HOMEBREW Digest #3175 Mon 22 November 1999

[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

  Best Homebrew bash of the new millennium?? ("John Stegenga")
  grain mills (John Wilkinson)
  Lambic Question (Brad McMahon)
  Heady brew, Malt mills, odd day (Dave Burley)
  Re: Boilover preventer ("Sean Richens")
  Temp Controlled SS Conical Fermenter (Ron and Sharon)
  Re: Sanitizing caps (KMacneal)
  Lysol and hop pellets (Mike Uchima)
  Re: first wort hopping (part 1) (Jeff Renner)
  Re: first wort hopping (part 2) (Jeff Renner)
  pLambic, wheat lautering (Ben Newman)
  Fermenters, Secondaries, and Aeration ("Keith Christian")
  Re: Stainless Rollers ("Jack Schmidling")
  wyeast (peter gough)
  Re: first wort hopping (SClaus4688)
  Re: Dry ice ("Glen Pannicke")
  VERY slow mead fermentation (Shannon & Angela Menkveld)
  carboy cleaning (gdhipple)
  Dry Hopping / Post-Brew Hopping (gdhipple)
  Gordon's cave a vin homebrew comp. (aaron)
  BT back issue order ("Rob Jones")
  Overly-bitter beer ("Fred L. Johnson")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies. * Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one * line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and * instructions for use. Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org 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 COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:29:18 -0500 From: "John Stegenga" <bigjohns at mindspring.com> Subject: Best Homebrew bash of the new millennium?? in HBD 3174, Ken Schram writes: >Ken Schramm, >Troy, Mi >Jeff Wenner wives 50 miwes southwest of Twoy >216 days until the best homebrew bash of the new millennium. >The smoker will be stoked, for those who like sweet, slightly carbonized >salmon, turkey, pheasants, venison, pork.... >AHA2K: June 22, 23, 24 >Livonia Holiday Inn near Detroit, MI Hmm... Having a brew bash for the millennium a year early? A warm-up, perhaps? The millennium begins at 00:00:00:001 on January 1, 2001. Which makes your party about 5 months and a week before the start of the new millennium. Your title for it is correct (AHA2K), because it will indeed fall in the year 2000. For more information on the millennium, see: http://www.usno.navy.mil/home.html John Stegenga (AKA Bigjohn) Bigjohn's Basement Brew house Woodstock, GA (about 1000 miles south of Troy) member, Covert Hops Society - Atlanta GA http://www.coverthops.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:44:48 -0600 From: John Wilkinson <jandjwilkins at earthlink.net> Subject: grain mills Kyle, the biergiek of Bakersfield (good Basque food there, just be sure they have more than one exit), wrote of the merits of the adjustable Valley Mill as opposed to Jack Schmidling's (there, I actually said his name) JSP Malt Mill. I have had a Valley mill for a few years and am pretty happy with it. However, I must mention that I never find a need to change the roller spacing. I admit that my brewing is probably somewhat boring compared to some of you in that I seldom if ever use anything but 2 row barley, mostly ale but sometimes lager, malt. Also, I not infrequently during the grind of my usual 20 pounds (US) of grain have the mill stall until I poke at it a bit or sometimes have to empty the hopper, restart, and refill. I attribute this to the passive roller not being driven, for some reason, by the grain. I still like the mill and at the price I paid for it (about US$70 from a Williams Brewing closeout) it is hard to beat. However, the JSP mills have a, I think, deservedly good reputation and are all I have seen in home brew supply shops in my area. Like him or not, Ol' Jack makes a good product. I'm not his brother-in-law either. Hell, I don't even know him. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 00:16:13 +1030 From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au> Subject: Lambic Question >From: "Eric R. Theiner" <logic at skantech.com> >Subject: Lambic Question >First, what's the difference between a Plambic and a regular lambic? >I thought that a Plambic (aka pseudo-lambic) was a shot at making a >beer like a lambic through formulation and additions, but not through >the use of bacterial strains. But reading these posts more carefully, >it seems that everyone is making Plambics-- even when all the standard >bacteria and lengthy aging is used. What gives? Lambics are fermented by wild airborne yeasts and bacteria while p-Lambics are created by innoculating the wort with yeast(s) and bacterial strains. Some commercial brewers rely on wild inniculations entirely, while some others add a top-fermenting yeast and expose the beer in the cooling trays after primary fermentation is complete. You can try making a Lambic but unless the content of your air is similar to central Belgium, you may not have much success (or so I've heard). Brad Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:04:18 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Heady brew, Malt mills, odd day Brewsters: Jack Straw decided to stop using that bane of good beer - Wyeast 1056 and move onto something that might actually have a positive effect on flavor - Burton Ale Yeast. Congratulations! you'll never go back to 1056 for your ales. I just wish people who try to make a living at micro brewing would also wake up and give their beer some character by using something besides 1056. Don't forget to go to a real lager yeast when you do lagers. However, Jack is worrried since the yeast is climbing out of his carboy fermenter and looks like caulking compound. What you are experiencing is a real top fermenting yeast ( actually should be called a top flocculating yeast) and one of the reasons I began using a wide mouth plastic fermenter closed with a plastic sheet ( commonly called an "open" fermenter) when I lived in Britain and used a British brewery ale yeast. Don't worry, the yeast is doing a great job, just be careful it does not fall back into the brew if it is exposed to the air, as it will be contaminated. Next time, try an open fermenter configuration for the first 5 days or so and then rack to a carboy. See the recent archives for more discussion on open fermentations. - -------------------------------------------- Charlie Walker wants to know about malt mills. Please see the archives, as this subject has been exhaustively discussed. I suggest you get an adjustable mill, as I find that if I double mill my grist - coarse and then fine ( at ~ 0.06 in) I get substantially better extraction and if you are doing a variety of malts, each has a different grain size. I motorized mine with a drill motor which is loosely attached and set to rotate over and pull the plug when something moves into the nip which is not malt - and it WILL happen. You may consider a clutch or shear pin or some such mechanical or electronic device. - -------------------------------------------- I hope you all had a wonderful day on 11/15/99 because it was an Odd Day (every digit is odd). This is the last one we will ever see. After this, there won't be an Odd Day until 1/1/3111. The next Even Day will be 2/2/2000, the first since 8/28/888 (just in case you're keeping track....). - -------------------------------------------- Keep on Brewin' Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:56:56 -0600 From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca> Subject: Re: Boilover preventer Alan Prezant asks if anyone has tried a boilover preventer. I tried a ceramic one (in theory even better than glass) and it didn't seem to make much difference. My take, having used such things in the lab, is that boilovers in wort are more an issue of foaming out, while with less proteinaceous liquids the problem is "bumping" where a layer of liquid superheats and then flashes into steam all at once. If your kettle "burps" during boiling, you might try it. Sean Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:10:57 -0600 From: Ron and Sharon <biohazrd at graceba.net> Subject: Temp Controlled SS Conical Fermenter We've run a search of the HBD files, so I don't think this subject has been addressed before. Beer Beer and More Beer has developed a chilled stainless steel Unitank that uses two solid state thermoelectric cooling devices to cool the fermentation up to 30 deg. below room temp (their claim). The SS unitank is insulated with 1" thick (unspecified type) insulation. This sounds like the ideal setup but I have some questions for the Collective; 1. I've heard of solid state cooling chips but I always thought that, while efficient, they have relatively little capacity to cool as the spread between ambient temperature and cooled temperature diverge. 2. Can the heat of fermentation be efficiently and sufficiently removed to allow lager ferment temps. in an 80 deg external environment? If anybody has experience with the B3 cooled fermenter I would be very interested in hearing about their experiences with it. Its a great idea if it works but an expensive bust if it doesn't. We live in extreem South Alabama and temperature control has been a problem since we started brewing. Currently we use evaporative means to cool ale fermentations and will be brewing our first lager in a refrigerator next week. Ron and Sharon Montefusco biohazrd at graceba.net www.graceba.net/~biohazrd Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:37:18 EST From: KMacneal at aol.com Subject: Re: Sanitizing caps In a message dated 11/20/1999 12:17:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, Jeff Hall <hallj at targen.com> writes: << Since sanitizing is back in vogue (as a topic that is), I'd like to know what others are doing about bottlecaps, and in particular oxygen absorbing caps. I don't recall a clear consensus on the oxygen caps. I have been sealing regular caps in pouches and running them through an autoclave. Sterility is no problem, but around 10% of the caps are ruined due to peeling of the rubber seal. Does this happen when caps are boiled also? Is Iodophor ok for the oxygen caps? >> After boiling off the liners on my caps a few times I just stopped doing anything to them. I haven't had a problem yet. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:13:13 -0600 From: Mike Uchima <uchima at pobox.com> Subject: Lysol and hop pellets John asks whether spraying his brewing area with Lysol is a good idea. Probably no harm, but IMO totally unnecessary. I'm fairly certain that most contaminants are either picked up from improperly sanitized equipment, or airborne (i.e. on dust that settles into your wort). Spraying with Lysol isn't going to help with these. When I started out brewing about 4 years ago, I was pretty anal about cleanliness of my brewing area, and gave the kitchen a really good cleaning before I started a brew session. Since then, I've gotten kind of lazy -- now I just brush the crumbs off the countertop. :-) In spite of this, my beers have continued to improve (due, I assume, to improvements in other aspects of my brewing process). Mike complains about racking problems (clogs) when using pellets. Immersion cooling, whirlpooling, and letting the wort settle for 20 minutes prior to racking to the primary (using my regular racking cane) has always worked for me. I don't think I've ever had a clog doing things this way. Dry-hopping with pellets, OTOH, can be kind of a PITA, since whirlpooling is not an option! - -- == Mike Uchima == uchima at pobox.com == Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:20:06 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: first wort hopping (part 1) Thanks to SClaus4688 at aol.com for his discussion of FWH. A couple of points of clarification: >I was surprised to read that there was a standard method. I recall some >debate on this subject (i.e., remove the FWH hops or leave them in) in the >HBD three or four years ago, which never came to a strong conclusion one way >or the other. By standard method, I simply meant the in the original German investigation. >As Jeff mentioned in his post, the FWH beers >that were the subject of his experiment I hope you meant the experiment I reported on, not actually MY experiment. It was conducted in Germany and reported in _Brauwelt_, and then reported to us by George Fix. Since traffice is still light, I'll post most of Dave Draper's web page summary from http://brew.oeonline.com/ddraper/beer/1stwort.html. I think it's worthwhile reading. This of course doesn't mean this is the only way to do it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- First Wort Hopping In the latter part of 1995, Dr. George Fix posted to the Home Brew Digest about a process he had recently come across described in the brewing literature. Since then much interest in the procedure has arisen. The process is called First Wort Hopping (FWH), and it refers to the practice of adding hops to the brew kettle, into which sparged runnings are collected, at the beginning of sparging. The idea is that the hops soak in the collecting wort (which usually runs out of the lauter tun at temperatures ranging from 60 to 70C depending on one's setup) for the duration of the sparge, and the volatile hop constituents undergo very complicated reactions, producing a complexity of hop bitterness and aroma that is obtainable no other way. In general, this procedure, which originated in Germany, has been used in Pils type beers. However, it is possible that the procedure might also be beneficial for other styles as well; this remains to be determined. This page is intended to do two things: first, to provide a brief summary of the original article mentioned by Dr. Fix, and second, to tabulate the results of trials of this procedure on a homebrew scale using data provided by myself and helpful net brewers. The summary of the article appears immediately below; if you wish you can jump from here directly to the Table of Trial Results. First Wort Hopping Summary The original article on which Dr. Fix reported appeared in the brewing journal Brauwelt International, by Preis, Nuremberg, and Mitter; vol IV, p. 308, 1995. In this writeup, it is my intention to summarize the main points of this article so that brewers can at least get some idea what the basic data look like, and from here the experimentation at the homebrew scale will undoubtedly provide more insight on how this process might best be used for our beers. I will do this in two parts: first, straight reportage, in outline form, on the contents of the article (any errors or omissions are mine); and second, some commentary elicited from various brewers in the HBD during March 1996. This is not intended by any means to be a comprehensive treatment of this topic; it is only a summary. Part I. Summary of the Article 1. Introduction. First wort hopping was used extensively at the start of the century but mainly in order to enhance bitterness rather than aroma. It was recognized that the higher pH of the wort (as opposed to later in the boil) had a positive effect on utilization, combatting the effects of losses from coagulation on break material. The higher pH of the first runnings enhances isomerization of alpha acids. Other attempts were made to actually hop the mash (!!); other early efforts involved running the sparged wort through a hop filter-- a "hop front" instead of a hop back, I guess...DeClerk steeped the hops in 50C water before adding to the wort (to remove "unpleasant" stuff); a later worker used 70C water. Both reported enhanced aroma qualities. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:21:15 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: first wort hopping (part 2) 2. Experimental Procedures. Two different breweries produced the test brews, Pils types, that make up the subject of this article. The two breweries make a slightly different version of Pils. No mention was made in the article whether the beers were products of decoction or infusion mashes (see comments below). At each brewery, the FWH beer was brewed with a reference beer alongside. The FWH and Reference beers at each brewery were done under controlled conditions, identical ingredients, pitching rates, etc., and differed only in the way they were hopped. The reference beers were hopped in the customary fashion for the two breweries under consideration, namely with two late-kettle additions. For the FWH beers made in both test breweries, the hops that would have been used in these late-kettle additions were instead dumped into the boiler once its bottom was covered with wort; no stirring--they just sat there while wort was sparged on top of them. Brew A (total hopping: 13.0 g alpha acid per hectolitre of cast wort) was first-hopped with 34% of the total amount added--Tettnang and Saaz that were typically used in aroma additions at the alpha acid per hl wort) used only Tettnang, but 52% of the total hop amount was used as First Wort Hops. No late-kettle aroma hopping was done in either brew. Brew A was boiled for 90 minutes and Brew B for 80 minutes, both at atmospheric pressure. 3. Tasting panel results: the FWH beers were overwhelmingly preferred over the reference beers in triangular taste tests (i.e., each taster was given three beers, two of either the reference beer or the FWH beer, and one of the other, and had to correctly identify which two were alike before their preference results were incorporated in the database). 11 of 12 tasters of each beer preferred the FWH beer. The main reasons given for the preference: "a fine, unobtrusive hop aroma; a more harmonic beer; a more uniform bitterness." 4. Analytical results--bitterness: The FWH beers had more IBUs than did the reference beers. Brew A: Ref beer was 37.9 IBU, FWH beer was 39.6 IBU. Brew B: Ref beer was 27.2 IBU, FWH beer was 32.8 IBU. This should come as no surprise, since more hops were in the kettle for the boil in the FWH beers than in the Reference beers. Prior to fermentation, the worts from both breweries showed the following features: the FWH wort had substantially more isomerized alpha acids, but less non-isomerized alphas. This was particularly true of Brew B, which had a higher proportion of first-wort hops. Nevertheless, the bitterness of the FWH beers was described as more pleasing than the (slightly weaker) bitterness of the reference beers. 5. Analytical results--aroma: For the aroma compounds, very distinct differences were measured (gas chromatography) in both the identities and concentrations of the various aromatic compounds between the FWH beers and the reference beers. Because the precise nature of the effects of aromatic compounds on beer flavor are very complicated, it cannot be said with certainty just why the various measurements resulted in the overwhelming tasting preference, but clearly something is going on here. Even though the reference beers had higher *absolute amounts* of most of the aroma compounds, again the FWH beers got higher ratings for overall pleasure. 6. Final comments: each brewery needs to experiment with its own setup for determining what sort of first-wort hopping is best for it. But the alpha-acid quantity should *not* be reduced, even if one gets more bitterness than one would get in the usual way. The tasting panel results seem to indicate that the bitterness in the FWH beers was fine, and mild--i.e. there is little harshness that can appear in a highly bittered beer. If the hops are reduced to compensate for the extra IBUs one gets from the first-wort hops, then the whole benefit of doing it might be lost. The recommendation is to use at least 30% of the total hops as first- wort hops--basically, this means adding the aroma hops as first-wort hops rather than late kettle additions. To quote the article: "...But we recommend that first wort hopping be carried out with at least 30% of the total hop addition, using the later aroma additions. [New paragraph] As far as the use of hops is concerned, the alpha-acid quantity should not be reduced even in the case of an improved bitterness utilisation. The results of the tastings showed that the bitterness of the beers is regarded as very good and also as very mild. A reduction of the hop quantity added [to compensate for the presence of more hops early in the boil--this note added by Dave, it is clear from the context of the preceding paragraphs] could result in the bitterness being excessively weakened, and the good "hop flavor impression" could be totally lost." Return to table of contents
Date: 20 Nov 99 11:47:57 PST From: Ben Newman <benewman at netscape.net> Subject: pLambic, wheat lautering Two interesting articles in HBD 3174 #1 - Eric Theiner writes that a pLambic he made seemed to lose some of its characteristic flavour and aroma. That's an interesting comment because I brew a Raspberry Ale with a small amount of malted wheat, frozen raspberries and cranberries. What yeast do you use Eric? I use Wyeast 1214 Abbey Ale which, in another recipe, develops a distinct bubble gum flavour. In my Raspberry Ale it seems quite subdued, you see the person I brew the Raspberry Ale for is not too horny about tasting bubble gum in her beer. A local brewer tipped me off to the fact that the bubble gum flavour disipates somewhat when other yeast and bacteria are introduced into the "mix" (he has a years of Lambic experience and a degree in microbiology. BTW, he says he'll need at least ten more years to develop the recipe he is striving for. I think his stuff is great). This dilution of flavour would explain why my Belgian Ale keeps the bubble gum and why the Raspberry Ale doesn't. Empirical observation, but very interesting. Other opinions?....... p.s. There's plenty of info on 1214 in the back issues of HBD. It behaves rather unusually. #2 - Pat Galvin says " I brewed a Belgian Wit with 50% raw wheat (step mash) and had no lautering problems." WOW!! Good work. Can anyone else attest to such skill. In my above mentioned Raspberry Ale I use about 1/3 malted wheat and one day forgot to add the oat hulls I usually sparge with (science experiment in the making). To my surprise, no stuck sparge. I do decoct all my wheat and lager recipes though. I think I'll try going "oat hull-less" in my "Aventinus" clone which I'm starting after Christmas if anyone else can attest to using high percent wheat with no probs, Anyone?..... ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:08:46 -0800 From: "Keith Christian" <kchris1 at lausd.k12.ca.us> Subject: Fermenters, Secondaries, and Aeration Brewers, I have been fermenting in my barrel MLT and have wondered a few things. Should I rack to secondary right after primary? Or can I safely let it set for 2 weeks? I am concerned that the beer will take up too much O2 and oxidize. Ive been racking from the fermenter to Cornies after 5 days (gravity approx. 1.020) until ready to drink. I avoided racking the beer to another keg). Well the bottles that I CPBed came out tasting better than some of the kegged beer, after letting the bottles sit for a few days. Is this probably due to not using a secondary before kegging? I really like fermenting in my MLT. It is so easy to do and clean up is simple. Perhaps, I need to rack to carboys for secondary and then keg. Or I need to rack from one keg to another. Some of my friends comment about the clarity not being real good. Since I cant see through most of my beers anyway (Im blind), I have not cared too much. They usually taste great, but some of my higher gravity beers (1.060-1.070) take up to 6 weeks to get in good condition. Whirl pooling: There have been many posts on whirl pooling the chilled beer and draining/straining with and with out scrubbies. But I dont see many mention where their drain is pointing. Is it preferable to have it pointing down with the scrubby filtering vertical in the corner of the pan? This would seem to work the best because the cone is in the center of the pan. This would seem perfect for those who use pellet hops. I have had good luck using a SS scrubby at the center of the pan draining horizontally with at least 2 oz whole hops. Lately, I have been using an oz or 2 of pellet hops for bittering with the flavor and aroma hops being whole. Aeration and Yeast: My last few batches have been relatively unplanned. So, I have been using the Nottingham dry yeast with good success. However, I wonder at what point do I not want to aerate with O2. I have a tank but have not been using it because I have been rehydrating 4 packets of yeast for 13 gallon batches and fermentations have gone well. My half barrel fermenter is covered with a loosely fitted lid and has access to as much O2 as needed (from within my frig). . So, at what point should I use the O2? I want to use it but feel like it might be overkill. TIA Keith Chatsworth CA Being blind doesnt bug me BEING WITHOUT HOMEBREW DOES!!! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:14:53 -0600 From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at mc.net> Subject: Re: Stainless Rollers From: Biergiek at aol.com >It is an adjustable roller mill that has ss bushings, a ss knurled roller..... I think the need for adjustment has be adequately debunked in a previous posting but to my knowledge, the only mill on the market with stainless steel rollers (I presume that is what you mean by ss) is the JPS MALTMILL and then only as a very expensive option. No idea what you mean by ss bushings but I suspect another bit of misinformation. >That adjustable roller mill you are considering is almost twice the price! Obviously he is considering a mill made on Mars. >For another $10-$20 or so, you can slap a motor on the Valley Mill...... Is that a standard option? If so, I will take about a thousand and pay in gold bullion. >In summary, for the same price as the other mill you are considering you can have a mill that is adjustable, and motorized..... I have my check book ready. Where do I mail the check. >Now just think, if the Valley Mill folks would advertise their "better mouse trap" on the HBD the way the other guy has..... Perhaps they do not believe all the rubbish you are saying about it. >they could probably relegate that other mill to the museum... where have I heard this before?! You are a bit confused. It's the false bottom that belongs in the museum as a result of the invention of EASYMASHER, just another product of my master intelligence. All of the mills on the market work fine, ours just happens to be the best. Thanks for the opportunity to do a little selling. js PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:16:51 -0800 From: peter gough <pgough at ameritech.net> Subject: wyeast I AM JUST A BEGINNER AT YEAST CULTURES I HAVE ALWAYS USED DRY YEAST CAN ANYONE HELP ME AND GIVE ME ANY INFORMATION ON HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY DO Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:44:11 EST From: SClaus4688 at aol.com Subject: Re: first wort hopping Thanks Jeff Renner for the good info on FWH. It filled in some holes for me. On the point of my original post; i.e., pulling out the FWH hops when the wort comes to a boil versus leaving them in, I remembered another reason why I am in the "pull them out" camp. In an old Zymurgy (1985) article, Russell Klisch, in discussing the ability of hop and barley tannins to combine with proteins and then precipitate, said: "The tannins from barley are said to combine less rapidly with proteins than hop tannins. The barley tannins, because they have quite a disagreeable taste, should be precipitated as completely as possible. Therefore, the addition of the hops should be delayed until the reaction between the barley tannins and the proteins is complete." Klisch goes on to recommend waiting 20 to 30 minutes after the boil has begun to add the hops in order to allow this reaction to take place. If Klisch is correct, then it is possible that leaving FWH hops in would be detrimental during that first 20 to 30 minutes of the boil. Of course, this whole hypothesis could be based on a big old momily .... Another issue I raised in my original post was whether a steep of the FWH at some undefined optimal single temperature would be more beneficial than steeping while the temperature ramps up to boiling. I read in George Fix's Analysis of Brewing Techniques that DeClerck "proposed a closely related procedure [to FWHing] where hops are steeped in water before being added to the boiling wort." (The article quoted in Jeff Renner's post also mentions this). Hmmmmm ..... I wonder what temperature DeClerck would have used for the steep? One final note, also taken from Fix's AOBT , is that late kettle additions can have several negative impacts, including a harsher bitterness and flavor instability. I also recall reading that late kettle additions can cause haze problems due to incomplete reaction between proteins and hop tannins. That being so, and considering the many positive flavor/aroma effects of FWHing, my current process "philosophy" deletes all late kettle additions and uses FWHing instead. So far, this change seems to be working well (for me). Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:41:40 -0500 From: "Glen Pannicke" <gpannicke at email.msn.com> Subject: Re: Dry ice >>Before I spend much time investigating this, I wanted to ask the collective >>for any previous experiments or success with carbonating with dry ice. >I believe dry ice often contains benzene. I can't, at the moment, quite >recall why thats bad, but I know it is... Benzene is a carcinogen. It's also highly toxic by inhalation, ingestion and skin absorption. But I've never heard of it being in dry ice before. I would doubt it since dry ice sublimes into CO2 gas and would liberate the benzene along with it (tolerance in air: 25 ppm.) But hey, we do stupid things every day - like put it in gasoline as an anti-knock agent ;-) G ================================ gpannicke at alehouse.homepage.com http://alehouse.homepage.com ================================ Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:07:01 -0800 From: Shannon & Angela Menkveld <shannon.menkveld at gte.net> Subject: VERY slow mead fermentation Greetings, Fellow Brewers! I've been brewing beer for about 5 years now, but last year was the first time I had ever tried to make mead. Last November, I brewed a mead using 15 pounds of wildflower honey for a 5 gallon batch. My OG was 1.145 - 1.150 (my hydrometer is not that accurate at extremely high gravities) I pitched an active "smack-pack" of Wyeast Sweet Mead yeast, and added a blend of acid and yeast nutrients. Then I waited. And waited. Fermentation proceeded very slowly at about 72 - 75 degrees. On the advice of my homebrew shop, I added a pack of dry champagne yeast, which kicked up for a couple of days and then went flat again. When I left on Westpac (I'm in the Navy) in April, the s.g. had dropped to 1.100 or so. When I returned from deployment in October, the mead had dropped to 1.072. Today, it is 1.068 Last week, I racked it again and hit it with an active culture of Wyeast Dry Mead yeast. This time, no "kickover". About the only thing I haven't tried is "yeast energizer". I know meads take longer to ferment that beers do, but nowhere have I seen any thing about meads only being 2/3 done after a year. Am I worrying unnecessarily, or is there something I should be doing? Any help or advice would be appreciated. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:42:30 -0600 From: gdhipple <gdhipple at uswest.net> Subject: carboy cleaning original message from -------------------- >Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:27:57 -0500 >From: "James R M Gilson" <JIMKATZOO at email.msn.com> >Subject: carboy cleaning A lot of my primary carboys are old terrariums from the 60s and 70s. Pretty crusty after sitting in garages and basements for a couple of decades. I started with a general washing to remove loose debris, followed by soaking them with a muriatic acid solution. I added about a pint to the carboy volume (5 and 6.5 gal). I let the this soak for a couple of days. Muriatic acid (hydrochloric) is a very strong acid you can get at a hardware store or pool supply. Be sure to follow the precautions on the bottle. Wear gloves and safety goggles. Make sure you can properly handle the carboy and have a accessible place to pour it out (like a floor drain). I followed this with a thorough rinse, filled the carboy again and added a box of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Let stand for a couple hours, brush if you feel like it. Pour out down the same drain you poured the acid solution. Rinse Before use, I followed my standard cleaning procedure - 1 cup sudsy ammonia in water filled carboy, soak (12 hours), brush, rinse, sanitize with Iodophor and air dry. G Hipple N 44 57.205' W 93 03.567' Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:59:40 -0600 From: gdhipple <gdhipple at uswest.net> Subject: Dry Hopping / Post-Brew Hopping There have been a lot of interesting and creative techniques described for post-brew hop additions. I like Bob Sutton's "drip coffee maker hop tea." I'm going to have to give that one a try. I have tried 2 approaches to hopping at bottling that might be of interest to other hop-heads. The first attempt involved adding a whole, Cascade cone to each bottle. This made an IPA with a remarkable hop-nose. It wasn't without it's problems though. I dipped each cone in vodka before jamming it in the bottle and filling. The vodka was an attempt to 'sanitize the cone' and also made it easier to handle vs the dry cone. I used my standard 95 grams of priming sugar, but probably should have used less given the addition of the hop cone and vodak. The beers were slightly gushing, which may have been the result of an slight infection or maybe fermentables in the vodka. The cones initially wanted to float, making pouring difficult, but after several weeks in the bottle, dropped to the bottom. More time in the bottle lead to the cones falling apart and the individual bracts floating around and pouring out in the glass. My mustache seemed an effected strainer at removing the bracts from the glass :-) In my second attempt at bottle hopping, I added hop pellets to the priming sugar. I boiled my pint of primer as usual and then added the pellets, allowing them to steep as the primer cooled. I poured the priming solution into the bottling bucket through a sanitized strainer, removed the strainer and racked in the beer. The resulting beer did not have the hop-nose or aroma of the whole cone addition, but it was pretty good! The beer did not gush like the whole cone bottles and I didn't have to pick bracts from my mustache. I results of the whole cone approach was the most dramatic. Next time I use whole cones in the bottle, I'll try George Fix's steaming technique to help sanitize and improve handling of the cone. G Hipple N 44 57.205' W 93 03.567' Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 21:36:40 -0500 From: aaron <bd690 at sprint.ca> Subject: Gordon's cave a vin homebrew comp. Gordon's Cave a Vin is holding a competion on Feb 6th. Entries will be accepted from Jan 8th - 29 th. 5 Dollars per entry. Send entries to: Gordon's Cave a Vin 5785 Sherbrooke O. Montreal Qc, H4A 1X2 Any judges interested in making the trip to Montreal can contact: Nathan McNutt: (514) 486-8467 or Aaron Marchand: bd690 at sprint.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 21:38:03 -0500 From: "Rob Jones" <robjones at pathcom.com> Subject: BT back issue order Hi, Has anybody received anything from BT after the letter offering to settle accounts due with back issues? I dutifully sent in my back issue request and have been waiting ever since. Glad I've not been holding my breath. I unfortunately had just renewed my subscription when the news broke of its demise. Any news from any fronts about a revival/replacement? Rob Jones Toronto Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:22:55 -0500 From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Overly-bitter beer Marc Sedam asks about how to compensate or correct an overly-bitter beer before he bottles/kegs. He states that it may be merely out of balance, even for himself, a hophead. If the beer is merely too bitter, I believe my suggestion below to add lactose can help. If the beer is overly "hoppy" with hop flavor, that's a different story. If the beer is too bitter, I would suggest adding some lactose (nonfermentable) before bottling/kegging. I am a true believer that the bitterness can be "hidden" with some sugar. (The old saying, "A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down", is quite true.) I would experimenting with a sample by adding a known amount of lactose to the sample of known volume, tasting it, and adjusting the lactose addition to the whole batch accordingly. You could also do this in steps during the bottling procedure if you bottle and don't want to risk the whole batch. Bottle a portion of the batch with a relatively lower amount of lactose (or none) and adding more to subsequent portions of the batch. - -- Fred L. Johnson Apex, North Carolina Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/22/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96