HOMEBREW Digest #946 Wed 12 August 1992

Digest #945 Digest #947

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Re: Why mash-out? (Andy Phillips)
  heat transfer properties of wort (Vote Libertarian in '92!)
  Re: Ken Johnson, the lamest (JLIDDIL)
  Houston hotspots (Mary E. Hall)
  O-Rings (Chris Estes)
  c02 purity (card)
  O-Rings... (continued... SORRY!) (Chris Estes)
  softer gentler water (Frank Tutzauer)
  What's the deal? (SSIEGLER)
  Yeast Temperatures and Amounts (GEOFF REEVES)
  2 hour sparging (GEOFF REEVES)
  Hop Plugs and Pellets, What's the difference (GEOFF REEVES)
  Brewing Science Vs. M & B Science (glenn raudins)
  Re: all malt vs. extracts (korz)
  yeast culturing (James Dipalma)
  Re: Cider (korz)
  Flurry of "break" material. (bryan)
  Re: mashtuns/chillers/lipids (korz)
  2 pot boils (Glenn Anderson)
  Brewpub plans for Ann Arbor, MI (Arthur Delano)
  Cider (Jay Hersh)
  parallel chiller (Pierre.Jelenc)
  oring challenge (donald oconnor)
  Apologies for duplicate posting (Andy Phillips)
  Hop Vine Yields? (smc)
  truncated digests (PGRAHAME)
  Bleach and SS, holes, Minneapolis (Andy Leith)
  co2 purity  (card)
  Fermenting mead (Michael L. Hall)
  Stainless Steel corrosion (Bob_Konigsberg)
  Bleach sanitation (Brian Smithey)
  truncated digests (Frank Tutzauer)
  Mash - Hot Water Heater (Scott James.)

Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) **Please do not send me requests for back issues!** *********(They will be silenty discarded!)********* **For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 11:41 GMT From: Andy Phillips <PHILLIPSA at LARS.AFRC.AC.UK> Subject: Re: Why mash-out? There's been a lot of correspondence on the HBD recently about the stability of enzymes at different temperatures (eg. on whether mash-out at 170F kills amylases), and the effect of mash thickness on the wort. I have access to a literature database that I periodically search for brewing references. One paper I pulled out and subsequently sent off a reprint request for was by Robert Muller (Brewing Research Foundation, Redhill, Surrey, England), entitled "The effects of mashing temperature and mash thickness on wort carbohydrate composition" (Journal of the Institute of Brewing (1991) Vol 97, pp85-92). The author is interested in producing normal gravity, but low fermentability worts for low alcohol beers. His results can be summarized as follows (I won't attempt to reproduce his graphs in ASCII). At 65C [149F in old money], the half life of alpha amylase is 42 minutes; that of beta amylase is 15 minutes. Thus, after 30 min at 65C, there remains 62% of the alpha amylase activity and 25% of the beta amylase. At 80C [176F], both enzymes are less stable: the half life of alpha amylase is about 13 minutes, that of beta amylase about 6 minutes. The loss of beta amylase at both temperatures is exaggerated by the fact that there is much more alpha-amylase activity present to start with: the total potential activity of alpha amylase at 65C is 88g of starch hydrolysed per gram of [pale] malt; in contrast, the total potential activity of beta amylase is about 3.5g of maltose produced per gram of malt. The loss of beta amylase due to temperature denaturation will therefore be more significant than loss of alpha amylase. This loss of beta amylase results in a higher proportion of malto-dextrins, which are non-fermentable (at least with ale yeasts: modern super-attenuating strains, such as used for diet beers, are less choosy). A mash carried out continuously at 80C thus produces a wort which is only 20-30% fermentable, compared with the 65C wort which is about 80% fermentable. Using this data, it's possible to draw the following conclusions about the consequences of a 30min "mash-out" at 170F [77C]: 1) Beta amylase may be almost completely destroyed, but 25% of the alpha amylase activity will survive (and will be more active at the higher temperature). 2) This alpha-amylase may break down any starch remaining in the mash, preventing starch haze in the final product (but increasing the malto-dextrin content, and so increasing the sweetness and body). 3) The main purpose of mash-out is probably to aid in the flow of the sugar solution from the husks (as suggested previously), due to the decreased viscosity of the wort at the higher temperature. And now I have a question: why do unmalted grains such as wheat and rye have to be gelatinized (cooked) before mashing? I just made a batch of bitter with 2 lbs of flaked rye, forgot to gelatinize it, but got a sensible yield: about 85% of the maximum possible. Any have a hard, scientific explanation for this? Sorry this went on so long. Andy Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 08:43:33 CDT From: smith%8616.span at Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov (Vote Libertarian in '92!) Subject: heat transfer properties of wort hey-- After checking my fluid-mechanics textbook (Intro. to Fluid Mechanics, Janna, 2nd ed.), it appears that beer wort's viscosity is going to be within 1% of that of water at a given temperature. A good initial value to use is that of water at 100 degF, which is approximately 1.4 x10^-5 lbf*s/ft^2. Density is within 1% as well, but you can be exact with that since you have a hydrometer. I would expect specific heat to be about 1-5% higher than that of water, which is 1 Btu/lbm/degF. Since few heat transfer correlations are accurate to within 20%, I would not worry too much about the exactness of wort measurements. One thing to remember in wort-through-a-tube chillers is that the viscosity is going to increase as cold break forms, causing a reduction in flow rate. By how much? Good question. If people send me accurate measurements of flowrate, temperatures, tubing sizes/configurations etc., I will make a stab at producing an empirical calculation of The Wort Chiller, but no promises.... James Smith smith%8616.span at fedex.msfc.nasa.gov "Someone let the dogs out, they'll show you where the truth is" p.s. Would you bickerers keep it in email? We don't care if you count coup or not. Better yet, save the NSF some dough and chill out.... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 8:31:07 -0700 (MST) From: JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU Subject: Re: Ken Johnson, the lamest Obviously, Ken is full of "bullshit". Is he a master brewer? Has he won numerous awards for his fine beers? Has he won Homebrewer of the Year? Is he a certified Judge? If not then he is LAME Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 09:39:47 MDT From: meh at cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (Mary E. Hall) Subject: Houston hotspots I'm going to Houston on business next week (8/17-8/21). I know that brewpubs are illegal there (I grew up in Dallas), but can anyone recommend someplace that I just shouldn't miss while I'm there? I'll be near the I-10/Hwy 6 intersection. BTW, is there anything new in Dallas? Mary Hall Lost Almost, Near Mexico Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 11:45:42 -0400 From: cestes at argos5.DNET.NASA.GOV (Chris Estes) Subject: O-Rings Just a comment here... It seems to me that for O-Rings have sparked a bit of a problem here. For $1.50 you can buy a new one - why argue about it? If you like coke-flavored beer, then en Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 11:22:37 EDT From: card at apollo.hp.com Subject: c02 purity From New England Beer Club Digest >> There have been some questions about CO2 purity. Although I am >>not aware of any contamination problems with CO2...I am aware that there >>are atleast 3 grades of it; industrial, beverage and analytical. Of course >>you can figure out what use beverage grade is rated for, with analytical >>being the purest for scientific purposes. Industrial is the lowest quality >>and used for fire extinguishers and other non-food grade needs. I personally >>fill my tank at a beverage supplier to insure getting a known good CO2 >>for dispensing beer. Not sure if the industrial is acceptable, but its >>seems like a gamble to me. >> >> Also, a beverage supplier also told me that CO2 tanks can build up >>with oil (that apparently occurs as part of the CO2 manufacturing process. >>He suggested that after many refills, you can purge the oil by standing the >>empty tank upside down overnight. The next day, open the valve (with no >>regulator attached) with the tank still inverted. The remaining CO2 will >>blow out any oil that has accumulated in the tank. >> Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 11:50:02 -0400 From: cestes at argos5.DNET.NASA.GOV (Chris Estes) Subject: O-Rings... (continued... SORRY!) As I was saying... If you like coke flavored beer then by all means drink it. If a buck and a half won't put you in the poor house and you'll be happier with a new O-ring, then do that. But I don't think O-rings are anything to warrant a signifigant philisophical discussion. Its interesting to hear everyone's ideas and personal techniques, but sometimes I wonder about the contents of the HBD... Perhaps we need the "Homebrew Debate Digest"! -Chris Estes- Dont forget: Morton Thiokol O-Rings don't hold pressure Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 12:06 EST From: Frank Tutzauer <COMFRANK at ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> Subject: softer gentler water In HBD 944, Phillip Seitz asks how to get soft water. About 6 months ago, I picked up a great little book called, "The Pocket Guide to Bottled Water." It's written by Arthur von Wiesenberger, and published by Contemporary Books (Chicago, 1991, ISBN 0-8092-4056-4). I think the book is aimed at yuppies, but brewers can profit from it too. When I wanted soft water, I used Great Bear Natural Spring Water, which was the softest I could get locally. The book gives these numbers for Great Bear: Ca 0.53 Bicarb 18.3 Sulphates 2.41 Mg 0.7 Na 2.85 Chlorides 0.93 The figures are ppm. The beer turned out fine. - --frank Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 12:15 EST From: SSIEGLER at LANDO.HNS.COM Subject: What's the deal? What's the deal? As a new homebrewer, I need this net. It is an invaluable source of information. The constant bickering that seems to be going on is a real turn off for a new-b, like myself. What am I to do if I have a real problem, like exploding bottles? (I am having this problem, if anyone wants to help.) I certainly wont post a question for fear of someone's retaliation or offending someone -- quite frankly it scares the post-beer-product out of me. (Where did the term 'Flame' come from, anyway? ) Might I suggest that attacks of this nature be sent to the person who offended you. (You know, if someone ignores your e-mail, they are going to ignore the posting here. I, on the other hand, don't know enough to.) I really thought that Home Brewing's most important rule was Relax. Dont Worry. (OK, maybe it really is 'Sanitize', but I'm sure Relax is high up in the rules). -Stuart Siegler "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there aren't people out to get you" (hl) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 10:55:11 -0600 From: 105277 at essdp2.lanl.gov (GEOFF REEVES) Subject: Yeast Temperatures and Amounts > >From: gkushmer at Jade.Tufts.EDU > > >Maybe I should re-hydrate the Red Star package and dump some of > >it in the one-gallon carboy? I could get a mason jar, sterilize > >it, and put the majority of the yeast in that in my fridge. > > From: m14051 at mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo) > > I hear this from new brewers all the time. As far as I know, > even for mead, the more yeast you pitch the better off you are, > since it reduces the lag time during yeast reproduction. > > Can anyone point me to a reference that describes the typical > yeast reproduction activity for homebrewers? (Something like: > 1) Throwing in one packet of yeast scenario--fifteen minutes for > yeast cells to rehydrate and acclimate, twenty minutes for yeast > population to double once, doubles twenty times before > fermentation begins, lag time of 7 hours.) You see, I have no > idea how long it takes the yeast to double in population, how > much yeast you have in 5 gallons before fermentation begins, or > how much yeast you might expect in a dry yeast packet (which > itself might have only 30% viability), a Wyeast packet, a pint > starter at kraeusen, etc. > > I concur that, within reason, there is no such thing as pitching too much yeast. They Zymurgy Special Issue on Yeast is an excellent reference for the things you are wondering about. I don't have it here so I can't answer these questions directly. I seem to recall that it was considered ideal to pitch about 2 million active yeast cells per milliliter of wort! and that with this pitching rate the yeast population would double an average of 2.5 times. Another interesting yeast "fact" was that the yeast became active most quickly if pitched into 90!F wort (or hydrated in 90!F water). This makes me wonder about chilling the wort down to <65!F for a cold break. I typically cool to 70!-85!F. In my recent Pale Ale experiments I've been pitching 12g packets of Whitbread Ale Yeast which have given me starts in less than 2 hours which I suspect may be due to these warmer temperatures. Geoff Reeves Atomic City Ales Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 10:56:31 -0600 From: 105277 at essdp2.lanl.gov (GEOFF REEVES) Subject: 2 hour sparging In HBD# 940, Tom Feller asks: >How could it take 2 hr to run water sparge water through your >grain bed unless the sparge was stuck(set mash?). James Dipalma answers: > Two hours seems a little lengthy to me as well, but it is >certainly possible. Terry Foster suggests in his book (either "Pale Ale" or "Porter" I forget) that 2 hours is the _appropriate_ time for a sparge and that the flow should be adjusted to achieve this elapsed time. However he also mentions that this is not necessarily pratical for home brewers. Jim, let us know how your experiment goes though! Geoff Reeves Atomic City Ales Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 10:57:23 -0600 From: 105277 at essdp2.lanl.gov (GEOFF REEVES) Subject: Hop Plugs and Pellets, What's the difference > From: beb at pt.com (Bruce Buck) > > I've been brewing for several years and have always used hop pellets. > Now there seems to be a lot of discussion about hop plugs. What exactly > is the difference between the two? What are the advantages and disadvantages? > Hop pellets are ground up compressed hops. Hop plugs are unground compressed hops. Both can usually be found in vacuum bags or nitrogen filled bags so they stay fresher longer than loose hops. Hop pellets are easy to work with but can be difficult to remove because they are ground so fine. I prefer hop plugs because they are easy to remove and, I admit it, simply because they look like hops once they have soaked in the wort for a while and loosened up. It really would be a great innovation though if they made the plugs small enough in diameter to fit through the neck of a carboy. That problem is leading me to dry hop in my keg for the first time this batch. This may turn out to be a good technique anyway - as others have pointed out. Geoff Reeves Atomic City Ales Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 12:49:26 CDT From: raudins at galt.b11.ingr.com (glenn raudins) Subject: Brewing Science Vs. M & B Science How good are the following volumes? I understand that one set is used at UC at Davis and the other supplemental at the Siebel Institute. Brewing Science: Volumes 1-3 from Academic Press Inc Malting and Brewing Science: Volumes 1-2 from Chapman & Hall, 1982 Also, could someone send me information and/or a contact person to obtain information on the courses/degrees offered by UC at Davis, in the brewing area (Fermentation Science). Glenn Raudins raudins at galt.b11.ingr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 14:24 CDT From: korz at ihpubj.att.com Subject: Re: all malt vs. extracts There are many styles of beer for which excellent brew can be made with extracts and some for which at least partial-mashing is almost necessary to make a true-to-style batch. The lighter-colored and lighter-bodied styles that *require* a malt nose, IMHO, are the ones hardest to make excellent without mashing at least part of your grains. I've made several stouts that were excellent without mashing, I just used extract and steeped the roasted barley and black patent malts in the water as I brought it to a boil. On the other hand, when I judged bocks in the first round of the National Competition, very few of the beers in my flight had the requisite malt nose. Although I did not check the recipes of the malt-nose-deficient brews, I think it's a fair assumption that the ones that had no malt nose were extract brews. Now I really wish that I would have checked. Its one of the added benefits of judging. One argument for going all-grain instead of extract is the additional control that you get when you mash the grain yourself. I contend that there is an equal if not greater variablity available to the brewer by using various brands of malt extract. Each extract maker uses different mash temepartures and profiles and if you experiment enough, you can learn which are the more-fermentable brands and which are the more dextrinous and which are poorly made (and create 6 inches of trub in your fermenter). Another thing to consider is that the technology available to the extract makers is well advanced of that which we have in our kitchens. Among the brands to which I have narrowed my usage, I've found great consistency. Therefore, my position on this topic is that you can make very good beer in all styles without mashing and you can even make excellent beer in some styles without mashing, but for some styles, mashing the grain yourself is virtually necessary to achieve excellence. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 15:56:35 EDT From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma) Subject: yeast culturing Hi All, As part of the never-ending quest for improvement of my beer, I've decided to try my hand at yeast culturing. I have read Roger Leigstad's book, "Yeast Culturing for the Homebrewer", and believe I have the basic idea. I have seen several posts over the past few months from people who have grown pure cultures from single yeast cells, isolated the S. delbrukii strain from Wyeast 3056, etc. It is these net.brewers that I ask the benefit of thier experience. I have located a source for glass petri dishes, pipettes, slides, etc. What other equipment will I need? If a micro$cope is needed, what power of magnification? I have access to the libraries of some local colleges. Which texts are recommended? Procedural info on identification and isolation of different strains, propagation techniques, etc., would be appreciated. Peering over the edge of a deep, dark abyss, Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 15:03 CDT From: korz at ihpubj.att.com Subject: Re: Cider First off, I must say that I've never made hard cider, but my comments on the subject of yeast and sugar are of a philosophical nature unrelated to the source of the sugars. js says: >Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 10:14:26 CDT >csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss) >Subject: yeasts/grain bag source >>I have an apple tree outside my apartment and I was wondering how to make a >hard cider. A friend has one of those juicer machines and I was thinking >that would be a good way to get the juice from the apples but where do you go >from there. ><don't use red star champagne yeast (ale yeast will >make a sweeter product). >That advice depends on a few variables not the least of which is the sugar >content of the juice. Most juice needs to have sugar added just to get >enough alcohol to preserve it and the high tolerance of champagne yeast would >not even enter the equation of most straight juice. It would run out of >sugar before even ale yeast got tired. Not all sugars are fermentable by every yeast. Lactose is not fermentable by any of the Saccharomyces yeasts and thus can be used to sweeten cider (or beer or mead, for that matter) without having to kill the yeast with alcohol content. >Secondly, one can always add sugar to adjust the sweetness after fermenting. If mean adding sugar at bottling, this implies that you've somehow killed or filtered out the yeast or else the yeast will go at the new sugar. Adding sugar at serving time seems heritical, but it *is* the traditional way of serving Faro (a Belgian Lambic style which is incredibly sour from welcomed lactic acid bacterial activity). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 13:29:42 PDT From: bryan at tekgen.bv.tek.com Subject: Flurry of "break" material. All this talk about cold break material got me to thinking about something. I do (90%) full wort boils in a 10 gallon brewpot and use a counterflow chiller. Usually 8 to 9 gallon batches, all grain. After I am finished boiling, I put the finishing hops in the brewpot and put the lid on for 30 minutes. Then I siphon through the counterflow chiller. The wort coming out of the chiller is a murky brown color, (for a pale ale). Between the time I pitch and the time the yeast takes off, 3 to 4 inches of "fluffy break" material will settle into the bottom of the carboy, then when the yeast takes off, it all gets mixed back up together again. It usually take a week of so before the fermentation has settled down to the point that the wort clears again. At this point, the material is more compact and is only 1 to 2 inches in the bottom of the carboy. I rack into the secondary at this time. It is usually within 10 S.G. points of being finished. I figure this is probably hot and cold break material, though I do get around a quart of hot break in the bottom of the brewpot. Any comments about this "fluffy break" that gets stirred up during primary fermentation? Also, thanks to those who posted the good technical articles in Mondays digest, you know who you are and you know which parts were the good ones. Bryan Olson Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 15:56 CDT From: korz at ihpubj.att.com Subject: Re: mashtuns/chillers/lipids Micah writes: >Unless I misunderstood, several HBers are useing the round vertical >type ice chests as lauter vessels,that is something to sparge in. >Since these industious brewers have gone to the trouble of putting >a false bottom in the cooler why not use it as you mash tun as well, >these things are certainly well insulated. Some do, however, this system lends itself only to single-step infusion mashes or decoction mashing, unless you've got an immersable heating element. Upward-infusion (i.e. temperature-controlled) mashing is usually done in a Bruheat-type masher or stovetop and then transfered to the lautertun. Note also, that "round" is not a pre-requisite. I've seen many square ice chest lauter tuns. > On to wort chillers, I am planning to build a newer, and I hope >better immersion chiller. The basis of my idea is that with a 1\2 inch >copper line with tap water running thru it picks up from the wort about as >much heat as is possible in the first nine feet. And so I intend to >build a chiller that uses 4 circuts each 12 ft long in parallel made >of 1\2 inch copper. I will have to use a manifold on both the inlet and >outlet and will probably add some temperature sensors and water pressure >guages, in hope that these may give some way to optimize the delta T by >varing the flow rate. Anybody try anything similar? If so please post >the pluses and minuses. Thanks I think the idea is sound, except I would offer that you should use a smaller diameter tubing (I used 3/8" OD) and see how many feet have efficient heat transfer. Apparently, you have the math or patience to determine this and I would like to know what the efficient part of the length is on a 3/8" OD tube. However, I think Paul's post earlier in HBD944 supports your multiple tube theory. Since I've got your attention, Micah, could you post some references for your early June post regarding lipids in beer. I was facinated and want to read more about them. Thanks. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 20:00:00 -0400 From: Glenn Anderson <glenn.anderson at canrem.com> Subject: 2 pot boils I'm wondering what adjustment would be required to my hop rate, if any, when using two pots to boil 5 gallons instead of one. Assuming that I boil 2.5 gallons in each pot and hop only one of the pots. I'm using the AAU system described by Miller in TCHoHB, would the utilization be the same as if I boiled and hopped the entire volume? I'm guessing not, simply because of the volume of wort present to dissolve hop resins into. I would appreciate any comments/calculations anyone could share. .....GA - --- ■ DeLuxeř 1.21 #11377 ■ Brewer fails CRC - More bottles than caps - -- Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 17:15:46 EDT From: Arthur Delano <ajd at itl.itd.umich.edu> Subject: Brewpub plans for Ann Arbor, MI This article appeared in the Ann Arbor News (10 August 1992, Monday), page C1 . I've condensed it greatly, mostly removing information not immediately relevant to the subject and general info about brewpubs which i suspect the average homebrewer knows about. A fuller version is on alt.beer and rec.crafts.brewing... Sorry, but i cannot provide the article number. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Couple plans pub that offers home brew By Dave Wilkins (News staff writer) Barry Seifer and Jennifer Kirscht want to brew and serve specialty beers in downtown Ann Arbor. If their well-researched business plan can overcome a string of obstacles, Grizzly Peak Brewing Co. could, by next spring, be Michigan's first brewpub. They also plan to stock a full bar, offer both burger-and-ribs fare and upscale dining, have an 80-seat banquet room, add a rooftop beer garden, and sell contemporary home furnishings in a third-floor loft. Brewpubs, however, are prohibited in Michigan. That's one of the more daunting obstacles facing Seifer and Kirscht. On Jan. 1, they formed a corporation: Seifer & Kirscht Inc. Last month, they bought the Cracked Crab building. They have hired an architect and a lobbyist, who is pushing a bill that would allow brewpubs to operate in Michigan. Still on the list of things to do: + Find investors for the venture, which may cost up to $1.3 million. + Hire a properly schooled brewmaster Another hurdle: neither Seifer or Kirscht have restaurant or bar experience. They will hire experienced people, they say. Michigan's liquor laws specifically separate the manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing of alcoholic beverages -- and, therefore, prohibit brewpubs. Seifer and Kirscht are counting on House Bill 5407, which would allow brewpubs to operate in the state under strict limits. The bill has passed the House and is now in the Senate's State Affairs, Tourism and Transportation committee. There is no formal opposition to the bill, McKinney says. It's supported by the state Commerce Department and the Michigan Restaurant Association. The powerful Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association is neutral. If the bill doesn't pass, Seifer and Kirscht say they will move ahead with their restaurant and bar, and perhaps brew their beer at another site or contract with another brewer. [Any typos are mine -- AjD] Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 17:43:54 EDT From: Jay Hersh <hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Cider Jack replies to someone who advises use of an ale yeast instead of red star champagne yeast for cider > That advice depends on a few variables not the least of which is the sugar > content of the juice. Most juice needs to have sugar added just to get > enough alcohol to preserve it and the high tolerance of champagne yeast would > not even enter the equation of most straight juice. It would run out of > sugar before even ale yeast got tired. > > Secondly, one can always add sugar to adjust the sweetness after fermenting. > > Thirdly, one usually will add lots of sugar to make a higher alcohol apple > wine and ale yeast would produce an undrinkably sweet wine. I'm not sure what you're saying here. I have used Red Star Champagne, Red Star Epernay, and Whitbread Ale yeasts in Ciders. I have always had to fortify them somewhat so that they did not ferment out too completely, as the apple sugars are highly fermentable, though the Ale yeast will tend to quit earlier than the Champagne yeast. I personally do not like sweetening after fermentation, and would rather choose the right yeast and level of fortification so that the final product ends at a desirable gravity. My personal favorite ciders were produced with the Ale yeast, or the Epernay. I thin keither of these are easier to work with than the Champagne yeast in terms of acheiving a desirable final gravity JaH - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 18:35:41 EDT From: Pierre.Jelenc at cunixf.cc.columbia.edu Subject: parallel chiller In HBD #944, Micah Millspaw mentions planning to build a parallel immersion chiller with four 12ft lengths of 1/2 inch tubing, and asks for comments. I made something similar, with two 20ft pieces of 3/8 inch copper tubing. The tubing was first held together with string and tape, so as to be coiled side-by-side , then it was shaped so as to bring both inlets and outlets to two T compression fittings, the inlet one going to a quick-disconnect fitting to the tap, and the outlet to a similar quick-disconnect to the sink. The advantage is that the construction is all metal up to the joints, and thus can be boiled thoroughly for sanitizing. The in and outflow plastic tubings are then connected and the water started in seconds, without heat damage to them. This construction allows me to cool 5 full gallons to water-temperature plus 5 degrees F in a bit less than 15 minutes. The wort must be stirred slowly to optimize heat transfer. Pierre Pierre Jelenc pcj1 at cunixf.cc.columbia.edu Columbia University, New York Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 12:46:29 -0500 From: oconnor at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (donald oconnor) Subject: oring challenge okay guys. rather than continue on along this "is too, is not" discussion about orings and soda let's have a little experiment to put a little substance behind the opinions. here's the experiment. i have what i think most would call a light lager (9 lbs vienna malt and some saaz hops) that's been sitting in a used keg for about 5 weeks now. it was the first time i had used the keg and i did nothing special at all to clean either the keg or orings. i.e., i simply rinsed the soda out with\ warm water and cleaned the oring and lid with warm water, then soaked the keg in a weak bleach solution before filling with the\ beer. i am willing to ship a bottle of this beer to several people who have been claiming that old orings will ruin the beer. all they have to do is taste and smell the beer and tell me what kind of soda pop was in the keg before the beer. i will even tell them that it was either coke, root beer, or dr. pepper. i personally doubt that anyone will be able to detect any hint of any soda pop whatsoever let alone claim that it has 'ruined' the beer, but we shall see. Now who should be the judges. I must insist that kinney baugham and al korz be 2 of them since they seem the most insistent. others i would like on the panel are al richter, john rose, glenn tinseth and the person who wanted to send me an old root beer oring whose name i can't seem remember. there was another gentleman who posted to the digest last friday expressing his experience who would be a good choice as well. It will cost about 3 bucks each to ship these out so i'm not inclined to send one to everyone reading the digest but i think i have room for a couple of more. So these people should simply email me there postal address and i will send off a bottle in the next day or two. I don't use a counterpressure bottle filler but i've had good success filling bottles with a piece of vinyl tubing attached to the end of the picnic faucet as someone suggested on the digest some time ago. when you get your bottle do whatever you like to determine which soda pop (root beer, coke, or dr. pepper) was previously in the keg and just email me the answer. i will post the results to the digest after receiving all of the replies. So there's the challenge. let's see if kinney b and al k are really so sure of their previous statements that an old oring will 'ruin' a light lager. by the way, if al korz' address contains words with more than 4 letters someone may wish to help him out. based on his personal email to me i can assure you he needs no help with the 4 letter words. he's mastered them all. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 10:25 GMT From: Andy Phillips <PHILLIPSA at LARS.AFRC.AC.UK> Subject: Apologies for duplicate posting Very sorry, but you may have noticed that I sent a double posting of my tome about amylase temperature stability. This was because the connection between the US and UK was down, and my first posting (last week) generated no response from Rob's mailer, so I waited three days and re-posted. Apologies to all those who waded through the second posting with a strange sense of deja vu. Andy Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 09:46 EDT From: smc at hotsc.att.com Subject: Hop Vine Yields? Reading about all the lucky homebrewers with their own hop vines has made me curious. What kind of yield do you get from a hop vine, in ounces, once you've dried the hops? E.g., is it 6 oz, or 6 lbs? If I dedicate about 10' of a small garden along the side of a house to hops, what could I expect for a total crop? Steve Casagrande smc at hotsc.att.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 10:17 EDT From: PGRAHAME%BENTLEY.BITNET at mitvma.mit.edu Subject: truncated digests In HBD 945, Dave Bircreports receiving a truncated digest on August 6. The same thing happened to me, too. Dave, the digest is not really truncated, which is evident from the fact that your directory will show that it's a long file. The cause of the problem will not show up in Wordperfect, nor--I suspect--would it in other wordprocessing formats. The problem is simple: a control-Z code was entered in the text at line 200. The software interprets this as "end of the file" thus creating the appearance of truncation. I could not discover this bug with "Reveal Codes" presumably because it lies "outside" the file as read by the software. However, the solution is simple. Just go into the file with DOS EDLIN or a similar editor, and DELETE line 200 (there is nothing on it but Control-Z). Then SAVE the file. Magically, the whole file will now be readable. Salut, Peter Grahame pgrahame at bentley.bitnet Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 09:58:30 CDT From: andy at tonga.wustl.edu (Andy Leith) Subject: Bleach and SS, holes, Minneapolis Jack posts details (#945) of an experiment that he did to determine whether or not bleach will corrode stainless steel. He didn't have an empty keg to use in the experiment. Some time back I got lazy and left a cornelius keg of mine sitting with the bleach sanitizing solution in it. The following week I kegged an IPA and when I pressured up with CO2, a thin stream of pale ale spurted across the kitchen from a tiny pin hole in the side of the tank. So if you leave bleach solution in your keg for a long enough time (> 1 week) it probably WILL corrode the keg regardless of what intuition may say to the contrary. If anyone has any safe ideas on how to repair a pin hole in my keg I would be most grateful. I would also like to know of any brew shops, brew pubs, clubs, or homebrewers in the Minneapolis area, as I am moving there from St. Louis in a couple of weeks Thanks Andy Leith andy at wups.wustl.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 10:54:21 EDT From: card at apollo.hp.com Subject: co2 purity FYI From New England Beer Club /Mal Card >> >> >> There have been some questions about CO2 purity. Although I am >>not aware of any contamination problems with CO2...I am aware that there >>are atleast 3 grades of it; industrial, beverage and analytical. Of course >>you can figure out what use beverage grade is rated for, with analytical >>being the purest for scientific purposes. Industrial is the lowest quality >>and used for fire extinguishers and other non-food grade needs. I personally >>fill my tank at a beverage supplier to insure getting a known good CO2 >>for dispensing beer. Not sure if the industrial is acceptable, but its >>seems like a gamble to me. >> >> Also, a beverage supplier also told me that CO2 tanks can build up >>with oil (that apparently occurs as part of the CO2 manufacturing process. >>He suggested that after many refills, you can purge the oil by standing the >>empty tank upside down overnight. The next day, open the valve (with no >>regulator attached) with the tank still inverted. The remaining CO2 will >>blow out any oil that has accumulated in the tank. >> Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 09:47:22 MDT From: mlh at cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Subject: Fermenting mead Hank Luer writes: >Regarding fermentation of honey to make mead: About eleven years >ago I bought five gallons of wild-flower honey, diluted it to a >specific gravity of 1.1 (wine strength), added acid blend (tar- >taric, citric, malic) to .9% and sprinkled in five sachets (5g ea) >of dry montrachet wine yeast. This produced about 25 gallons of >liquid. It was January and both the water and the fermentarium >(New Jersey cellar) were cold. I waited. Nothing happened. [goes on to mention trying several other things, finally adding some grapes and being successful.] The thing that you were missing in the first trial was yeast nutrient. Normally, brewers don't have to worry about this, because it is contained in the ingredients (malt or fruit). However, if you are making a straight mead (no fruit, only honey), then you need to add yeast nutrient yourself. Yeast nutrient can be as simple as ammonium chloride, but there are also various brand names available on the market that different people swear by. Any good book on making mead should have a discussion of this. Mike Hall hall at lanl.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 09:33 PDT From: Bob_Konigsberg at 3mail.3com.com Subject: Stainless Steel corrosion In HBD # 945 Jack Schmidling writes about his chlorine/stainless steel experiment. I've had corrosion problems with stainless especially where it is of cheap(er) quality. The first stock pot I had was ok, but I left the lid on, with liquid (no chlorine) overnight, and the next morning, the lid was covered with rust flowers and pitting. In two cases our stainless tableware (an inexpensive set) has developed similar marks. FWIW, it seems that the mixing of ingredients in the stainless alloy is not always as good as it should be, and lumps (crystals??) of straight steel/iron are left in the material so that the chromium oxide (whatever form) does not form a complete seal on the material, hence the rusting. None of the high quality stainless stuff I've bought has ever shown any of these problems, so it goes back to "you get what you pay for" or if not, then take it back to the store. BobK Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 10:48:53 MDT From: Brian.Smithey at Central.Sun.COM (Brian Smithey) Subject: Bleach sanitation >>>>> In HBD #945, JKL <JLAWRENCE at UH01.Colorado.EDU> writes: > In HB943, Jeff Frane writes: Jeff> Change them both, why don't you. If you're sanitizing with the right Jeff> concentration of chlorine you shouldn't have to rinse at all, and you're Jeff> pretty much defeating the purpose by throwing that water onto your Jeff> sanitized surfaces -- try using boiled water if you feel a need to Jeff> rinse. Jane> OK, I'll bite. What's the "right" concentration of chlorine? I Jane> thought you had to rinse until there wasn't any more smell. Won't any Jane> chlorine left on the equipment kill all the good stuff? (I'm currently Jane> using 1-2 Tbl. of chlorine bleach per 1 gal water.) This was covered a while ago on the HBD, I think Bob Jones and George Fix went back and forth on it a bit. I seem to remember the final outcome being that 1/2 c. of grocery store bleach per 5 gallons of water was sufficient to get the chlorine level to the 200 ppm or whatever concentration it was that will sanitize. I've been using this concentration with 30 minute contact times and no rinsing for about 4 or 5 batches now, and haven't noticed any problems -- my yeast takes off ok, and I don't notice any off-flavors from the bleach treatment. I am very careful to pour out every bit of chlorine/water that I can, which usually requires tipping the carboy upside down several times with several minute "rest" periods in between, to allow the drops to run down the side and pool in the bottom of the carboy. The pools pour out easier than trying to shake the drops out. If you want to convince yourself that the beer flavor isn't being affected, take it to your local homebrew club and have some guinea pigs taste test it for you (Hi Dave!). Or enter it in a competition that will provide feedback and check what the judges say. Or drink it yourself, and if you're happy then it works. A quick run of "units" shows 16 tablespoons per cup, so I'm using 8 tablespoons per 5 gallons. Your 1-2 Tbl. per gallon (5-10 Tbl. per 5 gallons) is right in the ballpark. Brian - -- Brian Smithey / Sun Microsystems / Colorado Springs, CO smithey at rmtc.Central.Sun.COM Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 13:11 EST From: Frank Tutzauer <COMFRANK at ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> Subject: truncated digests About these truncated digests. I think what happens is sometimes a stray end- of-file marker gets put in. For example, I use WordPerfect to write my posts, which I then save as ASCII and upload to the Vax for mailing. The problem is that WordPerfect puts an EOF at the end of the file, which I then strip out using my Vax editor. Sometimes I forget, though, and then depending on the software you use to read the digest, you may or may not get truncated at the EOF I left in. My software (Browse) ignores the end-of-file, so the digest looks ok to me, but other software respects the EOF, hence truncation. Even if you get someone to email you another copy, until the EOF is stripped, you'll still get truncated. Now let's just hope I remember to take the end-of-file out of THIS post. - --frank Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 11:12:26 MDT From: scojam at scojam.Auto-trol.COM (Scott James.) Subject: Mash - Hot Water Heater Last time I suggested the idea of mashing with a modified hot water heater. After some investigation, here is what I've discovered... 1. Hot water heaters are insulated with 1~3" glass. This would be a real pain to cut through. 2. They heat upto 180F, but with a variance of +/- 20F. The stability comes from the thermal isolation of that thick glass barrier. After talking with this owner/operator of a local heating business, we started talking about possibilities. They ranged from using a kiln(!!) with a temp. controller to keep a steel vessel at a constant mash temperature to using a pot wrapped with nichrome wire as the heating element, all encased in some kind of insulation. To me, this almost sounds like building a nuclear powered baby-bottle warmer. It could be done, but why so expensive? I'm currently using a 50 qt. coleman cooler with added hot water... draining through a copper tube with slits cut into it with a hack saw. I keep getting stuck sparges, but I think it's because the brew shop I use to grind my malt uses an old coffee mill--I get lots of flour. Oh well, I just wanted to keep you posted about ideas and progress (or lack of) - --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Scott James (N0LHX) scojam at Auto-Trol.COM Ham - Guitarist - HomeBrewer - Pilot Auto-Trol Technology - --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #946, 08/12/92