HOMEBREW Digest #2864 Sat 31 October 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

  Recipe Formulation (Jim Haynes)
  Re: Sloshing wort in secondary - is this safe? (Duane Hale)
  all grain (Chris Flynn)
  FWH utilisation (Al Korzonas)
  Belgian Ale Styles (Rob Kienle)
  Re: burnt/Porter (curt j tuhy)
  McMaster-Carr & Grainger (Raymond Kruse)
  clinitest! ("Andy Walsh")
  Which burner should I buy?? (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Innoculating loops (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Homebrew Digest #2863 (October 30, 1998) (fwd) (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  re:  bottling beer in wine bottles - Big RED FLAG ("J. Matthew Saunders")
  Alt again/re: A Study of Fluid Flow... (David Kerr)
  Guilty as charged: Apology (Jim Liddil)
  Re: bottling beer in wine bottles ("Tomusiak, Mark")
  Re:  Too much foam from corny keg ("Watkins, Tim")
  Beer Bread ("D.Holen ")
  Grain Storage (Christophe Frey)
  Fixing chipped enamel / drain valves ("Adrian GRIFFIN")
  Results of 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off (Stephen Johnson)
  question: Alkaline Water (LEAVITDG)
  Re: sterile buffer storage (Scott Murman)
  re: A Study of Fluid Flow Through A Grainbed (John_E_Schnupp)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event 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: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:22:22 -0500 From: Jim Haynes <Jim.Haynes at dstm.com> Subject: Recipe Formulation Being a newcomer to the world of homebrewing(on my 5th extract batch) I lack the skills necessary to formulate/deviate from recipes that come with the "kits" I have purchased. I have read The New Complete Joy of Homebrewing and The Homebrewing Guide. They have been invaluable. I am constantly searching for sources of information and would love to find a good workshop to attend. Suggestions welcomed! I tend to enjoy the darker types of brews such as porters and hearty brown ales more than pale ales or ambers but recently purchased a Pete's ale type kit that I am afraid will be too hoppy. So off I go researching and hunting for ideas on how to "modify" what I have. It has actually been a great experience and I have learned some about beer styles and ingredients...Again, I'm still the novice so advice is appreciated. The ingredients I have are listed below. I have thought about just using the cascade hops for bittering and finishing and then adding some honey or dark brown sugar but am not sure if this will be better than using the Brewer's Gold or what the difference would even be. A holiday/winter brew wouldn't be bad, but I don't even know where to start. Suggestions are appreciated, private email is fine. Suggestions on other books to read would also be appreciated. What a hobby...I'm hooked!!!! Nothing quite like a homebrew... Thanks, Jim Ingredients Crystal 60 8oz Special roast 8oz Chocolate 8oz DME Light 5lbs. Brewer's Gold 1.5oz Cascade 2oz Irish Moss Wyeast #1272 American Ale II Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:32:08 -0800 From: Duane Hale <dhale at gte.net> Subject: Re: Sloshing wort in secondary - is this safe? In HBD #2862, Chris P. Frey said, " ... Assuming the headspace is indeed filled with CO2, is there any reason to concern oneself with violently shaking and rocking the carboy, thus rousing the little yeasties awake? What say yea?" I just did this sort of thing a couple of weeks ago with a Robust Porter. I removed the blowoff tube from the carboy and replaced it with an airlock. Then I swirled the beer around until the the sediment was fully disturbed. And the next thing I did was say "Dohhhhhh". In the process of shaking up the beer, I caused much CO2 to be released, which created 2-3" of foam (no big deal, plenty of headroom). But, the "Dohhhhhh" came about because the inner piece of the airlock started bouncing so violently that I am almost certain some small amounts of vodka had to have gotten to the inside. And, if I had just done the swirling prior to removing the blowoff tube, I don't think there would have been any thought about if I had done anything to affect my beer. I'm just glad I didn't have any more of a detrimental chemical in my airlock. So, other than the small leakage, I don't think any other harm came about, since as one of Chris's brew club's members surmised, there seemed to be plenty of CO2 to protect the beer. Has anybody else had the situation where they thought a eventless swirling of their fermenter caused any detrimental effects to the flavor of their beer? Duane Hale Fuzu's Fuzzy Fluxion Homebrewery Lacey, WA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:41:22 -0500 From: Chris Flynn <flynnguy at ix.netcom.com> Subject: all grain I am currently doing extract brewing and have thought of going all-grain. Only I don't know where to start. I've read some things but just end up getting confused. I would apreciate it if someone could help me out by telling me of a web page or something. Thanks. - -- Christopher Flynn http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/undergrad/cjf24 flynnguy at ix.netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:55:19 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: FWH utilisation Jeremy writes: >I wasn't trying to introduce an incorrect concept into the collective, I >simply mistyped. It happend. this is a discussion group; It should be a >place for brewers to express ideas and opinions; it should not be the >archived bible of brewing science. Sorry about that... I tried to be diplomatic and still came out sounding scolding. I thought that you had made a presumption, but I believe that we are in agreement that at a *higher* pH the utilisation is higher. As for the HBD, I personally, believe that it *IS* the archived bible of brewing science! Well, a pretty ratty, often with sections crossed out, dogeared, constantly improving bible, but the bible nonetheless. While not everything on HBD is necessarily 100% correct, in the end we do get the correct information out. Remember that it's all archived and 10 years from now, someone could be searching for information on FWH utilisation and they will come across our four posts. Cumulatively, they not only have the right information, but also references. That's more than you can say about most brewing books. This is a discussion group, indeed, but I doubt that there is a more dedicated discussion group anywhere on the Internet. I've had this discussion offline with someone about a year ago. My bottom line is this: I contend that communally, we, the HBD members, have more combined knowledge in the areas of beer, brewing and related sciences than any one person in the world. Post the final exam from the Diploma Course of *any* brewing school (even Domens or Weihenstephan... we have people that can translate to and from German) and I'll bet that in a few weeks, we could, as a group, complete the exam for a passing grade. I'm willing to bet money on that! Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:29:05 -0600 From: Rob Kienle <rkienle at interaccess.com> Subject: Belgian Ale Styles Well it's been so long since I've posted that I'm not ssure iiI remmeber hhow1.! :) But having just returned from a whirlwind tour of Belgium and an ample sampling of the many fine brews available there, I have it in my head that I've really been remiss at not having brewed any Belgian beer to speak of! My research into styles and recipes has me a little confused, however; the majority of literature out there seems primarily dedicated to Am/Eng/German beers and there isn't the same amount of info available about Belgian brews (Daniels' book, for example, doesn't hardly even mention them!). Here's my question; what's the difference between a Belgian "ale" or "pale ale" and a Belgian "Strong Ale" (besides the strength, I suppose). Is one spiced and the other not? How do "Special" ales fit in? Note that I'm not trying to refer to Doubles or Triples or Wit beers, which seem more clearly delineated. Any advice about where to find some decent recipe guidelines would also be appreciated. I've got Rajotte's book, have reviewed Jackson's descriptions of the styles and an old issue of Zymurgy but I remain somewhat confused (tho maybe not that much more than usual!). - -- Cheers4Beers, Rob Kienle Chicago, IL rkienle at interaccess.com ***"Life is not a dress rehearsal."*** Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:28:41 -0600 From: hophead2 at juno.com (curt j tuhy) Subject: Re: burnt/Porter The porter that Mr Spies made sounds like it would be possibly very tasty, the one thing that i have learned is that all home brew is drinkable and a brew that is not up to expectation is knowledge towards brewing. So drink it you might like it. Hoppy, Black hawk brewing ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 05:54:08 -0500 From: Raymond Kruse <kruse2 at flash.net> Subject: McMaster-Carr & Grainger A lot of folks have given information about parts that they've purchased from McMaster-Carr or Grainger, while others have stated that they have been unable to purchase from these same places due to their "non-business" status. The easiest way around this is to form your own company. You can do so, using your Social Security Number, by declaring your business as a "Sole Proprietorship". Just have a name for the business and your SSN and you should be able to order anything you want. Ray Kruse Glen Burnie, PRMd rkruse at bigfoot.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:09:13 +1100 From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh at ventrassist.com> Subject: clinitest! With some trepidation I decloak to post on this most infamous topic. I would not do so unless I had something more to add... This is mainly aimed at those who are considering writing an article for BT on clinitest. I think you should consider the following before submitting your final draught.. There are 2 claims that have bothered me in the whole debate that have not been pursued to completion: - sucrose is not detected by Clinitest in a fermentation (both sides seem to agree on this) - all fermentable reducing sugars are measured to an acceptable degree of accuracy by Clinitest. The first point is probably more interesting. Sucrose (to all intents and purposes) does not exist in wort in the presence of yeast. It is *rapidly* transformed to glucose and fructose, which are both detected with 1:1 accuracy by clinitest. Hence claims of a failure of Clinitest to detect sucrose appear to be completely without validation, at least as long as viable yeast cells are present. I tested this theory tonight. I added sucrose to water to provide a 2% solution. This was verified by a hydrometer (1.008 SG) and Clinitest (0%: should read 2% if 2% glucose were added instead). Then I added a small amount of yeast taken from a primary. As I do not have a haemocytometer I cannot provide a cell count, yet I can state that the proportion of yeast present was certainly less than one obtains during a typical primary fermentation. The next reading I took was 60 minutes after pitching. The SG was 1.008 and Clintest read 2%. In other words all the sucrose had been inverted by the extracellular enzyme invertase within 60 minutes of yeast being present, before significant fermentation had taken place. What prompted me to test this was the fact that glucose specific sticks are used by a local megabrewer to test for the efficiency of pasteurisation. Sucrose is added to pasteureised beer, then glucose sticks are used within a short time on the beer. If viable yeast is present, the sucrose is rapidly broken down to glucose and fructose and the test is positive. It is apparently very quick and sensitive to very small amounts of viable yeast. If pasteurisation is effective the test is negative. Clinitest is hence *more* useful for testing fermentations of simple sugars (ie. wine and mead) than it is for beer. Forget sucrose as it doesn't exist. I will say no more on the matter, other than suggest interested people repeat the test themselves in a more controlled environment. The second point concerns using a yardstick to measure a flea. As I have mentioned before, one of the major fermentation disorders is a lack of complete maltotriose fermentation. Clinitest is not sensitive to this sugar (maybe 1/3 as sensitive as it is to glucose, although my tests indicated it was more like 1/4). If Clinitest indicates 0.25% every time you use it when fermentation appears complete, I would suggest this does not mean that all beers are the same, rather that Clinitest does not provide useful information! (many geek communications engineers will know the theory about information vs. predictability. If you know what the result of an experiment will be beforehand, the information content is zero! Maximum information comes from minimal predictability). I digress. Steve Alexander's point of measuring a forced fermentation with Clinitest is very good. However, the problem again arises: what does 0.25% mean, if it does not accurately measure maltotriose? I would just like to suggest combining this idea with one of Dave Burley's: do a forced fermentation, then use Clinitest *undiluted* ( ie. 15 drops of beer rather than 5 of beer and 10 of water). This will make use of much more of the full scale range of Clinitest and provide much more information than relying solely on the 0.25% thing, which represents the smallest reading of the apparatus. If this is not clear: - do a forced fermentation (high temp, with air if you like) on a *small* sample. After completion, measure sugar content with Clinitest (undiluted). This figure represents complete fermentation. - the undiluted clinitest reading is a much more accurate indication of %sugar in beer nearing completion than the normal test, due to the lack of sensitivity of Clinitest to polysaccharides. The result from the forced fermentation shows what completion actually means in a particular beer. It also requires very little in terms of wasted beer or effort. Conclusion: I am actually starting to like Clinitest, but I think it helps to have an understanding of what you are measuring, and how it works. I must go and buy my own rather than pinching Calvin Perilloux's all the time! Andy. PS. Congratulations to Calvin on winning the ESB Hahn Trophy! Good work Calvin! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:04:55 -0500 (EST) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Which burner should I buy?? Hi All. Having recently converted to all-grain I am now in "need to get a burner mode." The colder it gets outside the more of the gallon+ or so boil-off water vapor ends up condensing on the inside surfaces of my windows which causes my wife to run around with a scowl on her face mopping up the puddles - not a desireable situation! No basement, no garage so it's outside I go. Anyway, I'm sure there must be good reviews on which cookers are good and importantly which to avoid so if anyone could steer me in the right direction I'd appreciate it. Personal testimonials/experiences would be very welcome also. Thanks, Alan - ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life." -Jim Squire -Alan Meeker Johns Hopkins Hospital Dept. of Urology (410) 614-4974 __________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:09:45 -0500 (EST) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Innoculating loops Jeff Hewit asks about good innoculating loops... Hi Jeff. Sounds like you did indeed "fry" your loop with the torch. Yes, as you'd surmised a flame this intense is major overkill! You are right that an alcohol lamp should do nicely. There are many different materials used for loops. Perhaps the best are made from platinum but these tend to be costly for obvious reasons. For my money I'd go with nichrome wire loops which perform quite well. Happy culturing! -alan - ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life." -Jim Squire -Alan Meeker Johns Hopkins Hospital Dept. of Urology __________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:25:26 -0500 (EST) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Homebrew Digest #2863 (October 30, 1998) (fwd) Dave Whitman responding to criticisms of his report on yeast storage experiments finished his post thusly: ....Petty crap like this certainly makes me less interested in sharing results with the collective in the future. Dave, I don't remember whether or not Jim's criticisms were mean-spirited but please don't let that stop you from posting results of any future experiments on this forum. Personally, I truly believe this is one of the great functions of the HBD. Your studies in particular are directly relevant to a project I'm currently involved in with the Cross Street Irregulars brew club here in Baltimore. Mike Maceyka and I are setting up a yeast farm and are currently evaluating various methods for archival storage of the yeast strains. Your results with phosphate buffer give us more food for thought. I appreciate the time you've put in to try and shed some light on this question. Looking forward to future posts, -Alan Meeker Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:32:39 -0500 From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm at vt.edu> Subject: re: bottling beer in wine bottles - Big RED FLAG jhammond at bryant.edu writes: >I wonder if anyone has advise on bottling beer in wine bottles? DON'T DO IT! If you bottle in regular wine bottles, you will have at best a mess and at worst someone badly cut. Regular wine bottles can't take the pressure that will build to cabonate the beer. Use only champagne bottles. Ok, so you want to cork finish. It is easy and lots of fun. First of all you will need a case and a half or so of champagne bottles. You can also use the bottles that Belgian beers are conditioned in. You will need a corker, the simplest cost less than $20. You need straight corks, cages, and something to act as a barrier between the cork and the cage. You'll also need some campden tablets. 1) Crush one campden tablet and add it to two cups of water in a large bowl or saucepan. Put your corks in the solution, put a collander or something on top of them with a weight to keep the corks submerged. Soak them overnight. 2) Rack the beer into your bottles as usual (taking all the care of sanitizing the bottles etc). 3) Cork the bottles completely, like a bottle of wine. Put your spacer on top of each bottle and wire the corks down. For spacers, I use the mushroom top of old champagne corks that I have laying around. This way your spacer fits the cage almost perfectly. 4) Let the bottles condition on their side. Put a piece of cardboard under the necks, they may leak a bit at first. 5) When they are ready, uncage, take the spacer off, and uncork with a corkscrew. If you need more help, let me know. I cork finish close to half my beer. Good luck! Matthew in Virginia. www.dogstar.org -- The Arts and Technology Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:44:11 -0500 From: David Kerr <dkerr at semc.org> Subject: Alt again/re: A Study of Fluid Flow... I recall reading that noted iconoclast H.L. Mencken was a lover of (almost) all things German - Wagner, Nietze, and especially German beer. He often sang the praises of Munich's beerhouses. He was quite proud of his efforts at brewing his own beer, especially during America's dark Volstead Act ages. Have any of the HBD brew historians come across his recipe(s)? ... Cool analysis/photos from J. Palmer. Any guesstimates as to how significant (in terms of extraction efficiency) the single/double/triple outlet differences are? Dave Kerr - Needham, MA "I joy in vulgarity, whether it takes the form of divorce proceedings or of _Tristan und Isolde_, of an Odd Fellow's funeral or of Munich beer." - H.L. Mencken Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:00:24 -0700 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: Guilty as charged: Apology >Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:57:22 -0500 >From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> >Subject: sterile buffer storage > First of all I fully apologize for the tone of my original post. I take full responsibility for it being interpretted as an attack on your methodology and experiments. I should have learned not to post when I am in a given bipolar state. >The volume of liquid in the vials was 2 +/- 0.1 ml. Each vial got two >loopfuls of yeast solids harvested off actively growing slants. While no >attempt was made to rigorously control the cell count, I estimate that >differences in added yeast solids were about +/- 20%. It's not obvious to >me what the initial or final cell counts have to do with anything, unless >dead cells magically disappear. What matters is which method of storage >gives a higher percentage of viable cells after storage. My only point was that all variables be controlled. Thus one would start out with the exact same conditions. The same volume, cell # and viability. And again viable is defined in this case as methylene blue staining. If i get a chance I'll scan and ocr the stuff I have from Pollock's Brewing Science on the problems with mehtylene blue. And as person who does cell culture work and a whole lot of viability assays, I think there is an inherent danger in placing too much weight on a single assay. Just my totally biased opinion. > >While I don't know what viability was at T=0, it seems unlikely that it was ><95% since the buffered samples were higher than that after 3 months storage. A very valid point which I failed to see. >As mentioned in the original post, viability was estimated with at least >two microscope slides prepared from each vial, with multiple regions >counted on each slide. I continued to count fresh regions and slides until >I had recorded 800-1200 cells for each vial. The number of >semi-independent determinations for each strain/treatment were: > Maybe I am missing something, I would not doubt it. But what I was getting at is did you take samples from each vial multiple times? > >>800 cells may be a statistically small value for the actual number >>of cells in the vial. > > >While I followed the published procedure's guideline on number of cells to >count, Jim's comment is a red herring. The number of cells you need to >count is related to the inherant uncertainty of the measurement technique >and how small of an effect you want to be able to detect. It has nothing >to do with how many cells are in the vial. Though it is highly unlikely is or is it not possible that when you do a single sample that the sample removed does not truly represent the whole population? Again I admit that I may have missed something here. > >I'm left with the impression that Jim has been criticized for lack of rigor >in the past, and has been saving up some bile for the first opportunity he >got to dump it on someone. Would I have received this criticism if I had >posted "Hey, I put some salt into my yeast samples and I think they stored >better"? Petty crap like this certainly makes me less interested in >sharing results with the collective in the future. Again I admit to sounding like a pompous ass. And don't take it personally but I am generally considered an asshole by everyone. And I'll try to do my best to be constructive in the future. Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:29:17 -0800 From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak at amgen.com> Subject: Re: bottling beer in wine bottles Greetings all...I have bottled quite a few batches of Belgian and French ale in Belgian or champagne-type bottles. You definitely need to wire the corks down, as the pressure generated during conditioning will force the corks out and leave a mess wherever you stored them. Also a word of warning about corks. Some batches I have used have sealed well, while others have leaked significant quantities of beer through channels in the corks (note that the corks found in Belgian beers appear to be made of a conglomerate of cork particles, and are very dense). Try to select a variety of cork that is dense and has a low porosity. Brew on, Mark Tomusiak Boulder, Colorado Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:37:51 -0500 From: "Watkins, Tim" <Tim.Watkins at analog.com> Subject: Re: Too much foam from corny keg Richard Scott wrote in HBD2863: >From the Texas school of trial & error, I too experimented with >fixing this problem. My fix: first was to make certain that I had >properly carbonated the beer after racking (refer to Zymurgy, Summer >1995). Second, as the keg continues to drain, I backed off the CO2 psi >by a bit. Too much made the beer go flat. Again, trial & error gave >me the 10 psi solution that I use today at one-half keg or less. Another >impact for me was the time it took to drink the keg. Now I have an >excuse to hold more parties & finish the kegs quickly. :-) You didn't mention what length and what ID hose you are using, so this may or may not work for anyone else. Also, 10psi at 40F will leave you with a beer carbonated between 2.2 and 2.3 volumes, which may not be ideal for everyone. IMHO, it would be far easier to set your regulator and leave it set at whatever pressure you desire, and adjust the hose length / diameter to get the proper pour. A few calculations and a bit of trial and error, and you never have to mess with the regulator again. Also, I don't understand why the volume of beer left in the keg would make any difference as to what pressure you need to dispense it. If anything, I would think you would need more pressure to dispense as the liquid level falls, due to the greater vertical distance you must push the beer. Anybody have an answer for this one? Tim in Lowell, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:13:10 -0600 From: "D.Holen " <holen1 at konza.flinthills.com> Subject: Beer Bread I have recently started doing some grain brewing. Through my journey gathering tips and techniques I have run into several articles referring to retaining some of the spent grains to make beer bread. Would anyone by chance have any detailed recipes? It seems to me a shame to waste that much grain. Thank you in advance. Doug Manhattan, Ks. Go Wildcats!!!!! Return to table of contents
Date: 30 Oct 1998 09:26:14 -0500 From: Christophe Frey <cfrey at ford.com> Subject: Grain Storage to: post@hbd.org Allen asked: What are the finer points of storing 50 pounds of malt? Can you put it in a RubberMaid container and forget about it? Or do you worry about the humidity or temperature? What are the natural enemies of malt and how do you keep them out? I asked basically the same thing a month or so ago. The consensus answer is to double-trash bag your grains and utilize food grade buckets (with the o-ring on the lid). I have found that with just a little ingenuity that you can find these buckets everywhere. Doughnut shops were recommended (4.25 gallon buckets used for icing), supermarket bakeries, I even get them from a deli that purchases their pickles in them. Just soak pickle bucket in baking soda overnite and it removes the smell. Greg from Denver indicated that he once was infested with "Psocptera, tenny- tiny little guys that were happily galloping in and out of the bags through stitching holes." My concern was more towards the moisture absorption that my older grains were presenting. I store in the basement, and even with a dehumidifier, the grains tended to act as a desiccant. There was a sale on 50 gallon storage bins at ACO a few weeks ago, and I purchased 8 of them for $3.96 each. Just double garbage bag the sacks, label the bins and stack them in my basement. I use the white food-grade buckets for the partial bags (20 lbs or less, and I now have an impressive, yet tidy solution! Sincerely, Chris P. Frey Strategic Planning & New Product Development 337-1642 chris.frey-ford at e-mail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:48:50 -0800 From: "Adrian GRIFFIN" <AGriffin at exec.swrcb.ca.gov> Subject: Fixing chipped enamel / drain valves Many thanks to the folks who replied to my question on fixing chips in enamel pots. Here is my compilation of answers. Also included is how I made a manifold fitting out of standard plumbing fittings. Jim at iowacitynet suggested using an epoxy from the hardware store. Michael Lausin suggested looking for a touch-up kit for sinks and bathtubs. Ckafer at iastate.edu reminded me about the thread on barbecue paint a bout a year ago. Paul Shick said he had found that small areas of exposed steel had no effect on flavor and it would be sufficient to cover the chipped area with a de-leaded brass washer. To make a seal he suggested using food-grade silicone rated to 400F. However. I could not find any such product in my local Home Depot. The choices were: GE Silicone II--rated to 400F, but should not be used for aquariums or when FDA compliance is required. Aquarium silicone--Presumably emanates fewer soluble nasties. Dishwasher-safe silicone from the Super Glue Corporation I could not verify that the materials available to me were food-grade for contact with boiling wort, so I relied on covering up the flaked section with a home-made copper washer and using the silicone on the outside of the pot. I used the "dishwasher safe" silicone from the Super Glue Corporation. Here's what I ended up doing. The chip in my pot was caused by drilling a hole for a drain valve. My "manifold fitting" was a 1/2-inch male pipe thread to 3/8-inch compression coupling. I drilled a 1/2-inch hole in the pot and reamed it out to approx. 17/32 so I could screw the compression end into the hole. Some enamel flaked off both sides of the pot when I drilled the hole. Also, I drilled out the flange in the compression nut to make it into a locknut for the inside of the pot. I could not find any suitable washers. The brassy washers at Home Depot were steel, possibly plated with yellow zinc. So I made my own copper "fender washers". I cut two 1-1/2 inch pieces of 3/4-inch copper pipe longitudinally, flattened them out, and cut them in two. This gave me four 1-1/2 inch by 1-1/4 inch copper plates. I drilled 1/2-inch holes in the plates and reamed them out so they would slip over the compression thread. Finally, I clipped the corners of the "washers" to make them octagonal. I needed to use two washers on the outside as spacers because the compression thread stopped 1/16 away from where the fitting flanges out for the larger pipe thread. I slid two washers on the compression thread, put a bead of silicone around the hole on the outside of the pot and screwed the fitting into the hole. On the inside of the pot, I slid a washer over the compression thread and then tightened the drilled-out compression nut on as a locknut. The inner washer covered the flaked-off area. The assembly has lasted for a 10-min. test boil and a 70-minute brew. Again, thanks to everybody for the information. I'd welcome any observations on the safety of using epoxy, enamel paint, etc. on the inside of boiling pots. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:58:42 -0600 From: Stephen Johnson <Stephen.Johnson at vanderbilt.edu> Subject: Results of 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off The results are in for the 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off, held in Nashville, TN on Oct. 24, at Boscos Nashville Brewery, and hosted by the Music City Brewers. Thanks to all who entered a total of 181 entries! A note of thanks to the 30 judges who came from Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee to help us out. Special thanks to our special guest for the weekend, Al Korzonas, who spent the better part of 3 days with us, including a Sunday afternoon brunch, featuring a talk and follow-up tasting of fine Belgian beers from his own personal stock brought back from his 1995 trip there. Thanks again, Al, for a great visit with us! Finally, a note of thanks to our local and national sponsors for supporting the event with sponsorship monies, prizes, and merchandise. See our webpage for a full listing of these individuals and companies. Some of the winners are presented below. A final posting of all winners should appear on our webpage beginning November 1 http://www.theporch.com/~homebrew/ Best of Show: Tom Karnowski, Knoxville TN: English-style Barley Wine Prize: A brew-session with Jeff Kinnard of Market Street Brewery with the brew-session beer featured at the brewpub! TN Homebrew Club of the Year: Tennessee Valley Homebrewers, Knoxville, TN winners of the traveling firkin award donated by Chuck Skypeck of Boscos TN Homebrewers of the Year: Jeff York & Stasi Valos, Knoxville, TN (highest number points for beers earning ribbons at the 3 Tennessee competitions this year: Memphis, Knoxville, Nashville, with 1st place beers = 5 points, 2nd = 3 pts., 3rd = 1 pt.) TN Quality Homebrewers of the Year: John & Doran Moranville, Memphis TN (highest overall average of 6 best scoring beers entered into the 3 Tennessee competitions this year) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:25:38 -0500 (EST) From: LEAVITDG at SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU Subject: question: Alkaline Water Date sent: 30-OCT-1998 16:19:53 I have seen some of our homebrew experts state that they boil all of the water that they will use in the brew. Is this both for killing bugs (esp if one is doing a partial boil and adding cold water) and for bringing the pH of the water down? I guess that I am asking: IF one has alkaline water is this boiling of the water to be used better than adding stuff to the wort later (lactic acid, etc). I know that I need to probably do a water analysis...so the above may not make any sense..or be something that can be responded to outside of knowing what the minerals are in the water?... This stuff can get confusing... ...Darrell _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/Darrell Leavitt _/ _/INternet: leavitdg at splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu _/ _/AMpr.net: n2ixl at amgate.net.plattsburgh.edu _/ _/AX25 : n2ixl at kd2aj.#nny.ny.usa _/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:34:11 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: sterile buffer storage Jim spewed and Dave retorted, but I'm just hoping that some of the actual info in between doesn't get lost. Jim mentioned that a phosphate such as this provides a nutrient source not only for the yeast, but also any potential invading organisms. While I love the idea of improving my storage viability, I'm not going to do it at the cost of contamination risk. Maybe if I worked from a sterile lab instead of the kitchen table, I'd think differently, but to me an increased risk of contamination is a big deal. Can anyone quantify or qualify what Jim asserted? -SM- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:50:14 -0800 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: re: A Study of Fluid Flow Through A Grainbed John, Great study. Like you I'm wondering about the false bottom. One question. I gathered that you did all of the tests on a rectangular box. How does this translate for a round tun (like my 10 gallon Gott)? John Schnupp, N3CNL Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/31/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96