HOMEBREW Digest #2816 Fri 04 September 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

  Re: San Anontio Tx (Steve)
  Dissed, but not losing any sleep (Bodie Heflin)
  Princeton (Spencer W Thomas)
  RE: Harvesting Hops ("Erik Vanthilt")
  Chest Freezer Solution ("Gregg Soh")
  Yest/yeast/yeast&yeast ("Steve Alexander")
  Yeast and Esters ("Steve Alexander")
  re: BT subscriptions (Mark Tumarkin)
  CO2 by weight ("Dave Greathouse")
  Old Grains (AJ)
  Iodophor and pH (MAB)
  Specialty Malt Kickers ("Michael O. Hanson")
  Films and light sources (Joe Rolfe)
  Film, 212F, Alt. (Paul Niebergall)
  Chest freezer broken :-( (Kenneth Sullivan)
  Re: Iodophor ("Marc Fries")
  flow rate of wort vs. water (John_E_Schnupp)
  10 gallon ferment ("Crossno, Glyn")
  Re:  unsolicited email (Gail Elber)
  alt/film/bt solicitation/insulating inside a freezer (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
  Insulation (Ken Schwartz)
  FAN Levels in Extracts (Mark Swenson)
  More Period Brewing Questions.. (Badger Roullett)
  Oatmeal Stout Explosion (todd_ebert)
  Beer Review: Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale (AVOID) (Some Guy)
  Easy Chloramine Neutralization (AJ)

Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as every sentence deserves proper punctuation... 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: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:38:38 -0500 From: Steve <steves at ro.com> Subject: Re: San Anontio Tx > >Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:46:33 -0700 >From: "NFGS" <fjrusso at coastalnet.com> >Subject: San Anontio Tx > >I am going to be traveling a good deal this fall and want to look for some >good brew pubs to visit any recommendations? > >Hampton, NH >Palm Springs, Ca >San Antonio, Tx >Atlanta, Ga >Huntsville, Al > In Huntsville, The Mill is adequate, but if'n I wuz yew <local vernacular mode OFF> I'd seriously consider a side trip two hours up the road to Nashville. Blackstone (Dave Miller's current job) and Bosco's would be the places to be. Steve Stripling (2 hours south of Nashville) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:51:32 -0500 From: Bodie Heflin <bodie at shreve.net> Subject: Dissed, but not losing any sleep Hi all, Glancing through the latest issue of Southwest Brewing News I noticed an article on brewing in the bayou. In it I suddenly see that Bob Carbone placed 2nd in the first round of the AHA Nationals with a "Shreveporter." Now I find myself just a little tad miffed. I have been brewing a Honey Porter "Shreveporter" for over 7 years which Bob has tasted, seen my label, and knew this was what I call my porter. Admittingly I am not a professional and haven't registered the name but in all practicality it sure reeks of a lack of brewing ethics to steal my name to use for this publication.I am no longer a member of SUDS as I was sort of kicked out of the club along with some others by the president Mr. Carbone because I was brewing so frequently that I could no longer afford to buy supplies from his little homebrew supply store "The Beerslayer." I dont know if he is still president but if any members of SUDS out there see this I'd like to see yall again.E-mail me at bodie at shreve.net.Id call you but yall dont publish your number. Bodie Heflin Dilla Brewery Shreveport LA bodie at shreve.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 01:34:17 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Princeton I'll be in Princeton next weekend. Probably free Saturday night (9/12). Any HBDers want to hoist a few? =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 23:39:49 -0700 From: "Erik Vanthilt" <vanthilt at inetworld.net> Subject: RE: Harvesting Hops Alan Keith asks in HBD #2815: >Greetings all, I have a question for those of you growing your own hops. >This is my first season attempting to grow hops. While my >Mount Hood and Perle bines did not flower this year I do have one >very nice Liberty plant that is laden with cones. My question has to do >with how to go about harvesting. The flowers began appearing/maturing >from >the lower part of the plant and proceeded upwards. It seems to me that >many of the lower cones are ready for picking (as per published >descriptions - they are light, papery, spring back when compressed, the >internal strig snaps when the cones are bent..) However, as you go up the >vine there is a definite gradient in maturity, in fact new flowers are >budding at the very tips. So, how does one handle this? Should I harvest a >section at a time? I certainly don't want to assay each cone seperately!! >Is it better to harvest too early or too late? I grow 10 varieties of hops here in San Diego, California. Because the growing season varies, and at times is quite long, I practice the following procedures: As soon as they seem ready, pick them. If there are some that seem not fully developed, leave them, they will be later. As odd as it seems, it almost appears that I can "trick" certain varieties, such as cascade (which are weeds, IMO) to continue to produce hops, if they are stripped of their current crop. I did this last year, and was able to pull three separate crops, all the way past October. So, from my hop experiences, I say get what you got, wait for more, and keep them going until they quit. And since this is your first season, don't worry about the less-producing plants, they are just establishing their roots. Expect good crops to come. Take those hops, throw them fresh from the vine into a nice pale ale recipe, and create a great fresh hop ale. The taste and aroma is fantastic! Erik Vanthilt The Virtual Brewery Http://www.inetworld.net/vanthilt/index.html BTW: Still waiting on a response on those soda pumps.... I'd think someone knew something about them.... Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:10:53 PDT From: "Gregg Soh" <greggos at hotmail.com> Subject: Chest Freezer Solution In HBD #2815, John E Carsten <John.E.Carsten at oklaosf.state.ok.us> asks for advice on how to maintain a reliable, steady and accurate temperature in his chest freezer with little fluctuation. I have a solution for this as I had this problem when I got my freezer and thermostat. Ken Schwartz's fermentation chiller was where I got my idea from. He uses 12vdc DC fans used for electronics/CPUs that come in many diameters and are very cheap to move cold air in his box. I found one lying around and fashioned a stand for it so that it sat a couple of centimetres from the freezer floor and it's blowing direction facing upwards. That way it circulates the cold air that would normally sink to the bottom, sort of like an "artificial convection" flow. Of course, make sure that your stand allows free flow to the intake of the fan. Hook up the fan to a 12Vdc power supply connected to the same source as your freezer, you can zip-tie the two leads and the thermo-sensor together. So now, the air flows when the freezer cycles on. You might have to change your hysteresis on the thermostat as it will cycle more often. Hope this helps. Gregg Soh ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 04:31:45 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Yest/yeast/yeast&yeast Bruce Carpenter mixes Wyeast and dry yeast - George DePiro covered it all - but t add emphasis ... I think many beginning brewers underestimate the BIG flavor contribution made by yeast variety and the wide range of difference in that contribution. I'll go out on a limb here and state that yeast variety contributes roughly as much to flavor profile as does the choice of malt and perhaps even as much as the choice of hops ! intend to choose yeast for flavor and not convenience. - -- Mike Butterfield asks about yeast and light. I'm not aware of any yeast specific reaction to light, although exposure to UV is a well known method for creating yeast mutations. There are several photoreactions possible in beer (wort) tho' and I don't believe that any are desirable. The best known is the "skunking" of hops. It's best to keep your fermentor out of strong light. - -- Jim Liddel writes ... of Gee and Ramirez earlier (1988) paper - >"A typical brewery yeast strain (S. carlbergensis) and a typical brewery >wort were used in the fermentations. The original gravity of the wort was >16 degrees Plato...) > >It has been pointed out that some of the things I have relayed really only >apply to light lager brewing. Well the statements above seem to indicate >that the process being looked at is this same type of brewing. 16P (1.065SG) is light lager ? I haven't tried light lager in a while - maybe I'm missing something ! Perhaps you are referring to high gravity brewing - which I do not believe is widely practiced in this country. >Are the results >they obtained really applicable to more normal gravity worts? I seem to >recall that the change in flavor components is not linear with gravity change. Re - the 1994 'flavor' paper' - Yes Jim - they really are applicable. Of course flavor products are not linear with respect to SG, but the authors do not characterize the variation with respect to gravity, nor temperature nor O2 nor many other factors. (tho' they validate the model w/ respect to small temp changes). They leave these and other dependencies embedded in dependent variables - which you apparently don't recognize as such. This paper demonstrates that the equations for sugar uptake, biomass, amino acid uptake, fusel, ester and VDK production, based on synthetic mechanisms described and discovered for yeast, mostly in the period 1906 to 1970 do form a reasonably complete picture of these aspects of yeast biology and have predictive capability on a quantitative basis. To reject this you'd really have to demonstrate a new synthetic pathway, or a modification of an existing one - or at least experimentally demonstrate a discrepancy. The SG and a lot of other factors impact flavor products - these 'other variables' may well be the basis for future improved mathematical descriptions - but it doesn't invalidate the current model - it only expands the result. This is rather like the typical chemical kinetics model which describes rates of reaction in terms on concentrations of antecedents and products and certain energy coefficients. More advanced discussions will include temperature dependency by expanding the meaning of one or more the dependent terms. The first description isn't invalidated by the later - just expanded. The Gee and Ramirez 1994 paper certainly isn't the last word - there are some terms which, under their conditions overshadowed others making interpretation difficult, there were problems reported in separately measuring small quantities of certain products, yet the results are remarkable - and IMO form the first steps toward a quantitative understanding of the biomechanisms of yeast. To reject it on the basis that SG impact fermentation requires either a lack of understanding of the mathematics and meaning of the terms, or a lack of critical thinking. The argument about SG is bit like rejecting Newton's description of gravity as it applies to falling pears since it was developed with respect to a falling apple - non sequiteur. - -- Yeast and lag period - There has been some discussion that high pitching rates are a solution to the lag phase. If you consider that increasing the amount of yeast doesn't significantly impact the environment of newly pitched individual yeast cells in fresh wort - then this oft' quoted solution starts to look like another HB Momily. Obviously doubling the pitching will cause the bubbler to start earlier but it's just that two stunned (lag phase) yeast cells produce twice as much CO2 as one stunned cell. You haven't avoided lag at all. Studies have demonstrated that the lag period is a property of many mold/yeast and bacterial cultures - it is not specific to brewing yeast. Lag time decreases throughout the exponential (log) growth phase, and pitching yeast from the late exponential growth phase into similar media(wort) is reported to minimize the length of lag. As the exponential growth phase shifts to stationary phase (and your starter begins to clear) the lag will increase. Higher temps do decrease lag period, but fermenting too warm wort and the impact on yeast are usually big flavor negatives. It seems that ideally we'd like to pitch the mid to late exponential phase yeast (for a lot of reasons) but without a centrifuge this means pitching a lot of starter wort. You certainly don't want to do that is you've been continuously aerating the starter as per recent discussions. As for the centrifuge - most conventional lab models won't conveniently handle anything like the 4-8L starter volumes under discussion. If any of the highly ingenious guys who used to write about novel brewing hardware are still around - consider this a challenge. Steve A Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 05:45:45 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Yeast and Esters Robert Arguello asks about yeast and esters. >My question is about the esters they produce... >or rather the mechanics of producing esters. >I know that some yeasts produce more profound amounts of esters than others. >I know that everything else being equal, a given yeast will produce more >esters during high fermentation temperatures than at low temps. What I don't >know is *how* the esters are formed. What is the chemistry? Why do some You've cited two important factors in ester production, yeast variety and temperature. The mechanism - inside a cell the acetylCoA and some of it's variants [an important intermediate which yeast produce when synthesizing lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, particularly lipids] reacts with an alcohol in the presence of a specific enzyme and produces an ester from the alcohol. The CoA are present during the building and the destruction of lipids. The big two esters are - 1/ Ethanol + acCoA -> ethyl acetate (limited by the AcetylCoA) 2/ Ethanol + caproylCoA -> ethyl-Caproate (limit caproyl-CoA0 And there are a lot of other minor players related to the minor alcohols such as: isoamyl alcohol + acCoA -> isoamyl acetate (limit isoamyl alc) A similar set of steps can make esters from acids and lipids, but the products are at low levels compared to flavor thresholds. Ethyl acetate is obviously the biggest issue since it's created from the most common alcohol and the most prevalent CoA species. The Gee Ramirez models, make the total sugar consumed as proportional to the final ethyl-acetate under otherwise identical conditions. They model the ethyl caproate as proportional to the amount of yeast growth. They model the other minor alcohol esters as being produced at a constant rate per unit yeast mass. What effects ester production ? Pantothenic acid is a precursor of acCoA - so upping the pantothenate level increases esters. Adding short chain fatty acids to wort (less than 11 carbons long) decreased the ethyl acetate levels - presumably by using up acCoA, adding longer chain fatty acids increased the ethyl acetate levels. Wort fatty acids are longish - so adding trub should increase ester production. Depriving wort of O2 prevents UFA synthesis and causes a pooling of excess acCoA and so an increase in ester levels, but later aerations can increase ester levels ???. pH doesn't seem to have much impact. Adding nitrogen salts to wort increases ester levels, and diluting nitrogen can reduce levels. This is probably the result of the yeast producing oxo-acids which esterify while making amino acids from the nitrogen. The nitrogen level only ha a moderate impact on esters, but can have a major impact on fusels. Why temperature ?? The ezyme involved is more active and the internal membranes are more permiable to alcohol, permitting the alcohol CoA and enzyme to meet. == Also see Andy walsh's excellent contribution at: http://hbd.org/brewery/library/EstFormAW0696.html and particularly the postscript msg I include in part here from a Brauwelt article showing an increase in esters in after re-aerating at pitching+24hours. The figures are (mg/l). max 1 ppm 9 ppm 9ppm 9ppm with yeast w/o yeast w/o yeast w/o yeast with yeast and second aeration ethyl acetate 13.3 16.4 13.4 14.1 16.5 isopentyl acetate 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.5 == Practical advice: To reduce esters - choose the yeast carefully, pitch big, ferment cool/cold and oxygenate the wort early and fully To increase esters pick a known ester producing yeast, pitch small, underoxygenate, ferment warm (IOW just keep doing what you've been doing ;^) I would personally avoid mucking up the fatty acid or nitrogen levels in order to achieve ester effects. There are better means. Steve A Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 07:10:53 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: re: BT subscriptions Paul writes: >On an unrelated issue, has anyone else received an unsolicited email >from Jessica Olson at brewing techniques <Jessica at brewtech.com> >advertising their special subscrition rate. I sure hope that BT isn't in the >practice of culling email addresses from the HBD. I also got an email from them but it said >We designed this special subscription promotion to give our on-line readers >chance to see the magazine "in the flesh." so I assumed it was because I had looked at their web-site and subscribed to their online newsletter. At anyrate, I'm going to subscribe, been meaning to for a while. Mark Tumarkin Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:35:51 -0400 From: "Dave Greathouse" <daveg at citynet.net> Subject: CO2 by weight Hi: (this is my first post to the HBD) I have a rather "weird" question for some of you "brew chem" guys.... "What is the weight of CO2 per unit volume (liter, gal, oz) in properly carbonated beer?" When I was a kid in college we used to force carbonate Kool-aid and grain alcohol in a 2-liter PET bottle, using DRY ICE! (Don't even ask why... DUMB I guess)Plop some in the tiny hole, fill up the bottle and cap, swirl it around.... you could gauge from the "hardness" of the bottle if the thing was ready for more CO2 or if it had too much... I know, sounds dangerous, but no one got killed, a little wet maybe.... The results ranged from no carbonation to way too much. Our methods weren't very "scientific", not really measured. The "coldness" of the dry ice allowed the CO2 to go into solution easily, and if we know the right amount to add it would remove some of the uncertainty... Just weigh out the "solid" CO2 needed plop it in and go (sounds WAY too easy, I must be missing something...) I know the "experts" talk of "volumes" of CO2, what does this unit represent? I am thinking of force carbonating some root beer in this manner. If it works I would try it on beer! Just a thought... Dave G. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:00:53 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Old Grains Chris Frey asked about the consequences of storage of malt. The most obvious one is that stored malt picks up moisture at an amazing rate. I opened a new bag of DWC Pale Ale (the stuff I posted an analysis on yesterday) on Saturday last and measured the 1000 corn weight: 20.2871 grams. Today, Thursday, the 1000 corn weight is 20.8244 - a change of 2.6% is 4 days! Note that the bag is in the kitchen (Mum is away) and I've had the air conditioner on during this time so that we aren't dealing with basement level humidity. One of the reasons I did this measurement was that the beer I brewed using this malt was made mostly with the remains of an old (January) bag and the extract was surprisingly low (67%). Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:07:56 -0400 From: MAB <mabrooks at erols.com> Subject: Iodophor and pH In a recent post : >From: Paul Niebergall >Subject: Iodophor >The information comes from the oldest (and one of the most respected) >home brew shops in the our area. In a newsletter that was recently >issued, it was stated that Iodopher doesn't work in an alkali soution >(specifically above a pH of 8.5). Tartaric acid was recommended to >lower th pH of the Iodophor solution. Has anyone else ever heard of >this. It kind of makes me worry since my tap water is usually above pH >of 9. This information is fairly accurate as alkaline pH values do cause elemental Iodine (I2) and hypoiodous acid (HIO) to form less effective forms of iodine, this is usually only a problem above pH 8.4. It is very unusual to have a drinking water with a pH of 9 and I would think this would be an exception and that most brewers who use Iodophor would not have to worry about pH causing a problem. BTW Paul, are you on well water or public water? I would inquire to the water company about my pH if it was that high on a consistant basis, as this is an upper limit for drinking water. If you are on well water, You may want to consider adding an inline water treatment system. Do you have a water analysis handy as I would be interested in seeing your Hardness and Alkalinity levels. Matt Northern VA. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 08:28:24 -0700 From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson at winternet.com> Subject: Specialty Malt Kickers Hello Collective, Have any of you used Morgan's specialty malt kickers? If so, can any of you tell me whether they give better results in terms of flavor than using specialty grains? Thanks in advance, Mike Hanson Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:40:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net> Subject: Films and light sources The best way to determine if a film on the surface: Find a microscope and a trained eyeball to look at it. Could be anything - one look will remove all doubt. Wait it out if you can find the scope and eyes. If it smells and tastes ok now - try again in a week. If the beer continues to produce gas eventually youll get a wiff of something "wild" if they (the film produced) are unwanteds. >From my personal experience (my yeast /process), Never saw a film in primary (could not see in them) but when I had a crappy hose, heat exchanger and lots of plastic parts - I had a nasty fight with a wild yeast. Never got its name - but it produced a film that I could see in the secondary (grundy with sightglass) and overcarbonated. These where 1/4 the size of the normal yeast and slipper shaped. One look under a scope and comparison to the normal - and down the drain it went (X5). Moral of the story (for me) new heatexchanger, tossed platic crap in the dumpster and bought real hose. Expensive you bet, never dumped another because of them tho. Plastic is a great place for bugs to hide. One scratch is all it takes. - ------------------- On lite source for a scope - I had a real cheap scope - used it for a long time with one of those candels for the window at christmas time. I put some milky cellophane tape on the platform to diffuse the lite. Worked great (ur good enuff). Never used 1000X power tho. 400X is fine unless you want to see "yeast guts". Most of the time you want to see the general population rather than the innards. At 400X you can get a general sense of health (vacuole and outer wall) with a good stain. Good Luck and great brewing Joe Rolfe Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:25:44 -0500 From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Film, 212F, Alt. Greg Lorton writes about Joe*s film >I just got done reading "Lambic" book of the Beer Styles books, and >Jean-Xavier Guinard talks about a couple of yeasts (Brettanomyces, >Candida, and Pichia) that produce a "pellicle" (film) on the surface of >the beer. Brettanomyces contributes a "horsey" character, and the >others reportedly add some esters, adding to the fruity character of the >beer. Lambic brewers NEVER break the film. It supposedly protects >the beer from oxidation. If Joe*s film is a truly a pellicle formed by wild yeasts (ala Lambic style), it will become very evident, very soon. The pellicles that have formed on the batches of pLambic that I have seen are really thick, white, and dusty. There is no mistaking it, it*s really gross and it looks like mold. If you have just a slight film and no discernable off-flavors, then don*t worry and bottle away. George_De_Piro writes about the addition of boiling water to the mash: >Badger is wondering what will happen to the enzymes when using this >procedure. Modern brewers avoid overheating the mash. Why is this? >Beers of old were likely to be phenolic, sour, etc. If a modern > brewer is going to try recreating historical beers pure yeast cultures >should not be used (especially if one is trying to recreate ancient >homebrew). The highly dextrinous (and possibly starchy) worts of >yesteryear could be attenuated by wild yeasts and bacteria. Some >wild organisms produce quite agreeable flavors (as modern Lambic >demonstrates). You could get lucky. I'm sure the best brewers of old >were the ones that just happened to be microbiologically fortunate. While the science of what George is saying may be true, I would like to point out that the reality of modern home brewing is quite different. I have done quite a few decoction mashes and have added enormous amounts of boiled grains back to the main mash. Not to mention the addition of the boiled portion of the thin mash (mostly liquid) at mash out. I have never experienced *phenolic, sour, etc.* flavors in any of my decocted brews. Neither have my worts been dextrinous (unless I wanted them to be) or starchy. Also if you are step mashing, or just trying to hold the temperature of your single infusion mash, the addition of boiling water is necessary (ever try to raise the temperature of a mash from 150 to 155 degrees with the addition of 170 degree water - you need a really big mashtun). Just try to keep the additions of boiling water to a minimum and be sure to let your mash rest until any released starch is converted (which may take a while longer because some of the enzymes may have been denatured). Unless you are adding massive amounts of boiling water (like doughing in 10 pounds of grain with 3 gallons of boiling water) and then letting the hot mash cool to your selected conversion temperature, there is nothing to worry about. I have to agree with Al Korzonas criticism of the Zymurgy article on Alt. Among the things that Al pointed out, I had a problem with the suggestion that you can make a credible Alt by using a malt extract and essentially steeping munich malt. Doesn*t munich malt have to be mashed? Also using an amber colored extract is not a good idea, as you don*t really know what makes up the amber color (crystal malt, carmel coloring, etc.). At the least I would recommend going with a light un-hopped malt extract and mini-mashing the munich malt with the other specialty grains. Even this would probably be a long shot. Brew on, Paul Niebergall Kansas City Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:44:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Kenneth Sullivan <Kenneth.Sullivan at Central.Sun.COM> Subject: Chest freezer broken :-( Probst! My 8 cu.ft. chest freezer ran forever (4 yrs old) on a Hunter Air Stat but now won't turn on?! I had to unplug it and move it outside while I built my basement brewpub. Now when I plug it in, it doesn't make any kind of sound at all. I verified the Hunter was good. I suspect the starter cap. I bypassed the fridge thermistor, no joy. Anybody out there have a few troubleshooting tips? I have a background in electronics but no experience with fridges. Thnx, KJ Ken Sullivan kjsulli at central.sun.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 07:44:58 PDT From: "Marc Fries" <q_mech at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Iodophor > In a newsletter that was recently >issued, it was stated that Iodopher doesn't work in an alkali soution >(specifically above a pH of 8.5). Tartaric acid was recommended to >lower th pH of the Iodophor solution. Has anyone else ever heard of >this. It kind of makes me worry since my tap water is usually above >pH of 9. Iodophor is a chemical complex containing iodine atoms. In order to free the iodine so that it can do its sanitizing work, the iodine atoms are replaced with other atoms. In this case, free hydrogen atoms from an acid are used, in what is called a dehalohydrogenation reaction (if memory serves...!). In order for the reaction to proceed to completion, you should start with a solution with a pH of about 6 (less is fine). pH is a direct measurement of the amount of hydrogen atoms suspended in the solution (-log [H+], if you want to get technical!). My point is; yes - add an acid to the water in order to get the iodophor to work. Vinegar will work (acetic acid). So will tartaric acid, or even a small amount of phosphoric or hydrochloric acid, but those are nasty to handle. Just make sure the solution is pH < 6 and you're in business! Marc D. Fries BS in chemistry, lotta chemistry BS ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 08:16:34 -0700 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: flow rate of wort vs. water Thanks to those who responded. I think I'm going to go with some smaller tubing and valves than 3/8". Using 1/4" copper (or SS, I have access to both) will probably be the best bet for my situation. My 1/2" valve will, by necessity, need to remain, however I will install another, smaller valve further downstream. The smaller tubing and smaller valve should allow me better control. Thanks. John Schnupp, N3CNL Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:18:45 -0500 From: "Crossno, Glyn" <Glyn.Crossno at cubic.com> Subject: 10 gallon ferment - Bradd Wheeler asks >Does anyone have experience with this particular item, or have access >to a more suitable vessel for fermenting 10 gallon batches? My batch size varies based on OG. From 8 gallons of BW to 13+. For the money I've just stayed with a 6.5 gallon carboy and several plastic pails. Your situation is probably different, but I don't really want to carry any more at one time than about 5 gallons. Moving from the outside boil, to the ferment/furnace room, to bottling line even with a pump would seem to be a plumbing/cleaning hassle. And you can justify a couple more cold ones after all that work. ALAN KEITH MEEKER asks concerning hops >So, how does one handle this? Should I harvest a section at a time? I try to harvest a section at a time. This is one area where you have an advantage over the commercial guys. >Is it better to harvest too early or too late? >From my experience it is better to pick a little late. Several years ago when I brewed my first homegrown batch I got a grassy taste. I had picked most of the hops in one picking and not want to do it again for I while I pick some early. Since then I've been more careful and have not had this flavor. It did seem to fad with time. Glyn Crossno Estill Springs, TN - --------------- "You know you're a homebrewer when you measure beer in gallons. You know you're a homebrewer when you have 60 gallons of beer in your car. You know you're a homebrewer when you don't think 60 gallons is much beer." Sully Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:44:12 -0700 From: Gail Elber <gail at brewtech.com> Subject: Re: unsolicited email >an unsolicited email >from Jessica Olson at brewing techniques <Jessica at brewtech.com> >advertising their special subscription rate. I sure hope that BT isn't in the >practice of culling email addresses from the HBD. Those e-mails went to former subscribers, people who requested a Buyers Market Guide, and others who have ordered something from us in the past. HBD's mailing list is safe from us. <g> Gail Elber, Associate Editor BrewingTechniques P.O. Box 3222 Eugene, OR 97403 Tel. 541/687-2993 Fax 541/687-8534 http://brewingtechniques.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:42:41 -0400 From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil> Subject: alt/film/bt solicitation/insulating inside a freezer collective homebrew conscience: al k wrote, regarding recent alt fiction in zymurgy: >I urge everyone to be wary of the recipes and guidelines presented in this >article and the book "Altbier" from whence this article was extracted. it sounds to me like bt needs to send a correspondent to the fatherland to do one of their "styles" articles, to set the record straight. (maybe they've already done this?) volunteers? ********************* paul niebergall wrote: <snip>has anyone else received an unsolicited email <from Jessica Olson at brewing techniques <snip> advertising their special subscrition rate. I sure <hope that BT isn't in the practice of culling email addresses from the HBD. ouch. yeah, i got one too. ******************** regarding film on the surface of beer in the secondary, i have had this on a few beers, mostly ones that i get lazy with and don't bottle or keg when i should. i tried to compensate for this last year by purging the secondary headspaces with some co2, but i must not have purged well enough (or the purging was inconsequential for the microbe(s) in question), because i still developed a film on one beer that had sat around many days too long at close to room temp. the beers, despite this, were not horribly impaired. they were more than drinkable. (moral: laziness + room temp = invitation to microbes. laziness is not a tenet of the "brew hard" philosophy.) ********************* marc battreall wrote: <I don't know if the slants will gain any insulating properties by being stored inside the container and <maintain a slightly higher temp or if they will eventually settle down to the same temp as the freezer. <Maybe some foam insulation? the only way to maintain the interior of a container, inside a properly operating freezer, at a higher temp than the interior of the freezer, is to have some sort of heat source within the container. unless you have 100% efficient insulation (i.e. zero heat transfer), the slants will eventually reach the temperature of the interior of the freezer. brew hard, mark bayer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 12:24:31 -0600 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: Insulation Cap'n Mark wants to keep his yeast in the deep freeze and wonders if insulation will help maintain a warmer temperature. It's a common miconception that insulation by itself keeps something hot or cold. All insulation does is slow the flow of heat from one area to a colder area. If you have hot coffee in a Thermos sitting outside at 10F, it will still eventually freeze, but it will take much longer than a cup of coffe in an uninsulated mug. Unless the yeast is somehow producing heat, given enough time in a foam box, your yeasties will reach the same temperature as your wife's rump roast. - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX kenbob at elp.rr.com http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:32:23 -0400 From: Mark Swenson <swenson at aoml.noaa.gov> Subject: FAN Levels in Extracts In a private response to my recent question about published FAN levels in extracts, it was suggested that there was an article in Zymurgy a few years ago in which they actually tested the FAN in a dozen or two extracts. I would be willing to get a back issue of this if I could identify the issue. Does anyone out there know the Volume and Number of the Zymurgy issue in question? TIA Mark Swenson Key Biscayne, FL Miami Area Society of Homebrewers Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:18:25 -0700 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: More Period Brewing Questions.. Greeting Modern Brewers.. (i hope that i am not entirely out of the scope of this list with all of my historical and period brewing questions. please let me know if i should stop cluttering the list.) I have recently stumbled accross a couple of early beer and ale recipes, and have of course, some more questions.. recipe 1: (circa 1503) 71% malt, 14% wheat, 14% oats, and is hopped recipe 2: (circa 1079) 16.5 % barley, 16.5 % wheat, 67 % Oats. no hops. Questions: 1. what is the water absortion rate of grain? ie. if i want to yeild X amount of runoff, i should use Y more water to account for water absorbtion... 2. what is a rough idea of how much water will boil off during a roiling boil, uncovered? this is also related to #1 so i can get a predetermined amount in teh fermenttor. many period recipes state how much ale or beer was made from such and such amounts of grain.. 3. I am assuming that the Quaker rolled oats would NOT do here.. any suggestions on how to simulate the Oats? would they have been malted? one would think so, since rec. 2 is 67% oats.. otherwise would you get enough sugars? 4. ditto with teh wheat.. any idea whether it was malted or unmalted? 5. will fire or straw kilned malt have a certain flavor difference over gas kilned malt? since i am assuming that the malt is probably not evenly malted, would a mixture of different kilnings of malt (pale, brown, etc.) give me a more period malt approximation? 6. what is a good source of information on the history of grain, adn malting techniques that reaches back to at least the 16th century? 7. ditto with teh history of Hops.. i am assuming the massive alpha acid hops are relatively recent creation... to simulate period hops, i am thinking of using Noble, low alpha acid leaf hops... I hope i am not wasting bandwidth with all this.. I am working on some papers and projects for a Arts and Sciences championship in October, and need to get my ducks in a row soon. Badger *************************************************** Brander Roullett aka Badger Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 19:30:29 -0400 From: todd_ebert at rovisys.com Subject: Oatmeal Stout Explosion I made an oatmeal stout a week ago and forgot to check my airlock every day and you can probably guess what happened. The airlock plugged and my bucket lid blew off. I am not so worried about the carnage on the walls as I am with how the batch might be damaged by having the bucket lid completely off for 24 or so hours. When I noticed I put the lid back on (forgot to clean it but I think it wasn't to dirty) and cleaned out the airlock. 5 days later I racked it into a carboy and did not notice any off smells. Do you think the batch will have any problems from the lid being off that long? What indicators should I look for as I complete the process? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 21:11:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Beer Review: Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale (AVOID) Greetings, Beelings! Take me to your lager... In deference to Steve Alexander, a review. On my way from Oakville, Ontario Canada today, I had $10 Canadian to rid myself of, so I stopped at the Duty-free and picked up a 12 of the subject beer. India pale it ain't. No hop character at all. SOme muted fruitiness. Sweet finish. Is that corn I detect in the palate? Stunningly light in color; stunningly clear. Nice bright-white head. A bit overcarbonated. Overall, a pitiful example of the style. Sigh. Unless you're looking for a slightly more full-bodied example of American Ultralight (Lager), you don't want this 'un. Kind of rounded out a rather diappointing (in terms of beer) visit this time around... 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 Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:23:29 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Easy Chloramine Neutralization A few months ago I posted "Chloramine Heresies" in which I indicated that some literature and single-data-point experiments had suggested that chloramines were actually more volatile that free chlorine and could, thus, be removed by standing, aeration and boiling. Additional reading and experiments now indicate that dichloramine and trichloramine are indeed more volatile than free chlorine but that monochloramine is less volatile than free chlorine and that the majority of the chloramines found in municipal water is monochloramine. This does not mean that boiling, standing and aeration are ineffective. Several tests have shown that a few minutes boil will remove both free chlorine and chloramine. Tests also show that monochloramine will leave water upon standing but that it does so at a rate about half that of free chlorine. In other words, if a particular configuration of container and air circulation (e.g. 500 mL sample in a 500 mL beaker in one experiment) results in a reduction of free chlorine to half its initial value in 12.54 hours (experimental data), it will take about 24.87 (same experiment) hours for the monochloramine concentration to fall to half its initial value. Messages to consumers from water districts implementing chloramination caution aquarists that neutralization of chlorine with photographer's hypo (sodium thiosulfate - the traditional method for these folks) cannot be used any more because hypo reacts with chloramine to release ammonium ions which convert to ammonia as fish metabolism raises the pH of the aquarium water and ammonia is toxic to fish. But hold! Yeast don't raise pH - they lower it. And ammonium isn't toxic to yeast - they love it. Most "yeast nutrients" contain urea (which breaks down into ammonium) and/or ammonium phosphate. So why don't we just all trundle off to the photo shop and buy a bag of hypo to eliminate chlorine/chloramine from our brewing water? The answer is that we probably already have (at least those of us that do wine or mead) another equally effective reducing agent in our cupboard that we know is food grade because we bought it at the brew shop - Campden tablets. I've experimented with Campden tablets and determined that 1 tablet (686 mg Potassium Metabisulfite) will "neutralize" the chlorine/chloramine in 20 gallons of water with a total chlorine (free chlorine plus chloramine) content of up to 2 mg/L - as much as you are likely to see except under exceptional circumstances. If a brewer treats 20 gallons of brew water with 1 Campden tablet (note that the label recommendation for wine is 1 - 2 tablets per gallon) the potassium content will increase 5 mg/L and sulfur dioxide will be released into the water. Some of this will be oxidized to sulfate by the chlorine/chloramine and that which is not oxidized by chlorine or otherwise will be driven off in the boil. If all is oxidized to sulfate the sulfate will increase by 6 mg/L. These amounts are not significant. In addition, based on experimental data, chloramine at 2 mg/L reduced by the metabite will yield about 0.2 mg/L ammonium ion - not an appreciable amount but enough to give the yeast a little FAN snack. Thus I'm offering the suggestion that chlorine/chloramine removal is easily effected by simply adding 1 Campden tablet to 20 gallons of water - no activated carbon filters, no boiling. Certainty that this will be effective can be obtained by measuring the total chlorine content of the water with a cheap test kit first to be sure that the level is at or below 2 mg/L. If above, the amount of water treated by one tablet can be scaled. The amount required to neutralize the chlorine/chloramine more precisely can be determined more accurately if desired but as the quantities required are so small it is probably not worth the effort to do this. Can this be all there is to it? Comments? Questions? Observations? Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/04/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96