HOMEBREW Digest #4197 Mon 17 March 2003

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  All-grain critique, canonism for Renner, home malting, and dryhopping of lagers (guy gregory)
  contests and results of experts ("Dave Burley")
  re: Iodine based sanitizers ("Jonathan Royce")
  RE: Iodine based sanitizers (rscotty)
  out of style beers ("Tom & Dana Karnowski")
  oxygen absorbing caps ("Tom & Dana Karnowski")
  re: Hops and Head ("Steve Alexander")
  dry ice purging, Burton waters,fly sparging- not ("Dave Burley")
  Re: out of style (ensmingr)
  RE: DCL yeasts ("Steve Alexander")
  New RIMS website (hollen)
  More info on chloramine (in municipal water supply) (David Radwin)
  RE: pitchable tubes (Brian Lundeen)
  Classic American Pilsner update ("Dan Gross")
  Water Profiles ("A.J. deLange")
  DME Sources (huck7248)
  some rants are productive -- dried yeast ("Joseph Gerteis")
  Shamrock Open 2003 Results ("Mike Dixon")
  re: Iodine based sanitizers (Michael Hartsock)

* * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:22:58 -0800 (PST) From: guy gregory <ggre461 at yahoo.com> Subject: All-grain critique, canonism for Renner, home malting, and dryhopping of lagers Michael Fross AKA Frosty asks, in HBD 4192, in a brief respite from slams on Bill and discussions of corporate greed which might make people believe that Enron never happened, regarding his brewing technique: "I'm getting ready to do my first all grain batch,... I thought it might be helpful to share those steps with you and get your tips and opinions as well as maybe helping other new all grain brewers." which is what folks here do, when not arguing about botulism or clinitest. "So, I would appreciate it if folks with more experience than I, could look this long message over and let me know if I've got mistakes or if there is a better way of doing this." - - ----------------------------------------------------- After reading your post, I have the following suggestions: 1. Let the brewshop crush your grain. Don't worry about the cost, how much is it? 2. Relax on precision. 7 or 7.1 gallons really does'nt matter at this point. Illiterate savages have been making beer without measuring cups or RIMS setups for years. 3. Try the iodine test, but also taste your mash. When the grain tastes bland and the liquid is sweet, you're doing well. 4. FWH after you've recirulated some and are happy with the runoff. Have fun with this, it's cool, and it makes great beer. Michael Hartsock asks, "Isn't it a huge pain in the ass to malt and kiln your own barley?" No. It's fun, though it's a lot of work. Try it, it makes some good beer, though my experience is you will get lousy yield. We had a thread on this several years ago. "2. How do you sparge without hulls?" You pour hot water over the grain, and let it drain. It's really slow. And re: the discussion of CAP: Jeff Renner is simply the most singular of homebrewers. He rescued this style, corresponds tirelessly, and it's darn fine beer, which he nearly singlehandedly saved. Also, re: FWH and dryhopping of lagers. Well, if you're gonna enter an AHA competition, don't. If you want to taste something you might not find somewhere else, go for it. I've enjoyed it, especially in viennas. Cheers, Isn ===== Guy Gregory Lightning Creek Home Brewery Spokane WA (1660.4, 294.3) Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:26:32 -0500 From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> Subject: contests and results of experts Brewsters: I received a copy of an e-mail by a puzzled contester who felt that his evaluation by an expert could not match his brew in any way. He made a pure Saaz hops beer of relatively high hops level and was told his beers tasted citrusy and were too low in hops. Here were my comments to him with a few additions:. As you can see even experts aren't much good at evaluating beers after tasting more than one, especially if a previous one used hops ( and lots of them) more typical of American lagers or worse, some of the high alpha hops. That citrusy taste was undoubtedly from the last beer or so. Same problem exists in the wine industry and why I don't have vinegar and oil dressing on my salads as the wines which follow will all taste vinegary. I use lemon or lime juice as the acidifier in my house if serving wine and ask for some lemon wedges and olive oil when dining out.. I never drink a Rhone style wine alongside a Bordeaux style, either. Another of the reasons why I don't like contests for skilled brewers. Unfortunately, it is not the skill of the expert but his taste buds' residual loading which cause the error. Clearing the palate does provide a new baseline for your taste buds but even that is not perfect. I am all in favor of tasting beers in contests grouped with common hopping levels and hop types as a way of providing a better evaluation. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:39:42 -0500 From: "Jonathan Royce" <jonathan at woodburybrewingco.com> Subject: re: Iodine based sanitizers Michael Hartsock wrote: "I just came across this product that seems like a much better option for brewers, in terms of cost. For $13.90 a gallon, with a no-rinse dillution ratio of 1 oz to four gallons, Hillyard's product is FDA approved and used in restraunts and dairy tanks." This seems like an interesting find, Michael. I wonder, however, why you think this is an iodine based sanitizer? Looking at the MSDS provided by Hillyard, the active ingredients seem to be various isomers of dimethyl-ammonium-chloride and ethanol, NOT iodine. It would be interesting to see what the "non-objectionable odor" of this sanitizer is like, and how much that odor would be imparted to a beer if used in a no-rinse manner. BTW, there are a bunch of other, similar products on the market, such as Simple Green Food Service and Butcher's Heptagon. Jonathan Woodbury Brewing Co. www.woodburybrewingco.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:46:20 +0000 From: rscotty at attbi.com Subject: RE: Iodine based sanitizers Mike writes about Hillyard's h-101 product being a cost effective solution for homebrewers. Always keen to save a buck, I did some investigation and found that H-101 is not an iodine based product. From their spec sheet on their web site: Percent active ingredients 7.5 Octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 2.250% Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 1.125% Dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 1.125% Alkyl (C14, 50%; C12, 40%; C16, 10%) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 3.000% I'm no chemist (but there are some here on the HBD), soI can't shed much light on the possible effects on our beer, but I wanted to point out that this isn't an iodophor-like product. Can the chemists out there chime in here? This does seem to be a very cost effective solution assuming is suitable for brewing use. If a no-rinse approach were used, what might it do to our beer? Thanks, Rich Scotty Chief Sanitation Engineer The Crapshoot Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:13:02 -0500 From: "Tom & Dana Karnowski" <karnowsk at esper.com> Subject: out of style beers Peter A. Ensminger writes *** If you're worried that your beer is out of style but you still want to enter a competition, you can enter it under category #24, "Specialty / Experimental / Historical". This category includes just about anything and judges look for "a harmonious marriage ingredients, processes and beer". See: <http://www.bjcp.org/styleguide24.html>. I have the most fun judging this category, because you get some really interesting efforts, sometimes very good and sometimes very bad. *** I think Peter has the right idea about this category, but I am afraid a lot of judges don't feel confident in assessing beers based on such loose guidelines (you get the same problem with fruit & spice beers too) I think judges have a hard time with it generally. I know of a few occasions where entrants had their beers score as "out of style" (!) because the process they performed wasn't "experimental enough". However, no one could tell the entrant where the beer should be placed, which makes you wonder what judges were thinking. In our bottle competitions (the last one was in 2001) we had an extra style called "Spirit of Homebrewing" where you were judged according to how NOT like any other style you were. We made up the scoresheets and they were probably confusing to people, because the judge was supposed to pick the closest style, and basically award 0 points if the beer was a perfect example of that style and 20 if it was a out of that style. IN the end your score would be high if your beer was outside of every BJCP style but still a good, tasty "Regular type" (not spoiled, sour, etc) beer. This is a little like the "plain good beer" or free-style concept except we tried to put some more objective (is that the right word?) boundaries on it. For example, if your beer was a great Northern Brown Ale, you wouldn't win this "Spirit of Homebrewing" category because your beer would score low on the "in/out of recognized style" area. I only judged it one time out of the 3 or 4 times we did it but the time I did was great. We had 7 entries, I think, and we ended up having a lively discussion about probably 20-30 different styles that these entries may have landed in. ON the other hand, maybe I understood the purpose better than some of the past judges did. Tom Karnowski Knoxville TN Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:13:16 -0500 From: "Tom & Dana Karnowski" <karnowsk at esper.com> Subject: oxygen absorbing caps A few years ago I used to purchase oxygen absorbing caps that seemed to be different than the ones I recently purchased. The ones I used to get had a dark gray rubber piece in the cap that was kind of textured. The ones I got recently didn't have that, but they seemed to have a thicker rubber "O" in the liner. Have I got two different things confused here? What is an oxygen-absorbing cap supposed to look like, and where do people get theirs? thanks Tom Karnowski Knoxville TN Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:38:22 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: re: Hops and Head Shawn E Lupold asks, >Is there any way to obtain the nice foamy head character of hops without >overwhelming bitterness or aroma? Not exactly - the foam positive agent is iso-humulone - which is also the primary bittering principle. I'm surprised that there isn't some artificial foam positive agent used to replace this. Maybe there is, but I'm not aware of it. High molecular weight proteins, increased viscosity and several other factors add to head. You'd be surprised that 1/4lb of wheat or raw barley will do to head (adds proteins and viscous glucans, but this solution adds to haze problems. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:37:11 -0500 From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> Subject: dry ice purging, Burton waters,fly sparging- not Brewsters: Fred Johnson is contemplating using dry ice to purge his bottles before bottling to remove oxygen. First, despite what you might have learned in grade school ( remember the paper bag balance?) about carbon dioxide being heavier than air ( it is), it will not totally displace the air. Like all gasses CO2 is totally mixable with all other gasses ( one of the definitions of a gas). As a result, it is impossible to just put gas in a container, with concomitant turbulent flow, and expect the CO2 to push out the air 100%. Some years ago, I did some calculations for the HBD based on certain reasonable assumptions and it would take approximately 100 times the volume of the container in CO2 volumes to get oxygen to a low enough level. The best way to do it is to put cool boiled water in the bottle ( or keg) and push it out with CO2. Then you KNOW there is no air in the bottle ( or keg). This is the way I keg all my brews. Works great. Blowing in CO2 doesn't, despite what you think you learned in grade school. The paper bag with the CO2 in it sunk down because the MIXTURE of CO2 and air was heavier than the pure air. One thing you can also do is "fob" your bottles, as the big boys do. As you fill a bottle, let some of your beer foam over before capping and cap on the foam. This fills the head space with CO2 foam and helps reduce the oxygen in the beer. Fred, to answer your original question. dry ice often contains sulfur dioxide and in some cases even ammonia, in small quantities, depending on its source. I doubt it has much in the way of microbiolgical contamination unless it was poorly handled - ------------------------------ Ray Daniels apologizes for an excellent book and approach. Don't. One of the brewing myths ( not unlike terrior in wine) is that local waters controlled the kind of beer that was popular in a certain region. And that all you need is a local water analysis to determine how to treat your water to make beer like that. Oh, if it were only so. I know, I know, I too have read it for years. Perhaps there is some truth in it, but if you read brewing books a century or two old you will see that brewing waters ( aka brewing liquors - because they were treated) were treated from an early stage. Liming was a common method of water treating and who knows how long commercial lime has been around? Several centuries, at least. This separates the local water analysis from the brewing liquor analysis. Now, if you just had the brewery's liquor analysis, now we're talkin'. - ------------------------------- To my knowledge, the term "fly sparging" is a mistake and came into the HBD lingo as a result of Al Korzonas' visit to a British brewery. Possibly he was having trouble understanding his guide or the guide was mistaken. He even commented on the peculiar term, as I recall. Likely the term is really "on the fly" sparging. Brits use this expression to describe any continuous process. Any British brewer have the answer for sure? Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:47:06 -0500 From: ensmingr at twcny.rr.com Subject: Re: out of style Dave Burley makes a good point about beer judging and sensory adaptation and habituation. I became especially concerned about this when I recently judged a flight of smoked beers. After one or two, the smoke character in all subsequent beers was minimal or even totally absent. Was this because the beers had less 'smoke' or because my senses became habituated? I'm not sure. Alas, there is no perfect solution to this problem, but there are several things we can do to minimize this effect: 1. Good competition organizers will randomize the order of all entrants in a category, since order may play a role (eg, beers judged early, before habituation sets in, may be judged more favorably). 2. Judges should try to take a brief break between beers to allow our senses to 'rebound'. Rinsing with water may also help. 3. Judges should only sample small amounts of each beer. There are surely other things we can do. Any other BJCP judges care to comment? In my experience with competitions, a very good beer may indeed be unrecognized and be given a mediocre score. However, the beers that do win, especially Best of Show, are always very good beers. Cheerio! Peter A. Ensminger Syracuse, NY http://www.hbd.org/ensmingr Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:16:31 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: RE: DCL yeasts >Well, I have to question Lallemand's commitment to brewing yeast in general. >This current renaissance of dried yeast seems to have eluded either their >attention or their interest. >From all I read Lallemand is part of the trend to higher quality dried yeasts - cleaner, higher viability, better storage properties. Where Lallemand lags behind is not quality, but range. >As long as the perception remains that serious brewers will >only use liquid yeasts, and dried yeasts will just end up under the plastic >lid of a kit, I don't see that competitive factor driving new developments >in packaging on either side of the fence. Competitive factor driving the market - that doesn't describe the HB market. Let's face it, the HB yeast market can really only support a few small businesses. I think there is a great case to be made that dried yeast saves labor money in the microbrewery&brewpub marketplaces, but the HB market will have to be satisfied with whatever scraps fall off that table. I'd just like to see a few of DCLs scraps packaged for HB use.. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:27:48 -0800 From: hollen at woodsprite.com Subject: New RIMS website Well, I have finally gotten around to updating my brewing web site with pictures of the latest incarnation of my RIMS system. My first RIMS system was built sometime in 1993, and the latest was just completed in January of 2003. I have doubled the capacity of the system in size and heat capacity, traded in my homebuilt temp controller for an Omega PID controller, and have built a stainless steel square tubing brewing stand. Of course, this sits nicely in my 100 square foot dedicted brewery with 4"x36" floor drain, 800CFM exhaust fan and piped in 15psi LPG. Check out the new pictures, and thanks to the HBD hosting my brewing site. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen at woodsprite.com Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:55:15 -0800 From: David Radwin <dradwin at sbcglobal.net> Subject: More info on chloramine (in municipal water supply) The topic of chloramine, a disinfectant used in municipal water supplies instead of bleach, has cropped up from time to time. It seems to be catching on in large municipal water supplies. There was a pretty good set of articles about it in Saturday's San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com. Here are the highlights as pertains to homebrewers, followed by links to the full articles. > The most common ways to remove chloramine are through the use of > small amounts of ascorbic acid or by using a carbon filtration > system specifically designed to remove chloramine. > > Boiling water, letting it stand in an open container > or adding salt will not remove chloramine. and > Q: Will my home water filter remove chloramine? > > A: Some do. Some don't. The SFPUC suggests that you check with NSF > International, a not-for-profit public safety watchdog company > in Ann Arbor, Mich. > > You can find everything you need to know on its Web site, www.nsf.org. > Click the "search" link at the bottom of the page and type in > "chloramine and filtration." NSF's phone number is (800) 673-6275. http://makeashorterlink.com/?S161143D3 http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q581243D3 - -- David Radwin in Berkeley CA news at removethispart.davidradwin.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:12:21 -0600 From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen at rrc.mb.ca> Subject: RE: pitchable tubes John Misrahi writes: I have seen all of the bickering over 'pitchable' yeast lately. People have complained that White Labs supposedly states their yeast is pitchable for any 5 gallon batch, without a starter, and that they are misleading people. <snip> So they don't claim you can cold pitch a tube into 5 gallons of fermentation temp lager..... I reply: I can't comment on what anyone else might have written, but since I started this thing, I want to be quite clear on what I said, in case my point is being misrepresented here. I didn't say that White Labs claimed that their tubes could cold pitch a lager. I said,... I don't want to pitch into 70F wort as they advise. I want to be able to buy a tube with sufficient population for cold-pitching. As to why I actually cold pitched a White Labs tube, that was just to make certain that lag time was unacceptable before I went complaining about it. Didn't want someone writing back, "Ever try it? I cold pitch and get lag times of.... Blah blah blah". Now, I sent a note off to White Labs and their reply was, in a nutshell, a tube with 5 times the population would cost 5 times as much, so it is not economically feasible. I don't buy that. Wyeast XL packs contain about 3 times the cell count as their old 50 ml pack, and around here, sell for about 50% more, not 3 times the price. However, it does tell me that White Labs will not be putting out a cold-pitchable lager product, which is really all I needed to know. Next up to bat... Wyeast? Oh, why bother. Too many people are obviously content with the status quo. No, Mr Bumble, no more gruel for me, I've got more than enough to keep me happy. Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 06:49:52 -0500 From: "Dan Gross" <degross at starpower.net> Subject: Classic American Pilsner update So far my first CAP seems to be progressing very well. I brewed last week and after a few mishaps (like forgetting to add the bittering hops at 60 minutes) brought on by distraction during the boil, I think I salvaged this one. I was able to chill the wort to 50F pretty fast with my immersion chiller because it has been so cold and my 5 oz of Ayinger yeast slurry from starter got it going after about 10 hours. The wort has been fermenting very well at 50F for about 8 days now and it has begun to slow. Yesterday I brought the wort up to 60F just as the primary fermentation seems to be nearly done. (I gather that this yeast may not need the diacetyl rest, but I did it anyway). Tonight or tomorrow I will check the gravity and if I am down to 25% of OG I will rack and begin the lagering process. Two questions: 1) Should I take the easy way out and simply rack to a keg for lagering? I would prefer to do that. 2) Of course I now have a very nice slurry of yeast in the primary so I would like to save the yeast. Should I wash the yeast three times with water as outlined on the Wyeast web site, acid wash as described on the White Labs site, or should I just pour the slurry into a sanitized flask and store in the refrigerator? I will not be able to use it for at least a month, maybe two months. One other observation from this brew was that the trub was pretty fluffy and it took longer than normal to settle after chilling the wort. I did a cereal mash with corn grits for the traditional double mash. Did the corn create this fluffy trub? I used irish moss at the end of the boil and normally the trub settles pretty fast. thanks, Dan Gross Olney, Md Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:39:58 +0000 From: "A.J. deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: Water Profiles Over the years I have collected a couple dozen (44) water profiles from brewing books, magazine articles, the hbd, samples people have brought me from overseas etc. I have found many, in fact most (34), of these to be erroneous because they do not balance electrically at any reasonable (< 8.4) pH. For example, I have 6 profiles for Burton which would require pH's of 9.94, 10.20, 8.49, 6.62, 10.69, and 10.52 to be in electrical balance. Of these, clearly, only the 6.62 and perhaps 8.49 are likely to found in any real world water supply. In all cases, the pH required for electrical balance is high i.e. above 8.4 implying that negative charge (anions) are lacking at more reasonable pH values. This means either that some anion(s) is not reported, that some anion(s) is under reported, that some cation(s) are over reported or that the pH's of the samples are indeed as high as my calculations show or that I don't understand what is meant by "carbonate" or "bicarbonate". In fact at any reasonable pH carbonate will be present in only very small amounts relative to bicarbonate and carbonic nevertheless the data is sometimes marked "carbonate". It is also unclear as to what the units are as they could be as the ion or as calcium carbonate and, in this same vein, the reported numbers could be alkalinity numbers. Furthermore, while "as calcium carbonate" almost universally means 50 times the number of milliequivalents per liter these days, in the past it could mean 100 times the milliequivalents per liter. It is interesting that pH is never reported in any of the usual information sources and, of course, without pH it is impossible to calculate balance. I have processed my set of water profiles under each of the possibilities enumerated above. None of them yields a reasonable set of balance numbers. It is, of course, quite possible that some reports mean one thing in speaking of bicarbonate and others mean something else. The significance of this to us as homebrewers is usually that we want to produce a replica of the water of some brewing city of reknown. If a reported profile can only be balanced at pH 11.2 then you can only synthesize it at pH 11.2 (note that there are other inconsistencies in reported profiles which make close synthesis impossible as well). Thus is choosing a profile for the example city of Burton one is better off choosing a profile that can be balanced at a reasonable pH. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:28:33 -0500 From: huck7248 <huck7248 at optonline.net> Subject: DME Sources Let me take a moment to thank all those who responded to my "Questionable Carboy" post several weeks ago. Thank you for your input, it's currently lagering a Czech Pilsner. I've recently visisted several local homebrew shops in my area and searched the web pricing different DME's. I've found M&F DME priced at 3lbs for about $8.00. Can anyone tell me of other sources for DME that may be cheaper. I currently work two jobs and cannot devote a great deal of time into research and I certainly can't afford to cut into the precious free-time I have for brewing. I'm a newbie to Home Brewing (since Christmas) and I find the HBD to be a wealth of info. No matter how tired I am at the end of the day, I sign on and see what's going on. Thanks to all the posters and keep it coming. One last question. If there any homebrewers out there who live in Fairfield County, CT that would like to exchange ideas or recipes, feel free to contact me via e-mail at: huck7248 at optonline.net. George Finn Greenwich, CT Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:37:16 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph Gerteis" <joseph540 at elvis.com> Subject: some rants are productive -- dried yeast I had trouble posting this late last week. Please forgive the time lag! Steve Alexander reprises my own earlier rants in HBD #4191.I realize that some rants are better put to bed, so I'll leave the store in Texas alone. After my original post on this thread I took a more extensive look at the archives as Steve suggested. He is right about the pattern of complaints over the years. Enough said, andI've made up my own mind about this. On to the more productive rant -- dried yeast, and particularly dried lager yeast. Steve says: > DCL thinks homebrewing is about making cheap beers and > that HBers certainly > wouldn't notice the 'subtle' differences between two > different lager or ale > strains since we just brew infected cheap swill from > kits. > > I surely wish that Lallemand had the same range of > yeasts in dry form. > They certainly appraise the HB market more accurately. As someone mentioned a few days ago, I think it is a very good idea to lobby DCL (and Lallemand), and I think it is a good idea to pressure the AHA to do this too. (On a side note, DCL seems to be pretty clear that these are different strains; it has to be Crosby & Baker that's got it wrong.) I wrote to DCL individually about marketing their other lager yeasts in smaller packets, and got a "sorry Charlie" response -- basically, they said that they would have to make too many packets at once and that they would not be assured of selling them. The only way to convince them to market more of their lager yeasts in smaller packets is to convince them that there's demand, and that's hard to do individually. At some point I also mentioned a head-to-head evaluation of different DCL lager yeasts that I found on the web. I never did find this again, despite a few hours of searching. I did find the following link which some may find interesting: www.asbcnet.org/Journal/pdfs/2002/0718-01R.pdf It's a technical article showing some drawbacks to dried yeast -- namely decreased flocculation and increased haze, which the authors think has to do with increased "extracellular proteinase" resulting from the drying process. There are nice evaluations of dried DCL strains vs. the same strains pitched "fresh". Of course, the added haze has to weighed against the benefits of being able to pitch at something like an adequate rate without having to step up a starter several times -- that's my interest in dried lager yeast. Best wishes, Joe Gerteis Wishing Northern Brewer had DCL 189 in St. Paul MN - ------------------------------------------------- Get your free at Elvis e-mail account at Elvis.com! http://www.elvis.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:51:02 -0500 From: "Mike Dixon" <mpdixon at ipass.net> Subject: Shamrock Open 2003 Results For those interested, the results from the 2003 Shamrock Open which was held on Saturday, March 15, can be viewed at: http://hbd.org/carboy/shamresult2003.htm Cheers, Mike Dixon Wake Forest, NC Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:39:56 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze at yahoo.com> Subject: re: Iodine based sanitizers Ah, well forgive me, i didn't read the msds. I thought it was an iodine based sanitizer because I called the guy on the phone at Hillyard and said "I want an iodine based sanitizer for food grade operations" and he directed me towards this product. I'm sad to find that it is not. sorry, Michael - --- Jonathan Royce <jonathan at woodburybrewingco.com> wrote: > Michael Hartsock wrote: > "I just came across this product that seems like a > much better option for > brewers, in terms of cost. For $13.90 a gallon, with > a no-rinse dillution > ratio of 1 oz to four gallons, Hillyard's product is > FDA approved and used > in restraunts and dairy tanks." > > This seems like an interesting find, Michael. I > wonder, however, why you > think this is an iodine based sanitizer? Looking at > the MSDS provided by > Hillyard, the active ingredients seem to be various > isomers of > dimethyl-ammonium-chloride and ethanol, NOT iodine. > It would be interesting > to see what the "non-objectionable odor" of this > sanitizer is like, and how > much that odor would be imparted to a beer if used > in a no-rinse manner. > > BTW, there are a bunch of other, similar products on > the market, such as > Simple Green Food Service and Butcher's Heptagon. > > Jonathan > Woodbury Brewing Co. > www.woodburybrewingco.com > > ===== "May those who love us, love us. And those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts. And if he doesn't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles So we'll know them by their limping." Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/17/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96