HOMEBREW Digest #1997 Fri 29 March 1996

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

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Taking the all grain plunge (Matt_K)
  Stinky Yeast! (Bill Rust)
  Iodophor/Thanks ("Christopher M. Goll")
  Re: Cleaning chemicals (hollen)
  Foam Control, Head, Wet Towel Trick, Oak, Malt Types (TimSechler)
  Refined Sugar and Belgian Trippels. (Russell Mast)
  false bottom questions (Rob Emenecker)
  RE: Filtering and yeast size (Ted Sadler/VENTANA)
  Easy All-Grain (KennyEddy)
  A New Glad Plaid Clad Lad... (pbabcock.ford)
  Re:Filtering, cont. (Tom Fitzpatrick)
  all grain (Wallinger)
  Hops Toxicity in Dogs ("Rick Creighton")
  Non-alcohol Heresy?? (Jim Mitchell)
  Re: 10 gallon recipes (Jim Dipalma)
  Easy way out (Dave Corio)
  Real Beer (Eric Miller)
  Re: Munich Helles Stinks (Jim Dipalma)
  Heineken Special Dark Recipe Request ("Stephen Palmer")
  bottle labels (lheavner)
  RE:> more on DMS and yeast/ first wort hopping (Jeff)
  plaid-tosis cure may be worse than disease! (Greg Potts)
  translucent floaties/re:all-grain/convince me (Jerry Cunningham)

****************************************************************** * POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:48:00 est From: Matt_K at ceo.sts-systems.ca Subject: Taking the all grain plunge Greetings everyone I have a quick hint of those of you who are thinkig about going all grain, but worry about it. What got me hooked was a friend of mine. He volunteered to come to my house, bring any equipment I didn't have and show me how to do this thing. In return, I supplied food and beer. This worked like a charm. I couldn't believe how easy, and fun all grain was and I didn't have to worry. I've since done this to someone else, who also became a convert. Matt in Montreal Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10:09:56 -0500 From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com> Subject: Stinky Yeast! Greeting Brewers, Barry Blakeley asks in HBD #1995: > I recently brewed a Munich Helles (or as close as I can get using > extracts), and I noticed a rotten odor coming through the airlock. I > used 6.3lb extract, some steeping grains and Wyeast 2308 Munich Lager. > The yeast was 5 months old (I'll never buy yeast again without > checking the date). Relax. Don't worry. (remember?) WYeast 2308 is supposed to be stinky, at least at first. It then settles down to a delicious, round, full bodied flavor that is great with helles and other all malt German lagers. The odor is less pronounced if you lager at lower temps, but it is still very noticable. It takes about 3-4 weeks after secondary for the aroma to mellow, then drink up! This is a fabulous yeast! It is one of my favorites. Cheers. ------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Rust, Master Brewer | Jack Pine Savage Brewery | The Brew Cru Shiloh, IL (NACE) | 'Get Off Your Dead Ass and Brew!' ------------------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:25:50 -0500 From: "Christopher M. Goll" <cgoll at cc-mail.pica.army.mil> Subject: Iodophor/Thanks Hello all, Thanks to all who responded to my keg deadspace problem; It is truly amazing how quickly and plentifully the advice flows in after a post. Three responses said it should work, with one caveat: spheres still present a void volume of 30-40%. Interestingly, most people bypassed my question and suggested modifying the manifold system to get a siphon effect, followed by two folks who suggested beating the keg bottom to remove the dome (John Palmer: Is this a good idea?); and one person said to live with the loss of wort. Again, thank you all! I have another idea to toss to the collective for critique: From recent HBD traffic, we seem to agree on approximately 12.5 ppm iodine (1/2 oz iodophor in 5 gal) as a good sanitizing level. However, trying to _accurately_ pour out 1/2 an ounce from a five oz bottle (the size available at my local brew store) is a PITA, leading me to add at least 3/4 oz to "make sure I've got it covered." While my iodophor usage is not driving me to the poorhouse, it does seem like a waste. So, what if I were to add the 5 oz of iodophor to 35 oz of distilled water, and then used 4 oz (1/2 cup) of that mixture per five gallons? This would be easier to measure, and not lead to wasted iodophor. Any flaws in my logic? Also, what is the consensus on contact time. The bottle says a few minutes, but I've read posts that seem to indicate much longer. Is this just overkill? Chris Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 08:38:01 PST From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: Cleaning chemicals >>>>> "Wayne" == SandBrew <SandBrew at aol.com> writes: Wayne> Hi there. In an earlier posting, I recomended some cleaning Wayne> chemicals produced by a company out here in Denver called Five Wayne> Star. In particular, a compound called PBW is IMHO the best Wayne> alkaline cleaner on the market. It appears that I am not Wayne> alone. I have gotten a copy of a letter from George Fix to Five Wayne> Star in which he states: "...I have decided in my own personal Wayne> brewing to completely switch from a caustic based cleaner to Wayne> your product, and a similar conclusion was reached in the two Wayne> commercial operations (for which he consults for). Upon Wayne's recommendation in his original posting, I obtained a pail of PBW, 35 lbs. for about $40 plust $30 shipping to CA made it come to about $2 per pound. I have been using it for about 6 months now and have put it to what I consider to be the worst case test several times and it comes through with flying colors. I ferment in corny kegs and as such, the top 3 inches of the inside of the keg is covered in a dried layer of krausen. In the past, this required a soak in hot CTSP solution followed by vigorous brushing with a nylon pot brush to remove. With the PBW product, I use 1/8 cup of PBW per gallon of 140F water and let stand for 1/2 to 1 hour. A final rinse of hot water is all that is necessary, no scrubbing at all. As for safety, when I did not yet know that scrubbing was unnecessary, I was sticking my arm down in the keg to scrub. This ends up getting the PBW solution all over my forearm. After about 15 minutes of leaving it on my skin, I finally rinsed it off. Noticed no adverse effects whatsoever at the 1/8 cup per gallon concentration. The only downside I have to report is that one of my friends who owns a microbrewery and has begun using PBW is reluctant to use it for CIP because he has noticed that it sometimes does not dissolve completely. He is making up a solution and using it for manual application and is very happey with it. Like Wayne and George Fix, I have no affiliation with FiveStar other than as a satisfied customer. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen at vigra.com Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:40:08 -0500 From: TimSechler at aol.com Subject: Foam Control, Head, Wet Towel Trick, Oak, Malt Types Since I haven't seen a response (I'm about a week behind) to Paul Lambie's query on the product called "Foam Control" in #1980, you've forced me into my first posting to the HBD. The ad (in the Hop Tech catalog -- no, I have no connection with them, except sending them a few bucks one time) say that 1-tsp of this stuff added with the yeast at pitching will keep the head formed during fermentaiton from ever getting more than 1/2-inch thick. Thus, no blow-off. The ad further claims that the product will make better head on your finished beer because "more head-forming compounds are retained in the beer and not lost during fermentation." The product supposedly will have "lost its effectiveness and settled out," by bottling time and not limit the head formed in the glass. Well, all of that sounded pretty good to me, so I tried the stuff. (A quick history: I've been extract brewing for about 1.5 years -- now on my 20th batch -- the last three being partial mashes -- Always used liquid yeast with starters -- and I use a 6.5-gal. glass carboy for a primary fermenter.) I've used Foam Control in 9 batches. (The stuff smells a lot like Physo-Derm (sp?) - --the skin cleaner.) The results? (the envelope, please...) The stuff works, however. . . Yes, it almost always keeps the foam level down to an inch or two. The only time I've had blow-off using the stuff was with a big stout -- and then it was minimal. Now the "however" part -- I've noticed no increase in head or head retention in my brews. That was what I was hoping for -- but it hasn't worked that way for me. So, Paul, can you use it in a 5-gal. Carboy? Yeah, probably, but I would still watch it for some blow-off. Getting a decent head on my beer has always been a problem. I've read Miller's and Papizian's books, trotted out the usual suspects, but I usually end up with lousy head. The exception being my American Cream Ale, which has a pound of Cara-Pils malt in it -- any connection there? I decided not to use Foam Control in my last batch (India Pale Ale). Let me tell about my latest discovery! (BONNNGGG, LIGHTBULB, Duhhh) I put my primary carboy into an oversized plastic punch bowel, draped it with a dark-colored towel, and poured water over it. The temperature hovered in the mid to low 60s throughout fermentation. I was thrilled! I've usually had to live with temps in the 70s. There was very little blow-off with this batch. A product of the lower temperature? I don't know, but I plan to continue using the wet towel trick. On the oak in beer thread. . . (no, I haven't had time to look up what was written about this months ago, but why let that stop me?) This is my second IPA. In my first batch I used 4 oz. of oak chips, purchased from my Home Brew shop (steamed 15-min. and then baked at 350F for 15-min. and added for 2 days to the secondary). I think it was too much. The beer had, how to describe it, a very caramelly, not all that oaky taste to it. Not all that appealing. I cut it down to 0.5 ounces in this batch. Results are not in yet. I would appreciate all further explanations about basic malt types and their proper uses. I read and read, but it sinks in slowly. 6-row, 2-row, lager, pale, modifictions, enzymes, arghhh! Come on now, a simple yes, no, maybe about Klages. Do you use a protein rest? Thanks Tim Sechler Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:06:49 -0600 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Refined Sugar and Belgian Trippels. All Korzonas disputes my brewing prowess thusly : > Russel writes, quoting Richard: > >> - AVOID adding large amounts of corn sugar to the recipe. > > >I'd say avoid adding -any- at all, except to prime the bottles for > >carbonation. > > Well, I disagree. Actually, Richard's comment was either to a new brewer seeking first-batch advice or to someone who was looking to brew an ale light in color but with decent flavor. On that, I'm certain you'd agree. > ...a beer like Duvel...Tripels and Dubbels... I think, in general, not adding any is a good rule, just like, in general, avoiding tannin extraction from the mash is a good rule. For any rule, there is an exception. For beer rules, that exception is usually from Belgium. (eg. don't let wild yeast and bacteria infect your beer, use fresh hops, don't boil longer than 6 or 7 hours, don't ferment above 80 F. There are more.) If you're looking to brew a specific style, then there will be times to change your usual procedures. However, for most styles, several general rules will get you a long way. If you make a half-decent Pale Ale (or Bock or Stout or Weizen or most any style), and then toss in a pound or two of corn sugar, you'll be making mediocre Pale Ale (etc), not "a cross between a Pale Ale and a Belgian Trippel". > The problem is when > you use 4 pounds of sugar and 3.3 pounds of malt extract -- that will make > sorry-tasting beer! That's precisely what I'm trying to avoid here. Even 1 lb of sugar and 3.3 lb of extract will be worse than just the 3.3 lbs alone, if you're doing a relatively normal style. So, unless you're pretty sure what you're doing, don't add purified sugar to your beer, if you want good-tasting beer. I know a lot of people here have been brewing for a long time and are looking for very in-depth information about advanced techniques and esoteric styles. But, I think a large proportion of the readers want basic advice for brewing their first few batches. If you are in this category - don't add corn sugar to your beer, ever, except to prime the bottles. If you're not, you already KNOW not to listen to what just one poster on HBD says about anything anyway. -Russell Mast copyright 1996 Al Korzonas Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 14:15:17 PST From: Rob Emenecker <remenecker at cadmus.com> Subject: false bottom questions Hello all! This past Saturday I did my first all-grain brew. All-in-all I was quite pleased with the process. There was one area, however, that proved to be rather frustrating. For a lauter tun I am using 5-gallon food grade buckets with a false bottom (ala Phil). The damn thang keep raising up on me as I was adding foundation water. Even upon laddling the mash into my tun it was still "bobbing" up from the bottom. As a result I had to recirculate nearly TWO GALLONS OF WORT. No, that is not a typo. Husk and grain particles would routinely flow into the drain hose and lodge themselves behind the hose clamp. To free them, I would have to open the clamp all of the way. This "lodge and open" process was repeated 8 or 9 times before I was confident that no more draff materials would lodge in the drain hose. ANY SUGGESTIONS?!?!?!!?!? - --Rob **************************************************************************** | (remenecker at cadmus.com) | (RobEmnckr at aol.com) | | Cadmus Journal Services, Inc. | Brewery Manager, Standing Rock Brewery | | Linthicum, Maryland 21090 | Proud Purveyors of "Hairy Dog Homebrew"! | | 410-691-6454 / 684-2793 (fax) | (410) 859-9169 (voice only) | **************************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Mar 96 14:31:27 EDT From: Ted Sadler/VENTANA <Ted_Sadler/VENTANA.ITP at lgate.vmedia.com> Subject: RE: Filtering and yeast size I have no idea how big (or small since we're in the micron range) yeast is but I have friend who is doing graduate work on " the molecular basis of inositol transport and production in brewer's/baker's yeast " so I asked her. Here's her response: I don't have the ref at hand, so I can't quote you a page number. However, I know from microscopy that I've been doing that haploid yeast (one copy of genome) are 4-6 microns and diploid yeast (2 copies of genome) are about 8-10 microns. Depending on the strains, maybe if you have some wierd copy of certain genes, haploids can get to be weird huge ballons of >10 microns. This is unusual. A diploid yeast has the ability to form spores if put in adverse conditions. The individual spores may be smaller than 6 microns, but I'm not sure. If anyone wants to get _really_ serious about yeast, try the Saccharomyces Genome Database at: http://genome-www.stanford.edu/Saccharomyces/ My favorite quote from one of the links off this page, "Hey, this stuff makes bread and beer! Why work with anything else?" TFTB, TS Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:16:08 -0500 From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: Easy All-Grain A recent thread debates the merits of all-grain brewing versus the extra equipment and difficulty. Before I built my Electric Brewery, I made several all-grain batches using the "concentrated-wort" approach, in my kitchen, on the stovetop. In this approach, I made three gallons of concentrated wort, so after I collect the wort it's just like extract brewing. The only extra equipment this required was a mash/lauter tun and another stockpot for sparge water. I made the mash/lauter tun from a 5-gallon beverage cooler (Coleman Drinking Water 5 -- about $15 on sale). I made a lautering manifold from copper pipe as follows. Take a length of 1/2" copper pipe (not refigerator tubing) and cut six pieces 2-3/8" and two pieces 5-1/2". Also get four elbows, 3 tees, and a 45-degree fitting. Soak in hot soapy water for an hour; scrub clean, rinse well, dry. Assemble (press-fit) as shown: _ _ | ---------------- | (Elbows) | | | | | | | | | | | |_ _| | | _------------_ | (Tees) | | | | | | | | | | | | _____ | | |_------_ _-----_| |_| | | (45-deg fitting) |_|/ With a hand drill or drill press, drill 3/32" diameter holes along the tubing every 1/4". Drill all the way through the tubing. Disassemble. Using a piece of dowel or other similar tool, "scrape off" burrs from the inside of the tubing segments, and file off any on the outside as well. Remove the spigot from the cooler and replace with a 1/2" female pipe inlet by 3/8" compression outlet plastic "angle stop valve" (about $5 at Builder's Square). To mount the valve you'll need to install a 5/8" compression by 1/2" male pipe thread brass fitting adapter and a 3/4" ID rubber washer from the inside; screw the valve onto the 1/2" threads from the outside (you'll have to enlarge the hole in the outer shell slightly). Don't overtighten; use pipe thread tape. Discard the 5/8" compression nut and sleeve. The lauter manifold attaches to the fitting with a short length of 5/8" OD x 1/2" ID vinyl tubing. The tubing will fit inside both the manifold and the brass fitting. It's a loose fit but is adequate to prevent grain form getting through. Adjust the tee and 45-deg fitting near the valve so that the 45-deg fitting sits in the "well". Everything should line up nicely. Lay a piece of 8 holes per inch nylon needlepoint mesh over the assembly. The mesh is cut to the size of the inside of the cooler. It protects the manifold while stirring in the strike water, and provides a more even "false bottom" effect. Fill the mash tun with water and check for a leaky fitting. For a sparge distributor, I ran two 1/4" dowels parallel through a 1.4-qt Rubbermaid plastic storage bowl, so the bowl is suspended over the grain with the dowels straddling the cooler rim. I drilled several 1/8" holes around the edge of the bottom: ======|=======|======= | | \-------/ To make the wort to the correct gravity, I assume a *65% efficiency* in recipe formulation. This gives me the high-gravity wort needed for small-volume boiling. I sparge only the first three gallons of wort; when I add enough water to make a five gallon batch after brewing, the gravity is about right. Only once did I fall significantly short; I added 1/2 lb pale extract to the boil make up the difference. Once 3 gallons is sparged, take a sample, cool, and measure the gravity. Ideally it should be 5/3 times the recipe gravity. So if you want a 1.045 batch, your wort needs to be 5/3 times 45 or 1.075. Place the crushed grain in the cooler over the mesh and manifold. Add hot water to obtain the correct mash thickness and temperature. At 1.3 quarts per pound (single-infusion), I assume a 17-degree drop in temperature once everything settles. Check the pH with test strips; if it's above 5.5 add a little gypsum; if it's below 5.0, add a little chalk. A little means a little; 1/4 to 1/2 tsp at a time for starters. Don't go much over 1 tsp of either. As long as your water isn't very soft, you shouldn't have to do much adjustment at all. Stir well; lock the cover on. Allow 45-60 minutes to convert. You can do a starch test but most of today's base pale malt converts quickly; all my mashes have been complete in this period. During this time heat up 4 gallons of water to 170 - 175 degrees in your spare stockpot. After conversion: unlock & remove the cooler lid. Attach a length of "supply feed" tube to the valve (available where you buy the valve). It should be long enough to reach about 1/2" from the bottom of your kettle. Open the valve about 1/3 of the way; collect about a quart of wort. Shut off the valve and dump this wort carefully back into the mash tun. Repeat several times until the wort is relatively clear and free of "chunks". Then allow the wort to keep running into the kettle (valve still 1/3 open -- it'll be slow!). Add your "first-wort" hops now! Place the bowl over the cooler, and add hot water to the bowl as needed to keep 1/2" or so of water on top of the grain as the wort drains. I use a small plastic pitcher to carefully scoop hot water from the pot, and pour it into the bowl. When you've collected 3 gallons, shut off the valve, and continue as if it's an extract brew session. If the bug bites you, you can still use this mash/lauter tun in a more elaborate full-volume all-grain setup. I'm still using this mash/lauter tun in the Electric Brewery; I get about 80-85% extraction. Ken Schwartz KennyEddy at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:50:46 EST From: pbabcock.ford at e-mail.com Subject: A New Glad Plaid Clad Lad... Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock.ford at e-mail.com Bronco Plant Vehicle Team - Body Construction Assembly Engineer Subject: A New Glad Plaid Clad Lad... Greetings Beerlings! Take me to your lager... In an effort to validate the veracity of previous revelations relating to "Plaid-tosis", as so aptly named, I have dressed a fermenter in plaid boxers, plaid shirt, tuke, and corduroys. Fermentation immediately ceased; however, the fermenter has been slowly moving across the basement floor in the general direction of the stairs. It would appear that it is also growing a beard. I have opted to allow this activity to continue in the interests of science; however, just to be safe, I have mounted a closed circuit TV camera and have barricaded the basement door against this phenomena. Unfortunately, our laundry room is also in the basement... I will report back to the digest to relate any further developments with both the fermenter and the putrifying pile of laundry. Pat Babcock pbabcock at oeonline.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:34:18 -0600 (CST) From: fitz at fasicsv.fnal.gov (Tom Fitzpatrick) Subject: Re:Filtering, cont. I wrote: <I also would like <to point out that filtering at the 3-5 micron level produces clear <but not brilliant beer. There is no comparison in clarity between a < .5 micron filtered and a 5 micron filtered beer. Jim answers: >This is true in some cases. This is where you have to differentiate >between haze and yeast turbidity. Haze can be reduced through different >methods than filtration, and the success of this will vary with the >brewhouse, raw materials and fermentation methods. This is an area >where trub formation and removal is essential. My preference is to >remove yeast with a filter or by aging/cold conditioning and deal with >haze seperately. A point well taken. If I can use a more coarse filter and end up with similar results, this may be more desirable. That brings to mind another question. How does filtering affect biological stability? A polish filter (5 micron) definitely leaves some yeast in the finished product, which is desirable as yeast offers some biological stability. A finer filter (1 micron) might remove all the yeast, but leave some bacteria behind, free to do their dirty work. Sterile filtering (.22 micron) would presumably produce a stable product. I ask this question with the experience of having some filtered beers turn buttery and/or sour after sitting in the keg for extended periods (> 2 months). I know, the solution is to drink up! Jim writes on p. 26 of Jan/Feb '96 BT: "Although filtration can do an adequate job of removing much or the perm- anent haze, it can remove little of the chill haze." I assume you're talking about 3-5 micron levels here? I don't get any chill haze when filtering to .5 microns. Jim: >Thats why Im a fan of the ~$5 disposable versions sold by Crystal Clear. >The price per use is higher than the reusable ones but the ease of use >and numerous pore sizes available are attractive. It is also more cost >effective as your brewlength increases. If Im filtering 1 BBL of beer >through a $5 filter and spending no time cleaning, then Im ahead of >the game over a $35 filter that will take me 30 minutes each time I >have to use it to clean (not to mention that you could never push >1 BBl of beer through a .5 or 1 micron resuable cart without backflushing). But for most homebrewers, $5 to filter 5 or even 10 gallons is *very* expensive. I use a 20" filter cartridge setup (as compared to the common 10" variety) and can filter 10 gallons without any backflushing. I don't know about 31 gallons, though! The 20" setup is a bit more expensive initially (cartridges ~ $54), but mine are still going strong after more than 100 gallons. Jim writes on p. 27 of BT: "Filters must be sanitized before use." and after sanitizing ... "reassemble the parts and backflush the filter with hot water, forcing the water in through the BEER OUT side." What do you use for sanitizing? I store mine in a light sodium hydroxide solution and sanitize with a light bleach solution. I'm reluctant to use iodophor for fear of staining my nice, bright white cartridge. Some caution should be taken when backflushing a pleated cartridge. If you hook it up to your water supply and crank up the hot water, you run the risk of collapsing your filter, rendering it useless. This can also be done while filtering. If the beer flow through your cartridge slows to a trickle, the temptation is to keep dialing up the pressure. Above 20 psi differential across the filter is very risky. I have to admit my first 10" 1 micron cartridge collapsed at about 30psi during a particularly frustrating filtering session. Of course, I hadn't cold conditioned the beer and it was very cloudy ... an early learning experience. Al K. writes: >You also have to consider the pressure at which you are forcing the >beer through the filter. If you use too much pressure, you will push >yeast through a filter with a pore size smaller than a yeast cell. Ed >Busch, at the AHA Nationals a few years ago, talked about filtering and >used a plastic bag partially filled with water as an example of a yeast >cell. You can imagine how a bag partially filled plastic bag of water >could fit through a hole much smaller than the actual bag dimensions, no? >What I'm saying here is that if you force the beer through the filter >at high pressure, you can push through yeast, protein, etc. making your >0.5 micron filter act more like a 3 micron filter. I'm not saying that >this is what you're doing, Tom, but just bringing this up as a related >point. It would explain why you don't get significant body loss from >filtering at 0.5 microns. I use a differential pressure of 3-5 psi; the "sending" keg is hooked up at about 18psi and the "receiving" keg is held fairly constant at 13-15psi by using a needle valve and pressure gauge on the GAS IN side. I doubt that this theory applies in this case. Also, it seems more likely that filtering at high pressure would just damage the filter, possibly creating "holes" in the filter larger than the rated size. Also, I make sure to initially pressurize the filter "gently" at about 3-5 psi without the receiving keg attached. If you slam the 18psi beer into the filter, you run the risk of "blinding" it with a big slug of yeast from your sending keg. For this reason, I have a set of "secondary" kegs with about 1/2" cut off the down tube. Even if you don't filter this idea is nice since it leaves the sediment on the bottom. Only a half-pint or so is lost. Tom Fitzpatrick Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:26:41 -0600 From: Wallinger <wawa at datasync.com> Subject: all grain jeremy asks about all grain brewing. i thought i'd relate my experience... i now know what the 'relax, don't worry, have a homebrew' refers to - all grain brewing! i too was intimidated by all the information, but it is almost as easy as extract. you can get as detailed as you want, but you don't have to. for example, i never worry about ph. i bought two 10 gal gott coolers for about $30 each - one for the sparge water and one for the grain. i designed the guts for the lauter tun from commercially (kmart and local hardware store) available equipment for about $30. my wife then bought me a 15 gal pot and a cajun cooker to brew outside, and it has been a very nice change. That setup will run you $150. BUT, don't despair. you can try all grain by finding a two food-grade plastic buckets, drill a ton of holes in the bottom of one and slip it into the other. drill a hole just big enough in the side of the bottom (outer) bucket for a piece of tubing to fit snuggly in. for less than $10 you're in business. this is how i did my first one. i was sold on the process and decided to upgrade the equipment, but that is by no means necessary. wade wallinger pascagoula, mississippi Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 17:36:27 EST From: "Rick Creighton" <rcreighton at smtpinet.aspensys.com> Subject: Hops Toxicity in Dogs To all my home-brewing friends out there, I have this VERY important bulletin. In this month's BarleyCorn (March '96, p4), there is a letter to the "Beer Geek" about hops toxicity in domesticated animals, especially dogs. It seems that hops (even hops that have been thoroughly boiled and sparged) contain some chemicals that are extremely toxic to dogs and sometimes cats. The reaction is called "malignant hyperthermia", which is an uncontrollable fever, and can be terminal in just a few hours after injesting the hops. Treatment is almost never effective, since vets still aren't sure what causes this. So if you use hops in your brews, and have pets (or neighbors with pets) you should dispose of your hops in a way that will make them inaccessable to your pets. This can apparently effect cats, horses and some other domestic animals too. Please spread this around to anyone you know who brews. The dog you save could be your own... +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Richard A. Creighton | e:mail: rcreighton at aspensys.com | | Member, HTML Writer's Guild | WWW: http://www.his.com/~emerald7 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:22:07 -0800 From: jmitche at ix.netcom.com (Jim Mitchell) Subject: Non-alcohol Heresy?? I'm new to this list and have truly enjoyed the exchange - knowledgible and humorous. Years ago, I produced some good extract homebrews but divorce, lack of space, et al, drew that chapter to a close. Now I'm interested in producing a good non-alcohol homebrew. The guys on CI$ weren't much help. Talked in vague generalities, referred to hifh-tech methods, etc. The US offerings are dreadful - tastes boiled. Some of the European recipies, are quite good. Can anyone help? Thanks! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 16:12:18 EST From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: Re: 10 gallon recipes Hi All, In HBD#1995, Paul Lambie writes: >I've been brewing 5 gallon all-grain recipes and plan to try a 10 gallon >batch this weekend. Jim Dipalma recently wrote that scaling up from >5 to 10 gallons is not linear particularly with regard to darker specialty >malts and recommended multiplying by a factor of 1.5 for these grains. >Hop utilization also changes with batch size - is there a significant >difference in utilization between 5 and 10 gallons so that adjustments >in hops need to be made? Any other suggestions for increasing my batch >size to 10 gallons? Any experiences or references would be appreciated. A couple of people have asked about this, so I thought I would relate my experiences scaling up from 5 to 10 gallon batches. I started with the obvious approach of doubling all the ingredients in my 5 gallon recipes, base malt, specialty malts, hops, everything. For the first batch, I brewed a simple English-style pale ale. My 5 gallon recipe called for 9# of pale malt, 0.5# 60L crystal. Doubling to 18# pale and 1# crystal, I overshot the target gravity by about 6 points. When I ran the extraction numbers, I found that I got over 33 pts/#/gal. My usual extraction for a single infusion mash is ~31.5 pts/#/gal. While I was surprised at this at first, over the past 1.5 - 2 years and 30-odd 10 gallon batches, the increase in extraction has been consistent. The height of the grainbed is just about double, and since I sparge at the same rate, the sparge takes twice as long. If I had to guess at the cause, it would be one of those two things. What I do now is double the base malt, then subtract 1-2 pounds, and pretty much hit the target gravity. YMMV. Regarding hop utilization, anyone who's followed the threads on HBD on this topic knows that hop utilization is a very difficult thing to nail down. There are simply too many factors that impact hop utilization (water chemistry, yeast strain, kettle geometry, vigor of the boil, etc, etc) that vary from one homebrewery to the next. Theoretically, boiling a larger volume of wort should increase utilization. However, I simply doubled the amount of hops used, and that worked, I haven't had any under or over-hopped batches. With regards to scaling up the darker specialty malts, chocolate, roasted barley, etc., this is one aspect of brewing 10 gallon batches where simply doubling the amount used in 5 gallon batches *won't* get you in the ballpark. The first 10 gallon batch of porter I brewed, I doubled the dark roasted malts, and the beer came out very dark, very dry, very roasty, more like a dry stout than a porter. This past fall, I brewed my first 10 gallon batch of dry stout. I use 1# of roasted barley in 5 gallons of dry stout. Since I already knew that doubling the amount to 2# would be overkill, I used 1.5# instead, and the beer still came out *very* sharp, roasty. A few people who tasted it a club meeting asked me if I'd put coffee in it!! I don't know why these malts don't scale up in a linear fashion, but it's happened consistently, I'm still tweaking my porter, stout, and brown ale recipes. I should mention that I add dark malts at mashout, I don't mash them. Again, if you mash your dark malts, YMMV. The best general advice I can give to those in the process of scaling up to 10 gallon batches is to keep careful notes, especially as regards the hop additions, and be prepared to do some tweaking. Cheers, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:18:52 -0600 From: Dave Corio <dcorio at inav.net> Subject: Easy way out First, many thanks for all the response & help with bottle washing! Now for the REAL stupid question! Got lazy & tried the easy brew method (basically "instant beer") and was quite surprised. I ran off a batch of "John Bull Premium" and it really tastes "funny". It's not the hoppy flavor I encountered on my first tries at "real" beer (especially that first batch that I forgot to strain) but more like a sour/bitter "funny" taste. My question is has anyone brewed this brand before & what were the results? (yes, I know I should do it the proper way) I followed directions completely, and cleanliness has never been a problem. I now have a second batch of the same brand (different type of beer) in the fermenter, and the odor coming out of the airlock has the same sour-type smell to it. Anyone have any experience with John Bull, and is this just the way their beer tastes? Thanks in advance. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 20:45:48 -0700 From: Eric Miller <emiller at mail.bbsnet.com> Subject: Real Beer >From Newsweek's "Perspectives" section: >"Now bring me a real beer." Montana rancher Robert Mead Jr., who allegedly >took two men hostage inside a bar and fatally shot a policeman after >complaining loudly about the quality of his beverage. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 10:27:31 EST From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: Re: Munich Helles Stinks Hi All, In HBD#1995, Barry Blakeley asks: > I recently brewed a Munich Helles (or as close as I can get using >extracts), and I noticed a rotten odor coming through the airlock. I >used 6.3lb extract, some steeping grains and Wyeast 2308 Munich Lager. >It fermented at 60-75'F. The fermentation temperature is the problem. 2308 is notoriously temperature sensitive. Pitch it above 50F, and it throws a ton of diacetyl. Ferment it above 50F, and it produces a lot of esters. I've had some success with this yeast, pitching and fermenting at ~46F. Regarding the rotten odor, this yeast does produce a fair amount of hydrogen sulfide (smells like rotten eggs) early in primary fermentation, even when pitched and fermented at the right temperature. This odor does fade after some lagering. If you don't have lagering facilities that provide precise temperature control, i.e., dedicated fridge and external controller, you should probably stay away from the 2308 yeast. The Wyeast 2112 California Common and the 2007 Pilsner yeast will give you pretty good results with temperatures as high as the low 60sF. I don't know of any lager yeast that won't have problems at 75F, though. Cheers, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:51:13 EST From: "Stephen Palmer" <uscgsynd at ibmmail.com> Subject: Heineken Special Dark Recipe Request I'm going to brew a batch of beer for a friend, and his prefered bread is Heineken Special Dark. Does anyone out there have a recipie that would approximate this? Private E-Mail is fine... Stephen L. Palmer uscgsynd at ibmmail.com - Columbia Gulf, Houston TX elrond at helix.xiii.com - Home Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:01:16 -0600 From: lheavner at tcmail.frco.com Subject: bottle labels Greetings, I want to make a label for a bottle of bitter I plan to give to a friend for his 40th B'day. I've never bothered to make labels before. I have a good color printer and a pentium pc and a wife who already makes mailing labels and stuff. I guess what I am looking for is: 1) recommended freeware for making bottle labels 2) creative ideas for an "Old Fart Ale" label or something with an over the hill theme. 3) nice color artwork Private email responses are probably most appropriate. TIA Lou Heavner <lheavner at frmail.frco.com> Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:40:19 -0500 From: mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff) Subject: RE:> more on DMS and yeast/ first wort hopping In HBD #1996 Andy Walsh says: <snip> >There were actually *two* articles in that Brauwelt on FWH. The other was on >when to add your hops to your lagers for best results ("How the chemical >characteristics of Tettnanger hops change during beer brewing" M. Mitter). >Whirlpool hopping was a definite no-no (similar to soak hopping). FWH won >narrowly from an addition 15 minutes before end of boil. "The result would give >rise to the conclusion that a certain boiling time is important at least for >some hop oil components so that they might oxidise or be expelled completely". >(Dry hopping was not covered in this analysis). <snip> The statement "Whirlpool hopping was a definite no-no (similar to soak hopping)" has me somewhat concerned since I typically add my aroma hops between the end of the boil and the start of chilling (with an immersion chiller). Is this practice generally frowned upon or only when brewing lagers? Anyone have any comments on the pros and cons of this type of hop addition for brewing ales? Private email is OK, and I'll post a summary. Hoppy brewing, Jeff ============================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 841-7210 x152 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 841-7250 Launcher Technology & Analysis Branch email: mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Naval Undersea Warfare Center Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2 Newport, RI 02841-1708 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:14:22 +0100 From: gpotts at tube.com (Greg Potts) Subject: plaid-tosis cure may be worse than disease! >On 19 March, Daniel Goodale, "Sure its gonna kill ya, but who wants >to live forever?" of "The Biohazard Brewing Company" wrote: > >>My old plaid boxer shorts are causing "plaid-tosis" in my yeast... >>can [they be revived] by burning the shorts in front of the carboy? > >Here's a question back at you Daniel - could it hurt? Well, not as long as he remembers to take them off first! gpotts at tube.com 100 Mhz Power Computing 1Gb/16MB/4xCD Why do we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:18:17 -0500 From: Jerry Cunningham <gcunning at Census.GOV> Subject: translucent floaties/re:all-grain/convince me Last night I went to try my India Pale Ale, and I noticed little translucent floatie things in _all_ of my bottles. I've never seen this before in ~3 years of brewing. They are very small, maybe a square millimeter or so, more at the bottom of the bottle than the top. They're kinda shaped like flakes, it almost looks like cold-break. This beer was clear two weeks ago when I bottled it, from what I remember. Can anybody give me a clue as what this is? The beer _tasted_ great (to me), just looks kinda funky with that stuff floating around in it (although, when I cooled the beer the chill haze made it hard to see the floaties!). The beer is all-grain - 12 lbs. pale, 1 lb. Munich, .5 lb. Carapils, .5 lb. 44 crystal; single infusion at 155F; hopped to ~55-60 IBU's; 2nd generation 1056; fermented ~65F, OG 1072 FG 1016; dry-hopped (though I'm pretty sure the floaties aren't hops). Thanks for any clues! (Don't worry Russell, I'm not gonna dump it - I'm still gagging down a Belgian double I made 1.5 years ago, less than six to go!). ====================== re: grain/convince me Not that anyone will take advice from me after reading the first part of my post, but... You can make great beers from extract. Period. But - it's like a chef that makes fantastic dishes from only one chapter of a cook book. When you go all-grain you get all the other chapters. - Jerry ps This just in: Miller Brewing Co. is offering 1 FREE pound of Hop Hearts, get your applications in now!! Return to table of contents