HOMEBREW Digest #2651 Tue 03 March 1998

[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

  Chlorine...Chloramines...myths...facts ("Jim & Shelly Wagner")
  Fw: Iowa HB Legislation ("Rob Moline")
  Protein and grain ("David Hill")
  Re: proper sanitation (Steve Scott)
  U.S. vs. European malt plumpness (George_De_Piro)
  CP Filling a mini-keg ("Keith Royster")
  Mixmasher (Shawn Dodds)
  Low pH, High Temperature SG Measurements ("Mark D. Lowe")
  Grain Scales ("RANDY ERICKSON")
  Wyeast 2206 advice? (John Penn)
  Wet milling (Spencer W Thomas)
  Toxicities in Dogs ("Rob Jones")
  Re: Modified RIMS heater / Expanding foam around LT (the Real Dan)
  When to Divide Hop Rhizomes? (Richard Gardner)
  Dog toxicity (Some Guy)
  Re: Minikegs (to Andrew) (irajay)
  1998 Shamrock Open (Stephen Murphrey)
  Beginner's Questions (OICPO MORRIS)
  Root beer, ginger ale, birch beer, spruce beer (Roger Korn)
  Table salt / AlK's Comments (nathan_l_kanous_ii)
  You say tomato... ("C.W. Hudak")
  Molarity vs. Molality - more (AJ)
  Final Thoughts on Water Treatment (KennyEddy)
  Charcoal Filters (Andrew Quinzani)
  Berliner Weiss, ("David R. Burley")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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 hbd.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... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer 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: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:51:39 -0000 From: "Jim & Shelly Wagner" <wagner at toad.net> Subject: Chlorine...Chloramines...myths...facts Normally I choose to sit back and take in all the info.(good and bad) from HBD that's posted and go from there, but I feel compelled to clear up this mess as best I can. Besides being an all-grain brewer for 5 years, I'm also a chief technician for a hemodialysis provider in the Baltimore area, and, among other things,I'm responsible for the water treatment system for several hemo units. Instead of bombarding you with a bunch of fancy terms, I'll get straight to the facts: 1. The most effective way to get rid of chlorine AND chloramines in a water supply is the use of activated carbon.(i.e. carbon tanks,carbon briquette, carbon filter etc...) 2. There are 2 types of membranes used in an R.O.(reverse osmosis). The most common is TFC's(thin film composite), which when used to treat water, MUST be used AFTER the water has been "pre-treated". Pre-treatment usually consists of a multimedia(sand) filter, followed by a water softener and then carbon tanks. Each plays it's own role, but by far, the most important one is the carbon tanks, because chlorine/chloramines will DESTROY TFC membranes!!! The other membrane used is called CA(cellulose acetate) which unlike TFC's, are chlorine/chloramine tolerant. Again they are tolerant, but are not a very effective tool to remove chlorine or chloramine. 3.I'm sure most of you know this, but for those who don't....for the most part, an R.O. (along with it's pretreatment) removes everything from your source water...both bad and good(desirable)things. What I'm getting at is if you're thinking of buying/using an R.O., be prepared to "replace" alot of what you removed. I've used R.O. water in a couple of batches over the years with pretty good results, but understand that you must know what you are working with and how to "customize" your water. In my opinion, for the average "advanced brewer", it's not worth it(and R.O.'s are not cheap) There are too many other(easier) ways one can improve their brews without becoming a water wizard. OK...I'm glad I got that off my chest....I'm going to go bottle a triple now!!! Jim Wagner Pasadena, MD. wagner at toad.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:47:48 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> Subject: Fw: Iowa HB Legislation Iowa HB Legislation... The following is part of a message that I received today...I had heard that there was something afoot in this regard, but it appears that there is a current need for more support in this matter, especially from Iowa homebrewers..... Please e-mail and call the legislators noted below ASAP, and your local legislators, as well as any "power broker" types you know that may have any influence, no matter how small, with those in the government.....this includes the owner of your favorite bar and liquor store, and remind them of their affiliations with Wholesaler's and Retailer's Associations, and ask that they call these organizations....let them know that if it were not for homebrewers like yourself, they just might not sell as much 'specialty' brew.... While I fear that this may be an opening shot in what may be a more successful event next year, we cannot be complacent and allow this opportunity to pass us by.... For those not in Iowa, the state has no laws allowing homebrewing.......and from what I have been able to find out, none actually prohibiting it either......I was most pleased to find, upon moving here that major grocery chains actually stock HB supplies...but the need for legislation should be obvious. The fact that legislators are 'ambivalent" means that they see no real need or benefit to them from backing this no brainer. Remind them that your vote is the benefit. I wonder if input from other homebrewers, outside Iowa, would be helpful? Any thoughts? Personally, I have a feeling that e-mails from whatever source would be helpful. To get e-mails from all over the planet may be most influential in the outcome.....maybe we could generate some good press for the legislators involved that might move them to help? Thanks for any support you may offer....... Jethro Gump >Senator Hansen contacted me today to inform us that Sen. Deluhery's >sub-committee is going to decide on the Homebrew legislation very soon - >probably early next week. He strongly suggested that we contact the members >of the sub-committee NOW if we want to influence the legislation. Remember, >according to Senator Hansen, "it is imperative that you contact the >sub-committee chair and members. This is one of those bills with such a >small appeal that most legislators are ambivalent at best about it." > >This bill is important to hundreds of Iowa Homebrewers. Please contact the >following Senators with your message of support for the bill: > >Sen. Patrick Deluhery patrick_deluhery at legis.state.ia.us >Sen. Larry McKibben larry_mckibben at legis.state.ia.us >Sen. Derryl McLaren derryl_mclaren at legis.state.ia.us > >To phone legislators at the statehouse when the legislature is in session, >call the switchboard and they will forward the call: > >Senate switchboard: (515) 281-3371 > >Here is a copy of a recent email I sent to the committee members -- you >could use it for ideas: > >Dear Senator: > >I need your assistance. I brew beer in my home in Sioux City as a hobby. >Although Federal law recognizes Homebrewing beer to be legal, Iowa law has >not caught up. Here in Iowa, homebrewing is not quite legal. > >Under Iowa law, homebrewing is not recognized, and transporting your brew >to be judged for a blue ribbon at the Iowa State Fair could be a problem if >you are pulled over by an overzealous police officer. > >Iowa law should include language that specifically recognizes Iowan's right >to homebrew, sets limits that match the Federal statute, and allows the >"special provision" to allow Iowans to bring their homebrewed beer to >contests and judgings. (Last year alone, over 100 blue ribbons were awarded >at the Iowa State Fair for homebrewed beer.) > >I urge you to support passage of Senate File 486 to make these simple >changes. >Rick Mullin >>Steven MacFarlane Again, I urge speed in response to any that will help. It may already be too late. Rob Moline Brewer Court Avenue Brewing Company De Moines, Iowa brewer at ames.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:54:53 +1100 From: "David Hill" <davidh at melbpc.org.au> Subject: Protein and grain My family in New Zealand grow barley for malting, the ultimate destination being Japanese brewers. The crop this year has been rejected by the maltsters because the protein is too high. What effect would this have on the ultimate product? I presumed that high protein was required for head retention etc. Or could it be that a high protein grading actually means a high protein / starch ratio which would make sense to me. If the starch is too low then obviously the malting yield of sugars will be low. PS the grain was ultimately sold to a stock feed manufacturer for more than the maltster was offering David HIll David Hill. davidh at melbpc.org.au :-)> Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:40:29 -0500 From: sscott at lightlink.com (Steve Scott) Subject: Re: proper sanitation >every book has a different answer on this, how much bleach do I use >per gallon of water? Is TSP better? According to an article that I have that I believe John Palmer had a hand in says if you're using regular chlorine bleach (5.25% solution of sodium hypochlorite) 1/2 ounce (1 tablespoon) per gallon of water will achieve a 200ppm solution. Soak items to be sanitized for 10 minutes, allow to drip dry or rinse to remove residual chlorine. Make sure you use cold water, not hot. The URL for the file I had was no good anymore but a little digging and I found the article again. Here is the URL: http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/cleaning.html Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:28:04 -0800 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: U.S. vs. European malt plumpness Hi all, While talking about some possible flavor differences between European and US malts, Steve Alexander writes: "The kernels are consistently bigger and plumper than the US 2-rows malts also." There is actually a surprisingly simple reason for this: the METRIC SYSTEM (well, sort of...) Barley grading machines in Germany are, of course, built to metric standards. The devices here in the U.S. are built using the English system that I have grown so annoyed with over the years. (Does anybody out there really like dealing with fractions instead of decimals?) Anyway, in Germany the most plump grade of barley, "Volgerste," consists of the barley retained by a 2.5 mm screen. Here in the U.S. the largest screen opening is only 6/64 inches (2.38 mm to the rest of the world). In the U.S. this plump grade is the same regardless of whether the barley is 2-row or 6-row. There is a difference between the thinner grades of 2- and 6-row, though: barley passing through a 2.18 mm screen for 2-row and 1.98 mm screen for 6-row. So, now you know more than you ever needed to about barley sizes! You can also see that people claiming that German barley is more plump than U.S. barley aren't just being "barley snobs." Steve also mentioned that he believes that most US maltsters are at the mercy of the farmers when it comes down to barley selection. The malting lectures at Siebel, given by Kurt Duecker from Schreier, seemed to disagree with that. He even told us about the maltsters going to the farms at different times of year to watch over sowing, harvesting, etc. In fact, Mr. Duecker believes (not surprisingly) that U.S. and Canadian *barleys* are the best in the world because only "spring" barley is grown here in North America. He feels that it is superior to the winter types that are grown elsewhere in the world. Kunze believes that Spring barleys are best because they have been systematically bred for over 100 years to yield the best possible malt. He points out that there are newer varieties of winter barley that approach the quality of spring varieties, though. Winter barleys tend to yield more crop per unit of land, so they are well liked by farmers. Neither Duecker nor Kunze get specific about _why_ they believe spring barley is best. Anybody out there have an opinion? Any farmers reading this? As an aside, that is the only problem I have with the Kunze text: it often states certain "facts" without adequate detail to support them. I need more books... Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:47:14 +0500 From: "Keith Royster" <keith at ays.net> Subject: CP Filling a mini-keg Gregg Soh <greggos at hotmail.com> now has a cornelius kegging system and asks about CP filling a 5L keg from it.. > The only thing I'd miss out on is portability. Which brings me to > my question, since I can know force carbonate in the keg OR in a > pet bottle, is there a way to counter-pressure fill a 5l minikeg so > that I can tap my brew away from home and avoid priming? Yes, I do this frequently using my poor-man's CP Bottle filler. You've probably heard of these before, but for the benefit of those who haven't, it is just a length of plastic tubing, a rigid plastic or metal tube (~12"), and a drilled rubber stopper. It all probably costs less than $2. One end of the tubing connects to your picnic tap (clamp it down tight!) and the other connects to the rigid tube. The rubber stopper slides over the rigid tube. I have a couple of different sizes of stoppers, one for glass bottles and one for my 5L minikeg. To use it, insert the rigid tube into your bottle or mini-keg so that the rubber stopper lightly plugs the neck (don't jam it tight) and the end of the rigid tube is close to the bottom to prevent splashing. Then open the picnic tap with one hand while you gently close and open the seal of the stopper with the other hand. This keeps just enough pressure on top of the beer to prevent it from foaming in the bottle or keg. It takes just a little bit of practice to get the method down. My mini keg uses a hand (air) pump to dispense the beer, so I just use this when taking some to a picnic, party, etc. > How much pressure can the minikegs take, so i'll know what pressure > to use if I come up with some sort of home-made filler? In my experiences, you don't need a lot of pressure to CP Bottle fill. In fact, the higher the pressure, the harder it's been to fill the bottles because it makes it difficult to gently crack the seal of the rubber stopper in a controlled manner. This creates a sudden pressure change in the bottle which causes more foaming than is desired. I just use a few psi above normal serving pressures. The point is to maintain enough pressure on top of the beer as it fills the container to prevent it from foaming. Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina mailto:keith at ays.net For information about the 1998 U.S.Open homebrew competition coming this April, visit http://www.ays.net/brewmasters/ Download your entry packet in Acrobat format today! For info on my RIMS, visit http://www.ays.net/RIMS/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:29:53 -0500 From: Shawn Dodds <shawn at dodds1.com> Subject: Mixmasher Mike Spinelli belched: >Is anyone using the Mixmasher design? I've now got a 30 gallon >mash tun and could use all the help I can get at dough-in time. I put together a Mixmasher following JS's web page description, almost all parts from Grainger. I use it both on my 5gal and 10gal pots. Recently posted a complete evaluation to RCB newsgroup. About the only thing I would do (as JS suggested) would be to get a heftier motor. The 2Z814 at 7.5 in/lbs torque never stops, but bogs down a little bit on thick mashes. Most recently I used it for a batch using 11.75 lbs of grain in my 5 gal pot, and the grain level was only about an inch from the top, so I had to assist the MM by using a spoon to breakup some of the clods during dough-in, but other than that, it makes the whole kettle mashing process alot less laborious and alot more consistent. Shawn, Lowell, MA "A bad day brewing is better than a great day at the office" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:55:19 -0500 From: "Mark D. Lowe" <mark.lowe at trw.com> Subject: Low pH, High Temperature SG Measurements Greetings All: Tremendous forum, this HBD. A guy can lurk here and learn more than he wants to know about brewing. However, in my year of lurking there are two questions that I haven't seen addressed. I hope someone can help. Question one. My well water is treated with a three tank water treatment system that 1) de-acidifies the water with crushed marble (calcium something?), 2) removes iron, and 3) softens by ion exchange (brine tank, etc.). After de-acidification, the pH of the water is approximately 5.6. (When the crushed marble runs low the pH is 4.8 or below with all of the associated green stains in the sinks.) I believe most of the neutralizing calcium whatever from the de-acidification process would be removed by the ion exchange filter. I also believe the tap water has only sodium chloride in it and is very soft but I have never tested the water, expect pH. As I write I am fermenting my second all grain batch. In both cases the pH of the mash was 4.8. Nothing was done to the first batch to try to raise the pH. Adjustments with chalk (calcium carbonate) were attempted on the second batch. 4 tsps produced no discernable change. (I am testing the pH with paper test strips that have a range of 4.8 to 5.8 or 6.0.) Is this pH a problem? (At least my sparge water never gets too alkaline.:) I would prefer not to buy water. Is there a better way of correcting the pH than chalk? Should I just add more? Question two. During the course of sparging I measured the SG of the sparge liquor and the collected sweet wort to try to control the gravity of the boil, etc. Naturally, the samples collected are hot (170f), way past the 60f calibration point of the hydrometer. By punching the SG and the temp of the sample into my Brewers Workshop software, I get a temperature corrected SG. This correction can be 20 points. What is the accuracy of this long range correction? Must I cool these samples with the associated long time delay between sampling and data to get accurate measurements? TIA Mark Lowe Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 07:57:23 -0800 From: "RANDY ERICKSON" <RANDYE at mid.org> Subject: Grain Scales Mike Spinelli asks about buying a grain scale: For weighing grain, precision is such a non-issue that I would go with whatever you can get cheap (or free). Or build a balance scale out of an old broom handle (you won't need it with the wife gone anyway) and two buckets. For 10 pounds of grain, balance with a ten # bag of flour, for 1 pound of grain use a 1 # box of sugar, etc. There is probably a crude ASCII drawing of this at the Brewery site if I'm not making sense of it. Cheers, Randy in Modesto Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:39:19 -0500 From: John Penn <john_penn at spacemail.jhuapl.edu> Subject: Wyeast 2206 advice? Subject: Time:12:15 PM OFFICE MEMO Wyeast 2206 advice? Date:2/27/98 1) I was hoping to get some feedback or opinions on Wyeast 2206 Bavarian yeast. I am currently making a 1.080 OG Helles Boch from Al Korzonas Homebrewing book and I pitched about 3qts of 2206 starter. That seems to be going well for several days now and the temperature is 60F which is a bit higher than the recommended 48-58F. Will the slightly higher temps have much affect on the flavor? 2) I also pitched a mere 20-22oz of 2206 starter into a batch of Papazians Rocky Raccoon Lager a 1.050 OG with 1/3 honey, 2/3 malt. It seemed to be active for about a day and slowed more than I expected. I haven't checked the gravity yet but will later in the week. Maybe its an airlock problem since there appears to be quite a bit of foam on the top. My concerns are did I pitch enough 2206 for this average gravity beer? And will the large amount of honey (1/3) degrade the ability of 2206 to ferment because of less nutrients for the yeast? Oh, I typically aerate by shaking the heck out of the fermenter intially to get lots of foam and that has always worked well in the past but I seem to remember reading in the HBD that 2206 likes a lot of oxygen. Thanks for the advice. John Penn Eldersburg, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:23:31 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Wet milling I tried "wet milling" my most recent batch. I mixed about a cup of water into the grain (10lbs, roughly) by hand. I did this several times, as each time the grain soaked up the water and felt dry again. I'm not sure now exactly how much I added, in toto. I can't really say whether it reduced shredding of the husks. I didn't notice a significant difference from my memory of other (dry) crushes. However, it did make the grain "tougher" to mill -- the motor sounded like it was working harder than usual -- so something happened. I think it did reduce the amount of grain dust, so there's a definite positive effect. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:24:39 -0500 From: "Rob Jones" <robjones at pathcom.com> Subject: Toxicities in Dogs No, tomatoes are not toxic to dogs, however cooked onions are. Watch what's in your sauce. I read with interest the BT article on hop toxicity in dogs, being a brewing veterinarian. The condition caused by onions is an hemolytic anemia, v.s. the malignant hyperthermia-like condition that spent hops appear to cause. Rob Toronto, Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:02:38 -0800 (PST) From: the Real Dan <dan at netcom.com> Subject: Re: Modified RIMS heater / Expanding foam around LT Kenneth Sullivan writes: > Second item: I have a converted keg for sparge water and plan to > insulate the bejesus out of it. My carpenter friend suggested that > I build a box around it and fill the box with the expanding > foam-in-a-can and carve it into a nice package. > ... Again, I would like to > learn from others mishaps than rediscover the obvious ;-) You will have a few problems if you use that expanding foam in the manner you describe. Filling an enclosed area with a relatively large amount of expanding foam is counterindicated on the instructions. You need some minimum air-exposure-area to volume ratio. The foam requires water vapor and air exposure to cure. It's pretty expensive per cubic inch, too. It is best used for sealing seams. And you just CAN'T IMAGINE what it will do if you do violate that exposure-to-volume ratio. It is just too bizarre. Alternatively, your Home Depot also sells rigid sheets of an insulating material called Tuff-R, from Celutex (I might have spelled that incorrectly). It is polyisocyanurate, and also a superb insulator (about R-8 per inch). And it will be much cheaper than using the cans of foam. Styrofoam or extruded polystyrene are even cheaper, and more moisure resistant, and might be a better choice. Build your box, and then cut pieces of rigid foam to fit around your keg. Seal the gaps between the foam slabs with that foam in a can stuff. Remember that powerful forces can be generated by that expanding foam, and temporarily affix your foam slabs when you are foaming them. Finally, I would avoid the brand of expanding foam called "Great Stuff". It's crappy stuff. The dispenser is fragile, and doesn't shut off when you ask it too. Carefully check the labels on the cans that you buy. For sealing seams, you want "minimally expanding" foam. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:27:42 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Gardner <rgardner at papillion.ne.us> Subject: When to Divide Hop Rhizomes? Besides "sometime in the spring," are there any recommendations on when or how I should dig up some of my hop rhizomes to give to others? I've got plenty of references on how to plant them and make them grow, but nothing on getting startings from existing plants. My hops are entering their fourth year, and are quite healthy - particularly the Northern Brewer. I expect I'll have to dig up some of the roots just to ensure they don't invade the lawn! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:44:45 -0500 (EST) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Dog toxicity Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... After much study, I have determined that dogs are toxic to hbd bandwidth. Whether or not they have eaten tomatoes, hops, cooked onions, or a dead bird. Further, my study concludes beyond a shadow of a doubt that dogs are indeed toxic to dogfood, converting it to a rather nasty substance that readily adheres to one's heel. See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brewing Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:54:59 +0000 From: irajay at ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Minikegs (to Andrew) Andrew, I am a new user of Party Pigs and while I am impressed with the system, I have had two problems which I am wondering if you know about. On one occasion, I had one of the plastic bags not entirely expand so that I lost about half a keg of beer. When I extracted the pouch, it looked like half of it had expanded in a normal fashion, while half did not. Another problem I had was that about halfway through one of another keg, the beer started coming out practically pure foam. I had primed it at about 1/3 cup (less than I usually do for bottles). Anyway, it seems to me that if I did overprime, it would have come out foamy at the beginning as well. Have you ever experienced either of these phenomena? Thanks, Ira Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 20:20:43 -0500 From: Stephen Murphrey <"Stephen Murphrey" at ibm.net> Subject: 1998 Shamrock Open CARBOY (Cary-Apex-Raleigh Brewers of Yore) will sponsor the 1998 Shamrock Open Homebrew Competition on March 14, 1998, in Raleigh, NC. We need judges and stewards. Lunch will be provided for all out-of-town judges and stewards. Detailed information and entry forms are available on our club home page: http://www.ipass.net/~carboy/index.html Please let me know if you're coming. Steve Murphrey (919) 779-4482 (evenings) swmurph at ibm.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 20:31:05 +0300 From: OICPO MORRIS <jamorris at washington.navy.mil> Subject: Beginner's Questions I'm looking through a mail order catalog (Barkingside), attempting to get a list of things together for brewing my 2nd batch ever. I was looking through the liquid malt extracts thinking that was all I needed since some state that they're already hopped and include yeast. Then, I see some kits that come with both liquid and dry malt extracts, grains, hops, etc. Can someone enlighten me as to the need to use dry and liquid malt extracts together? Can you use two 4 lb. cans of liquid extract for a 5-6 gallon batch? Why use grains and hops with hopped liquid malt extract? I already have a 5 gallon carboy, but I haven't used it yet. Is a 6 gallon carboy necessary if you're going to use it as a primary fermenter? Should you conduct a secondary fermentation with these 'kits'? I brewed a batch last year that was in the form of a similar ingredient kit that I bought at the local supply store using the included instructions. It finished with excellent taste and carbonation, but no alcohol content (at least that I could detect - didn't feel a thing even after 5-6 of 'em). Obviously, I'm going to order the wrong stuff and I won't have access to any books until I return home in April. I'd like for the ingredients to be at the house as soon as I get home so I can get it started right away. In the meantime, I'll have to settle for Foster's lager on the pier in Jebel Ali, UAE and the advice from all the pros on this list. Hurry up, John C Stennis! Your help is greatly appreciated! Ron Morris USS George Washington (CVN 73) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 03:36:41 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Korn <rkorn at europa.com> Subject: Root beer, ginger ale, birch beer, spruce beer Alas, dear friends, alcohol won the match and I am now sober for 80 days. I am looking for any good NA root beer, ginger ale, birch beer, spruce beer, etc recipes that anyone may have (part of Hydrocarbonate Replacement Therapy <g>). I seem to have substituted good sodas for great beers, not the easiest thing to do when living in Beer Heaven (Portland, OR area). Let me know what you've tried. Thanks in advance, Roger Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:13:16 -0500 From: nathan_l_kanous_ii at ferris.edu Subject: Table salt / AlK's Comments Kenny Eddy posted a nice approach to adjusting RO water for brewing various styles of beer. At one point, he mentioned that table salt contained iodine and that iodine is bad for yeast. Well, iodine is bad for yeast. Table salt, however, containes Iodides, not iodine. This is organified iodine to avoid goiter in areas with endemically low levels of iodides in the soil. No offense Ken, I made the same mistake a year or so ago ************************************* AlK discusses how quickly errant information can influence homebrewers choice of techniques and beliefs. He also mentions that we all need to take the time to correct errors so that they don't lead others blindly down the wrong path. Not that they will necessarily make bad beer, just that the information they base their techniques on may be in error. As if anyone really cared about what I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree with Al in these regards. I've made some of the "dogmatic" mistakes myself and have passed them on to other brewers. The bottom line is that is why I read the HBD, to clarify my brewing knowledge and avoid passing on errant information to others. No other forum exists where you can get near instantaneous feedback to correct your errors. Ever take a test and see the right answers immediately? You remember why you got it wrong. Take a test and get to see the right answers a month later and you say "what the hell was I thinking". Anyhow, keep up the good work everybody! Sorry for the bandwidth. Nathan in Frankenmuth, P.S. and keep sending in those letters to the editor Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 07:27:44 -0800 From: "C.W. Hudak" <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com> Subject: You say tomato... Mark writes: >Now this I find hard to believe... A chemist saying that "A concentration >of 1 ppm is equivelent [sic] to 1 mg/kg or 1 mg/L as a mg is one millionth >of either of these. There may be confusion among lay people, but not among >chemists who know what the terms mean." As it relates to water chemistry they are equivilent--which is, after all, what we are discussing. You have a point, I should have more correctly stated: "In aqueous solutions, a conc'n of 1 ppm is equivelent to 1mg/Kg or 1 mg/L as a mg is one millionth of either of these". It is true that 1 mg/L would not be equivilent to 1mg/Kg if your solute was dissolved in alcohol or methylene chloride. > >1 mg/kg is a measure of mass/mass; 1 mg/L is a measure of mass/volume. >Only when using water, which weighs 1 mg per milliliter, is 1 mg/kg equal >to 1 mg/L. And I don't even practice chemistry...... I'm just an >environmental engineer. It is common practice when discussing water chemistry to use these terms interchangeably. I routinely reported numbers to environmental engineers in these terms when I was still a sample analyst and there was no confusion what the terms meant. You are right, it applies only when using water but isn't that what we are using? Isn't that what the discussion centers around--water chemistry? I stand by my comments that "as it relates to water chemistry" mg/L and mg/Kg can be used interchangeably with ppm. 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: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:21:43 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Molarity vs. Molality - more Charles Hudak spotted my goof in the concentration scale post. The statement in question should have read "What chemists do seem to do is carefully distinguish between the molality scale measured in mM/kg ( = mg/kg/mol wt. = ppm/mol. wt) and the molarity scale (sometines called the "concentration") scale measured in mM/L (= mg/L/mol wt.)" with the point being that the molality scale is based on "parts per million parts" with both "parts" being the same (milligrams) whereas the molarity scale is based on "parts per million parts" with the parts being in mixed units (milligrams and milliliters). I just left out the little, but critical, detail that the ppm must be divided by the molecular weight and thus increased confusion when my goal was to decrease it. I've published a correction already and am doing so again here just to make sure that the original does not stand uncorrected. Fine so far but then Charles goes on to say: >The distinction between Molarity and Molality is made in the >case >of a solvent which has a density significantly greater >(CCL4) or >less (CHCl3) than water. For an aqueous solution, >molarity >and molality are equivelent (1L of distilled water weighs 1 Kg). and while the distinction isn't important in most, but not all, brewing calculations, the statement isn't true. To see this let's do a gedenken experiment in which we put 342.3 grams (1 mole) of sucrose into a kg of water to make a solution of molal strength 1. The percentage of sugar by weight is 342.3/(1342.3) = 0.255 so that this 1 molal solution is 25.5 degrees Plato. A look at the tables shows that the specific gravity of this solution would be about 1.108 (at 20C) thus 1 liter of it would weigh 1108 grams and would amount to 1108/1342.3 = 0.825 of the total solution we made up. In other words, adding the sugar caused the volume of the solution to increase by 212 mL. It (the liter) would contain 82.5% of the sucrose or 0.825 mole and the molarity (moles solute per liter of solution) would be 0.825. Furthermore, a liter of water doesn't weigh a kilogram at any temperature though its damn close at lower temperatures. At boiling it weighs 958 grams. Thus while the molality stays constant with temperature the molarity will change. Now let's repeat the thought experiment with 171.15 grams of sucrose i.e. half a mole. The Plato value is 100(171.15/1171.15)= 14.6 P and the specific gravity is approximately1.056 so that a liter of this solution would contains (100)(1056/1171.15)= 90% of the sugar or (0.9)(.5) = 0.45 moles. Thus the molarity of a 14.6 P solution differs from the molality by a factor of (.5/.45) = 1.111 and the 25.5 P sugar solution differs by a factor of (1/.825) = 1.212 i.e. in the more dilute solution the difference is smaller. This is because, as you'd expect, the volume doesn't change as much when less sucrose is added. In the limit of infinite dilution the volume doesn't change at all and the difference between molality and molarity is wholely caused by volume changes with temperature variation. For example, the molarity of a very dilute solution near freezing will be very close to the molality whereas the molarity of that same solution close to boiling will be reduced by about 4%. Certainly when we consider ppm concentrations of water ions we are safe in ignoring the distinction between the scales because the volume changes are infinitesimal and the temperature errors are fractions of a percent at temperatures below about 40 C. Errors of this magnitude are smaller than our typical measurement errors. As to the scales there are in fact 3 ways to specify concentration which chemists use and these are mole fraction (usually symolized by x), the molality (usually symbolized by m) and molarity (usually symbolized by c). These are, just to make sure I've got it right this time: mole fraction i = moles of i/Sum of moles of all species including i molality of i = moles of i per kilogram of solvent molarity of i = moles of i per liter of solution. Chemists who concern themselves with chemical equilibria such as the original poster who is, I believe, a geochemist, and aquatic chemists are very careful about which scale is being used and the indicator is whether equations contain x, m or c. And while I'm doing mea culpa's I see that I had mg/L defined as mass of solute per volume of solvent in the original post. That's not correct. It's mass of solute per volume of solution. I gotta be more careful! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:08:07 EST From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy at aol.com> Subject: Final Thoughts on Water Treatment One thing I want to add to my last couple of posts on water is a somewhat more direct perspective and summary on water synthesis philosophy. I had asserted that mash pH is perhaps the final judge of the success of one's salt additions, followed closely by the proper use (or non-use) of minerals which influence the final beer character. Matching a "classic brewing city's" profile is not necessarily the best approach to brewing, since many styles grew out of trying to correct for certain water chemistry's deficiencies. Where we have the luxury of adjusting chemistry, we can optimize the major influences on brewing and beer character without compromising those characteristics that contribute positively to the product (such as Burton's high sulphate). In the example of highly-alkaline London water, we see how dark malts in the grist aided in bringing mash pH down to where it's needed. I also suggested that proper mash pH could probably be achieved with synthesized water designed for considerably less alkalinity than the "natural' London water has. But consider the entire brewing process. Even though the mash pH can be controlled by use of dark malts, remember that this same alkaline water would be used for sparging and would require pH adjustment with acid to prevent leaching undesirable compounds. Also, the pH of the wort must be taken into account in order to ensure adequate hot break. Thus, synthesizing a London water profile, in all its alkalinity, may require you to "undo" all that alkalinity in order to achieve proper brewing conditions thoughout the entire process! Extract brewers are in more "danger" of overdoing water treatment since (a) mash chemistry has already been accounted for and (b) a good portion of the local water's minerals may already be in the extract, if that's the water that the extract mash was indded made with. My advice to extract brewers is to use RO or distilled water and add a little gypsum or table salt in those special cases where such accentuations are desirable. Regular tap water should be OK in most cases too. Certainly don't add chalk in an attempt to create an alkaline brewing water; the extract's buffering capacity could potentially be overwhelmed resulting in poor wort chemistry and an inferior final product. One could argue that starting with a full volume of "London water" and making all the necessary adjustments would lend a certain "authenticity", and the fact that one must usually adjust sparge water anyway makes these points moot. This may be true but the point is that you must keep the entire process in mind when creating water profiles. ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:17:52 -0500 From: Andrew Quinzani <quinzani at mdc.net> Subject: Charcoal Filters > > Hi Andrew, > > > > I saw your recent comment about water filters killing yeast. My experience > > is with pitcher style carbon filters -- most (if not all) use a little bit > > of elemental silver in the filter to control bacterial populations in the > > filter itself. AFAIK, the silver remains in the filter -- and is not > > transferred to the beer. Of course, cartridge style filters may take > > another approach. > > Yes, I looked further into it and what a had forgotten was that the charcoal > traps oyxgen and in making beer that is no big deal because it will be taken > out when boiling anyway. > > -=Q=- > > > > > > > As "proof" of the failure of the resulting water to kill yeast -- I made a > > couple of lovely french batards to go with my gumbo for Mardi Gras using > > water filtered through a Brita pitcher. Great results -- the water was > > softened/acidified slightly -- resulting (IMHO) in a better bread than when > > I use tap water. > > Right, In bread it is a different matter. > > -=Q=- - -- "Q" Brew Brewery...Home of Hairy Chest Ale - ------------------------------------------------------------ quinzani at mdc.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:24:43 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Berliner Weiss, Brewsters: Sam Darko says: >Man, this semester has been rough. Physical Chemistry >is kicking my butt(any Chemists out there?). Well, I have a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, if that's any help. >I've got a few projects planned for Spring >Break and one of them is to make a batch of Berliner Weisse. >What type of hops in what quantity should I use? Eric Warner in "German Wheat Beer" (Brewers Publications) says about Berliner Weisse: p.4 "It is made as are all weissbiers with a certain percentage of wheat malt. Berliner Weisse has a lower starting gravity, is hopped less and has a decidedly more lactic character." p21 "11/2 to 21/2 times the CO2 content of German or American Lagers" p32-33 "OG 1.028 - 1.032, FG 1.002 - 1.006, AA 80-94%, RA 65-76%, pH3.2-3.4, IBU 4-6, 2.0-3.5 SRM, 2.5-3%v/v alcohol " (My abbreviations) As far as the hops go you can use Perle, Hallertauer or Saaz but keep the level around 0.32 grams of alpha acid (AA). e.g. if you have a 5% AA and want 0.32g you have to start with 0.32/0.05 = 6.4 Grams of hops for a 5 gallon batch if you have 100% recovery. Of course you won't, so assume you have 25% recovery of the AA then 6.4/0.25 = 25.4 grams or 1 ounce of 5%AA hops. To get the acidic taste of the Berliner Weisse, although an authentic culture contains both yeast and lactic bacteria, I suggest you use lactic acid as an additive after fermentation to adjust the pH to just above 3.0. Next time you can add this amount at the beginning of the fermentation. OTOH, the advantage of adding the lactic acid after fermentation is that you can have both Berliner Weiss and the southern Weisse from a single batch. Berliners sweeten this acidic brew sometimes by adding sweet simple syrup, Kir or other fruit flavored syrup. Using an actual Berliner Weisse culture has the disadvantage of potentially contaminating your equipment. Based on Warner's suggestion, start with 2.125 lbs of Pilsner barley malt and 2.125 lbs of Wheat Malt and an ounce of Saaz or Hallertauer Mittelfruh for a 5 gallon batch. This will give you an OG of 1.032 - ---------------------------------------------------- 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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/03/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96