HOMEBREW Digest #2573 Wed 03 December 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

  Barley Wine gusher (Mark Dodgson)
  Coffee Stout (Beerd00d)
  Boiling grain experts revisited. (BrewBeerd)
  RE: Coffee Stout (Don Ogaard)
  bubblegum ("Frank Hurlbut")
  Re: histamine reactions from beer ("Christopher D. Lyons")
  hydrometer calibration (Dave Whitman)
  Jethro Gumps 3 (4) Books (Randy Lee)
  Carlsberg, Histamine,HSA ,Starch Gel Temp, ("David R. Burley")
  Long time on yeast (John Wilkinson)
  Stopgap keg insulation gimmick (David S Draper)
  Whirlpool (David S Draper)
  Irish moss and Intellectual property rights (Chasman)
  Purging Cornelius tanks (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Conical Fermenters (Joe Rolfe)
  Sticky Sparge (Rich Hampo)
  re: pitching rates (Charley Burns)
  Dr. Lewis (Al Korzonas)
  Clinitest/Belgian Ales (Al Korzonas)
  cidery beer from refined sugars (Al Korzonas)
  Sparklers (Al Korzonas)
  Marital Counseling Digest (LaBorde, Ronald)

===================================================================== A Public Service Announcement (experimental feature): Check out the "Le Premier Spectacle De Houblon du Monde" - The PALE ALES home brew competition. Entry deadline is Dec. 4th, 1997 Visit their website at www.angelfire.com/biz/paleales for more info. 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 brewery at realbeer.com 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: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 03:01:55 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Dodgson <mjdodgson at rocketmail.com> Subject: Barley Wine gusher Hi I brewed my first barley wine yesterday for next winter's (in Australia) drinking from Dave Miller's recipe. I brew in 10 gallon batches, but I upped the grain bill by 2.5 kg of the ale malt. I have also just bought a phil mill, and unfortunately I didn't adjust it right, and spent nearly 2 hours hand grinding over 13 kg of grain that turned out not to be grinded enough. I am "urgently" working on attaching a drill to the mill :-0 Anyway the OG turned out to be 1084 (mashed at 69 deg C for 2 hours) and I aerated with aquarium pump and pitched a 3 liter starter of YKCC A08 last night. I use an open fermentation regime: 50 liter kegs with the top cut out. I have never seen such a gusher as this, even the Wyeast 3068 aint this active for me. The temperature is around 20 deg C during the day. After around 12 hours from pitching the yeast starter I have had to crop the yeast and other stuff from the top of the fermenter every hour or risk having crud all over the floor. There is around 4 inches of space between the top of the green beer and the space where the fermenter lid usually is (but not for this brew obviously). Every time I scoop the crud off the top of the green beer I see the stuff quickly forming to build a film of the stuff on the top again. Unfortunately, I have to sleep, so I'm a little worried my brew room is going to be full of fermentation sludge. I'm not complaining, just thought I'd mention how much I'm enjoying the homebrewing experience after nearly a year and 23 batches. Bye === Mark Dodgson email:mjdodgson at rocketmail.com http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2609 _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:25:27 -0500 (EST) From: Beerd00d at aol.com Subject: Coffee Stout Coffee stouts are one of my favorite beers to make. I have experimented with several different methods of getting the coffee aroma and flavor into the beer and found that using a "dry hop" method is best. Simply take about 1.5 ozs of whole beans, gently crack them and put into the secondary in a hop sock. I usually let it sit for about 2-3 weeks and then bottle. If you have a stout recipe that you like, use that and just add the coffee at the end. If you want to try my recipe, here it is: My recipe for Highlander Grogg Stout: 7 lbs amber malt extract 2 cups Black Patent 1 cup Black Barley 2 ozs Bullion hops 2 ozs centennial Hops 1 oz Mt hood hops pinch irish moss 1.25 ozs coffee beans cracked ( I used Highlander Grogg coffee from a local gourmet store, thus the name, but you might try using any robust, bitter, rich flavored bean) 1 satchet danstar manchester yeast (neutral, non-fruity ester ale yeast) Procedure: Soak black barley and black patent in 1 gallon of water on low heat for about 1.5 hours (do not boil grains) sparge with cool water into brewpot heat water to boil, add extract boil 10 mins, add bullion and centennial hops boil 45 mins add irish moss boil 15 mins add mt hood hops boil 5 mins cool add to carboy with enough cool water to make 5 gallons. pitch rehydrated yeast, let ferment until airlock activity slows. rack to secondary and add the cracked coffee beans in a hop sock secondary for 21 days, bottle/keg in normal fashion. OG:1.052 FG:1.014 Produces a very nice roasted bitter coffee flavor that is not too harsh. Beautiful coffee nose and finish on this tasty stout. if you try this recipe tell me how you like it. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:40:30 -0500 (EST) From: BrewBeerd at aol.com Subject: Boiling grain experts revisited. Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager.... I *KNOW* I've seen this subject addressed in this forum once before, but I don't recall the conclusion. As you all know, I'm not a proponent of the "boil the grains" steep procedure propagated by the likes of CP. "Never, never, never boil the grains!" is one of my battle cries. But what of decoction mashing? A friend and I kind of fell into this discussion recently, and neither of us really *know* why one is good, the other isn't. We both agree that boiling the grains in a steeping situation produces a titanically tannic, starch-hazey brew. We understand why there isn't a starch haze problem in the decoction mash, but why doesn't decoction produce nasty tannins from the grain husks? (Though I could site one hefeweizen I did that is pretty tannic, but that was an accident in the sparge...) Here goes with my thoughts: In a "steep", you typically have a lot of water and very little grain. In a decoction, excepting the final decoct, you have the opposite condition. Water is a solvent. As the water dissolves things into it, its ability to accept other compounds - to act as a solvent - diminishes. Sort of like when your jar or turpentine has cleaned so many paint brushes that it can't clean any more. When you have a lot of water and little grain, that water will strip away anything you can offer it: sugars, tannins, starches, etc, etc. In a decoction, your mash has already been through an infusion, and the water has already dissolved quite a bit of sugars into it. Plus, when you go to boil, there isn't that much water there, and what IS there is busily taking on sugars and starches before the tannins are freed. Perhaps there is little or no solvent ability left in that small quantity of water when the tannins are freed? As for the starches, in a steep, you boil them right along with everything else. Haze city. In a decoction, you return the decoct to the main mash and the enzymes convert the freed starches to sugars. By the time the final decoct comes around, it's my guess that the starches are all pretty well converted, and, since there is more water than grain (and I'd imagine the water is pretty "full" as a solvent) that you don't extract enough tannins to really be of a concern. Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the subject. Anybody have a definitive answer addressing both the tannin and starch ends of it? See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:11:14 -0700 From: Don Ogaard <dogaard at trib.com> Subject: RE: Coffee Stout Robert Dittmar (citing Tim Dennis) asks for a recipe for Coffee Stout. = The following won the Best of Show at the 1997 Lander (Wyoming) Homebrew = Fest. (Yeah, I know, it's not the biggest competition in the world, but = still ...) It's an Oatmeal/Milk/Espresso Stout (a complete breakfast in = a bottle!) I, too, was inspired by Double Black, although I realize = that DB's not an oatmeal/milk. I also realize that converting this = all-grainer to extract is going to be a challenge, because if you've = been following the recent thread on use of oatmeal, you know you should = mash it ... but here it is, FWIW: (for 5 gallons) 8# 2-row pale malt 4 oz black patent malt 4 oz chocolate malt 2 oz 250L crystal 2 oz 120L crystal 4 oz 60L crystal 4 oz ground espresso-roast coffee beans 6 oz oatmeal (Quaker Oats - no affiliation) mashed overnight (in the original - an hour or so would probably be fine = for more normal processes) at 154 F. =20 Add to boil: 1/2# malto-dextrin 1/2# lactose 1/4 oz Fuggles 60 min. 1/4 oz Fuggles 3 min Fermented with a home-cultured yeast whose parent was Wyeast #1084 = (Irish Ale) OG 1.058 Too lazy to take a TG (wish I would have). Yum! I've made this one a couple of times since then and wish I had one = now ... Ein Prosit, der Gemuetlicheit! Don, in Worland, WY Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:51:43 -0900 From: "Frank Hurlbut" <kl7fh at customcpu.com> Subject: bubblegum I have been reading alot of concerns about the bubblegum taste..I have never had this problem before. I use a good liquid yeast and also sometimes I even use dry yeast, and still no bubblegum. Maybe this is an infection of sorts? I brew outdoors and full 1 hr boils in a 10 gal ss pot. I do full grain and extract. I hope this may shed some light. Maybe this bug only lives in the warmer climates..Frank KL7FH in Anchorage, Alaska The women love me and the fish FEAR me! http://www.customcpu.com/personal/kl7fh Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 07:12:26 -0500 From: "Christopher D. Lyons" <clyons at erols.com> Subject: Re: histamine reactions from beer I've never heard of anyone being allergic to hops or varieties of malts without being allergic to all bread. However, yeast is a likely possibility, but that would not explain the absence of her reaction to some of your beers and not all. The point of this reply is a warning: your friend is having a type I hypresensitivity reaction to something. As this is an amnestic response, you can expect it to get a little bit worse with each exposure to the allergen. It is possible (and has happened) that your friend will have mild reactions and then suddenly have a very violent and potentially fatal reaction. Is your friend allergic to a number of things? I would expect so. If (s)he has an epi-kit I suggest you keep it handy whenever you sample your beers. The best advice, if you can convince her insurer that it is justified, is to have her undergo allergy testing to determine what (s)he is sensitive to. I'm not a doctor, yet. I am, however, a novice homebrewer. - -- Christopher D. Lyons -- clyons at erols.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 07:56:48 -0500 From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> Subject: hydrometer calibration In HBD #2568, Dave Blaine asks: >Can someone advise on calibrating my hydrometer. I know I can check zero >in plain RO water , but for checking at more than one data point, does >someone know how much sugar to disolve in how much water to achieve >certain benchmarks, like 1.025, 1.050, etc.? Or can you assume (shudder) >that if the instrument is off so many clicks at zero that it will read >that way accross the board? I just calibrated a hydrometer, and reported on the ordeal in HBD 2524; check http://www.hbd.org/ for that back issue. It's easy to make up solutions of known specific gravity, IF you have access to a reasonably accurate scale. Table sugar (sucrose) is very pure makes a good primary standard. The CRC handbook of chemistry and physics has a table of the specific gravity of various sucrose solutions. Selected values from the table: concentration SG 2.5% 1.0097 5.0% 1.0178 7.5% 1.0297 10.0% 1.0400 15.0% 1.0592 20.0% 1.0829 Example: to make a 5% solution of sucrose in water, weigh out 5.0 g of table sugar. Add enough water to bring the total weight up to 100 g. There is an improper procedure for making standard SG solutions in a recent issue of Brewing Techniques. Ignore the article, they obviously never actually tried the proposed technique themselves since the solutions do NOT have the density they claim. Dave Whitman dwhitman at rohmhaas.com "Opinions expressed are those of the author, and not Rohm and Haas Company" Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 07:46:55 -0600 From: Randy Lee <rjlee at imation.com> Subject: Jethro Gumps 3 (4) Books I have a copy of "The Practical Brewer," Master Brewer's Association of America (the most recent edition) which I have read cover to cover. I find that it is an interesting text, but not all that practical for the small brewer. I have also been loaned a very old copy of that book by a guy that retired from Pabst about 20 years ago after having worked there all his life. That edition is from something like the 40's and I find it far more use than the current edition. It also discusses lots of interesting (and almost forgotten things now) like how and why to pitch wood kegs. They also discuss little things like brewer ethics in there (an unheard of thing in print now-a-days). The tables are better, too. What would be nice is if those folks would cross the two books for a better modern one. Randy Lee Viking Brewing Company Dallas, WI. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:28:25 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Carlsberg, Histamine,HSA ,Starch Gel Temp, Brewsters, Francois Landry is brewing in his dorm room and would like to brew a Carlsberg style beer from an extract. Francois, I suggest that you can u= se any Lager extract, but the most important thing you an do is use the Dani= sh II yeast from Wyeast. This has that nice sulphury aroma many people confuse with "skunking" in things like Heineken and other Continental Lagers, but at a very low, nearly undetectable, level, provides that complex taste you are after. Just be sure that after you ferment this at 40-50F, you let it lager for a week or so around 55F before you bottle it= =2E I can't see any reason except PITA foaming to prevent you from using a microwave, but I would suggest you look into electrically heated kettles which can handle the volume. = - --------------------------------- Ann has a friend who occasionally gets a histamine reaction from drinking= homebrew and wonders why. Examine your recipes. If they have wheat, this= may be the problem. = - --------------------------------- Ken that kind of funny astringent taste may well be hot side aeration, si= t the boiler in a bath of cold water and cool it to 80F or less before you transfer it to your carboy. It may also be that you are getting a much better extraction of your hops as a result of going from extraction batch= es to full boil all-grain batches. Adjust your hops. - --------------------------------- Andy Walsh does a characteristically excellent job explaining that starch= gelatinization temperature is not a simple thing and then closes with thi= s statement: > Hopefully this helps explain George Fix's results posted a month >or two ago, showing that just about all of the starch had been converted= >in his step mash (40-60-70) by the time 60C was reached. As I recall it, George didn't make this statement at all, but concluded that his diffractometer readings took a jump in the 40C (105F) region an= d concluded that this demonstrated the much lower gelatinization temperatur= e in this Pilsner malt, supposedly because it was much more modified. I disagreed with his interpretation, since a diffractometer reading is related to the concentration or any compound ( e.g. sugar) in the wort a= nd is not specific to starch. I believe he was seeing the degradation of th= e glucans as expected at this temperature. I suspect that the glucans are higher in this Pilsner malt than perhaps he was used to seeing in the muc= h more modified Pale ale malts. His results support other physical results = of modern Pilsner malts namely that they are typically harder than pale ale malts due to the higher glucan content. While modern Pilsner malts may be= more modified than those of old, they are , typically, still less modifie= d than pale ale malts I also saw nothing ( and Andy concurs) in Andy's discussion that would le= ad me to believe there is any relationship between gelatinization temperatur= e and degree of modification of the malt as George was contending. - --------------------------------------------- Jim Booth asks about to whom the rights for a recipe belong - the brewer = or the organization paying his salary? It belongs to the organization who paid his salary while he was developin= g the recipe - even if the development was done without the organization's approval, but using their equipment and ingredients. If he brought it in= to the organization as a part of his employment agreement and no other agreement was signed, then the organization owns it. = The best thing is to get it properly assigned right up front as nothing b= ut pain will result, eventually, if you choose to ignore whose property this= really is. I recommend that the brewer bringing in a recipe or a special= technique gets a signed licensing agreement stating he will get paid a royalty even if he leaves the organization. This provides protection for= both the business who promoted the brew and wants to continue selling it and it rewards the brewer for his contribution. - ----------------------------------------- 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: Mon, 1 Dec 97 09:11:03 CST From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: Long time on yeast I wrote last week of having beer in the fermenter five weeks on the yeast due to not being able to get to the racking. I didn't expect a problem but it doesn't look good. I finally got back to it this weekend and there was a green powdery crud (mildew?) on the outside of the keg and whatever was on top of the beer didn't look too good. I racked to secondaries and will see how it does. It tasted O.K. but I am dubious about the prospect of getting good beer out of this. I guess five weeks was a bit much. If it was properly sealed and sanitary inside it should have been O.K. but I may have slipped up somewhere. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:17:07 -0600 (CST) From: David S Draper <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Stopgap keg insulation gimmick Dear Friends, Further to my recent posts asking about keg insulation. As I write this (Monday morning Dallas time), my most recent post clarifying that I have a direct-fired keg to insulate is near the top of the queue for Tuesday's digest, so I don't know what response it might generate. Because I needed (that's right, *needed*) to brew over the weekend, I was forced to think for myself and come up with some kind of insulation solution, and it ended up working pretty well, so I thought I'd give a brief description. My goals were to have some way to contain the fiberglass insulation that Eric Schoville gave me in something metal (fireproof), and to have it be something that I could affix and remove easily for convenience when cleaning. Wandering through Home Depot, I came across some aluminum screening, and decided to try making a sandwich. I cut two rectangles of screen intended to be able to wrap all the way around the keg, laid the insulation on one, put the other on top, and wired it all together at a number of spots around the edges and corners. When I was done I had a fat pad that was easy to handle, and the screen did a good job of keeping the insulation material under control (at least I didn't have that itch-under-the-skin feeling from it). Unfortunately I misjudged the lengths and it didn't wrap quite all the way around, but it still performed quite well, with T drops of only a degree or so per 30 min, not perfect but wholly adequate. It's ugly as sin, like everything I make myself, but it got the job done. I used a couple of bungee cords to hold it on the keg (placed appropriately far above the bottom to stay well away from the burner). Total cost, ten bucks; total fabrication time, under an hour. BTW this weekend's brew was great fun, because I not only got to use my new keg-masher for the first time, but also the New Braunfels solid-rocket booster gas burner that I won as a door prize at last month's brewclub meeting. Wow! 160K BTUs of raw power, baby. Warp speed. Leaves my three-ring burner in the dust. Cheers, Dave in Dallas - -- David S. Draper ddraper at utdallas.edu Fax: 972-883-2829 Dept. Geosciences WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper Electron Probe Lab: Univ. Texas at Dallas 972-883-2407 ...That's right, you're not from Texas... but Texas wants you anyway... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:37:34 -0600 (CST) From: David S Draper <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Whirlpool Dear Friends, First off, I see from the automagical message that the message I sent on Friday will appear several posts *after* the one I just sent a few minutes ago, on Monday morning... no doubt the mentions of aluminum in the posts are giving the HBD server a fit of Alzheimers (just joking, Jeff!). Many posts over years have made mention of the whirlpool method to collect the stuff in the bottom of the kettle into a pile that can then be mostly avoided when siphoning the wort into the fermentor. This has never worked for me, and I am wondering why. In yesterday's batch I tried once again. After chilling with my immersion chiller, I removed it and then gave the wort a good firm stir for about 30 seconds to get it rotating nicely, then put the lid on and went away for about 10 or 15 minutes. Siphoned into the fermentor, and when the wort level got low enough, found not a hill or cone but just a flat, thick layer of stuff. My stuff composition, by the way, is trub plus discombobulated hop pellets. What gives? I know that it probably didn't work for me while I was in Sydney simply because the Coriolis force makes such things point the wrong way...*grin*... How vigorous does the spin have to be and how long should I have to wait? Thanks for any input, Dave in Dallas - -- David S. Draper ddraper at utdallas.edu Fax: 972-883-2829 Dept. Geosciences WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper Electron Probe Lab: Univ. Texas at Dallas 972-883-2407 ...That's right, you're not from Texas... but Texas wants you anyway... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 08:21:34 -0800 From: Chasman <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com> Subject: Irish moss and Intellectual property rights Jim asks about Irish Moss: >I've read that you should hydrate your Irish Moss before adding, and a >couple of questions come to mind. > >Is the day before necessary or is 15' in hot water enuf? > >After hydration there is a jellied mass. Can this be dumped in the >boiling wort intact or does it need to be stirred into solution with hot >fluids and then added? I rehydrate in *cold* water for at least 15 minutes and then dump the whole shootin' match into the kettle 15 minutes before the end of the boil. Jim asks about "Brewer Customs" >I hate to risk restarting the LABCO discussion so please don't, but is >it one of the customs of brewing, that recipe publication is the >perogative of the originating brewer? > >I'm not talking about the LAW, but what is the industry custom? I >believe it was stated on the HBD without challenge that the originating >brewer had "rights" by custom. FWIW here's my take, sorry if I disagree with any previous posters on this issue, I don't mean to offend you. Working for a brewery is no different than working for an aerospace company, a laboratory or an electronics firm. Employees have no "intellectual property rights" during the tenure of their employment with the company. Many companies will actually make you sign a document stating this. The reason is very simple: during employment, you have access to all of the companies equipment, libraries, suppliers and contacts and this has a great bearing on work that you do either at home or on the job. If you don't believe me, look up the name Kari Mullis (sp?). This gentleman discovered a revolutionary technique called PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) which has been a huge breakthrough in molecular biology. He won the Nobel Prize for this invention. He discovered it while working for a biotech company. He originally came to his boss with the idea and his boss poo-pooed it. He continued to work on the idea in his spare time "in his car" as he puts it and at home and surely in the lab after hours. Well guess what? He got nothing for this breakthrough that earns a *huge* royalty for his ex-employer on every PCR cycler sold. All he got was the money for the Nobel Prize (a couple hundred thousand) and his ex-employer has made millions. When I'm at the brewery, I'm using someone elses equipment (my bosses), someone elses electricity, someone elses grain etc. If I were paying for all this stuff, I might have a case, but I'm not. Trust me, I pay for all kinds of shit that I don't get reimbursed for. Repeated requests for stuff as simple as tri-clamp seals so I can do my job go ignored or unheeded for months (yeah, I don't have the *authority* to order the stuff myself) and other stuff, I just buy cause I need and know that my employer won't buy but I still don't have a case (yeah, I can take stuff that I bought with me) As far as intellectual propery rights go, I brew circles around my boss (the ex-brewer) and have forgotten more about brewing than he knows. That still doesn't change the fact that I have no legal right to claim ownership to recipes made while under his employ. The bottom line is, I'm creative enough to make an award winning recipe for him which means that I'm creative enough to make another award winning recipe for myself or someone else when I'm not working there anymore. If you're still not convinced, ask yourself if Auggie Busch III would let one of his brewers walk out the door with a recipe and take it to Miller or anyone else for that matter. I doubt that recipe control is an industry *custom*. When I leave my current job (soon, I hope) I will leave behind all of the work that I've done over the past three years and start anew. I might pull some ideas from old beers that I've made, but how cool, I get to make *new* beers. Now as far as what is *right*...... C-- Charles Hudak in San Diego, California (Living large in Ocean Beach!!) cwhudak at adnc.com ICQ# 4253902 "If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs." - --David Daye Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:33:33 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Purging Cornelius tanks David R. Burley wrote about how he flushes his cornies: >Fill them clear to the top with cool ( even hot is OK) boiled water and >push the water out with CO2 applied to the "in" valve and the water >will come out through the "out" valve with a beer delivery hose and >valve normally used to fill your glass. Now the gas space has >pure CO2 in it with no possibility of oxygen. Note this takes >only 20 liters of CO2 and is much better. Fill the cornie with beer with >the hose outlet all the way to the bottom and the lid partially covering >the top opening or a piece of plastic wrap to avoid mixing air into the >head space. Place the top on, snap it, open the release valve and flush >this small head space briefly with CO2. Close the valve >and pressurize the cornie to seal it even if you are doing a natural >carbonation/lagering as I often do. Without pressure it will not seal. Why even remove the lid at all? I do as you do, but with the lid on the whole time. I push the water out, then when I fill the purged tank (through the "out" to minimize splashing and foaming), I just control the flow by opening the relief valve. If your cornie doesn't have a relief valve, you could just depress the other center of the other valve. I'm usually racking from a cornelius that I used as a secondary, so I can push the beer with CO2, but this should work when siphoning into it, too. The nice thing about this sealed system is that the instant I hear gurgling from the secondary, I pull the transfer tube and keep all of the sediment in the secondary. Voila! Sediment-free beer. -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:35:34 -0500 (EST) From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net> Subject: Re: Conical Fermenters i posted this directly - and thought i had cc'd this forum... not that it matters to most of you..and someone will no doubt flame me for something.....but what the heck... forgive me if this shows twice.... - ---------------------------------------------------------------- RE: Unitank design ("Frank E. Kalcic") i saw your post - could not stop myself.... if your spending all that kind of money, 1 to 1.5 inch TC fittings are the way to go... do not install threaded crap - it is cheaper but not by much. the labor is the same on welding and polishing...yoy can get a 1.5inch TC fitting for $10 to $20, the gaslet and clamp are about the same, the expense is the valve, $100 +/- $50 sample port can run you plenty (keofit for $500), do the same put a 1.5 inch tc fitting and weld a fitting to a cap this way down the road you can get a keofit ;) and mount it in the same way same for the top fittings. and you can get a spray wand in there when you clean it...you'll probably get some blowoff at one point or another, mount your relief/gas conn to a cap also. tangential fittings are tough to weld = expensive - so i am told... in commercial applications it is usually not done (unless you have some special fermentation gear...) attemperation is another issue, and some people actually put "stones" in the fermenter to scrub, i dont buy into this..... all of this is from my personal experience - i own 6 fermenters just a hair bigger (2-4bbl). only thing bad is the sample valve racking outlet is a little high...exact placement is trouble... depending on the yeast and growth pitching rates... sounds like a nice little project... good luck... - -- Joe Rolfe jrolfe at mc.com - work email onbc at shore.net - private email Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:36:07 -0500 From: rhampo at ford.com (Rich Hampo) Subject: Sticky Sparge Hi gang, Having just suffered through my worst Brew-Day-From-Hell, I thought I might go fishing for some solutions. I made an all grain bock (a-la Miller) 9 lb light munich malt, 1.5 lb 40L crystal malt 13 qt 136F mash water 30 min rest at 131F 2 hours at 150 5 min mash out at 168F Sparged with 7 gal of 170F water I latuer in a Gott with a slotted copper manifold. The mash was really thick - much thicker than I usually have. Also, since there was so much grain, the grain bed was unusually tall when I started to lauter. It took me almost 2 hours to collect 6.75 gallons (compared with my normal target of 45 minutes). I had to stop the sparge and flush the manifold several times when the output slowed to a dribble. I also tried stirring the grainbed. I made this exact recipe before with no problems (at least none that I recorded). I would guess that the grain brands were different since I got them at different stores almost 2 years apart. My extraction was significantly worse this time (OG = 1.054 versus 1.061 last time) also. The crush of the grain looked OK to me. Does a thicker mash (fewer qt per lb) make for more difficult lautering? Does a thicker grainbed make for more difficult lautering? Does munich malt cause difficulty latuering? Any suggestions for improvement? The first time I made this beer it was so tasty that I really want to make it again. Thanks a bunch! Richard Hampo H&H Brewing Ltd. Livonia, MI Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 08:41:52 -0800 From: Charley Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us> Subject: re: pitching rates In hbd#2569, Dave in Monroe, WI asks about how much yeast would be enough vs too much. Dave, I've been reading way too much lately trying to cram for the BJCP test next Saturday. Last night I came across an entry that suggested the correct pitching rate was "8 ounces of slurry for a 5 gallon batch". This was in the studyguide I'm using for the test and I think it was published by the BJCP. When visiting a local brewpub last year, the brewer said that they pitch a full gallon of slurry for each barrel of wort. This equates to about 20 oz of slurry for a 5 gallon batch (4 oz per gallon). The studyguide mentioned that "overpitching" (no definition of quantity) would result in a "yeast bite". I disagree with this finding since it seems that its always possible to remove the yeast from the finished beer, but maybe I've never over pitched enough so I wouldn't recognize the "bite" they're talking about. "Slurry" is not a very good measure either. I have received a full 32 oz jar of slurry from our local brewpub (Elk Grove Brewing Co - thanks Bill) only to have it compact itself into about half of that after being in the 'frige for a couple of days at 34F. So, was that 16oz or 32oz of slurry? beats me. I pitched half of it in one batch and half in another. Both of them had active fermentation within 2 hours. I pitched 2 oz of compacted slurry of wyeast 2308 (munich) into a 65F batch of Munich Dunkel last night, cooled to 50F within hours and this morning still had no visible signs of activity. I hope I didn't shock the yeast which was at about 55F when I pitched it. No starter, bad planning on my part. If there's no activity when I get home tonight, I WILL worry. Charley (with shortage of brain cells for beer info) in N. Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:34:37 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Dr. Lewis Kent writes, paraphrasing Dr. Lewis' talk on mashing: >A. Grain crush is probably the most important factor, and is not >emphasized in amateur brewing texts. Since a six roller mill is >out of my price range I choose to crush the grain twice in my >two roll mill. I don't think there's a need. I've seen and used grain crushed with both the JSP MaltMill and the PhilMill and both produce a grist that is very close to that said to be "ideal" by various professional texts. I've gotten as much as 30 pts/lb/gal from malt crushed with a single pass through my JSP MaltMill. I doubt that a 6-roller mill can do any better. >C. Sparge slowly with or without recirculating depending on the >condition of the first run off. If it's fairly clear recirculating >isn't necessary. Temperature is not important!? Dr. Lewis recommends >staying on the low side. Run first running trough, followed by one >running of warm water, followed by *cold* water. Once the cold water >hits the outlet of the lauter tun you are finished. I posted on this recently, but feel that it is important enough to post again. I'm pretty sloppy when it comes to mashout (I do it maybe 10 or 20% of the time), but I do not doubt the benefit. If you sparge incredibly slowly, then, yes, the benefit of higher temp is minor, but for normal sparges it can be as much as 10% better extraction! Dr. Lewis usually references everything to medium- to large-scale professional brewing which is usually making a much different wort from what we make. I suspect the differing opinion may be due to this fact. >D. Adjust mash temperature or temperatures to the type of malt >used. This can have a great impact on efficiency. Rests of longer >than 30 minutes are a waste of time. They are a waste of time *IF AND ONLY IF* everything else is perfect. If your crush is a little too coarse and the pH is a little too high your conversion at 150F may take far, far longer than 30 minutes. It could take 1.5 hours! >E. Mash out is a waste of time. See my comment on C above and Rob Reed's post on mashout from about two or three years ago. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:57:30 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Clinitest/Belgian Ales Dave writes: >Depending on where you live, altitude wise and the kind of beer, >typically most priming sugar is about 1%. You can use this test to >modify the amount of sugar you add by reducing the priming sugar >in accordance with what is in there already as detected by Clinitest. >However, I only do this with bottling when I have a real time constraint >as I like to get a major amount of the yeast out of the beer in the >secondary. OTOH when I am lagering in Cornies under pressure, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that AJ's post clearly pointed out that the Clinitest reacts with some non-fermentable sugars and therefore is not reliable. This is what I've *thought* all along yet had no proof, so I posted simply that I was "skeptical" of its usefulness. If you always brew the same recipes and always use the Clinitest, you can get a feel for what level of sugar (as reported by the test) is expected for each recipe. However, I've only brewed the same recipe perhaps 6 times. The other 150+ beers were in 30+ styles from 150+ recipes. Given this kind of variation in dextrins from batch to batch, I don't think it's practical to try to use Clinitest for predicting anything, *expecially* how much fermentable sugar remains in a partially- fermented batch (i.e. adjusting down priming rates to account for unfermented, but fermentable sugar). Dave also quoted someone (sorry) and deferred to me: >There has been some talk in the digest recently concerning bottling vers= us >fermenting strains of yeast, especially in some of the Belgian ales. Is= >this usually done when the beer is filtered? Not necessarily. It is common among Belgian brewers of strong ales (which is *most* Belgian Ales) to add more yeast at bottling time simply because the primary yeast is pretty beat-up from all the work it has been doing in a relatively high alcohol level environment. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:54:19 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: cidery beer from refined sugars Pat quotes from Bob Devine's webpage: > A complaint in the early days of modern homebrewing was that using table >sugar in beer-making resulted in a "cidery" beer. The symptoms were that a >beer made with table sugar that was added to the boil produced a cidery >flavor that faded after several weeks in the bottle. Therefore the rule of >thumb became 'avoid all table sugar'. While this is still a good idea when >using malt extract, this old-(ale)wives tale is misleading. That defect >most likely came from poor yeast due to a too low pitch, insufficient >free-available-nitrogen, or a lack of other necessary yeast building >materials in the wort. Table sugar can be used in small amounts with no >harm and it is certainly cheaper to use for priming. I believe this to be right on. I have been pondering my hypothesis that the "cidery" flavour that "faded after several weeks" is due to acetaldehyde, which has a characteristic "green apple" aroma (note: apple... cider... get it?). Since acetaldehyde production is indeed higher for nutrient-deficient worts, it would make sense that worts with too much refined sugar (sucrose, glucose, etc.) would have elevated acetaldehyde levels which (perhaps not coincidentally), gets re-absorbed by the yeast during aging. It all fits together well, doesn't it? I did a small (uncontrolled) experiment in which I fermented pure sucrose, pure dextrose and partially inverted sucrose. The dextrose was the least "cidery" and the sucrose was the most, but all were somewhat cidery. I rushed the experiment and overpitched yeast so it may have been considerably different if I had pitched yeast more in-line with typical homebrewers' rates. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:20:26 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Sparklers Chas writes: >Just to kick in a little on the beer engine thread. A friend of mine build a >plunger type BE per the Brew Your Own article. It worked pretty well, IMHO, >but the most difficult and kluge-like portion of the project was the sparkler >head. If you look in BT you'll find several suppliers of BE parts. Yesterday >I ordered two sparkler heads (0.7mm holes). These plastic little gizmos are >kind of expensive (~$9) for what they are, but may be the missing link for >providing a *real pour* from one of the plunger BEs. I'd like to comment on the "authenticity" issue regarding sparklers. A foamy pint is a "northern" (England) concept and one that is generally frowned-upon by CAMRA. The argument against them is that they knock virtually all the CO2 out of solution while creating that marvelous head. This is also a source of confusion between "northern" and "southern" ales, where often you'll read that "northern ales are more highly carbonated than their southern counterparts." This is not wrong, but it is a little deceptive. The northern ales will have more *initial* carbonation, but after pouring through the sparkler will have *less* carbonation in the glass than a southern-style ale which starts out with slightly less carbonation, but retains more of it in the glass. During his Cellermanship talk at the 1996 (not 1997) Real Ale Festival in Chicago, Mark Dorber (Cellermaster at the famed White Horse on Parson's Green) said that he tries to get as much carbonation into the beer as he can while still allowing the finings to work. The "flat beer" that Americans commonly refer to in the UK is most often the result of poor cellermanship. Dissolved CO2 interferes with the operation of the Isinglass and thus you are trying to strike a balance between a nice level of carbonation in the glass and the performance of the finings. Also, slow-moving casks will indeed be "flat" unless something like a cask breather is used. Finally, since I'm on the subject, I've often seen people holding the glass down low when using a beer engine equipped with a sparkler. These devices should only be used on "swan neck" beer engines, ones that allow you to raise the glass up so the outlet of the faucet is near the bottom of the glass. Southern-style engines have short, stubby faucets but should *never* have a sparkler on them. When you use a swan neck engine with a sparkler, the proper way to fill the glass is to *submerge* the outlet (the sparkler) in beer *as soon as possible* and to pour most of the pint with the sparkler submerged. This is from private instruction on the proper pouring of a pint at the cellar bar underneath The Old Brewery - Tadcaster (Samuel Smith's). Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:49:02 -0600 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: Marital Counseling Digest I would like to submit my nomination for 'Homebrew Wife of the Year' The local newscasters have a newscaster, sportscaster, yada yada yada of the year etc... so why not us! Nominee - Gail, my wife. Facts - When I started homebrewing about 3 years ago, I had the beer fridge and keg in a toolshed. After a month of me walking outside to the shed for a beer, Gail said 'Honey why don't you move the fridge inside so you can get to your beer easier'. Next day - done. Fact - Too crowded in the laundry room for storage and equipment, so I decided to build a brewery. Rennovated the outdoor carport structure to a fully insulated, walled, windowed, electififed building. Gail paid half of all costs for materials and contractors time. Fact - Gail regularly reads the newspapers and clips out any homebrew related adds, events, etc for my perusal. Fact - Gail helped me pick out the appropriate curtains for the brewery windows and is now helping me find a nice beer border wallpaper for the brewery. Fact - Gail don't even drink beer. Oh! I could go on and on but I don't want Kim to feel too bad :>)) Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/03/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96