HOMEBREW Digest #1244 Mon 11 October 1993

Digest #1243 Digest #1245

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Dry Ice cooling NOT! (Dennis J. Templeton)
  India Pale Ale request (Montgomery_John)
  Removing Foil Labels, Bottle Filling (Dan Wood)
  Hop substitutions (npyle)
  Cider making equipment (rgsimms)
  Mashing out ("Dennis Lewis")
  Re:  Yeast query (Scott Benton)
  Re: Mashout Heresy (Paul deArmond)
  IMPERIAL STOUT (Spencer.W.Thomas)
  Is Mashing out necessary (GANDE)
  oxidation/recipe woes/mashout/tun design vs. crush/Brussels?!? (korz)
  Fermentables/volume, what is reasonable? ("Taylor Standlee")
  JUDGING (Jack Schmidling)
  BOQAT, farting, stoned, fashion, mash out, and farkleberries. (Domenick Venezia)
  Re: Hop substitutions (jay marshall)
  Re: cheap carboys (jay marshall)
  smash the mash balderdash (Paul Boor)
  Science and Hops Utilization 1/2 ("Palmer.John")
  Science and Hops Utilization 2/2 ("Palmer.John")
  calculating beer color (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)

Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. 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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 10:04:50 -0400 From: djt2 at po.cwru.edu (Dennis J. Templeton) Subject: Dry Ice cooling NOT! Someone asked about using dry ice for cooling their wort. Since dry ice liberates humungous amounts of gas you had better be prepared for a huge overflow of sticky bubbling (and still hot) wort, like a krausen from hell. I have tried this for other purposes and it was *definitely* not worth the trouble. Note that those of you who put dry ice in your college punch had a more controlled reaction since the punch was not boiling hot. Try a cooling coil. dennis Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 09:06:00 CST From: Montgomery_John at lanmail.ncsc.navy.mil Subject: India Pale Ale request This question is directed in particular to kindred brewers in the beautiful Pacific Northwest. I recently spent an extended amount of time in the Seattle area - particularly Silverdale/Poulsbo. While there, my buddy and I ran across a little place that harbored some 30 microbrewed beers on their tap wall. Now, coming from a "microbrew" wasteland (panhandle Fl) I was awestruck (but that's another soapbox). This place had an India Pale Ale on tap at the time that I was quite impressed with. I think the brewer was Deschutes(sp?). Is anyone familiar with this beer and, if so, do you have any all-grain recipes that attempt to clone this fine brew? I would love to produce some of that Pac.N.W. finery here in the Southeast. Thanks a million, john m. <montgomery_john at lanmail.ncsc.navy.mil> Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 08:54:47 CDT From: wood at ranger.rtsg.mot.com (Dan Wood) Subject: Removing Foil Labels, Bottle Filling I'm setting up a homebrewing "kit" for a friend for Christmas, including two cases of M*ller longnecks in the waxed cardboard cases. I'd like to mimimize the time/effort in removing the foil labels. In the past I've tried a variety of solvents, boiling water, wire brush, razor blade, etc. but never found a combination that worked well. Anyone have any tricks for this? Please don't suggest other bottle types, I already have the empties, and I'm a big fan of clear bottles. I used the spring type bottle filler for many batches until I tried a simple hose clamp. I bought one of the 69 cent white plastic clamps, the kind with the ratcheting latch. I bent the teeth of the latch out of the way, and simply use hand pressure to shutoff the flow between bottles. It is faster, cleaner (no foaming), and probably minimizes aeration. Try it, you'll like it. PS: Anyone tried making a grape mead? I've had good luck with cherry and cranberry juice, but I'm leery of making alcoholic grape koolaid. I've got a gallon of concentrated juice from homegrown grapes (big and blue, concord maybe?) that I figure would flavor about 4 gallons of mead. However, the wife would kill me if the mead didn't turn out: she wants to waste it on jam. Any thoughts or experiences are appreciated. Worry if you must, but by all means, have a homebrew! Dan Wood, Motorola Inc. My thoughts, not Moto's wood at rtsg.mot.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 8:42:28 MDT From: npyle at n33.stortek.com Subject: Hop substitutions Domenick asks about hop substitutions: >I'm still trying to perfect that Fuller's clone and I am looking for a good >substitution for British Northdown hops. I've used Cluster in the past >but I'm underwelmed by the flavor contribution of Cluster. > >How about Styrian Goldings, or Pride of Ringwood? Both of which are >available locally (Seattle). Kent Goldings? Fuggles/Willamette? > >How about substitutions for Challenger and Target too? > >Since I have never encountered Northdown, Challenger, or Target I'm >working in the dark on substitutions. Can anyone recommend a good book >on hop characteristics. Gardening info is wasted pages. Domenick, I've been working on the hops faq and I'm starting to come to the conclusion that there are no hop substitutions. There are many hops grown to be genetically similar (Hallertau Mittelfruh being the most copied), and some of the "copies" are good, and some are bad. I suppose these copies can be called substitutes, but its a personal choice. There is also very little (read "zero") literature describing flavor profiles of hops. Unfortunately, we are all working in the dark until we taste/smell the actual hops, which is why I'm looking for commercial examples of each hop for the faq (its a tough job but someone has to do it; I'm hoping this weekends GABF will help!). BTW, many of the hops you mention are fairly rare in the US (Northdown, POR) so even less information is available on them. So, the news is bad, but I'll wish you good luck in your search. Keep us informed. Cheers, Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 93 11:15:22 EDT From: rgsimms at aol.com Subject: Cider making equipment Like most newcommers to the HBD, I am looking for information. Does anyone have any information on cider making equipment (i.e. crushers and presses)? How about plans to build one? I have info from Happy Valley Ranch but don't want to spend that much. Please send info to RGSimms at aol.com or post here. Thanks in advance. Bob Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 10:46:44 CST From: "Dennis Lewis" <DLEWIS%jscdh6 at jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov> Subject: Mashing out Thanks, chris and Dom for the refreshing look at what's really necessary. For those of you who require the opinion of published brewing experts, Terry Foster _Pale Ales_ says that a mash out is unnecessary for most ales. Great news for the mash/lauter tun crowd. He says the only reasons you need to do a mashout is for a high viscosity wort or for a mash that has been decocted and some of the filtering properties fo the husks is diminished. The higher "mash-out" temps will get the sweet liquor to flow better thru a less than ideal grain bed. As far as I recall, there was no mention of denaturing enzymes, completing reactions, etc. I'm going to try it today with my new mash/lauter. Dennis Lewis <dlewis%jscdh6 at jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov> Homebrew, The Final Frontier. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 11:46:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Benton <sbenton at telerama.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: Yeast query In HBD1239 David Atkins <ATKINS at macc.wisc.edu> wrote >YeastLabs American Ale: > I recall someone asking for any experiences or reactions to this strain. I >have 5 gals of pale ale (og 40) in a secondary and the yeast head has yet to >drop. I racked from underneath the primary's yeast head and a new one grew in >the secondary carboy.It has diminished some but this is my first experience w/ >the yeast and since it has been fermenting for a week, I just want to know what >might be happening. This batch got off on a rollicking start...I had signs o' >fermentation within 3 hours and a yeast top-layer in about 7-8 hours (the power >of aeration and 4 cups starter). In sunny Madison, the tilt of the earth has >lower the ambient temp. of my basement to 60-63 F. Could the lower temp result >in such a slowing of fermentation. Before I could ferment for 1 week to 9 days >and have clear beer to bottle....but that was before this yeast and temp change >and recipe. This is the first time I used this yeast. My OG is about 55. The main thing I noticed about this strain is its _creaminess_. With other yeasts, I usually had a lot of bubbles, that died down relatively quickly. With this yeast the kraeusen was dense, creamy, and still there when I racked to the carboy. The head built up somewhat in the carboy, but is now dying down. Time in primary: 4 days Time in carboy: 5 days so far I'm fermenting at about 68F, and I'd say that the fermentation is going more slowly than I typically see. BTW, my supplier now only carries Yeast Lab liquid yeasts. Is the American Ale yeast the same as the Wyeast?? Scott D. Benton sbenton at telerama.pgh.pa.us Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 09:06:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul deArmond <paulf at henson.cc.wwu.edu> Subject: Re: Mashout Heresy Amen! I say !Amen! Brother Chris. Consistancy is doing things the same. Not mashing-out (in a consistant manner) is consistant. [alternately] "Consistancy! We don't need to show you no steenking consistancy!" [or from another point of view] "Conversion is conversion is conversion" - Gertrude Beerstein [finally] Always killing a chicken at dawn on brewing days would be consistant too. [coals to Newcastle, or heresy to Worms] Let's go after the Porter category definition again.... Har de har har, Paul de Armond "Monism either exists or it doesn't" -- Rev. Perry 10X Mills _An essay against Dualism, Part 1 of 2_ (unpublished) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 12:25:42 EDT From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: IMPERIAL STOUT Bitterness in stout comes from two sources: the hops, and the dark grains. There are a number of things you can do to reduce it: 1. Cut down the hopping rate. (Most likely cause of overbitterness.) 2. Use less dark malt. 3. Don't heat your dark grains to boiling (and DON'T boil them), just steep them for 30 minutes in 160F water, then strain the liquid into your boiling pot. You can also add unfermentable sugars, which will make the beer sweeter and reduce its apparent bitterness by: 1. Add more crystal malt. Again, steep it in a sufficient quantity of 160F water (2 quarts water/lb of grain). 2. Add lactose. I've never done this, so I can't recommend amounts. That all said, Imperial Stout is a fairly bitter style. I think a typical one will come in at about 50-80IBUs. It's also very sweet. Try Samuel Smith's for a classic example. Return to table of contents
Date: 8 Oct 93 18:02:54 GMT From: GANDE at slims.attmail.com Subject: Is Mashing out necessary Stellar responses from Chris Campenelli re: mashing out and is it necessary. By golly I don't do it either! For that matter I don't even adjust my hydrometer readings for temperature variances. I can't imagine the havoc being played with thoses OG's being off by a point or 2. Come to think of it, I don't always use a secondary fermentation. Nor will I bow to the ever gracious concept that one must recirculate for clear wort. Won't decoct, protein rest, or upward step infuse, either. Use a Corona not a roller mill and add an extra handful of grain to make up for the lost extraction. Sparge by dumping the water on the grain bed, not sprinkled with delicate droplets, each 0.25ML in size. X:-O I get 33 Points extraction, consistantly, from Domestic 2 row, and my beer is consistantly very good based on the lineup consistantly at the door! Then again, if you enjoy doing all these things, brew away!!! .... +----------------------------------+ | Internet: gande at slims.attmail.com| | Glenn Anderson | | Manager, Telecom. Facilities | | Sun Life of Canada | +----------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 12:54 CDT From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: oxidation/recipe woes/mashout/tun design vs. crush/Brussels?!? Brian writes: >Memphis, TN). I entered an extract based dry stout. It finished second with >a score of 32. The main problem that the judges noted was that it had an >oxidized aroma. I'm trying to figure out where this oxidation came from. <procedure deleted, looked fine to me> >Our bottle filler is one of those clear plastic tubes with the spring loaded >white thingy on the end (another version of the clear tube with the spring >loaded orange thingy on the end, I guess). This thing does cause the beer to >foam a little on it's way into the bottle. 1. Is my bottle filler the culprit in my oxidation problems? If so, is there something better out there? This could be the problem, you could try raising up the bottle to just below the level of the beer in the priming tank so your siphon runs slower until the tip of the filler is covered in beer. That's what I do. 2. Has anyone out there ever used those oxygen absorbing bottle caps? Yes, but I've only noticed them increasing the life of my hop nose and increasing the general shelf-live of the beer. 3. Is it possible that some extract manufacturers have HSA problems in the manufacture of the extracts? Yes, but it could also be the age of the extract and the storage temperature. I know that extract syrup tends to darken as it ages and I'll bet that this is partly caused by oxidation. ********************************* Tom writes: >Part of my reason for asking is that I might like to enter competitions >myself, and I may also be interested in the AHA BJCP. But observations like >this make me wonder whether it would be worthwhile. If the goal of the >competition is to demonstrate brewing prowess, independent of whether the >brew actually pleases anyone, well, then the style parameters make some >sense. But in that case, wou wouldn't even classify a beer into a category >when its missed color, gravity, or IBUs specified for the category. In other >words, the competition coordinator looks at the stated parameters and says >"this can't be considered Brown Ale, so it won't even be entered into >competition." and the judges would never taste it (no matter how good it >might be). In an ideal world, the physical characteristics would actually be >measured at the competition site, but I guess its hard to borrow an HPLC from >the lab for the weekend 8-) I have never been involved in a competition (nor would I ever tolerate one) in which beers were excluded from judging. This just doesn't happen. As far as I know, there are only two reasons for recipe forms: 1. publication of winning recipes, as in the case of the AHA Nationals, and 2. to try to prevent ringers, i.e. if an entry appears to have been a re-packaged commercial beer, the competition organizers could check to see if perhaps the recipe proves that the beer should be disqualified -- an expert brewer can tell if a recipe and a beer really could match or not. This is not an easy task and I've yet to see anyone attempt it at a competition. *********************** Chris writes: >enough . . . oh never mind. Suffice to say I'm one homebrewer who >has yet to be convinced that mashing-out is necessary. In fact, I >think that mash-outs are an unnecessary step. > >Oh sure, I here the sniveling arguments of the imprisoned. They >usually fall into one of two categories: "You have to stop enzyme >activity" -or- "it allows you to obtain consistent results". > >Oh PUH-leez. If you skip mash-out, how much extra starch >conversion actually takes place while you sparge? Is it >noticeable? And if this additional conversion IS noticeable then >wouldn't you welcome the extra extract? Consistent results? Huh? >Just how does mashing-out produce consistent results. There, now that Chris and Dom's vapors have dissipated, we can get on with the mash at hand. Chris mentioned one of the benefits of mashout (the debated one), but failed to mention the one on which most of us agree, namely mashing out raises the temperature of the mash much quicker than simply pouring sparge water and therefore more quickly decreases the viscosity of the runnings. Runnier runnings mean faster sparging (without a loss of extract efficiency), less chance of a set mash (stuck runoff) and more efficient extraction of sugars. Remember, warm honey pours easier than cold honey. ********************************* Jack writes: It is my contention that the bogyman is in the mash/lauter tun and not the grain mill. Fortunately, I also sell the mash/lauter tun that makes all this possible. I think you mean boogyman, but in any event, I must agree that the crush and the lautering system are interrelated. If you have a very fine lautering screen (like the [Ee]asy[Mm]asher), a finer grist is better, whereas if you have a coarse lautering screen (like the Zapap) you need something more like the "textbook" crush. The "textbook" crush (which has been posted here before) has a wide distribution of particle sizes. Actually, I feel that only the husk pieces need to be of various size, that the starch particles of the grain can be of a consistent (and small) size. Remember that with a fine lautering screen, you don't really need to rely on the husks to create your filter bed. With a coarse lautering screen, the filter bed must first be established (before which you would be recirculating your runnings). The establishment of the filter bed is basically the setting up of a network of husk particles where the large ones (the ones that do not fit through the lautering screen) are at the bottom, and on top of this lattice of large husks you trap the smaller husks. So why then not use a very small screen and crush the dickens out of the malt? There's one piece of information that is missing, namely that Jack uses a very thin mash. This is important because a stiff (thick) mash would just sit there and not make it through the lautering screen. You can carry porridge in a sieve, right? So why not just use a thin mash all the time? Well, this is up for debate. In some cases, it's not possible due to equipment constraints (high-gravity beers, etc.). I've read (in Noonan, I believe) that a stiffer mash favors Beta over Alpha Amylase (could someone check this -- I might have it backwards). Finally, a fine lautering screen would increase the importance of breaking down the really gummy components of some mashes (like all the beta-glucans in an Oatmeal Stout, for example). If you don't do the protein rest correctly, you can try to make a really thin oatmeal-containing mash, but still have a glob of barley-flavored oatmeal with some amber water on top, that will sit in your lauter tun till it turns to cement. ********************* Mike writes: > o nobody really knows how to make a lambic outside of Brussels. Woah Mike, surely you mean outside the Zenne Valley! Frank Boon brews some very traditional lambieks in the town of Lembeek. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 11:08:49 PST From: "Taylor Standlee" <standlee at humanitas.ucsb.edu> Subject: Fermentables/volume, what is reasonable? Can anyone give me some advice concerning brewing from high gravity worts. I prefer like to brew full bodied brew and have been brewing extract/small scale mash beer. If I were to brew using 8 lbs of Light Syrup and a mash of 3 lbs of Pale Malt, 1/2 lb of Dextrine Malt, 1 lb of Amber Crystal Malt and 1 lb of Dark Crystal Malt, fermented with Wyeast's Chico/California Ale Yeast for 5 gallons would I run into problems with off-flavors from too much fermentable sugar or "other problems". What are the some good parameters for brewing 5 gallon batches in terms of the amount of fermentables for use with Ale yeasts? Please reply by e-mail to me directly or via HBD. THANKS ********************************************************************** Taylor Standlee standlee at humanitas.ucsb.edu Department of Germanic & Slavic Languages & Literatures Phone: (805)-893-2131 FAX: (805)-893-2374 ********************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: 8 Oct 93 14:16:04-0400 From: MATTHEW.BOHNE at sprint.sprint.com Subject: STRAINING YOUR BREW I have one of those handy brew kits you get for Christmas with the 6 gal. carboy. I realized after my 1st batch that I was getting a lot of haze in my beer so I thought I might strain it prior to bottling. What I came up with has been REALLY NICE! I used one of those reusable GOLD plated coffee filters (you can get them at any fancy coffee shop). I setup my 2nd carboy underneath the 1st and placed the filter inside of a funnel (perfect fit) and drained off the beer from the top, up to the last inch of trub. The filter is coarse enough that the beer gets through but fine enough that it catches all the crud that's still floating about. Since I've gone to this, I have truly had nothing but crystal clear beer! carboy diem Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 13:24 CDT From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: JUDGING >From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965) >Subject: AHA Styles and Reality >Part of my reason for asking is that I might like to enter competitions myself, and I may also be interested in the AHA BJCP. But observations like this make me wonder whether it would be worthwhile. Your comments provide the incentive to post my observations on the same subject. Last weekend, my wife and I had the pleasure of serving as apprentice judges in a local competition. I went with an attitude inclined toward becoming a qualified judge and wanted to learn what it was all about. We came home totally convinced that it is not our cup of tea for two reasons. First of all, it demands a great deal of time, is a lot of work, most of which is very boring and unenlightening. We did however, gain a very healthy sense of gratitude for those dedicated individuals who are far less selfish of their time and make competitions possible. The real objection however, is based on the program and not the people or the results of the judging. It is preposterous to think that one can become a qualified judge of the very large number of official styles, with the time and qualifications required by the current program. It is designed to create Jacks of all Trades and Masters of none. The only way one should be qualified to act as a judge of other people's beers is if he or she is truly an expert in the style. The only way one can become an expert in a style is to live with it for a significant period of time. Brew it, taste a wide range of commercial and homebrew versions and essentially do nothing else for months. At that point, the candidate should be evaluated by another qualified expert in that style and this should include the ability to identify a recognized sample of that style in a blind tasting of mixed/similar styles. Only then should that person be certified to judge that style and only that style. This may sound like a lot of trouble and hassle but I humbly suggest that it would be much more personally satisfying. I would far rather be recognized as an expert in a style than have the dubious honor of being a certified judge. I suspect many judges have done what I suggested but one never knows who they are because they are all treated equally. It may also create problems with judging styles for which no qualified judge happens to be present but the fallback position would be noting that point on the score sheet. Like I said earlier, it's not the people or the results that bother me. Our light lager came in 2nd place and 4th best of show. The problem is I don't know what it means. Last year we came in first, in the same catagory with a much inferior beer. >From: akcs.chrisc at vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli) >Oh PUH-leez. If you skip mash-out, how much extra starch conversion actually takes place while you sparge? Is it noticeable? And if this additional conversion IS noticeable then wouldn't you welcome the extra extract? Consistent results? Huh? Just how does mashing-out produce consistent results. I agree that the reasons you quoted are not very rationial reasons for doing a mashout but there is one reason that I think is a good one. By raising the whole mash 20 degrees or so, you stand a far better chance of keeping it in the optimum range during the lautering process. It's easy enough to do for those who kettle mash but it is probably not worth the trouble for the bucket infusers. js Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 11:35:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com> Subject: BOQAT, farting, stoned, fashion, mash out, and farkleberries. In HBD 1243 Chris Campanelli wrote: > I hereby nominate Mr. Domenick Venezia to be considered for > acceptance into the Brotherhood Of Question Authority Types. It's > heartening to see someone question The Word. I of course would welcome acceptance into the esteemed BOQAT, but really, I feel the nomination is honor enough. And I would like to state here, while I have your attention and the pulpit, that although I have worked hard though the years questioning what little authority I did not ignore, I am at heart just a little person, a regular guy, who has no wish to become a cultural icon and no wish to find the Emperor and/or his/her minions on my doorstep late some rainy night in Seattle. Also, my father is "Mr." Domenick Venezia, I'm just Domenick, Dom, Demonick, or Wop-man. > Go ahead and throw stones. Me and Dom think the Emperor's new > clothes suck. We're standing-up and farting in the general > direction of homebrewing dogma. Well, at least I am. Dom? In all modesty I must admit to being an accomplished stone thrower myself, and in my time have let rip with a world-class fart or two, though not in mixed company, and certainly, as far as I could control it, not in anyone's general direction, and never, never, never into the wind. My fashion sense, much to my parent's chagrin, leans toward the jeans and a tee-shirt look (kinda Joe Coolish B-), so I wouldn't feign to comment on the Emperor's new clothes except to say that s/he seems to like them and a lot of people follow her/his lead. Really, I just want to brew a Fuller's ESB clone, the easiest way possible and if that means no mash out, then by god, that's what I'll do. Or rather not do. Mash out I mean. Not do one. And a heartfelt thanks to Chris Campanelli (Happy Columbus Day, Paisano) for the nomination, and without whom none of this would have been possible. And finally, while looking up "feign" I came across -- well, anyone have a recipe for farkleberry beer? Should I apologize about the bandwidth? Domenick Venezia B-> ZymoGenetics, Inc. venezia at zgi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 14:19:11 CDT From: jay marshall <marshall at pat.mdc.com> Subject: Re: Hop substitutions Domenick Venezia writes: >I'm still trying to perfect that Fuller's clone and I am looking for a good >substitution for British Northdown hops. I've used Cluster in the past >but I'm underwelmed by the flavor contribution of Cluster. > >How about Styrian Goldings, or Pride of Ringwood? Both of which are >available locally (Seattle). Kent Goldings? Fuggles/Willamette? > >How about substitutions for Challenger and Target too? One of my local brewing supply places, DeFalco's Home Wine and Beer Supply in Houston, has (or at least used to have) a "British Blend" which is made of... you guessed it! Northdown, Target, and Challenger! Pellets only, though. Their phone number is (713) 523-8154. They do mail order (with minimums, I believe), and they may have an 800 # now. - -- Jay marshall at pat.mdc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 14:28:04 CDT From: jay marshall <marshall at pat.mdc.com> Subject: Re: cheap carboys Domenick Venezia writes: (referring to St Pat's 7 gallon carboys) >The only thing "wrong" with these carboys is that you can't use >those nifty orange carboy cap things with the two tubes. I've got one, and the other thing that gives me problems sometimes is the fact that it is much bigger around than a 5 gallon carboy. This means that I can't leave a keg in my fridge while the 7 gal carboy is in there. A buddy of mine has a 6.5 gallon carboy that is taller than a 5 gallon, but about the same diameter. That would work much better for me at times. - -- Jay marshall at pat.mdc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1993 14:43:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Boor <PBOOR at BEACH.UTMB.EDU> Subject: smash the mash balderdash Hoorah for Domenick Venezia and Chris Campanelli (is this an Italian thing?)!! I agree the Emperor's butt is showing; we have acessible now such nice grains that anyone can go to Kmart, buy themselves a cooler (mein GOTT!) and mash. And they can omit about 24 of the 28 steps proposed by the Emperor's. The point to get across to extract brewers is that it's really pretty easy; sure it's magical (rather than scientific, which it ain't), but that don't make it difficult. Paul Boor Charter Member, EasyMasher Society Return to table of contents
Date: 8 Oct 1993 12:56:46 U From: "Palmer.John" <palmer#d#john at ssdgwy.mdc.com> Subject: Science and Hops Utilization 1/2 I realize this is a lot of post, but its only 1 day. Can't be that much of a problem. Use of Design-of-Experiments Techniques to Determine Controlling Factors Affecting Hops Utilization and Resulting Charactor. - ----------- Fellow Brewing Scientists: The recent discussions concerning which factors are most significant to the final Hop Charactor of the beer and how they can be manipulated by the homebrewer has brought to mind a company sponsered class I took recently, "Design of Experiments" (DOE). The methods taught in this class are used by industry and researchers to better define a process, by isolating and ranking the controlling factors that make up the process. These methods can also identify significant interactions between factors, such as Time and Temperature acceleration. The beauty of using DOE is that it allows significance and relationships of process factors to be determined with far fewer experiments than standard experimentation and scientific method. For example, let's say a process was made up of 4 variables and 2 values of each variable were to be tested. This would require 2 to-the 4th power or 16 experiments to examine each possibility. Using DOE, as many as 7 variables at two values could be examined simultaneously with only 8 experiments! Statistics allows the significance and relationships of the variables to be determined. What I propose to do here is list the methods and tables necessary to perform 3 sets of DOE: 1. Determine factors for Alpha Acid Utilization during the Boil. 2. Determine factors that affect Alpha Acids during Fermentation. 3. Determine factors for Hop Oil Utilization during Dry Hopping in the Secondary. The data measured from these experiments would be the parts per million (ppm) of the Alpha Acids or Hop Oils as determined by Liquid/Gas Chromatography. Since this equipment is not readily available, this work would need to be carried out at a University with the participation of an enthusiastic Homebrew club. Perhaps Michael Lewis' class(es) at UC Davis would be interested. DOE #1 - Utilization Factors During the Boil - ----------------------------------------------- Factors to be evaluated: A. Wort Gravity B. Wort Volume C. Time of Boil D. Wort pH E. % Alpha Acids of Hop F. Amount of Hop G. Interaction of Wort Gravity to Wort Volume Two values would be tested for each of these factors. The test table will look like this (below) where Experiment Number is on the left, and Factors are across the top. The plus 1, minus 1 indicate which value (high or low) for that factor will be used in that test. The table is rigid, interchange anything and it will throw the statistical analysis off. The Factor Columns are identified by the letters given to the Factors listed aboue. A B G C E F D - ------------------------------------- 1) -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 2) -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 3) -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 4) -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 5) 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 6) 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 7) 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 8) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Part I- Process Mean Each test batch will be concocted by using a high or low level of the factor as the table dictates. Once the data (Alpha Acid ppm) is collected for each test, the data is averaged in the following manner: 1. Each Test that used the (low) value of Factor (A) would be averaged together to yield (Aavg(-1)). In this case, the data for Tests 1-4 would be used. Likewise, each Test that used the (high) value of factor (A) would be averaged to yield (Aavg(+1)). This would be tests 5-8. The other Factors would be averaged the same way. Ex. (Cavg(+1)) would be tests 2, 4, 6 and 8. 2. If two (or more) samples are tested from each batch, all of that data would be accounted for in the average. Ex. If three samples are analyzed from each Test Run (batch), then those values for Test run (7) would be averaged, i.e. ((7a + 7b + 7c) / 3) and that average would be used to determine the overall average for that factor(value), as described in Step 1. 3. Also, determine the Total data average for all the test runs. EVERYTHINGavg This will be used in the prediction equation later. 4. Next, for each factor, determine the DELTA between the averages of the High value and the Low value. Ex. (Aavg(+1)) - (Aavg(-1)) = Adelta. Include the negative sign if High minus Low gives a negative number. Calculate deltas for the other Factors, also. This info would be used later in the Prediction Equation in Part III. 5. OPTIONAL STEP: Divide those deltas by two. This permits easier analysis if the numbers are large, that's all. It doesn't change the analysis results and may not be necessary depending on your numbers. Example: run A B C M1 M2 Mavg -------------------------------------------- 1 -1 -1 1 20 30 25 2 1 -1 -1 9 11 10 3 -1 1 -1 26 24 25 4 1 1 1 15 5 10 -------------------------------------------- Mavg(+) 10 17.5 17.5 Mavg(-) 25 17.5 17.5 Delta 15 0 0 Delta/2 7.5 0 0 6. Next, the Averages for each Factor(value) will be plotted as below. This allows the analyst to determine relative significance. I will plot a generic example, since we don't have any real numbers and the last example doesn't use enough factors. I WILL use this plot later to illustrate the analysis. 100 ! #Plot 1# ! ! * ! \ ! * * 50 ! / ! * / ! / *---* / (first rate ! * / plot, eh?) ! * 0 !___________________________________ A- A+ B- B+ C- C+ D- D+ etc... What this tells the analyst is that the data average moved positively for an increase to Factor A; negatively for Factor B; unchanged for Factor C; and very positively for Factor D. Factor C would seem to be insignificant to the process. Return to table of contents
Date: 8 Oct 1993 13:02:17 U From: "Palmer.John" <palmer#d#john at ssdgwy.mdc.com> Subject: Science and Hops Utilization 2/2 Use of Design-of-Experiments Techniques to Determine Controlling Factors Affecting Hops Utilization and Resulting Charactor. - ----------- Part II- Process Variability. The next part of the analysis determines the Factors influence on Variability. The plot above, of course, looks at influence on Mean. To perform the variability analysis, several trials of each experiment run would need to be performed, the data averaged, and a standard deviation for those trials of that run calculated. In this project, the extra data could be obtained by measuring several samples of the same batch of wort, or by preparing a few batches of each test run and testing each. The latter would be more statistically significant. Here is an example data table for 3 factors tested at two values. M# refers to Measurement result. S is standard deviation of M1 and M2 of that run. Remember, the plus 1, minus 1 only indicates whether a high or low value for that factor was tested. run A B C M1 M2 Mavg S - --------------------------------------- 1 -1 -1 1 20 30 25 7.071 2 1 -1 -1 9 11 10 1.414 3 -1 1 -1 26 24 25 1.414 4 1 1 1 15 5 10 7.071 1. For each factor, the natural log of the standard deviation will be used in the following equation. A value will be calculated for each Factor(value) by using each run where that Factor(value) was used. 2. Avg ln(S A(+1)) = [ln (S run2) + ln (S run4)] / 2 = [ln (1.414) + ln (7.071)] / 2 = 1.15 Avg ln(S A(-1)) = [ln (S run1) + ln (S run3)] / 2 = [ln (7.071) + ln (1.414)] / 2 = 1.15 (the simplicity and symmetry of the numbers of this example make this confusing, but bear with me) 3. Do this calculation for the other Factor(values) and generate the following table: where Avg Delta = Avg ln(S A(+1)) - Avg ln(S A(-1)) A B C - -------------------------------- Avg (+) 1.15 1.15 1.95 Avg (-) 1.15 1.15 .35 - -------------------------------- Avg Delta 0 0 1.6 4. These results tell the analyst that Factors A and B have no effect on process variability, but that Factor C does have a significant effect. In other cases, Avg Delta for A and B may have been small- 0.2 and 0.6, let's say. Factor C would still be dominant at 1.6, but Factor B may also be significant to the process variability at 0.6. 5. IMPORTANT: If a factor's Mean analysis shows no significance (as in Factor C of Plot 1, a horizontal line) or small significance, it still may have High significance to process variability. Therefore, when optimizing the process, the value of that factor which gave the least variability should be used. In the case of the table above, (for Factor C) the Avg(-) value should be used, as it is the smaller number (smaller deviation) of the two for that factor. Thus Factor C should be utilized at the lower value in the process. Part III - Prediction Equation. The prediction equation allows you to predict the response of the process from a given combination of factors and values. Only the factors that have been shown to be signicant (either process Mean or Variability) are used. Values for the Factors can be chosen to either Minimize, Maximize or Target the response of the process. Let's say we want to Maximize the response, get the best utilization from the boil. Going back to Part I, chose the values of the factors that gave the highest data average. In this case: A+, B-, D+, etc. Furthermore, let's assume that after doing the analysis per Part II, that Factor C (of the example in Part I) was shown to be significant to process variability and that value for least variability was C+. This would also be used in the following Prediction Equation. (use the hypothetical Mean values of Plot 1: A+ = 40, B+ = 60, C+ = 32, D+ = 60; A- = 20, B- = 80, C- = 29, D- = 10) (Also note that for math example neatness, Factor C (line) is no longer horizontal, but slightly positive.) Aavg(+) - Aavg(-) Best = EVERYTHINGavg + -----------------[A+/-] + 2 Aavg(+) - Aavg(-) Aavg(+) - Aavg(-) -----------------[B+/-] + -----------------[C+/-] + 2 2 Aavg(+) - Aavg(-) 40 - 20 60 - 80 -----------------[D+/-] = 41.25 + ---------[1] + ---------[-1] 2 2 2 32 - 29 60 - 10 + -----------[1] + ---------[1] = 2 2 = 41.25 + 10[1] + (-10)[-1] + 1.5[1] + 25[1] = 87.75 *DONE* FINAL NOTE: Design of Experiments is rather complicated. What I have presented here is a basic use of the system. In the interest of bandwidth, I will not present the other two experiments for Primary and Secondary Fermentations. What would be done after all three phases of investigation were completed; each phase of Utilization- Boil, Primary and Secondary, would be compared to determine greatest significance to overall hop charactor. Indeed, another DOE could be run at that point to determine that relationship. If any Homebrew Clubs are up to the challenge, you can contact me by email for the rest of the info. Furthermore, I will enlist the help of the guy that actually taught the class, so that all your questions about applying DOE to this much debated problem can be better answered and investigated. Thank you for your patience, John palmer#d#john.ssd-hb_#l#15&22#r# at ssdgwy.mdc.com "I'm an engineer, Captain, I canna help myself..." -Scotty Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 15:22:22 -0500 (CDT) From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570) Subject: calculating beer color In a recent hbd, Tom Leith made a number of points on brewing to style. I want to comment on one aspect of his comments, namely, calculating the color of beer. To wit: the linear math that we use to calculate the "expected" color of beer is wrong. This point is made by George Fix in George and Laurie Fix's "Vienna" book. As an example, Fix points out that Bass Ale is 10 Lovibond and Michelob Dark is 17 Lovibond. Thus, these two beers serve as benchmarks for evaluating the color range from amber to dark copper, say. Suppose we look at a Vienna grain bill for a 5-gallon batch and its expected color: 9 pounds pilsner malt (1.78 L) 3.29 6 ounces crystal 10L 0.75 6 ounces crystal 60L 4.5 6 ounces crystal 120L 9 Total = 17.54L as the expected color. Now, as a matter of fact, the above grain bill will produce a beer close to Bass Ale in color. The linear color math is wrong, and overstates the expected color of the beer. For light beers, linear color math is a useful approximation; for dark beers, it's more or less irrelevant; and for amber beers, it's wrong enough to matter. As for the grain bill of brown ales, surely crystal malt should be featured for its color and flavor contributions. Some chocolate malt, up to a level of a few ounces, would probably be okay. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1244, 10/11/93