HOMEBREW Digest #2617 Fri 23 January 1998

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

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

  Break Material/Oops! Forgot the Irish Moss (Jim Herter)
  Upping Heating Efficiency ("Tkach, Christopher")
  New Wort Boiling Method ("David R. Burley")
  Southeast Homebrewer of the Year Results ("Bryan Cronk")
  Fast starts / racking off t ("Andrew Avis")
  Clink! Pop! Blam! And the eating of humble pie... (Some Guy)
  decotion mashing (Michael Rasmussen)
  How to clean and immersion chiller. ("John W. Carpenter")
  Layers in carboy ("Dr. Dwight A Erickson")
  Re: Optimum Mash Grain Depth (Kelly Jones)
  2 liter heaven (Darrell)
  Bridgeport IPA ("Eric Darrow")
  Brewtek Saison (Keith Busby)
  Dry Yeast Expired? (Michael Beatty)
  Re: SOD ("Dr. Dwight A Erickson")
  Lower efficiency for high-gravity beers? (Dan Cole)
  Competition announcement ("Ralph Colaizzi")
  RE: more about labels ("PARKER,Myles")
  cornelius keg carbonation (antnee56)
  Ion Exchange ("Raymond C. Steinhart")
  GRISTBLASTER(tm) (The Holders)
  Help with porter ("David Johnson")
  In Defense of Step Mashing (GuyG4)
  Re: Zima Brewing (Glenn Raudins) (Jeff McNeal)
  labels (Heiner Lieth)
  alcoholism thread (Heiner Lieth)
  propane tanks (John_E_Schnupp)
  Cheap CF chiller design (Richard Scholz)
  Re: Zima (Mark Weaver)

Apologies for missed delivery of Digest 1/22/98. You were not unsubscribed, the server did not crash, and the world did not end. Situation has been rectified. Be sure to enter the... The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition Brooklyn Brewery, Brooklyn, NY Entries due by 1/31/98, competition 2/7/98 Contact Bob Weyersberg at triage at wfmu.org for more info. NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:10:59 -0500 From: Jim Herter <james.m.herter.1 at nd.edu> Subject: Break Material/Oops! Forgot the Irish Moss I did my first decoction mash yesterday (Oktoberfest) following the steps outlined in the Zymurgy "Grains" issue from a year or so ago. Surprisingly, it went as planned, but did add an hour or so to the session. I try to lay out my brewing session the day before and usually I am very prepared. In the course of reading and brewing at the same time I managed to forget to add the Irish Moss. Even when using the moss I seem to end up with a good amount of protein in the fermenter. I know that this is not desirable, but I haven't become overly concerned due to the fact that the beers turn out very well. Generally, when I do a lager (which is not often), I leave the beer in secondary for 4-6 weeks and get good clarity. Any reason to be concerned? Or any remedial steps to take after the fact to deal with potential problems that may occur as a result of having the excess protein in the primary? Any suggestions on how to leave the junk behind in the brew pot? I use a converted keg with a spigot at the bottom and the pipe running to the center of the bottom. (Unfortunately the person who cut and welded the keg thought he was doing me a favor by making the pipe one piece to the bottom). I'm always leery of leaving the beer set too long in the kettle after chilling - Or set in the carboy for extended periods before pitching. Jim Herter St. Joe Valley Brewers Chairperson Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:39:18 -0500 From: "Tkach, Christopher" <tkach at ctron.com> Subject: Upping Heating Efficiency Ok, after having probably one of the worst brew sessions I've ever experienced on Saturday, I'm asking some advice on improving my boils. But first, let me give you a little history... This Christmas, to my dis-belief, I found a 10gal brew kettle under the tree. Meaning that I could finally do all-grain, full boils (I've been stuck in partial mash/partial boil land for over 2 years now). Needless to say, I was quite happy! But w/ this new toy, I've run into a bit of a problem w/ achieving a nice rolling boil because I'm now trying to boil 6-7 gallons instead of the 4-4.5 gallons that I was boiling previously. To compensate for the lack of 'power' that my wimpy electric stove puts out, I've had to partially cover the kettle (I know, DMS...). But this has created another problem, and that is the amount of boiled off wort has dropped (I'm assuming its due to the kettle being partially covered). Which in turn has resulted in lower OGs and more wort than I know what to do with. This was quite evident Saturday when I tried to make an Imperial Stout, but ended up w/ 7gal of wort (after a 90min boil), about 10 pts lower than expected. My mash efficiency wasn't off, which means that the lower OG is due to the fact that I had more wort than expected (7gal vs 5.5gal). Is there any way that I can improve the efficiency of the stove/boil so that I don't have to keep the kettle partially covered. Would insulating the kettle help much? Thanks, - Chris Newmarket, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:17:49 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: New Wort Boiling Method Brewsters: One of my buddies attended the recent American Institute of = Chem Engineering National Meeting in LA and brought back a reference to a paper given by Gino Bacon from = Vrije Universitet Brussel. He described a "greener" wort boiling method. Not that the wort is green, but the method is claimed to be more environmentally satisfactory. The news article was titled "Making Better Brews, "Worts" and All" Guess the author just couldn't help her/himself. Anyway, Bacon and Sonck working with Interbrew NV describes the method as a two stage wort boiling system. 1) First the wort is kept at boiling temperature and no significant = evaporation occurs. Volatile compounds formed through chemical reactions are accumulated in the wort. 2) In stage two, the volatile compounds are eliminated in a wort stripping column. Boiling wort is passed through a column packed with materials that offer a large surface for contact with water vapor to effectively strip the liquid of VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) which pass off with the steam. Bacon comments that the flavor profile of the beers produced in industrial trials matches that of conventionally boiled worts. He also comments that there is a significant reduction in the energy loss due to boiling. Frankly, I doubt this news description is entirely correct and I believe what happens is that the *vapors* from the boiling wort are passed over a packed column familiar to chemist and chemical = engineers alike. I would also suppose that it is a method of reducing or controlling the odor released to the outside world ( an increasing problem with food processors in the US.) during the long boil, which needs to be carried out for an hour or longer to get the conversion of the hop resins. This may also preserve some of the hop aroma oils as well or they could be collected in the effluent from the column. I would imagine the length of the = column and the number of theoretical plates would be important to this process. Interesting idea. I can imagine a pressure cooker being used in some fashion to simulate this in which the wort is held at 212F and not boiled for an hour. Perhaps some form of magnetically coupled agitation would be needed to get the extraction from the hops and then follow this with a brief boil. This might minimize = the "this place smells like a brewery" comments from the SO , and provide more control over the hop aromas/bitterness ratio in the brew. The danger of course is that with pressure cookers, plugging of the vent can spell disaster. Can you say wort bomb of scalding water and flying chunks of metal? The combo of hops and boilup foam sounds like a dangerous combo to me and certainly goes = against the recommendation of the cooker manufacturer of what kinds of things that can be safely processed in a pressure cooker. Maybe this could be done at atmospheric pressure with some kind = of automatic control on the heater at near boiling with agitation from inert gas - CO2 or nitrogen - or a mechanical stirring to get dispersion of hop resins so they can be converted and utilized. 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: 19 Jan 1998 12:13 EST From: "Bryan Cronk" <bcronk at nortel.ca> Subject: Southeast Homebrewer of the Year Results Competition Results, Southeast Homebrewer of the Year Hosted by TRUB and CARBOY, Durham NC, January 17, 1998 ====================================================== Southeast Homebrewer of the Year winner - --------------------------------------- Brian Travis, Lawrenceville GA Congratulations Brian!!! Best of Show - ------------ 1st Al Clayson Charlotte NC Belgian Strong Ale 2nd Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA American Style Lager 3rd Weston Sampson Orlando FL Irish-Style Dry Stout Individual Category Results - --------------------------- Category: Belgians and Lambics 1st Al Clayson Charlotte NC Belgian Strong Ale 2nd Bruce Pitner Durham NC Belgian Strong Ale 3rd Scott Boeke North August SC Tripel Category: Brown Ales and Milds 1st David Pappas Ocoee FL American Brown Ale 2nd John Allen Alphretta GA American Brown Ale 3rd Scott Wallace Concord NC American Brown Ale Category: English Pale Ales 1st Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA India Pale Ale 2nd Nancy Sampson Orlando FL India Pale Ale 3rd Bruce Pitner Durham NC India Pale Ale Category: American Ales 1st Nancy Sampson Orlando FL American Pale Ale 2nd Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA American Pale Ale 3rd J. Horinek, P. Schomaker Scott Christoffel Pompano Beach FL California Common Category: Bitters 1st Brian Buckowski Smyrna GA English Strong Bitter 2nd Weston Sampson Orlando FL English Ordinary Bitter 3rd Danny Johnson Willow Springs NC English Best Bitter Category: Stouts 1st Weston Sampson Orlando FL Irish-Style Dry Stout 2nd Nancy Sampson Orlando FL Irish-Style Dry Stout **Tie** 3rd Mike Hamman Huntsville AL Oatmeal Stout 3rd J. Horinek, P. Schomaker Scott Christoffel Pompano Beach FL Foreign-Style Stout Category: Porters 1st Barry Browne Atlanta GA Robust Porter 2nd Scott Boeke North August SC Robust Porter 3rd Scott Wallace Concord NC Brown Porter Category: Strongs 1st Evan Kraus Atlanta GA American Style Barleywine 2nd Jim Buck Cary NC Traditional Bock 3rd Al Clayson Charlotte NC Weizenbock Category: German Lagers 1st Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA Bohemian Style Pilsner 2nd Rick Klemp Rougemont NC Schawrzbier 3rd Al Clayson Charlotte NC Marzen/Oktoberfest Category: Alts/Kolshes 1st Weston Sampson Orlando FL Dusseldorf-Style Altbier 2nd David Pappas Ocoee FL Dusseldorf-Style Altbier 3rd K. Klemp, J. Purl Durham NC Dusseldorf-Style Altbier Category: Wheats 1st Bill MacKenzie Raleigh NC Berliner Weisse 2nd Weston Sampson Orlando FL Weizen/Weissbier 3rd J. Horinek, P. Schomaker Scott Christoffel Pompano Beach FL Weizen/Weissbier Category: Smoked/Fruit/Herb 1st Thomas Moore Covington GA Herb and Spice Beers 2nd Dennis and Paul Waltman Atlanta GA Fruit and Vegetable Beer 3rd Tyler Freeman Whitwell TN Other Smoked Beer Category: Specialty 1st David Pappas Ocoee FL Classic-Style Specialty Beer 2nd Bruce Pitner Durham NC Classic-Style Specialty Beer 3rd Nancy Sampson Orlando FL Specialty Beer Category: Scottich Ales/American Lagers 1st Brian Travis Lawrenceville GA American Style Lager 2nd Weston Sampson Orlando FL Scottish Export Ale 3rd Al Clayson Charlotte NC American-Style Premium Lager - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cronk, SHY 1997 Competition Organizer cronks1 at mindspring.com (919) 528-3375 (H) (919) 991-7598 (W) Return to table of contents
Date: 19 Jan 1998 10:20:23 -0700 From: "Andrew Avis" <Andrew.Avis.0519423 at nt.com> Subject: Fast starts / racking off t Fellow brewers: I use a yeast starter method that is unorthodox and in theory should lead = to bad beer, but has in practice made excellent beers that start in 2-4 = hours. I've done this with both lager and ale yeasts: 1) I make a 1 litre starter w/ OG 1.040, well aerated, & pitch the smack = pack or washed yeast from a previous batch. The starter is kept at about = 70F. I do this 2-3 days before brewing. (I'll step up once if brewing a = strong beer). 2) I pitch the entire starter at high karausen into well aerated 85F = wort. 3) There is usually some karausen after 2-4 hours, and a full, rolling = ferment within 6-8 hours. The beer is usually at about 70F. At this = point I move the carboy to an area at proper fermentation temps. I realize that a "hot start" at 85F is not considered optimum (especially = for lagers), nor is making such a large starter from a small amount of = yeast. However, I have yet to taste any off-flavours in the last 5 = batches I've made with this method, one of which was a bock using Wyeast = 2007. Now a question: does anyone rack a second time after a few hours to get = the wort off of settled trub? I tried this for the first time last night = w/ an American Lager. I racked the wort into a carboy, pitched the = starter, and then let settle for 2 hours. I racked clearer wort off of = about 1" of trub into a second carboy. I noticed, however, that there = seemed to be some activity in the trub, and my beer took about 12 hours = to start fully. I'm wondering if I racked off most of my active yeast as = well as trub? Should I have waited until after racking to pitch the = yeast? Where does active yeast go after it's pitched - to the bottom, or = into suspension? Ultimately I'd like to find a filter that works better than the choreboy = at getting rid of all the break material/hops stuff. Drew Avis Calgary Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:31:02 -0500 (EST) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Clink! Pop! Blam! And the eating of humble pie... Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... Al takes exception with my analogies, and some other stuff... "... analogy needs work. Your tires will inflate even if you fill them with water, but the ride would not be so smooth ;^)." True, but you're looking at the wrong side of the system. Tires *will* inflate with water because rubber is elastic; not because water is compressible. Perhaps a better thing would be to have said that is why the compressor you used to fill your tires works. Or something. Whatever. You get the point. "Not quite... the issue is not pressure but rather generated CO2. The generated CO2 would go somewhere: into solution." Maybe I'm all wet here, but I think you and I are sharing the towel: CO2 goes into solution both above and below the liquid/headspace boundary relative to the apparent pressure (note the word pressure) of the gas on each side. It "rushes" to equallize the two. Granted CO2 is formed by the metabolizing of sugars, so in terms of mass-equillibrium, all is equal - but! I contest that the densities of ethanol and CO2 (you'll note CO2 typically *is* a gas, no?) is much less than that of the sugars from whence they derive. Otherwise, you'd never hear the welcome Pppphhhttt! of the cap or the unwelcome *POP* of a breaking bottle. It is my contention, then, that no matter where you think the CO2 is is the system, it *must* generate some change in pressure if developed via fermentation in a closed environment. Otherwise, you'd never have to worry about popped bottles (whether "Blam" or "Chink") because the CO2 would simply go into solution (I don't think that's quite the way you meant to say that, Al). Now, based on the differences in compressibility between water and gas, I *still* contend that the headspace provides a safety net. **** Pie eating contest! Flavor of the day: Humble Pie... Sanity check: 4 Cornelius, 2 Spartanburg, and 1 Firestone keg checked: 130 psi Max working pressure (blush Those 3's KINDA look like 8's, don't they? Heh.). I retract my statements regarding the max pressure on a keg (though they are using an engineering safety factor, aren't they?). (Mmmmm. I *LOVE* this pie. Can I have it ala mode?) Also, in my zeal in shooting from the lip, I did mistate failure mechanisms of the kegs: gradual changes upward in pressure of some incompressible medium (water, ice) will usually not result in an explosion. Failure modes of glass under pressure, on the other hand, are a little less predictable. (Urp. No more pie for me, thanks. Full.) See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brewing Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:50:37 -0800 From: Michael Rasmussen <mikeraz at ncube.com> Subject: decotion mashing I spent several frustrating hours with a decoction mash yesterday. the basic problem was going from the protien rest to the saccrification rest - and not hitting the target temp. Heck, getting close would have been good. Normal descriptions of the process say to take out 1/3 of the thick part of mash for the decotion. Is that 1/3 by weight? By Volume? Could any experienced decoction masher please post some hints for the process? I'd like to try this again and get it right. Michael Rasmussen - mikeraz at ncube.com 503-531-6401 Product Management Engineer nCUBE Video Servers Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 12:49:03 EST From: "John W. Carpenter" <jwc at med.unc.edu> Subject: How to clean and immersion chiller. I had a wonderful idea this past weekend when brewing. With the recent discussion on cleaning copper immersion chillers, I started wondering if I should pay more attention to cleaning mine. The current idea seems to be to use vinegar and a green scrubbie thing to get off the oxides. This is too much trouble for me. I wanted to just soak it off. It would cost too much and be a waist to get enough vinegar to be able to soak my chiller. (50 ft. coil) Then it hit me. I'm an all grain brewer, and stop collection running when they get to 1.010 or when I have enough volume in my kettle. I acidify my sparge water. Why not switch to another pot and keep collecting runoff. That's what I did. I then put my chiller into the low pH, low gravity runoff and let it soak. It worked great! No scrubbing, no buffing. Try it, you'll like it. -- John W. Carpenter **** Never Trust a Brewer with an **** email - jwc at med.unc.edu O|~~| inseam larger than his waistline. |~~|O http://www.unc.edu/~jwc/ `--' `--' Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:47:26 -0700 From: "Dr. Dwight A Erickson" <colvillechiro at plix.com> Subject: Layers in carboy I started a version of IPA a week ago. Five days into the primary fermentation, the yeast began to "settle out" - -but it is in layers : The top 1/4 of the wort is fairly clear the next fourth is "cloudy" yeast, the next fourth is clearish (like the top fourth) the bottom fourth is cloudier, then the sediment. I've never seen this kind of layering - - Any ideas ? Has anybody else experienced this ? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:07:33 -0800 From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com> Subject: Re: Optimum Mash Grain Depth George Danz in HBD #2613 asks: >What is a >good guideline for ratio of grain depth to tun diameter? Why does anyone suppose that the RATIO of depth to diameter has any bearing on the mechanics of sparging? The important parameter is DEPTH. If you consider a drop of water making it's way down through the grain bed, it has no knowledge of how far it is from the sides of the tun. The only thing it sees is the distance it travels from top to bottom. I remember reading somewhere (could it have been Papazian?) that when the brewers from (some Megabrewer) wanted to do a small-scale test of their lauter tun, they simulated it with a stack of coffee cans, with the tops and bottoms removed, taped end-to-end. Thus, they achieved grain depth of several feet (which was similar to the full-size tun), even though the depth:diameter ratio was nowhere close. If you look at a wide range of tuns, from homebrew scale to megabrewer scale, you'll find that the depth is close to the same (well, within a factor of 2x-3x) in all, whereas the diameter is all over the board. So don't worry about a grain depth of 18-20" in a small tun. Not only is the ratio unimportant, but you'll get more efficient sparging with a deeper bed. Kelly Hillsboro, OR Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:12:53 -0700 From: Darrell <darrell at montrose.net> Subject: 2 liter heaven Hi guys, It seems like forever since I've posted (or read...) HBD or r.c.b. Things have been kinda crazy. Anyway, I stumbled onto a great trick. (Sorry if someone has already come up with this). I have heard of the "Carbonator", and I hate to take away anyone's business, but this was just too good. I have been getting tired of lugging kegs around with me to various occassions, and was wishing I could do something more portable (I use 1/2 bbl. kegs). I had a couple of those "Fizz-Savers" from Walmart that I got for about $2.50 for a 2 pack. It's one of those pump gizmos to put onto a 2 liter bottle after you open it. (Anyone who understands partial pressures knows how little these will actually do for you, but I had other things in mind...) I broke off the pump portion, and pulled it out of the main housing. I then used the gasket from the foot of the pump to place around the 1/4" tube from my CO2 cylinder. Inserting the tube with the gasket around it back into the hole from the pump gave me a tight enough fit to now pressurize a 2 liter bottle. BINGO!! I now have perfectly portable kegged beer! (I also have free sparkling water...) Since I keg in 1/2 bbl. kegs, I have been limited to one keg in the fridge at a time. I am now considering keeping my kegs at room temperature, and just filling various 2 liter bottles in order to have an assortment of brews in the fridge. At $2.00 ea. (the price has gone up, I just went and bought a few more) I don't mind using them with impunity (as compared with $12 - $15 ea.). Happy brewing! - -- Darrell Garton Montrose, CO Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:27:50 -0800 From: "Eric Darrow" <edarrow at cmdpdx.com> Subject: Bridgeport IPA I would like to brew something close to a Bridgeport IPA but since the recipe calls for 5 different hops I can't begin to guess the amounts. Does anyone have any experience with this recipe? TIA. Eric Darrow Graphic Designer - Multimedia Group Creative Media Development Portland, Oregon www.cmdpdx.com (503) 223-6794 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:12:07 -0600 From: Keith Busby <kbusby at ou.edu> Subject: Brewtek Saison Does anyone have recent experience with Brewtek CL-380 Saison yeast? After mighty flocculation and a decent impersonation of a maelstrom, the head on my Saturday Grand Cru batch rose so much that I have to put a blow-off tube on a 6.5 gal. carboy. Grain bill was the usual pilsner, small amounts of biscuit, aromatic, carapils, and amber candi sugar. Pitched 1 liter starter into 5.5 gal of OG 1.074. Temp. about 68F. Is this yeast notorious for such behavior? Do we know its origin? Dupont? Regal? Keith Busby Keith Busby George Lynn Cross Research Professor University of Oklahoma Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies 780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202 Norman, OK 73019 Tel.: (405) 325-5088 Fax: (405) 325-0103 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:27:44 -0600 From: Michael Beatty <beattymp at dscoe.com> Subject: Dry Yeast Expired? Greetings All! I've collected a few packets of dry yeast over the past few years with = various kits and am now having thoughts of attempting to use them in my = next couple of batches of brew. Some packets have been refrigerated the = whole time, and some have been stored in a cabinet in my garage (temps = varying from 25F-105F). All packets were from ale or stout kits. Anyone have a reason why I couldn't pitch the dry yeast? I'm not so = sure that temperature would affect dry yeast, but I thought I'd get some = input from the collective. Thanks, Michael Beatty in Edwardsville, IL Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:49:00 -0700 From: "Dr. Dwight A Erickson" <colvillechiro at plix.com> Subject: Re: SOD Marshall, Al wrote: > Dr: > > Is this your own idea (using it in brewing)? > Is it in use anywhere else in the food > industry? > > -- Al > > Al Marshall > al_marshall at mail.intel.com Al, This is just an idea that I had on my own. SOD is mainly used in the human nutritional area. It is pretty near flavorless (I use it daily in addition to other anti- oxidants i.e. Vit.C, Vit.E Selenium etc as part of my own health maitenance.) I doubt if it is used much in the regular food industry, as there are other cheaper anti-oxidants around. My thought(s) are that even vitamin C is sometimes used in brew, it isn't stable to heat.....SOD is much more stable to heat. I'm thinking that it might be quite useful in beers that are going to go through a long lagering or possible long storage. I've never heard of anyone using it in brew, but my knowledge of chemistry says it should work. If I don't hear anything to the contrary, I'm gonna give it a try the next time I do a lager. Doc E Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:04:06 -0500 From: Dan Cole <dcole at roanoke.infi.net> Subject: Lower efficiency for high-gravity beers? Has anyone (besides me) experienced significantly lower extract efficiencies for "big beers". Over the weekend, I brewed a barley-wine (for next winter) and wound up with a lousy 50% efficiency. Usually, I estimate my efficiency in SUDS4.0 at 75% and can pretty much hit the predicted O.G., but this time rather than the 1.110 I was expecting, I wound up with 1.070. I did have one other problem (I mistakenly used a water to grain ratio of .8quarts per pound, rather than 1 to 1.5), but was wondering if this is the only factor that contributed to my undershooting my target O.G. Do those who have their brewing down to more of a science experience any significant change in efficiencies for their "big beers"? And if so, can anyone describe the mechanisms at work? Thanks, Dan Cole Roanoke, VA. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:25:23 -0500 From: "Ralph Colaizzi" <rwc at pair.com> Subject: Competition announcement The Three Rivers Alliance of Serious Homebrewers will be hosting their 8th annual homebrew , mead and cider competition on March 28, 1998. The Turtle Creek Homebrewers Award will be presented to the winner of a new category for "just good beer" that doesn't fit any recognized class. Best of show winner will have their recipe brewed by the Foundry Ale works. Entries will be accepted from March 2 to March 14 at local homebrew supply shops or can be mailed to Triangle Homebrewing Supply, 2821 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Entry fee is $6 for the first entry and $5 for each additional. Judges are needed! Contact Rich Schutte, Competition Organizer, 412-429-4922 . Web page url http://ralph.pair.com/competition.htm Ralph Colaizzi Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:03:59 +1000 From: "PARKER,Myles" <myles.parker at deetya.gov.au> Subject: RE: more about labels > <LURK MODE OFF> > > Mark Tumarkin said: >A couple of things on the label thread, milk does make an effective (and >cheap and easy) glue but it tends to come off if you put the bottles in an >ice chest at a party. I have tried a number of adhesives and the one that >I am most satisfied with is the UHU glue stick. It stays on very well, but >comes off easily in a light ammonia soak. Recently I have been using the >purple ones. They work exactly the same as the plain white but the color >makes it much easier to see where you have already applied the glue and >thus to get complete coverage without going over areas twice. > >I second Mark's comment about the UHU glue stick. I have always used them and >found the glue to be easy to apply and to remove. Mark, to remove my labels I >just run a little hot water over the label till it's soaked then just slip >the label off the bottle. (With you applying the clear contact over top will >make this step a little harder! Like the idea though, I just might start >doing that with mine). Then just rinse the bottle some more under the hot >water, rubbing with your finger and you'll find that the glue washes off >quite easily! I wrote about the UHU glue sticks some time last year in >response to a question about label adhesives. > > Myles Parker, > Limestone Plains Brewing , > and Canberra Brewers Club, > Canberra, > Beautiful Capital City > of the beautiful land of OZ! > Australia > > <LURK MODE ON> > > > Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:21:02 -0500 From: antnee56 at juno.com Subject: cornelius keg carbonation Hi, I would like some info on naturally carbonating my homebrew in a corny keg . I will be trying this method for the first time and would like to know how much head space is required, and also the correct amount of corn sugar / 5 gal keg. Thanks in advance! Tony in Trenton ,NJ Antnee56 at juno.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:29:58 -0600 From: "Raymond C. Steinhart" <rnr at popmail.mcs.net> Subject: Ion Exchange Can anyone tell me the proportion of ions exchanged in a standard water softener? Is calcium the only ion exchanged for sodium or are there others? Thanks. Raymond C. Steinhart B.O.S.S. Brewers of South Suburbia Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:24:40 -0800 From: The Holders <zymie at sprynet.com> Subject: GRISTBLASTER(tm) I've found browsing the recent thread concerning RIMS/RSMS/GOTTIMS/MIXMASHER, etc. very interesting. It has me thinking twice about implementing a GRISTBLASTER(tm) in IGOR98(tm), my HEARMS (Heat Exchange Automated Recirculating Mash System). Would a GRISTBLASTER(tm) that doesn't operate full time during the mash be a possible bridge between HEARMS and MAXMISHER, or would it be a waste of gadgetry? Wayne Holder Long Beach CA http://andinator.com/zymico Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:48:46 -0600 From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj at inwave.com> Subject: Help with porter Brewers, I will be brewing an interpretation of early porter. I intend to use special roast for a significant part of the grain as brown malt (the suppliers I usually deal with don't carry Hugh Baird). I was wondering if anyone knew about the enzyme level in this malt. Does it have enough enzymes to convert itself? I also intend to use some oak chips. I am aware that the older porters were aged in oak vats. I am also aware that there was a large volume to surface ratio and that this flavor was probably not marked. I would use some restraint. The other reason I would like to try it is that I have liked the flavor in the beers that I have tried that have it. Any suggestions on how and how much to use? I would also like some suggestions on a yeast to use. Since Whitbread was a big porter maker in the past, would it (or similar yeasts) be a good choice? Maybe I should use more than one strain. In order to get some of the acid character I was considering adding some lactic acid, but when and how much. I had guessed about 5 cc's of 88% lactic but when? I am not ready to try a sour mash or chance my whole set up to lactobacillus. I realize that old porter probably had some Brett. character in it. I am not sure that I like that flavor enough to commit a whole batch to it. But might consider splitting a batch at racking and adding it in the secondary. Would this give a significant brett character? It is good to try new things. I plan to use American pFuggles(US Tettnanger) as hops (Hopped to about 35 IBU) and dry-hop with the same. Suggestions? Dave Return to table of contents
13 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:17:49 EST From: GuyG4 <GuyG4 at aol.com> Subject: In Defense of Step Mashing Much has been written of late, by many whose posts are met with respect and awe by those of us general hobbyists, about the uselessness of step mashing, and the clear superiority of the infusion mash technique. Before this goes much further, I wish to defend step mashing, and differ with those who think our time is wasted, our beers are less satisfying, and our brains somewhat small. First, definitions. By step mashing, I refer to the technique of mashing in with hot water, raising the temperature of the mash vessel and contained mash by means of outside heat to pre-determined levels, holding for a period of time, and raising again. This ends, generally, with a relatively popular "mash-out" phase, denaturing enzymes at 170 degrees F. Infusion mashing, alternatively, consists of mixing a pre-determined amount of hot or boiling water with grain, then allowing that mix to equilibrate temperature wise at optimum temperatures for enzyme activity. Temperature raises are accomplished by addition of more water, again, ending with a mashout at 170 degrees F. Why stepmash? Current malts need no protein rest; indeed, the 122F rest was recently disposed in several posts in this digest. Current malts need no beta-glucan rest, because we've abandoned rye or other gummy bits in our beer. Infusion is the best, right? Well, perhaps. I'll not denegrate infusion mashers here. I will say that step mashing allows me a level of control over both mash thickness and temperature an infusion mash cannot approach. I beta-glucan, acid, or protein rest, or sometimes a mixture of these, at 1 qt. water per pound of grain. I add some water, generally .5 qt.per pound, to allow easy stirring at saccrification temps. I can control reasonably well the temp, emphasizing alcohol production or body as the style or my whim indicates, with my burner. Yes, the first few batches were difficult, but with practice, I got pretty good at landing on proper temps. What I gain, over a similar infusion mash, is a tangible level of control, and an intangible feel for the grain. I lose efficiency, and time. Neither of increased efficiency or saving time are reasons why I brew. Even though a protein rest is not needed, my beers have a great head. My rye beer doesn't stick in the lauter because I rested for it. I can change, in the next batch, and emphasize body over alcohol production or vice-a-versa as I choose. Commercial breweries don't do this we are told. I don't know, but Noonan, in Appendix C (I think) of Brewing Lager Beer, disputes this. He claims most micros step mash. I suppose we could count, but does it really matter? Equipment is minimal, just a propane burner and a canner. I have infused and stepped the same beer, and to my taste, the step-mashed brew tastes better. I guess, If I wanted to brew like A-B, or Red Hook, or even the local brewpub, I'd need permits and a big garage. And I'd need to recoup investment, and all that other stuff we do 9-5. I choose to brew beer for me, and stepping offers the most control and fun for me. Infusers, enjoy, but I'll be steppin' out on the back porch for some time. Whether I need to or not. Infusion mashing certainly works, and makes great beer. But let's be nice to us step mashers, guys, and give it a try. You'll get a lot more control. Cheers, and good to hear from you Siebel guys Guy Gregory Lightning Creek Home Brewery Spokane WA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:35:27 -0800 From: Jeff McNeal <mcnealj at ECE.ORST.EDU> Subject: Re: Zima Brewing (Glenn Raudins) Gabi Scharfetter asks about brewing Zima, >From what Glenn says about the process of "Brewing" zima, it sounds like it is just alcohol and carbonated water. If I were going to "brew" some zima, I'd just get some water, add vodka to taste, and carbonate. Maybe a twist of lemon? Jeff Corvallis OR - -- Jeff McNeal mcnealj at flop.engr.orst.edu OFFICE: DEAR206 541.737.3213 http://www.ece.orst.edu/~mcnealj "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." I. Asimov Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:24:10 -0800 (PST) From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org> Subject: labels "Michel J. Brown" praises Avery #6464 labels and Word 8 from making beer bottle labels: >Word also allows this, and additionally, you can print the ubiquitous gov't >warning (mine's a rye wit poking fun at the inanity of the liberal's >warnings) in a fine pitch font. You can preview, test print, and even print >multiple copies. The best part is that the Avery #6464 labels are easy to >peel off and make for easy cleanup when returned for reuse! I've used WordPerfect (version 6 and up) to make labels and it works just as well. My experience with Avery labels has been different (probably because different labels have different glues?). I bought a box of #5163 labels (2" x 4" address labels) and used them liberally only to discover after two bottlings that the glue sticks REALLY REALLY well to just about anything fit to hold beer and you have to invest some serious elbow grease to get them off. These labels are definitely NOT easy to peel off. As a result of that, I now label just my bottle caps. I use the #5163 labels and print 12 small labels (in a 4 by 3 table) onto each address label and cut these out and stick them on the bottle caps. This is functional (they get tossed with the cap), but provides little outlet for art or for impressing those who are not adequately impressed by the bottle's content. Heiner Lieth. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:24:13 -0800 (PST) From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org> Subject: alcoholism thread I've been intrigued at our discussion on alcoholism. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to me that we are all concerned about alcoholism because at the level to which it might apply to us (1) it doesn't seem to be well defined, (2) it appears to be an actively acquired affliction (i.e. not like diseases that you get without regard of what actions you take), and (3) most of us in this forum are susceptible because we drink alcoholic beverage in quantities that are (for most of us) not insignificant. I.e. many of us are probably prone to some extent to getting this disease. Perhaps we realize (fear) that our hobby could somehow slide us into alcoholism. I think we all know that is something which we must avoid at all cost. As such we look for clear-cut indicators to help us determine when we might have stepped over the line. >From what I can tell there are no such indicators and there is no clear line. Although it might have something to do with how much alcohol you consume, how it affects you, or how much you weigh, I suspect that it has more to do with whether you could muster the needed will-power to not drink the next beer (even if in your mind you know that there is no reason why you shouldn't have that beer). I think we would all prefer some neat little test that we could administer that would allow us to measure clearly to what extent we're afflicted (or not). Without such a test we basically must stay vigilant and not allow ourselves to slip into alcoholism. To do that we need information; which explains why we're interested in facts related to the matter. ...and the thread goes on... Heiner Lieth. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:22:05 -0800 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: propane tanks >Randy in Modesto >According to the propane jockey, new (U.S.) regulations go into effect = >April 1, 1998 which require any propane tank put into initial service or = >inspected and returned to service to have a new type of check valve. Said = >new valve is rumored to cost about $40. > >Since brand-new 5 gallon tanks (with valve) can be had for around $20, = >this will be a rude awakening. "New" tanks are good for 12 years before = >requiring inspection, and used tanks are good for 5 years. Here's an idea. Don't know if it will be cheaper than buying new or not but I bet it would. Take you empty tank to anyplace that does tank exchanges, usually convience type stores and service stations. They do not usually inspect the tank or otherwise look at it, other than to open the valve and make sure it's really empty. This is more expensive than going directly to your propane dealer but I'll bet it's cheaper than a brand new tank. Just make sure the tank you get in exchange has the correct valve. John Schnupp, N3CNL Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:05:16 -0500 From: Richard Scholz <rscholz at ml.com> Subject: Cheap CF chiller design Collective, Here's an Ascii drawing of an new gadget I made after researching all the possiblilities. Works great, easy to clean (lid unscrews),Cooled from 200+ to 68F in 18 mins for 5 gals. Any comments, suggestions welcome. (hope this drawing comes thru OK!) || || 3/4" Garden hose \/ \/ 3/8" hose barb/FPT into compression fitting/MPT for 3/8" copper in out [ ][ ] || || || || |=====================| | || || {||}{||}| / || || \ Here's a cheap and simple counterflow | || || | wort chiller. The parts can be bought | / / || | for around $15. The cost of Phil fittings | |-----------------| | | | ----------------| | 1. Polyethylene 1 gal jar w/lid $2.75 | | | / / | 2. two(2) garden hose fittings $2.00 | | ----------------| | 3. two(2) commpression/MPT $2.00 | | ----------------| | 4. four(4) FPT/hose barb $3.00 | | | / / | 5. ~15ft 3/8" copper tube $5.00 | | ----------------| | - ------ | | ----------------| | $14.75 | | | / / | Constuction: | | ----------------| | | | ----------------| | wrap copper into spiral that fits | |/ / | into top of jar(~4" OD). | | | | Drill four holes in top. Make sure | /|/----------------| | copper tube will match up! | / / ----------------| | Connect hose barbs to fittings. | \ \ | They secure the connections on | | |----------------| | each side of the lid. Garden hose | -------------------| | side are in the jar. 3/8" are outside. | | | | --------------------------- /\ coil of 3/8" copper in 1 gallon || polysomething jar with screw lid - -- Later, Richard L Scholz Merrill_Lynch,_Pierce,_Fenner_&_Smith_Inc. \\\|/// phone #(212)449-8186, ____________________o000_(.) (.)_000o rscholz at ml.com U Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:17:40 -0800 From: Mark Weaver <HeadBrewer at eci.com> Subject: Re: Zima > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:41:20 -0500 > From: Glenn Raudins > Subject: Zima Brewing > > Gabi Scharfetter asks about brewing Zima: > > Though many will argue about Zima's worth, process wise, it is an > interesting beverage. For what I have heard (from a person who helped > with the Zima Project), the beverage is brewed as a beer then run > through carbon filtration (and possible some other steps) to remove any > indicator that it once was a beer (color and flavor). After this, > flavoring and compounds to prevent any head formation are added. > Unfortunately, I can't offer any direction in making some at home. > > Glenn > Glenn, You're right, it is an interesting beverage, at least from a technology standpoint. I that I talked with a guy at Stroh's, when I worked at Cardinal Brewing, who was in charge of filtering. Between the centrifuge and his filters, he can turn wine into water... Sante! Mark - -- Mark Weaver - Brewer on the Loose HeadBrewer at eci.com 75'02 / 72tii "No, I don't brew heads....." Resume http://markweaver.com2tom.com Web Site: http://markweaver.com2tom.com/home.html Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/23/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96