HOMEBREW Digest #2411 Mon 05 May 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:
seals on 5 gallon gots (root)
RE: nitrogen/CO2 (Some guy)
NA Beer ("C&S Peterson")
Thermometers ("John Robinson")
Carbonizer (UTC -04:00)" <dgeiss.ford at e-mail.com>
Re: Belgian Wheat Beer ("atonalcm")
Belgian White Beer (Bob Tisdale)
Clarification / Vitamin B ("BRIAN F. THUMM")
Yeas Tech "Labs" (Jim Liddil)
Small-scale filtering ("Penn, Thomas")
carbonation requires carbon (DAVE SAPSIS)
Young alcohol (Domenick Venezia)
RE: nitrogen/co2 (Jeff Knaggs)
Corn, proteinase activity ("David R. Burley")
Homebrew Club Articles / Harpers' Cloudy Dubbel (KennyEddy)
RE: Gelatin fining / Please, not botulism again (George De Piro)
PH and Total Alkalinity - meaningful info? (Charles Burns)
Re:Hefeweisen(Brian Deck) (Jim Wallace)
Re: botulism redux (Dan Sherman)
re:garage sale draft system ("Darrell")
My Solution for Mini-Keg CO2 Leaks ("R. Shreve")
REMINDER and Call for JUDGES!!! Big and HUGE competition (Robert Paolino)
Malt extraction efficiency (Jorge Blasig - IQ)
nitrogen/beer gas (garyrich)
Charlies Infiltrating (Charlie Scandrett)
Sorry about the long signature (Dave Bartz)
U Flecka & Angela's Ashes (kathy)
US OPEN Homebrew Competition Results for Charlotte, NC ("Keith Royster")
homebrew alcohol content (Rae Christopher J)
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 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 from:
brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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: Fri, 02 May 1997 01:45:08 -0600
From: root <root at dante>
Subject: seals on 5 gallon gots
Howdy all.
Just a quick question about what everyone uses to seal their spigots in the
mash tun. I've a five gallon Gott and getting ring seals in their is a pain.
Anyone have any suggestions.
-Lance
stargazer at dlcwest.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 07:32:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some guy <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: RE: nitrogen/CO2
OK. I'm sure now, thanks to some tables published here earlier, that
nitrogen is soluble in beer, if only at 1/100th or so of the amount of CO2
under similar pressures. I'll even lend that it might contribute to that
Guinness head, though evidence I've read suggests that the nitrogen
doesn't cause bubbles when it comes out of solution.
Jeff Sturman asks about distributing beer using Nitrogen. The correct
answer was given: if the beer is consumed quickly, sure: fine. If not,
Henry's law will come into play and de-carbonate the beer by attempting
to equalize the concentration of CO2 on each side of the beer/head
boundary. That's it.
The information recently published about "forcing nitrogen into the keg,
then dispensing with CO2" or "Must force carbonate with the mix or it
won't..." is somewhat misguided, in my opinion. Soluble gasses are soluble
independent (barring reactions) of other gasses present. Period. If you
pressurize with nitrogen to saturation, you will then have to pressurize
with CO2 to saturation as well. Both will dissolve to the extent they are
capable of into the beer - independent of each other. Henry's law.
If you saturate with N2, then push with CO2, the N2 will come out of
solution in the keg as you dispense to equalize the apparent pressure on
each side of the beer/head boundary. Same as the converse. Henry's law.
If you buy into the N2 contributing to the beer head, buy the mix. I use
it to push 100% of my beers (though I've never noticed the difference in
heading from the days I used only CO2...) through my draft system. The
expense isn't prohibitive, and they can modify your existing CO2
cylinder to accept it for about $11. Regulator's the same as for CO2.
See ya!
Pat Babcock | "Beer is my obsession, and I'm late for
pbabcock at oeonline.com | therapy..." -PGB
brewbeerd at aol.com | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point
janitor@ brew.oeonline.com | at the end of your day as every sentence
Home Brew Digest Janitor | requires proper punctuation." -PGB
Webmaster of the Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
Home of the Home Brew Flea Market
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 97 12:01:32 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com>
Subject: NA Beer
HBDers -
I recently was requested by a friend who cannot have alcohol to make a
"no-alcohol" beer. In reading the contributions to THE BREWERY on this
subject, I was able to take a case of dissappointing IPA, heat it to 180 for
15 minutes, and then force cool, rack to a keg, and force carbonate. For what
it is intended to be, it turned out quite well. There are some definite
off-flavors that were generated from the heating -- mostly a corn-like DMS
taste, but nothing unobjectionalbe. And to my surprize, the hop character made
it though, for the most part. In fact, I find the beer quite enjoyable.
But here's my question. From Jack Schmedling's (sic) BREWERY article, he
suggests that this method will make a beer of 1 to 1.5 percent alcohol.
Commercial NA types go to about 0.5 percent. Now I drank a pint of this stuff
on a completely empty stomach yesterday, and didn't feel any significant
effects of the residual alcohol. Is there any relatively cheap/effective way
to measure the alcohol content? I am not adverse to sending off to a lab, so
long as it isn't too expensive. I'd like to get some assurance that this beer
will be OK to serve to my friend. The last thing I want to do is trigger some
sort of relapse.
Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:20:05 +0000
From: "John Robinson" <robinson at novalis.ca>
Subject: Thermometers
Hi,
I broke mine in the boil a couple of weeks ago. I'm currently
drinking the batch, and haven't noticed any unusual flavors or
smells.
After discovering the thermometer I took it out of the wort and
boiled it in water briefly to determine if the plastic substance
holding the lead beads would disovle. It did not appear to.
I personally do not think you have anything to worry about, others
may disagree.
I'm in the process of tracking down a mercury based laboratory
thermometer. If that breaks anywhere in the processes the whole
batch will need to be flushed.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the red alchohol in some of
these thermometers is toxic?
- ---
John Robinson "When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty.
Software Developer I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I
NovaLIS Technologies have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know
robinson at novalis.ca it is wrong." - Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983)
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 09:21:50 EDT
From: "Doug Geiss USAET(UTC -04:00)" <dgeiss.ford at e-mail.com>
Subject: Carbonizer
Laura in N.C. wrote about some equipment her dad picked up,
specifically a unit called the "Carbonizer."
While I've never seen on in action, I also came across one at a large
auction. I spied two brand-new looking towers connected to a double-1/2barrel
keg cooler, much like you see in Rapids. Along with the entire unit was
a small electric motor and the words "Carbonizer". The unit was in pretty
bad condition, but I was intrigued about free Carbon Dioxide.
To make a long story short, I bought the entire freezer, taps, and misc.
for $3. But since I was 200 miles from home, I had to disassemble everything
that would fit in my car, and leave the rest. I got the two towers, some
Sankey keg fittings, a S.S. drip tray, but left behind the actual freezer,
carbonizer (Couldn't get the bolts off), and some other junk.
It was only later that I found out the whole thing costs $1500 new. Dooh!
Anyway, Laura, let us all know how it works. It sounds interesting!
Thank you, [~~\ /~~]
Doug Geiss______________________(313)33-73971 ||\\ //|| GO
Production Control Analyst ---- 1997 F-Series || \\// || BLUE
Internet: USFMCKGE at IBMMAIL.COM PROFS:DGEISS [__] \/ [__]
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:55:50 -0400
From: "atonalcm" <atonalcm at bestweb.net>
Subject: Re: Belgian Wheat Beer
>Wed, 30 Apr 97
>From: "Ellery.Samuels" <esamuel at mvsb.nycenet.edu>
>Subject: Belgian Wheat Beer
>I am looking for a partial/extract recipe for a Belgian Wheat Beer. Have
>checked Cat's Meow. Private e-mail is appreciated.
>Thanx,
>Ellery
Hi Ellery,
I have a recipe for you, Actually two! Boil the wort for both recipies a
long time (2 hours)
The first is a belgian wheat ale (my recipe). It is not however a White
beer.
5 gallon recipe
5lbs wheat/barley dry malt extract
1 lb orange blossom honey
half pound crystal malt (60 lovibond)
1 1/2 oz Hallertauer hops (60 Min)
1/2 oz Hallertauer (30 Min)
1/2 oz Hallertauer (15 Min)
Wyeast 3942 (in primary)
Wyeast Brettanomyces (in seconday) about 2-3 weeks
Prime the beer with 5/8 cup of honey.
use blow-by method for primary. Use hop bags for hops leaves.
ferment at high temperature 75-80 degrees in primary only.
Age as long as posible in bottle so as to obtain a mature taste (3+ weeks)
- ----------------------
the 2nd recipe is for a Belgian Farmhouse Saison. (my recipe)
(it contains more grains than 1st recipe)
3 1/3 lbs extra light malt extract (liquid)
3/4 lb of light malt extract (dry)
:mash grains at approx 145-155 degrees for about 90 min (very crude mash
method)
if possible buy some amylase powder and add a small amount (1/4 teaspoon or
less) to mash.
1/4 lb Belgian Special -B malt if avail, or Crystal malt (120 lovibond)
1 lb Cara-pils malt
2 lbs 6-row American pilsener malt
1/2 lb unmalted oats
3/4 lb torrified wheat
2 oz Saaz hops (60 min)
1/4 oz Willamette hops (60 min)
1/2 oz Willamette hops (15 min)
1/3 oz coriander- freshly cracked (1 min, & steep till wort is cool)
Rind of 1 lime -dried (use the green part and make sure its dried well)
same as coriander
1/4 lb pitted prunes (chopped up) add at end of boil.
Wyeast 3942
Primary for a few days 3-4, then secondary till done
Good luck,
Chris Milmerstadt
Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 21:25:20 +0100
From: rtisdale at entomology.msstate.edu (Bob Tisdale)
Subject: Belgian White Beer
I recently made a batch of white beer using Wyeast Belgium White Beer
yeast. The O.G. was 1.052. The primary fermentation lasted about 5 days and
was
quite vigorous the first 3 days. It has been in the secondary for about a
month with the number of bubbles ranging between 1 per minute to 1 per two
minutes.
The beer smells great and there is no funny looking stuff floating around
in it.
Has anyone had a similar experience with this yeast?
Is it the yeast or something else?
Any Suggestions, comments, advice
Thanks,
Bob Tisdale
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 10:22:15 -0400
From: "BRIAN F. THUMM" <THUMMBF at GWSMTP.NU.COM>
Subject: Clarification / Vitamin B
Matt Harper asked about clarifying his beer, after forgetting the Irish moss in
the boil. Irish Moss works in the boil to coagulate large break. It's effect
in the fermentor will be negligible. My recommendations are Isinglass four
days prior to bottling, to settle suspended yeast, and either Polyclar or
Silica Gel two days prior to bottling (I'm partial to Polyclar) to settle
suspended chill-haze-forming tannins or proteins, respectively. I've seen the
recent discussion on gelatin, and that works fine, as well. Some people claim
it is not as effective as Isinglass, but I haven't seen any difference. I just
have a stock pile of isinglass, so that's what I use. Waiting for all of the
suspended stuff to settle out is also an option. It all depends on when you
want your beer to be clear.
I'm also intrigued by the discussion on the potency of homebrew. My girlfriend
has a noticably pleasant reaction after very little homebrew. She's a
lightweight, anyway, but even my lower alcohol beers affect her rapidly. I,
too, for that matter, have noticed the effects of my beer rather quickly. My
theory, FWIW, is the abundance of Vitamin B in the beer. Having bottle
conditioned the beer, there is a lot of live yeast in the bottle, and hence a
lot of Vitamin B. People have often claimed that Vitamin B helps cure
hangovers because of it's ability in alcohol metabolisation. If it metabolizes
alcohol that quickly OUT of your system, does it stand to reason that it will
metabolize alcohol INTO your system as quickly?
Brian Thumm
Pier 147 Homebrewery
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 7:27:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Yeas Tech "Labs"
I got a flier in the mail from Yeas Tech Labs. "Pitch5 provides homebrewers
with a pure, liquid yeast slurry that contains enough cells to pitch a 5 gallon
batch of homebrew".
Is this vague or what? How many cells are in a container? Or is this just like
White Labs and their pint sized starter euqivalent?
"Pitch is stable at refrigeration temperature for more than 30 days. However,
we recommend purchasing your yeast as close to brew day as possible."
"Active fermentation should be observed within 24 hours of pithcing"
I really don't think I'm going to be storing yeast for 30 days or buying 2-4
week old yeast at a shop and expecting this to be enough cells to pitch 5
gallons. I certainly hope this stuff is born-on dated.
Call me skeptical.
Jim www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil Tucson,AZ
Return to table of contents
Date: 2 May 1997 10:27:05 -0400
From: "Penn, Thomas" <penn#m#_thomas at msgw.vf.lmco.com>
Subject: Small-scale filtering
I have a friend who has digestive problems with the yeast in homebrew, and I'd
like to filter kegged beer on a small scale (maybe an in-line filter on a keg
tapper line). I don't want to filter entire batches, and small-scale
filtering with a large filter results in significant waste due to beer in the
filter. Can someone remind me of how fine a filter I need (to achieve
commercial filtering results); and does anyone know of such a small, in-line
filter (medical, chemical, etc.)?
Tom Penn
Bordentown, NJ
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 08:07:57 -0700
From: DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov (DAVE SAPSIS)
Subject: carbonation requires carbon
Jeff innocently asked a question regarding dispensing with pure N2,
and has received a bunch of public replies, some of which are pretty
confounding. Erik posts that you have to carbonate the keg first with
nitrogen??? Anybody else there see something wrong?
I posted to Jeff privately about my experiences pushing beer through a
Murphy's tap, with pure N2, which I have been doing for nearly four
years. Works like a charm. Things to watch out for: properly
carbonate the keg to an appropriate level prior to dispense. Most
beers I push out of my N-rig I purposefully carbonate to a low level,
estimated 1.5 - 2 atm. Higher CO2 levels will create very foamy beer
when dispensed at high N2 top pressure. I use a regulator setting of
about 45 psi to push the beer through the tap. Usually (depending on
how fast the beer is consumed) I will add CO2 to the keg twice, by
bleeding off some top pressure add hooking the CO2 can back up with
its regulator set on 45. I let that run in for 5-10 seconds, then
hookup the N again. This is to retain an appropriate level of
carbonation throughout the life of the keg, because as George I
believe pointed out, as headspace increases, the partial pressure of
CO2 goes down, dissolved CO2 outgasses, and the kegged beer slowly
looses carbonation. This method effectively mixes gasses using two
separate cans, albeit in a crude way.
With N having solubility constants roughly two orders of magnitude
less than carbonic, it is likely that there is a rather low level of
nitrogenation going on, but actual dissolved N levels in finished
products dispensed as such would be an interesting measurement.
cheers,
--dave, in Sacramento, wishing he were in tahiti,
dave_sapsis at fire.ca.gov
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 08:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com>
Subject: Young alcohol
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:32:11 -0400 From: Dave Bartz <gbrewer at iquest.net>
Eugene Sonn asked
>> I've been brewing for over 5 years and one thing continues to
>> surprise me about homebrew is how quickly you may feel its alcohol
>> affecting your system........... Are there any explanations for this?
Dave Bartz responds
> I've def. noticed this as well and in rapping with homebrewing friends,
> we have concluded that it must be the relative freshness of the alcohol.
> Is the younger alcohol more potent. My guess is yes.
My guess is no. My hope is no, or I despair for the 20 year old ports and
brandies, and the 12 year old Scotch and Irish in my cellar. I'm not sure
what "aged" ethanol would be, except that it would no longer be ethanol,
and I doubt any such effects over the time period of which we are
speaking. Instead I suspect one or more of the following:
1. your homebrew is generally stronger than the commercial beers you are
comparing it against or
2. the homebrew contains some other nutrient or substance that increases
your alcohol uptake rate or
3. The situations under which you drink commercial versus home brews
affects the way that alcohol affects you. For example, homebrews are
often drank alone without food.
4. You are drinking the wrong commercial brews.
Cheers!
Domenick Venezia
Computer Resources
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia at zgi.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 97 11:43:04 -0400
From: jak at absoft.com (Jeff Knaggs)
Subject: RE: nitrogen/co2
Disclaimer, I'm not a chemist so this explanation may need a
little tweaking...stepping of the deep end...
For this thread, we're assuming all the gases behavior "ideally":
Pressure * Volume
=
number_of_molecules * A_chemistry_constant * Temperature
Dalton's Law says: The total pressure exerted by a mix of ideal gasses
in a closed container is equal to the sum that each individual gas
exerts
Total P = P1 + P2 + P3
In the case of CO2 and N2 blends, this means
2 PSI CO2 + 8 PSI N2 = 10 PSI total in the head space.
Who cares? -- Well total P is the pressure that forces the beer out
of the keg to the faucet, so it is critical in controlling the
flow rate and foaming at the faucet. (Aside: foaming is also a
function of temperature, turbulence, and disolved CO2)
What's in the beer? The amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is
proportional to the "partial pressure" exerted by the gas in the head
space. And, because for this temp/press range gases behave close to
ideally, this dissolution is INDEPENDENT of the total pressure. I.e.
using the above example, the amount of CO2 in solution is proportional
to 2 PSI (partial pressure of CO2) and not 10 PSI (the total gas
pressure).
Who cares? We all do! 1) You have to apply enough total
pressure to the beer to get it to the faucet, 2) but the amount of CO2
in a beer has big contributions to the
taste/mouth-feel/pour-behavior(foaming) etc. 3) Nitrogen is relatively
insoluble in beer, so even at high pressure not much ends up in
solution. That is why Nitrogen is used: for stouts, folks expect a low
amount of dissolved CO2 gas, which means use a low partial pressure
CO2, but folks also want the stout to come out of the faucet (can't
drink it if it doesn't come out :-) and to develop a head.
A guiness faucet is restricted (narrower than other
beer faucets); the extra pressure supplied by the N2 pushes it through
the faucet at a good rate, the turbulence created by the restriction
and increased flow rate helps add head where the lack of dissolved C02
(due to low partial pressure) wouldn't normally do it on its own.
So, if you carbonate, then charge with pure N2 and no CO2, over
time your carbonation level will fall (if the head space is pure N2
then the partial pressure of CO2 is zero and CO2 will come out of
solution until the partial pressure is in equilibrium with the solubile
portion). This also means that over time the total pressure in the head
will increase. So depending on how long you're going to serve out of
one keg, it may be critical to supply a mixed supply. Other gases
could be used other than N2, but they have to meet some criteria:
relatively low solubility, non-reactive, relatively safe for humans,
and cheap. Turns out that N2 is used because it best fits the criteria.
Jeff Knaggs
hufkna at mich.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:25:40 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Corn, proteinase activity
Brewsters:
Russ Brodeur asks:
>Does anyone out there have any information to share regarding the
>proteolytic enzyme content of various malts, both pale and not-so pale??
DeClerk (50 yr old info) says the proteolytic content of Pale Ale Malts (
that is British Pale Malts in those days ) is about 60% of the
Contintental (lager,pils) Pale malts. I am not sure how valid this is
today. AlK points out that German Pils malts are more highly converted
today than in the past based on Maltsters specifications. Presumably,
however, they still don't get the higher temperature toast at the end of
the kilning typical of British Pale Ale malts and I guess still should have
the higher enzyme content.
- ------------------------------------------
Darren Gaylor says:
>I .. want to try a double mash with
>A non-gelatanized corn adjunt. The bulk food section of our grocery
>Store carries both corn meal and grits. Which would be better
>For brewing purposes?
I always use grits as you have less chance to plug up in the lautering step
since grits are larger than cornmeal in most cases. Also Grits are white
corn and most corn meal is yellow ( although the white is available). I
cook the grits in water until they thicken, add cold water to bring the
temperature down to about 150F and add water and the grist to bring it down
to the strike temperature. Take it through all the holds 122F, 135F and
155-158F. I also make a goods mash on occasion in which 10-15% of the
malt is added after cooling and a quick mash is carried out on the adjunct
to reduce its viscosity. Which method you use is determined by the amount
and type of adjunct added. I use this method with cream of wheat and rice
or pearl barley (chipped to a small size in my mill before cooking) also.
I have never tried these, but assume the "instant" cereals are
pre-gelatinized by heat or treated chemically.
- -----------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 13:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: Homebrew Club Articles / Harpers' Cloudy Dubbel
Scott Bridges said that George de Piro's reply to Pat Babcock's article about
homebrew club meeting speakers was perhaps not appropriate for this forum.
While the HBD does seem to gravitate heavily toward the mechanics of
brewing, the success or failure of a homebrew club can have a significant
effect on one's source of information and enthusiasm for brewing, and thus I
think it's a very relevent topic.
Here in El Paso, I know that there are a lot of homebrewers, yet
participation in our club is waning badly. Now, we're not exactly in
microbrew heaven out here (I wonder if setting up a brewpub in the New
Republic of Texas will be any easier than it was in the Old State...), so
coming up with guest speakers may be a more difficult proposition for us than
George out in Brooklyn. The head brewers of the two prominent area brewpubs
are both active members and they do contribute monthly, but "new blood" is
always welcome. This kind of thing would probably help boost attendence and
therefore the exchange of good information.
It's easy to "brew in a vacuum" when your pool of personal brewing contacts
dwindles due to club membership problems, especially in an isolated area like
El Paso, and this *directly* affects your brewing. When there's no one
smarter than yourself around, you tend to think your poor to average efforts
are as good as it gets. This can be a major turn-off especially for new
brewers who simply don't have access to information that would correct
problems in their brewing.
At the risk of being publicly flamed (oh yeah, like that'll be a first), I'd
like to *encourage* the more successful clubs to offer their recipes for
success on this forum. It weighs directly upon our brewing skill, and it'll
make better brewers of us all.
*****
Matt Harper forgot the Irish Moss, a sin I've been guilty of more than I care
to admit. While I don't want to open the do-we-need-it or don't-we-need-it
can of worms, I would like to offer that I've used Sparkolloid (tm) with
great success in batches with proteinous haze. My Classic American Pilsner,
the lightest-colored beer I've ever made, was made IM-less (stoopid) and
looked like Rio Grande mud. I let it sit for several weeks (fake lagering)
with only modest improvement. Finally I tossed in some Sparkolloid and like
magic, in two days you could read George de Piro's posts through it! I think
it's three grams boiled briefly in a bit of water per five gallons. BTW the
Classic American Pilsner is a dandy brew which you'll like but so will your
Bud-swillin' buddies. Great stuff (Thanks Jeff).
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy at aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:16:18 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: RE: Gelatin fining / Please, not botulism again
Hi all,
Somebody (sorry, can't remember who) asked if their would be enough
yeast left in suspension to carbonate the beer after gelatin fining.
In my case, the beer is a lager and has been at 33F (0.5C) for 2
months, and is remarkably clear. If I wanted to bottle condition it,
I would add a fresh dose of yeast. It may carbonate without the extra
yeast, but it would take a long time (and maybe not work at all).
With ales, it may be unnecessary to add fresh yeast, but again, if the
beer is very clear, it would speed things up to add fresh yeast. If
you are concerned about the yeast not flocculating again, just use a
different strain that is known to flocculate well.
------------------------
A curse on the house of the person reviving the corpse of the last
botulism thread!
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 97 11:37 PDT
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: PH and Total Alkalinity - meaningful info?
Not wanting to ask any stupid questions, I'll try this inane one.
Recently I've noticed that boiled water is showing more and more white stuff
(Ken Schwartz tells me its chalk) precipitating to the bottom of my kettle.
I really only notice it when I'm trying to create jars of sterile water for
yeast harvesting. It looks ugly enough that I don't really want to get my
yeast mixed up with it.
Anyhow, I decided its been a year since I tested for alkalinity and so I
took the following readings:
>From my well in the Sierra Foothills:
PH Total Alkalinity
Cold Tap Water 7.0 190
Hot Water Tap 6.8 180
Cold Water Tap
Boiled/Cooled 9.3 180
I don't even know if the readings make sense. I calibrated my ph meter
immediately prior to taking these readings. The alkalinity came from my Spa
chemical test kit.
Its a huge jump in ph of the boiled water. Should I be boiling water before
mashing and then treating with acid? Or should I NOT pre-boil the mash
water? My mashes tend to hit PH 5.3 with no addition of anything. If I do
add gypsum, then they tend to come in at 5.2, not much change for 1 tsp. Am
I wasting time and money? Ken suggested using the boiled and cooled water
(if I read his comments right) and then treating with acid as opposed to
gypsum because the alkalinity was already so high.
I was surprised that alkalinity didn't drop after boiling (20 minute boil).
Note also that the PH of the boiled water was 9.0 when it was 210F and rose
up to 9.3 when it cooled overnight. I guess that means my meter is not
temperature corrected or something else happened to the water when it
cooled. Comments?
Charley (can't quit fooling with this stuff) in N. Cal.
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 13:41:53 -0500
From: Jim Wallace <jwallace at crocker.com>
Subject: Re:Hefeweisen(Brian Deck)
Brian, I just did a batch with 3056 .... Some people complain about this
yeast producing too much phenolic (clove flavor) .. keep the temp a bit
lower to minimize. Also, it will increase with time.
my Grain ratio was 8wht:4pilsner. Hops were Hallertauer all the way. I
suppose you could do this with a wheat extract or infusion mash but
Decoction is a plus here with so much wheat. This was my first decoction
and no big deal.
I did my priming with 1.5 qts of wort from original batch that I saved.
Eric Warners book on this style is very helpful This is a great summer
drinking beer ready to drink in less than 3 wks.
________________________________________
JIM WALLACE ___ jwallace at crocker.com
I travel to the wild places of this planet
and would like to share what I see
_____ http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace _______
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 97 12:25:53 PDT
From: Dan Sherman <dsherman at jeeves.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: botulism redux
Steve Claussen (SClaus4688 at aol.com) asked some very good questions about
botulism. I can't answer them completely, but at least I can add a little
bit of data to the discussion.
Botulism is caused by a toxin produced by strains of Clostridium
botulinum. C. botulinum is a spore-forming anaerobic bacterium. Spores
of C. botulinum are commonly found in soil, especially soil that has been
fertilized with manure. The spores are essentially metabolically
inactive, but can germinate under the appropriate conditions. Once
growing and dividing, the bacteria will produce a toxin.
The toxin, when injested, is absorbed into the body and causes muscle
paralysis (blocks the release of acetylcholine -- a muscle
neurotransmitter). The toxin will not affect bacteria or yeast growth.
The toxin is quite resistant to the enzymes of the gastrointestinal tract,
and presumably the high acidity of the stomach. I am not sure about its
resistance to oxygen, or byproducts of yeast fermentation, but I would
guess that it is not affected much by these factors. However, the toxin is
heat labile, and is completely destroyed by boiling at 100C (212F) for 10
minutes (those of you at high altitude will want to boil longer).
Supposedly, infection of food by C. botulinum causes no change in the
taste or odor of the food. C. botulinum is anaerobic and generates
energy by fermentation, so CO2 is probably released. Therefore, an
infected can of food or wort could bulge, but would not necessarily do so.
The best way to kill C. botulinum spores is by heating them (in a wet
environment) to 121C for at least 15 minutes. This is accomplished by
pressure canning. Consulting a good canning manual will allow one to
determine if prolonged boiling in a water bath (maybe 1-2 hours) can
substitute for pressure canning for 15-20 minutes at 15psi. If anyone
checks this out, please post the answer.
As was discussed previously, a perfectly acceptable way to avoid pressure
canning starter wort, yet still be safe, is to pre-boil the wort before
each use.
Hope this helps.
Cheers!
Dan Sherman
San Diego, CA
dsherman at ucsd.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:21:49 -0600
From: "Darrell" <darrell at montrose.net>
Subject: re:garage sale draft system
Laura,
CO2 beverage products (soda pop) use plain water that passes through the
"carbonizer". The carbonizer is comprised of a compressor that force
carbonates the water from a CO2 source. The now carbonated water is then
mixed with the syrup to make whatever product (coke, rootbeer, etc) is
desired.
Used carbonizers usually go for around $120, new ones for $300. Your dad
got a good deal (bless his heart), but unless you plan on setting up a home
soda fountain, I don't know that it will do you much good.
Darrell
Montrose, CO
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 16:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "R. Shreve" <rashreve at interpath.com>
Subject: My Solution for Mini-Keg CO2 Leaks
Hello All!!
As a mini keg owner and regular user, I too have been plagued with the
regular problem of those expensive damn CO2 cartridges prematurely emptying
due to the poor seal at the "face" of the cartridge.
Here is a solution I discovered that works:
I went to my local auto parts shop, and bought a "rubber tire patch",
basically thin rubber gasket material that had a sticky back.
I took apart the Fass-Frisch valve assembly (you need a great BIG allen
wrench to get it apart), and cut two circular pieces of rubber to fit both
behind and in front of the nylon disk where the cartridge seats, having cut
a small hole in the center of the front rubber piece for the little metal
piercing tip to come through.
Long term storage is unknown at this point, but I can tell you that I tapped
a mini-keg almost two weeks ago, and I STILL have gas in the ORIGINAL CO2
cartridge, AND the beer is still carbonated!
Isn't it wonderful when one of your projects turns out great??!!??
Randy in Salisbury, North Carolina
"Too much of a good thing is.....wonderful!!! - Mae West
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:08:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Subject: REMINDER and Call for JUDGES!!! Big and HUGE competition
Competition reminder and Call for Judges!
11th Annual Big and Huge Homebrew Competition
Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild
10 May 1997, 10am-4pm, Great Dane Pub and Brewing Company
Madison, Wisconsin
The Big and Huge is a competition for higher-gravity beers
(1.050-1.060 is "Big"; >1.060 is "Huge"). Entries will be accepted in all
BJCP style categories for which the original gravity range includes 1.050 or
higher. The gravity restriction excludes relatively few sub-categories,
although 1.050 is the top of the range for some categories, and entries must
meet the minimum gravity requirement even if the range for the style dips
below the 1.050 mark. (We had to disqualify an entry last year because it was
an entry in an eligible style but not an eligible original gravity.)
Awards will be made in all styles (or combined style groupings) for which
there are at least five entries. Winners from the style categories can
advance to a "mini-BOS" Big and Huge round (Big Ales, Huge Ales, Big Lagers,
Huge Lagers) for additional ribbons and prizes, and the best of the Big and
Huge round advance to Best of Show. Brewing ingredient prizes have been
generously donated by Northwestern, L.D. Carlson, and HopUnion USA. (There
may be additional prizes available between now and the Huge day.)
Entries are due in Madison May 7. Out of town judges who PREREGISTER their
entries may bring the bottles with them Saturday morning.
Homebrew clubs with which we exchange newsletters have received forms--ask
your club liaison for a copy. If you need complete rules and entry forms, you
may contact me (rpaolino at earth.execpc.com) for an emailed file or you may
visit our new (and still sparse) web site:
http://www.globaldialog.com/madbrewers to download forms. (if they're not
there when you visit, email to me and I'll get them to you--and remind our
webmaster to get the forms on. (The web page does have information about
the 11th Annual Great Taste of the Midwest<sm>, for which tickets went on
sale May 1 and will sell quickly.)
JUDGES!! Come to Madison to help judge some big-hearted beers, enjoy beerful
hospitality, and visit the city's three brewpubs or tour one of the many small
breweries in the area.
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
Madison
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:38:48 -0300 (GMT-0300)
From: Jorge Blasig - IQ <gisalb at elmer.fing.edu.uy>
Subject: Malt extraction efficiency
Dear friends,
Some days ago I posted a request about extraction efficiency in points
and %. I received several answers explaining exactly what I needed.
Now, I would appreciate that somebody posts an article indicating
extraction efficiencies for different kinds of malts. I was informed that
this information was published by Zymurgy magazine some
time ago. However, I can not receive it here in Uruguay.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Jorge Blasig
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:12:22 +0000
From: garyrich at smartlink.net
Subject: nitrogen/beer gas
Jeff Sturman asks:
>One of my customers is hell bent on using nitrogen to serve his
>homebrew. He wants to know if he can carbonate the beer with
>straight co2 and then serve the beer with straight nitrogen.
As Erik Vanthilt said, this will not give the "guiness head"
effect. I suspect it would also end up with flat beer. Nitrogen
is not very soluable in beer (that's actually the point) and I
suspect that over a week or so you would end up scrubbing
the CO2 out of suspension in the beer - hence, flat beer. You would
probably need to keep nitrogen top pressure higher than is
practical for dispense in order to keep it carbonated (unless you
are using the gas pressure to pump the beer up 2 flights of stairs) .
With mixed beer gas this works much better. sometimes I force
carbonate with CO2 and then dispense with CO2/N2 beer gas.
This lets me put enough top pressure on to get a good seal on the
lid (they often do not seal properly at 5-8 lbs - at least mine
don't) and still dispense a lightly carbonated bitter. The partial
pressure of CO2 is enough enough to maintain the 1.2-1.5
atmospheres of CO2 in the beer that I want. You can use the
temp/CO2 tables that are all over the net (and in Fix's
Vienna book) to get it set right - just remember to use only the
partial pressure of the CO2 in your calculations.
Gary Rich
webmaster at brewtek.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:54:14 +1000 (EST)
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino at buggs.cynergy.com.au>
Subject: Charlies Infiltrating
There seems to be a lot of Charlies about these days. They are multiplying
like a well aerated ferment. So much so that I find references to this new
strain of homebrewer confusing, and I am one!
Could HBDers extend the taxonomic labeling of substrains of this phylum by
refering to Charlie P. (tried in absentia), Charlie S., Charlie B., Charlie
R. etc so we know when we are really being flamed?
Charlie S. (Brisbane, Australia)
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 07:22:40 -0400
From: Dave Bartz <gbrewer at iquest.net>
Subject: Sorry about the long signature
If anybody noticed and was put off by the long sig. on my last post, sorry
about that.
Forgot to disengage the automatic sig function. It was not my intention to
have that in my message. Dave
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 09:52:55 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: U Flecka & Angela's Ashes
In 1991 my wife and I spent a pleasant supper in Prague at the U Flecka
bier garten. We enjoyed the dark soft low hopped bier and I have tried
to recreate it without success.
Maybe my recipe can't recreate the blurriness from extended travel, the
soft Prague night, the polka band, the dumplings or the Germans singing
in a separate dining room but if there are any suggestions from
experienced travelers, I would appreciate your thoughts. In 1991 I had
not started homebrewing or serious bierhunting so I was unable to
deconstruct the recipe after several years of memory.
On another subject, I'm reading "Angela's Ashes" the Pulitizer Prize and
National Book Award winner. Da is an Irishman with the "cravings". It
ought to be required reading for us beer enthusiasts.
I'll say thanks in advance for the U Flecka advice. Cheers, jim booth
at kbooth at waverly.k12.mi.us
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 13:12:00 +0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at pex.net>
Subject: US OPEN Homebrew Competition Results for Charlotte, NC
The results of the US OPEN homebrewing competition held this past
weekend in Charlotte, NC are now online for you to view on our web
site (http://www.dezines.com/ at your.service/cbm).
I just finished transcribing them from a fax that Ed Gaston
(competition organizer) sent me, so let me know if you find any
typos. I am already aware that three of the listing are missing the
actual score, so I am trying to resolve this with Ed G. as we speak.
Hopefully they will be fixed before his is published in the Digest.
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: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rae Christopher J <3cjr7 at qlink.queensu.ca>
Subject: homebrew alcohol content
i, too have noticed this effect of homebrew having a powerful 'kick'. my
buddies and i regularly have a pint, and compare it to about three normal
commercial bottles. why is this?
i suspect strongly that it has to do with the carbonation. as anyone will
tell you, sparkling white wines kick harder than regular ones. similarly,
mixing a shot of booze with a (small) amount of fizz (club soda, cola,
etc) will also seemingly get the kick out. my mom explained the chemistry
/ physiology of this to me when i was but a lad, but i have since
forgotten it. so what is the relevance? well, naturally carbonated
drinks have different sizes of bubbles than artificially carbonated ones.
i read this in a beginner's brewing book, so i assume everyone knows this.
well, these different sizes of bubbles, coupled with the greatly increased
head retention of homebrewed beers, i believe, add up to more co2 ending
up in the stomach, where alcohol absorption _starts_ (unlike food
absorption, which doesn't start until the jejunum). i believe that
therefore, the alcohol will hit you faster, and thus have an initial
higher b.a.c., the 'kick'.
here's an experiment to try: take a few bottles of un-primed beer.
artificially carbonate them. take a few more. put them aside. then take
a few and do as you normally do. then take a few and over-prime them (but
only a little). get a few friends over and, over the course of a few
days, compare the kick. ignoring the (very) minor contribution of etoh by
the priming sugars, i predict the kick will be as follows:
over-primed > primed > artificially carbonated > flat
ps to whoever suggested the "young" alcohol theory. unless there is more
to this theory than you have written, it is... flawed. alcohol (at least
the kind you _want_ to drink) is etoh, or ethanol. regardless of how long
it takes to make it, or how long it's been sitting, etoh is etoh.
of course, i could be wrong.
___________________________________________________________
This is Chris' signature:
C____ R__
&%
His home page is at http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjr7/
Return to table of contents