HOMEBREW Digest #3338 Tue 30 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

  Whole grain efficiency ("Ed Olsen / Kathy Riley")
  RE: Ray Daniels "honey" issue? (Dick Dunn)
  re: cider/mead/homebrew competitions (Dick Dunn)
  beer filtering (Ray Kruse)
  Mailing Yeast  And Hillbilly Parties ("Phil & Jill Yates")
  4.78? ("A. J.")
  Marris Otter ("Aaron Sepanski")
  Mouth feel rest ("Aaron Sepanski")
  Correct Addresses (David Houseman)
  District ChopHouse & brewery (DakBrew)
  pH Response (Dave Burley)
  Dig. therm. (hal)
  Re: German infusion step ("Hubert Hanghofer")
  URL-Correction / SNPA-IBU range ("Hubert Hanghofer")
  More about PET beer bottles than you wanted to know :) (Jim Adwell)
  lager lessons learned;  water filters (AKGOURMET)
  re: floating balls ("Stephen Alexander")

* Don't miss the 2000 AHA NHC in Livonia, MI * 6/22 through 6/24 http://hbd.org/miy2k * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! 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: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:40:53 -0700 From: "Ed Olsen / Kathy Riley" <olsen-riley at worldfront.com> Subject: Whole grain efficiency Greetings all, My home built "whole grain beer machine" is working with about (80-85)% extraction efficiency based on the "wort calculator wheel". Not that I'm overconcerned about it....the equipment's gonna do what it's gonna do....but I'm curious; is 80% - 85% extraction a reasonable value?? Example...just brewed a 5 gallon batch of Russian Imperial Stout with about 13.5# grain. Ended up with an OG of 1.082....wort wheel indicates an extraction of about 82%. Ed Olsen / Kathy Riley olsen-riley at worldfront.com Life: edolsen at alum.mit.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 29 May 00 00:26:57 MDT (Mon) From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: RE: Ray Daniels "honey" issue? Paul Gatza wrote (in HBD 3329): > I look at the AHA having a unique role to play in advancing meadmaking, > especially since the demise of the AMA and the lack of many other > information sources that have the outreach of Zymurgy... Ummm...not to blow our own horn too much, but how about the Mead-Lover's Digest? (running for about seven and a half years, 1000+ subscribers, just passed 800 issues) I know that a thousand-or-so subscribers isn't much next to Zymurgy, but it's pretty large compared to the fraction of Zymurgy subscribers likely to be interested in mead. >...Historically mead coverage goes back to the very first issue of Zymurgy... Not that I can tell, at least not in my copy of the first issue!:-) Just kidding, tho...Zymurgy *has* carried mead info from way back, and I think it's good. Might have taken until the second or third issue 'til they got to mead. > ...The AHA Board of Advisors expressed an interest in having > more mead and cider coverage in Zymurgy at the most recent AHA Board of > Advisors meeting. In spite of my recent posting here opposing some mead and all cider in AHA- related competitions, I think it's good that Zymurgy is covering these topics. What I'm getting at is a distinction between what the magazine covers (in the interest of communication, education, cross-fertilization of information and creativity, etc.) and what is seen in competition (which requires or at least expects significant understanding and expertise in the judging). I think the honey issue was a good one, and I also think Ray Daniels is off to an auspicious start. - --- Dick Dunn rcd at talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA ...Simpler is better. Return to table of contents
Date: 29 May 00 01:40:36 MDT (Mon) From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: re: cider/mead/homebrew competitions Regarding cider and mead categories in AHA competition, "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> wrote: > Dick Dunn says that: "Part of my opinion here is that I've never seen cider > categories or judging > in a homebrew competition that were within a boarding-house reach of being > able to grab the long hairs of a clue. The AHA competition categories (the > last I checked) had no relation to reality-as-we-know-it...they seemed, at > best, to represent one slightly-besotted view of cider from New England in > the US." > > I beg to differ. While certainly not every competition will have mead and > cider categories and they certainly won't have experienced judges for these > entries, I've judged in a number of competitions where the mead and cider > expertise was excellent. A cider won the first Buzz Off competition, but > what did a bunch of us local judges know? That same cider won Cider Maker > of the year for its makers that same year, so I guess we did know something. You are saying that a cider judged by the AHA criteria in a local won in the national when judged by the same criteria. That speaks to consistency in the judging, but doesn't address the matter of whether the categories make sense (which is my issue)! Think of this in terms of the distinction between "accuracy" and "precision". And it may well have been an excellent cider, but we can't tell that given the categories. I am saying that the judging categories don't make sense, and that based on this, it would be better not to judge cider than to judge it by misguided categorizations. > One of the judges, Nick Funnel, was an English brewer so that did help ;-) > in seeing that this was an excellent cider. You're begging the question, if you're using an English *brewer* as a reference on *cider*. Did you have any professional *cider* makers judging? I've been in too many English pubs that have excellent cask ales alongside a single Strongbow spigot to believe that there is any crossover in knowledge or understanding. Cider-making is basically wine-making. You work with varietals; you work with "vintages" (i.e., year-to-year variations); you work with the natural yeasts. You have the choices of dry_vs_sweet and still_vs_sparkling. Tell me how a brewer would understand a sweet, still beer. > And how will judges gain experience and knowledge about ciders and meads > without the experience of judging?... They start by *tasting*! They need to taste and learn before they start to judge. Taste a hundred different ciders. Understand the quadrants of apple types (sweet, sharp, bittersweet, bittersharp). Understand and dis- tinguish blending, the effect of keeving...and so on. Same with meads. Taste them dry and sweet, sparkling and still, taste melomels with a dozen different fruits, metheglins with a score of herbs and spices. Taste the effects of the yeast...how one yeast will ferment out a clean product in two months while another yeast on the same must will give a result that still tastes like bad mouthwash after a couple years. I can't imagine that anyone could even begin to consider judging mead or cider with less than five years of serious tasting. None of it is inscrutable, but it *does* take some learning, and a lot of brewing knowledge does *not* transfer over. > While I cannot comment about the older AHA competition categories, Dick, as > the expert, was consulted for his input for the cider (maybe mead too, but I > forget) categories for the new BJCP and AHA style guide. I am *not* an expert. I *was* consulted, but having looked at the "Style Chart" at www.bjcp.org, noted as "Revised 8/3/99" I would find it hard to see that any of my comments had any effect! I still see 3 categories-- "Standard", "New England", and "Specialty". Why is New England called out? Don't the two millenia of English and French cider-making count for any- thing? Why are the OG/FG limits out of whack? Why should it be necessary to use adjuncts for 2 of the 3 categories? Where in any of the descriptions is there a consideration of the balance of the basic flavors with tannin and acidity? What's the deal with beer-related categories of IBU (noted as "N/A", small reassurance) and COLOR in SRM?!? Does anyone who worked on this have the slightest conception of what the color of a cider means? Not that I can tell! Would you judge a straw-colored Kentish style cider against a deep-gold Somerset farmhouse? Does the color really mean any- thing? How can you stack sweet/dry, still/sparkling against one another? How could you possibly judge cider and perry in the same category?--they are not even from the same fruit! Would you judge sake and ale together?!? Sparkling/still and dry/sweet are glossed over...much as if one would judge a Sauternes and a Paulliac together because they're both Bordeaux (and still, at that!:-). I'm sure you can run some good ciders through this gauntlet...but the way it's set up, you'll also accept some bad ones and reject some good ones. As for mead, I'll confirm David's recollection that yes I did have a chance to comment there as well. But again I can't see any effect of my comments. Why, for example, is the FG range low end at 0.995? I know I commented that some of my best meads (some sparkling melomels) finished at .992-.993, and that I would not be amused at having them excluded from competition! The 5 main classification criteria for all BJCP categories seem to be OG, FG, ABV%, IBU, and color (SRM). For both mead and cider, the color is at best irrelevant. IBU is only relevant in the braggot subcategory of mead. FG ranges push sweet and dry together, which is completely insane because you cannot possibly judge them side-by-side. Similarly, the effect of carbonation cannot be overlooked. You cannot judge a still mead against a sparkling mead--it comes down to something like "is this steak better than this chicken?" So it comes down to this: there are 5 objective criteria or classifications. One of them is wrong; two of them are irrelevant; two categories that should be present are missing. Is this a score-sheet you think you can be proud of? - --- Dick Dunn rcd at talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA ...Simpler is better. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:03:58 -0400 From: Ray Kruse <rkruse at bigfoot.com> Subject: beer filtering Any of you who use the Williams filter plate system and want to go in on a bulk order of 3u pads, email me privately. The pads are about $.63 each, plus shipping. Ray Kruse Glen Burnie, PRMd rkruse at bigfoot.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 23:24:23 +1000 From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates at acenet.com.au> Subject: Mailing Yeast And Hillbilly Parties I've had so many people asking how I plan to send Ayinger yeast samples around the world. I thought one post here would be a simple way to answer. I plan to do it just as the Artist did. I bought a few syringes (now that got me a funny look from the girl in the chemist shop) and a bunch of small vials. Yeast from the primary (when it is finished) will be collected and go into sterile water in the vials and away they will go in their mailing packets. It got to me like this from the States okay so I guess I can do the same. Mickey the Artist I believe cultured it up from a slant but I can't see any problem with me snapping it up from the primary. Unless someone is going to tell me otherwise? Now I see in the HBD a guy who is just going to fit in fine and dandy with our Burradoo parties. Brian Lundeen, the one with the two teeth which he cleans in the porcelain convenience. Now here is a guy with a sense of humour and surely will be "life of the party" at the Burradoo Hilton. Come on over Brian. By the way, I have been brought to task on a few of my comments from over a week ago. The first one being : >Regan and I both used corn in our reproduction efforts. To which I received this private response : >The HBD is a family style forum and your sexual habits >are not appropriately discussed there. >I demand that you unsubscribe forthwith! And yet another well wisher passed on to me : >Hope all is fine and dandy in Burradoo, where the men >drink rice lager and >the fags are found hanging out of their mouths, not the >other way round! Sorry about that, just couldn't help passing these on. Just where is all this humour in the HBD coming from? When I first tapped into it over a year ago it looked like a deadly serious business to me. It's pleasing to see some brewers are actually enjoying themselves. Especially Pat who is yahooing himself over the moon. Don't get too carried away with the brewing Pat, remember you have our digest to run here. Cheers Phil Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:39:35 +0000 From: "A. J." <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: 4.78? In looking at Nathaniel Lansing's post of yesterday when I saw 4.78 for the distilled water pH with a subsequent 5.68 I said "Ah, 'tis a typo" assuming that the distilled water pH was actually 5.78, which is about normal for a pale malt. But then the experiment was repeated and, again, the pH reported in the 4's : 4.82. Something is funny here. It's possible to have a distilled water pH in the 4's for a black malt but not with a Pilsner malt. Could this be a double typo or is that really what was measured? On another note, I'd be skeptical of an 0.3 rise in pH in cooling from mash temp to room temp. In my experience it's more like 0.15 - 0.2 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 8:55:27 -0700 From: "Aaron Sepanski" <madaarjul at earthlink.net> Subject: Marris Otter Beeston is the only company that floor malts its grains, at least until a year ago (based on their circular). Floor malting is more inconsistent in some respects but more consistent in others. The process is essentially the same in both. However, the floor malted maris otter will produce a tarter beer. The flavor seems to be more rich as well. This is compared to other maris otter maltings. When we use maris otter, we always use the floor malted variety, for all English beers, iridescent of gravity. We would not use it on a barely wine, because malt character would be obtained no matter what malt you are using, also it would be expensive. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 8:59:50 -0700 From: "Aaron Sepanski" <madaarjul at earthlink.net> Subject: Mouth feel rest What is a mouth feel rest? I've always used an infusion mash and have never had any problem obtaining mouth feel in any of my beers. I guess what I am saying is that I am not familiar with it. Maybe someone can fill me in. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 06:19:15 -0400 From: David Houseman <dhousema at cccbi.org> Subject: Correct Addresses In sending out judge mailings for both the 1st round of the regional AHA nationals and the local Buzz Off, I've had many, many returned mailings due to change of addresses. Where the new address was given, I've forwarded this on to Russ to update the database. If you didn't receive notification of these events, that may be why. These were at least within the window that they would return the flyers with the new addresses but outside the forwarding window. Many were returned that were outside the window of even notifying the sender of the new address. I encourage all the BJCP judges to keep our Program Administrator up to date with all change of addresses. You can do this via EMAIL; check the BJCP web site for the Program Administrator's EMAIL address. I'm also in favor of moving all official mailings to EMAIL rather than SNAIL mail. It will probably be just as difficult keeping up with changes in EMAIL addresses, however the cost of mailings for competitions and updates from the BJCP will be significantly less including the money wasted on mailings that get returned. How does the BJCP membership feel about the greater use of EMAIL over USPS? Perhaps only the yearly mailing is via the USPS; competition notifications would be by EMAIL? Thoughts? David Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:09:16 EDT From: DakBrew at aol.com Subject: District ChopHouse & brewery Steve If you can stop by the ChopHouse. Jason the brewer is very friendly if you can catch him there he will usually have time to talk with beer enthusiasts. They have a cask conditioned bourbon stout that kicks ass. They cask condition some of there oatmeal stout in used Old Granddad barrels, then serve it on a hand pump. The rest of there beer's are very nice but you gota at least taste the bourbon stout. And the food man it aint cheep but it is very good. John Harvard's is also very nice. Dan K Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:59:14 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: pH Response Brewsters: The fact that a small sample of wort gives the same result as a commercial tun doesn't surprise me. But unless I read Lansing's experimental results wrong, his results purportedly shows a pH= 4.78 for distilled water and 5.68 for 150 ppm calcium in wort. This is backwards to what one would expect. Try adding the calcium sulfate overnight to distilled water with stirring and comparing the wort from this solution with a wort from distilled water. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:48:50 -0500 From: hal <hwarrick at springnet1.com> Subject: Dig. therm. Thanks for the info. on the moisture problem. I just got it but haven't tried it out yet. Hal Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:47:47 +0200 From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hubert.hanghofer at netbeer.co.at> Subject: Re: German infusion step Hi all, Glyn Crossno <Crossno at tnns.net> asked me in hbd#3337: > What is your looooong mash-schedule? > What is the German 2 hour schedule? As I've tried to point out, there is no standard (2 hour or whatever) step mash schedule, so the question is, what can be regarded as typical? A general characteristic is that starch conversion is not done at one single step. Multiple rests are held at the temperatures of optimum amylase activitiy (62C/144F "maltose-rest", 72C/162F "final conversion rest"). Additional rests in the "combined activity range" (68C/154F) can be found more often these days. The exact conversion schedule differs from each brewmaster's specific point of view. But in general, very high attenuation levels are strived for: >80%aa for lagers, >76% for ales is typical in Germany and Austria. What other mash-steps can be regarded as typical? After conversion has finished, additional rest time in the 72-75C (162- 167F) range is added to promote extraction of glyco-proteids (Vollmundigkeitsrast / "mouthfeel?-rest"). This may be up to 60 minutes at 72C (162F) or 30-40 minutes at 75C (167F). Finally, mash out is typically done at 78C (172F). Add this to a 60-90 minutes conversion schedule and you are well over 2 hours. ...and we didn't discuss mashing-in yet: With nowadays well modified and homogenous malts mashing in at 62C (144F) or doing a short "mashing-in-rest" at 55-57C (131-135F) for up to 15 minutes (time for milling and adding the grains) can be regarded as "typical", especially if the beer needn't be filtered. So that's no or not much added time. Exception: Wheat-beers, that need a "ferula-acid-rest" at 42-44C /108-111F (I do 20-30 minutes) to promote 4-vinyl-guajacol (clove character) formation by yeast. Please note: The above is not based on a scientific statistical review! Just my (...2 cents ...ehm, schillings...) experience with local brewers, maltsters and some reading. But anyway ...nothing new to you either!? -- As I've seen in Pats interesting brewing report (on the bottom of hbd#3337), the cited target temperatures are all common, timing may be another issue. Practical Application, or ..."just another case study"... so to say ;-) I do step mashing in a propane fired, converted 50L-Keg(arator). Usually 10kg (22 lb) grain bill, 30-33L (7.9-8.7gal )water. My schedules are based on 20 minutes heating cycles, that means I heat the mash to certain target temperatures -therby continuously stirring with a paddle. Then I turn off the burner and make a rest of 20 minutes, during witch the temperature drops 2- max.3C (with lid, but no other insulation -- thermal mass and thermal time constant should be high enough for any 10gal system). During these rests I only stirr once to lift the settled grains (after 10 minutes - at halftime) so I needn't stress my arms and limit HSA. My usual target temperatures for such a schedule are 62-64-68-72C (144-147- 154-162F). Mashing in for 10 minutes 55~57C / 131~135F (except for wheat), mashing out at 78C (172F). After transfer to the lautertun, the temperature drops to 74~75C (165~167F) and is held for further 15-20 minutes -- thoroughly settling the spent grains I get clear runnings after 2-3L (<0.8 gal) recirculation ( at 5-10mm/min "drop rate" in liquid level), using a rather coarsly slotted copper manifold. Details and examples for wheat schedules can be found in my Excel- brewplanner: http://www.netbeer.co.at/bin/brewplanner.zip (English version, SI-metric units only!) You'll find mash-graphs of a step mash schedule along with two versions of a single decoction schedule for comparison in the wort_prep register. hope this helps. CHEERS & sehr zum Wohle! Hubert, brewing in Salzburg, Austria Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:47:44 +0200 From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hubert.hanghofer at netbeer.co.at> Subject: URL-Correction / SNPA-IBU range hello again, sorry, the web address of the brewplanner as given in my previous post may not work, the correct one is: http://www.netbeer.co.at/beer/bin/brewplanner.zip Sierra Nevada Pale Ale - Question: Can anyone tell me the IBU-range of SNPA? Any measured or specified values out there? CHEERS Hubert, brewing in Salzburg, Austria - -- "Bier brauen nach eigenem Geschmack" Infos unter: http://www.netbeer.co.at Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:45:35 -0400 From: Jim Adwell <jimala at apical.com> Subject: More about PET beer bottles than you wanted to know :) As far as PET bottles weakening from repeated cycling of pressure and no pressure, it may well be true. A more likely cause of failure is physical damage (abrasion), and also high heat (over 140F). PET softens at 168F, which would make heat sterilization out of the question. The low-end working temperature of PET is -10C, under which PET becomes brittle, perhaps permanently damaging it. When and if one of my old Pepsi bottles explodes, I'll let ya'll know. If you are going to use plastic bottles, be sure they are PET and not something else. If the bottles held soda or anything carbonated, they are safe to use. I would be wary of bottled water bottles and the like. The PET bottles discussed below are multilayer PET with better oxygen barrier properties than the soft drink PET bottles. When these become widely available( read cheap) I will be using them. Here's a brewery using PET bottles: http://www.karlsbrau.com/gb/gd_pblic/pet.html Homebrewers are not the only group discussing beer in PET. Here's an interesting discussion at PackInfo World: http://www.packinfo-world.org/wpo/discuss/USPackaging/Plasticbeerbottles.html A news story from 1998 about Miller's test marketing of PET bottles: http://www.onlineathens.com/1998/110198/1101.a3beer.html And some reasons why we don't see PET beer bottles on the shelf (yet): from beerweek.com (1999): PLASTIC BEER BOTTLE IS A-B'S PET PEEVE In a related item, Anheuser-Busch has abandoned its month-old research into how well beer would sell in PET plastic bottles. The company stated in an April 20 Associated Press report that it is discontinuing the research due to "limited public interest." and again (1999): RECYCLING NETWORK SEZ MILLER'S NEW PLASTIC BOTTLES A PROBLEM The Miller Brewing Company's new plastic beer bottle being test marketed in Los Angeles and five other markets could devastate plastics recycling, public officials and the GrassRoots Recycling Network said in a January 20 PRNewswire press release. Miller is the first brewer to introduce a plastic beer bottle in the U.S. Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter announced that she would introduce a resolution for action by the City Council that calls on Miller to take responsibility for making its new package compatible with the City's recycling program before introducing it more widely. Officials from the City of Madison WI, and the City of San Diego CA, are also contacting Miller to urge the company to address the bottle's negative impacts on recycling before it is introduced nationally. "Miller's plastic beer bottle jeopardizes plastics recycling in Los Angeles and across the country," Rick Best, chair of the GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN) and policy director of Californians Against Waste, said. "Miller's actions make it clear that the environment and recycling are taking a back seat to marketing considerations. "Miller must make sure its bottle is compatible with our recycling systems, before it is introduced nationally," Best said. The GrassRoots Recycling Network called on Miller Brewing Company to make the following commitments before rolling out the bottle nationwide: 1. Ensure that the Miller bottle is compatible with current PET recycling 2. Ensure that the Miller bottle will not increase recycling costs for local governments and recyclers 3. Use at least 25 percent recycled content in all bottles "Plastics recycling is in a downward spiral," George Dreckmann, recycling coordinator for the City of Madison, Wisconsin, said. "Miller's bottle will only make things worse, unless the company takes responsibility for its new bottle. "Miller should buy back its used plastic beer bottles at a price that covers the cost of processing them," Dreckmann said. "Miller should also incorporate recycled content into the bottles themselves." "The Miller plastic beer bottle's amber tint, new interior barrier material, and metal cap and label make it incompatible with today's plastics recycling stream," Best said. Best explained that these elements increase costs for plastics recycling and cause such serious contamination that recyclers who handle the Miller bottle will not be able to sell their reclaimed plastic to high value markets. Since most plastics recyclers are struggling already, this combination of increased costs and lost revenues could literally drive them out of business. "It will be local governments and taxpayers who pay the higher costs for recycling or disposing of unmarketable material," Best said. Cheers, Jim Jim's Brewery Pages: http://home.ptd.net/~jimala/brewery/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:36:34 EDT From: AKGOURMET at aol.com Subject: lager lessons learned; water filters Well, last night I had to dump a batch. I think that's only the second batch ever in well over a 100. This was the under-pitched all-grain premium lager that I wrote about a couple months ago. At that time, it was stuck at 1.023, so with the advice of some fellow HBDers, I warmed it up to 64f and pitched a packet of dry ale yeast into each carboy. That brought it down to 1.013, but 6 weeks later it still wasn't clear. Unfortunately, I don't have a way to chill it down for true lagering. If it was January, I'd just stick it outside, but this time of year the average temp is 50f. It also had a real fruity flavor to it. It might have been acetaldehyde from the stuck ferment and lack of cold conditioning or maybe esters from underpitching. It was drinkable, but I didn't really enjoy it. So, in a last ditch effort to salvage this batch, I bought an Omni whole-house water filter that was on sale and tried running this beer thru it. I bought the pleated paper 20 micron filter since it was half the price of the other ones and I didn't want to waste any more money on this batch than I had to. I washed and sanitized the filter housing, lines, kegs, etc. and ran a little iodophor solution (12.5 ppm) thru the paper filter, let it sit for 10 minutes and then flushed with about 3 gallons of cold water. The beer was already carbonated so it foamed in the filter housing. Other than that, it transferred ok. A taste test right afterwards revealed a still cloudy beer (although better than it was) with a new plastic flavor. It was now an easy decision -- dump it and put something worthwhile in those kegs. Lessons Learned: 1) Pitch large amounts of lager yeast. I used a one quart starter in 10 gallons, which wasn't enough. 2) Cold condition if you can. This might have saved that batch. 3) If you filter, do it with uncarbonated beer and flush the filter so it doesn't impart any taste. Now that I have this nice big filter, I want to use it for all my brewing water. Which filter element should I use? If I get one that will remove chlorine, will it also strip out the minerals? There's not much in my water to begin with, but I'd like to keep what I have: Ca - 48 SO4 - 27 CO3 - 46 hardness - 82 alkalinity - 38 pH around 7.0 Any advice on filter elements or water treatment would be appreciated. I usually just use the water straight out of the tap, but sometimes I'll throw in some gypsum and calcium carbonate. Bill Wright Juneau, Alaska www.gourmetalaska.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 23:29:46 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: floating balls Dave Burley writes ... >Martin Brungard has done his homework on floating balls to reduce HSA in >his RIMS, but can't find balls of the correct specific gravity. Why not >just use one of the bubble wrap sheets used in packing and available at >Boxes R Us or whatever I'm not aware that these balls or the bubble wrap come in food grade of FDA plastic. Maple floats and imparts no flavor, not sure whether plastic cutting boards are low enough density to float. just a though, Steve Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/30/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96