HOMEBREW Digest #2343 Tue 11 February 1997
![[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
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
Contents:
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