have done their anaerobic dirty work while in the mason jar and produced one of the most lethal known substances on earth (up there with shellfish toxin). An incredibly small amount will paralyze your respiratory system and you will die in a most unpleasant way. On a happier note, only about 15% of botulism cases are fatal. However, in sublethal doses, it can damage the heart and nervous system. A near death botulism case will require many months to years to recover. Daniel Goodale (some pretty fair lagers as well) The Biohazard Brewing Company I like to think of myself as a chemical super-freak. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:47:00 -0600 From: "Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM" <GoodaleD at hood-emh3.army.mil> Subject: botulism Nothing excites me like a good discussion on botulism! Looks like a lot good sense out there on how to prevent it. I personally would go with pressure canning rather than reboiling. Even the slightest risk of ingestion of the toxin is way too much. My handy dandy biological warfare guide puts the LD50 at 7-10 nanograms (that's the amount where you can expect half the people taking it to die). A very small amount to say the least. Daniel Goodale (yes, that is my real name) The Biohazard Brewing Company Home of the VX lager. Give the gift that keeps on taking! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 11:53:20 -0800 From: smurman at best.com Subject: Re: Botulism George de Piro wrote: Scott Murman writes (quite emphatically) about the threat of botulism in stuff over pH ~4.6. He says that worts are over pH 5. Well, in my experience, worts are always below pH 5 (usually around 4.8), which may explain why nobody is dead yet. Sorry George, I wasn't trying to knock you down or anything. Remember that pH is a logarithmic scale, so the differences can be significant. The cutoff point for what are considered "strong-acid" foods which don't require pressure canning is arbitrary. Some people will recommend pressure canning everything above 4.0, others say 4.2, others still will say 4.6. The fact that Clostridium botulinum doesn't pose a risk to wort, even when severely underpitched and unaerated, also supports the notion that it cannot function in wort. There's two things here, the botulism spores and the botulism toxin. The spores themselves are everywhere, so just assume they are in whatever you're going to try to preserve (they'll come from your hands, the air, dirt, whatever). The spores themselves are harmless, but when they sprout, or whatever spores do, they create the botulism toxin. The spores will only sprout if the conditions are right; namely a near vacuum (anaerobic), with a high humidity. That pretty much describes a can of wort which has been sealed by heating and cooling, so botulism will "like wort". In fact, they probably love it, just like every other critter. Remember, we're not talking about finished beer here which has been fermented in a tank. The old saying "there are no known pathogens that can survive in beer" does not apply to canning wort. Canning wort without pressure cooking is recommended by the likes of Dave Miller, and practiced by many homebrewers. There are two things that help make it easier to can wort. The first is that wort is almost always re-boiled after it has been canned. Temperatures above 212F will kill the toxin in a relatively short time. The second thing is that wort does have a relatively high acid level, call it 4.5-5.5 depending on the wort, so it's near the cutoff level for being save to water-bath preserve. People have most definately died from preserving, it's not much of a problem these days because not many people do home canning anymore, but there are still about a dozen cases a year. Someone asked about being able to dilute the botulism toxin to safe levels by mixing it with 5 gallons of beer. NO, NO, and NO. Botulism is very nasty stuff. IF you had a quart of wort which produced the toxin over a long period of time you would have enough to wipe out an entire city. I kid you not. This is the kind of home biological terrorism that many folks at the CIA spend nights worrying about (I hope). Again, I'm not trying to freak everyone out, and I don't think everyone should rush out and buy a pressure canner, I just want to make sure everyone is educated on the subject. If you are saving your wort I would suggest using a mason jar with a fresh lid, and make sure you boil it vigorously after you open it. If you live at a significant altitude, I would suggest you educate yourself even further; it may be necessary to acidify your wort or pressure can it to be safe. SM Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:56:00 +1100 (EST) From: prestonm at labyrinth.net.au (Mark Preston) Subject: Wyeast 3787, trappist High gravity I am calling people with experience using Wyeast's 3787 Trappist high gravity, I have recantly started using thisa yeast in hope of boosting my alcohole content. The yeast does this with out a problem, but the side effect are a big problem.. My beer taste like a cross between a wine and a beer... Is this a commom problem with this yeast?? It is most defanitly not the taste I am after, anyone no more about this yeast than I please E-Mail me at prestonm at labyrinth.net.au.. Thanx in advance Cheers Mark Preston prestonm at labyrinth.net.au Brewing Beer in Melbourne, Australia.. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 21:10:03 -0500 From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at htp.net> Subject: re: wyeast #2112 California Lager CClayworks at aol.com recently wrote > Now for the neophyte question--I thought lager yeast liked it cold? The yeast-faq says #2112 ferments well to 62 F. Is that up to 62 >or down to 62? > Was I just being impatient? The Wyeast Labs pamphlet gives the fermentation range for 2112 yeast as 58-68 deg F. It also states: "Retains lager characteristics at temperatures UP TO 65 deg F and produces malty brilliantly clear beers" (emphasis mine) I had previously advocated that everyone should obtain the pamphlet. Anyone using Wyeast should pester their supplier to have a bunch handy. They are almost invaluable since Wyeast chooses NOT to give strain specific information on their packaging. Meanwhile I am tacking on a list of the temps for ALL Wyeast beer strains as copied from their pamphlet. I will try to keep the column width low so that anyone can read it so please excuse the # of lines. I also include any preferred temperature. WYEAST ALE YEAST # Name Temp (deg F) 1007 German 55 - 66 1028 London 60 - 72 1056 American 60 - 72 1084 Irish 62 - 72 1087 Blend 64 - 72 1098 British 64 - 72 (>65 Pref) 1214 Belgian 58 - 68 1272 American II 60 - 72 1275 Thames 62 - 72 1318 London III 64 - 74 1335 British II 63 - 75 1338 European 60 - 72 1388 Strong Belgian 65 - 75 1728 Scottish 55 - 70 1742 Swedish 69 - 73 1762 Belgian Abbey II 65 - 75 1968 London ESB 64 - 72 2565 Kolsch 56 - 64 3278 Belgian Lambic 63 - 75 WYEAST LAGER YEAST # Name Temp (deg F) 2007 Pilsen 48 - 56 2035 American 48 - 58 2042 Danish 46 - 56 2112 California 58 - 68 ( < 65 Pref) 2124 Bohemian 46 - 54 2178 Blend 48 - 56 2206 Bavarian 48 - 58 2247 Danish II 46 - 56 2272 N. American 48 - 56 2278 Czech Pils 48 - 64 2308 Munich 48 - 56 WYEAST WHEAT YEAST # Name Temp (deg F) 3056 Bavarian 64 - 70 3068 Weihenstephan 64 - 74 ( 68 Pref) 3333 German 63 - 75 3787 Trappist 64 - 78 3942 Belgian 64 - 74 3944 Belg. Witbier 60 - 75 Hopes this helps the collective which has taught me so much in months past Jim Bentson ( Centerport L I ) jbentson at htp.net - -- Registered ICC User check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:48:31 -0500 (EST) From: nkanous at tir.com (nkanous) Subject: Pumpkin Beer Greetings. I have made two pumpkin ales. I mashed the pumpkin in both. That's what Charlie's book says. This can be very difficult and frustration to sparge. Both batches suffered from stuck sparges. Spices in pumpkin beer? The first batch had the spices added to the boil as per Charlie's recipie. This beer had a woderful pumpkin pie aroma during the boil and in the finished beer (not as strong in the finished beer, but there). However, you had to think about it really hard to taste those spices. For the second batch, I added the spices to the secondary fermenter with nearly the opposite results. Very little spice in the nose (watch out, the ginger comes through the most) but WOW did it have the flavor! Be somewhat cautious with the ginger and nutmeg, they tended to overpower the other spices I used (cinnamon, cloves), but if you like those spices, go for it. With regards to mash / not mash the pumpkin, I don't have any data. I'll leave that to someone else. Nathan Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 09:27:44 +0700 From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net> Subject: re: Inverted fermentation Stuart E. Strand posted (in part): >Rather than the available commercial set ups for this (Brewcap and >Fermitap), I am going to make my own stand for an inverted 6.7 gal carboy. >Can anyone offer some advice? Pros and cons? I made something similar with one of those orange carboy caps which have two holes in them and a 5 gal. carboy. I used 3/8" copper tubing as the blow-off and 1/4" tubing for the "drain". Hose clamps secured the cap to the carboy and the tubes to the cap. I purposely fermented at a lower than normal temp. with a yeast I knew wouldn't give a violent ferment, but still worried alot about the small blow-off plugging and the carboy becoming a BIG grenade. It did work without doing the grenade thing and did allow for removal of the cold break and trub- along with 1/2 gal of wort (would have been less had I waited for it to settle well). If I was going to do it again, I'd use a 6.7 gal. carboy and buy the Brewcap since it is fairly widely used, is relatively inexpensive and has a relatively large blowoff tube. Until I got comfortable with the method, I'd still use a relatively slow fermenting yeast, at least c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net My brewing page: http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:58:32 +0500 From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at pex.net> Subject: (Fwd) (Fwd) correction to U.SOpen announcment. I'd like to make a breif correction to my announcement for the Carolina BrewMaster's U.S.Open Homebrewing competition. I had originally stated it would be held on the 25th of April, but it is instead to be held on Sat. 26th. My apologies. Here is the complete information again: 1997 U.S.OPEN AHA Recognized Homebrew Competition Sponsored by the Carolina BrewMasters CALL FOR ENTRIES!!! April 26th, 1996 Charlotte, NC For more information, contact us at: Web http://dezines.com/ at your.service/cbm/ site contains printable entry forms, etc. Comp. c/o Ed Gaston Organizer 4124 Johnston Oehler Rd. Charlotte, NC 28269 Comp. Co- Keith Royster Organizer email: keith.royster at pex.net phone: (704) 663-1098 (evenings) Interested in Judging, or stewarding? Contact: Bruno Wichnoski email: bruhaus at uncc.campus.mci.net phone (day): 704.375.9112 phone (eve): 704.597.5782 OR Roman Davis email: zymurgist at aol.com phone (day): 704.375.9112 phone (eve): 704.362.1688 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 Keith Royster - Keith.Royster at pex.net at your.service - http://dezines.com/ at your.service Web Services - Starting at just $60 per YEAR! Voice & Fax - (704) 662-9125 Return to table of contents
Date: 09 Feb 97 12:32:10 EST From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Errors and bitterness Brewsters: In trying to unweave this magnesium bitterness/ water/beer thread I quoted Brew Chem 101's author, Dr. Jansen, saying excess magnesium could result in bitterness and sulfate gave a fullness and dryness. The author is a PhD bio-chemist and a certified judge. AlK says in response to this: > I have read some things in HBD quoted from that book in the past, but cannot > find them because I can't reach Spencer's search engine and The Brewery's > HBD search engine rejects "Brew Chem 101." I recall that there was at least > one glaring error posted that referenced that book. Why is it you always try to belittle an author's published works and ignore a quotation of them which is in contention with your point by saying "I found an error in there"? It is logical non-sense to say "there is an error in that book therefore everything is incorrect." I am sure all books contain errors. I'm sure any author of these hobby books would be shocked to find his works in the Lake MIchigan Scrolls two thousand years from now. As you know, even translations of the Bible are in contention for contextual and translation errors and even content. I find errors extremely annoying and if there are too many, the author does lose his credibility for good authorship and it is correct to doubt his expertise at least to write in a clear and non-confusing manner. BUT it does not mean Everything in the book is incorrect. I remember you saying you had gone through one author's book ( was it Noonan's first?) and provided the editor with a list of errors. Maybe you should publish this here or at the Brewery or somewhere. That would be a useful activity we all could benefit from. Other readers could also add their list as they read these books. To settle the issue at hand, I suggest a number of us HBDers in our homes and club meetings take a Budweiser (since its quality is about as close to standard as we can get) and add Epsom Salts and other salts at various levels and compare the bitterness to see what the onset of bitterness perception induced by the salt is. Do the same experiment with water. Any thoughts as to protocol? Order, randomness, etc. AlK said: " My whole point is that just like CALCIUM sulphate increases the bitterness of beer and as sulphuric acid increases the bitterness of beer, so will MgSO4, but by the action of the sulphate on the *perceived* bitterness of the beer. Suphates accentuate the bitterness of the hops! MgSO4 *is* bitter, but it is not bitter *enough* to change the bitterness of the beer if it didn't have any hops in it!" We agree magnesium sulfate is bitter, since it is a mineral bitterness standard. The point you made some days ago and appear to be making here was that magnesium ion itself was not bitter, rather it was *just* the sulfate. Do you still support that? Personally, I would like this to be the case since it supports my theory of the cause of some of the primitive tastes, but the literature I read doesn't support it. Sulfuric acid by itself is not bitter. All acids are sour. Mineral bitterness ( due to the hydroxide ion) and sourness ( due to the hydrogen ion) are opposites and never occur together. It is a chemical impossibility. - -------------------------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:33:42 -0500 From: Katy or Delano DuGarm <dugarm at mnsinc.com> Subject: Botulism >I've been following the scary thread about wort canning. Scott Murman's >comments are quite convincing. Would the procedure laid out in Charlie >Papazian's TNCJHB about preparing beer bottles of wort to be later used as >starters be subject to the Botulism risk? I'd say yes, they are subject to this risk. Let's put this in perspective. There are 10-30 outbreaks of botulism poisoning per year, mostly from home-canned food. Many more people die of other forms of food poisioning than from botulism. On the other hand, only a few nanograms of the toxin are necessary for illness, and the only way to denature the toxin is to boil the canned wort. (In which case, why boil it?) This means that you can probably get away with using Papazian's method for years and years and never have a bad effect, especially if you examine the wort carefully before using it, just as my mother canned low-acid vegetables and fed them to her family for decades without ill effect. On the other hand, when you get botulism poisoning, it is very unpleasant, as one of the symptoms is that you stop breathing. A nice case is described at hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/txt/fairs/6305. What we're dealing with here is a small risk of something very, very nasty happening. Do you feel lucky? I don't, so I use a pressure canner, just like I wear my seatbelt even when the pilot "has extinguished the fasten seat belt sign." Delano DuGarm Arlington, Virginia dugarm at mnsinc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 09:20:54 -0800 From: Brad Anesi <banesi at novell.com> Subject: Re:Bavarian Weizen - Recipe? Yeast source? Jim Bentson <jbentson at htp.net> wrote... >I worked in a micro brewery this summer where they made a fantastic >Hefe Weissbier. We used the Wyeast weihenstephan yeast (3068) that >you asked about so I can offer you not only hope but probable >expectation of a great tasting beer. Jim, can you share the recipe with us? Also, does anyone know if any commercial beers are bottled with the 3068 strain in the bottle for final fermentation? Thanks, Brad (banesi at novell.com) Mahwah NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 09:36:18 -0800 From: Brad Anesi <banesi at novell.com> Subject: Stainless Steel Pots Somebody was asking about SS brew pots in the 8- 10 gallon range... I went through a similar exercise a few months back, and I eventually wound up purchasing an 8 gallon DuraWare pot with a solid aluminum sandwiched bottom and lid, for about $135. I got it from a restaurant supply house in the city - if somebody needs the name I can dig it up. For me, 8 gal is the perfect size, and so the Vollrath 38.5 qt was more than I needed. I use this pot on my "regular" gas stove in the kitchen, and it works fine. Boil-over problems have effectively been eliminated due to the solid bottom and increased head-space. Hope this helps, Brad (banesi at novell.com) Mahwah NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:34:03 -0800 From: Louis Gordon <lgordon at pclink.com> Subject: canning wort OK, I believe you that I need to pressure can my wort for yeast starters if I am going to do it in advance. I have pressure canned my wort in the past. The problem is that (I assume since I cannot see it) the wort foams up in the mason jars and most of it winds up in the canning pot. Does this leave us with only making the wort when ready to use or is there a way to can without foaming. Louis Gordon Minneapolis Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 15:58:53 -0600 From: Ganister Fields Architects <gfarch at tiac.net> Subject: Re: Restoring exterior of corny kegs J. Dillon shouts: <italic>>I HAVE OBSERVED A LOT OF GOOD INFO CONCERNING THE CLEANING THE INTERIOR OF CORNY KEGS; HOWEVER I WOULD LIKE TO RESTORE THE EXTERIOR OF MY KEGS AND MAKE THEM A LITTLE MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. I'VE TRIED BRASSO, STAINLESS STEEL, AND EVEN A WIRE BRUSH ON A DRILL- TO NO AVAIL. </italic> Three things J., A little washing-up liquid on a green 3M pad and a lot of elbow grease. Happy scrubbing Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:32:34 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Beer Yeast Bread In Homebrew Digest #2341, Bill Coleman <MaltyDog at aol.com> asked >Anyone out there ever use Beer Yeast (ale or lager) for breadmaking? What >kind of yeast? What kind of bread? What sort of quantity do you need for a >loaf of bread? Funny you should ask. I've got an article coming out in the Spring Zymurgy called "Baking for Brewers." While it's mostly about using spent grains and last runnings in bread, I briefly address your question. I've had limited and spotty success using brewing yeast. I'd suggest a good deal more than the amount of baker's yeast you'd typically use - about 1 Tbs thick yeast sediment (paste) per cup of liquid in your recipe. Expect slow rises, and possibly fruity flavors and aromas. The last batch I made, a whole wheat bread with with YeastLab Canadian ale yeast had such a banana flavor it was like banana nut bread. The ale had none of this flavor, BTW. Ont the other hand, I have had some very flavorful breads with it. I'd suggest boosting the yeast activity by making a sponge using the yeast, all of the liquid, and 1/3 - 1/2 of the total flour and letting it ferment for 1 - 3 hours before adding the rest of the ingredients. Keep us posted on your success. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:41:47 -0600 From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net> Subject: Airstones/Bitter Wort/dePiro and Bile/Wheeler's Porter The Jethro Gump Report >From: "PAUL SHICK (216) 397-4352" <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu> >Subject: Re: Airstones and contamination? > Ron's question points out clearly why the stainless steel stones are >so nice. Typical instructions call for boiling the stone for 20 minutes, >both before and after use. This very definitely kills off any nasties that >might be around. At the Little Apple, we flush a PBW solution through the stone, while doing the CIP (clean in place.) The pump draws solution at 150 F from the bottom of the kettle and then propels it through the heat exchanger, and then back to the top of the kettle, where it is sprayed on the interior walls of the ketttle to start the process over. By opening the ball valve that allows O2 to be blown through the stone, you can 'back-flush' the stone. The same is done with a H2O rinse and the acid rinse, when we do one. Periodically, like once every 6 months, I take the stone assembly apart, and give it a really good, high temp, 24-48 hour soak in PBW or caustic, and then acid. I think that back flushing actually forces some wort into the stones pores, and over time these build up to cause a decrease in performance. But after the long soaks, it's as good as new. Other brewers I know flush them with a peracetic acid solution. These stones (25 micron..not bad for aeration, but not fine enough for carbonation) are quite reasonably priced at 25 bucks, and come Monday, I will call my supplier to see if he wants to sell to homebrewers. If so, I will post his details. >From: Dane Mosher <dmosher at xroadstx.com> >Subject: wort more bitter than beer >AlK commented recently that finished beer tastes more bitter than the >unfermented wort. George De Piro argued the opposite case. Of course >they were talking about subjective impressions, so I'm not about to say >that either one is wrong, but my experiences have been more in line with >George than with Al. I have always found my wort to be more bitter than my finished beer, but then I smoke cig's and drink beer, so my taste buds for bitterness, wherever they are located, are probably shot to hell!! >From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) >Subject: Botulism > I looked in Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology but found it > useless in this case (I doubt that I'll ever be inclined to add bile > to my wort to inhibit the growth of Clostridium). C'mon George, where is your spirit of adventure? I'm going to ask the boss for some soon...Lord knows he spews enough! ;-) Wheeler on Porter... Got through to Graeme yesterday, and he had just concluded a deal to have his porter theory published in BT. Look for it as a side-box on an American Porter article in the March-April issue (?). I think it will just be an excerpt, but I bet it spawns a large thread in BT, (and HBD.) Jethro (I think the B-W is Oxidised) Gump......;-( Rob Moline Little Apple Brewing Company, Manhattan, Kansas. "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 18:04:17 -0500 From: Todd Dillinger <tntpub at netctrl.com> Subject: Tsing Tao Beer After brewing several successful batches of homebrew, I'd like to find out if anyone has brewed something like Tsing Tao. Not having drank any of it since begining to brew my own, I found it not as tasty as I remembered. Guess I've gotten spoiled! Thanks in advance for any help. Todd Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 19:16:10 -0500 From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at htp.net> Subject: Extract potential of Crystal Recently Mark Bayer quoted data from Dave Miller's books in a comment about calculating brewhouse efficiency . The value of 24 pts/lb/gal he used for Crystal malt looked low so I checked my copy of "Homebrewing Guide" by Dave Miller and sure enough found the same value that Mark had quoted on page 300. The problem is that this number does not agree with the value of 33 - 37 pts/lb/gal (depending on type) that Papazian has in his Malt Table on pgs 44-47 in "The Home Brewers Companion" nor does it agree with the value of 32 pts/lb/gal (assuming 92% efficiency rather than the usual 100%) that Noonan gives in Table 16 (pgs 208-210) in "New Brewing Lager Beer". I noticed that Miller lists his grains alphabetically and that chocolate malt (which WOULD be 24-28 pts) is conspicuously missing. While only a guess, I think Miller is wrong here and interchanged the chocolate and crystal values by mistake. Does anyone have any confirming data on the theoretical efficiency of Crystal malt from other sources?? I have been using Papzian's values in my grain bills and usually hit within a point based on the 87% efficiency that my rig gets. - -- Registered ICC User check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 97 17:10 PST From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: How Accurate is SUDSW Color Calcs (ESB SRM)? I'm trying to formulate an ESB recipe. The guy at the local homebrew shop says that I need to include a couple of pounds of Crystal 60L to get that carmel flavor so predominant in Fullers ESB. When I include 2 lbs of Crystal 60 in my recipe the color goes up to 32, with 14 (SRM) being the maximum for the ESB category (AHA style guidelines). So, is the homebrew shop guy wrong or SUDSW wrong or should I be using some other malt? The recipe I'm working with has 9 lbs of Pale Ale, 1 lb of Cara-pils in addition to the crystal. Help! Charley Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 01:32:16 -0600 From: Cuchulain Libby <hogan at connecti.com> Subject: Skunk Thread I have never been blessed with an unspoken opinion therefor: - --------- Dennis Waltman writes: On the skunked beer thread: I don't ever recall tasting a skunked Corona [yes, I admit it; I drink Corona when others pay for it]. That is a beer that I would think could not hide the skunk in its flavor. My recollection is that Corona uses clear or nearly clear bottles. I don't recall a skunked stout either, even though I've had those in clear bottles as well. - ---------- This is I assume referring to the Import Corona. I can recall drinking Corona in Ensenada many years ago. This predates my current understanding of brewing but there was a definite fault in the local variety. It would usually take the first 3 beers just to get used to it. The skunking of Corona FAR exceeds that of Heineken. (Of course I never have tried a local Heineken tho'). Perhaps it's the urine in the export Corona that reduces the skunking? Cuchulain a closet full of beer and not a drop to drink.....yet! Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:55:18 -0500 (EST) From: pedwards at iquest.net Subject: typo Oops... In my post about White Labs yeast that appeared in HBD 2342, there's a typo that I'm sure I'm going to hear about... The correct pitching rate recommended in the literature is "1 million cells per ml per deg Plato", not 1 billion. The rest of the numbers in the post and the pitching rate calculation for the hypothetical 12.5 deg Plato wort are correct, however. The "b" and the "m" are too close together on my keyboard for my fingers. Sorry for any confusion. - --Fat Fingered Paul Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:28:55 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: More HSA/Package O2/Cell counts Neil Kirk asked about HSA when running off from the mash tun. Remember that breweries used to run off into a sink through swan necks accompanied by lots of splashing and lots of froth and that some breweries still do this although the trend these days is not to. (I've always said that if PU, which uses the sink, is suffering from the effects of HSA then I want HSA in my beer). It's pretty easy to minimise exposure by conducting the runoff into the boiler via a tube beneath the surface of the collected wort. The initial runnings will, of course, splash onto the bottom of the kettle and the surface will always be exposed to air but once there is enough wort to cover the tube end there will be no further splashing. * * * * * * * * * * * Jeff Sturman asked about purging kegs with CO2. If beer is transferred into a vessel which is full of CO2 any air in the beer is likely to flow from the beer to the CO2 in accordance with the laws of physics. But if the beer is being drawn from a container with a CO2 filled headspace (presumably a unitank in the brewery) the beer should be oxygen free and the transfer process should not permit any pickup. In this case the brewers procedure should work well. Yes, a minute amount of O2 will dissolve when the first beer splashes into the keg but the foaming associated with this first rush should sweep it away. Remember also that the redox reactions of staling are slow ones and that keg beer is usually consumed before they have a chance to procede very far. Commercial operations are much more cautious when it comes to air in their bottled beer. * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul Edwards wrote "1 billion cells per degree Plato per milliliter of wort pitching rate" when he clearly meant "million" (as indicated by the subsequent calculations). Another thing which caught my eye was that a dilution of 10:1 was mentioned and then counts given without specifically stating that the final results included the effect of the dilution. I'm sure they did but since the manufacturer is being accused of being off by an order of magnitude and the dilution would lead to an order of magnitude reduction I have to ask. I'm also curious as to whether the counts were done automatically or with a haemocytometer. I also must say that I'm not too happy about conclusions drawn from testing one package of each of two strains of yeast. A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Please Note New e-mail Address Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 08:43:11 -0600 From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin at maine.com> Subject: re: BORING Good morning all, <<Charles Rich said: but it's BORING. A homebrewer can afford the extravagence of a real cat's pajama's, perfect malt flavor profile and a chord is simply richer than a note. >> Well brewed beer whether it has one malt or ten is not boring. It is obvious that there are only a few classic style that can be brewed with only one malt, but some of those are some of my favorite beers. I do think however that you can brew just about any classic style with 3 different malts or less. A lot of great music has only one note at a time. Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 08:57:08 -0500 From: bdebolt at dow.com Subject: Dropping question I'm interested in the dropping technique and wondered if anyone has tried this experiment. I quit using a secondary fermenter about a year ago. I'd like to try dropping 1/2 the volume of the primary into a secondary, leaving the rest behind to finish per my usual practice. At bottling compare the two for differences. I realize there are a lot of variables here besides just dropping - no need to go into that. It seems like a good way to get a feel for the technique compared to my normal practice. Any comments from the Droppers? Bruce DeBolt Houston, TX Return to table of contents