HOMEBREW Digest #3314 Tue 02 May 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

  Re: Brewing Forgiveness ("Robert A. Uhl")
  Re: Nice (Stupid) Blokes (David Lamotte)
  re: H2O2 good uses, and possible less so. (John_E_Schnupp)
  re: mash-out, foam rest ("Stephen Alexander")
  Thanks! (Charles Walker)
  Re: BudSwill contributes to STDs ("John Watts")
  cream ale (J Daoust)
  cool heat and intrepid comments. ("Dr. Pivo")
  Re: Yeast propagator (Bill.X.Wible)
  Water Chemistry (Richard Foote)
  he may be a baron, but I am a king (of stupid) ("Dr. Pivo")
  Party Pig Family For Sale (Jason Jackson)
  ID that off-flavor ("Taber, Bruce")
  Wheat flour (Graham Sanders)
  Re: Nice (Stupid) Blokes - correction (David Lamotte)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 18th Annual Oregon Homebrew Festival - entry deadline May 15th * More info at: http://www.hotv.org/fest2000 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: Mon, 1 May 2000 01:01:13 -0500 From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl at austinc.edu> Subject: Re: Brewing Forgiveness I quite agree with Phil's point about how forgiving the brewing process can be. I am now about to relate the absolute worst brew day I have ever had. It should _never_ have turned out at all right. It was my junior year of college, and I wanted to brew a British bitter. So I got my ingredients together and started to work. The only problem was that I had a small spaghetti pot for my entire boil. No big deal, I just used less water than perhaps I should, figuring that some beer is better than no beer, which is what I would have had, had I followed the rules and insisted on x quarts of water per lb. of extract. Well, I was using large-pellet hops and I got a bit sloppy with my boil time, nearly dozing off (did I mention that I did this starting at 1.00am in order to evade the RAs? I was but 21), and to cut a long story short I ended up with about 4 in. of concentrated wort. Stupidly, and in a sleepy stupor I started to strain out the hops and toss them. Then I realised that I had almost no wort left. The wort had stuck to the hops and gone into the trash. I then faced a horrid decision: throw away the batch, or recover the wort from the spent hops. Always eager to throw my gauntlet into the face of an uncaring world, I decided to chance it. After all, in the worst case I would just throw the stuff away anyway. Luckily he hops were in a heap on top of the trash. I took all but the bottom layer--these hops had touched naught in the dust bin. I then soaked them in the pure water which I used for brewing, straining several times and changing the water in order to strip the maximum amount of wort from them. After a _long_ night's work, I ended up going to bed about 4.00am. I watched the fermentation of this Frankenbrau with some trepidation, but it seemed to smell alright. I bottled it, and then the day to taste it was upon me. It was the best beer I ever had. I don't know what it was, but it was top notch, excellent, nectar of the gods and the rest. I had been convinced that it was going to be a Very Bad Thing, but it turned out just the opposite. Brewing is much more forgiving than some think. In fact, one of these days I am going to conduct some experiments into faulty brewing practices in order to see just _what_ I cna get away with. But not now; I'm too scared it will turn out amiss. Bob Uhl Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 17:15:59 +1000 From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Nice (Stupid) Blokes G'Day All, The Baron tempts me from hiding with tales of bravery in the face of extreme stupidity. But I am afraid that his claim on the title cannot go uncontested, for it is I that am truly deserving. All though my brewing life I have done many stupid things. These mainly concerned the boiling stage, although one notable exception was the incident with the highly fermented bottled yeast slurry (the whoosh as I opened it propelled it around the kitchen resulting in a new coat of aromatic tan paint and a dint in the fridge door visible to this very day) My boilovers rival the eruption of mount Vesuvius. I regularly sparge with the kettle drain open (what is the funny dribbling noise) and occasionally run out of gas. But lately I been called up to the major league with the purchase of some commercial brewing equipment. Serious equipment, while providing many happy hours of serious tinkering, can lead to serious problems. Since acquiring my new toy, I have done 3 batches. The first was a double Coopers kit to get a handle on the new equipment and to get a quick batch going - boil and chill went fine using a few whole flavour hops. 2nd batch was a Taylors Landlord clone with heaps of whole hops. My system has a 1" hose and fittings from the boiler -> pump -> filter -> plate heat exchanger. The pump has a 1/2 HP motor, and is really strong (it can almost suck the kettle inside out). The guy I bought it from said that all you needed to do was let the hops settle then pump it through the filter/cooler into the fermenter. The fine filter mesh ensuring that no 'splooge' got through to the fermenter. In my impatience I didn't wait very long and the pump sucked heaps of whole hops in and clogged solid after about a liter. After much swearing/cleaning/swearing/burnt fingers/still more swearing, I gave up and used a jug to ladle the 50 litres out into my fermenter - break, hops and all. I then spent many happy hours picking the pulverised hop cones out of the pump impeller. The 3rd batch was much the same recipe, except that I replaced some of the hop cones with pellets. This time I KNEW that I had it beat when I inserted a screen in the kettle to act as a rough filter. I have some stainless steel mesh (used as a termite barrier) which I roll up into a 'easy masher' shape and it fits nicely into the drain hole. This worked great during my test and cleaning runs, however I was again too impatient and it collapsed when the pump sucked hard letting a lot of the hop pellets through. These didn't clog the pump but clogged the filter. After more swearing/filter cleaning/swearing/filter replacing, I finally got the 50 litters out. But the drama didn't stop there. As it was now very late, and I was in a bit of a hurry, I dumped the brew onto the yeast cake from the previous batch. Remember that this still had heaps of hops in it. Anyway, I ferment in a 9 gal corny keg which has the standard ball lock fittings, oval lid and pressure relief valve. What I normally do, is just flip the pressure relief valve open, allowing the CO2 to gently escape. It was pitched late on Sunday night, and by Monday morning was at high krausen. When I came home from work on Monday night, things were strangely silent. I looked in horror and saw that the relief valve had somehow popped shut, and the top of the keg was visibly domed. The wire legs on the lid were swinging freely in the air like a first grader being picked up by the school bully. The lid was pushed hard upwards. I opened the relief valve and was almost blown away by the rush of gas. I now know where steam beer got its name. The noise was deafening..... until it clogged with hops a few seconds later. So I put a fitting on the gas-out and bled off some more until it also plugged. To cut a long story short, I removed the relief valve and gingerly twiddled some wire in and gradually let out the gas/foam/hops. Alternating between twiddling (to clear the blockage) and using my finger to gently release the pressure, it took about an hour. After this time I could just whack the lid in with a hammer and block of wood, which released the final 'phooooph' of gas, as well as a volcanic eruption of foam/hops - all over my nice new slate floor. The large amount of yeast had resulted in a very active ferment. The beer had dropped from 1.050 down to 1.015 in 24 hours. Needless to say, the abuse that this poor beer has suffered, has left it with a few problems. It has a distinct DMS character. I could quote Kunze as attributing one cause of a sulphur aroma to fermenting either too rapidly, or under excessive pressure, but I won't. Hope that this story helps other brewers recover from similar trauma's... David Lamotte Brewing supersonically in Newcastle N.S.W. Australia Which is 2.5 Baronometers North or 3.0 WS (ie 3 hours from Wes Smith) and Diddly squat Rennarian (as measured by Jeff during his recent visit down under) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 00:13:26 -0700 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: re: H2O2 good uses, and possible less so. Dr. Pivo said, >I purchase 5 litres of 35 percent at a time, and that lasts me through a >couple thousand litres of brewing. Far be it from me to argue with a Dr. I could very well be having an attack of open mouth, insert foot but here goes... H2O2 at 35% is not something you want to be messing around with. We use it for cleaning equipment in semiconductor manufacturing and full protective gear is REQUIRED. This includes gloves, glasses and respirator. Get a drop of it on exposed skin and watch your skin turn white as it oxidizes your skin. It would be better to purchase the proper solution strength. I know there are those out there who will say they take all the proper precautions and I won't argue with you. It's those who think that the 30-35% (or more) solutions are "like" the peroxide you buy in the drug store that I'm trying to inform. Then again, it's possible that I just fell for Dr. Pivo's troll. John Schnupp, N3CNL Dirty Laundry Brewery Georgia, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 04:25:54 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: mash-out, foam rest Nathaniel P. Lansing says ... V.Briefly on the rehash (since no info was added there) ... >Steve points out >>170F = 76.666C . So you Specified 76+C for mashout. << > That I will concede, probably came from switching F to C and back No Nat - it comes from the fact that we are discussing MASHOUT and not 70-72C or even 74C. > I imagine the activity about doubles through the 18 degree F of the [...] I thought you would say this - it is a common misunderstanding. The short answer is that you're half-right, you've ignored the denaturing rate temp dependence and must perform the integral to understand what is really happening. I promise to add more detail in an upcoming post. Mashout "don't mean squat" to fermentability. >>Mashout causes the starch release in the first place. << > Yeah, so we use the AA to reduce it before [...] > That is not a band-aid, it is a cure. You earlier stated starch clearing as an advantage of mashout over no-mashout. I pointed out it was both the cause and cure - so no advantage. I guess you agree(above). Starch clearing is not an advantage of mashout methodology. >The Tuborg experiment is right out the window. [...] The fact is that I've used no-mashout with mash-in temps as high as 68C and I get entirely comparable fermentability as with a mashout. Did you expect the couple % of starch released at the end to make a big difference in fermentabilty ? >As to glycoprotein rests: >Method-50 g finely milled malt mashed in 200mL distilled water with [...] >ref-J. Am. Soc. Brewing Chemists, 55(1):20-23,1997 Sincere thanks for the infusion of information (finally). I can't say I completely understand your statement of the sampling times tho'. It seems to say that if you mash very thin (~2qt/lb) and pulverize the p*ss out of your malt and [like other congress mashes] perform no pH correction. Then after 20' at 60C & 90' at 68C & 90' at 71C gets you 125ppm of critical protein, then for an outlandish 90' long at 75C mashout you only get another 20ppm. I don't think this is directly relatable to normal brewing - but it does support my POV that you are only getting a 16% critical protein boost from the outlandishly long 90' mashout. *MAYBE* you'd get half of that in a normal 20' mashout. Let's see an ~8% diff in these proteins translates into how much difference in foam ? Like I have been saying - not a big obvious difference. Probably not discernible w/o side-by-side comparison. To re-iterate - I said that you can get entirely normal levels of foam and head from no-mashout beers. That is beers which have never seen temps above 70C before the kettle. I NEVER said that yet higher temps do not or cannot contribute to head. Just that the impact of a normal mashout on head is not obvious on observation. It might be clear in a side-by-side test, but not on individual observations where is seems to match batch-to-batch variation. Normal mashout is defined in virtually every HB book, and represented in the pro books as a boost to 75-77C and a rather brief rest followed by sparge at a matching temp. No source calls 71C mashout. What you have argued above is that a rather non-standard mash and a protracted 1.5 hour mashout to an already outrageous 3.33hr mash schedule measurably increases certain proteins related to foam. I agree but it has no impact on my position. > I thought I was wrong, I was right You are neither right nor wrong. You missed the point. 71C is not mashout and you have in no way demonstrated normal head is impossible from no-mashout or even <70C mashing. The obvious questions are: 1/ How much of this protein fraction is necessary for entirely normal levels of foam ? 2/ What is the relationship between the release of these proteins and the mash *time* versus temperature ? I might agree that the higher temp stand increases these proteins - *BUT* only if you factor out the time using a control. How do we know the same proteins wouldn't be released given the last THREE HOURS at 68C rather than 71C and 75C ? 3/ What is the rate of release of these proteins given a normal crush and a conventional pH control. I'm not knocking your effort (or your mentor's) Nat, but you really are off on a tangent. You've written that my experimental beers couldn't have had normal level of head (tho' I experienced it) - and your proof is an experiment which cannot be compared to normal brewing practice. Then you assume that more of this protein fraction appearing above 70C (and beyond hours 2, 3, & 4 of the mash!) means that stopping the mash at 70C would not have produced normal head without basis You are missing a lot of pieces to make a whole cloth of this argument Nat. And you certainly have no basis for telling me my experimental beers had poor or marginal head. All this stuff about 71C-74C is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of mashout. Ultimately tho' I suspect your lit posting is suggestive of the truth of the matter- that longer and perhaps hotter mashes may contribute to these proteins. But the levels in final beer are not, as I have been saying, different enough due to normal mashout alone to make a substantial impact in say all-malt 11-15P beer's foam. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:42:57 -0500 From: charlybill at xpressway.net (Charles Walker) Subject: Thanks! >BTW, I don't think we take nearly enough opportunities to publicly thank Pat and Karl for the endless and often thankless hours that they put in bringing the HBD to our cyber-doorsteps each and every day. Without them, the wealth of brewing information and overabundance of amusing flame wars would not be available for us. With the demise of BT, their contributions to the brewing community are even more appreciated, at least by this brewer. Keep up the good work, guys...we love ya!< I agree and add my thanks and appreciation! Charlie Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:42:00 -0500 From: "John Watts" <watts at radiks.net> Subject: Re: BudSwill contributes to STDs "Lost be those souls who knoweth not the difference between correlation and causaulity, for their days upon the earth shall be fraught with misguided beliefs" -- Statistics 3:16 John Watts watts at radiks.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 06:25:10 -0700 From: J Daoust <thedaousts at ixpres.com> Subject: cream ale Has any one else had a Carl Straus Cream Ale? I am trying to reproduce the creamy effect in this brew. I have come only moderately close on my last batch, but it came out too malty. What is my best choice of lots of creamy mouth feel and no color or flavor additions? I am going to try using 2 pounds of dextrin malt with this next batch and hope it works. I am using White Labs East Coast Ale yeast on their recommendation. All help is greatly appreciated and private e-mail is ok. Thanks, Jerry Daoust Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 15:23:49 +0200 From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se> Subject: cool heat and intrepid comments. Jim Adwell made a clever little stirring device which he reported a few issues back, and wonders if it would shorten his heating times to boil, and grouses about his pecunious propane supplier (almost an alliteration... I'll give me a "2"). I am guessing that that would be a marginal effect at best. I think if you really want to cut down on propane use, a "mantel" would be your best bet. here comes an ASCII drawing that is sure to fail (I only do genitalia, and neighboring parts well)... I I ------------- I I I I I ---I I I I I ------I I I I I I I-------I I I I down here it is hot as hell such as flame What you want, is all air drawn to your flame source to come from "under" so you're not pulling cold air past your kettle. You also want to pull your exhaust very high up, so the heat is staying intimate with the kettle as long as possible. The outside "mantel" can be easily made of very thin aluminum sheeting, which cuts and bends easily (I think you can get it down to 1/10 millimeter without "special ordering") and perhaps some rivets.... though I certainly needn't tell this to someone who can make a wort stirrer out of an "ice cream machine" and a "cookie sheet". Make sure the top is folded over to meet your existing kettle. Another constructive option is an old "oil drum" which you cut apart. If you really want to get fancy and heat conservative, you can insulate the outside with that diabase shredded wool that itches like hell. It can be worthwhile making that removable if possible, or you will soon find out how much of your cooling used to go right through the walls of your kettle, and you'll have to make an even better wort cooler. I have a retired variant of this which was wood fired ( it only held 80 litres, and I can't piddle around with such small volumes... wouldn't have as many ferments to divide up and play with). It now only comes out on "slaughtering day" to ease turkey plucking (anyone who has fowl and doesn't know this trick... a 10 second dip at 70C, and the feathers virtually fall off... any hotter or much longer, and the "pilo erector" muscles go "rigor" and you're back where you started, with a long boring afternoon), and I am continually surprised at how fast that large volume comes up to temperature. I have since gone electric, with a coil in the boiler, so "all" heat is directly in the goods, but am considering a similar structure to the above the next time I make a volume quantum leap (brewhouse MARK VII). As to Phil Yates publicly embarrassing himself by recounting his acts of stupidity, it was a noble effort Phil, but I do believe I've got you edged out on the stupidity side, and follows only one of MANY proofs to that effect. Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 09:43:30 -0400 From: Bill.X.Wible at QuestDiagnostics.com Subject: Re: Yeast propagator "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> writes about a design for a small plastic yeast propagator with a 1.5 gallon capacity made from a bleach bottle top and food grade plastic. Just a couple things: The real purpose of a cylindroconical fermentor in commerical brewing is to minimize the number of tanks required to brew, since large stainless steel tanks are very expensive. The main reason we rack beer from the primary fermentor to a secondary is to get it off of dead autolyzed yeast to avoid off flavors. Few large scale commercial breweries can afford redundant tanks, plus the cost of cleaning and maintaining them. So the unitank or cylindroconical fermentor was invented to allow the yeast to be removed during primary fermentation, eliminating the need for redundant tanks. These tanks are full batch fermentors, and are not designed specifically for starting yeast. Yeast propagation is just an additional benefit of these systems. This means I would rather have a 6.5 gallon cylindroconical, to ferment in, minimum. If I'm going to brew a batch of beer, I'm not wasting my time with 1.5 gallons of 'yeast starter'. And I would not want plastic. Plastic breathes air and will oxygenate your beer. Lastly, I was surprised by the comment that 'most of us are using bleach as a sanitizer'. I'm not. I use Star San. Those of you who are using bleach should reconsider that choice. Bleach requires much rinsing. And if the bugs are in your tap water, you're putting them right back into your vessels after sanitizing. Additionally, use of bleach for sanitizing is probably the biggest contributor of phenols to your beer, when it is not rinsed thoroughly. Star San is worth what it costs. Prost! Bill Wible Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 10:03:13 -0400 From: Richard Foote <rfoote at mindspring.com> Subject: Water Chemistry Yet another water test post... I recently got back my water test results. I have a private well. BTW, for anyone wanting to have their water analyzed, I got mine done through my local Cooperative Extension Service. I went into my local county office and told them I wanted my water tested. They gave me a sample bottle. I returned with my full sample bottle, filled out a form and paid $10 for the basic analysis. Other analyses can be ordered but at higher cost. The results were in my mail box about a week later. I chose the basic analysis, results follow: pH 6.0 Element Sample PPM EPA Max. PPM Al negligible No Set Max. B negligible No Set Max. Cd negligible 0.01 Ca 4.3 No Set Max. Cr negligible 0.05 Cu 0.05 1.0 Fe 0.03 0.30 Mg 1.6 No Set Max. Mn 0.10* 0.05 Mb 0.06 No Set Max. Ni 0.01 No Set Max. P negligible No Set Max. K 1.8 No Set Max. Na 6.2 No Set Max. Zn 0.10 5.0 Note that the Mn is over the EPA limit. The report explains there is no health risk (which is good since I've been drinking it for 9 years) with Mn, only a bitter or metallic taste and brown stains in laundry and plumbing fixtures. The report further explains that treatment is only required if these symtoms are causing a problem, which in my case don't seem to be a problem. My question is now that I have my analysis, how do I interpret it in terms of brewing. For example, is there a way to calculate sulphate and carbonate concentrations? Also, how should I view the rather low pH? It would seem good for sparge water if the pH would stay constant once heated. Would pH go up due to carbonic acid level decreasing with CO2 being liberated out of solution? Any help appreciated and welcome. TIA, Rick Foote Whistle Pig Brewing Co. and Home Remodeling Murrayville, GA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 15:57:21 +0200 From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se> Subject: he may be a baron, but I am a king (of stupid) I was renting a little cabin with a cold attic which could be reached by opening a door and climbing a twisted stairway. At one time of the year, it offered perfect fermentation temperatures. I was doing 60 litre batches and had an open fermenter on a chair up in the attic. When it came time to rack, I took up by "carboy", which was made of plastic (I think anyone who has worked in a lab knows about the "Nalgene" products... well they have some big babies and one that takes just under 60 litres, and looks like all the others... tall, round, and with a little screw top lid). This "carboy" sat quite nicely on the next to the top step up to the attic. What I should say, is that it sat quite nicely when empty. As the carboy filled to the top, the center of gravity kind of shifted as it straightened itself out from the step I had jammed it next to. Just as it was filling to the very top, and I was pulling the racking cane out, holding it in both hands, I watched and saw to my horror the whole thing leaning ever so more "downhill". Now one has trained oneself to be careful with racking canes, so I just stood paralyzed staring until it had leaned too much and started its descent. The good carboy managed to twist sideways so that it could roll down the stairs, and even made the turn at the bottom and rolled right out into the living room. I cast aside my good racking cane habits, and the cane itself and went running after down the stairs in my woolen stocking feet, sliding through the spilt beer. I made the turn at the bottom much less gracefully than the carboy, crashing into the door frame with my feet doing a sort of "burn out" under me, just managing to retain myself upright, to peer out into the living and see.... in the middle of the room was the carboy doing a sort of "take a breath and belch" act, where it would spit out a great hippo burp of beer on the floor, then shudder and have to take a new breath (saying:"whuh-uh-uh") before it spewed out a new fountain of a couple of litres (now saying: "Fuh-lurp-lurp-lurp"). By the time I slid my way over and righted it, it had managed to dump about one third of its contents over the stairway and most of the living room floor. Now this is not a treatment than I would recommend to anyone, but I found, as did Phil and his "multiple mash" that the beer came out "OK"... it truly is a pretty forgiving process. And you think that leaving out a false bottom twice in a row was a daring act? At 5 o'clock in the morning I'd have fallen into the mash tun. Dr. Pirouette Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 09:57:09 -0500 From: Jason Jackson <jcjackson at jrpower.com> Subject: Party Pig Family For Sale Info: (www.partypig.com) I have a set of Party Pig mini kegs for sale. Set will include: 2 - 2-1/4 gallon kegs. 1 - filling stand. 1 - activation pump. 2 - Pressure Pouches. 1 - Set of instructions. They have been used 2 times now. I have moved on to full sized kegging and would like to sell this set. $40.00 shipping included anywhere in the US. If interested- email: torula at yahoo.com c/o Jason Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:46:40 -0400 From: "Taber, Bruce" <Bruce.Taber at nrc.ca> Subject: ID that off-flavor After 10 years of brewing with almost no spoiled batches, I now find myself with a recurring problem. Every second batch over the last 6 batches has been infected. I have gone anal with my sanitizing, doing both a bleach soak and isodor on everything and I haven't changed any other procedures but I can't find the cause. I figure I may have better luck finding the cause if I could identify the type of infection. I have read the descriptions of the various types of infections (diacetyl, DMS, ester, phenolic) many times but I'm still not sure which it is (my best guess is phenolic). There are many commercial beers that have a similar flavor component to what I consider the off-flavor in my beers. It can be found in Orval as well as most of the Trappist beers, also Hoegaarden and the German Schneider Weisse to name a few. If anyone can put a name to the flavor component that I am trying to find, please let me know. And if you can give suggestions as to a cure, I would be eternally in your debt (so-to-speak). Bruce Taber Almonte, Ont. Canada bruce.taber.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 07:22:16 +1000 From: Graham Sanders <GrahamS at bsa.qld.gov.au> Subject: Wheat flour G'day all. I simple question. I want to use some ordinary wheat flour in a mash instead of raw wheat. Yes I am aware of the dangers etc. But I have lost my conversion rate. How much wheat flour equates to a given amount of raw wheat grain or wheat malt. Ta! Shout Graham Sanders Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:24:16 +1000 From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Nice (Stupid) Blokes - correction Yesterday, I refrained from quoting Kunze as attributing one cause of a sulphur aroma to fermenting either too rapidly, or under excessive pressure. Which is just as well as my recollection was faulty. He does write that rapid fermentation in light beers can result in a sulphury nose, however fermenting under pressure reduces the level of ester formation. David Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/02/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96