HOMEBREW Digest #2295 Tuesday, December 24 1996

Digest #2294 Digest #2296
		(formerly Volume 02 : Number 015)


To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe <your email address>" in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

  Corona vs. Roller/SG and suspensions
  Dry hopping
  Small beer
  HBD still broken/Questions...
  Thermal pot expansion
  ASBC for air in bottle
  trub removal
  Beginner Mead, Lambic comment
  Re: Perforated Stainless Steel Plate Sources
  Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #8
  Re: weight/volume %
  Mills revisited
  Re:HB Newbie Seeks Help
  Re: Expansive Pots again, a Cornie mystery
  Latest Update from Formerly Depressed Brewer
  Partial mash eff.
  Mead / Malt Mills

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:22:11 -0600 From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com> Subject: Corona vs. Roller/SG and suspensions Bill writes: >Al complains about the cranking of the Phil's Mill. When you use an 1/2" >electric drill cranking is a breeze. Hope that breeze is at your back because otherwise you'll be covered head-to-toe in grain dust. >Many of the faults that have been attributed to the Corona mill are not >the mills fault but rather the lack of skill to process the crushed malt. > >Al how did you evaluate the mills by here say and lack of good procedure? I evaluated the mills by visually inspecting the crushed malt and by brewing with said malt. The word is "heresay" and means "rumour." I would say that my evaluation, which was based upon my own personal experience would he the exact opposite of heresay. Screen tests are great if and *only* if you are sure that what's going through the screens is milled endosperm and not pulverised husk. Since you can't, I would say your evaluation lacks good procedure. I contend that the method by which the Corona crushes the malt (a radially striated plate, rubbing up against another plate at a small angle) is fundamentally flawed. In a rollermill the distance between the two rollers (or roller and plate) is, for the most part, within a few hundreth's of an inch. In the Corona, two factors are fighting with each other. To prevent overcrushing, the mill must be set so that the narrowest gap is not too small. Simultaneously, you need the widest gap to be narrow enough to not allow uncrushed malt to pass. In my experience, one or the other factor must be sacrificed. Furthermore, the crushing is an angle and causes a twist in each kernel as opposed to a linear crushing path in the roller mills. This only contributes to the splintering of the husks. So what... so some of the husks are splintered? It's a pretty big factor in tannin and silicate extraction, that's what. The more the husks are splintered (even if they are retained by a screen, incidentally) the more exposed surface area from which to extract undesirable compounds from the malt. Go back and read what Charlie Scandrett wrote on this subject (search for silicates). Apparently you missed it when it was in HBD. Meanwhile, use the Corona for what it was made: making tortillas. *** Brian writes: >The effect you notice is probably due to temperature differences from >the initital measurement and the settled measurement as the hydrometer, >hydrometer jar and beer/wort all reach temperature equilibrium with the >room. Brian... I assure you I am perfectly capable of taking SG measurements and compensating for temperature. The SG of the trub-laden wort was taken at 70F and then again a few hours later at 68F. There WAS a significant SG difference *after* compensating for the negligible temp difference. Put away your books and try a real-life test: not with table sugar, but real wort and real trub. To the person (sorry, lost the name) who contends that the OG offset from suspended trub is unimportant: yes, if you don't care what your real OG was. If you want to duplacate this recipe, calculate your extract efficiency, determine approximate alcohol in the finished beer, look for an expected apparent attenuation, or calculate your actual apparent attenuation, you need an accurate OG *not* including the suspended trub. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korzonas at lucent.com korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:32:13 -0600 From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com> Subject: Dry hopping George writes: Al K. writes that he dry hops in the primary. I want to ask two things about this: 1. Do you worry about infection? As has been recently pointed out, there are various wort loving microflora on the hops. They don't survive well in beer, but in unfermented wort, they could be quite happy. You are assuming I am adding them to the primary at the beginning of the fermentation. I am not. I wait for the fermentation to be almost over and then I dryhop. The Davis experiments (which I don't believe are recent, incidentally) indicate that even dryhops added early in the ferment are not as big a problem with infection as some might lead us to believe. 2. Do you find that the aroma survives the fermentation? The massive CO2 formation during the primary would scrub out most other volatiles. I guess that you are happy with the results you're getting, but I wonder if you could get the same effect with less dry hops if you put them in the secondary. Again, the hops are not there duing the main part of the fermentation. I will repeat what I have been saying about secondaries for quite some time: I don't feel they are necessary for ales. I only use them for lagers and fruit beers. I will ferment a normal-gravity (say, <1.060) ale for two weeks in the primary and then either add dryhops for a week or bottle/keg. Sometimes, I let them go six or eight or 16 weeks (oops), but with healthy yeast and good aeration/oxygenation, I don't experience any problems with autolysis. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korzonas at lucent.com korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:31:58 -0600 From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com> Subject: Small beer Mark writes: >recently the no sparge discussion has raised a question in my mind. the idea >that there exists something in the spargings that "counteracts" the maltiness >in the recirculated first wort makes me wonder about small beers made from >second runnings. since they don't have the benefit of having the superior >"maltiness" of the first recirculated wort, and all the bad things that >"counteract" malty flavors, these beers must be very devoid of malt flavor. Well, I made three beers from one mash once. The first two were from first and third runnings and the third was from second runnings. Got that? I made an American Brown Ale and English Brown Ale from the first and third runnings of a mash (two boils, different hops, different IBUs, different yeast, ABA was dryhopped). The second runnings made a Dark Mild. I entered them all in the 1995 AHA Nationals. None of these three beers made it to the second round. However, when the 1996 AHA Nationals came around, I found that I still had six bottles of the Dark Mild left. Just for laughs, I entered it and it made it to the second round! Now, mind you, it was a third place in the 1st round, but after *18 months in the bottle*, this *1.035* Mild (which won 1st in the 1995 Small and Tiny competition too, incidentally) it was still good enough to make it to the second round of the Nationals. I would say that it was not an inferior beer, "devoid of malt flavour," despite the low OG. Just a datapoint. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korzonas at lucent.com korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:01:05 -0600 From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com> Subject: HBD still broken/Questions... Guess what... the HBD is still broken... it is still losing posts. I posted the following last Wednesday and never saw it. I checked the archives and it wasn't in any of them. I'm posting it again, but I'm also Cc'ing root at aob.org so they would be aware of this since I don't think they read the HBD. I've been reading Wheeler's "Home Brewing - A CAMRA Guide" and I've run across a few questionable statements. I'd like to bounce these statements off the chemists and biologists among the membership and get your comments. Here they are: "Most brewers' yeasts also require some hop products to be present in the wort for normal behaviour to occur." This is new to me. I have made literally hundreds of starters, have never hopped them and they appear to behave just as the yeast does in the hopped wort. Has anyone read this elsewhere? Could you post references? "When transferring beer into barrels or bottles it is important that precautions are taken to ensure that a minimum of air gets into solution [oxygen actually, nitrogen is all but insoluble]... ... if the yeast finds a plentiful supply of air [sic] it will revert to aerobic respiration [sic] and begin to multiply significantly. Not only will this produce an excessive quantity of yeast in the beer, but when the air is used up the yeast will try to adapt to anaerobic respiration [sic] again, but it may find a lack of nutrients on which to work and become stuck in a transitionary phase. Under these conditions the yeast will remain in suspension and could take a long time to clear down properly." I agree that introduction of oxygen after fermentation can be problematic, but this is the first I've read of this alleged phenomenon. Firstly, "aerobic respiration" is a bit redundant and "anaerobic respiration" is an oxymoron, no? Initially, I had thought that the Crabtree effect would prevent respiration, but then recall that this is at the *end* of fermentation and indeed, the level of sugar in the beer will be low enough to where the Crabtree effect would not be active. But what about this lack of nutrients causing the yeast to be "stuck in a transitionary phase." What's this? Ever heard of it? Tracy? Dan? "The presence of calcium sulphate reduces the solubility of undesirable carbonates." Is this right? I thought the solubility of carbonates was a function of pH and that was it. It is true that you can only precipitate calcium carbonate if you have enough calcium available, but you need to still boil-off the CO2 to lower the pH and it's this pH drop, not the gypsum, that causes the calcium carbonate to come out of solution. Comments? "The addition of acids to the water, such as citric acid or lactic acid, will also cause the precipitation of carbonates." Whoa! I was under the impression that it was the acidity of CO2-saturated rainwater that actually caused the dissolution of chalk and the introduction of carbonates/bicarbonates into ground water. Isn't it exactly the opposite of what Wheeler writes? Doesn't the addition of acid *increase* CO3 solubility? "Calcium sulphate is difficult to get into solution in the boiler, whereas the problem doesn't exist if it is mixed into the mash." I thought it really didn't matter... I thought that as long as you are not close to the solubility limit of the calcium sulphate, it will readily go into solution, no? "Calcium sulphate is alkaline and actually incrases the pH of the water to which it is added, but... reduces the pH of the resulting mash..." Yes, I agree that it is the reaction of the calcium with the phosphates in the mash that lowers the pH, but is calcium sulphate actually alkaline itself? I thought it was virtually neutral, no? "Dextrins are mostly non-fermentable, but also contain some very slowly fermentable sugars." and "Yeast continues to attack dextrins for many months, even years, and are therefore regarded as slowly fermenting sugars." Is this right? I was under the impression that "dextrins" were unfermentable by our cultured brewers' yeasts. S. diastaticus, perhaps, but this is not a desirable yeast in the average brewery. Could this just be a question of nomenclature? Could Wheeler have meant "oligosaccarides" when he wrote "dextrins?" "High mash temperatures favour the extraction of high molecular weight nitrogenous compounds..." Are polyphenols nitrogenous? It sounds like proteins to me... I don't think that's right. I believe that either the proteins will be soluble or it won't and that increasing the mash temperature will only increase polyphenol and silicate (and, of course, unconverted starch) extraction, no? Well, that's about as far as I've gotten in my reading, but there are quite a few statements that either don't sound quite right or are opposite of what I've read elsewhere. If the chemists and biologists and perhaps hydrocarbon taxnomists could clarify, I would be most grateful. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korzonas at lucent.com korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:22:29 -0800 From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com> Subject: Thermal pot expansion Jim Bentson wrote: > With regard to the pot expansion question both responses have errors in > them. John Palmer approximated the cylindrical pot as a cube and assumed > expansion in all directions. > In addition he used the actual pot temperature of 150 deg F rather than the > change in temperature (150 - room temp). Kelly also calculated the expansion > incorrectly. > > When a pot is heated it is free to expand only in the vertical direction. > The material > in the circumferential direction is not free and does not expand any > appreciable amount. Surely we are discussing angels and pinheads here, as we have all agreed that the effect of the expansion is negligible. However, I'm not sure what you mean when you say the material is 'not free'. We have not clamped the pot in a vise, as you did in your example. The material will most certainly expand in every direction. (Have you ever seen the classic experiment where a steel ball in a steel ring is heated, and the ball drips through the ring? The ring, being of lesser mass, heats and expands faster, opening up enough to allow the ball to drop.) A container (or solid) of any shape or size will expand in all directions as the material is heated and expands. Happy Holidays to you all, Kelly Hillsboro, OR Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:15:19 -0800 (PST) From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson at beta.tricity.wsu.edu> Subject: ASBC for air in bottle Can someone send me information on how "air" is measured in bottled beer? Also, I'm interested in the "official" conversion from "ml per bottle" or ml/l to mg/l or ppm. Is it ppm of "air" or O2? I can't tell until I know what the standard is. Private email is probably best. Kyle Cirque Brewery Prosser, WA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:05:38 -0800 From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com> Subject: trub removal In an effort to unnecessarily complicate my brewing process (I've heard people call this "fine tuning"!), I decided to rack my wort off the cold break that settled out in the primary fermenter. I referenced Dave Miller's Continental Pilsener (Classic Beer Style Series #2) where he recommends "Rack the wort off the cold trub, either before or 8-12 hours after pitching." I racked 9 hours after pitching slurry from a 1 gallon starter. A nice 2" layer of trub formed at the bottom of the primary. Fermentation was just beginning to start. Perfect, I thought...the yeast is in full suspension and the trub is still settled on the bottom!. After I racked the wort it just sat there for an additional 16 hours before anything resembling fermentation began again. That's 24 hours from pitching to the first signs of fermentation - that's a long time even for a lager! I have surmised, from my limited observation of how yeast behaves in starters, that I racked the beer off the trub as well as most of the yeast! I could have waited to pitch the yeast until after I racked off the cold break, but I thought the yeast could do its infection fighting business while the break was settling out - the best of both worlds! Flawed logic? Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com> Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery Grangeville, Idaho Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:34:31 +0000 From: Mike Kidulich <mjkid at ix13.ix.netcom.com> Subject: Beginner Mead, Lambic comment >I began with ten pounds of honey from a local Apiary and added the >obligatory yeast energizer, acids, salts, and champagne yeast, along >with some cloves, allspice, and ground mace. The mixture was allowed to >rest for 13 days, then transferred to a second carbuoy and allowed to >rest for ten more. (If anyone has a comment at this point, please do >not hesitate to add). 10 pounds of honey for 5 gallons of mead is a bit on the light side. You may find it excessively dry, due to the champagne yeasts appetite for sugar and high alcohol tolerance. Take a hydrometer reading, you should have somwhere in the 0.998 to 0.995 range, if its really finished. If it seems too dry, add some honey to it (about 1 lb dissolved in a bit of water and cooled). Allow it to ferment out, and keep this up until it it tastes likr you want it to. If you want a sweet mead, you need a very high OG (in the 1.130 range). Also, wine yeast would be a better choice for a sweeter mead. If it has stopped bubbling, and has fallen clear, its ready to bottle. When the mead falls clear, you will know. It will look like wine, crystal clear. Only then should you bottle, lest you have grenades. >>From: "Alexander S. MacGillivray RN" <alex at wooddimensions.com> >>Subject: Lambic yeash blend >>I'm going to be brewing by first batch of lambic and I picked >>up some Wyeast 3278 Belgian lambic blend. My question is, should I use >>the Wyeast in the primary fermentation or should I be using it in the >>secondary using some dry yeast in the primary. ***** >From: Jim Liddil <jliddilk at azcc.arizona.edu> >I wouldn't use it at all. Jim, While I admire your efficient use of bandwidth, your reply seems somehow lacking in relevant information. If you have useful information, (which I know you do), please feel free to contribute. Replies like the above are a waste of our time. Mike Kidulich mjkid at ix.netcom.com mjk at rfc.comm.harris.com DNRC Minister of Home Brewing, Relaxation, and Really Cool Toys Holder of Previous Knowledge O- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:12:13 -0500 From: BernardCh at aol.com Subject: Re: Perforated Stainless Steel Plate Sources Steve McKeeby asks about a soure of perforated SS plate for his 3 tier brewing system. >Can anyone offer any >suggestions as to sources for stainless perf. plate? Are >there any suggestions pertaining to options that I have >for false bottoms? Steve, find a local sheetmetal contractor in your area. You know the guys that do HVAC and stuff for industry. Most of those shops also do restaurant work (sinks, hoods etc.). Some even specialize in SS. You might be able to find a shop that has a remnant around that you can get for cheap. Otherwise the shop might charge you for a whole sheet which I think is 4'x6". That could get pretty pricey. This is what I did when trying to find a false bottom for my boil kettle to strain leaf hops. Got a piece of 18" diameter 8 gauge with 1/4" holes on 5/16" centers. Since my company does $200M a year with this firm, It only cost me a sixer of my pilsner. Good luck & Seasons Greetings Chuck BernardCh at aol.com Music City Brewers Nashville, TN - Music City USA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:24:11 -0500 From: Gotzleg at aol.com Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #8 Remove Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:46:50 -0700 From: "Michael J. Westcott" <mikew at sedona.net> Subject: Re: weight/volume % Weight/volume percentage is a fairly common way of expressing the percentage concentration of a solution. The usefulness lies in the fact that it is simply easier to measure the volume of large amounts of liquids than it is to determine their masses. To determine the weight/volume %, use the equation: wt-vol% = wt. solute(g)/vol solution x 100 Hence, 1.0 g NaCl in enough water to make 50.0 ml of solution would be a 2.0% NaCl by wt-vol solution. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:00:51 -0500 From: Steven Lichtenberg <slichten at mnsinc.com> Subject: Mills revisited Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:08:51 -0800 From: "Olin J. Schultz" <beerx3 at ix.netcom.com> Subject: mills > >>Al K says: > I personally, have used the Corona, PhilMill > and both the adjustable and non-adjustable MaltMills and feel that the > rollermills are far, far superior to the Corona. I prefer the = adjustable > MaltMill over the PhilMill primarily because of throughput, less > cranking, > and much less airborne dust. > >> >=20 > I am not sure how the available roller mills are far, far superior to = the > Corona. I have conducted screen tests on all of the mills; PhilMil, > MaltMills,Corona; and the Corona when properly adjusted provided the = best > crush. I have heard complains of the husk being broken up with the > Corona and this is true if the mill is not set up properly. When the > mill is set up properly the husks for the most part are whole and > provide a good filter bed in the lauter tun. As with anything if you have the spare time to sit there and mess with it, yes you can get a good mill. It is a pain in the ass though and you have to readjust alot. I got rid of mine and moved to a phillmill. If this comparison takes price into comparison, then you have to make do with what you can afford. =09 My main complaint with the Corona(which I still use but am thinking of = buying a Valley Mill) is that it is too slow. I will not give myself = the pleasure again of hand cranking 25 # of malt through a Corona. Took = half forever and when I was done I really didn't want to brew any more. = Even with a drill attached to the mill, which is the only practical way = to use it, it takes 1+ hours to crush enough grain for a 10 gallon = batch. With a motorized roller mill (I would consider a Maltmill but I = disagree so strongly with Mr. Schmidlings politics that there is no way = I would give him any of my money) you can crush all your grain in a = matter of minutes. I have used both the Mailtmill and the Valley mill = borrowed from friends and have been greatly impresed with the speed in = which you can get your grains ready for mashing. All things being = equal, Ithis is the route I would go as like most, money is easier to = find than time (and I haven't got a lot of either). I am now at a point where I can juggle a little and come up with the = money for a roller mill and a motor. It is now just a matter of = convincing the other half that this would be a good thing to buy. Be = patient grasshopper, these things will come. - --S ^ Steven Lichtenberg Programmer at Large Lichtenberg Consulting Gaithersburg, MD slichten at mnsinc.com POWERED BY PROGRESS Enjoy life, this is not a rehearsal!! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:25 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Seagraves <Steve.Seagraves at MCI.Com> Subject: Re:HB Newbie Seeks Help >Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:56:03 -0500 >From: Aeoleus <osiris at net-link.net> >Subject: HB Newbie Seeks Help >It's getting down the wire here and it's almost time for bottling. My >question is about specific gravity. I don't envision the final reading >to be equivilent to exactly 1.08 or whatever the recommendation is. I >heard that you can take a reading three days in a row, and if you come >up with the same reading, it's okay to sugar and bottle. Is this >entirely accurate? I don't want any of those damned grenades. :) I would be careful about bottling a mead with only 23 days in a fermenter. My mead recipe took about 6 months to be ready for bottling. Even that was probably to early since my bottles are now carbonated (unintentionally). The fermentation would stop for a few weeks and then would start back up again. If you have s.g. readings in the 1.08 range, you may be ok, my final readings were higher. Steve - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: 24 Dec 96 10:56:21 EST From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Expansive Pots again, a Cornie mystery Brewsters: Jim Bentsen says: > When a pot is heated it is free to expand only in the vertical direction. > The material > in the circumferential direction is not free and does not expand any > appreciable amount. > To see this, consider a bar wedged between two immovable ends. What happens Sorry, Jim, but you better go back to engineering school or at least do some basic physics. The pot expands like a photograph being blown up. There are no constaints. The pot is make from an isotropic material. It gets wider and higher along all dimensions according to the expansion coefficients' value. - ------------------------------------------------------- I have come across a real puzzling thing and need some help from you kegging gurus. Concerned that my method of handling my Cornies and CO2 could inject oxygen into my brews at the worst time possible, I pondered a way to solve it and was successful, but in the course of this I discovered a real mystery. Since I routinely have several kegs at the ready in my fridges because I don't like drinking one type of beer on a day to day basis and certainly don't want to have to fininsh one keg before I move onto something else ( Oh, yes, that was during the Classic American Pilsner or the Imperial Stout era......) , I connect the CO2 line to the keg as I am delivering from it. As a result, the hose lays disconnected from the cornie most of the time. Even though the one end of the hose is connected to the regulator and the other is closed off by a spring valve in the disconnect, I became concerned that air would leak into this hose and, upon injecting the CO2, I would also inject oxygen and spoil the beer. SO, I devised a method for flushing this hose. I put the "carbonator" from Liquid Bread into the disconnect to push open the spring valve and allow some CO2 to pass down the hose, flushing it out. Well, to my surprise when I pressed the carbonator onto the fitting before the CO2 was turned on in the hose, I got a substantial vacuum! I have repeated it a number times and each time as I press this fitting on, my palm gets sucked in tight and has to be forcefully pulled off. Well, am I mystified. What happened to the CO2 which was in the hose at 15psig when I last used it? Is the hose behaving like a semi-permeable membrane for CO2? CO2 is diffusing out into the air through the tubing wall but air is not coming back in? I look forward to your suggestions on what is going on here. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: 24 Dec 96 10:51:13 EDT From: Bob Bessette/PicTel <Bob_Bessette at smtpnotes.pictel.com> Subject: Latest Update from Formerly Depressed Brewer Fellow HBDers, I just wanted to update you on what I have done to try to eliminate a nasty infection which has been affecting my beers of late. I recently posted my saga to the HBD and received many responses as to how to correct my infection problem. Well, I did brew this past weekend as a result of your many responses. I actually got pumped with all of the responses and had to make a stab at producing an un-infected brew. Some steps that I did take are the following: 1) I purchased new siphoning tubes and a new racking cane. 2) I also purchased a new spigot for my bottling bucket that I will use when I bottle within a couple of weeks. 3) I bought some BTF (iodophor) and bought a plastic container from Walmart. I added about 5 gallons of water to the plastic container with a tablespoon of iodophor for rinsing, etc. 4) When I made my starter this time I let my inflated Wyeast pack sit on top of the iodophor solution and after B-Brighting my 22 ounce bottle that I use for the starter I gave it an iodophor solution rinse and let it dry as much as I could. I also iodophored my scissors I used for cutting the Wyeast packet. I also put Vodka (I usually use tap well water) in my airlock on the starter bottle. So I feel pretty confident that I did not introduce any bacteria (from the well water) into my starter. This is a process change that I will continue to use in future brews. 5) The night before I brewed I made sure that I boiled up enough well water so that I would have plenty for starting my siphon from the kettle to the primary glass carboy. 6) The night before I also examined all of my equipment I would be using the following day. I decided to B-Bright my wort chiller and I removed a spigot that is on my Gordon's Bru Bucket (Bru-Heat clone) and let that sit overnight in B-Bright solution. I noticed that this spigot (I boil in the Bru Bucket) had a lot of crud in there and even though there is a boil for an hour I also place my wort chiller in the Bru Bucket and was concerned that this crud could introduce an infection after the wort has been cooled. 7) On brew day (I usually get up at 3:30 AM since I have children who get into everything) I got up and the first thing I did was place the plastic container with iodophor solution on my kitchen table so that it would be ready for rinsing various hoses, tubes, hands prior to coming in contact with the cooled wort. While the mash was taking place I made sure that I gave my glass primary carboy an iodophor rinse so that it would be sanitized by the time I was ready to siphon from the boiling bucket. I had actually gone into my HomeBrew store a couple of days earlier and ran into a brewer who works at Nutfield's Brewing Company in Derry NH (makers of Old Man Ale and Auburn Ale, etc) and he suggested filling a spray bottle with sanitizing solution so that you could spray various equipment prior to coming in contact with the cooled wort. I did this and used it on occasion when it was not possible to submerse something in the iodophor solution. 8) Just for the heck of it I sanitized my wort chiller with iodophor prior to putting it into the last 5 minutes of the boil. I realize that just putting it into the boil would sanitize it but hey I was paranoid here of any possible infection. 9) What I typically do to decrease wort chilling time is use a plastic spoon and gently stir the cooling wort with the chiller in it. I also typically rinse with untreated (unboiled) tap well water in between each stirring. (I tend to think this could be an area where I was introducing bacteria into the cooled wort). This time I just dropped the plastic spoon into the iodophor solution between each stirring and just waved it a little to remove the iodophor prior to submersing it into the chilling wort. 10) Prior to siphoning I had previously submerged my brand new hoses and racking cane into the iodophor solution and at this point they were drying. At siphon time (spihoning from Bru-Heat to the primary glass fermenter) I took the end without the racking cane and submerged it into the previously boiled well water which was sitting in a small pitcher which had also been sanitized. I allowed the tube to fill up with water and I then started my siphon. I also have a clamp that I use to stop the flow to make sure that the boiled well water is moved off to a container other than the primary until the beer is flowing and then I move the tube into the glass carboy. I realize that I could just let the boiled well water go into the primary but why bother. I just want beer in there and beer that I know was boiled for at least an hour. 11) Come pitching time I also filled the airlock with Vodka and not unboiled well water. I had also purchased a stopper without a hole so that I could place this in the carboy and aerate the hell out of it after I pitched. This stopper had been sanitized as well. This is the first time I was able to aerate vigorously because I never had a stopper without a hole in it. I think it's worth it to buy one of these. I am interested as to whether this will help my beer. I aerated for approximately 5 minutes after pitching, then placed the sanitized airlock with the Vodka and moved my carboy to it's fermenting corner. The beer showed visible signs of fermentation within about 8-9 hours and is vigorously churning as I write this. I plan on maybe stepping up my starter at least one extra time for my next batch to see if I can get a quicker ferment. I think it was George de Pyro (sorry if I botched your name) who suggested that pitching large volumes of yeast is a way to greatly improve all-grain beers. I will try this with the same grain bill on my next batch to see if I notice any if I notice any significant improvement (assuming that I don't have an infected batch). I feel fairly confident that I have not introduced any possible bacteria into my beer at this point. I will rack to secondary this weekend and plan on dry hopping with an ounce of Cascade hop pellets by simply throwing them into the secondary. I am a little concerned about this since I had been told previously that this could introduce infection into the beer. It was suggested to make a hop tea. Well I have tried this and the hop aroma is nowhere near as evident with the hop tea method. I may just dry hop. I have done this in the past and thought that this step could've been introducing bacteria but I even had infections when I made the hop tea. So I do not think that the dry hop stage was causing my problems. Sorry if I was a little verbose here but I thought it was appropriate to describe step-by-step what I had done in an effort to eliminate any chance of infection. If there are any other brewers out there who are becoming a little too relaxed about your sanitation steps it will only take a batch or two that is infected to make you realize that taking these steps is well worth it. BTW, since I think that unboiled well water being introduced to my cooled wort may have been the cause of the infections I am going to perform a little experiment at bottling time. I plan on adding a drop or two of tap well water to one bottle and see if the infection does occur in that bottle. Hopefully the other bottles will not be infected this time and I will be able to determine that it was my tap well water that was introducing the infections. I will keep you posted on this experiment. Thanks again for all of the responses people have made to my infection problem. I'm hoping that my revised brewing process will eliminate this very frustrating occurrence from happening again in the future. I would appreciate any comments/suggestions on the sanitation steps taken above by private email and will post anything that may be of interest to the group. Cheers, Bob Bessette (bbessett at pictel.com) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:03:01 -0500 From: Chris Cooper <ccooper at a2607cc.msr.hp.com> Subject: Partial mash eff. Hi all! SEASONS GREETING! 8^)> I have been following the no-sparge thread for a while and would like to calculate the mash efficiency of my last brew (a partial mash). I started out with 5 lbs. of american 2-row and a pound of 60L Crystal and mashed in with 2 gallons of water. The mash was done on the stove in a 5 gallon pot using a very fine mesh grain bag. I used the burner to occasionally boost the temperature and maintain it in the range of 155^F to 160^F for 65 minutes. I raised to 180^F for mash out by adding 1 gallon of 200^F water and drained completely to the boiling tun. I had just over 2 gallons of wort in the pot to which I added 3 lbs of DME. The final numbers were an OG. of 1.044 and a volume of 5.5 gallons. Here are my calculations: Original Gravity: 1.044 wort volume (in primary): 5.5 gallons potential points per lbs. of pale male: 32 ??? DME contribution (points/pound/gallon): 40 total points in brew: 44 X 5.5 = 242 DME Contribution: 3# X 40 = 120 total from mash: 242 - 120 = 122 points per pound of grain: 122/6 = 20.33 effective yield of no-sparge partial mash = 63.5% I would like your feedback on any of the values that I have used. May your holidays be filled with cheer, and a Happy Brew-Year to one and all! Chris Cooper , Commerce Michigan --> Pine Haven Brewery <-- Chris_Cooper at hp.com --> aka. Deb's Kitchen <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:39:28 -0500 From: "Reed" <rreed at netusa1.net> Subject: Mead / Malt Mills From: Aeoleus <osiris at net-link.net> writes: > My > first attempt at a homebrew is currently sitting in a glass carbuoy, 23 > days out of conception. It appears to be, at this point, free from > infection, and the bubbling has slowed to a snail's pace. <SNIP> > I began with ten pounds of honey from a local Apiary and added the > obligatory yeast energizer, acids, salts, and champagne yeast, along > with some cloves, allspice, and ground mace. <SNIP> > I > heard that you can take a reading three days in a row, and if you come > up with the same reading, it's okay to sugar and bottle. What you have got on your hands is actually mead. While I believe, one can infer readiness to bottle *homebrew* from three successive daily measurements, mead is a different animal. Mead, in my experience, is far less predictable. If the mead has fermented dry (as ascertained by taste or residual sugar test), then it is probably safe to bottle. I'd suggest taking gravity measurements over the next three or six weeks to determine if fermentation is complete. Fermentation rate for *mead* depends on the amount and type of yeast pitched, temperature, nutrients, i.e., did you use any fruit or did you add yeast nutrients, and the pH of the must (mead). I'll close with Patience is a Virtue... _____ From: "Olin J. Schultz" <beerx3 at ix.netcom.com> writes: > As with anything if you have the spare time to sit there and mess with > it, yes you can get a good mill. It is a pain in the ass though and > you have to readjust alot. I got rid of mine and moved to a > phillmill. If this comparison takes price into comparison, then you > have to make do with what you can afford. I totally agree. I have played with most of the mills out there, and the Maltmill is a joy. I only regret that I only get to use it for 2-4 minutes (roller rate=173 RPM) each brewing session. >I would like to mention however that the customer > service and general friendliness provided by Jack Schmidling Inc. is > deplorable. I have to disagree here: I purchased one of the earlier Maltmills from the Malt Shop (we miss you Don) and contacted Jack Schmidling when I needed some bushings. I received them in the mail several days later. Next I wanted to upgrade my rollers from the older longitudinal groove pattern to the new diamond-knurled roller pattern. I sent the old rollers to JSP with a check for the modest price of upgrading and within a week I was in Diamond-Knurled Land (tm). He also sent me upgrades for the side trim pieces. My son will inherit my mill and his son will probably also use it (although by then, he will probably replace the electric motor with a small home-use nuclear reactor - won't have to worry about Lactobacillus on the grain anymore 8 ) Have a great Christmas, Rob Reed Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2295