HOMEBREW Digest #2867 Wed 04 November 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: Pump Questions (John_E_Schnupp)
  De Koninck (Brad Railsback)
  Using differential agars in an economical way ("George De Piro")
  Fluid Flow Study ("Kelly C. Heflin")
  pH Meter/Paper Compared and pH ??'s ("Marc Battreall")
  Batch-Sparge Spreadsheet & Whither KennyEddy? (Ken Schwartz)
  Chimay yeast? ("Penn, John")
  old malts/Doppels/Colloidal Haze ("Jim Busch")
  No-Sparge Newbie and Fermentap Thanks (CHUCK MORFORD)
  Cider + lactose question (John Biggins)
  Otter Creek Pale cloudiness (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  reply to: more: Foam from Kegs, HBD#2866 (Herbert Bresler)
  Woodruff, Gelatine, (Eric.Fouch)
  re: Protein Rest Data Point (Charley Burns)
  fluid dynamics (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
  Re: Yeast Update (Brett Gober)
  yeast storage test (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Pediococcus Damnosus - hiding in hops? (Charley Burns)
  manifold vs. false bottom (Peter.Perez)
  Largering ("William Warren")
  problem micros (dbgrowler)
  HBD LAL Meeting ("Philip J Wilcox")
  yet another recipe w/beer (Jonathan Edwards)
  Belgian Tripel/Pale ("Steve")
  Malt Crushing ("J.Kish")

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: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:25:20 -0800 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: re: Pump Questions Ken asks: >My basic question is, can I use reducing coupling to change the inlet >on my pump from 1/2" down to 3/8" or 5/16" in order to accomodate the fittings >on my mashtun, boil vessel, and sparge vessel. Will I burn up the pump by >doing this? The almost non-existent instructions that came with the pump Here's how I understand it. If I'm wrong, I'll surely be corrected. The flow to a pump should not be controlled by restricting the inlet flow, rather the outlet flow should be controlled. If the inlet flow is restricted, it is possible to cause the pump to cavitate. This is basically a reduced pressure on the inlet side of the pump that can cause disolved gases to come out of solution and create bubbles in the liquid. This causes wear on the impeller of the pump and litterally eat the impeller away to nothing. Controlling the flow at the outlet will always make sure the inpet pressure is greater than the outlet pressure and the pump will not cavitate, however, the pump motor could overheat (depending upon the type of pump). If the motor is direct coupled to the impeller the pump could stall and overheat. Most pumps used in brewing are magnetically coupled and if the impeller becomes locked up, the motor will continue to turn at almost it's normal speed (like seperating 2 small magnets by a piece of paper, you can still move the one around even if the other gets stuck). For your question. I'm not a fluid engineer but I don't see any problem in using reducer on the inlet *provided* that the outlet side of the pump has a smaller reducer that the inlet. If you have 3/8" on the inlet, then the outlet should be less. John Schnupp, N3CNL Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:42:09 -0800 (PST) From: Brad Railsback <rails2bier at yahoo.com> Subject: De Koninck Here is a recipe I found in a Dutch homebrew book. They don't have any books nearly as advanced as availible in America. I think this must be for 10 liters. It didn't give any temps or hop addition times. It also didn't say anything about alpha acid %. I forget what translates to gerstevlokkon and my good English-Nederlands dictonary is in the mail somewhere between the US and Holland(I hope). I know some Nederlands speakers read HBD so maybe they can translate for the rest of us. I've never tried this recipe so I don't know how it will turn out. 1900 grams pilsner malt 400 carmel malt 125 grams gerstevlokkan 35 grams goldings hops 10 grams record hops 10 grams black malt Good Luck!! If you want to see the difference between the different beer styles of Belgiium go to the 24 Hours of Taste in Antwerp this weekend. The AHA would go nuts trying to come up with style guidelines for most styles with exception of dubbels, tripels and wit biers. Even some wit biers I had in my two years in the Netherlnds were very different. They are the art side of brewing. Some of the small new breweries have some interesting biers that would be hard to duplicate with out the yeast. Good Brewing, Brad Railsback _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 8:42 -0800 From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro at berlex.com> Subject: Using differential agars in an economical way Hi all, Dave considers the possibility of testing yeast cultures for mutation and contamination by plating his cultures on differential media. I have recently been doing this, and have learned some money saving tips (thanks to Katie Kunz at the BSI; (719)460-0418; she sells yeast, media of all sorts, etc. The usual disclaimers apply). If you plate something on LDMA and nothing grows, you can use the plate again! That could save you some cash. Another trick you can do is to plate different samples on the same plate (for both LDMA and RDMA). Of course you need to carefully mark the plate so that you know which side has what sample, and you should mark the base, not the lid (the lid can be turned independent of the base and then you'll never know what is what). If there is a contaminating mold it could infect the entire plate, so even though only one culture is contaminated it could look like everything on the plate is bad. Cross that bridge if you come to it, though. Another option is pouring your own plates. It is much cheaper than $.8/plate, but if you value your time it may not be a less expensive option. You do need time for brewing, after all. As far as getting more data points, I can provide a few. Perhaps others out in HBD land would like to participate? Is it even necessary to put yeast into the phosphate buffer (pb) to determine if it gets contaminated? Would it be enough to make up 40 vials of sterile pb, open and close each (to simulate inoculating it), incubate at 30C for a while and plate it on LDMA? Perhaps a protocol is in order? As far as the risk of contamination: in my lab phosphate buffer at pH 2.5 will grow mold quite effectively. Low pH is not adequate protection from microbes. Have fun! George de Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:17:51 -0500 From: "Kelly C. Heflin" <kheflin at lucent.com> Subject: Fluid Flow Study I've been looking for this study on Fluid Flow through a Grainbed. I've been to John's webpage(It's a great webpage, but I cant find Anything about this study. Anyway I'm curious how this will relate to my system where I do a type of batchsparge. Recirculating at high speed with a pump, and then diverting that line into the boil pot. It doesn't seem the fluid would have time to start channeling. But then again my efficiency does suck. And I assume that's what the study is all about. I'd like to see these pictures ..Where are they.. Thanks kelly Kelly C. Heflin kheflin at lucent.com (732) 957-3055 Room 2B-409 200 Laurel Ave. Middletown, New Jersey 07748 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:28:18 -0500 From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net> Subject: pH Meter/Paper Compared and pH ??'s Hello All, With all the threads going on about pH papers and meters I thought I might throw in my $.02 worth. I became concerned a few years back about doing the best I could to adjust both my mash and sparge water pH so I decided to start using pH papers for the obvious reason of cost. After alot of research I ended up buying the more expensive brand. They are made by Baxter Diagnostics Inc. (NA) and I got a box of 100 from one of the HB mail order supply places for about $12 I think. They have a pH range of 4.5-10.0 with a 0.5 sensitivity. I was using lactic acid, and sometimes citric acid to adjust my mash liquor to around 6.0 and the sparge to around 5.3-5.5 and this seemed to work just fine. No elaborate instructions on the package, just leave strip in solution until no color change is detected. Easy enough. I noted that took about 20-30 seconds when I allowed the sample to cool to 100F or below. I can honestly say that I did not really notice any significant difference in any of the brews that followed, but I felt good about the procedure knowing that it HAD TO BE improving my technical prowess. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Enter the new pH meter...... I bought a Hanna pHep 3 from Brewer's Resource (NA)and was real excited about it. Used it with basically the same target pH's as before and noted that the amounts of acids used to acquire the same results was almost exactly the same. Just for grins one brew session, I broke out the old pH papers and did a comparison test throughout the entire session and the papers and the meter both showed the same results (give or take .5 of course because of the papers increments). I think the main advantage of the meter is that it is almost instantaneous and it has automatic temperature control (ATC). I am not sure that the ATC is reliable enough for me, so I still flash cool the samples in the freezer to below 100F. Call me a doubting Thomas! What's my point? Well, if you absolutely have to have a fancy pH meter and you can spare $50-$80 go for it. And if you do want one, I can vouch for the accuracy of the Hanna pHep3. Make sure you get some buffer solution (both 7.0 and 4.0) and calibrate it regularly. I set mine just about every brew session and certainly every time I work with starter wort for yeast propagation's. If you are happy with your pH papers, they work fine too. I will suggest that you spend the extra $$ for the name brand ones though. Now a few questions. After all these acid treatments during mashing and sparging I seem to keep my pH around the accepted guidelines. I.E. Mash liquor starts at 6.0, drops to about 5.3 or so during mashing, sparge liquor at about 5.5, wort comes out of the boil and goes into the fermenter at 5.2-5.3, and so on. Knowing as this, when I check the pH at racking to the secondary time it is usually about 4.5-4.6 for most brews. Is this normal? I have also noted a few of my lagers to finish out at below that at 4.2-4.3 and wondered if that was too low? What is as acceptable range? Should there be a difference between ales and lagers or a difference between any other particular styles? What are some of the advantages/disadvantages of a high or low pH of the finished product? I have read up on the subject of pH control in the Brewhouse but most all of the info is aimed towards mashing and sparging. Little can be found about the boil and fermentation procedures. Any good books or reference material on this around? Thanks in advance for the help. Have A Hoppy Day! Marc ======================= Captain Marc Battreall Backcountry Brewhouse Islamorada, Florida batman at terranova.net captainbrew at hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 07:44:26 -0700 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: Batch-Sparge Spreadsheet & Whither KennyEddy? Lord Badger laments the demise of KennyEddy and his Batch-Sparge Spreadsheet. Au, contrair, mein froinds, rumors of his demise are premature. I changed my on-line identity a few months ago and simply moved my brewing web page to greener (and faster) pastures. You can find all the excitement at http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer. Doesn't have quite the same ring as "KennyEddy", but at least I finally got my "KenBob" email name. On the topic of Batch-Sparging, and no-sparging for that matter, I've nearly completed writing up a mathematical analysis of the processes that in fact was started when I first put the batch-sparge spreadsheet together. The purpose is to make the formulation process more predictable and repeatable than just tossing in the oft-quoted "1/3 extra grain" and hoping for the right amount and gravity of runoff. The document will be posted very soon on my webpage, and I'll make an announcement here when it's ready for public consumption. I'll probably post a summary of the equations here as well (the web page will be mostly boring math). Brander goes on to ask about the second "mash" in batch-sparging: "Is there any point to letting the second mash in #2 sit for teh full hour? isn't the grain already converted? and your really just rinsing it agian to extract any remaining sugars? or is there more mashing going on? Couldn I just pour in the water, stir it up, and draining (like a batch sparge) and get the same amount of extraction?" Yes, the mash should be fully converted, but as you speculate you need to give the second "mash" (the "sparge" if you will) time to extract the sugary wort out of the grain particles' interiors. My experience with batch sparging inicates that for a 10-minute rest (with a stir or two during), the second runoff is usually of somewhat higher gravity than predicted, indicating that there's a lot of wort inside a drained grain that needs ample soak time to extract. Ten minutes might be too short, but an hour is probably overdoing it. And yes, Badger, a thin mash can reduce extraction efficiency. Seems I read that this is at least partly due to dilution of the enzymes (harder for them to find sugars). - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX kenbob at elp.rr.com http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:14:03 -0500 From: "Penn, John" <PennJE1 at SPACEMSG.JHUAPL.edu> Subject: Chimay yeast? I got a bottle of Chimay with the red label and put it in the refrigerator for a day. I then poured the bottom of the bottle/yeast sediment into a 12 oz starter of wort. After two days, nothing so far. Did I damage the yeast by putting the bottle in the refrigerator for a day? Can I culture Chimay yeast this way or is there a better way? How long before fermentation should start? Is Chimay yeast the original yeast or is there a second yeast added at bottling time? Sorry for all the questions but I'm hoping to be enlightened by the very knowledgeable yeast culturers of the HBD. I also got a bottle of Duvel. Same questions about the yeast and culturing. Thanks, John Penn Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:18:53 +0000 From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com> Subject: old malts/Doppels/Colloidal Haze > Are specialty malts prone to staling also? Which ones are the most > vulnerable? Caramel, roasted and high kilned malts are more susceptible to degradation but all malt does degrade in storage as it is a good water scavenger. The first indiction of old malt is a lack of fresh, crisp refreshing snappy malt character in light beers. Basically an overall dullness of palate. > From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com> > > backoff of the RIMS for a spell. Just something about pumping > the mash all around (grain and all) - dont seem right. Agreed, the less pump action on malts and wort the better. > > one using a malt (pils and munich) that they swear by?? Jim Busch > what are you guys using at Victory....?? Where did you get it?? Mostly Weyermann malz imported directly from Mich Weyermann in Bamberg. Also distributed in the US by Crosby & Baker I think. Durst works well too as would Weissenheimer (sp?). Any three would be a good choice in my book. Keep the Munich malt ratio high, do a decoction with as little O2 uptake as possible and incorporate a good rest in the beta amylase range to avoid overly high final gravity. BTW, Jackson has a nice photo of St Victorious Doppelbock ("one of the best bocks made in America") and Prima Pils ("intensely hoppy") in his latest book "Ultimate Beer". > (BTW Jim still no sign of Victory up here, come quick the micros > are dropping like flies lots of tap lines available..sorry for the > crass commercialism...) Yeah I hear you. In Pa they are dropping off like flies too. Pretzel City, Camelot, Gravity, York all gone. Numerous others on the ropes holding on by life support only. In Md, Globe Brewing ceased brewing but is hanging on with a pub. In Va we lost Blue N Gold recently. FredBrew and Independence are threatened with delisting on the NASDAQ due to penny stock status of the shares while both continue to buy brands from other brewers to prop up production levels ( and in the formers case continue to issue more shares). Im sure happy to be privately owned and run by brewers and not accountants/market makers. The beer should matter first and foremost as you build strong brands then expand but not the other way around. Very bad time to be starting out in this marketplace. Mark Bayer asks about "problem micros" as related to haze/sediment in filtered beers. This is what is called colloidal haze, formed from colloidal instability. It is a result of the total brewhouse procedures in terms of protein breakdown and trub removal. As beers age they tend to throw more haze over time. You probably had beers that had been packaged over 2-3 months prior. Prost! Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:39:44 -0500 From: CHUCK MORFORD <MORFORD.CHUCK at epamail.epa.gov> Subject: No-Sparge Newbie and Fermentap Thanks First I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my earlier Fermentap questions....The general consensus was that they were somewhat of a hassle and didn't perform quite as well as expected, but with a little ingenuity could be useful. Second. I've been a grain/extract brewer for some time (about 9 years) and I've been considering moving to all-grain. In that vein, I've been researching my options and in the process came across a quote by I believe, George Fix, stating the the easiest way to improve your all-grain brewing was to NOT sparge. I've also discovered that the No-Sparge method achieves the target gravities by increasing the grain bill by about 30%. So my question is: Have any of you tried this and what do you think? Thanks in advance.... Chuck Morford Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:50:33 +0100 From: John Biggins <jbbiggin at mail.med.cornell.edu> Subject: Cider + lactose question I just started a dry cider w/ champagne yeast & I was wondering (apart from using a less attenuant ale yeast) has anyone tried sweetening up a cider w/ lactose? Just curious. -JB - ------------- John B. Biggins Cornell University Medical College 1233 York Ave; Apt 19D Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY 10021 Graduate School of Medical Sciences (212)717-0158 Student -- Program in Pharmacology "I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubble gum!" -Rowdy Roddy Piper John Carpenter's "They Live" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:13:40 -0500 (EST) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Otter Creek Pale cloudiness Mark Bayer writes asking about cloudiness in Otter Creek Pale... ____________________________________________________________________________ i pulled out the otter creek, and it had the same problem. i know what yeast looks like (as we all do), and it was definitely not yeast. it looked exactly like trub... ....any speculation on what might be causing these problems with the microbrews? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, I'll do better than speculate! I too noticed this in a six of the Otter Creek Pale I had a few weeks ago. I checked into it for two reasons; one, I was just curious and two, I liked the taste and hoped to pull out some interesting yeast for use in brewing. Well, under the scope there were indeed plenty of yeast there but in addition there were just as many if not more BACERIA! Yikes. Interestingly the high bacterial burden hadn't hurt the flavor at all and I didn't get ill from drinking it. I guess I should have characterized the bacteria further but was too lazy. I did however purify the yeast and man does it behave strangely! On YPD (Yeast Extract, Peptone, Dextrose agar) plates it forms amazingly tight colonies. Trying to scrape one with a loop is like pushing hardened drops of wax around the surface of the plate. In solution the yeast flocculates like crazy forming a compact waxy sediment on the bottom that fragments into flakes when roused (did you see this type of behavior in your bottle Mark?). My conclusion is that this is a bottling yeast used by Otter Creek though I have yet to confirm this. Am considering trying to bottle with this yeast in my next pale... -Alan Meeker Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:10:50 -0500 From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7 at osu.edu> Subject: reply to: more: Foam from Kegs, HBD#2866 Badger Roullett had some "more: Foam from Kegs" in HBD#2866. Badger, There was an interesting write up on the subject of dispensing from kegs in BT by Bob Jones. I consider it required reading for anyone who wants to keg their homebrew. You can read it at http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue1.1/techcomm.html Your main problem is the lack of any resistance (and therefore pressure drop) between the beer in the keg and the point of delivery, in your case Phil's Phaucet. If you want to continue to use Phil's Phaucet I think the only way around the foaming problem is to dispense at very low pressure. You'll have to experiment, but I'm guessing you will need to use only 1-2 psi or so. Store your beer at the appropriate pressure for the desired volumes of CO2 at the temperature you are storing the keg. In your case, 20 psi at around 65-70 degrees will give about 2 volumes of CO2; quite appropriate for most ales. Then, just prior to serving, release the pressure in the keg to just about zero. The CO2 will begin leaving the beer and provide the pressure you need to dispense. It may take a few minutes to settle down, and you may have to bleed-off the excess CO2 pressure again depending on how quickly you are dispensing. After a while, you will have to add CO2 pressure (1-2 psi) just to maintain flow. After you are done dispensing for the day, re-pressurize the keg to storage pressure. You might also find the "Force Carbonation Tables" handy. They are located at http://hbd.org/brewery/library/CO2charts.html Good luck and good (keg) brewing, Herb Return to table of contents
Date: 3 Nov 1998 11:15:50 -0500 From: Eric.Fouch at steelcase.com Subject: Woodruff, Gelatine, HBD- I recently had a very nice white wine from St. Julians (here in Michigan) that was spiced with woodruff (sp?). Slightly sweet, still and spicy...which got me to thinking.....has anybody heard of using woodruff in beer or mead? I was thinking it might go nice in a Wit, and since I saw a pack of it at the local brewshop the other other day, it won't be long before I use some. Does anybody have any info on amounts and treatment? I'm thinking the last 15 min of boil, or maybe dry spiced. As far as yeast slant media, what is the current thought on gelatine? Can it withstand being pressure cooked? I was thinking of adding the suggested amount (from the package) to enough wort to make 10-20 slants in test tubes (cappable) and pressure cook them and see how they turn out. Will this make an acceptable slant media? Eric Fouch Bent Dick YoctoBrewery Kentwood MI Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 98 08:54 PST From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) Subject: re: Protein Rest Data Point "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak at amgen.com> writes in hbd 2866 about skipping a protein rest with HB Pale Malt and appearance of low MMW protein results. 2 variables, malt and mash schedule make an un-predictable result. I suggest you try again and use the 135F rest this time to see if its any different. At least then you have changed only 1 variable. My prediction is that it will produce insipid beer (so make a small batch). I have used lots of HB pale *ale* malt and find that it makes excellent pale ales, porters, stout, IPA's. I never use a protein rest, the malt just doesn't have enough protein left due to its high level of modification. I also use high mash temps, always >153F with this malt. Anything lower results in low body and poor head __every time__. BTW - my latest altbier also had a weak appearing krausen in primary but comes out of the keg now with a dense rocky long lasting head. Charley (with dense head, backfrom steelhead fishing weekend) in N. Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:47:39 -0500 From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil> Subject: fluid dynamics collective homebrew conscience: scott and jim wrote: >> From a fluid mechanics standpoint, his second model is close to what >> is known as a "Two Dimensional Sink" flow that is based on inviscid >> potential flow. >I think a more accurate model of the flow is Stokes' flow, or what is >sometimes called creeping flow. This is the flow for an extremely low >Reynolds number. i believe trying to model a heterogeneous mash made up of a viscous fluid of varying density, and husk particles, using incompressible, inviscid flow theory meant for a homogeneous fluid ...... is probably ok. as scott said, the most valuable part of j palmer's post was the experimental results. this is an investigation that is far more easily tackled with empirical experimental methods than with mathematical theories. i think john did a great job with the experiment. but, hey, if we can somehow introduce a discrete vorticity point (and, hence, circulation) into the flow, we can have flying lauter tuns, right guys? : ) brew hard, mark bayer Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:00:26 -0600 From: Brett Gober <bgober at mail.socket.net> Subject: Re: Yeast Update Jeremy, Widmer adds a different yeast when they bottle their Hefe. As you have found out, it is used because it is not flocculant and is not a good fermenter. I would suggest BrewTek CL-980 to brew a Widmer style Hefe. Brett Gober Hannibal Mo Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:51:07 -0800 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> Subject: yeast storage test "Dave Whitman" <dwhitman at fast.net> wants to test phosphate buffer for increased risk of contamination. I agree that waiting for random contamination is a bad idea--it assumes you have poor sterile technique and would require a large number of samples. Why not skip the yeast and innoculate bacteria into water or phosphate? IMO one should be yeast ranching in such a mode that such questions are moot but.... The RDMA test is a good one. One concern about the whole experiment I have is that I'm really only interested in the long-term viability, so I'd ask you to report back next millenium. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 98 10:27 PST From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) Subject: Pediococcus Damnosus - hiding in hops? Another batch gone bad. Excellent pale ale for 3 weeks, then the diacetyl shows up and gets worse every day. I've now had this happen in 5 separate batches and went back to compare notes. Seems I dryhopped every batch with the same East Kent Golding whole hops, except one of them which might have re-used some yeast from one of the infected batches. I can't find any other common threads. Can Pediococcus hide inside whole hops and then infect very slowly from the secondary? I always dryhop in secondary. Charley (of butterscotch beer fame) in N. Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:10:59 -0500 From: Peter.Perez at smed.com Subject: manifold vs. false bottom The first lautering device i ever used was a phalse bottom in my 10 gal gott. I hate this false bottom, it floats, I get stuck sparges, etc. I have never tried using a manifold, and I am now thinking about building one. I would like to know, from someone who has used both a phalse bottom and a manifold, which worked better. Compared extraction rates, vorlaufing success (wort clarity), flow rates, etc. would really be great. Thanks, Pete Return to table of contents
Date: 3 Nov 1998 11:38:02 -0800 From: "William Warren" <wwarren at geron.com> Subject: Largering 11/3/98 Largering I have a question about brewing a larger. I heard that you can larger beers without the use of a fridge. Is that true and how is it done. I would like brew a Pilsner and I will have the opportunity to use my refrigerator. Any suggestions would be helpful. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:09:04 -0500 From: dbgrowler at juno.com Subject: problem micros Mark sez: >after he left, i pulled out the hopjack, and noticed what looked like >sediment in the bottom of the bottle. i got out my flashlight, and sure >enough, a significant amount (1 tsp or so) of what looked like trub was >present in the bottle. Three possibilities- 1) The beer is not filtered very tightly and you are seeing yeast. (very unlikely in the amount you mention) 2) It _is_ infected by something relatively flavor neutral. (pretty unlikely in two different beers concurrently) 3) The beer is too damn old to sell. (very likely) Some malt compounds break down and form a fluffy preciptate in very old and/or very mishandled beer. This is definitely something to check when you're shopping. How far are you from the breweries in question? Do they sell a lot of their beer in your neck of the woods? Sometimes you don't know if you're holding a bottle-conditioned ale, but this stuff is more trub-y than yeast-y; of course sediment in commercial lagers is nearly nonexistent, although in Detroit one of our local micros sells most of their lagers in the unfiltered state. Mike Bardallis Allen Park, MI (useful info for questions such as the above) ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:33:00 -0500 From: "Philip J Wilcox" <pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com> Subject: HBD LAL Meeting From: Philip J Wilcox at CMS on 11/03/98 03:33 PM Whats that? The HBD Lansing (mich) Area Lurkers are invited to join Jim Booth and I at Harpers Brewpub Tuesday Nov 3. (hopefully thats today). Jim Owens formerly of the Baja Brewing Co in San Diego as well as other places in Colorado is the new (relativly) Brewer there. The fabulous blackberry wheat beer he had online earlier this summer is back, this time without the Orange peel. I'll be showing up about 6:30 and will be having dinner and discussions of All Things Beer! Join Us !!!! Prosit!!!!!! Phil Wilcox President-Prison City Brewers Jackson, Mi Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:01:57 -0500 From: Jonathan Edwards <jdedward at us.ibm.com> Subject: yet another recipe w/beer hey now, i experimented some this past weekend with an old standby recipe and my wife the chef actually gave me two thumbs up. that's a compliment coming from a chef. i used a stout but i'm sure any dark beer will work well. here's the recipe: 2lbs Pork Loin garlic rosemary ginger soy sauce it's really simple...the pork loins we usually get are held together with string...i stuff garlic, rosemary, and ginger inside the loin and also coat the outside. place pork loin in a dish and pour soy sauce until it coats the bottom of the loin. add 1/2 bottle of oatmeal stout, porter, etc turning loin so it gets covered on both sides. marinate for 4-5 hours. cook on grill for ~2 hours or until done, braising with soy sauce/beer mixture. this is really simple but it's so good! jonathan Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:53:48 -0500 From: "Steve" <stjones1 at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Belgian Tripel/Pale Greetings all! Has anyone tried 'parti-gyle' brewing, Belgian style? I'd like to brew a tripel (2 gal) of about 1.085-090, and a pale (5 gal) of about 1.045-050. I thought I'd try collecting 2.5 gallons of first runnings in one vessel, then collecting 6.5 gallons of second runnings in a separate vessel. If the first wort is too high gravity, I could remove a little, blend it into the second, then remove that same amount from the second and blend it back into the first until I get the gravity I want. Then I'll commence with the boil. I thought I'd calculate the grain bill as though I was shooting for a 7 gallon batch of 1.060 pale, something like this: 12 lbs DWC pale 2 row 2 lbs DWC caravienne 1 lbs flaked wheat In the tripel about 30 ibu; 3/4 oz Hallertauer for 60 min 1/2 oz Tettnang for 20 min In the pale about 25 ibu; 1 oz Hallertauer for 60 min 3/4 oz Tettnang for 20 min. Does this sound like a reasonable way to go about it? Or, should I shoot for a lower gravity on the tripel and use some candi sugar? All comments are welcome. I'd like to try this within the next month or so. Steve State of Franklin Homebrewers Johnson City, Tennessee http://home.att.net/~stjones1 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 18:44:27 -0800 From: "J.Kish" <jjkish at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Malt Crushing To: Ian Lyons, Subject: crushing malted grain without using oxen ___________________________________________ Why not have your home brew supplier crush the malt for you when you buy it? That way, you can get by without a malt mill. That's what I do, and it works. Joe Kish Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/04/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96