HOMEBREW Digest #1288 Fri 03 December 1993

Digest #1287 Digest #1289

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Corsendonk Monks Ale ? (John Pedlow)
  Re: Durden Park Beer Club - address (Geoff Cooper)
  mead questions (Jim Sims)
  Wort Processor Krush-Off:  Part II (STROUD)
  Barleywine, temp fluctuation ("Steven W. Smith")
  highly hopped beers (Spencer.W.Thomas)
  Budweiser/Budvar (Paul Beard)
  60F ferments and Kirschenbeir question (Keith MacNeal  02-Dec-1993 1103)
  Re: scrupmy (Brian Bliss)
  John (lotsa)Bull (Carl Howes)
  BRF IBU algorithm (chris campanelli)
  Red Star Ale Yeast ("Palmer.John")
  Re: hop utilization (c-amb)
  Kegging procedures (Food Processor with Ears)
  Hop Utilization (Mark Garetz)
  Sake Supplies (Mark Stickler Internet Mail Name)
  Pete's recipe and miscelaneous (Ulick Stafford)
  James Questions, Copper, First Time Info ("Palmer.John")
  fosel oils & hangovers (Greg Heiler)
  Beer sources in Minneapolis (Mark A Fryling)
  Re: Used Kegs? (Dion Hollenbeck)
  Homebrew Digest #1287 (December 02, 1993 (LLDSC)
  ice-beer info (RONALD DWELLE)
  Homebrew Digest #1284 (No (Bret Lanius)
  RE: Questions from COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu> on filtering (Dick Dunn)

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: Thu, 02 Dec 93 04:52:32 EST From: John Pedlow <TKSJOHN at UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> Subject: Corsendonk Monks Ale ? The local supermarket stocks a few imported brews. Normally these go for from $1 to $2 per approx 12 oz bottle. Corsendonk Monks Ale is currently being offered in "a hand painted gift bottle imported from Belgium". The cost is $44.88 for a 100 oz bottle with a "save 4.00" appended. Anyone enjoyed Corsendonk Monks Ale and can share why it is so expensive? Can "they" make money stocking a brew this expensive? What is its shelf life? And, of course, what does it taste like? Thank you. John Pedlow in Buffalo, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 12:02:15 +0000 From: G.A.Cooper at qmw.ac.uk (Geoff Cooper) Subject: Re: Durden Park Beer Club - address Andy Phillips writes: >I have an address for Dr. J. Harrison of the Durden Park Beer Club, >publishers of the booklet "Old British Beers and How to Make Them". >When I bought it (1992) the cost was 3 pounds sterling plus >postage. It would be sensible to allow for inflation and >for the higher cost of overseas postage, although the book is quite small >(40? pages softback). The retail price still remains at 3 pounds with discounts for larger orders. It is quite small, 56 pages softback, and contains 60 recipes. Since the recent articles, interest has been shown in it being stocked by more suppliers in the US - watch this space. Oh, and yes, John doesn't mind his address being published. If you wish to write to him, about the book or anything else, Andy has it correct: >Dr. John Harrison >5 Dorney Reach Road >Maidenhead >Berks >SL6 0DX >England Geoff (No disclaimer: Being a member of Durden Park I have a vested interest in the book) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 09:28:32 EST From: sims at pdesds1.scra.org (Jim Sims) Subject: mead questions I've got a coupla mead and fruit mead batches under my belt. I've been kegging my homebrew for about 6 months now, and am wondering about kegging future batches of mead. Is there any reason that I *shouldnt* keg my mead insterad of bottling? What about using stainless vessels for primary or secondary fermentation also, since they take up a fermenter for a coupla months? First hand experience, no urban legends, please. Also, is there a Mead mailing list similar to HBD? thanks, jim Return to table of contents
Date: 02 Dec 1993 10:02:02 -0500 (EST) From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com Subject: Wort Processor Krush-Off: Part II As a followup to the Worts successful Klub Krush-Off in September, the club held a second Krush-Off at the November meeting. Several Worts had recently received 'improved' grain mills and we wanted to see for ourselves how good the new mills really were. Bob Gorman brought an 'improved' Glatt mill in which the rollers had been redesigned with a fine knurled covering as opposed to the long grooves in previous models. And Dan Listerman sent the club an improved PhilMill for testing. The knurl was much coarser than in the previous model. The malt used for this Krush-off was again pale 2-row. Each mill was adjusted for crush quality, then 2 lbs. of malt were run through in a time trial. Results and comments are shown below: The Time Trials: 1) The Knurly GlattMill - Powered by a normal household drill, this mill crushed the malt in an impressive 26 sec., nearly as fast as the Schmidling MaltMill (21 sec) in our original Krush-Off. 2) The original GlattMill - Also powered by a normal household drill, this mill took 1 min. 6 sec. to crush the same amount of grain. [Note: this mill took 45 sec to crush the same amount of grain in the first Krush-Off. Obviously there can be substantial variations in the crush-time depending on how the mills are adjusted and the speed of cranking] 3) The New-Improved Listerman PhilMill - When powered by the normal household drill, this mill refused to budge. Even when the adjustment screw was backed off slightly, the operator was afraid to continue, citing fear of drill burnout. Not to be dissuaded, however, Tim Dalton dragged out a monster industrial 5 amp drill. It didn't hesitate when attached to the mill and crushed the malt in 38 sec. General Comments: The Knurly Glatt was much faster then the Slotted Glatt and also threw a bit less grain behind the mill then the Slotted one. But this is still a design bug and can be easily fixed by extending the drop shoot up higher to cover the back of the rollers. The Slotted Glatt gave a very nice crush as we had previously observed, but most of the husks were still cut in half width-wise. I assume this was due to the large slot size. The Knurly Glatt also gave a very nice crush, but the adjustment was slightly off, so although the kernels were cracked many of the husks still held together. However a little tweak between the fingers caused them to fall apart nicely. But this did give the appearance of un-crushed kernels and the question was raised as to whether they would open up in the mash or not. We did a follow up crush on the Knurly Glatt with the rollers a couple of notches tighter. At this point the Knurly Glatt produced a bit more powder then the Slotted Glatt, although still well within acceptable ranges. The New-Improved Listerman Mill required a lot more torque to crank then the Glatt Mills. It should be noted that the drill used to turn the Glatt mills was very beat and it took a few seconds to get up to full speed when using the Glatts which are extremely easy to turn. However, even if the drill had been in perfect shape it would still have had a very hard time turning the Listerman Mill. The bigger drill was definitely needed and was a whole lot more fun to use. Of course, manual operation of the mill is always an option! The crush of the Listerman was good. However the adjustment of the rollers was a little on the tight side, so the crush came out a bit more powdery. It's too bad the operators didn't adjust this mill better because we would have liked to have seen how much powder and husk demolition the New-Improved Listerman Mill would have produced if properly adjusted. Nevertheless the crush was still acceptable. As a followup it would be interesting to see a qualitative analysis of the different mills run at different speeds. It is possible that the slotted roller design might do much better at a slower speed. Some personal comments: The 'improved' mills do appear to be real improvements over the models tested in the first Krush-Off. Taking workmanship, ease of use , and quality of crush into account, I would personally rate the new Glatt mill and the Schmidling MaltMill about equally. The MaltMill has faster throughput due to its longer rollers and this could be important if you crush large amounts of grain. I also think that the MaltMill is a more 'mature' mill. By that, I mean that JS has been constantly making small improvements to the MaltMill over the last few years. Even though the Glatt delivers an excellent crush and is easy to use, there are a few spots where improvements would make it an even better product (like raising the height of the back cover plate, redesigning the handle attachment, and downsizing the cover box that partially obscures one of the adjustment screws). Personally I don't think that most homebrewers would go wrong with either one of these two mills. Although the new Listerman PhilMill gives a nice crush and is certainly adequate for most homebrewing, I personally am bothered by its lack of bearings, given its price, and its means of attachment to a table via screwhooks is kludgey. For the money, the Glatt (~$80) appears to be the big winner, especially given its adjustable rollers. The comparable adjustable MaltMill retails for ~$129, although the non-adjustable model is only ~$99. The Listerman retails for ~$75. BTW, I am a satisfied MaltMill customer and have no commercial interest in any of the above products. Steve Stroud Return to table of contents
Date: 02 Dec 1993 08:32:50 -0700 (MST) From: "Steven W. Smith" <SMITH_S at gc.maricopa.edu> Subject: Barleywine, temp fluctuation Got a couple of burning questions for the oracle (Jack Oracle, yeah, that's him). First, what's the difference between beer and barleywine? Is it the yeast used, alcohol content, carbonation, whim of the brewer? If it's alcohol content, when does doppelbock cross the line and become barleywine? Are there any commercial barleywines? Second: someone recently asked if temperature fluctuations would adversely affect a lager. Well? (tap tap tap)... I've had five gallons of doppelbock in my fridge for 2 months and it's still happily fermenting. It finally slowed down a bit; 1 bubble every 18 seconds or so. 3 weeks ago I racked it again and had a taste (ok, a big lager glass). It's still noticeably sweet, and I'm running _low_ on homebrew. If it won't horribly desecrate my first actual lager, I'd like to bring it up to room temperature (about 74F) for a few days to accelerate fermentation. It would also be kinda handy to have the veggie drawers and more than 1 shelf again after all this time. The experience has taught me to shop carefully and stack creatively; also that I'm not as patient as I thought I'd be. TIA _,_/| \o.O; Steven W. Smith, Programmer/Analyst =(___)= Glendale Community College, Glendale Az. USA U SMITH_S at GC.BITNET smith_s at gc.maricopa.edu "Hark! 'tis the pathetic mewling of users." Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 10:58:53 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: highly hopped beers We tasted a bottle of Alimony Ale last night -- Bill Owen's "Bitterest Beer in America". Well, it ain't. It's not a bad beer, but the SN Celebration Ale and the homebrew raspberry stout we tasted before it were definitely more bitter. ObHB: Raspberry Stout (from Hal Buttermore) 2 cans MtMellick Stout 1 lb crystal malt 1 oz galena 2 oz N Brewer 10 lbs Raspberries ("picked by virgins" :-) Do the obvious thing. (This is a reduced volume boil recipe. If you want to do a full-volume boil, cut the hops, maybe in half.) Raspberries added to primary. Probably not sanitized in any way. I think the original was fermented with Doric dry yeast. Very tasty, beautiful red-brown head, almost opaque, but lovely red color when shining a flashlight through about 1/4inch of it. Raspberries jump into your nose, and follow through in the flavor. At this point (brewed summer 1992) it's balanced towards the tart side, but there's still sufficient sugar to stand up to the hops bitterness & fruit acidity. Yum! =S Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 11:19:15 -0500 From: paul.beard at gatekeeper.mis.tridom.com (Paul Beard) Subject: Budweiser/Budvar Did anyone see the news that Bud, the US megabrewer is looking to= buy a piece of the original Budweiser from Slovakia? They are looking to= buy out their name licensing fee, from the sound of it, as well as get a= chance to distribute their stuff deep in Europe.=20 If only these large companies were as obsessed with quality as they= are with marketshare, like everyone here seems to be=8A Paul Beard AT&T Tridom 840 Franklin Court Marietta, GA 30067 404/514-3672 =46AX 429-5419 tridom!paul.beard/beardp at gatekeeper.tridom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 11:25:40 EST From: Keith MacNeal 02-Dec-1993 1103 <macneal at pate.enet.dec.com> Subject: 60F ferments and Kirschenbeir question In Homebrew Digest #1287 (December 02, 1993) Troy Howard posts: >Rick Magnan asks about an appropriate yeast for fermenting at around 60F. >Try Wyeast 2112 (California Lager). It is quoted as fermenting well up to >62F while keeping its lager characteristics. I have successfully brewed with (gasp!) Whitbread dry yeast at 60F. In the winter months my basement is too cool to brew ales and the first floor goes through wide temperature fluctuations due to a setback thermostat. So, I ferment on the second floor where the bedrooms are and the thermostat is set at a constant 60F. Also in HBD #1287, Steven W. Smith <SMITH_S at gc.maricopa.edu> posted: > Whenever I can find cherrys again, I plan to try adding them to my standard >bock. It seems reasonable (to me) to wash the whole fruit in a mild bleach >solution, rinse, dry, smash (how?), force into a carboy (how?), then siphon >from the primary onto them. I'm thinking about 10 pounds of cherries to a 5 >gallon batch. Maybe freezing/thawing before smashing? Do the pits matter? >Any comments appreciated, I'm flying blind. After reading some suggestions in here and some books, here is what I did for a peach ale using fresh peaches. I washed the fruit under running tap water, pitted it, put it in large Zip-Loc freezer bags, and put them in the freezer. The night before I moved the beer from primary to secondary I took the fruit out of the freezer to thaw. When thawed I simply squished them all up by hand while they were still in the bag. I then poured them from the bag (with the assistance of a sanitized stainless steel spoon) into the secondary and siphoned the beer on top of it. Next time I would use a sanitized funnel made from a gallon plastic milk jug to help with the transfer. As you noticed I didn't sanitize the peaches and I pitted them. Some suggest using camden tablets to sanitize the fruit (I really wouldn't recommend using bleach) a couple of days before adding the fruit to the beer. I counted on the alcohol content and high yeast population in the beer to prevent infection and it worked. I pitted the peaches since the pits are large and I would have had trouble fitting the peaches down the neck of the carboy if I didn't. Personally, I wouldn't pit the cherries -- it would be too much work. Freezing the fruit definitely aided in smashing them up. I've read that freezing ruptures the cell walls and makes the fruit sugars easier for the yeast to get to for fermentation. Speaking of fermentation, you will get a great deal of activity after adding the fruit. Use a 6 gal. carboy with a blowoff tube for a 5 gal. batch with fruit added. Even with this setup I ended with a clogged blowoff due to a peach that didn't get mashed well. Keith MacNeal Digital Equipment Corp. Hudson, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 12:04:24 -0600 From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) Subject: Re: scrupmy rchilder at schwab.com (richard a childers) writes: >"Scrumpy" is a British brew, usually beer ( although it can be cider ) >to which has been added, in addition to the more conventional fermen- >-table materials, some sort of meat. >The concept apparently extends back through antiquity. Naturally, the >question of "why" arose. I've always wanted to make bacon stout, but thought that the oils would kill the head retention. A nice fresh bottle of sam smith's oatmeal stout has a very bacony taste to it, and a little real bacon in the brew might be interesting. bb Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 13:04:21 EST From: sdlsb.dnet!73410%sdlcc at swlvx2.msd.ray.com (Carl Howes) Subject: John (lotsa)Bull jeclark at ucdavis.edu (James Clark) writes: >1) is it okay (or even advisable) to shake up and thus aerate the beer in >the middle of fermentation? > >2) for our next repipe we plan on just improving on the righteous real ale. >i thought a good recipe for 5 gallons would be: > 6.6 lbs John Bull amber malt extract syrup >[snip] > >3) i want to try a batch without using the blowoff method, but i still want >to use a 5 gallon carboy. if i make 4 gallons will the kreusen still reach >the top of the carboy or would i be safe to just put the fermentation lock >on? Taking these in order: 1) In the middle of fermentation there should not be any oxygen to aerate with, and you want to avoid aeration after fermentation begins anyhow. 2) Check the label on that can! The John Bull syrup that I have seen is stretched with corn syrup (can you say ripoff boys and girls?) If you go with 6 lbs of dry extract you will get more fermentables per pound (any syrup also contains water) and your cost may be lower pound for pound (I have found this to be so). 3) It should be fine. I use a 6.5 gallon carboy for 5 gallon batches and just put the airlock on. Carl Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 12:15 CST From: akcs.chrisc at vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli) Subject: BRF IBU algorithm Andy Phillips writes: > I don't know whether BRF is capable of an accurate calculation > in the high SG range - the formula used may not be valid. The BRF's IBU calculation accomodates high gravities. The algorithm is Jackie Rager's. Is it accurate? I think it's fairly accurate. Can the forumla be improved? Probably. Whether you agree or disagree with Rager's algorithm, the fact remains that it's the only formula around. If someone has a better formula, I'm all ears. Having brewed a couple of barleywines and just a few :) Imperial Stouts, I agree that high gravity worts need truckloads of hops just to make the bitterness discernable. Numerically speaking, if you're getting an IBU value as high as 100, dollars to donuts says the bitterness "retardation" value in the algorithm is not adequate. Anyone care to take a stab at updating the algorithm? chris campanelli Return to table of contents
Date: 2 Dec 1993 10:52:13 U From: "Palmer.John" <palmer#d#john at ssdgwy.mdc.com> Subject: Red Star Ale Yeast Dave Lyons wrote: I have experimented (tried) the new red star yeast on two different batches and would like to compare notes with anyone else who has tried it. (His) notes include: Lag time: slow (approx. 1 day). Attenuation: 78% for all malt extract recipes (using 100% M&F light). After taste: Thought it gave the beer a somewhat phenolic flavor, but this faded after 2 months in the bottle. Fermentation: Very strange primary ferment ... a thick (1") head of yeast (I think this is what it was?) remained on top of the beer after the end of the primary ferment. Had to siphon below the yeast cake(?) when racking to the secondary. Never observed this with any other yeast? ---------------------------- I have also used Red Star a few times and I like it. I have had very clean tasting beers using it. My statistics are: Lag time: Good, Within 12 hours, often within 6. (I use a Starter) Attenuation: 70-ish%, haven't really been concerned with it. Primary Ferment: Big Krausen that does stick around, I rack out from underneath it as standard practice. Primary time is usually one week for the IPAs I've been brewing. John Palmer - MDA-SSD M&P palmer#d#john at ssdgwy.mdc.com "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Home Brewing, Women**, and the Pursuit of Science." * intended at this time to be nonspecific; ** personal preference. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 12:04:52 -0700 From: c-amb at csc-sun.math.utah.edu Subject: Re: hop utilization I brew from malt extract, boiling only about half the wort and then adding it (after chilling in a water bath) to cold water in the carboy. I know that one of the problems with this approach is that hop utilization is less than optimal due to the high gravity of the boil. I believe that the high gravity is only one factor limiting hop utilization. The simple fact that you are boiling the hops in less than 5 gal of H20 is the main problem. It seems that as the amount of alpha acids in the wort increases it reduces the gradient between the hops and the wort. Thus, extraction slows down. Now to mentally check this idea at the limit points think about boiling your hops in one or two cups of water. I imagine that quite quickly you would reach a maximum bitterness at which you leave quite a lot of alpha acids in the hops themselves. This hypothesis would be easily testable by simply boiling a few ounces of hops in 1 gal of water and diluting this to 5 gal. and comparing this to the same amount of hops boiled in 5 gal. I imaging that there would be an appreciable difference. It occurs to me that there may be a simple solution to this problem: boil the hops in plain water for an hour, and then just add the extract and boil for another 15 minutes to sterilize it. This should maximize hop utilization without compromising sanitation. As stated above, I don't think that this eliminates the problem of reduced efficiency. My $.02 Mark Alston Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 14:22:34 EST From: howitt at sens.com (Food Processor with Ears) Subject: Kegging procedures I have just got myself set up with a Cornelius keg and CO2 cylinder. I am told that kegged beer should be pressurized with the cylinder rather than primed and allowed to pressurize itself (as in bottling), but I don't know any particulars, such as what pressure is advisable, how long to let it sit, does it need to mature in the keg, etc. Does anyone have advice, or is there an FAQ with this information? thanks and cheers, Wil Howitt Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 12:12:19 PST From: Mark Garetz <mgaretz at hoptech.com> Subject: Hop Utilization Allan Rubinoff writes: >>I brew from malt extract, boiling only about half the wort and then adding it (after chilling in a water bath) to cold water in the carboy. I know that one of the problems with this approach is that hop utilization is less than optimal due to the high gravity of the boil. The gravity of the boil is not the culprit. It is the reduced boil volume. (I don't want to start another flame fest here. Let's be very clear: In no way am I saying that as beers get higher in gravity, the utilization doesn't suffer. It does, and this is well documented. *BUT* it is an effect produced by fermentation, not the gravity of the boil. Allan is diluting his wort back to a lower gravity before fermentation begins.) >>It occurs to me that there may be a simple solution to this problem: boil the hops in plain water for an hour, and then just add the extract and boil for another 15 minutes to sterilize it. This should maximize hop utilization without compromising sanitation. This will work, but again we have the same problem of lower boil volume. You will get higher extraction rates for two reasons: None of the bittering compounds will be lost on the break (around 7-10%) and the pH of the plain water should be higher than that of wort. A higher pH will improve the isomerization reaction. (Before you all try to boost the pH of worts to get better extraction, be forewarned that this has been tried many times throughout history - it results in awful beer!) Whether the pH of the water will also have this effect, I dunno. I suspect not, since it's not all that higher than wort. Now, what *will* work is to divide the hops 50/50 between the two boils. This will maximize the extractions from both. (This is assuming equal boil volumes, otherwise divide the hops proportionately to the volume). The other advantage to this is that you *should* have some hops in your wort boil to help promote good breaks. >>This seems like such a simple (and obvious) solution, that I wonder why I've never seen it mentioned anywhere. Does anybody know of any reason not to do this? Probably because it's really a *lot* simpler to just put in extra hops to compensate. All the extra boiling and time isn't worth it (IMHO) to save a very small amount of money on the extra hops. Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 15:30:16 EST From: Mark Stickler Internet Mail Name <mstickle at lvh.com> Subject: Sake Supplies I know Sake is not really beer but will keep bandwidth to a minimum. I read Fred Eckhert's book (about six months ago) and now I'm interested in getting some of the supplies from a retail homebrew supply store. I'm most interested in the yeast and starter rice (kioji I think) but also polished rice, etc. Please respond via private email. TIA. Also thanks to the people who gave me advice on my acidic water problem. Mark Stickler mstickler at lvh.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 14:34:39 EST From: ulick at michaelangelo.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) Subject: Pete's recipe and miscelaneous I would like to emulate Pete's Wicked Ale. I plan a batch of 8lb brewers malt, 1lb crystal, 1/2 lB clocolate and 2oz. blackpatent, hopped with 11 AAU high alpha (Nugget) bittering, and finished and dry hopped with Cascade. I plan to use German Ale yeast. Comments? Suggestions? In hbd 1287 Chris Lyons worries that flaked barley adds nothing to an extract recipe. He is probably right - certainly no starch could be converted, and haze may even form, but perhaps some proteins would be extracted that would add to head retention. David Turner worries about TSP in his septic tank. The reason TSP and other phosphates are considered pollutants (so much so that their use in laundery detergents is outlawed in many states, even including Indiana) is because they are nutrients and help bacteria and algae grow much better in surafce waters thus depriving fish of oxygen by night. This is probably what you want in your septic system, so moderate use should not be a problem. Worry more about the chlorine. Bill Kitch wants to know where George Fix' famous Michelob dark figure is. I have seen it in many place inclusding recently in a Zymurgy. I am sure it is in Fix' Vienna book, but he can comment on that. However, if you have access to a spectrophotometer you could use the ASBC method. Simply, measure the absorbance of a clear (not turbid) sample of beer at 430 nm, convert this absorbance to absorbance by 1/2" (i.e. if you measure in a 1cm cuvette multipy the figure by 1.27), and multiply by 10. For dark beer you may need to dilute or use a smaller cuvette e.g. I meased a brown ale of mine with a mere 1/4 lb of black patent in a 2mm cuvette and got an ABSC reading of 40 - black stuff that. If you prefer to use the EBC scale, it is based on absorbance at 530 nm, but I know no more details about it. Anyone care to fill in the gap? __________________________________________________________________________ 'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s at &* ... | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng. Pabst Blue Ribbon!' | Notre Dame IN 46556 | ulick at darwin.cc.nd.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 2 Dec 1993 12:15:46 U From: "Palmer.John" <palmer#d#john at ssdgwy.mdc.com> Subject: James Questions, Copper, First Time Info Hello Group, Several Items in #1287 caught my eye, I thought I would do a compiled post. First, some James Questions. :) >1) is it okay (or even advisable) to shake up and thus aerate the beer in >the middle of fermentation? No. Just leave it alone. 1) you are just aerating with CO2, 2) The yeast are probably done respirating. >2) for our next repipe we plan on just improving on the righteous real ale. >i thought a good recipe for 5 gallons would be: 6.6 lbs John Bull amber malt extract syrup 3/4 lb. cracked crystal malt 2 oz. cascade hop leaves (boiling) 1 oz. willamette hop leaves (aroma) 1/2 oz. willamette hop leaves (finishing) 2 pkgs. (10 oz.) Windsor dry English ale yeast 3/4 cup corn sugar (bottling) That's quite a bit of Hops (don't say Hop Leaves, we'll know you are a Newbie) Are you sure you want that much? Assuming boil times of 60, 15, and 5. And a starting gravity of 1.05, but only boiling half, I get a total IBU of 30. Which is not bad, really. I would not recommend the Cascade Hops for the Boil, though. I like it for the finish, but it is too herbaly for the body, IMHO. Use the Liberty for Boil and Liberty/Cascade for the finish. Hey, whatever you want. 2 packages of dry Yeast is too much, especially if... >3) i want to try a batch without using the blowoff method, but i still want >to use a 5 gallon carboy. if i make 4 gallons will the kreusen still reach >the top of the carboy or would i be safe to just put the fermentation lock >on? If you don't want to use a blowoff, two packages is WAY too much. Use one package and a starter if you want a good fermentation. Even 4 gallons will probably reach the top with a vigorous fermentation. I would stick with the blowoff and elevate the outlet hose, so that most of the liquid that get pulled along with the foam will drain back into the carboy. Or use the higher capacity plastic buckets for the primary. ----------------------------- Second, Copper in the boil. >whether or not it would be adviseable to use copper fittings in a >boiler. I've obtained a SS half keg, ala budweiser (legally) and >I want to use a copper double sided male connector through a hole >in the side of the keg. This is the kind used for joining two >flare fittings. One side would connect to 1/2 inch copper tubing >going to a wort chiller, and the other would be slightly inside the >boil. A cut down nut (also copper) would compress two gaskets >(teflon) to provide a seal. Would there be any problems with: >toxicity or taste degradation? Corrosion? Or would it be better >to spring for a SS fitting? No problem with toxicity, I doubt any problems with taste, after all, many breweries use all copper boil kettles. Corrosion of the copper fittings will occur but I don't see this as a significant problem. You will only see your fittings staying clean. Eventually they will need replacement. The alternative is Stainless Steel, but I would weigh your costs. Its your call. ----------------------- Instructions for the First Time Brewer: Over the last couple weeks, I have compiled a basically complete, annotated recipe/list of instructions for the First Time Brewer. It is everything the first timer needs to know to brew a fool-proof extract ale with dry yeast. I discuss Sanitization, Ingredients, Equipment, Boiling and Fermentation Practices, Do's and Don'ts, What that Mold means, and Recommended Reading. If any of you are a first (or second) timer, or have friends about to take the plunge, I will be happy to email you a copy. Its 10 pages of ascii text. I am interested in possibly putting it on the Sierra server when I get some feedback on it. Maybe Patrick Weix can help me here... Email me at palmer#d#john at ssdgwy.mdc.com John Palmer MDA-SSD M&P (sigh) yet another turkey sandwich for lunch... Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 13:26:08 EST From: gheiler at Kodak.COM (Greg Heiler) Subject: fosel oils & hangovers I`am a new brewster with several batches underway. I've been hearing about the primary fermentation blow-off method and its advantages. Does the removal of the fosel oil make a significant difference? I've bought my equipment through Williams Catalogs and they discourage people from using the blow-off method for fear that a clogged tube could cause an excessive pressure built up. I tried to skim at the appropriate time on my last batch but I was uncomfortable with the process (i.e contamination concerns). Looking for comments on whether it makes a noticable difference and if so, techniques that work the best. Thanks in Advance; Greg Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 16:49:44 EST From: Mark A Fryling <mfryling at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Beer sources in Minneapolis Hi gang, This is not specifically a home brewing question, but does anyone out there know of some stores in Minneapolis with large beer selections? I will be there for a couple of days next month on a job interview and I was hoping to see if there were some interesting regional brews not available in Ohio. Please reply directly unless you have something of general interest. Thanx, Mark Fryling <mfryling at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> "Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing whats right." I. Asimov Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 12:41:01 PST From: hollen at megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) Subject: Re: Used Kegs? >>>>> "Norm" == npyle <npyle at n33.stortek.com> writes: Norm> Now that it appears DeFalco's won't ship used soda kegs anymore, Norm> does anyone have a good source that will ship small quantities Norm> at reasonable prices? The Beverage Company P.O. Box 839 Anderson, Ca 96007 (916)347-5475 Ask for Ray $17 each for pin lock $23 each for ball lock Shipping extra (shipped in quantity of 4, added $4 per keg from Sacramento to San Diego, CA) Dion Hollenbeck (619)455-5590x2814 Email: hollen at megatek.com Senior Software Engineer megatek!hollen at uunet.uu.net Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California ucsd!megatek!hollen Return to table of contents
Date: Thursday, 2 December 93 17:15:24 CST From: LLDSC at utxdp.dp.utexas.edu Subject: Homebrew Digest #1287 (December 02, 1993 Re: Cherry in beer I made a batch of cherry stout. I only put 5 pounds of cherries in. The head was tinted red and there was a bit of cherry taste but not much. TNCJOHB reccommends at least 10 pounds. I think that should just about do it. It also says that you should freeze the cherries first and then put them in the wort after the boil. Let that sit for a few minutes to pasturize the cherries and kill the nasties (I'm just quoting from the book here). I did a primary fermentation in a plastic 5 gallon bucket so that I wouldn't have to worry about getting the damn fruit through the hole. Of course, this is only IMHO. :-) (I've never used that Internet-speak before. Check out the newest Time & U.S. News-the Net is everywhere! Keep on rockin' in the free world. Scott lldsc at utxdp.dp.utexas.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 93 23:12:58 EST From: dweller at GVSU.EDU (RONALD DWELLE) Subject: ice-beer info Hi folks-- Just picked the following up off the AP, fyi------- Labatt suing U.S. brewers over ice beer The Associated Press DETROIT -- Canadian brewer John Labatt Ltd. is suing rivals Miller Brewing Co. and Molson Breweries USA in U.S. District Court alleging trademark infringement over ice beer products. Toronto, Ontario-based Labatt says it filed for trademark protection for the ice brewing process and for the resulting product in November 1992. The application is pending. "Competitors will not be permitted without challenge to misappropriate Labatt's rights in this area where Labatt has demonstrated clear leadership and innovation," the company said. In the suit filed Monday in Detroit, Labatt claims that Milwaukee-based Miller and Molson, Breweries USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Miller, are guilty of; unfair trade practices in the procmotion of their ice beer products in the United States. Labatt began exporting ice beer to the United States in October. Miller spokeswoman Susan Henderson called the Labatt lawsuit without merit. She said ice beer was developed in Germany in the 19th Century and was known as "Eisbock." Miller began selling Icehouse last summer. MAYBE I SHOULD TRADEMARK "homebrew," EH? Cheers, Ron Dwelle (dweller at gvsu.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 14:04:00 -0500 From: bret.lanius at ehbbs.com (Bret Lanius) Subject: Homebrew Digest #1284 (No I made a batch of Porter based on TNCJOHB's Sparrow hawk porter. While it turned out VERY well I was of course wanting to tweak it before starting the next batch of the same. Original Recipe: 3.3 lbs Muton Fison Plain Amber Malt 3.3 lbs Muton Fison Plaid Dark Malt 1 lb Crushed Black Patent Malt 1 Oz Northern Brewers Hops 1 oz Tettnang Hops 1 tsp Gyspum 1 Pgk Irish Ale Yeast I found the Black to be a bit much and thought I'd substitute chocolate for half of that, and I plan to dry hop as well. What I'd really like is to sweeten this brew a bit...... Thought maybe Crystal but I don't know if that would do it! Suggestions appreciated..... Bret Lanius INTERNET:bret.lanius at ehbbs.com - --- . JABBER v1.2 #188 . Enlightenment is not a destination, but a journey. - ---- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ed Hopper's BBS - Home of uuPCB - Usenet for PC Board - Atlanta, GA | | Node 1 - USR HST - 404-446-9462 Node 2 - V.32bis - 404-446-9465 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: 3 Dec 93 00:27:41 MST (Fri) From: rcd at raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: RE: Questions from COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu> on filtering Tom Clifton <0002419419 at mcimail.com> writes: > My thoughts on filtering.... Why bother! According to Papazian a bit > of yeast helps add to the stability of the brew... This sounds backwards! (doesn't matter whether Charlie said it or not;-) Conventional wisdom [did JS just twitch?] is that you keep more character by not filtering, but if you're going to keep the beer for a while you're better off filtering it. Be that as it may, what's the reasoning behind yeast adding stability. >...I[f] you have followed the basics of good > wholsome brewing (sanitation) there won't be any bacteria you need to filter > out... If only... No, actually (a) there will be bacteria there regardless of how careful you've been, and (b) it takes serious filtering to get bacteria out. As to point (a), Tom's principle is right, that if you're careful the bacteria population will be much lower than if you're sloppy. But it's still sub- stantial. You can't get rid of them all; most of what care and sanitation gives you is keeping the bacteria at bay long enough that the yeast get the available food in early fermentation...keeping the wolf at bay, as it were. On the other side, for point (b), even if you did filter, would you really want to filter that severely? - --- Dick Dunn rcd at eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA ...Simpler is better. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1288, 12/03/93