HOMEBREW Digest #3233 Thu 27 January 2000

[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

  Yeast Pitching ("Stephen and Carolyn Ross")
  color ("Dave Sapsis")
  Stuck Sparge with EM ("Jack Schmidling")
  Re: Stuck fermentation... Not! ("Randy Hall")
  Extraction Efficiency Formula (Andrew Nix)
  Re: Back Issues (Matthew Arnold)
  alt (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Re: MCAB II ("Mike Fitzpatrick")
  Mash Hopping (Stephen cavan)
  beer calories/dextrins and mouthfeel (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Randy's Danger Brew Update ("Randy Hall")
  re: Efficiency vs.Yield (John_E_Schnupp)
  re: stir plates (John_E_Schnupp)
  Dextrins and Mouthfeel and Proteolysis (Dave Burley)
  Re: STONE (Stein) Beer (The Brews Traveler)
   (Keith Busby)
  Chocolate Malt (RCAYOT)
  20 gallon system ("Chris Hofmann")
  Motorizing Philmills (Dan Listermann)
  Darrel's yeast questions (Jeff Renner)
  Yeast Culture Kit Co. -- Tadcaster Strain (Michael Josephson)
  First all-grain, Solved clogging problem, Phil's Phloater (Kurt Kiewel)
  Stupid brewer ticks (Tom Logan)
  RE: Overnight mashing ("Tamulis, Andrius")
  Yet ANOTHER Sparging Question (Andrew Nix)
  Yeast washing & reuse ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  How to raise mash pH? ("Troy Hager")
  Ice in Beer ("Peter J. Calinski")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00 * See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:06:17 -0600 From: "Stephen and Carolyn Ross" <rosses at sprint.ca> Subject: Yeast Pitching "Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt at sln.esc.edu> writes: >pitched Whitelabs WLP009 Australian Ale yeast (ferments at 65-70 >F)...didn't make a starter but pitched directly from the vile. I prefer Wyeast, but I don't think it's quite fair to call Whitelabs nifty little tubes "vile"..... Stephen Ross, Saskatoon, SK ______________________________________________ "Vitae sine cerevesiae sugat." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:57:01 -0800 From: "Dave Sapsis" <dsapsis at earthlink.net> Subject: color AJ writes: The Davison Color Guide with which you may be familiar assumes 5 cm based on the fact that that's the diameter of the cups we use in competitions. When AJ says this, I am unsure who all exactly the "we " is. In any event, not all competitions use those cups, and that while he may be mostly right, there is no reason to believe this *should* be the case. There is no agreed upon standard for glassware in competitions that I am aware of, and if there were, these cups would be low on my list. Just one of the issues regarding evaluation of beer concerns the sampling vessel, and I for one really have never thought much of the flare-sided PC cups -- they are notoriously poor for evaluating foam stand and dont work too well for aroma either. Their one claim to fame is practicality. While I have organized my share of competitions, one of the first things I did was to secure actual tasting glassware. And nope, they didn't conform to the 5cm path. The Davison color guide, underscored by natural variation in light flux through the vessel as well as fundamental issues with SRM that AJ thoughtfully addressed, causes me to think that their use is a poor way to evaluate beer color in competitions. When I get a score sheet back telling me my beer was 12 SRM I gotta wonder. I feel that a basic lexicon of colors that beers typically come in already exists (light straw to dark brown-opaque) and that these terms serve as adequate means of describing the color of beer given the vagaries of methods and environments used to discerne it. Note: these are just my opinions, and dont reflect any official stance of the BJCP. peace. dave, sacramento Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:54:37 -0600 From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at mc.net> Subject: Stuck Sparge with EM From: DawgDoctor at aol.com "I collected my first 2 gallons at full flow, poured it back in to filter, collected a second 2 gallons of very clear wort at full flow, then suddenly, STUCK SPARGE. Almost an hour later I managed to collect my 7 gallons...... First of all, one hour for a 7 gallon sparge is not excessive in fact many folks would call this about ideal. If you experienced a sudden slow down after pouring the 2 gallons back, I would suspect the way you poured it might have disturbed the filter bed. It is rarely necessary to draw more than a pint off to clarify the wort. By taking two gallons you not only waste a lot of time but significantly drop the temperature of the mash by putting it back in. > I ended up getting quite aggressive, racking the screen with a spoon, moving it around with the spoon ect. I'm very dissapointed, never had collected wort that clear before, just ended up getting cloudy again from all the stirring around. Not surprising. Contrary to what seems obvious, the EM screen is not a filter, it simply keeps the spigot clear of hunks that could clog it. The grain bed is the filter and every time you disturb it, you have to allow it to settle down again. Stirring and scraping only causes stuck sparges and is never a cure. There is absolutely no point in trying to get crystal clear wort as subsequent process steps will clarify the beer. This is particularly important when doing an infusion mash with no ability to add heat. By the time you get clear wort, it is too cold for a proper mash. js PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:08:04 -0800 From: "Randy Hall" <randy_hall at earthling.net> Subject: Re: Stuck fermentation... Not! Wow! I received a flood of responses regarding my current beer batch, and I'll try now to address the myriad of good questions posed by the list. 1. What type of yeast did you use? Whitbread <?> Ale yeast (dry, single 14g packet). I hydrated the yeast as instructed on the packet with ~105 deg F water (allowing it to soak for 15 minutes, then stirring [with unsanitized spoon]). I did not sanitize the water by boiling it first. NOTE: Looking back on that process alone, it seems I was hurried in getting the yeast together. Probably could have done more to keep conditions sanitary. 2. What is the temperature in the area of your fermenter? The fermenter was placed in, of all places, our spare bathroom (in the shower stall). I know what you're thinking, but I don't think there is a heat, humidity, or bacteria problem (as it never ever gets used). It also happens to be the coolest corner of the house at ~65 deg F in winter when the heater's on. 3. After you boiled, did you try to leave some hot break and/or cold break in the kettle when you poured into the fermenter? My concentrated wort was ~2.5 gallons post-boil volume. Actually, I used a sanitized saucepan to ladle the wort into the carboy. The wort went through a (sanitized) plastic funnel w/ (sanitized) screen. After three or four pans full of wort had been funnelled, the screen was full of blockage (hot break?), so I tapped it out and kept going. Toward the end, I took the screen out and poured the remaining wort from the boil into the carboy (guess I got impatient! This was 3 hours into the experiment and I was getting tired :) So it seems that I filtered *some* of the break (whichever it is). Oh well, lots of trub... 4. Do you think the inch of stuff is yeast, or was your wort pretty cloudy when you pitched your yeast? Let's see. I'll answer it this way: Since this fermentation started, the inch of sediment was dramatically reduced (to more like a quarter inch). So I figured the majority of the bed of sediment was yeast cells, just that I didn't have the courage (or foolhardiness) to rouse them. 5. Another way to check is measuring specific gravity using a hydrometer. Got one? As a matter of fact, I do. I checked it at the outset with a SG of 1.055 (corrected for temp difference). I haven't checked it since, but I will when I rack it to secondary... 6. Does it smell? Well, it smells kinda sweet, perhaps fruity (or did when the kraeusening was going full-bore). I've done mead before, so I didn't smell anything out of the ordinary... NOTE: Speaking of kraeusening, the foam had a dark brown, patchy film/crust over it in places; this brown nasty stuff is now resting on the brew itself (now that the foam has receded). I'm thinking that the time to get it out of that fermenter is near... Additional info: * I stoppered the carboy with a solid rubber plug and shook/rocked the wort before pitching, perhaps for a couple of minutes (I wasn't counting). After pitching, I let it sit for a moment, then rocked the carboy a couple more times. Perhaps part of that technique is lacking... * I used bottled water (Black Mountain spring water, from CA). 2.5 gals cold into the carboy, 2.5 gals in the kettle for boiling the concentrated wort. I added about 1/2 tsp. gypsum to the boil. * I used (and you are all welcome to laugh) a mixture of these Mr. Beer hopped LME cans (1.21 lbs each): 2 x Oktoberfest Vienna Lager, 2 x Englishman's Nut Brown Ale, and 1 x Amber Malt Extract. I also used a pound of Crystal Malt 60L in a grain bag just for grins. The reason I used the Mr. Beer stuff was 1) I got the stuff as a gift (sound familiar?) and 2) I wanted to clear off shelf space for *real* extract materials that I want to do future brews with. Thus, I am naming this brew "Randy's Danger Ale". If it turns out terrible, that's the risk, baby. You rolls yer dice, you takes yer chance. :) I need to get me into a homebrew club... <sigh> I fully intend on taking this brew to completion (even if it tastes a little funky when bottling, I'll give it a couple weeks after that to come around). Anyhow, thanks to everyone that has responded with opinions and questions. I'll take everything into consideration the *next* time I brew! :) Cheers, Randy Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:20:50 -0600 From: Andrew Nix <anix at vt.edu> Subject: Extraction Efficiency Formula I checked the archives first (for the last 3-4 years at least) and was wondering if someone might be able to send me the simplified formula for calculating potential OG based on certain types of malts. Last year, someone sent me this and I cannot find it. It was really simply, with values for pale malt, specialty malts, etc. Thansk in advance!!! Drewmeister Andrew Nix beerbrewer at vt.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:29:16 -0600 From: Matthew Arnold <revmra at iname.com> Subject: Re: Back Issues >Any recent knowledge of back issues of Brewing Techniques? I ordered a >back issue a hell of a long time ago and still haven't heard >anything. Phone numbers don't work. Maybe someone that is responsible >reads this...maybe not. (yes, I know BT is out of publication...that's what >prompted me to order...before they ran out). I have about a two years' subscription worth of back issues that I am still waiting for. It was bad enough that my letter regarding BT's demise came better than a full month after it was dated. At this point I do not anticipate ever seeing my back issues or a refund. I was going to rant about this a little more, but it's all been said before. Matt - ----- Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club http://www.rackers.org info at rackers.org Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:43:25 -0800 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> Subject: alt Just picked up some Widmer Winternacht. The info on the 6pack leads me to believe that this may be the fabled ur-alt normally served only at the brewery and reputed to be an (the only?) authentic Du:sseldorf-style altbier brewed in the US. Can anyone confirm or deny that Winternacht is the same as the ur-alt? Private email would be great assuming this reaches the Tuesday PM digest as I bought it for a Wednesday PM tasting. I will summarize email and also report back tasting notes. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:42:54 -0600 From: "Mike Fitzpatrick" <fitzbrew at earthlink.net> Subject: Re: MCAB II For anyone interested in attending MCAB II in St. Louis, our web site has been updated with all the information and registration forms. Cost will be $50.00, which includes transportation on the pub crawl, an MCAB pint glass to enjoy your beers in, the technical conference (a schedule is on the site), dinner and awards banquet, AB pilot plant tour, and LOTS of homebrewed beers. Here's a link to the page if you don't have it yet: http://www.stlbrews.org/events/mcab.asp Hope to see you there! Mike Fitzpatrick Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:07:56 -0600 From: Stephen cavan <orders at paddockwood.com> Subject: Mash Hopping Marc Sedam asked "Has anyone considered adding the FWH hops to the mashtun?" Well yes indeed, and this is my preferred method of handling flavour/aroma hop additions. I started doing this after reading De Clerke and later Fix (Analysis of BT). The point they raise is that the oils, which are responsible for flavour and aroma, react better at a lower temperature and high pH than one finds during the boil. I think 150F was mentioned as a good temp, in fact. So I place all aroma hops (as pellets) in the mash, bittering hops at the start of the boil, and no hops for less than 30 minutes. I have been doing this for over a year, and many people I have contact with have tried this method as well. The results are superb. People often think I have dry hopped, although to me there is still a sharp difference between mash hopped beer and dry hopped beer. I prefer the mash hopped effect actually over dry hopping, which to my nose is often over done. Steve Cavan Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 01:40:27 -0500 (EST) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu> Subject: beer calories/dextrins and mouthfeel Dave: you quoted this in the last digest - "The calorific food value of beer is principally due to the ethanol and unfermented carbohydrates, but it is doubtful whether the latter contribute to any other beer character, although glycoproteins may act as foam stabilizers." Does this mean that you are ready to believe what I said about most of the calories in beer coming from ethanol?! - --------------------------------------- Dextrins and mouthfeel: I think somebody has to clearly define what we mean by "mouthfeel" before we can figure out whether or not a given beer constituent contributes to it. The ASBC flavor wheel has a sector for mouthfeel which contains the following descriptors: "alkaline, mouthcoating, metallic, astringent, powdery, carbonation, and warming." There is another sector called "fullness" which has one descriptor - "body." In Lewis' book he shows a proposed expansion of the mouthfeel chareacteristics, breaking them up into three subgroups, each with their own associated descriptors namely: Carbonation (sting, bubble size, foam volume, total CO2) Fullness (density, viscosity) Afterfeel (oily mouthcoat, astringency, stickiness) Clearly, if this expanded version is used and dextrins increase viscosity then they would contribute to mouthfeel. What is the current state of this area of the ASBC wheel? -Alan Meeker Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:22:19 -0800 From: "Randy Hall" <randy_hall at earthling.net> Subject: Randy's Danger Brew Update Hi folks! I wanted to give an update to the list regarding my newly dubbed "Randy's Danger Ale". I finished racking it to the secondary about half an hour ago. Some data: OG: 1.055 (corrected for temp on 1/15/00) SG: 1.022 (checked just this evening 1/25/00 at 64 deg F) Looks: Like beer. I have taken some photos that I will post links to tomorrow (given that I can find a quick place to stick them :) The photos show more or less the "film" that had developed on the beer after the kraeusening collapsed. I also snapped a couple of photos down the neck of the primary carboy to show the texture of the trub and yeast (pretty sickening looking stuff really). As I said, I'll post links tomorrow with the location and description of each photo. Smells: Like beer. No foul smells. Slightly sweet, fruity odor emanates from the secondary, same from the yeast sediment and remnants in the primary. Tastes: Like beer. I sampled the sample that I took for measuring the SG and it tasted like beer. A bit harsh, probably considering it has a bit more to go (I'm shooting for a 1.014-1.017 finish). It's also a bit sweet (probably due to still high SG). It's also what I would call "malty", but considering I haven't brewed much beer, my qualitative analysis is pretty naive, really. Overall, it tastes like the bastardized brown ale that it is. Final thoughts: Despite the 5-6 day delay in fermenting, this looks like a viable batch! I'm looking forward to the comments regarding my updated brew specs (posted earlier) and I'll make sure to give an update when I keg/bottle this sucker... Cheers, Randy Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 01:44:33 -0800 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: re: Efficiency vs.Yield Fred sed, >I hereby propose that for homebrewing purposes (and HBD communication) we >institute a standard of quoting yield in a points per pound format instead. That being said, what is "typical" to be considered "good"? John Schnupp, N3CNL Dirty Laundry Brewery (temporarily closed) Georgia, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 02:03:12 -0800 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: re: stir plates >A stir bar obviously would be better at stirring than bubbles but I think >it would be poor for aeration. While the stir bar agitation would dissolve >oxygen from the air inside the jar, it seems to me that that would get >depleted rather quickly. Ok, so why not pump in some more air? Use a two hole stopper, pump the HEPA filtered air in one hole and use the other for the airlock. I do this and have had great success with my yeast. John Schnupp, N3CNL Dirty Laundry Brewery (temporarily closed) Georgia, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:09:11 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Dextrins and Mouthfeel and Proteolysis Brewsters: Paul Smith seem to agree, yet he denies ( I think) that there is apparently no scrap of evidence in M&BS, DeClerk or anywhere else that I can find to support the long held opinion by many peope (and not just Paul) that somehow dextrins affect mouthfeel. Not only can I not provide it, M&BS makes it pretty clear that dextrins do not affect mouthfeel based on the several quotes I provided. I'd even like to believe it. But I can't. People who know a lot more about these subjects, write highly documented books and have studied these subjects and submitted their results to their peers for review DO have much more weight than some experiment or opinon held by any of us, IMHO. That's why I use the books for reference. You can check up on me and others. These are not obscure and difficult to get as references sometimes provided. Del was puzzled by my comments that there was proteolysis in the mash. As I read it, Paul was earlier making the point that for some reason proteolysis in the mash was not an important process and that this basically only took place at the maltsters. While it is true that of the basic enzymic processes going on, proteolysis ( and synthesis) of protein takes place at the maltsters and saccharification predominantly takes place at the brewers. Both processes take place to some extent at both places. It is surprising to some at just how much proteolysis takes place, even with normally highly modified ( and more importantly, relatively highly kilned) British malt, at the brewers. That was the point. I was encouraging Paul and others to stop worrying about things like head loss ( which does take place with a low T hold of several hours) and try some short low T holds to encourage beta glucanolysis and proteolysis to improve the mouthfeel, based on the references. I provided a quote that there are some relatively thermally stable ( unlike many) protein enzymes and I suspect <without any proof> that it is these which are active at the higher temperatures and why both Paul and I agree that a 158F mash produces a full mouthed beer. Try a lowT hold experiment at home, Paul and include a mash at 158F see if you don't change your mind. I did. - ------------------------------ Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:17:09 -0700 From: The Brews Traveler <BrewsTraveler at adamsco-inc.com> Subject: Re: STONE (Stein) Beer Fred I have brewed a few Steinbiers and can provide any information you may want. Rauchenfels uses graywacke in their beer. The chief advantage of this rock is it "blooming" ability allowing more sugars to collect on the rock. Chuck Skypeck (of Bosco's fame) and myself use pink granite. While this doesn't bloom like graywacke it will take the thermal shock and not chemically react with the beer. Steinbier is not really a style and is a unique and ancient process of making beer. There is no special fermentation requirements and pretty much any recipe will suffice. The process is simple, using rocks as a heat source, and there are many directions you can take it. Basically you (attempt to) boil your wort by adding super-heated rocks to your wort. You may also use the rocks to heat a decoction mash. The preferable method to heat the rocks is over an open fire (with a good source of oxygen) but I have used my propane burner. The advantage of the flame is that you will also contribute a smokiness to the flavor of the beer. If you are *very, very* careful you can add the rocks back into the secondary, washing caramelized sugars back into your beer. The reason for care is that the rocks can easy contribute off flavors is anything is allowed to grow on them. In any event have fun and be safe, handling super-heated rocks can be dangerous). I done it different ways with differing results and recently collaborated with Chuck Skypeck on a Steinbier served at the KROC World Brewers Forum. Hot Rockin' in my backyard http://www.adamsco-inc.com/BrewsTraveler/Main/reports/1999/KrocHotRockin Steinbier recipes http://www.adamsco-inc.com/BrewsTraveler/Main/recipes/ales/steinbier/hotRockin KROC World Brewers Forum presentation http://www.adamsco-inc.com/BrewsTraveler/Main/reports/1999/wbf.html Other links of interest can be found at my web address listed below. Feel free to ask any questions you may have. - -- John Adams The Brews Traveler http://www.adamsco-inc.com/BrewsTraveler Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:24:35 -0600 From: Keith Busby <kbusby at ou.edu> Subject: I have just sent the following mesage to Palm, the gist of which is that their decision to stop producing Rodenbach Alexander (and meddle with the recipe for regular Rodenbach) is a disaster and surely that can't be their intention. In Belgium we can expect beer traditions to survive. <<Uw beslissing te stoppen met de produktie van Rodenbach Alexander (en naar wat ik hoor het veranderen van het recept van gewone Rodenbach) wordt rampzalig voor bierdrinkers. Dit kan niet uw bedoeling zijn. In Belgie, of all places, kan verwacht worden dat de tradities van bijzondere bieren zullen blijven bestaan. Shame on you.>> KB George Lynn Cross Research Professor Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies University of Oklahoma 780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202 Norman, OK 73019 Tel: (405) 325-5088. Fax: (405) 325-0103 Starting Fall 2000, Professor of French University of Wisconsin-Madison Return to table of contents
Date: 26 Jan 2000 08:28:30 -0500 From: RCAYOT at solutia.com Subject: Chocolate Malt I would like to know how people use Chocolate malt. I have heard that some people use this malt as part of the grist, and mash as usual. Others have mentioned that they add the Choc. at the end of the mash, stir it in and then sparge. This is supposed to extract only a portion of the soluble material in the Choc. malt, presumably the most desireable fraction. Has anyone got an idea, experience, experimental data, practices at commercial brewing establishments? Also, along this line, I have heard that the "freshness" of the chocolate malt is paramount for that crisp, espresso, chocolate flavor. This could also be why commercial Porter tastes better (to me) than many a homebrewed porter. Thoughts anyone? Roger Ayotte Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:32:13 -0600 From: "Chris Hofmann" <chrishoff at sprynet.com> Subject: 20 gallon system Anyone out there using the 20 gallon system from B3? I'm looking to buy a large volume system (at least 20 gallons) and the system from B3 looks like the best value. I'm pretty much content to do single infusion mashing so I'm not looking at a RIMS. Any feedback would be appreciated. Chris Hofmann Chrishoff at sprynet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:44:46 -0500 From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> Subject: Motorizing Philmills Matt Comstock ( mccomstock at yahoo.com) asks about motorizing Philmills. The earlier Philmills ( the roller passed through the walls of the mills body and were held in place with snap rings ) required only a decapitated 3/8 - 18 bolt with a couple of nuts run up to make removal easier and a 1/2" drill. The Craftsman ( good speed, high torque and cheap ) in my store has crushed tons and tons over years and can still drill a clean hole when necessary. The newer Philmills have bronze bushings and shoulder bolts ( stripper bolts ) as axels. A decapitated 3/8 x 2" stripper bolt ( warning: they are hardened ) These are not usually available at your local hardware store. They can be found at industrial supply houses. We sell decapitated stripper bolts, called drill adapters, as an accessory. You should be able to get one through your local homebrew shop for less than $5.00. The new double roller Philmill II uses the same drill adapter as the Philmill. If for some reason you don't want to use a drill to power your mill, the drill adapter can be pulley driven with a properly sized bushing. Dan Listermann dan at listermann.com 72723.1707 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:15:38 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Darrel's yeast questions "Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt at sln.esc.edu> >chilled and pitched a vile of WhiteLabs WLP500 Trappist Ale Yeast >kept the temp below 65F >Anybody know why this tastes like a "half-a-hefe"? I'm not familiar with that particular yeast, but many Belgian yeasts share a similarity to Weizen yeasts in that they throw phenolics. In this regard they are somewhat like half-tamed wild yeasts. Did you make a starter? A rule of thumb is to use 1/ fl. oz. (15 mls, or 1 Tbs) of yeast solids (thick as putty) for every gallon of wort for average OG ale wort, double that for lagers, and more for strong beers. I suspect you underpitched, which I think may increase these flavors. Regarding repitching from a stout to a pale beer, your yeast should't make that big a contribution of color. Let it settle out and just use the putty (or peanut-butter) consistency paste at the bottom. See above for amount. That way you won't be adding much stout at all. Regarding repitching more than once - do it! I've serially repitched top cropping ale yeast (easier to harvest clean yeast) many times. Some breweries in England have done it for decades. A Pensacola, FL brewpub whose name I forget has done it since they opened, more than ten years, I think. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 06:48:13 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Josephson <blackcatbrewing at yahoo.com> Subject: Yeast Culture Kit Co. -- Tadcaster Strain Has anyone used this particular yeast? I assume it is a Samuel Smith strain. I've been working on a Best Bitter that is inspired by Timothy Taylor's Landlord. I really like the results, but I haven't found the perfect yeast yet. Cheers, Michael Josephson Minneapolis, MN __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:58:00 -0600 From: Kurt Kiewel <kiewel at mail.chem.tamu.edu> Subject: First all-grain, Solved clogging problem, Phil's Phloater HBDers, I brewed my first all-grain last weekend. It was a lot of fun but man did it take a long time. I still don't know where all the water went? Had to go to the store to get more. I wish I had made the switch to all-grain a long time ago. In fact, I've had the proper equipment for lagering and all-grain brewing for quite some time but after reading Noonan's book, "New Brewing Lager Beer" I thought that all-grain brewing would be more complicated than Quantum Mechanics. As I recall,Noonan outlines the procedure for and expounds on the virtues of triple decoction mashing. A process entirely too complicated for a first time all-grainer. That put me off for more than a year. Not a wasted year however, because I worked on things like yeast culturing and propagation, aeration and temperature control. I previously posted on difficulties with the drain in my kettle getting clogged with hops and break material. From all the advice I received it was clear that I needed to switch from pellet hops to plugs or whole hops and that my straining device needed to be of a larger surface area than the scrubbie I was using. I purchased a 9" screw in false bottom from Precision Brewing and in combination with whole hops I got perfectly clear wort to drain from my kettle. Yes! Thanks for all the responses to my post. One problem I did encounter with my Gott cooler mash tun was that my Phil's false bottom Pfloated. I solved the problem by tossing in a rock; not very elegant. Anyone have a better solution? Kurt Kiewel, brewing in Texas Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:05:10 -0600 From: Tom Logan <tlogan at SCHWICKERTS.COM> Subject: Stupid brewer ticks Long time lurker, seldom poster. Last night I bottled my third all grain, an American Amber. It was one of those evenings that you wish never started. First, did a light cleaning of the bottles, and got sanitizer ready, first shot at Star San that many on the list have recommended. Filled basin with water and added sanitizer. Filled bottles and let set the required time. Emptied the bottles and noticed lots of foam. Hmm, go get bottle washer already put away after bottle cleaning. When nearly finished noticed hands looking red, water was cold, but take a look at Star San label--"protect skin and eyes from contact". Note to self--read labels first! Happily, it was diluted and no apparent damage this morning. Rinsed bottling bucket in Star San, assembled valve, and started transfer from primary to bottle bucket. Pulled plug on basin and the floor drain that the basin drains in promptly overflows. Get mop and clean it up. Minor under breath swearing commences. Started boil of primer, went back down to check on the process. Bottling bucket nearly full, and the gasket on the valve had squeezed out the side and a large puddle of beer was the floor. Rush to get bottle filler and hose. Hose is cold and won't stretch over valve. Puddle getting bigger, air getting bluer. Put hose in hot water, attempt to place on valve, still too cold. Repeat process. Swearing continues at higher volume. Finally ready to start bottling. Notice bottles in other room, short loud burst of swearing. Bottling goes without too many hitches, place pan under drip to eliminate beer lake expansion. Our three dogs then decide its time to investigate what's going on. Yell at dogs, wife yells at me for yelling at dogs. More under breath swearing. Start capping, notice garage sale bench capper isn't crimping all bottles tightly, go get hand capper to put a final crimp on caps. Get bucket of hot water to wipe off bottles as I'm putting them in the case. Use the only other bucket I have with a valve, which starts to leak at gasket also. Another floor puddle. More swearing. Tighten valve and continue, thankfully without further incident. Put bottles away, clean up mess. Two hour project ends up taking four. Go to bed. Dream about more bottling disasters. I believe I'll start looking at a keg system! - ----- I used Wyeast 1056 on this batch for the first time, but only stepped up once before pitching. In my cool basement, it took 30 hours to start active fermentation. It was a new package, but a lesson learned. It took approximately 3 weeks to ferment out, OG of 1.054, FG of 1.008. Is it a slow fermentor or was the 60 degree basement the factor? The beer is quite tasty and I'm looking forward to the final product. Tom Logan Mankato, MN Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:27:44 -0600 From: "Tamulis, Andrius" <ATAMULIS at monm.edu> Subject: RE: Overnight mashing I've never tried overnight mashing, so this is just a guess - but won't sparging be harder with the mash liquor cold? You can add sparge water at 75C, but the overall temperature will still be low. Just a guess. Andrius Tamulis Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:34:27 -0600 From: Andrew Nix <anix at vt.edu> Subject: Yet ANOTHER Sparging Question It seems I have started digging out the memory banks and pulling up questions I've had for a long while. Here's the latest: My mash system consists of 2 Gott coolers, one for the mash/lauter tun, the other for hot sparge water storage. I usually prop the mash tun on a stool to elevate it a bit to allow gravity feed to the recirc vessel (fancy name for a 2 qt. Pyrex measuring cup) or kettle. The Sparge water tank is put up on the couter top and has a PVC tub coming out with a PVC ball valve and pinch clamp in series for flow control. This is connected to a tube which gravity feeds a Phil's Sparge arm. Two questions I've thought about for a long time...I wanted to see if anyone else with "low cost" mashing systems has some input. After the mashout, if my sparge water is to be at 168F, I usually store some water in the upper Gott cooler (hot water tank) and leave some on the stove heating to maintain the desired sparge water temp over the hour plus I take to sparge to boiling volume. I use two thermometers, one in the pot on the stove, the other in the hot water tank. Do other folks do this, keep some of the sparge water heating to mantain temp, rather than putting all of the water in the hot water tank and risking losing some temp??? The other question is, has anyone ever measured the temp of the 2-3" water column above the grain bed to see what type of temp drops are associated with heat transfer from the water in going from the hot sparge water tank, through the sparge arm and convection while falling through the air to the water above the grain bed??? If so, please share your results. I may do a test this weekend to see what temp drops there are and I may heat my sparge water to a little higher temp to account for losses in going from the hot water tank to the grain bed. OK, one more....those floating thermometers (Brewer's Best I think), anyone else have a problem with the rubber handle coming off if you put them in water that is getting close to boiling (the glue fails). I had BOTH of mine come off this past brew session, one was brand new, the other I've had for years!!! Drewmeister Andrew Nix beerbrewer at vt.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:07:19 -0500 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: Yeast washing & reuse On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 in HBD 3232 Dan Senne asks about Yeast harvesting: >Could anyone explain the procedure for washing and storing yeast using >distilled water? Harvesting yeast from the primary has proven very effective for me. If the primary ferment is good then your yeast should be good as well. If you plan to use the same yeast for your next batch, then plan your racking for the same day as plan to brew the next batch. You could do one of two things: After racking you could just leave the slurry behind and pitch your next batch right onto the cake without washing or you can wash the cake first with distilled water. Washing will reduce the amount of trub, dead cells and all the other crap you don't want being carried into the next batch, but will expose your yeast to a higher potential for contamination. Not washing will reduce the potential for contamination, but dead cells and trub will still exist possibly affecting the favor of your beer. I've done both and they still turn out better than just using a smack pack or a pitchable vial ;-) But I prefer to wash in most cases. Here's a copy of my procedures: http://alehouse.homepage.com/Procedures/ Hope they help. I've graduated from pasteurizing to sterilizing my equipment now. Basic procedure's still the same. I use flasks but you might find 1 qt canning jars to work just as well for you. Only keep the cells around under water for a maximum of 3 days under refrigeration. You can extend their storage be decanting the water cover and feeding 'em with fresh wort. Then they'll be good for about a week if refrigerated. Darrell Leavitt also asks about re-using yeast: >am I pushing it ot try to reuse the yesties a third time? I think that I am >paying good attention to sanitation and such,...but even so, am I risking >not just infection, but also having a "mutant brew"..... I've re-used yeast up to 3 cycles of wash and feed without problems. I rarely go beyond 2 cycles because I like variety and fear contamination ;-) Most important is keeping your FAN, maltose and maltotriose levels at their optimum in your wort. Also provide enough oxygen (or less desirably, trub) for sterol production during fermentation. O2 - it does a cell wall good! If you do extract brewing make sure that it is truly ALL malt. The risk of mutants increases with lower FAN and dextrose levels caused by diluting with common adjunct syrups. +++ DISCLAIMER +++ The preceding commentary is based upon personal experience and opinion of the author and in no way reflects the views of all readers. The author assumes no liability for the mental anguish caused by stubborn individuals who can not accept the views, opinions or methods of others. All comments should be made in writing to the nearest wall as the author doesn't about the feelings of the belligerent. <grin> +++++++++++++++++ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:11:23 -0800 From: "Troy Hager" <thager at hcsd.k12.ca.us> Subject: How to raise mash pH? Fellow Brewers, In the past I have thought my water produces a fairly acidic mash but I haven't been too concerned about it. I have always read that being on the acidic side of optimum (5.3-5.5) is much better than being on the basic side. Recently I have been reading about pH and the optimum levels in the brewing process and decided to do some testing and experimenting to find out where my water falls. Before I start with my testing and experiments, this is what my water co. report says: Ca: 9, SO4: 7.5, Cl: 9.5, Na: 9, Mg: 4 Hardness (CaCo3): 40 Tot. dissolved solids: 69 pH: 9.1 (8.8-9.6) AJ helped me estimate my bicarbonate at about 52 mg/L and my alkalinity at about 42. So you can see I have very soft water much like the classic Pilsen water. BTW, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area (specifically in San Mateo on the Peninsula). All of my readings were taken with pH papers and a cooled sample. I used the colorpHast Merck papers made in Germany(scale: 4.0-7.0), and the pHydrion papers by Micro Essential Lab (scales: 1-11 and 4.8-6.7). From what I have read here on the HBD, both of these papers are used frequently by brewers and are highly respected. In fact, Jeremy Bergsman from Stanford has tested the Micro papers with a high quality lab meter and has found them to be most accurate. You can find his posts in the archives. My testing: This was done on one day (Jan. 25) and I assume that pH out of the tap fluctuates during the year but according to the report not much below 9.0. Before I started, I tested the water straight from the tap. The Micro papers read between 6 and 7, and the Merck papers about 5.5. This seems awful low and hard to believe because of the difference of my readings and the water co. report. Also, I know that cities must keep their water on the basic side to ease the corrosion of pipes. For my test I took about 2 lbs of pale malt and then added a little munich and carmel to get it up to 3 lbs. I heated one gallon of water- Qt:lb = 1.33 - around what I usually mash at. I ground the grain as I do to brew and mashed in at about 174F. It dropped to a nice 156F. I measured the pH: Merck-4.4 and Micro around 5. Subtracting 0.3 to compensate for the temp. difference and I have a very acidic mash! Now I started adding chalk (CaCO3) to the mash in increments of 4g. I know this is way overboard but I just wanted to see the effects. I added the chalk because that is the only thing that I know that brewers use to raised the pH of the mash. After stirring, taking a sample, and cooling, I tested it with both papers. My readings barely moved. By about 12-16g of chalk, I was reading in the 5.3 level. The Merck papers always read slightly lower than the Micro. I kept on adding the chalk. My goal was to get to about 5.5-5.8 (subtract 0.3 and I am in the corrected range). When I reached about 20-24g I was at about 5.5 and at 30g I was reading 5.8. At this point the mash was milky and tasted like chalk (big suprise!) - bitter and slightly astringent. It would be absolutely ludicrous to add 30g per gallon of chalk into my mash to get it up to the correct range. So my question is... What do I use to raise the pH of my mash other than a ton of chalk? I have heard of acidifying your sparge water and making slight adjustments with gypsum and chalk but never having to raise pH to this degree. I have read posts here that say if you mash in with distilled water you will get a pH that falls right in the correct range. My water is very soft and doesn't have much of anything in it (so the report says) so why is it so acidic in the mash? I need some help here!!! Could it be that these papers are just totally off? Do I need to find a scientist and borrow an accurate pH meter? Private emails are fine. Thanks for your thoughts! Troy Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:48:42 EST From: TKBFRED at aol.com Subject: STONE BEER I would like to thank all my fellow Brewers who responded to my request about info on Stone Beer. Very helpful. Matthew, could you please tell me what you saying with your posting, as a Brewer I can't get any help out of that in my research about Stone Beer. Also, I'm interested in your 'Stone soup', as I like to cook, and like to try any new recipes. Fred M. Scheer >Matthew Comstock wrote: >This reminds me of the old story about 'Stone >Soup.' Isn't that the sotry where one character >brings a stone and all the other characters are >asked to add real soup ingredients? So by >analogy, you bring the stone and your fellow >brewers go out and buy the malt, hops.... Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:02:33 -0500 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: Ice in Beer Where I was raised (North Eastern Pa.), when you put ice in your beer, it was called a Philadelphia Cocktail. Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/27/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96