HOMEBREW Digest #2411 Mon 05 May 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  seals on 5 gallon gots (root)
  RE: nitrogen/CO2 (Some guy)
  NA Beer ("C&S Peterson")
  Thermometers ("John Robinson")
  Carbonizer (UTC -04:00)" <dgeiss.ford at e-mail.com>
  Re: Belgian Wheat Beer ("atonalcm")
  Belgian White Beer (Bob Tisdale)
  Clarification / Vitamin B ("BRIAN F. THUMM")
  Yeas Tech "Labs" (Jim Liddil)
  Small-scale filtering ("Penn, Thomas")
  carbonation requires carbon (DAVE SAPSIS)
  Young alcohol (Domenick Venezia)
  RE: nitrogen/co2 (Jeff Knaggs)
  Corn, proteinase activity ("David R. Burley")
  Homebrew Club Articles / Harpers' Cloudy Dubbel (KennyEddy)
  RE: Gelatin fining / Please, not botulism again (George De Piro)
  PH and Total Alkalinity - meaningful info? (Charles Burns)
  Re:Hefeweisen(Brian Deck) (Jim Wallace)
  Re: botulism redux (Dan Sherman)
  re:garage sale draft system ("Darrell")
  My Solution for Mini-Keg CO2 Leaks ("R. Shreve")
  REMINDER and Call for JUDGES!!!  Big and HUGE competition (Robert Paolino)
  Malt extraction efficiency (Jorge Blasig - IQ)
  nitrogen/beer gas (garyrich)
  Charlies Infiltrating (Charlie Scandrett)
  Sorry about the long signature (Dave Bartz)
  U Flecka & Angela's Ashes (kathy)
  US OPEN Homebrew Competition Results for Charlotte, NC ("Keith Royster")
  homebrew alcohol content (Rae Christopher J)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at: http://brew.oeonline.com/ If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send 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 from: brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer 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: Fri, 02 May 1997 01:45:08 -0600 From: root <root at dante> Subject: seals on 5 gallon gots Howdy all. Just a quick question about what everyone uses to seal their spigots in the mash tun. I've a five gallon Gott and getting ring seals in their is a pain. Anyone have any suggestions. -Lance stargazer at dlcwest.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 07:32:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Some guy <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com> Subject: RE: nitrogen/CO2 OK. I'm sure now, thanks to some tables published here earlier, that nitrogen is soluble in beer, if only at 1/100th or so of the amount of CO2 under similar pressures. I'll even lend that it might contribute to that Guinness head, though evidence I've read suggests that the nitrogen doesn't cause bubbles when it comes out of solution. Jeff Sturman asks about distributing beer using Nitrogen. The correct answer was given: if the beer is consumed quickly, sure: fine. If not, Henry's law will come into play and de-carbonate the beer by attempting to equalize the concentration of CO2 on each side of the beer/head boundary. That's it. The information recently published about "forcing nitrogen into the keg, then dispensing with CO2" or "Must force carbonate with the mix or it won't..." is somewhat misguided, in my opinion. Soluble gasses are soluble independent (barring reactions) of other gasses present. Period. If you pressurize with nitrogen to saturation, you will then have to pressurize with CO2 to saturation as well. Both will dissolve to the extent they are capable of into the beer - independent of each other. Henry's law. If you saturate with N2, then push with CO2, the N2 will come out of solution in the keg as you dispense to equalize the apparent pressure on each side of the beer/head boundary. Same as the converse. Henry's law. If you buy into the N2 contributing to the beer head, buy the mix. I use it to push 100% of my beers (though I've never noticed the difference in heading from the days I used only CO2...) through my draft system. The expense isn't prohibitive, and they can modify your existing CO2 cylinder to accept it for about $11. Regulator's the same as for CO2. See ya! Pat Babcock | "Beer is my obsession, and I'm late for pbabcock at oeonline.com | therapy..." -PGB brewbeerd at aol.com | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point janitor@ brew.oeonline.com | at the end of your day as every sentence Home Brew Digest Janitor | requires proper punctuation." -PGB Webmaster of the Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html Home of the Home Brew Flea Market Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 97 12:01:32 UT From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com> Subject: NA Beer HBDers - I recently was requested by a friend who cannot have alcohol to make a "no-alcohol" beer. In reading the contributions to THE BREWERY on this subject, I was able to take a case of dissappointing IPA, heat it to 180 for 15 minutes, and then force cool, rack to a keg, and force carbonate. For what it is intended to be, it turned out quite well. There are some definite off-flavors that were generated from the heating -- mostly a corn-like DMS taste, but nothing unobjectionalbe. And to my surprize, the hop character made it though, for the most part. In fact, I find the beer quite enjoyable. But here's my question. From Jack Schmedling's (sic) BREWERY article, he suggests that this method will make a beer of 1 to 1.5 percent alcohol. Commercial NA types go to about 0.5 percent. Now I drank a pint of this stuff on a completely empty stomach yesterday, and didn't feel any significant effects of the residual alcohol. Is there any relatively cheap/effective way to measure the alcohol content? I am not adverse to sending off to a lab, so long as it isn't too expensive. I'd like to get some assurance that this beer will be OK to serve to my friend. The last thing I want to do is trigger some sort of relapse. Chas Peterson Laytonsville, Md Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:20:05 +0000 From: "John Robinson" <robinson at novalis.ca> Subject: Thermometers Hi, I broke mine in the boil a couple of weeks ago. I'm currently drinking the batch, and haven't noticed any unusual flavors or smells. After discovering the thermometer I took it out of the wort and boiled it in water briefly to determine if the plastic substance holding the lead beads would disovle. It did not appear to. I personally do not think you have anything to worry about, others may disagree. I'm in the process of tracking down a mercury based laboratory thermometer. If that breaks anywhere in the processes the whole batch will need to be flushed. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the red alchohol in some of these thermometers is toxic? - --- John Robinson "When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. Software Developer I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I NovaLIS Technologies have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know robinson at novalis.ca it is wrong." - Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 09:21:50 EDT From: "Doug Geiss USAET(UTC -04:00)" <dgeiss.ford at e-mail.com> Subject: Carbonizer Laura in N.C. wrote about some equipment her dad picked up, specifically a unit called the "Carbonizer." While I've never seen on in action, I also came across one at a large auction. I spied two brand-new looking towers connected to a double-1/2barrel keg cooler, much like you see in Rapids. Along with the entire unit was a small electric motor and the words "Carbonizer". The unit was in pretty bad condition, but I was intrigued about free Carbon Dioxide. To make a long story short, I bought the entire freezer, taps, and misc. for $3. But since I was 200 miles from home, I had to disassemble everything that would fit in my car, and leave the rest. I got the two towers, some Sankey keg fittings, a S.S. drip tray, but left behind the actual freezer, carbonizer (Couldn't get the bolts off), and some other junk. It was only later that I found out the whole thing costs $1500 new. Dooh! Anyway, Laura, let us all know how it works. It sounds interesting! Thank you, [~~\ /~~] Doug Geiss______________________(313)33-73971 ||\\ //|| GO Production Control Analyst ---- 1997 F-Series || \\// || BLUE Internet: USFMCKGE at IBMMAIL.COM PROFS:DGEISS [__] \/ [__] Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:55:50 -0400 From: "atonalcm" <atonalcm at bestweb.net> Subject: Re: Belgian Wheat Beer >Wed, 30 Apr 97 >From: "Ellery.Samuels" <esamuel at mvsb.nycenet.edu> >Subject: Belgian Wheat Beer >I am looking for a partial/extract recipe for a Belgian Wheat Beer. Have >checked Cat's Meow. Private e-mail is appreciated. >Thanx, >Ellery Hi Ellery, I have a recipe for you, Actually two! Boil the wort for both recipies a long time (2 hours) The first is a belgian wheat ale (my recipe). It is not however a White beer. 5 gallon recipe 5lbs wheat/barley dry malt extract 1 lb orange blossom honey half pound crystal malt (60 lovibond) 1 1/2 oz Hallertauer hops (60 Min) 1/2 oz Hallertauer (30 Min) 1/2 oz Hallertauer (15 Min) Wyeast 3942 (in primary) Wyeast Brettanomyces (in seconday) about 2-3 weeks Prime the beer with 5/8 cup of honey. use blow-by method for primary. Use hop bags for hops leaves. ferment at high temperature 75-80 degrees in primary only. Age as long as posible in bottle so as to obtain a mature taste (3+ weeks) - ---------------------- the 2nd recipe is for a Belgian Farmhouse Saison. (my recipe) (it contains more grains than 1st recipe) 3 1/3 lbs extra light malt extract (liquid) 3/4 lb of light malt extract (dry) :mash grains at approx 145-155 degrees for about 90 min (very crude mash method) if possible buy some amylase powder and add a small amount (1/4 teaspoon or less) to mash. 1/4 lb Belgian Special -B malt if avail, or Crystal malt (120 lovibond) 1 lb Cara-pils malt 2 lbs 6-row American pilsener malt 1/2 lb unmalted oats 3/4 lb torrified wheat 2 oz Saaz hops (60 min) 1/4 oz Willamette hops (60 min) 1/2 oz Willamette hops (15 min) 1/3 oz coriander- freshly cracked (1 min, & steep till wort is cool) Rind of 1 lime -dried (use the green part and make sure its dried well) same as coriander 1/4 lb pitted prunes (chopped up) add at end of boil. Wyeast 3942 Primary for a few days 3-4, then secondary till done Good luck, Chris Milmerstadt Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 21:25:20 +0100 From: rtisdale at entomology.msstate.edu (Bob Tisdale) Subject: Belgian White Beer I recently made a batch of white beer using Wyeast Belgium White Beer yeast. The O.G. was 1.052. The primary fermentation lasted about 5 days and was quite vigorous the first 3 days. It has been in the secondary for about a month with the number of bubbles ranging between 1 per minute to 1 per two minutes. The beer smells great and there is no funny looking stuff floating around in it. Has anyone had a similar experience with this yeast? Is it the yeast or something else? Any Suggestions, comments, advice Thanks, Bob Tisdale Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 10:22:15 -0400 From: "BRIAN F. THUMM" <THUMMBF at GWSMTP.NU.COM> Subject: Clarification / Vitamin B Matt Harper asked about clarifying his beer, after forgetting the Irish moss in the boil. Irish Moss works in the boil to coagulate large break. It's effect in the fermentor will be negligible. My recommendations are Isinglass four days prior to bottling, to settle suspended yeast, and either Polyclar or Silica Gel two days prior to bottling (I'm partial to Polyclar) to settle suspended chill-haze-forming tannins or proteins, respectively. I've seen the recent discussion on gelatin, and that works fine, as well. Some people claim it is not as effective as Isinglass, but I haven't seen any difference. I just have a stock pile of isinglass, so that's what I use. Waiting for all of the suspended stuff to settle out is also an option. It all depends on when you want your beer to be clear. I'm also intrigued by the discussion on the potency of homebrew. My girlfriend has a noticably pleasant reaction after very little homebrew. She's a lightweight, anyway, but even my lower alcohol beers affect her rapidly. I, too, for that matter, have noticed the effects of my beer rather quickly. My theory, FWIW, is the abundance of Vitamin B in the beer. Having bottle conditioned the beer, there is a lot of live yeast in the bottle, and hence a lot of Vitamin B. People have often claimed that Vitamin B helps cure hangovers because of it's ability in alcohol metabolisation. If it metabolizes alcohol that quickly OUT of your system, does it stand to reason that it will metabolize alcohol INTO your system as quickly? Brian Thumm Pier 147 Homebrewery Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 7:27:07 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU> Subject: Yeas Tech "Labs" I got a flier in the mail from Yeas Tech Labs. "Pitch5 provides homebrewers with a pure, liquid yeast slurry that contains enough cells to pitch a 5 gallon batch of homebrew". Is this vague or what? How many cells are in a container? Or is this just like White Labs and their pint sized starter euqivalent? "Pitch is stable at refrigeration temperature for more than 30 days. However, we recommend purchasing your yeast as close to brew day as possible." "Active fermentation should be observed within 24 hours of pithcing" I really don't think I'm going to be storing yeast for 30 days or buying 2-4 week old yeast at a shop and expecting this to be enough cells to pitch 5 gallons. I certainly hope this stuff is born-on dated. Call me skeptical. Jim www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil Tucson,AZ Return to table of contents
Date: 2 May 1997 10:27:05 -0400 From: "Penn, Thomas" <penn#m#_thomas at msgw.vf.lmco.com> Subject: Small-scale filtering I have a friend who has digestive problems with the yeast in homebrew, and I'd like to filter kegged beer on a small scale (maybe an in-line filter on a keg tapper line). I don't want to filter entire batches, and small-scale filtering with a large filter results in significant waste due to beer in the filter. Can someone remind me of how fine a filter I need (to achieve commercial filtering results); and does anyone know of such a small, in-line filter (medical, chemical, etc.)? Tom Penn Bordentown, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 08:07:57 -0700 From: DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov (DAVE SAPSIS) Subject: carbonation requires carbon Jeff innocently asked a question regarding dispensing with pure N2, and has received a bunch of public replies, some of which are pretty confounding. Erik posts that you have to carbonate the keg first with nitrogen??? Anybody else there see something wrong? I posted to Jeff privately about my experiences pushing beer through a Murphy's tap, with pure N2, which I have been doing for nearly four years. Works like a charm. Things to watch out for: properly carbonate the keg to an appropriate level prior to dispense. Most beers I push out of my N-rig I purposefully carbonate to a low level, estimated 1.5 - 2 atm. Higher CO2 levels will create very foamy beer when dispensed at high N2 top pressure. I use a regulator setting of about 45 psi to push the beer through the tap. Usually (depending on how fast the beer is consumed) I will add CO2 to the keg twice, by bleeding off some top pressure add hooking the CO2 can back up with its regulator set on 45. I let that run in for 5-10 seconds, then hookup the N again. This is to retain an appropriate level of carbonation throughout the life of the keg, because as George I believe pointed out, as headspace increases, the partial pressure of CO2 goes down, dissolved CO2 outgasses, and the kegged beer slowly looses carbonation. This method effectively mixes gasses using two separate cans, albeit in a crude way. With N having solubility constants roughly two orders of magnitude less than carbonic, it is likely that there is a rather low level of nitrogenation going on, but actual dissolved N levels in finished products dispensed as such would be an interesting measurement. cheers, --dave, in Sacramento, wishing he were in tahiti, dave_sapsis at fire.ca.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 08:11:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com> Subject: Young alcohol Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:32:11 -0400 From: Dave Bartz <gbrewer at iquest.net> Eugene Sonn asked >> I've been brewing for over 5 years and one thing continues to >> surprise me about homebrew is how quickly you may feel its alcohol >> affecting your system........... Are there any explanations for this? Dave Bartz responds > I've def. noticed this as well and in rapping with homebrewing friends, > we have concluded that it must be the relative freshness of the alcohol. > Is the younger alcohol more potent. My guess is yes. My guess is no. My hope is no, or I despair for the 20 year old ports and brandies, and the 12 year old Scotch and Irish in my cellar. I'm not sure what "aged" ethanol would be, except that it would no longer be ethanol, and I doubt any such effects over the time period of which we are speaking. Instead I suspect one or more of the following: 1. your homebrew is generally stronger than the commercial beers you are comparing it against or 2. the homebrew contains some other nutrient or substance that increases your alcohol uptake rate or 3. The situations under which you drink commercial versus home brews affects the way that alcohol affects you. For example, homebrews are often drank alone without food. 4. You are drinking the wrong commercial brews. Cheers! Domenick Venezia Computer Resources ZymoGenetics, Inc. Seattle, WA venezia at zgi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 97 11:43:04 -0400 From: jak at absoft.com (Jeff Knaggs) Subject: RE: nitrogen/co2 Disclaimer, I'm not a chemist so this explanation may need a little tweaking...stepping of the deep end... For this thread, we're assuming all the gases behavior "ideally": Pressure * Volume = number_of_molecules * A_chemistry_constant * Temperature Dalton's Law says: The total pressure exerted by a mix of ideal gasses in a closed container is equal to the sum that each individual gas exerts Total P = P1 + P2 + P3 In the case of CO2 and N2 blends, this means 2 PSI CO2 + 8 PSI N2 = 10 PSI total in the head space. Who cares? -- Well total P is the pressure that forces the beer out of the keg to the faucet, so it is critical in controlling the flow rate and foaming at the faucet. (Aside: foaming is also a function of temperature, turbulence, and disolved CO2) What's in the beer? The amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is proportional to the "partial pressure" exerted by the gas in the head space. And, because for this temp/press range gases behave close to ideally, this dissolution is INDEPENDENT of the total pressure. I.e. using the above example, the amount of CO2 in solution is proportional to 2 PSI (partial pressure of CO2) and not 10 PSI (the total gas pressure). Who cares? We all do! 1) You have to apply enough total pressure to the beer to get it to the faucet, 2) but the amount of CO2 in a beer has big contributions to the taste/mouth-feel/pour-behavior(foaming) etc. 3) Nitrogen is relatively insoluble in beer, so even at high pressure not much ends up in solution. That is why Nitrogen is used: for stouts, folks expect a low amount of dissolved CO2 gas, which means use a low partial pressure CO2, but folks also want the stout to come out of the faucet (can't drink it if it doesn't come out :-) and to develop a head. A guiness faucet is restricted (narrower than other beer faucets); the extra pressure supplied by the N2 pushes it through the faucet at a good rate, the turbulence created by the restriction and increased flow rate helps add head where the lack of dissolved C02 (due to low partial pressure) wouldn't normally do it on its own. So, if you carbonate, then charge with pure N2 and no CO2, over time your carbonation level will fall (if the head space is pure N2 then the partial pressure of CO2 is zero and CO2 will come out of solution until the partial pressure is in equilibrium with the solubile portion). This also means that over time the total pressure in the head will increase. So depending on how long you're going to serve out of one keg, it may be critical to supply a mixed supply. Other gases could be used other than N2, but they have to meet some criteria: relatively low solubility, non-reactive, relatively safe for humans, and cheap. Turns out that N2 is used because it best fits the criteria. Jeff Knaggs hufkna at mich.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:25:40 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Corn, proteinase activity Brewsters: Russ Brodeur asks: >Does anyone out there have any information to share regarding the >proteolytic enzyme content of various malts, both pale and not-so pale?? DeClerk (50 yr old info) says the proteolytic content of Pale Ale Malts ( that is British Pale Malts in those days ) is about 60% of the Contintental (lager,pils) Pale malts. I am not sure how valid this is today. AlK points out that German Pils malts are more highly converted today than in the past based on Maltsters specifications. Presumably, however, they still don't get the higher temperature toast at the end of the kilning typical of British Pale Ale malts and I guess still should have the higher enzyme content. - ------------------------------------------ Darren Gaylor says: >I .. want to try a double mash with >A non-gelatanized corn adjunt. The bulk food section of our grocery >Store carries both corn meal and grits. Which would be better >For brewing purposes? I always use grits as you have less chance to plug up in the lautering step since grits are larger than cornmeal in most cases. Also Grits are white corn and most corn meal is yellow ( although the white is available). I cook the grits in water until they thicken, add cold water to bring the temperature down to about 150F and add water and the grist to bring it down to the strike temperature. Take it through all the holds 122F, 135F and 155-158F. I also make a goods mash on occasion in which 10-15% of the malt is added after cooling and a quick mash is carried out on the adjunct to reduce its viscosity. Which method you use is determined by the amount and type of adjunct added. I use this method with cream of wheat and rice or pearl barley (chipped to a small size in my mill before cooking) also. I have never tried these, but assume the "instant" cereals are pre-gelatinized by heat or treated chemically. - ----------------------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 13:47:56 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: Homebrew Club Articles / Harpers' Cloudy Dubbel Scott Bridges said that George de Piro's reply to Pat Babcock's article about homebrew club meeting speakers was perhaps not appropriate for this forum. While the HBD does seem to gravitate heavily toward the mechanics of brewing, the success or failure of a homebrew club can have a significant effect on one's source of information and enthusiasm for brewing, and thus I think it's a very relevent topic. Here in El Paso, I know that there are a lot of homebrewers, yet participation in our club is waning badly. Now, we're not exactly in microbrew heaven out here (I wonder if setting up a brewpub in the New Republic of Texas will be any easier than it was in the Old State...), so coming up with guest speakers may be a more difficult proposition for us than George out in Brooklyn. The head brewers of the two prominent area brewpubs are both active members and they do contribute monthly, but "new blood" is always welcome. This kind of thing would probably help boost attendence and therefore the exchange of good information. It's easy to "brew in a vacuum" when your pool of personal brewing contacts dwindles due to club membership problems, especially in an isolated area like El Paso, and this *directly* affects your brewing. When there's no one smarter than yourself around, you tend to think your poor to average efforts are as good as it gets. This can be a major turn-off especially for new brewers who simply don't have access to information that would correct problems in their brewing. At the risk of being publicly flamed (oh yeah, like that'll be a first), I'd like to *encourage* the more successful clubs to offer their recipes for success on this forum. It weighs directly upon our brewing skill, and it'll make better brewers of us all. ***** Matt Harper forgot the Irish Moss, a sin I've been guilty of more than I care to admit. While I don't want to open the do-we-need-it or don't-we-need-it can of worms, I would like to offer that I've used Sparkolloid (tm) with great success in batches with proteinous haze. My Classic American Pilsner, the lightest-colored beer I've ever made, was made IM-less (stoopid) and looked like Rio Grande mud. I let it sit for several weeks (fake lagering) with only modest improvement. Finally I tossed in some Sparkolloid and like magic, in two days you could read George de Piro's posts through it! I think it's three grams boiled briefly in a bit of water per five gallons. BTW the Classic American Pilsner is a dandy brew which you'll like but so will your Bud-swillin' buddies. Great stuff (Thanks Jeff). ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:16:18 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: RE: Gelatin fining / Please, not botulism again Hi all, Somebody (sorry, can't remember who) asked if their would be enough yeast left in suspension to carbonate the beer after gelatin fining. In my case, the beer is a lager and has been at 33F (0.5C) for 2 months, and is remarkably clear. If I wanted to bottle condition it, I would add a fresh dose of yeast. It may carbonate without the extra yeast, but it would take a long time (and maybe not work at all). With ales, it may be unnecessary to add fresh yeast, but again, if the beer is very clear, it would speed things up to add fresh yeast. If you are concerned about the yeast not flocculating again, just use a different strain that is known to flocculate well. ------------------------ A curse on the house of the person reviving the corpse of the last botulism thread! Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 97 11:37 PDT From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: PH and Total Alkalinity - meaningful info? Not wanting to ask any stupid questions, I'll try this inane one. Recently I've noticed that boiled water is showing more and more white stuff (Ken Schwartz tells me its chalk) precipitating to the bottom of my kettle. I really only notice it when I'm trying to create jars of sterile water for yeast harvesting. It looks ugly enough that I don't really want to get my yeast mixed up with it. Anyhow, I decided its been a year since I tested for alkalinity and so I took the following readings: >From my well in the Sierra Foothills: PH Total Alkalinity Cold Tap Water 7.0 190 Hot Water Tap 6.8 180 Cold Water Tap Boiled/Cooled 9.3 180 I don't even know if the readings make sense. I calibrated my ph meter immediately prior to taking these readings. The alkalinity came from my Spa chemical test kit. Its a huge jump in ph of the boiled water. Should I be boiling water before mashing and then treating with acid? Or should I NOT pre-boil the mash water? My mashes tend to hit PH 5.3 with no addition of anything. If I do add gypsum, then they tend to come in at 5.2, not much change for 1 tsp. Am I wasting time and money? Ken suggested using the boiled and cooled water (if I read his comments right) and then treating with acid as opposed to gypsum because the alkalinity was already so high. I was surprised that alkalinity didn't drop after boiling (20 minute boil). Note also that the PH of the boiled water was 9.0 when it was 210F and rose up to 9.3 when it cooled overnight. I guess that means my meter is not temperature corrected or something else happened to the water when it cooled. Comments? Charley (can't quit fooling with this stuff) in N. Cal. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 13:41:53 -0500 From: Jim Wallace <jwallace at crocker.com> Subject: Re:Hefeweisen(Brian Deck) Brian, I just did a batch with 3056 .... Some people complain about this yeast producing too much phenolic (clove flavor) .. keep the temp a bit lower to minimize. Also, it will increase with time. my Grain ratio was 8wht:4pilsner. Hops were Hallertauer all the way. I suppose you could do this with a wheat extract or infusion mash but Decoction is a plus here with so much wheat. This was my first decoction and no big deal. I did my priming with 1.5 qts of wort from original batch that I saved. Eric Warners book on this style is very helpful This is a great summer drinking beer ready to drink in less than 3 wks. ________________________________________ JIM WALLACE ___ jwallace at crocker.com I travel to the wild places of this planet and would like to share what I see _____ http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace _______ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 97 12:25:53 PDT From: Dan Sherman <dsherman at jeeves.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: botulism redux Steve Claussen (SClaus4688 at aol.com) asked some very good questions about botulism. I can't answer them completely, but at least I can add a little bit of data to the discussion. Botulism is caused by a toxin produced by strains of Clostridium botulinum. C. botulinum is a spore-forming anaerobic bacterium. Spores of C. botulinum are commonly found in soil, especially soil that has been fertilized with manure. The spores are essentially metabolically inactive, but can germinate under the appropriate conditions. Once growing and dividing, the bacteria will produce a toxin. The toxin, when injested, is absorbed into the body and causes muscle paralysis (blocks the release of acetylcholine -- a muscle neurotransmitter). The toxin will not affect bacteria or yeast growth. The toxin is quite resistant to the enzymes of the gastrointestinal tract, and presumably the high acidity of the stomach. I am not sure about its resistance to oxygen, or byproducts of yeast fermentation, but I would guess that it is not affected much by these factors. However, the toxin is heat labile, and is completely destroyed by boiling at 100C (212F) for 10 minutes (those of you at high altitude will want to boil longer). Supposedly, infection of food by C. botulinum causes no change in the taste or odor of the food. C. botulinum is anaerobic and generates energy by fermentation, so CO2 is probably released. Therefore, an infected can of food or wort could bulge, but would not necessarily do so. The best way to kill C. botulinum spores is by heating them (in a wet environment) to 121C for at least 15 minutes. This is accomplished by pressure canning. Consulting a good canning manual will allow one to determine if prolonged boiling in a water bath (maybe 1-2 hours) can substitute for pressure canning for 15-20 minutes at 15psi. If anyone checks this out, please post the answer. As was discussed previously, a perfectly acceptable way to avoid pressure canning starter wort, yet still be safe, is to pre-boil the wort before each use. Hope this helps. Cheers! Dan Sherman San Diego, CA dsherman at ucsd.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:21:49 -0600 From: "Darrell" <darrell at montrose.net> Subject: re:garage sale draft system Laura, CO2 beverage products (soda pop) use plain water that passes through the "carbonizer". The carbonizer is comprised of a compressor that force carbonates the water from a CO2 source. The now carbonated water is then mixed with the syrup to make whatever product (coke, rootbeer, etc) is desired. Used carbonizers usually go for around $120, new ones for $300. Your dad got a good deal (bless his heart), but unless you plan on setting up a home soda fountain, I don't know that it will do you much good. Darrell Montrose, CO Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 16:21:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "R. Shreve" <rashreve at interpath.com> Subject: My Solution for Mini-Keg CO2 Leaks Hello All!! As a mini keg owner and regular user, I too have been plagued with the regular problem of those expensive damn CO2 cartridges prematurely emptying due to the poor seal at the "face" of the cartridge. Here is a solution I discovered that works: I went to my local auto parts shop, and bought a "rubber tire patch", basically thin rubber gasket material that had a sticky back. I took apart the Fass-Frisch valve assembly (you need a great BIG allen wrench to get it apart), and cut two circular pieces of rubber to fit both behind and in front of the nylon disk where the cartridge seats, having cut a small hole in the center of the front rubber piece for the little metal piercing tip to come through. Long term storage is unknown at this point, but I can tell you that I tapped a mini-keg almost two weeks ago, and I STILL have gas in the ORIGINAL CO2 cartridge, AND the beer is still carbonated! Isn't it wonderful when one of your projects turns out great??!!?? Randy in Salisbury, North Carolina "Too much of a good thing is.....wonderful!!! - Mae West Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:08:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com> Subject: REMINDER and Call for JUDGES!!! Big and HUGE competition Competition reminder and Call for Judges! 11th Annual Big and Huge Homebrew Competition Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild 10 May 1997, 10am-4pm, Great Dane Pub and Brewing Company Madison, Wisconsin The Big and Huge is a competition for higher-gravity beers (1.050-1.060 is "Big"; >1.060 is "Huge"). Entries will be accepted in all BJCP style categories for which the original gravity range includes 1.050 or higher. The gravity restriction excludes relatively few sub-categories, although 1.050 is the top of the range for some categories, and entries must meet the minimum gravity requirement even if the range for the style dips below the 1.050 mark. (We had to disqualify an entry last year because it was an entry in an eligible style but not an eligible original gravity.) Awards will be made in all styles (or combined style groupings) for which there are at least five entries. Winners from the style categories can advance to a "mini-BOS" Big and Huge round (Big Ales, Huge Ales, Big Lagers, Huge Lagers) for additional ribbons and prizes, and the best of the Big and Huge round advance to Best of Show. Brewing ingredient prizes have been generously donated by Northwestern, L.D. Carlson, and HopUnion USA. (There may be additional prizes available between now and the Huge day.) Entries are due in Madison May 7. Out of town judges who PREREGISTER their entries may bring the bottles with them Saturday morning. Homebrew clubs with which we exchange newsletters have received forms--ask your club liaison for a copy. If you need complete rules and entry forms, you may contact me (rpaolino at earth.execpc.com) for an emailed file or you may visit our new (and still sparse) web site: http://www.globaldialog.com/madbrewers to download forms. (if they're not there when you visit, email to me and I'll get them to you--and remind our webmaster to get the forms on. (The web page does have information about the 11th Annual Great Taste of the Midwest<sm>, for which tickets went on sale May 1 and will sell quickly.) JUDGES!! Come to Madison to help judge some big-hearted beers, enjoy beerful hospitality, and visit the city's three brewpubs or tour one of the many small breweries in the area. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Madison Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:38:48 -0300 (GMT-0300) From: Jorge Blasig - IQ <gisalb at elmer.fing.edu.uy> Subject: Malt extraction efficiency Dear friends, Some days ago I posted a request about extraction efficiency in points and %. I received several answers explaining exactly what I needed. Now, I would appreciate that somebody posts an article indicating extraction efficiencies for different kinds of malts. I was informed that this information was published by Zymurgy magazine some time ago. However, I can not receive it here in Uruguay. Thanks in advance for your responses. Jorge Blasig Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:12:22 +0000 From: garyrich at smartlink.net Subject: nitrogen/beer gas Jeff Sturman asks: >One of my customers is hell bent on using nitrogen to serve his >homebrew. He wants to know if he can carbonate the beer with >straight co2 and then serve the beer with straight nitrogen. As Erik Vanthilt said, this will not give the "guiness head" effect. I suspect it would also end up with flat beer. Nitrogen is not very soluable in beer (that's actually the point) and I suspect that over a week or so you would end up scrubbing the CO2 out of suspension in the beer - hence, flat beer. You would probably need to keep nitrogen top pressure higher than is practical for dispense in order to keep it carbonated (unless you are using the gas pressure to pump the beer up 2 flights of stairs) . With mixed beer gas this works much better. sometimes I force carbonate with CO2 and then dispense with CO2/N2 beer gas. This lets me put enough top pressure on to get a good seal on the lid (they often do not seal properly at 5-8 lbs - at least mine don't) and still dispense a lightly carbonated bitter. The partial pressure of CO2 is enough enough to maintain the 1.2-1.5 atmospheres of CO2 in the beer that I want. You can use the temp/CO2 tables that are all over the net (and in Fix's Vienna book) to get it set right - just remember to use only the partial pressure of the CO2 in your calculations. Gary Rich webmaster at brewtek.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:54:14 +1000 (EST) From: Charlie Scandrett <merino at buggs.cynergy.com.au> Subject: Charlies Infiltrating There seems to be a lot of Charlies about these days. They are multiplying like a well aerated ferment. So much so that I find references to this new strain of homebrewer confusing, and I am one! Could HBDers extend the taxonomic labeling of substrains of this phylum by refering to Charlie P. (tried in absentia), Charlie S., Charlie B., Charlie R. etc so we know when we are really being flamed? Charlie S. (Brisbane, Australia) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 07:22:40 -0400 From: Dave Bartz <gbrewer at iquest.net> Subject: Sorry about the long signature If anybody noticed and was put off by the long sig. on my last post, sorry about that. Forgot to disengage the automatic sig function. It was not my intention to have that in my message. Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 09:52:55 -0500 From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Subject: U Flecka & Angela's Ashes In 1991 my wife and I spent a pleasant supper in Prague at the U Flecka bier garten. We enjoyed the dark soft low hopped bier and I have tried to recreate it without success. Maybe my recipe can't recreate the blurriness from extended travel, the soft Prague night, the polka band, the dumplings or the Germans singing in a separate dining room but if there are any suggestions from experienced travelers, I would appreciate your thoughts. In 1991 I had not started homebrewing or serious bierhunting so I was unable to deconstruct the recipe after several years of memory. On another subject, I'm reading "Angela's Ashes" the Pulitizer Prize and National Book Award winner. Da is an Irishman with the "cravings". It ought to be required reading for us beer enthusiasts. I'll say thanks in advance for the U Flecka advice. Cheers, jim booth at kbooth at waverly.k12.mi.us Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 13:12:00 +0500 From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at pex.net> Subject: US OPEN Homebrew Competition Results for Charlotte, NC The results of the US OPEN homebrewing competition held this past weekend in Charlotte, NC are now online for you to view on our web site (http://www.dezines.com/ at your.service/cbm). I just finished transcribing them from a fax that Ed Gaston (competition organizer) sent me, so let me know if you find any typos. I am already aware that three of the listing are missing the actual score, so I am trying to resolve this with Ed G. as we speak. Hopefully they will be fixed before his is published in the Digest. Keith Royster - Keith.Royster at pex.net at your.service - http://dezines.com/ at your.service Web Services - Starting at just $60 per YEAR! Voice & Fax - (704) 662-9125 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:33:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Rae Christopher J <3cjr7 at qlink.queensu.ca> Subject: homebrew alcohol content i, too have noticed this effect of homebrew having a powerful 'kick'. my buddies and i regularly have a pint, and compare it to about three normal commercial bottles. why is this? i suspect strongly that it has to do with the carbonation. as anyone will tell you, sparkling white wines kick harder than regular ones. similarly, mixing a shot of booze with a (small) amount of fizz (club soda, cola, etc) will also seemingly get the kick out. my mom explained the chemistry / physiology of this to me when i was but a lad, but i have since forgotten it. so what is the relevance? well, naturally carbonated drinks have different sizes of bubbles than artificially carbonated ones. i read this in a beginner's brewing book, so i assume everyone knows this. well, these different sizes of bubbles, coupled with the greatly increased head retention of homebrewed beers, i believe, add up to more co2 ending up in the stomach, where alcohol absorption _starts_ (unlike food absorption, which doesn't start until the jejunum). i believe that therefore, the alcohol will hit you faster, and thus have an initial higher b.a.c., the 'kick'. here's an experiment to try: take a few bottles of un-primed beer. artificially carbonate them. take a few more. put them aside. then take a few and do as you normally do. then take a few and over-prime them (but only a little). get a few friends over and, over the course of a few days, compare the kick. ignoring the (very) minor contribution of etoh by the priming sugars, i predict the kick will be as follows: over-primed > primed > artificially carbonated > flat ps to whoever suggested the "young" alcohol theory. unless there is more to this theory than you have written, it is... flawed. alcohol (at least the kind you _want_ to drink) is etoh, or ethanol. regardless of how long it takes to make it, or how long it's been sitting, etoh is etoh. of course, i could be wrong. ___________________________________________________________ This is Chris' signature: C____ R__ &% His home page is at http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjr7/ Return to table of contents