HOMEBREW Digest #3853 Thu 31 January 2002

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  One Step and Sanitizers ("Eric R. Theiner")
  Re: Dunkel (Brian Levetzow)
  You find the most amazing things! (Beaverplt)
  Re: Weight Watchers (Bill Wible)
  Re: Acetylene regulator (Spencer W Thomas)
  Re: Do you scoop? ("Rich, Charles")
  RE: Hungry Server (Bob Sheck)
  Monk's Fight For Pure Water ("Axle Maker")
  Brewing Water ("Axle Maker")
  Defective Wyeast packs ("Mike Maag")
  Spirit of Free Beer Homebrew Contest (Roanne2)
  RE:Scooping and OxyClean ("Don and Sarah Cole")
  Carboys, recircing (Nate Wahl)
  Dunkel and Recipes on the net.......... ("David Craft")
  Re: Brewing Indoors (Todd Goodman)
  Fermentation, Fruit Concentrates (ZanfiricoE)
  Astringent beer ("Bridges, Scott")
  Re: Stuck Fermentation ("dennis")
  Re: Frozen liquid ale yeast? (Jeff Renner)
  Brew Hauler ("Jodie")
  Re: Frozen liquid ale yeast? ("Gregor Zellmann")
  RE: Weight Watchers ("R. Schaffer-Neitz")
  "Beer Consultant" Spam ("George, Marshall E.")
  Re: Recirculation ("Larry Bristol")
  re: more astringency problems (LJ Vitt)
  RE: Glen's mind, scattered across the brewscape... Oh, the humani (Brian Lundeen)
  IBU Open 2002 ("Vernon, Mark")
  re: hops/acetylene ("Steve Alexander")
  long mash with declining temp profile (Road Frog)

* * Ft. Lauderdale Beer Fest to benefit the homeless * 1/25/02 info: http://www.homebreweronline.com * * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * 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 cannot 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. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:07:11 -0500 From: "Eric R. Theiner" <logic at skantech.com> Subject: One Step and Sanitizers Sanitizing, sanitizer, and sanitize are some terms that have been thrown around quite liberally for a long time. The dictionary defines sanitizing as the process by which one cleans or sterilizes an item; I have seen laboratory definitions that indicate that a sanitized surface has a log 4 reduction of microbiological contaminants; and the EPA defines a sanitizing product as a material that has been tested and proven to be an anti-microbial agent, but only if the proper paperwork and fees are included. Unfortunately, the EPA's definition is the only legal one. Why is this unfortunate? Because of the tremendous capital investment required to prove that a given product is a sanitizer. You see, there are not very many companies that have the kind of money needed to register products as sanitizers. The processing and maintenance fees alone are often too much for a small business to bear-- let alone the independent lab testing which the EPA requires (since they don't trust _your_ data). Even those that you think have such registrations often don't-- they have only borrowed someone else's in a subregistration agreement (which means that they will either pay the true registrant, or only buy the active raw materials from the registrant). In fact, unless you're buying your sanitizing product from EcoLab, Auto-Chlor, Diversey, WestAgro, Huntington, Lever, or Clorox, I'm willing to bet that you are a user of a subregistered product. And products that are legally called sanitizers are expensive because of this. A business must, after all, recoup the amount of money that they have paid either because of or to the EPA. So that $0.89 bottle of hydrogen peroxide on the shelf in the drugstore doesn't say that it is a sanitizer. Neither does the $0.73 bottle of bleach at the grocery store. You know it sanitizes, so why should they tell you again? Do you see where I'm going? One Step uses a material which is not legal to be called a sanitizer for hard surfaces (ie brewing equipment). This material, sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, will produce a level of active oxygen in a solution of water, much like hydrogen peroxide. Some in-house testing has shown that this solution also has some properties that could be construed as anti-microbial, but I'm not going to say that it is a sanitizer because the EPA is vigilant and their fines have put people out of business (I am not making that up-- I wish I was). The active ingredient has, however, received an EPA registration. I have asked the manufacturer if I could subregister, but they don't see the hard surface application of that material as a growth industry. The registration will only apply to the use of that product as a sanitizer for use in hog lagoons (the waste pit from hog farms). We could get a subregistration of that type, but the instructions would then make absolutely no sense for the home brewer.<g> Because of the demand, I have looked into subregistering some products as well for industrial application, but nothing for use by homebrewers. You see, homebrewers can use anything they want, and I encourage people to do that and make good choices of products to use via educating themselves rather than relying on things like EPA registration. Don't get me wrong, though-- I have been a good chemical engineer all my life and have always followed the standards set by any regulatory agency, but if there is not a need for these standards, I don't have any problem expressing my derision for them. One final point-- EPA registrations are necessary in industry because health inspectors, etc. like to see them when they go into a kitchen, food processing plant, or brewery. But they aren't for consumers. If you believe a product works, why not try it? One bad batch is all it will take to show you that it doesn't. As they say, one million Elvis fans can't be wrong, and I've sold way too much of this stuff for it not to work. Thanks for your attention. Rick Theiner President LOGIC, Inc. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:28:07 -0500 From: Brian Levetzow <levetzowbt at home.com> Subject: Re: Dunkel David asks about his dunkel recipe and dark malt additions. FWIW, the dunkel recipe I have in my personal repertoire uses 1/2 lb. Cara-Munich 72L and only 1/4 cup (around 2 oz.) of black. I looked at several other recipes in books, and if they call for chocolate or black malt at all, it's on the order of 2-4 oz. - -- +++++++++++++++ Brian Levetzow ~ Laurel, MD [425.7, 118.5] Apparent Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:32:01 -0800 (PST) From: Beaverplt <beaverplt at yahoo.com> Subject: You find the most amazing things! I am in the middle of doing a major remodeling job on my house and because I'm doing most of it myself I haven't had time to brew since last winter. Besides the withdrawal you must believe I'm going through, you now understand why I stand in front of the vast beer selection at discount liquor with drool running down my chin. That leads me to the point of this missive. Last night whilst selecting some finer offerings to slake my thirst for good beer I happened upon a pretty red box that offered a magnum, yes a magnum, of Budweiser. It appears it is And-hows-your-Bush's 125th anniversary and for the low, low price of $13.95 you can purchase a collectors edition magnum of Bud. All this goes to prove that you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Dying to brew again in Wisconsin Jerry "Beaver" Pelt Up wind of Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:09:44 -0500 From: Bill Wible <bill at brewbyyou.net> Subject: Re: Weight Watchers I would think that home brew would follow the same point system as commercial beer. It's possible that beer, wine, and other alcohol is not in the Weight Watchers week one materials; There is a Celebrations booklet that I think is in week 3 or 4. I checked with someone who was recently on WW, and she thinks it's probably 4 points (200 calories). Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:47:57 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Acetylene regulator >>>>> "Gene" == Gene Collins <GCollins at cranecarrier.com> writes: Gene> Secondly, for those who have been around acetylene gas, it Gene> is the most vile smelling stuff imaginable. Interesting note on this from Encyclopedia Brittanica (quoted without permission): Pure acetylene is a colourless gas with a pleasant odour; as prepared from calcium carbide it usually contains traces of phosphine that cause an unpleasant garliclike odour. Brewing relevance? Not really. :-) =Spencer Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:31:51 -0800 From: "Rich, Charles" <CRich at filenet.com> Subject: Re: Do you scoop? Regarding skimming off the initial dense foam layer when wort comes to a boil, I scoop. I've noticed that if I don't, when the layer completely covers the whole surface of the kettle it acts like a thermal blanket which lets the wort underneath it heat up enough to cause a sudden boilover. I have wondered if leaving it in might help produce a stronger hot break by providing more coagulation sites but haven't seen a difference either way. Our Seattle area soft water makes for a pretty low pH wort (typically pH 4.8) despite even outrageous salt additions and so never produces very big hot break particles. Charles Rich Kirkland, WA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:49:11 -0500 From: Bob Sheck <bsheck at skantech.net> Subject: RE: Hungry Server Time to feed it again with donations! >Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:16:41 -0500 >What's with the hungry server, Pat? >Jeff >- -- Bob Sheck // DEA - Down East Alers - Greenville, NC bsheck at skantech.net // [583.2,140.6] Apparent Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:10:43 -0500 From: "Axle Maker" <axlemaker at mindspring.com> Subject: Monk's Fight For Pure Water http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020129/od/beer_dc_1.html Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:17:22 -0500 From: "Axle Maker" <axlemaker at mindspring.com> Subject: Brewing Water Would the water expert's out there take a look at the water i'm using to brew with and let me know if there are any problems with it. Private E-mail would be fine. Carolina Mountain Water Bottled Water Mineral Analysis Parts Per Million Constituent (mg/liter) Calcium 6.70 Magnesium .34 Sodium 3.50 Potassium 1.50 Fluoride .06 Iron <.01 Zinc <.01 Total dissolved solids 50.00 pH 6.88 Thank You ! Axle Maker Axle's Alewerk's Rossville, Ga. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:11:36 -0500 From: "Mike Maag" <maagm at rica.net> Subject: Defective Wyeast packs The local HB supply store just got in some new Wyeast smack packs. They have the type of yeast stamped at the top of the pack at the seal. It appears the new stamping process compromises the seal. Anyway, the outer pack seal is weaker than the inner seal. It is impossible to break the inner pack without breaking the outer pack seal. If you use Wyeast that has the new stamp at the seal, smack it in the shop. Mike Maag Squirting yeast all over the shop Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:34:04 EST From: Roanne2 at aol.com Subject: Spirit of Free Beer Homebrew Contest The Brewers Untied for Real Potables, BURP, have tentatively scheduled the Spirit of Free Beer homebrew contest for May 18-19, 2002. The Old Dominion Brewing Company outside Washington, DC has agreed to host this MCAB qualifying event. Other possible dates are April 27-28 or May 11-12. Does anyone know of any events or problems that would interfere with the Spirit of Free Beer being held the third week in May, or on either of the alternate dates. In particular, are any of the AHA regional contests being held these weekends? If you are aware of any conflicts please let me know at Robert at BURP.org. We will officially confirm this date in a couple of weeks. Thanks again for your help and I hope to see some of you as judges at our club's contests and also hope our judges have the pleasure of tasting your beer. Robert Stevens Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:03:24 -0600 From: "Don and Sarah Cole" <dcole at mc.net> Subject: RE:Scooping and OxyClean I don't scoop, I spray. I had the pleasure of looking over a Pro brewers shoulder (thanks Bubba!) who was using a hot water spray to keep the foam down at the beginning of the boil. Worked well, so I started doing the same. I run a hose out to the garage from a hot water source. Works for me. I use OxyClean on everything. I try not to leave it soaking too long and never use it as a sanitizer. Don Cole dcole at mc.net Northern Mud Zeptobrewery Somewhere in Northern Illinois [or 232.3, 269.2 Rennerian...I think...] Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:16:09 -0500 From: Nate Wahl <cruiser at cros.net> Subject: Carboys, recircing Brewers! A few brief tidbits: Regarding carboy handling and safety, please take a look at some carriers I use; easy to make, convenient and they make the glass integrity somewhat better! http://www.cros.net/cruiser/carboy/carboy.html Regarding recirculation, I initially get a lot of 'chunkies' when I first come out of the mash tun; so I hand recirc a half-dozen large cupfulls of wort before hooking up the pump. I'd be afraid any large pieces could damage the pump. I also have a manual bypass valve around the 3-way solenoid valve, directly into the up-facing H-shaped open-ended return manifold; I used to get plugging also with a slotted manifold. I run on the bypass for a few minutes to set the grainbed, and the wort usually clears up nicely by then. I always run throttled on my pump outlet; I found a 1/12 HP pump, which works great, but if left unbridled, can draw the grainbed down to a half-height solid mass in about 2 seconds... Solenoid valves are particularly subject to sticking when solids get lodged in the mechanism; I'm going to install a 20 messh strainer inline with the valve soon. The valve only gets a bit hung up occasionally now, and a good whack usually clears things up, but the strainer should cure the problem. Fortunately the valve rattles quite loudly when hung up, so it acts like an alarm. My HLT heater uses a straight-thread element, 1", threaded into a 1" female half-coupling welded to the keg; the white tape and a double gaskets seem to seal fine. Here's some info on my system; the drawings are pretty much current, but the pictures and text sorely need updated. I'll update them soon! Right... http://www.cros.net/cruiser/Brewery/nate_herms.html Regards and Hoppy Brewing! Nate Wahl aka Oogie Wa Wa Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:06:40 -0500 From: "David Craft" <David-Craft at craftinsurance.com> Subject: Dunkel and Recipes on the net.......... Greetings, Thanks for all of the advice on Dunkels. It looks like I have made wonderful German Porter! Probably too strong (1.059 sg) and chocolately for a Black Beer and not quite strong enough for a Bock. Although it probably is closest to a Bock. I suppose I'll have to rename it from "Tim Dunkel" (named for the great Wake Forest/ San Antonio Spurs Center) to "Sippin on the Bock of the Day". Whistle after you say that! Dunkels are not as dark as I remembered, but I have had several rather dark and somewhat chocolately examples.............I did buy some Dinkel Acker yesterday and saw the color I should have shot at. Unfortunately the taste was stale. My lesson learned is that many recipes posted on the net are not reliable. I do surf around and usually end up more confused with all the recipes posted in various places. Does any one have any thoughts on recipes on the internet and their trueness to style? Cheers, David B. Craft Battleground Brewers Homebrew Club Crow Hill Brewery and Meadery Greensboro, NC Apparent Rennarian 478.4, 152 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:17:05 -0500 From: Todd Goodman <tgoodman at bonedaddy.net> Subject: Re: Brewing Indoors Glen writes: > Indoor automated brewing: > C02/C0 and explosive propane leak warnings aside, can anyone tell me if they > brew indoors using natural gas or propane? I don't feel like killing > myself, so I'll go with adequate ventilation using a blower and keep my 20# > LPG tank outside. But I cannot keep thinking that it is much easier for me > to brew in the basement... out of the cold... out of the rain... running > water on hand... no spotlights when it gets dark... Does anyone do this? > Private e-mail me if you do to avoid the ramblings of the Digest safety > monitors! I brew in my basement with natural gas on a commercial six burner stove. This stove is a real commercial stove and not an insulated high-btu stove made to go in residential kitchens. It needs 6" clearance from combustibles. My basement brewery was inspected by the fire department and building inspector. The fire department required an automated fire supression system (Ansul) since the stove was commercial (per their reading of the Boca codes). The company who put the system in would only install it if I had an all welded stainless hood with an all welded duct to the mushroom fan outside. This was custom made and way overkill (it includes grease traps and everything), but that's what I needed to do to appease the inspectors. The building inspector was very concerned about appropriate make up air (and after using the system, I'm glad he was). He made me determine the cfm of make up air required from the max BTUs of all burners and oven together. This ended up requiring two 8" square vents in the outside wall (one high and one low to promote air flow). Luckily my basement is a walk-out and half the wall is wood framed instead of all concrete. He also made me hardwire a heat detector and CO detector into the fire detector circuit (so it would trigger all detectors in the house if one of those tripped). I also use a Nighthawk CO detector with digital readout. If I forget to open the vents and turn on the fan then the CO builds up pretty quickly. I have to admit that when I first used the system I did set of the hardwired CO detector once. I haven't since that time. With the appropriate ventilation and fan running, there is no measurable CO (the digital readout reads 000). I use one or two burners tops (one for my mash, one for my hot liquor tank and one for my boil). Todd Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:18:14 EST From: ZanfiricoE at aol.com Subject: Fermentation, Fruit Concentrates Hello, this is my first post. I'm new to homebrewing (18 gallons so far) and had a few questions. I just made a clone of Old Speckled Hen (extract version) and am wondering how long to ferment in the secondary before bottling. It spent a week in the primary. O.G. 1.041. When I transferred to secondary 1.011. I am using Wyeast 1084 Irish Ale Yeast. The secondary is a 7 gallon plastic bucket. This is my first non kit beer. i.e. no suggestions on little sheet! I am not sure how to tell when it's completely fermented. Is it when all CO2 pro duction stops? Slows considerably? I've been timing the bubbles coming out of the airlock. Yesterday it took a little over 5 min. inbetween bubbles. My other question concerns fruit beers. I want to brew a Cherry Stout. The one I am considering is from Papazian and calls for 5 lbs. Sour cherries. I can't find an affordable source of fresh or frozen cherries this time of year so I thought I'd use a concentrate. I found this site. http://www.amonorchards.com/cart/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&CatID=3&subgroup id=7 It says 45 oz. is the equivalent of 35 pounds of cherries. Would you expect 6.5 ounces or so to come close, or would this probably be too powerful? I want a strong cherry flavor, not just a hint or aftertaste. So any fruitbrew fans out there feel free to send your suggestions. Add fruit stuff in primary or secon- dary? I am also looking for a similar product made from sweet cherries. Thanks for the suggestions, private email ok, Eric Dahlberg Rochester NY [311.3, 78.6] Apparent Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:43:01 -0500 From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges at sc.slr.com> Subject: Astringent beer Andy Bailey writes: >I have now brewed 20 gallons of astringent/funky bitter beer. ;-( >Could it be the sparge water ph? In the town that I live in (Rapid City, >SD), there is no way to get a complete water analysis. Even the municipal >water supply doesn't do any kind of mineral analysis, they only care about >the stuff that can kill you. Not knowing my calcium content, would it hurt >anything to add gypsum to the sparge water in an attempt to lower the ph? If >so, what would be a safe, yet effective amount? Andy, I think that you have it. When I first went all-grain, I basically wasted an entire 50lb bag of grain before I figured this out. The water where I live is very high in carbonates / temporary hardness. The local city water supply which comes from a local lake is very soft and great for brewing. My subdivision has its own "community well", and there must be some limestone down there... The carbonates make the pH too high, and was the cause of my astringency problem. Yours sounds very similar. If this is your problem, gypsum may not have enough buffering power to counteract the carbonates. I would suggest an acid addition to your sparge water instead. Lactic acid is very commonly available from brewing suppliers. Phosphoric acid is better, but much stronger and very hazardous. The amount of any addition is really dependent on the make-up of your water, so it would not be possible for anyone to answer the "how much" question without more info. If this is not available, you might just need to do some experiments. There are a number of good sources of info on brewing water treatment. If you can't find any or need more help, let me know. Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:35:44 -0500 From: "dennis" <dcollins at drain-all.com> Subject: Re: Stuck Fermentation Greetings, I thought I would weigh in on Al Beers post: "Hi all, Brewed a robust porter a week ago ( extract/steeped grain, WLP002 ). OG was 1.056, bubbling nicely after 6 hrs. Racked to secondary 6 days later, gravity of 1.020, tasted fantastic! Now it sits in the secondary flat, no activity. A wee bit of pressure in the airlock, but very little bubbling. Rousing the carboy doesn't help either." Al, remember that the only reason that wort bubbles out CO2 is because the wort is saturated with it already and cannot absorb any more. Once you rack your beer, you rouse a lot of that CO2 out of solution which means further fermentation will saturate the wort with CO2 first before it will start to bubble out. Plus, once the CO2 bubbles out, it has to pressurize the head space above the wort. You said there is slight pressure in the air lock which would indicate that your wort has become re-saturated with CO2 and also has pressurized the air space. You may find that the SG has dropped even though you haven't seen any activity. You might want to take a reading just to make sure. I recently kegged a porter that wouldn't drop below 1.016. I kegged it anyway and it turned out just fine. Relax, don't worry....... Dennis Collins Knoxville, TN [3554 furlongs, 3.18 Radians] Apparent Rennerian "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but not in practice." http://sdcollins.home.mindspring.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:32:22 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at mediaone.net> Subject: Re: Frozen liquid ale yeast? Gregor Zellmann reported from Berlin, Germany on his friend's success baking bread with previously frozen ale yeast. Interesting report. What kind of ale yeast was it? How long was it frozen? How did he thaw it (thawing can be damaging too)? How much yeast did he use (per kg of flour)? What kind of bread did he make? I've never deliberately frozen yeast, but I have baked with ale yeast, and found that it gave good flavor but I had to use a lot to get very good rising action compared to bread yeast. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at mediaone.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:43:52 -0500 From: "Jodie" <jodie at ga.prestige.net> Subject: Brew Hauler The Brew Hauler is available from The Home Brewery. http://www.homebrewery.com/catalog/basic_equip.html It's kinda like a basket made of nylon strapping. There's an adjustable strap that goes around the carboy, so it can fit 5 or 6+ gal carboys. I have one on a carboy right now. Forgot that I had ordered it with my initial brewing equipment six weeks ago and have been moving carboys without it until last night. Much easier! Thanks for all the great postings. Along with the books I'm devouring, you all are making the climb up that learning curve much easier for this newbie. Have I caught the bug or what? Am on my third batch of beer since buying my setup at Christmas! Jodie Barthlow Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:14:16 +0100 From: "Gregor Zellmann" <gregor at blinx.de> Subject: Re: Frozen liquid ale yeast? Jeff, it was Wyeast #1968 Special London Ale Yeast. It was frozen for 10 days or so. No idea how he thawed it. (Probably not in the microwave though ;-) He used ~50 g of thawed, pretty compact slurry per kg of flour, the same amount he would take when using bread yeast. It is what we call Treberbrot in Germany. AFAIK 10% spent grains (from the lauter tun, also deep frozen and thawed) and 45 % of each white wheat flour and whole wheat flour. As I am not a baker myself, I'll check back with him and post the detailled recipe in a few days. cheers Gregor Zellmann Berlin, Germany [4247.6, 43.4] Apparent Rennerian Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA wrote on Jan 30 2002: > Interesting report. What kind of ale yeast was it? How long was it > frozen? How did he thaw it (thawing can be damaging too)? How much > yeast did he use (per kg of flour)? What kind of bread did he make? > > I've never deliberately frozen yeast, but I have baked with ale > yeast, and found that it gave good flavor but I had to use a lot to > get very good rising action compared to bread yeast. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:25:26 -0500 From: "R. Schaffer-Neitz" <rschaff at ptd.net> Subject: RE: Weight Watchers "Hedglin, Nils A" <nils.a.hedglin at intel.com> wrote: " I joined Weight Watchers over the weekend & was wondering if anyone has come up with a formula for figuring out the WW points in home brew?" First, way to go Nils! I'm down 25 lbs and have 25 to go. I don't go to the meetings or anything. I just have the kit with the points books and calculator. The following site will figure out your calories per PINT if you plug in the OG and FG (as well as original, apparent, and real extract degrees plato, ABW, ABV, apparent and real attenuation): http://cocktails.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fleebrewe ry.com%2Fbeermath.htm To figure out points from there, just use your point calculator. If you don't have that, just go by this: (it's easy since beer has no fat or dietary fiber) 80-120 cal - 2 points 130-170 cal - 3 points 180-220 cal - 4 points 230-270 cal - 5 points 280+ - don't ask Personally, I tend toward big beers and don't really want to know how many points ;). The WW Supermarket Guide says 3 points for a (non-light) beer, so I go by that. I'm sure they mean a "non-light" (HAH!) megaswill, but they say beer is beer and who am I to argue, as long as it works out so I can have more of the beer I like/brew? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:27:02 -0600 From: "George, Marshall E." <Marshall.George at Reuters.com> Subject: "Beer Consultant" Spam It appears that someone is gleaning email addresses from the HBD again to spam people as "Beer Consultant". Now while I think the list of products in the email was nice, this kind of crap is unsolicited and the person(s) responsible should be told as such. However, the return email address - beer at consultant.com looks phony. HBD Janitorial staff??? M. George Glen Carbon IL Adhering to 80 character limits - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:34:54 -0600 From: "Larry Bristol" <Larry at DoubleLuck.com> Subject: Re: Recirculation - --->Kirk Fleming <kirkfleming at earthlink.net> wrote: >First, I hope that manifold is submerged during recirc. I would recommend >against letting the sweet wort sprinkle down onto the top of the mash, > ... <snip> > >As for the pump clogging--I found that occassionally I'd get better results >by not connecting the pump initiall--just let the wort drain thru the tubing >into a container, recirculating by hand a few times to set the bed. > ... <snip> On submerging the manifold, I assume you are expressing concern about HSA. This is most probably a valid concern. Although I have not encountered the supposed effects of HSA in any of my brews, it is worth checking my system more thoroughly in this regard. Thanks for reminding me. Actually, pump clogging has not been a problem. There are not enough grains and husks getting into the works to clog the pump. My problem is the clogging of the manifold on top of the grain bed. Recirculating a while by hand may be the ultimate answer. - ---> Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at mediaone.net> added: >I hate to ask the obvious, but you do have a false bottom, EZ-Masher >or manifold or something like that to hold the grain back, right? > >I have a slotted false bottom and a few mash particles get through, >... <snip> ... > I generally don't run the pump when I'm not heating >or recirculating for clarity (vorlauf) at the end of the mash. > >Maybe you need to make bigger holes in the manifold. Sorry to be unclear; I just assumed everyone KNOWS what my system contains. <smile> I mash in a 14 gallon S/S vessel with a false bottom made using a S/S screen. Below the false bottom, there is a faucet to drain wort from the mash tun. The wort is pumped through a heat exchanger (copper coil submerged in the liquor tank) and returned to the mash through a manifold on top of the grain bed. This is similar to a RIMS setup, but uses a heat exchanger rather than an inline heating element. I use the system much like you describe, to heat the mash and to clarify the wort at the end. The reason for my original question is that it is common for me to make what is usually a minor temperature adjustment immediately after dough in. This is where I see the grains/husks going through the works, sometimes enough to clog the manifold. Bigger holes in the manifold is an obvious solution that I (obviously) overlooked. Also part of this is the fact that the copper tubing is depressed slightly where the holes have been drilled. This means that not only do the holes themselves get clogged, but the entire tube gets clogged near each hole. I will definitely check into modifying the manifold, or even eliminating it completely. The suggestions I have received to date center around the idea of doing recirculation by hand until the running are clear enough to run the pump. I will give this a try on my next batch just to see how it works. My only concern with this is that since the wort will not be going through the heat exchanger, I will not be able to adjust the temperature upward until I can start the pump. Perhaps I should raise my strike temperature slightly so that my initial temperature adjustment is downward. Thanks for all the input! Any additional thoughts, anyone? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:14:06 -0800 (PST) From: LJ Vitt <lvitt4 at yahoo.com> Subject: re: more astringency problems In HBD#3852 Andy described his problems with astringency >Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:23:59 -0700 >From: Andy Tina Madi Bailey <atmbailey at home.com> >Could it be the sparge water ph? In the town that I live in (Rapid City, >SD), there is no way to get a complete water analysis. Even the municipal >water supply doesn't do any kind of mineral analysis, they only care about >the stuff that can kill you. Not knowing my calcium content, would it hurt >anything to add gypsum to the sparge water in an attempt to lower the ph? If >so, what would be a safe, yet effective amount? Andy, have you measured the PH of the mash or the PH of the sparge water? I too had some astringent early all grain brews. With my local water I has getting too high PH in the mash, which also lead to poor extraction efficiencies -- Less than 25 points per pound per gal. I use acid to lower the PH. I have used latic acid and phosphoric acid. I like the phosphoric acid because it takes less. Lactic acid is easy to get in homebrew shops. Phosphoric acid - A friend found a supply and ordered enough for several people. Using latic acid, I need to add 1 tsp to most mashes. I am looking to get the mash PH to 5.4 and sparge ph to 5.8. I measure the PH with papers. The more expensive "colorPHast" brand work better than the cheaper ones I first used. It is easier to read the colors. I also make sure I stop sparging when the warm wort is at 1.010 spec grav. I too measure it warm. However, I ruined a couple of hydrometers measuring hot wort. I think the hot wort expands the glass and the paper slides down giving readings lower than reality. I cool the wort to 100F and use one of my old hydrometers for measuring the gravity of wort coming out of the sparge. Some of the other local homebrewers in town have changed to getting water from a local company that filters water using reverse osmosis. They use much less acid to adjust PH, IF ANY, than they did with tap water. They buy water by the carboy for $0.35 per gallon. Another advantage - no Chlorine >The grain I was using was from a 50# bag of Minnesota Maltings 2row that I >bought from a local microbrewery. That is now gone, and I am switching to >Pauls Pale ale malt. Could my original grain not have been the best and >cause the problem? Does the brand of grain dictate how much you can safely >sparge? Are you using the low protein 2 row pale malt from Minnesota Maltings? I know several homebrewers and 1 brewpub brewer who use this malt. It works very well. The malting company is about 40 miles from here (Cannon Falls), and they give nice tours for groups with advance planning. I hope this is helpful. - Leo Vitt Rochester, MN Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:30:29 -0600 From: Brian Lundeen <blundeen at rrc.mb.ca> Subject: RE: Glen's mind, scattered across the brewscape... Oh, the humani Glen Pannicke writes: > Indoor automated brewing: > C02/C0 and explosive propane leak warnings aside, can anyone > tell me if they brew indoors using natural gas or propane? > Private e-mail me if you do to avoid the > ramblings of the Digest safety monitors! Glen, safety is everyone's business, and I would feel like I let you down if I didn't warn you... Don't even think about doing this! Like my mother always said... Sure, big laughs,... till you level half the neighbourhood! ;-) OK, couldn't resist. I too decided I had had enough of outdoor brewing (and given that the last few days have been a balmy -30C in the morning I feel I made the right choice). However, I can't stress enough how happy I am with my decision to go electric (for the kettle anyway). The rest I can handle on my kitchen cooktop. My mash tun fits nicely across a couple of gas burners and that is plenty to heat up my mash water. Sparging? Now that I'm a regular attendee at Spargers Anonymous meetings, I've become comfortable with spending a little more on grain and only sparging with 2-3 gallons (sometimes less) and that too I can heat up easily on the cooktop. BTW, I've never used a sparge arm, I just pour in a pint at a time over a ladle to break up the stream, but I will defend to the death the right of others to use a sparge arm without being persecuted for their beliefs. As usual, I digress... Back to the electric kettle. The part I love most about it is the control I get during everyones favorite part of the boil, the Big Foam-up. Now, everyone thinks gas gives you much better control over the heat that is applied, and that is certainly true up to a point. However, the foam-up would usually result in a little ballet between me, my regulator and my lighter that went something like this (set this to music if you like): Foam-up... Twist, twist... Twist, twist Foomp... Crap! Twist, twist... Click, click... Woosh!... Repeat verse until foaming subsides. With my electric, I just stand there laughing smugly at the foam rising up, waiting, waiting, watching as the foam starts licking the rim, and... Click! Foam goes down. Click! Start boiling again. Repeat as needed. I love it! Is there a down side? Well, my kettle is in the basement, which means I have to carry down 5 gallons or so of runoff from the kitchen in a bucket. My own version of two-tier brewing. Not a big deal since I always did the mash and runoff inside anyway, and still had to carry it out to the garage for the boil. Oh yeah, and the wife refuses to stay home because she hates the smell. Depending on how you feel about your SWMBO, you can look at that as a plus or a minus. > > Promash in Linux: > Has anyone gotten Promash to work in Linux wing WINE? I keep > getting "File > not found errors". Do I need to configure anything special? > Promash is > the only program forcing me forcing me to dual boot Windows > and Linux on my PC. I refuse to give up my Promash! Resistance is futile, Glen. Give in. Years ago I accepted Bill Gates into my heart as my saviour and Lord, and today I am a... Happy man. I am happy. I am happy. Repeat as necessary... Cheers Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:32:05 -0600 From: "Vernon, Mark" <mark.vernon at pioneer.com> Subject: IBU Open 2002 Iowa Brewers Union Open Homebrew Competition 2002 Judging: Saturday, March 9th, 2002 Entry Deadline: Sunday, March 3rd, 2002 Competition Specific Category: IBU Challenge. For you hopheads, the only requirement of this category is the beer must have 1 IBU per 1 OG point. Example: 1.045 O.G. must contain no less than 45 IBUs of Hops. Entries must be received by 7:00pm Sunday, March 3rd 2002. Ship to the address below or drop off at local sites. Edwards Graphic Arts Attn: Mike Edwards 2700 Bell Ave Des Moines, IA 50321 515 280-9765 All Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) styles will be accepted - including meads and ciders. The Director of Judging may combine categories if necessary. Go to www.iowabrewersunion.org/events.htm to see complete rules. We are a qualifying event for the Great Plains Brewer of the Year Mark Vernon Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:37:03 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: hops/acetylene Glen A. Pannicke asks ... >But what I /have/ noticed is that my FWH brews, foaming and boil over have >been reduced. Boiling is less explosive and the foam is only a thin cover >which is easily broken. > >Has anyone else noticed this difference? Absolutely - sweet wort is much more likely to boilover than the same wort shortly after hops have been added, with obvious implications for FHW. Someone on this digest suggested years ago adding some of the hops early to prevent boilovers. >Does anyone have an explanation? My hunch is that the hops phenolics (which are much more likely to bind to proteins) form enough break to prevent the proteins from participating in boiler foam. Hops have a *lot* of phenolic material compared to malt - but most is retained in the break. The protein is responsible for the foam. === Mark Ahrstrom ... mohrstrom at humphrey-products.com asks ... >Down to the Farm >'n' Fleet liquidation sale (a bankruptcy with greater personal implications >than Enron's ...) for that. Same here - but it's a great place to load up at the moment. Do you think the PTO adapter for my grain mill is going too far ? >Still, the question remains: > >What is the "floor" temperature for hop isomerization? It's a matter of degree & time. I would expect a certain amount of isomerization will take place at 20C, but it may take forever to bitter a beer like this. At wort pH and higher you can get quite a bit of humulone into solution - around 50IBUs at pH 5, and 25C and well over 200IBUs at 100C and pH 5. Unfortunately at lower pH and lower temps the soluble levels drop like a stone (only ~3IBUs at 0C and beer pH) and so the humulones precipitate out. The isomerized iso-humulone and humulinic acids are fortunately much more soluble. There is no magic temperature for the isomerization, tho the rate of isomerization certainly dependent on temperature (and likely on pH and other factors too). A lot of common chemical reactions roughly double in rate per 10C increase in temp, but this is dependent on the free energy values of the reaction. My hunch is that the rate increase for humulone isomerizations is higher - perhaps a factor of 3 per 10C. Commercial brewery pressurized boilers operating around 120C seem from reports to experience roughly 8X the hops extraction rate. If this is right (and it's just a guess a far as the factor goes) then 1hr at boiling is equivalent to 9 hours at 80C or 3+ days at 60C, or a month at 40C or most of a year at 20C. === Converting an acetylene regulator to CO2 use might not be worth the effort, but it's unlikely to be dangerous. "acetylene gets its name because it has acetone in it". No way - the roots of the "acet-" name means they share a (very little) bit of structure. You absolutely can't make any implication about safety this way - that's just senseless fear mongering. Many deadly poisons share chemical nomenclature handles with common food chemicals. Your protein is full of amino groups, but I would suggest you follow it with an ammonia chaser. Plant matter is full of dozens of phenolic compounds, but phenol would certainly kill you. Acetylene is more strictly called ethyne, and acetone is similarly called propanone. These two don't even share the same carbon structure. An organic chemist would see greater similarity between acetylene and ethanol or acetic acid than with acetone - but again that says nothing of safety. " I don't think it's very safe to use equipment that's been in prolonged contact with acetone". Beer contains measurable amounts of acetone as a fermentation by-product. The way to check the safety of a chemical is to find its MSDS safety sheet (often available online). Acetylene is permitted in the workplace at 2500ppm in air and has no known long term effects so I wouldn't worry about the tiny amount in a regulator. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:26:17 -0800 (PST) From: Road Frog <road_frog_run at yahoo.com> Subject: long mash with declining temp profile "Steven Parfitt" <the_gimp98 at hotmail.com> typed: "Will this (the declining temperature profile) have any negative effects on the end product?" Yes and no, or no and maybe. I have used this or the overnight mash (mash in at midnight start sparge at 6am) on most styles of beer. If you use wheat, rye or some other adjunct, be sure the cooler temps. will allow the sparge to flow. Rye and corn grits like a WARM grain bed. I also find that these beers finish dryer than the "normal" mashed beers. You can adjust for this with the grain bill. Visiting sunny COLD San Diego, Glyn Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/31/02, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96