HOMEBREW Digest #2441 Mon 16 June 1997

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

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

  "CO2 saturation" - some observations (John Rezabek)
  Re: Yeast culturing (David Johnson)
  Corn, not in beer, but sort-of related to brewing (Russ Brodeur)
  Injected = signs, Outatown ("David R. Burley")
  Possible Iodophor off tastes. (Eric  Tepe)
  Oh, please... (Some Guy)
  various points ("Graham Wheeler")
  yet more CO2... (Dave Whitman)
  RE:  Lacto bugs in your equipment (George De Piro)
  CO2 release (DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932)
  Brewing Software Survey results (Guy Mason)
  CO2 toxicity (Jim Busch)
  Commercial hop production (Dan Cole)
  Scottish Ale and a Scot's reminisce ("Ian Wilson")
  Stainless Cooler??? ("John L. Heubel")
  New Address (Charlie Scandrett)
  re: UPS shipping (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
  poor Jethro - CO2 toxicity ("Andy Walsh")
  Hefe Roggen help ("Audra Macmann")
  Fruit Beers (Dennis Waltman)
  Formaldehyde in beer (Bill Watt)
  PET Test Bottle ("Val J. Lipscomb")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 02:27:13 -0400 From: John Rezabek <rezabeks at alpha.wcoil.com> Subject: "CO2 saturation" - some observations Please bear with me if these rudimentary observations have been thoroughly hashed over, later I think have a few marginally more interesting data points to offer . . . I have done a couple experiments that may support David Robinson's hypothesis about pH or some similar chemical mechanism (that's coupled with high CO2 concentrations) contributing to early attenuation. This idea first interested me having observed how a dry-hopped ale would sometimes undergo a noticeably stronger secondary fermentation, than a similar beer using the identical yeast. The dry hopped beers tended to have lower FG's as well. I recently had a 1078 OG bock that was stuck at 1033 at about 40 degrees for three weeks. I dropped in a few hop pellets (providing nucleation sites)and the beer foamed up vigorously (had to replace airlock with a blow-off) and the gravity dropped another 6 points or so in the ensuing weeks. Of necessity, I divided a 1068 OG Maerzen between a 5 gallon secondary and a one gallon secondary. I added dry hops only to the 5 gallon secondary. The larger fermentor had a gravity of 1023 at kegging time, while the small vessel finalled out lower (at 1020).?! Similarly, I divided a 1056 OG Hefe-Weizen between a large and small secondary, and only added additional hop pellets to the large vessel. The 5-gallon finished at 1008, while the small fermentor was at 1011. All of the beers involved had original gravities between 1048 and 1080. Both the Maerzen and the bock were brewed with the same lager yeast. Even though these represent very few data points and very imperfect experiments, there would appear to be more at work than just CO2 saturation. Otherwise, the dry-hopped beer should have always finished lower. Huh. Na zdravi! John Rezabek rezabeks at alpha.wcoil.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 06:41:16 -0700 From: David Johnson <dmjalj at inwave.com> Subject: Re: Yeast culturing Like Anton, I also am a satisfied customer (having bought Brewer's Resource complete yeast culturing kit), but if I had it to do over again I might just do it differently. I certainly would have checked out some other sources of information. Dave Draper has info on using slants on his beer page and the Yeast Culture Kit Company has good info on their page. I like the professional equipment I got from BR (I am not dextrous enough to use a paperclip for this) and the yeasts have done well in my beers. I enjoy "yeast ranching" too! (kudos to Dave D). Rounding 'em up! Heading 'em out! Dave Johnson Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:41:46 -0400 From: Russ Brodeur <r-brodeur at ds.mc.ti.com> Subject: Corn, not in beer, but sort-of related to brewing I had this semi-brewing-related brainstorm the other night: I assume corn (sweet corn, still on the cob) contains some quantity of alpha and/or beta amylase enzymes. I may be wrong about this assumption, but isn't that why it's sweet in the first place? I think it is generally sweeter after cooking, too. Could the "sweetness" of the cooked corn be enhanced by a saccharification rest in the 145-50 F range before boiling?? I am actually going to attempt some sort of experiment this weekend to find the answer. I will try side-by-side cookings: one with a 15-30 min rest at 145-50 F before boiling, the other brought as quickly as possible to boiling. I am a bit concerned that the gelatinization temp for corn starch is too high, but it is still worth a shot. I know you're all quivering with anticipation, so I will post my results on Monday. TTFN Russ Brodeur in Franklin, MA - -- mailto:r-brodeur at ds.mc.ti.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:02:53 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Injected = signs, Outatown Brewsters: Until a week or so ago, I hadn't realized my copy to the HBD was being ravaged by "=3D" signs, broken words, etc. I normally don''t read my submissions and hadn't realized how annoying this e-mail defect can be until other HBDers notified me. I am apparently not the only one, but cannot see a correspondence among any of the contributors Karl Lutzen suggested that it is a failure to send in ASCII format, Compuserve says "Impossible". So I don't know. I did install a new version of an on-line e-mail spell checker, but fail = to see how this could be causing the problem Anyone with any other ideas - please?? = - --------------------------------------- This is a copy of part of the above where I hit return to see if it is a column problem: Until a week or so ago, I hadn't realized my copy to the HBD was being ravaged by "=3D" signs, broken words, etc. I normally don''t read my submissions and hadn't realized how annoying this e-mail defect can be until other HBDers notified me. I am apparently not the only one, but cannot see a correspondence among any of the contributors. - -------------------------------------- I'll be fishing in Quebec until next Thursday, so I'm not ignoring e-mail= =2E = Thanks to Jacques Bourdouxhe's recommendations I won't be going thirsty. - --------------------------------------- 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, 13 Jun 1997 09:16:28 -0400 From: Eric Tepe <tepee0 at chmcc.org> Subject: Possible Iodophor off tastes. Collective, In my search of the archives I did not find the information that I needed about iodophor. I am fairly new to homebrewing (with 10 batches-3 all grain-under my belt) and use a basic setup of a 7 gallon food grade bucket as a primary (I brew in 6 gallon batches) and a 5 gallon polycarbonate plastic water carboy as a secondary. Being a biologist in a virology lab I am a nut about sanitation and keeping everything clean. I use Iodophor because it is *supposed* to be a "no-rinse" sanitizing agent (although I do rinse some of the time with boiled water). 1. If you accidently use to high of a dilution of Iodophor 2 tbsp in 7 gallons water) and the sides of your primary (my 7 gallon bucket) is stained or colored by the Iodophor and you use it anyway, can this impart an off flavor like bleach can? 2. What would the off flavor taste like? ( I had what I thought was a good light ale in a competition and it got hammered because of a off flavor described as 'solventy' attributed to either contamination (which I seriously doubt), high fermentation temperature (basement temp=66F), or residual bleach or Iodophor). 3. Can Iodophor cause iodophenols like bleach can cause chlorophenols? 4. How can I use this more effectively or are there more effective sanitation techniques that I can use. Thanks in advance to all that respond. Eric R. Tepe Private e-mail ok at tepee0 at chmcc.org Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:37:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Oh, please... Greetings, Beerlings! Douse me with your lager... In response to Joe Bair's eloquent and interesting note in HBD 2440: - ---------- thermal barrier ----------- 1) I am not in the habit of carrying PHB's phone number around with me. Until Joe told me I had it, I was, quite frankly, unaware. He did provide it to me in a rather entertaining missive last night, though, so I won't have to look for it. 2) When did it become SOP for a customer to call a shop to ask whether they are abiding by their published hours before visiting them? Damn! I missed that! 3) A homebrew shop "providing bad press" about another is a bit different than having a customer do so. 4) The HBD is quite a bit different than the PALE ALE list. The HBD is a free, open forum in which anyone can post through simply e-mailing a note - as Joe has (Hell! I even made sure he had the instructions!) - whereas Mr. Bair writes or otherwise selects the content for his. I could easily have deleted Joe's post from the queue, but it is not my job to censor, just to keep out the spam and other internet debris that occasionally lands on our doorstep. Due to the nature of the digest, my posting to it is about as "self serving" as taking out an ad in the Times - whether I administer it, or not. (By the way: Am I still on the PALE ALE subscription list? You're still on the HBD's...) I'm sorry you're so disturbed by this, Joe. My intention was not to have you lay your family and corporate history out in a public forum, and it is doubtful that the original post would have had much impact on your business. I am not evil, Joe. Nor am I in need of relaxation. I only did what I thought a customer was supposed to do: I came out to buy. It is apparent that they have changed the rules regarding customer-vendor relationships. I am deeply sorry that I missed the roll-out of this change. Had I known, this whole unfortunate mess could have been avoided. - ---------- thermal barrier ----------- To Joe's credit, his shop is well stocked with all the goodies one could desire. His prices are, in my opinion, fair. No complaints there (The source of the "I thought I had..." in the original posting). He does much to promote home brewing in the Princeton area, and, from what I have seen, is the main (or at least a major) impetous behind the Princeton and Local Environs Ale and Lager Enjoyment Society (The PALE ALES), a very interesting and active bunch of home brewers with an enviable ability to garner meeting guests from industry. It would be a shame if his shop were to close - such was not my goal nor intention in the original post nor in this reply. I'm sorry that Joe's unique perspective on the vendor-customer relationship has precipitated this thread. In my opinion, I was justified. This is the last I intend to say on this issue. 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, 13 Jun 1997 15:58:45 +0100 From: "Graham Wheeler" <Graham.Wheeler at btinternet.com> Subject: various points Andy Walsh's (do I detect a hint of old-colonial flaming here?) input on Aussie hops seems to confirm my major point: that if you happen to live the wrong side of that magical 35 degree line, whether in the northern or southern hemisphere, you are going to have difficulty growing hops. Andy mentions that the best hops in his region are grown in N.Z. I don't know, but I would guess that the hop growing region in NZ would be the southernmost part of the south island -- well into the high 40s latitude. Neve can't help being born a Brit -- honest! On Andy's nucleation zone point. I have heard of commercial brewers adding carborundum powder to old glass-lined wooden fermenters. Whether this was done to de-gas the beer to cure fermentation problems, or to reduce foaming on susequent transfer operations, I just don't know. I am sure that most of this CO2 toxicity stuff is valid, but there are certain aspects of it that I find difficult to swallow. I can't help thinking that the American HB practice of fermenting in glass carboys would have revealed problems long before now if CO2 toxicity was a serious problem. Having said that, I know of British home brewers that have experimented with using carboys, but have abandoned them again in favour of open plastic buckets because the yeast hasn't performed true to type. The yeast very often does not display true top-working characteristics. This was attributed to the slight positive pressure caused by the airlock, but in retrospect it may have been a lack of nucleation zones. There is a patented lager glass in Britain that has a scintered (?) or frosted bottom. This rough bottom provides plenty of nucleation sites for CO2 bubbles to form and has the effect of making the lager look very lively and appealing to those that like such things as fizzy lager. Surprisingly, the lager in these glasses keeps up this this fizzing performance for some considerable time; an hour or more. As this chilled beverage warms up to room temperature the CO2 becomes less soluble and is immediately released, courtesy of the amply provided nucleation sites. Graham Wheeler High Wycombe England Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:30:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net> Subject: Re: MILL ANTI-EXPLOSION PROOFING >From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au> >Subject: brew free or die! >Would you believe me if I said that it is standard practice on >commercial 4/6 roll malt mills to have anti-explosive devices fitted? >Feeling lucky Jethro? Just remove those anti explosive devices from your >mill... yes it is standard equipment on most mills (magnets on the input, good grounds, limited metal to metal contact, dust vaccums and explosion proof motors.) but have you ever heard of a micro having and explosion...even a big micro..... most micros do not grind enough to worry about major trouble most micros do not have 4/6 roll mills anyway, so dust inside the mill is limited to some extent. as an ex microbrewer, we used a schmiddling mill to mill between 2 and 3 metric tonne per month ( yes a very small micro), we never had the "luxury" of having magnets, dust vaccums or TEFC motors. i lit the motor up once and the result fire only burned up half the town - only kidding. i know of other brewers that had similar "hacked together" mill equipment that are far bigger and they never have had a "close one". a/b, miller and cors amoungst a few other large producers would need it just to pass OSHA or local ordinance....so jethro you could probably get away with out it. joe Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:38:31 From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> Subject: yet more CO2... In HBD2440, Dave Draper maintains a healthy skepticism about supersaturation of wort/beer with CO2: > I can see that in a fermentor >that is "ideal" for this purpose, i.e. perfectly smooth-sided with >*no* nucleation sites, and if the beer is *perfectly* trub-free >(remember "frictionless pulleys" from physics class?), then >supersaturation is possible in principle. I would argue that in >almost any *practical* setting, where these perfect conditions do >not apply, that supersaturation will not take place-- there will be >plenty of bubble nucleation. Again, I want to move beyond thermodynamics and point out that kinetics are important here. It's not as simple as "lots of bubbles are forming, so it can't be supersaturated". You need to take the bubble nucleation rate and compare that to the yeast's CO2 production rate. I can't claim to know the relative rate constants, but I'm leery of a blanket assumption that nucleation is fast relative to fermentation in any practical setting. There are anecdotal reports of beer gushing out of fermenters when finely divided Polyclar is added. Adding nucleation sites isn't going to affect the equilibrium concentration of CO2 in solution (thermodynamics), only the rate at which the system approaches equilibrium (kinetics). If the system was at equilibrium already, why would we see an increase in the CO2 loss rate when more nucleating sites were added? I'll be brewing this weekend. My glass fermenter is a few years old (far from ideal) and while I whirlpool to minimize trub, I usually end up with a centimeter of so at the bottom. When the batch hits high krausen, I'll pull a wort sample and drop in some Polyclar or silica gel and see what happens. Supersaturation (or lack thereof) aside, Dave Burley's comments about CO2 "toxicity" make a lot of sense to me: >I can explain all of the observations, so far, >simply by postulating premature flocculation of the yeast - which is a >well-recognized phenomenon among ale yeasts, especially. Yeast (like almost all other naturally occurring colloidal suspensions) have a negative zeta potential. Increasing CO2 concentration will drop the pH of the wort, which in turn will reduce the absolute value of the yeast's zeta potential, making them more prone to flocculation. This would nicely explain the reported observations. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:13:18 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: RE: Lacto bugs in your equipment Hi all, Scott Murman says that he would never allow his brewing equipment to contact microbes other than Saccharomyces because he fears permanent contamination. This is an unfounded fear. Tubing, rubber stoppers, and other small, heat resistant parts can be autoclaved. Autoclaving will kill EVERYTHING that can hurt your beer. It may not effect thermophillic bacteria that live in hot springs and sea vents, but they are of little concern to the brewer. Fermenters and other things made of metal and glass can be sanitized effectively with iodophor, bleach, or your favorite sanitizing product. Look at it this way: you don't have separate brewing equipment for each yeast strain you use, and you don't worry about that. Just be sure to clean the heck out of everything, and then sanitize it! Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 19:33:13 +0000 (GMT) From: DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932 <BRADLEY_DAVID_A at LILLY.COM> Subject: CO2 release Per the CO2 toxicity thread and the use of various solids for nucleation (trub, silica gel, DE, etc), one should remember that there is mixing induced by the resulting bubbles. Ever seen the big clumps of yeast that rise and fall during the active ferments? This mixing helps attenuation, as posted by DD and others. Personally, I am physically (ha) more comfortable with the contributions of mixing versus any CO2 toxicity. Just a small consideration.... Dave in Indy Home of the 3-B Brewery, v. Ltd. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:39:23 -0400 From: Guy Mason <guy at adra.com> Subject: Brewing Software Survey results Greetings, Here are the results of my Brewing Software query to date. 4 Brewer's Workshop 4.0 1 SUDS 4.0 1 Homebrewer's Assistant 1 Brewer's Calculator for Windows 1 "Try Homebrew Recipe Calculator" - the author 1 "Try New Joy of Homebrewing CD-ROM" - producer/distributor 1 Homemade MS-Excel spreadsheet --- 10 Looks like Brewer's Workshop is the current leader, now I just need to decide on a style and recipe for the June 21st Summer Solstice brew-a-thon. Perhaps a nice Pagan Pale Ale... Thanks to all who responded. - -- guy Elvis has left the building... Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:32:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: CO2 toxicity Our old friend Andy Walsh comments: <I borrowed some kieselguhr from a micro recently and now add it to my <primary, since I have very clear wort. I don't have any scientific data <showing better fermentations, but whereas I *used* to have low AE, I now <tend to get good AE. Although I cannot categorically state that the DE <additions have helped, it *has* been shown elsewhere, and it gives me <peace of mind. For those out there that dont know what kieselguhr is, it is the German word for DE (diatomaceous earth). Andy, does the DE settle out and form a hard cake on the fermenter bottom? Can you detect any carryover into the beer? This concept seems very plausable to me. One of the old German tricks to jumpstart a stuck or sluggish fermentation is to add wooden slats (beechwood aging's precursor??) to the fermenter. This seems to resolve a stuck ferment for some. Ive never tried but it sounds promising. Prost! Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:48:36 -0400 From: Dan Cole <dcole at roanoke.infi.net> Subject: Commercial hop production I have almost convinced a friend of mine with a small winery in progress to devote some of his land to hops. He has a green thumb so we have no doubts that he will be be successful in growing the hops, but before he is willing to devote any of his grape space to hops, he wanted to know more about the agribusiness side of commercial hop production (cost per plot, typical crop losses, typical fertilizer useage/costs, expected output per plot, and anything that would give him a better feel for profitability of the endeavor). I have searched the web for this information and can only find information for the hobbyist hop grower. Anyone know the commercial side of the hop business? TIA, Dan Cole dcole at roanoke.infi.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 97 17:07:30 PDT From: "Ian Wilson" <iwilson at lightspeed.net> Subject: Scottish Ale and a Scot's reminisce John Goldthwaite writes: <snip> but a Scottish Ale is roughly akin to a bitter. A Scotch Ale is LOTS heavier and usually VERY alcoholic= . More like a barleywine or a super heavy stout. Try McEwan's Scotch ale to get a handl= e on what I feel is an excellent beer. I'd recommend several of these before hitting the links! = <end snip> John, I'm Glad you got a kick out of my story. The HBD needs a bit more humor. = We brew for fun, not work. HBD should be available for exchange of information and brewing sto= ries, not flames and snipes. I'll never beat anyone around the head and shoulders for any statement. = HBD is for learning, and I've learned quite a bit from some of the postings. However, to say that = Scottish Ale is a bit like a bitter is like saying a kilt is a bit like a skirt. Both statements would= get you into a brawl in a "guid Highland pub"! I managed to take first place at Fresno in the first round of the AHA las= t year. Would have loved to have seen what the beer would have done in New Orleans, but it never = made it there. That, however, is another story all together! Scottish Ales tend to have a good bit more residual sugar in them than = a bitter. There is considerably more mouth feel from unfermented dextrins, though not nearly= as much as a barleywine. Stouts are usually characterized by roasted flavours on the = edges, whereas Scottish Ale should be smooth with caramelly notes and a well balanced floral or = fruity hop bitterness rather than a rough one. Scottish Ales have OG from 1.030 to 1.050, depending upon the sub-categor= y. Hop bitterness should be between 15 and 25 IBU. McEwan's Scotch ale is a damn fine brew, even if it is made by a lowland = brewery (notice the appelation - Scotch Ale). The highlands start on the North side of Loch = Ness and proceed North. Edinburgh and Glasgow are lowland cities plagued by funny wee men left = over from the Jacobite Uprising. My family is Clan Gunn, from Caithness and Sutherland, in the = very northeastern part of Scotland. If you are brewing from all grains, I would use a portion of a peat-smoke= d pale ale barley to get some of that lovely highland flavour. In addition, I would go so far as = to suggest using noble German hops for bitterness and refrain from using any English hops or the= ir derivatives. Remember that the Scots and the English didn't mix well, though Highland = Clan chiefs were often welcomed in German, Flemish and French courts. I haven't a recipe to pass along, as I'm still working diligently to prod= uce a good one I'm prod enough of. As far as other good examples of Scottish Ale, I haven't really run acros= s any that remind me of an engine pulled cask ale from a pub on a cold, wet night, with a chunk = of rough bread, a pickled onion or two, a chunk of cheese, and a bonnie lass to pass the evening. = Ah, but that was another life in another place. Good luck to all of you on hitting the target (a word taken from the Gael= ic for the small round shield used by a true highlander). Stop and smell the heather once in awh= ile and enjoy yourself and your craft! Ian Wilson iwilson at lightspeed.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:32:02 -0500 From: "John L. Heubel" <jlheubel at wf.net> Subject: Stainless Cooler??? Well, I was sifting through the local junk yard's stainless pile and came across what I belive is the *Gott cooler of yesteryear.* The stamp on the side is Jug, Vacuum, 10 Gal w/Spigot. Vacuum Can Company, Chicago. It's also labelled do not use for milk or milk products. The clamp-on lid is missing and it has a few dents, but otherwise appears intact. Judging from shape and size it looks like it will make a great mash tun. Since it's metal it can be directly heated if I miss a temp step etc. Now the questions... 1. Does anyone know if the space between the inner and outer walls are just dead air? Is that how Thermos' work? This should eliminate the need for insulation I'd think. I know I'm in for some experimentation here soon. 2. Will any harm come to the outer metal by heating without a liquid in there and will the air transfer the heat to the mash? Anyone out there take thermodynamics and actually remember it or use it on a daily basis? 3. If I'll damage the metal by *dry* heating, could I instead drill a hole in the top of the outer portion, fill partially with water, and make sort of a *double boiler* out of it like is used for heating parafin, chocolate, etc? I know this should transfer heat better than air alone and also prevent scorching. 4. If this is indeed stainless, why couldn't it be used for milk? I know the dairy industry uses lots of stainless. Could this possibly be aluminum (no I'm not worried about Alzheimer's, just curious about the warning)? Thanks for any clues regarding my find. This was also posted to r.c.b yesterday but I've only received 2 responses so far as to what it may be. Sorry for the long-windedness. John Heubel Wichita Falls,Tx Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:34:49 +1000 From: Charlie Scandrett <merino at squirrel.com.au> Subject: New Address My internet provider went broke.(probably because I havn't paid them for two years). All messages to me for the last two weeks have gone missing. Sorry for the bandwidth, but someone might die wondering. My new address is as above. I paid them. Charlie (Brisbane, Australia) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 08:17:47 -0700 From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com> Subject: re: UPS shipping I was under the impression that UPS allows the shipment of alcoholic beverages for evaluation purposes. If this is the case, why don't we ask the AHA to work with UPS and clear this up once and for all? AHA could give each of us a letter from UPS that clarifies the policy. Homebrewers could show it to UPS counter personnel and contract shippers if a question arises. >Busted...The local UPS service (Angleton Texas) now opens and inspects >all packages regardless of what is written on the outside (FOOD or >YEAST SAMPLES). They would not ship anything in glass and especially >if it is alcoholic in nature. The same goes with the US postal >service. Its getting to where you can't enter any home brew >competitions unless you drive it there yourself. This there any way >around this. Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com> Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Grangeville, Idaho Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:13:10 +1000 From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh at crl.com.au> Subject: poor Jethro - CO2 toxicity >From Sir Gump, >I crush each and every kernel of malt by hand with a jeweler's hammer and a pair of micro-surgical forceps! Geez. Poor Jethro! That bloody cheapskate owner of LABCO won't even buy you a mill! Will anybody out there send Jethro their old clapped out Glatt Mill so he doesn't have to undergo such torture? (The Glatt mill is the only homebrewer's mill with integral antiexplosion device - stripped nylon gears) ****** In my last post I used a couple of acronyms- AE = apparent extract. the amount of soluble malt constituents in beer. equivalent to final specific gravity. DE = diamotaceous earth = kielselguhr. I also slipped up by saying DE (seemingly) increased my AE. I meant *decreased*. ie. I am getting lower FG these days. On reflection, I am really not sure that the DE is the cause of the improvement. Although increased CO2 concentration *definitely* retards fermentation (numerous studies exist), and that addition of DE (or other powder) reduces the CO2 in solution, whether this is significant on a homebrew scale is an open question. Pretty much all of the studies in brewing science are aimed at commercial scales (funny about that). The height of the fermenting vessel will have a huge impact on the CO2 in solution (10m = 1 atmosphere). Therefore, just because CO2 may significantly retard fermentation in a 100 Hl fermenter hardly means the same will happen on a homebrew scale. (maybe it does - it can't hurt to reduce it!) On pH in fermentation of beer. Beer ferments faster at lower pH, not higher. Maybe wine is contrary, but it is also about 10X more acidic. A recent Brauwelt (1/97, p16) has an article by Narziss, who says that *lowering* the pH value to 4.9-5.0 of the wort at pitching favours fermentation rate and maltose uptake. He provides figures between 2 identical worts, initial pH = 5.45. One was acidified to pH 4.95, fermented in 7 days rather than 9, and had lower VDKs, esters, fusels etc. Most importantly, it scored significantly higher in taste trials. (interesting thing to try). It seems highly unlikely (to me) that CO2 toxicity is due to carbonic acid lowering the pH to unacceptable values. (It is hardly an acid at all anyway) Andy. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 97 14:25:52 PDT From: "Audra Macmann" <kestrel at full-moon.com> Subject: Hefe Roggen help My husband has recently started (extract) brewing and it is his dream to brew a hefe roggen such as the ones he njoyed in Germany. We think that it had wheat as well as rye and barley. I have searched Cats Meow for him but nothing seems to ring a bell. He sat down with a calculator, a catalogue, and a couple of books and came up with the following recipe. When you all are through ROTFL could you let us know how far off base we are? <G> 4 lbs German Pilsener malt 3 lbs wheat malt 3 lbs rye malt (I think this is too much but I know less about it than he does!) 1 oz Tettnanger hops, boiled 60 min 1 oz Hallertauer, boiled 15 min Wyeast #3068 Thanks for any help, Audra Macmann, Ohio asmac at concentric.net or kestrel at full-moon.com www.concentric.net/~asmac/ "The worst thing in the world, next to anarchy, is government." -- Henry Ward Beecher Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 17:59:49 -0700 From: Dennis Waltman <waltman at bellsouth.net> Subject: Fruit Beers My best successes with Fruit Beers have been with bases that are darker beers: Brown Ales, or Sweet Stouts. The combination of fruit and malt flavors makes one taste more than fruit. My lighter fruit ales, tend to be unbalanced towards the fruit. I have always added the fruit, fruit juice or fruit concentrate to the secondary fermentation vessel. And in the first case, racked the beer to a tertiary fermenter for clearing and finishing. This makes it hard to show a true OG/FG ratio, as you are adding more sugars late in the fermentation process. Crystal malts or lactose can add a hint of sweetness, as the sugars are going to ferment out. I have had good recognition of fruit beers with a higher final alcohol. A more powerful fruit aroma seems to occur, I'd guess (a WAG) because the evaporating alcohol helps bring the aromas up out the glass. I've also tasted a fruit Barleywine that was divine, and it had the same good aroma. On Honey to Fruit Beers, to boost the strength without adding body or too much malt I have added, plus sometimes you gain a perception of sweetness [I have a super dry mead, that still "tastes" and smells like honey) or honeyness that mixes well with some fruit. I've always also added the honey to the secondary. Be careful with really strong honeys. They will add interesting flavors, but if you plan to enter the beers in contests, the beer judges may not understand and mark you down for it. It is hard enough getting mead judges to accept wierd honeys. :) Also, I've made a grapefruit beer, with no fruit whatsoever :), it had fair good comments as a fruit beer, then the APA that it was an attempt at. :) Dennis Waltman Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:13:59 -0700 From: Bill Watt <wattbrew at buffnet.net> Subject: Formaldehyde in beer Are you ready for this? During a beer discussion last week, one of the guys at work said he heard that Heineken put formaldehyde in their beer as a preservative. This was back in the early 80's when he was in college. I told him this was impossible and unacceptable. He insisted that this was a popular rumor at the time. I have never heard this before and explained that it was probably the skunkiness of the beer caused by green glass and improper handling that caused the rumor to start. He insisted that the rumor was true. I said I would ask the collective if anyone else had heard this and did anyone actually believe it??? If anyone can shed some more light on this subject, please post or send private email. - -- Brewing beer in Lancaster, NY Watt's Brewing Bill Watt - wattbrew at buffnet.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:47:52 -0500 (CDT) From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay at NetXpress.com> Subject: PET Test Bottle Greetings All, Lately there have been questions as to if and how long PET (plastic) soft drink bottles can be used. I just have a suggestion regarding PET bottles to those who,like me,choose to bottle. For 7 or 8 years I've bottled one 16 or 20 ounce PET bottle from each batch as a test bottle. Being clear,it allows you to see the settling of the yeast and it allows you to check the status of carbonation without opening. If that sucker is hard enough to drive nails, it's ready!! I've kept those bottles around for a couple of months with no apparent loss of quality or carbonation,for those who've asked about time. Like most simple ideas,it works and,in this case, I doubt if your "mileage may vary" very much,as long as you remember to keep clear bottles in a dark place. Val Lipscomb-brewing in San Antonio Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/16/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96