HOMEBREW Digest #2837 Wed 30 September 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

  Re: Malting, and Mashout (Scott Murman)
  Re: Easy Keg (John_E_Schnupp)
  counter pressure kegging (Rick Wood)
  Meeting at the GABF (Mark Tumarkin)
  Re: Osmotic Shock - was Re: Stepping up Starters ("Brian Dixon")
  re: IMBR? (David Kerr)
  Bacterial sanitation thresholds ("Ken Schramm")
  Clinitest Test ("David R. Burley")
  Lactic Acid/Chlorine/Methane ("A. J. deLange")
  RE: Water Quality and cooling wort ("Timothy Green")
  Mash out (Domenick Venezia)
  Burtonization (Domenick Venezia)
  Second use First Wort Hops (Eric.Fouch)
  Re: Methane from a brewery? ("Greg Lorton")
  rank starters (John Wilkinson)
  Starters derived from single colonies (Jeremy Price)
  Re: Clinitest fuss ("Kris Jacobs")
  re: Questions about commercial fridge (Mark Tumarkin)
  Extract Flavors ("Stuart Baunoch")
  re: HERMS (Ronald Babcock)
  Competition Announcement -- Spooky Brew Review (Andrew Ager)
  RE: OVERKILL (Robert Arguello)
  Sideways fridge - no! (fridge)
  home brewery design (Brian K Dulisse)
  Fixing chipped enamel pot ("Adrian GRIFFIN")

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for the Hoppiest Show On Earth yet? Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html 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 hbd.org 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, 28 Sep 1998 22:36:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: Malting, and Mashout Dan Listermann wrote: Re: Quinoa > If he did not sprout it, he did not malt it. What he may have > done was gelatinize the grains by steaming them. Quinoa is not a cereal grain, though it is often treated as one. It's more of an herb. Re: Mash out > There are two purposes for it. It denatures the enzymes so as to > stableize the wort and it gives better extraction. <snip> > I think that > this is one of those things that may have a use in an industrial > scale, but for homebrewers I think that it is mostly just an > academic excercise. I pursued the mash-out question at some length here about 6months-1year ago (check archives for the whole brutal story). I've pretty much convinced myself that the mashout has little or nothing to do with denaturing enzymes. George D.P. clued me in that mash-out (165F-170F) can burst some remaining starch, allowing the a-amylase access to them, thereby increasing extraction. The other benefit of a mash-out is to reduce the viscosity of the lauter. SM Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:31:38 -0700 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: Re: Easy Keg >>I was wondering what the easiest way to keg is? I don't want >>to get into a elaborate keg set up. I am planning on going to >>an football game in few weeks and wanted to bring some homebrew. >>Brining a keg might be easier than a case of bottles. Bob>Platisc 2L bottle and a carbonator? Bob>A small CO2 bottle and a line would store under a sink. Bob>Quick and easy. Jim>It's really, really simple. Get a 2L PET bottle. In fact, get a bunch Jim>of them. While you're out, buy some replacement valve stems (as in, go Jim>to your nearest Auto Zone, etc., and buy replacement (tire) valve stems). My .02, The valve stem idea is a great one. I wrote a short article that was published in BT about 2 years ago concerning this very subject. I used the chrome valve stems but rubber would work too and be a little cheaper, in any case it's way cheaper than the commercial caps. This summer I want to a July 4th pig roast. I wanted to take some beer. My solution was to design a special cap for a 3L soda bottle. It is something very similar to the type of fitting used when CP filling. The beer out uses 1/4" OD (1/8" ID, i think) which allows the use of a short line while being able to maintain the pressure for proper carbonation (it isn't very much of a convenience when you have to drag along 12-15' of beer tubing). The gas in uses a valve stem. The CO2 is supplied from a CO2 bulb bicycle tire inflator. Works very slick. I had to do some cutting and soldering to get the various pieces on one fitting. I'll have to take some photos of it, hmm maybe another how to article. John Schnupp, N3CNL Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 p.s. Jim Graham, you wouldn't be the same guy on the XL digest would you? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:10:14 +1000 From: Rick Wood <thewoods at netpci.com> Subject: counter pressure kegging Hello All, I have just upgraded to soda kegs, and really like them. I also purchased a counter pressure bottle filler. Previously, I used the minikegs. I really liked these, particularly the size. I also have a couple of Party Pigs. I am interested if anyone has counter pressured filled these. The minikegs seem pretty straightforward. The Party Pigs seem a little more difficult. I am planning to get a large stopper and counter pressure fill the Pig, then pressure up through the tap nozzle with the CO2, also popping the pouch. Does anyone have any comments? Rick Wood "Brewing on Guam" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:33:34 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Meeting at the GABF Jethro writes: I will be at GABF, and would very much like to meet other HBD'rs.....to this end, I would request that any of the collective attending this event and who would easily suffer the indignity of having a beer with Jethro e-mail me, and let me know how to contact them........ To Rob and any other HBDr's that I've written to (and all that I haven't, as well), I'd really like to meet up with all of you as well. A couple of options for meeting up: Brian Rezac will be doing a hombrewing demo out front of the hall before opening each day. This would be a good meeting spot. I'll be there on Thursday for sure - probably other days as well. Another good meeting place would be inside at the AHA Hombrewers Table. I would imagine a lot of us will be there for the members only session, so maybe a good time and place would be at the Homebrewers Table 1/2 hour after the show starts (this would give us a chance to grab a beer or 3 on the way to meeting). And of course, I hope everyone can make it to the Falling Rock on Sat nite for the HBD/Homebrewers gathering. That is scheduled to begin at 8, but I suspect that most of us won't make it there until later after the session ends. See you in Denver, Mark Tumarkin Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 06:08:14 -0700 From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex at proaxis.com> Subject: Re: Osmotic Shock - was Re: Stepping up Starters [snip] >>Anyway, the way to ease your yeast up to the specific >>gravity of the wort is to start it at the recommended gravity (1.020 to >>1.030), then use the _brew's intended original gravity_ for each doubling. >>If you are keeping the original starter wort in the starter (what I do), >>then this will move the starter halfway towards the brew's OG with each >>doubling. For example, if you're brewing a wort with SG 1.080, your starter >>starts out at 1.020, and you double 3 times to produce a gallon of starter, >>then the starter gravities would be like this: 1-pint = 1.020, 1-quart = >>1.050, 1/2-gal = 1.065, 1-gal = 1.072. The first doubling causes the >>largest move (30 points), and that is completely acceptable. As the >>gravity, and stress on the yeast, increases, the jumps are smaller. With >>the final gallon, let it go to sedimentation and pitch the >>gravity-acclimated yeast into your wort. Works like a champ! And the >>process is very simple! > >The flaw that I see in Brian's math is this. When you add the 1-pint of >1.080 starter to the 1-pint of 1.020 starter, the original 1-pint is no >longer 1.020. It has dropped to ~1.008. This results in a 1-quart starter >of 1.044, not 1-qt of 1.050. This is a move of 36 points not 30 points. >Now with each addition the jumps are not getting smaller, they are staying >about the same. I am not saying that this is not an excellent method for >making a starter. It is better than what I normally do. The argument for >reducing osmotic shock does not make sense. Perhaps someone who >understands this concept better than I, can reduce my confusion. This is a very good point. Since the starter does ferment down, and is at a low SG prior to each doubling step, the idea of easing the yeast up to the gravity of the beer by increasing the starter's gravity may not work as advertised. I've always done it this way because I thought that's what Darryl had said ... and assumed the yeast must be getting tougher along the way, or the yeast that was growing was more 'able' in higher gravities. So, to verify what the heck _was_ said by Darryl, I went back and re-read that portion of the Bock book just now (it's in the Recipes chapter). Seems that Darryl made no such claims, only that you should pitch more yeast than the usual rate to make sure that the yeast has a fighting chance in the high-gravity environment. I stand humbly corrected! I think that I'll modify my doubling procedure and just keep using the 1.030 (plus or minus) gravity wort each time, concentrating on volume not gravity. (I'm an electrical engineer ... not a microbiologist ... what do I know?) Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:06:11 -0400 From: David Kerr <dkerr at semc.org> Subject: re: IMBR? Randy asks: > I've brewed my 7th batch and it, like my 6th brew, has something wrong with > it. According to my untrained senses it has a strong bananna smell and I'm > having some trouble discribing the taste. It has this tangy taste that I > can't relate to anything. It's not sour, and it tastes very similar to the > last brew I did. It's not something that can be overlooked, it is > completely overpowering. It's hard to get past the bad bananna smell also. > I have never had a problem like this with my previous brews. Best guess (all together now) - too high a ferment temp - usually a Summer brew session problem. Most ales perform best under 72F (gross generalization). Dave Kerr Needham, MA Sox-Cubs in Series? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:04:49 -0400 From: "Ken Schramm" <schramk at wcresa.k12.mi.us> Subject: Bacterial sanitation thresholds Does anybody out there know of a chart or other reference table detailing the potential beer-infecting bacteria and their relative sanitation thresholds, ie temp/time ratios, or concentrations of chlorine or iodine necessary for effective control? If it is available in archives, I'd love to have a copy, and if it is in someone's head or notes, I would guess that it might be very helpful to the masses. I am a big proponent of use of heat for sanitation (it doesn't have the affect of contributing chlorine to the water table), but I don't know how effective it really is against lacto and other sinister beasties. I know most wild yeasts are fairly intolerant to heat, but I'd love to see the numbers on the other stuff. Ken Schramm Troy, Michigan "Life is just story problems with a paycheck." KDS 1998 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:15:08 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Clinitest Test Brewsters: AlK calls me the Master of Obfuscation and, as many times in the past, with me and others, tries to use personal attacks and name-calling to obscure the point of the discussion. Please Grow Up! Let me once more say what I have said many times in the past and which Al chooses to blur for his own purposes: 1) Near the end of the fermentation, Clinitest is a good indicator of the remaining fermentable sugar content, since it does not just indicate Glucose content, but all fermentable sugars ( unlike more modern enzyme based Clinistix which is specific to glucose). It is not good at the beginning of the fermentation, since sucrose is a non-reducible sugar. In most worts this represents about a 3% error in total fermentable sugar content, giving a too low result at the beginning of the fermentation. However, into the fermentation, the sucrose disappears and becomes fructose and glucose ( which are reducible) under the influence of the extracellular invertase enzymes and so is indicated by Clinitest. Hence my recomendation to < use Clinitest only at the END of the fermentation.> 2) I have often pointed out that there is a "dextrin" which is not fermentable by ale yeast, but appears to be fermentable by true lager yeast. I find that ale yeast are finished fermenting when the Clinitest reading is <1/4% and often lager yeast ( even those in very dextrinous beers) ultimately give a reading of 0% Glucose based on Clinitest. Based on discussions with AlK, it is possible that this is mannose, which ale yeast do not consume but lager yeast do. The source of this "dextrin" ( that is unfermentable substance) is just a postulate, no proof. 3) Despite George DePiro's indication that Miller shouldn't agitate their beer, both DeClerk and Malting and Brewing Science indicate that some form of racking, agitation of the beer - especially with flocculant yeasts - will help the yeast to finish the fermentable sugars. I have provided these references many times in the past. Agitation and racking ARE good brewing practices if you want to ferment out all the fermentable sugars. Despite others' attempts to change the method of brewing for this test, I suggest any so inclined to test Clinitest start as I have suggested and take care to maintain proper temperatures and agitation of the yeast. I would not recommend malt extract as many now on the market have great quantities of sugar added to them and do not necessarily have sufficient FAN's for healthy yeast fermentation. Other important factors to remember is that even though the fermentation appears to be over from a CO2 evolution standpoint, my experience is that Clinitest indicator of fermentable sugars continue to decline over several days after the apparent bubbling stops. My experience is that it may take a day or more after you get a 1/2% Glucose reading for the reading to drop to 1/4% and then to <1/4% . Clinitest readings should be taken for several days running to get to a steady value. A final point I have often made is that if Clinitest is in error by 1/4% ( the MAXIMUM it can be) it is STILL more accurate than a practical hydrometer at indicating the end of the fermentation. Clinitest measures what you want to know directly and is independent of temperature, gas bubbles, color and the like. With a hydrometer you have to know what to expect as a final FG, Clinitest is independent of prior knowledge, since it indicates reducible sugar content. Hydrometers indicate ALL dissolved substances and the fermentable sugar content can only be inferred. Clinitest's real strength is in homebrewing, since we often are making new brews all the time. Good luck in exploring the usefulness of Clinitest. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 Dave_Burley at Compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:50:26 -0500 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Lactic Acid/Chlorine/Methane Darrell asked why gypsum is recommended more often for pH control than lactic acid. Where residual alkalinity is not excessive calcium salts are often recommended over lactic acid because the anions of the calcium salts (chloride, sulfate) are considered more flavor neutral than lactate. Of course all three of these cations do have flavor effects, some of them quite dramatic ( it doesn't take much sulfate to coarsen the delicate bitterness of noble hops). In addition calcium does lots of good in the mash. We can't quite say the more of it the better but calcium is probably the ion to which that philosophy most closely applies. One of the good things Ca does is release (in the course of the acidification reaction) the yeast vitamin myo-inositol. Thus a calcium salt is definitely preferred where the water is calcium poor (exception - Bohemian Pils brewed with very soft water). Where the residual alkalinity is high, additional calcium usually does not help that much (it takes 3.5 mEq/L Ca++ to offset 1 mEq/L RA) and the acid must come from elsewhere. High kilned malts contains quite a bit. If these are not desired because of color consideration, then additional mineral or organic acid is called for. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Stuart Baunoch removes "chlorine" from his water by letting it sit in open gallon jugs and asked if there is a better way to do this. Yes, a couple. First off, get the water out into the air i.e. put it in a container where as large a surface area as possible is exposed. A brew pot, stockpot, crab pot (which hasn't been used for crabs) etc. will do. Second, agitate or circulate the water. This gets the part of the water which isn't near the surface up to the surface so the "chlorine" can escape to the air. Aeration, splashing, etc. are even better and heat helps. Even with additional surface area and agitation it may take days for the "clorine" level to get down to the hundredths of milligrams per liter level. This is especially true if the water contains chloramine which leaves at a rate 3 - 15 times slower than free chlorine, depending on circumstances. The easiest way to get rid of both chlorine and chloramine is to add 1 Campden tablet to each 20 gallons of water being treated. This will neutralize 3 mg/L chloramine or 6 mg/L free chlorine but will also add a few mg/L sulfate, potassium and chloride. Strange as it may sound, adding bleach to standing water which contains a high proportion of chloramine will get rid of it much more quickly than if no bleach is added. I prefer the Campden tablet method. It is quicker still. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In my experience methane production peaks at about the time of, or somewhat after, the ultimate filtration. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:04:25 -0400 From: "Timothy Green" <TimGreen at ix.netcom.com> Subject: RE: Water Quality and cooling wort Stuart writes: I have a problem with water quality as chlorine is a big part of it. I take gallon jugs and fill them up and let them sit on the counter for a couple of days with the top off. This greatly reduces the amount of the chlorine scent. Is there are better way>>>????? Yes there is a better way. There an seemingly infinite number of home water filters on the market from faucet attachments to large whole house units. All of them contain some amount of activated charcoal in their filter material. The charcoal does an excellent job of removing 90%+ of the chlorine in municipal water. The type you choose is completely up to you. I am a firm believer in filtration. I have a whole house unit, and it prevents any concern about chlorine in my brewing water. The one I have also removes a bunch of other junk which would be bad for my beer and that I definitely wouldn't want to drink. IMHO, a good filtration unit is well worth the money it costs. Tim Green Mead is great... Beer is good... (But beer is much faster) ICQ# 20050025 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:07:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: Mash out From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro at berlex.com> > Darrel asked about the purpose of mash out and every response has > contained misinformation. Mash out at 168F(75.5C) does NOT denature > alpha amylase. The homebrew book author who started this momily > should be shot... Well, perhaps just maimed by severe tongue lashing. > The Germans refer to the rest at 168/75.5 as "late saccharification." > This is indeed a more appropriate name than "mash out" because it > makes it obvious that there is amolytic activity during this time. How long does amolytic activity last at 168F? Domenick Venezia demonick at zgi dot com Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee of US$ 500. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:33:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: Burtonization >>Al Korzonas said: >>No amount of calcium sulphate (gypsum) or magnesium sulphate (Epsom >>Salts) added to water will cause the water to taste bitter. Try it! I >>have. What Noonan is omiting, and the point that is *most* important >>about sulphate, is that it increases the *perception* of bitterness from >>hops. In other words, 40 IBUs and 10ppm of sulphate will be less bitter >>than 30 IBUs and 350ppm of sulphate. >00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) responds: >Like many of you I'm sure, I've read Al's experiment before, and even >tried it once. But, of course, what we are concerned about is the effect >of gypsum on beer, not water. I'm not disputing what you are saying Al, >but I wonder if you might be oversimplifying. It appears from my notes >that water with higher levels of sulphate or magnesium does make my beer >more bitter, er, uh, makes it _taste_ more bitter... :) I must have missed the original post to which Al was responding, but it seems to me that both Al and Brian have said the same thing. Al says that sulfate increases perception of bitterness and Brian says it makes it taste more bitter. Taste is perception. The circle has no end. All is one - oops! Time warp to the 60's! What I get out of high sulfate is not so much an increase in the perception of bitterness, but a dryness that puts a harsh edge on the bitterness. If the sulfate levels are really high I also get a front of the mouth powdery dryness, similar to, but not exactly like spinach dryness. Using an auditory analogy, sulfate seems to do to beer taste what adjusting harmonics to the midrange does to voice. It doesn't raise the volume of the voice, but just changes the tonal quality so the voice stands out more from the background. Domenick Venezia demonick at zgi dot com Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee of US$ 500. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. Return to table of contents
Date: 29 Sep 1998 11:35:45 -0400 From: Eric.Fouch at steelcase.com Subject: Second use First Wort Hops HBD- I have not received any response to my query of the possibility of "FWH" effects from spent hops from a previous batch: FWH a barleywine, and after the boil, dump those hops into the second brews' boil. Will any FWH characteristics carry over? Could it be that I'm the first homebrewer to do this? What are the copyright and marketing implications of divulging new brewing techniques to an electronic forum? But seriously, folks- has anyone done this before, or thought about it? Seems to me, the low temps of sparging fix the aroma components (as I understand it). The first boil won't extract them all. Could they be extracted in the second boil? I also queried a while back about the possibilities of "First Wort Spicing"- adding spices (such as coriander) to the first runnings. Different chemistry, but could their be a similar effect? Especially if you "FWS", and FWH concurrently? I have tried this with a Wit- FWH with .5 oz Cascades (out of style, I know) and FWS with 1 Tbs crushed coriander. It's still in the secondary. If you can tear away from the riveting Clinitest debate, give it some thought. Eric Fouch Bent Dick YoctoBrewery Kentwood, MI "In a contest between truth and emotion, emotion usually wins" -J. Allen Peterson Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:48:40 -0700 From: "Greg Lorton" <glorton at cts.com> Subject: Re: Methane from a brewery? In HBD #2836, Dave Humes asked where methane might be coming from in a brewery (methane that a couple of Japanese breweries are using to produce hydrogen for fuel cells). For big breweries like that, I think that the most likely source of methane is the wastewater from the breweries. Breweries tend to generate a lot of wastewater, and it is often pretty concentrated with organics. The wastewater comes from rinsing and cleaning equipment, spilled beer and wort, bad beer(?!), etc. A lot of the big breweries have their own conventional wastewater treatment processes, such as activated sludge, and those processes produce a lot of bacterial sludge. This sludge is reduced in volume and stabilized somewhat using anaerobic digestion, which produces methane and carbon dioxide. This gas would then go to a steam reforming process to produce hydrogen and more carbon dioxide. Obviously, this isn't part of the brewing process (unless the brewery reuses their treated effluent as brewing water :-)!) Cheers! Greg Lorton San Diego County, where the City of San Diego is moving ahead with plans to pump treated sewage plant effluent to one of the drinking water reservoirs. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 98 10:44:21 CDT From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: rank starters Last weekend I tried a no sparge, or perhaps more accurately a low sparge, mash. I increased my grain bill by 20 percent and at mash out filled the mash tun with 170F water. I added no more water and drained to the kettle. I collected eight gallons of 1.070 wort which I diluted to 14 gallons for the boil to produce a 1.052 wort for the fermenter. After draining the kettle I refilled the mash tun with hot water, stirred, recirculated until clear, and ran to the kettle, collecting ten gallons of 1.030 wort. I boiled this ten minutes, covered, and went to bed. The next day I drained the wort in the kettle to thirty five quart mason jars for starters. I only had time to pressure can fourteen of them. I canned another fourteen the next day and the remaining seven the morning after that. The last twenty one appeared to have fermented some and the last seven didn't smell that good. I am pretty sure something was working on them but the pressure canning should have killed anything and denatured any toxins, right? What I wonder about is would those last starters be fit to use? I realize that if they were not decanted off the yeast before pitching they would carry their off flavors to the new beer but suppose they were decanted? I think Jim Liddle wrote that one could autoclave feces but one would still have feces. It would be sterile feces, though, wouldn't it? Of course, there would be flavors and smells associated with the sterile feces but they wouldn't be capable of causing an infection would they? I don't think I have the nerve to use those last smelly starters but just wondered about the possible consequences if the liquid was decanted. I expect there will be lots of opinions about this. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:08:02 -0400 From: Jeremy Price <pricejy at email.uc.edu> Subject: Starters derived from single colonies > I store my yeast on slants in the >refrigerator. My first step in getting a culture started for brewing is to >streak from the slant to the surface of a petri plate. I believe this >is useful for a couple of reasons. First, in streaking to single colonies >you get to see how the yeast are doing and are able to pick several nice >looking colonies for expansion up to pitching volume. By doing this you >know that you're starting from good viable yeast and unlikely to be >including any (gross) mutations or selected variants such as petits which >will produce smaller colonies (thus the name). Also, by picking well >isolated pure single colonies you can be pretty confident that you are >not introducing infections from bacteria or wild yeasts into your starter. I would be carefull about picking single colonies for starters. There are some mixes cultures on the market, like wyears Bavarian wheat (I think) that are a combination od s. cerevisiae and s. delbrucki (sp?) I am certian that in some of the belgian ale strains there is also a mixed population of yeasts. If only one of the strains is used, the flavor profile of the beer may be altered comsiderably. By picking only the fat colonies, you may be eliminating the other strain. Also, the big healthy yeast colony may not be the intended strain, as there are wild yeasts that can outgrow the brewing strain. It is good practice to streak out strains to a single colony when culturing from bottles, or under unclean conditions. To eliminate any potential bacterial contamination. If you are certian that the strain of yeast is infact a single strain, and not a mixed culture then using a single colony is also ideal. Jeremy Price Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:13:30 -0400 From: "Kris Jacobs" <jtsnake at net-link.net> Subject: Re: Clinitest fuss It is *exactly* the same thing for someone like me who brews for the enjoyment of it and is completely satisfied with his end product. To me it is the final indication that *my* fermentation has *finished*, and is certainly as scientific as I am going to get. I know what I am making, I have a good idea as to what my yeast is going to do, I have an expectation of what the beer should turn out to be, and my personal taste is my ultimate guide. Why should I care if there are still miniscule amounts of reducible sugars left in my beer, as long as it tastes good and I am happy with it? I enjoy my brewing, I enjoy the beer I brew, and getting too nit-picky over it would only detract from that enjoyment. After all, I brew for ME. - --Kris Spencer wrote to me: > > The hydrometer tells you nothing about reducible sugars. It just > tells you about "stuff" which might be still fermentable sugars, > non-fermentable sugars, dextrins, proteins, salt, or whatever. Unless > you know what your final gravity *should* be, the hydrometer does not > tell you that fermentation has *finished*. It can tell you that > fermentation has *stopped*, which is not the same thing at all. > > =S > Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:03:54 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: re: Questions about commercial fridge Brian Pickerill asks about using a small commercial fridge. Brian - your fridge sounds similar to the common office or dorm sizes fridges, only way cooler. I was also given one of these small fridges. I had planned to take off the door and build a fermentation chiller out of foam - something loosely based on Ken Schwartz' Son of Fermentation Chiller. I don't have the URL handy but it's been discussed here in the past and shouldn't been hard to find. I think this should work very well and you could build the chamber large enough to hold a couple of carboys. I never built it because I got the opportunity to buy some used equip from a brewer who was no longer brewing. Got a great deal on a bunch of stuff including a used fridge and Johnson temp controller. I have only brewed a few batches using this setup but it makes a tremendous difference. I brewed a hefeweizen from a recipe I had used several times before and the improvement was dramatic. Trying to keep the temp down here in Florida is a major problem, and a potential source of off flavors. I would encourage anyone to do whatever they can to control the fermentation temps. It is one of the things that can have the most impact on improving your beer. You should be able to buy a used fridge and a temp controller for under $100 - or build a fermentation chiller for much less. Whatever you do in this direction will more than pay for itself in improved quality (not to mention the ability to lager). Hope this helps. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:40:40 -0400 From: "Stuart Baunoch" <sbaunoch at homeruns.com> Subject: Extract Flavors I have been reading the homebrewing guide and have seen several recipes for fruit flavored beers. All of them used fresh or frozen fruit in the boil. I am trying the liquid extract flavoring. When is the best time to add this to the beer., before or after racking, before or after fermentation???? Stuart Baunoch sbaunoch at homeruns.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:31:51 -0600 From: Ronald Babcock <rbabcock at rmii.com> Subject: re: HERMS I would like to add to Bob's (Precision Brewing Systems) comments: >While there are a number of variations to the concept of raising mash >temps. by recirculating the mash through a heat exchanger in the sparge >vessel, the term HERMS was originated by PBS and refers to our particular >system. Another variation can be found at "the backyard brewery" page. Precision Brewing Systems "HERMS" looks to be a fine example of a commercial heat exchange system. They have a simple but effective valve that controls the temperature with out the use of electronic temperature controllers. Their system should be considered when thinking about this type of setup. You can achieve the same results with a couple of ball valves and consistent monitoring, but left alone for just a moment and you can very easily over shoot your target temperature. I denatured a batch with my system when I ran into the house for just a moment and didn't switch the valves back to bypass the heat exchanger. This is when I switched from a manual system to a more automated system. >The basic concept, as described above will work but there is a lot more >to consider when developing such a system that will give the desired >results of Fast temp. raises, not overheating recirculating wort and >simplicity for ease of operation and consistency of batches.< >We designed HERMS for a 15 gal brew system. To do HERMS for a smaller >system, as you're suggesting, with the bruheat would take a bit of >development and experimenting with coil size/design and flow rates to >meet the speed and efficiency you desire. You should also reduce HSA when >returning the wort I can assure you that Bob is correct in the fact that a *lot* of experimenting and expense is possible to achieve the results you desire. My systems heat exchanger alone took several weeks of design and redesign before I was satisfied with the results of temperature boost and not to denaturing the enzymes. The flow rate needs established first, not so fast that you stick the mash and not so slow that temperature raises to slowly. Then you can experiment with the heat exchangers size, length and design that matches your system. >Once done however, I think you'll enjoy the results of your effort: the >ability to raise mash temps quickly, not heat mash above 158F, Hit & hold >temperatures accurately, not thin the mash by adding water to raise >temps. and not carmelize your wort. I agree totally, if you build one or buy one you will be pleased with the consistent results you will achieve with the system. Cheers, Ron Ronald Babcock - rbabcock at rmii.com - Denver, CO Home of the Backyard Brewery at http://shell.rmi.net/~rbabcock/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:50:35 -0500 From: Andrew Ager <andrew-ager at nwu.edu> Subject: Competition Announcement -- Spooky Brew Review The Chicago Beer Society Presetns: Spooky Brew Review 1998 A BJCP Registered homebrew competition October 31st, 1998 at Hopcats Brewing Company, Chicago, IL Enter to win one (or more!) of our festive Halloween ribbons. They certainly are unique! Prizes too! Simple entry forms, no full recipes required! Judges, sign up early for category preferences, as seats for this contest fill up quickly. Enter one of our special categories for only $1: Smashed Pumpkin Award -- send us your absolute worst concoction for a special ribbon. All entries must be drinkable! Spooky Award -- use your imagination, come up with the scariest looking beer for a special ribbon. Again, it must be drinkable! Two bottles per entry, $6 for each entry, $5 each for 4 or more. Entries accepted between October 17th and 24th. See http://www.mcs.net/~shamburg/cbs/spooky98.html for complete details and forms, or contact Ron Phillips at rmphilli at uic.edu or (708) 358-1603. Andrew Ager Program Assistant, Webmaster andrew-ager at nwu.edu School of Education and Social Policy 847/491-3790 (phone) Northwestern University 847/467-2495 (fax) http://www.sesp.nwu.edu/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:17:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com> Subject: RE: OVERKILL In HBD #2836 (September 29, 1998) Mr. Alan Meeker comments, (in part): >I've seen >posts from people talking about building glove boxes and laminar flow >hoods, etc.. If this is fun or helps you sleep at night more power to you >but I believe this is total OVERKILL and hope it doesn't scare off others >from trying to streak yeast on their countertop. My experience is that some measures need to be taken when streaking petri dishes or harvesting yeast from them. I found myself with rather frequent instances of dishes becoming infected with various mould and or bacteria colonies when I first started my yeast ranching career. I found that my dishes were being infected by airborne contaminants and I brought this situation under control only after taking some simple precautions. Firstly, I took care to always keep the petri dish upside down when the lid was off. Secondly, before opening any dish, I thoroughly spray down the room with Lysol aerosol. I do this about 5 minutes beforehand. These simple precautions have effectively prevented contaminations. You must, of course, be certain that your growth medium is perfectly sterile or no amount of care later on, will prevent infections. To make things simpler, I am in the process of building a laminar flow hood. It is a simple task, inexpensive to build, (mine will cost about $125.00), and well worth a bit of work. It is true that a flow hood is not an absolute necessity, but it is a simple enough project that it should not discourage folks from taking the plunge into yeast ranching. For those interested, there is an excellent article on building a laminar flow hood in Brewing Techniques Magazine, May/June issue of 1995 Vol. 3 Issue 3. The article is entitled "How to build a Laminar Flow Hood", and is written by Jim Caldwell. - -------------------------------------- Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com> Corny Kegs for sale - www.calweb.com/~robertac/keg.htm Promash Brewing Software - www.calweb.com/~robertac/promash Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:27:18 -0400 From: fridge at kalamazoo.net Subject: Sideways fridge - no! Greetings folks, In HBD# 2836, Brian Pickerill asks if it is ok to turn his fridge on its side to allow better fermenter access. He also mentions a noisy fan and the need for a temperature controller. Please don't turn the fridge on its side! The compressors in most fridges that homebrewers are likely to use are of the "splash lubricated" variety. The compressor must be kept upright in order to provide proper lubrication, and since oil doesn't compress, major compressor damage may occur if it inhales a slug of it. A second possible problem may occur if the fridge uses a capillary tube expansion device. The oil in the compressor may run out into the capillary tube when the fridge is placed on its side. The inner diameter of the capillary tube is small enough that oil may prevent proper refrigerant flow when the compressor starts. In extreme cases, the system pressure is unable to clear the capillary and the system must be disassembled for repair. The controls and layout of this type of fridge may vary widely. The temperature may be controlled by either a temperature controller or a pressure switch connected to the low-pressure side of the system. There will likely be a defrost timer with adjustable time and duration settings. If the desired cabinet temperature is higher than 45 degF or so, program the timer to bypass the defrost cycles entirely. Try adjusting the existing temperature controller before deciding to replace it. Commercial controllers often are adjustable over a wide range. Noisy fans are often caused by bent or broken fan blades. If the fan is metal, see if is possible to straighten the blades so they are all in the same plane (don't try to adjust the pitch). If this doesn't do the trick, see your local appliance parts store. There are very many possible motor and fan combinations, and the parts aren't expensive. One final note. Please understand that a commercial fridge is a heavy-duty device. It will be noisier and cost more to operate than a domestic fridge. It also is much more able to take a lot of abuse. Hope this helps! Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo fridge at kalamazoo.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:19:47 -0500 From: Brian K Dulisse <DULISSE_BRIAN_K at lilly.com> Subject: home brewery design poor me. i haven't been able to brew for 18 months . . . lucky me. my wife is insisting i build a dedicated brewing facility in the basement . . . i've been going through web pages looking at how folks set up their systems. most of these are for outdoor/garage systems. these have been helpful, but i still have some questions . . . the plan is to tap into the natural gas line to feed burners. i've gone to several restaurant supply stores in the area, but can't find high output ng burners. where have folks found these? and what btu rating did your burners have? as for venting the system, the cost of even small restaurant style hoods is more expensive than i'd like (on the order of $1000), so i've got to cobble something together. constructing the hood per se will not be a problem, but i'd like to know what others have done about the fans for moving the air. specifically, what kind of fans have folks used? i've thought about buying simple bathroom fans, but i'm not sure that even multiple bathroom fans will move enough air. again, where did you find the fans? once i get going, i plan to do mostly 10 gallon batches, although i will likely do some 5 gallon batches as well. to do this, i i'll need something with a 15 gallon capacity for the kettle (to allow for vigorous boils), but what about the hot water tank and mash tun? is a 10 gallon vessel large enough for these? if 10 gallons is large enough, are there convenience benefits from having larger vessels? in order to cut down on the scarce resource (time), i anticipate using batch sparging, which i would think (never having actually used batch sparging) would make a larger mash tun valuable. i gather that trying to sparge a 5 gallon batch in a 10 gallon vessel can result in an overly shallow bed depth; is that the case for a 10 gallon batch in a 15 gallon pot? what say those who have gone down this path before? tia for the help. email preferred; posting to the digest would likely interfere with the clinitest postings ;^) my address is briand at lilly.com one more thing. i'm new to the indianapolis area, and i'd appreciate any insights from fellow hoosiers as to the relative merits of various local homebrew shops (and any other local beer info that's worth knowing). i'm working downtown and the house is in geist. bd Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:47:20 -0700 From: "Adrian GRIFFIN" <AGriffin at exec.swrcb.ca.gov> Subject: Fixing chipped enamel pot I drilled a hole in my enamel boiling pot to install a drain valve and about 1/4 sq. in. of enamel flaked off around the hole on the inside. How much of a problem is the exposed steel? Does anyone have any ideas on how to fix the damage. I have tried lead-free solder, but even with a generous amount of flux, it won't stick to the steel. I had a similar problem when I installed an Easymasher in my mashing pot, but the area that flaked off was much smaller. Any ideas wil be gratefully accepted, compiled and posted. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/30/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96