HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keithr@pathogen.med.umn.edu (Henry Keith Reding (Rogers))
Subject: Re: it ain't poison!
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:21:46 GMT

In article <jdecarlo.536.726432272@mitre.org> jdecarlo@mitre.org (John DeCarlo) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.170411.2642@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
> gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton) writes:
>
>>at 4-7 days after bottling the brew was undercarbonated and sweet.
>>
>>i brought the bottles out of the too cold basement (53F) and let 'em 
>>set at 60-65F for a few days.  
>>
>>now the carbonation is right, and the taste is somewhat sour, but good.
>>
>>will the sourness mellow with time, or get worse?  why?
>
>A major problem with this type of interaction is that we don't really know 
>what you consider to be sour.  OTOH, I don't know of any reason your recipe 
>would have *any* sourness to it except for an infection.  Infections just 
>get worse over time, since they are due to a live organism.


	A bacterial infection may not necessarily make the beer more sour
over time.  The bacteria can only use the sugars or dextrin (depending
on the capablilities of the organism) to produce souring acids.  A low
FG beer would tend to sour less than an infected beer with a high FG.

keith reding
microbiology
univ. minnesota

Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: jwells@gibbs.UVic.CA (John Wells)
Subject: Counter-pressure filling?
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 19:22:43 GMT

I just read in a recent digest that many homebrewers construct their
own counter-pressure filling systems. I've just started brewing beer,
at a couple of u-brew type places, and have noticed that some of them
use counter-pressure filling, and others have simple draft-taps with
which you fill your bottles.

My understanding is that counter-pressure filling is intended to
prevent oxidation of the beer as it goes into the bottle. Are the
benefits of counter-pressure filling worth the extra cost and
fiddling, compared to simple filling carefully done?
-- 
    John Wells
    jwells@me.uvic.ca
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: kmcintyr@boi.hp.com (Kevin McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Microbrew?
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:13:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


I too, am interested so please post any responses...
				Thanks!
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: All Grain Recipes/FAQ needed!
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:49:56 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Hi
I just begun all-grain with a variation of Papazian's
India pale ale (He has it as a partial mash whereas
I used 8lbs american 6row and 1/2 lb crystal).  
Overall, I liked the all grain process and probably
wont go back to extracts unless the beer turns out
lousy.  I have one problem though:  I cannot open
any of cats meow stuff and so have only a handful
of all-grain recipes (Papazian's book).  Also Papazian
does not go into the all grain stuff in much detail.
Is there an all grain FAQ or book that deals primarily
with all-grain brewing?  I heard that Zymurgy has
an all grain issue that Chicago's Alternative Garden
supplies sells for $8.50.  Is it a good issue?  I've
also heard that Millers "handbook" is good for 
all-grain.  Is that true?  The reason I'm asking this
is because the Chicago area brewing stores are 
pretty far and I only do mailordering from them.
Should I order the above two?  Could someone
send me their copy of the recipe list for all grain
from cats meow?  And any other good stuff
they have about all-grain brewing?  I'd really
appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: jdecarlo@mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Subject: Re: Racking to a secondary
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean  VA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:37:23 GMT

In article <9503@verdix.verdix.com> mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist) writes:

>>The primary purpose of waiting for the krauesen 
> to fall is so you can use a 5 gallon secondary for 5 gallons of fermenting 
> beer without fear of overflow.
>
>To be honest, I had never thought of that...but now that you mention
>it, sure, it makes sense that someone would do that as an alternative
>to a barf-tube.
>
>I use 6.7 gallon glass carboys and no blowoff, which probably accounts for
>my different perspecive.

Oh.  I use that size, roughly, for primary and 5 gallon size for secondary.


>I've done it.  When it looks like the trub has settled out, or I see the
>first little spots on the surface (whichever comes first), it's time to rack.

Sounds interesting.  Now I'll have to try it if I ever get the chance.  So 
far I have bee "too relaxed" to do that, since I usually pitch in the 
evening and high krauesen is in full swing when I get up the next morning.

What kinds of time periods are you usually seeing here between pitching and 
racking for this approach?

>>Practically speaking, it seems best, when force-chilling, to rack the beer 
> *before* pitching into the primary, leaving behind *most* of the trub (a 
> little trub is good for the yeast), then pitching the yeast.  

>I'm not sure I understand.  OK, first you're going to siphon out of
>the boiler, and some trub will get left behind.  Now when are you
>going to rack the wort again?  How long do you wait for the trub to
>settle?  It seems to me that it takes several hours, during which time
>the yeast could be getting ready for action.  If you wait to pitch,
>then the effective "lag time" is the settling time plus the respiration
>period of the yeast.

I guess it all depends on the recipe, the ingredients, etc.  With a good hot 
break during the boil and a good cold break during forced chilling, you get 
a lot of trub in the brewpot.  Some experimenters have gotten so much there 
and were so careful of leaving it behind, they suffered from the "not enough 
trub for the yeast" problem in the primary.  All I am saying, I guess, is 
that good chilling (and this seems to vary, especially when using extract) 
can get quite a lot of trub out and careful siphoning can result in the 
majority of the trub that would otherwise settle in the primary being left 
behind in the brewpot.


John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet:  1:109/131  Internet:  jdecarlo@mitre.org
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: jdecarlo@mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Subject: Re: Racking to a secondary
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean  VA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:40:18 GMT

In article <9499@verdix.verdix.com>
 mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist) writes:

>Yeast is another story.  You want the beer to remain in contact with
>all the yeast until it has fermented out, in order to get as much
>reduction of diacetyl as possible.

That doesn't sound exactly right to me, as your beer is *always* in contact 
with the yeast until you either filter out the yeast or do something else to 
remove the yeast.  That's why fermentation will continue after you rack to a 
secondary and why fermentation will occur in the bottle with a little more 
fermentables.

>To summarize...
>
>True two-stage fermentation, i.e. racking from a "primary" to a
>"secondary" fermenter after high kraeusen, is not worth a plugged
>nickel IMHO.  The beer should remain on the yeast until it has
>fermented out.  Ales are ready to bottle at this point.  (If you have
>to rack instead, the carboy you rack into is not really a "secondary
>fermenter", it's a beer storage tank).

Again, I don't know why this is called "true two-stage fermentation", as the 
beer may or may not have fermented out before racking anyway.  And there is 
plenty of yeast *in* the beer to allow it to ferment out no matter *when* 
you rack to the secondary.  The primary purpose of waiting for the krauesen 
to fall is so you can use a 5 gallon secondary for 5 gallons of fermenting 
beer without fear of overflow.

>Racking off the trub:
>   It's probably a good idea, although I can't say that I've ever
>noticed a difference either way.

...

>If you're force-chilling the wort, then you should
>(1) pitch the yeast immediately, (2) allow the trub to settle during
>the "lag time" or respiration period, then (3) rack the beer (and the
>suspended yeast) off the trub, before active fermentation begins.
>Obviously, this means that you can't just "pitch and forget"...but if
>you're not going to pitch immediately, then you are loosing one of the
>primary benefits of chilling the wort.

I wonder if anyone has ever done this.  How are you going to tell that 
reproduction has finished and fermentation begun except for signs of active 
fermentation?

Practically speaking, it seems best, when force-chilling, to rack the beer 
*before* pitching into the primary, leaving behind *most* of the trub (a 
little trub is good for the yeast), then pitching the yeast.  

>Racking at bottling time:
>   As you might have seen from a recent thread, not everyone does
>this.  But most of us do.  You leave behind a lot of sediment, and
>then you don't have to be so careful about keeping it out of the
>bottles, and it gives you something in which to mix in the priming
>solution.

Yup.

John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet:  1:109/131  Internet:  jdecarlo@mitre.org
From: mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: hose couplers
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:49:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: verdix.9520
Organization: Verdix Western Operations, Aloha  OR

I have an idea.  Have you seen these quick-disconnect gadgets for hose
connectors?  I think you can find them in the garden department.  Anyway,
you can install them on your sprinklers, spray nozzle, hose bib, &c.  Each
coupler has a threaded male and female half which fit together with an
O-ring seal.  From then on you just snap on, snap off.

When I get a few extra bucks, I'm going to pick a few up and install
them on my faucet adaptor, bottle/carboy washer and wort chiller.
Then I can just snap and unsnap things instead of screwing and
unscrewing.  It seems like I'm always screwing my bottle washer on for
something and then realizing I need water, or something else like that.

You could also get one of those Y-connector things with a valve on
either arm -- then you could always draw water even if something is
hooked up to the faucet.  Another possibility would be to get one of
those kitchen spray nozzles on the end of a length of vinyl hose.
That might come in handy.

--mark
From: mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: Our image as brewers
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:35:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: verdix.9511
Organization: Verdix Western Operations, Aloha  OR

In article <1993Jan10.215018.23337@msc.cornell.edu> srussell@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Stephen Russell,147 Bard,54648,) writes:
>This is something I _have_ been thinking about, and now that you mention it,
 "Lund Kwysst" means (literally) "One Who Expels Beer From Nostrils While
 Drinking".  So I suggest that in your quest to cleanse r.c.b. you should
 first look to yourself.  I think going so far as a legal name change might
 be warranted.
 
 Gak! Arf! Snort! Pfft! Ack!
 
>STEVE


Yeesh!!

I had no idea! :-) :-) :-)  How politically incorrect!  (tho' I've
never personally had the problem described by the meaning of my
name...)

I always thought it was Swedish for "Macho Stud Hombre Hunka Hunka
Burnin' Love".  Wait 'til I tell Dad! :-)

Cheers,
-- Mark LeQuiche
From: jockagid@w350zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Joachim Schuering)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: water
Date: 8 Jan 1993 14:25:17 GMT
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
NNTP-Posting-Host: w350zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de
Keywords: water, hardness

In article <1993Jan7.221712.11951@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> redfreak@softcopy.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Lobonc) writes:
>Can anyone help me out with some water questions?
>
>The following information is available about my local water supply:
>
>Phosphate:  .3ppm
>Chlorine:   .3ppm
>Ammonia:    .5ppm
>Flouride   1.0ppm
>Alkalinity 274ppm
>pH         7.4
>Iron        .3ppm
>Hardness   360ppm
>


Phosphate:   low
Chlorine:    probably added by the Water Supply (desinfection)
Ammonia:     probably completely NH4 and hence fairly high (EEC limit = .5ppm)
Fluoride:    makes your teeth strong (probably also added by Water Supply)
Alkalinity:  is HCO3 (Bicarbonate)
pH:          slightly alkaline
Iron:        slightly above EEC limit (0.2 ppm)
Hardness:    generally called "hardness as CaCO3". More than 180 ppm is
             is considered to be "very hard". According to the American
             Water Works Association, "ideal" water should not contain more
             than 80 ppm of hardness.

I think you only have to worry about the hardness and hence excess Ca. But
then, it is similar to the Berlin tab water the part of which ending up in
my fermenter does a pretty good job.

So if you want, boil it before use (be aware of bugs when cooling down). Maybe
you can purchase "Spring Water" in your area.

-- 
                               JOACHIM SCHUERING
FB 16 (Hydrogeologie) * HEL-A4/1 * Helmholtzstr. 2-9 * 1000 Berlin 10 * Germany
Tel.: [49] (030) 314 25675 (Office)       *       [49] (030) 686 0775 (Private)
                   Email: jockagid@w350zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: phil@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Phil Means )
Subject: Re: All Grain brew
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:38:48 GMT

Larry.Lund@p12.f79.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Larry Lund) writes:

>Hello all!
>I brewed a very simple all grain brew today and having a problem and don't
>know why. I have always been a extract brewer and this was my 1st try. the
>ingrediants are as follows.

>7lbs of 2row malted barley
>1 1/2oz of cascade hops.
>5 gal water
>1pkg bavarian wyeast

>mashed in with 2 gal water and held at 126 degrees for 30min raised temp to
>144 degrees held for 30 min then raised to 158 and kept it there for 1 1/2 hr.
>Then I sparged with 160 degree water 3 times then put back in the kettle and
>brought to a boil for 1 hr. Then I added the hops and continued another hr.
>then I slowly poured the wert back thru the spent grains one last time and
>added abt 3 gals of water thru the grains to make a total of 5 gals. But when
>I check the S.G. it was only 1.020 What happened? Where did I go wrong?? Sign
>me perplexed! 8-(

>Larry
>N7LBP @ W0RLI.or

Hmmm.  First of all, I use 180 degree water for sparging.  I also use 9 
to 10 lbs. of malt for a 5 gal. batch (usually yields an O.G. of 1.045 to
1.050).  There are formulas available for determining your extraction 
efficiency.  Most all-grain brewers seem to get extraction rates of 75 - 80 
percent. 
  
My advice would be to mix up some pale or amber dry extract (you could 
withdraw some of the original wort) boil it with the DME, then return it
to your fermenter after cooling.  You might try adding 1/2 lb. of crystal 
malt to your recipe -- it will give your beer that nice "golden" color (more 
will get a coppery color).  If you're worried about infection, you could 
even re-boil the whole batch and re-pitch the yeast.

In any case, don't give up.  Your current batch can be fixed, IMHO, and 
the next one will be better.

Phil

--
* Phil Means                                                                  *
* phil@gsbsun.uchicago.edu                                                    *
* (312) 702-7922                                                              *
From: ech@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: Activated charcoal (its use in brewing?)
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:41:54 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

OK.  So we know what activated charcoal is.  Here's a question concerning its
use:  In a brewing text (not a homebrew text) some reference was made to 
adding 10-50g/hL of wort during the boil to help remove some of the oxidized
polyphenols and such.  Why or how are the oxidized polyphenols selected by
the carbon over all the other wonderfully complex organic molecules in the
brew?  I thought activated carbon was used, for example in aquaria, because
it was not selective and pretty well absorbed everything.  If this were the 
case, then its addition to boiling wort would have the same effect as simply
removing some of the liquid and replacing an equivalent volume of water.
Am I completely off the mark?

	Ed  |;-{)}
From: john.fix@hardgood.com (John Fix) 
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: BOTTLE FILLERS
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:00:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Hardgoods East BBS - Eastchester, NY (914) 961-8749
Reply-To: john.fix@hardgood.com (John Fix) 

In <1993Jan5.225606.46140@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>   Tim LaBerge writes...

-> I am looking for a bottle filler, and would like some information on
-> what's out there.  I've seen a few advertised, but I would prefer
-> some objective opinions.

I've used both the basic plastic tube with spring loaded tip (included
with many homebrew starter "kits") and the brass Phil's Philler.  The
latter does a quicker job of filling the bottles, and appears to cause
less of a spray at the bottom of the bottle when filling.  I can't say
I've been able to discern any difference in the flavor of the finished
product, although the reduced spraying of Phil's Philler should reduce
the amount of oxygen bubbled into the beer while filling (which should
in turn reduce the amount of oxidation in the bottled beer).

Note that Phil's Philler does take a little getting used to when
filling, and I invariably overfill (or overflow!) a few bottles each
time I bottle a batch.  Especially watch when bottling cold brew (i.e.
lager batches from the fridge) into bottles, as the CO2 coming out of
solution adds a little fizz to the process leading to more overflows if
you're not careful.

                                  -= John =-
                                                                    
----
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Hardgoods-East PCBoard  (914)961-8749 HST  (914)961-8590 DS  |
|  Eastchester, NY   -  Hardware retailing BBS f/Triad owners   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: rjhoffma@iastate.edu (Richard J. Hoffmann)
Subject: Re: Laaglander Dry Malt Results
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:17:27 GMT

Well, let me add my reprort, too!  I also had a batch made with
Laaglander that I made in October that quit at 1.032, and I added
amylase.  I finally bottled mine this weekend at 1.001!  Some of you
might recall that I started out trying for the India Pale Ale in the
NCJOHB.  It tastes okay, but, as you might expect, isn't heavy.  I'm
afraid to calculate the alcohol (since it started at 1.058).  I'll post
the next installment in a couple of weeks when it's carbonated, if anyone
wants to know.  I won't be using amylase again.

Dick

-- 
Richard J. Hoffmann                Internet: rjhoffma@iastate.edu
Department of Zoology & Genetics     Bitnet: rjhoffma%iastate.edu@isumvs
Iowa State University                 Voice: (515) 294-8075
Ames, Iowa 50011
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: KETTLE MASHING
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:24:00 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <walker.36@main.mndly.umn.edu> walker@main.mndly.umn.edu (TIM WALKER) writes:
>In article <C0Fu2I.In7@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>
>
>>This article was rejected by Zymurgy's editorial department for some
>>obscure reason, so I will post it here.
>
>> 
>>                           KETTLE MASHING
>> 
>>                          By Jack Schmidling
>
>(Most of article deleted, save for the excerpt below.) 
>
>Jack, I think I found the "obscure reason." It's this paragraph you wrote:
>
>> 
>> All the parts are available at a good hardware store.  For 
>> those not inclined to hunt down the parts, a complete kit is 
>> available from the author.
>>
>
>Personally, if I were an editor at Zymurgy, I would have run your piece, but 
>I would have charged you full advertising rates for it. (Tim W.)


You don't seem to have a very good handle on things.  The reason ones
sends articles to editors is because they like to edit out things they do
not like and they usually do not like most of what people send in.

In this case, they decided to review the EASYMASHER as a new product instead
of running the article.  Their reasoning for doing this is what is obscure
not their reason for not running the article.
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
From: ddickey@aspen34.cray.com (Dan A. Dickey)
Subject: Re: easy specific gravity?
Originator: ddickey@aspen34
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:55:51 CST


In article <1993Jan11.223044.15250@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, costley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Brett Costley) writes:
> Over Christmas break I visited the biology lab where my sister works.  She
> was mixing up some salt water for some of her sea anemones.  To check if 
> she had the right salinity she used this nifty little device.  I checked
> it out and noticed that it read both salinity and specific gravity.  It
> was basically just a tube with a eyepiece on one end and a plastic part
> one the other where you just sprinkled a few drops of the water.  You 
> then looked through the eyepiece and an easy to read line would tell you
> the salinity/specific gravity.  I don't know how much one would cost or 
> even if the thing would actually work with wort/beer or not but it would
> certainly be a lot easier to use than the cylinder and float.  I 
> unfortunately cannot borrow one from her to try it out with beer since 
> she lives 900 miles away.  I could see if she can find out how much they 
> cost and if she could get me one.  Has anyone ever seen anything like this
> before?
> 

So give your local tropical fish ship a call....
	-Dan
-- 
---------
Dan A. Dickey      ddickey@cray.com
From: dhoward@oregon.uoregon.edu (Don Howard)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: exploding bucket
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:26:56 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: choyer.uoregon.edu

Hello... I'm still a relative amateur at this stuff.  My seventh batch,
extract, a SN Celebration Ale copy, popped the top of my plastic bucket
some time last night.  Not completely off, about a fourth was still
attached, and a fair amount of stuff excaped from the sides.  The OG was
1.061, identical to the gravity of batch five which was fine, and the
bucket, from Williams Brewing, has a good seal so I'm not sure what
happened.
Anyway, I wasn't willing to give up because the aroma and taste was VERY
promising, so I cleaned it up as best I could and resealed.  Questions -
has anyone experienced as exploding bucket before and had the beer survive?
Any guess at the probabilities of infection?  Is it OK to worry?

DonH
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing