HOMEBREW Digest #1664 Wed 22 February 1995

Digest #1663 Digest #1665

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  UNYHA Annual Competition (Kaltenbach)
  Thermometers ("Bob Hall" )
  Tradition Ale Recipe (Doug Mewhort)
  Utilization Research/Biscuit/starter infections (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  HSA ignored at Breckenridge (Art Steinmetz)
  Introducing myself (Will Self)
  Re: Aluminum ("Robert W. Mech")
  Mash thickness/IBUs one *last* time (David Draper)
  Re: Zymomonas (bickham)
  Mashing and a fine grind (Chuck E. Mryglot)
  Testing a yeast starter ("Keith Royster")
  "Cheep" pumps ("Dutcher, Pier")
  RE:Dropping (Jim Busch)
  perfect score/irish moss/beer engine/B-Brite/isinglass/London ESB/banana (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Beer Line Pressure Drop ("MICHAEL L. TEED")
  Mill rollers (Norman Pyle)
  Dry-hopping in primary (David Turner)
  Strange Taste in SA Double Bock (Dale Moore)
  Re: Dual kettle IBU calculation ("Thomas Aylesworth")
  IBU measurements (Dan Pack)
  Dropping Beer and The KGB ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")

****************************************************************** * NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** 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. 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 ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 19:45:21 -0500 From: Kaltenbach at aol.com Subject: UNYHA Annual Competition It's time to get brewing for the UNYHA 17th Annual AHA-sanctioned Competition! It's a great chance to get some credit for brewing great beer or mead! Prizes and high-quality certificates are awarded to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners. Best of show prize is a complete home kegging system! Send in those entries! _______________________________________________________________________ Upstate New York Homebrewers Association 17th Annual Competition and 6th Empire State Open Saturday, April 22, 1994 McGinnity's Restaurant and Party House 534 West Ridge Road Rochester, New York Doors open at 6 PM -- Judging begins at 7 PM Admission: $5.00 Come & join the fun! Enjoy complimentary samples of homebrew! _______________________________________________________________________ 11 HOMEBREW STYLES WILL BE JUDGED: British Ale Light Lager Porter & Stout North American Ale Amber Lager Belgian Brown Ale Dark Lager Specialty Mead Looks Like "Saranac Pale Ale" No entries will be accepted after April 12. Contest entries may be entered at homebrew shops in Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, Ithaca, Binghamton, Albany, and the Hudson Valley -or- they may be shipped. Send email request to address below for more information. Prizes: * Prizes are awarded for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places in all categories * For all categories (except Looks Like): Malt extract or other brewing supplies (honey for Mead category) * For Looks Like "Saranac Pale Ale": Prizes awarded by F.X. Matt's Brewery Prizes For Best of Show: 1st Prize -- Complete home kegging system 2nd Prize -- $50 gift certificate for homebrew supplies from The Wine Press & Hops 3rd Prize -- $25 gift certificate at Rohrbach Brewing Company (All categories except Mead and Looks Like "Saranac Pale Ale" compete for best of show.) *** Contest Sanctioned by the American Homebrewers Association *** For more info about our competition, email me at the address below: ======================================================================== Tom Kaltenbach Member, Upstate New York Homebrewers Assoc. Email: kaltenbach at aol.com Rochester, New York, USA ======================================================================== Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 20:12:38 EST From: "Bob Hall" <bhall at sparc.ecology.uga.edu> Subject: Thermometers >Just broke my third glass thermometer since last September--a standard > grocery-store "candy" cooking thermometer. At $3.95 each, this isn't > the end of the world, but I'm wondering if there's something sturdier > available at a reasonable price. (Note: I also have one of the > bi-metal candy thermometers, but it's too slow & will stick & then go > "dooiing" & jump up 25 degrees, so don't recommend one of those to > me.) I use a photographic developing thermometer. It has a two inch dial and is accurate to 0.5 degree C, and responds more quickly than any thermometer I have seen. Photographers need to be as/more careful about temperature than we brewers. It has two drawbacks: 1. $20 2. It only goes to 70 degrees C, so I use a cheap thermometer to mash out (for which you do not need to be so exact). Bob Hall bhall at sparc.ecology.uga.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 18:50:50 -0700 From: lmewhort at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Doug Mewhort) Subject: Tradition Ale Recipe Well, I'm finally gotten off of my butt and sent in the Big Rock Traditional Ale Recipe that we have been working on. Sorry to all of you that requested it from me that it took so long. Big Rock Traditional Clone Take 4 (Damn we're getting close!!) (All grain) For 10 Gallons Grain Bill 2 Row 17.60 Lbs Cara-Stan 2.00 Lbs Black Patent 0.14 Lbs Hops Weight Alpha Boil Type (Grams) Time Centenial 0.50 10.2% 60 leaf Galenas 0.50 11.0% 60 pellet Centenial 0.50 10.2% 10 leaf Galenas 0.50 11.0% 10 pellet Crush grains and mash in with 19.8 quarts of 170F water for a saccrification rest at 145F. Mash for 20 minutes and add 5.9 quarts of boiling (210 here) water for a dextrine rest at 158F. Mash for 60 additional minutes and sparge with 170F water to make 13 gallons. Boil for 1 hour using the hop schedual above. Chill to 65F and add 1.5 quarts of London Ale ESB yeast starter (3/4 quart to each 6.5 gallon fermenter). Ferment at 62F (the tempertature of my basement) for 1 week and rack to secondary. Bottle or keg when clear. Notes: Version 3 of this beer had 3/4 oz of the centenial and galena hops for the 60 minute addition. It made for an outstanding beer, albeit somewhat hoppier than Trad itself. The maltiness is the critical factor for this beer, the longer dextrine mash and the ESB yeast have been important contributers to the richness of the beer. Good luck to all of you, I hope you enjoy the beer. Doug. Homebrewer, Chef and Weekend Warrior. Return to table of contents
Date: 20 Feb 95 17:57:00 -0600 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: Utilization Research/Biscuit/starter infections I wrote: >What Glenn and Martin Manning are working on is the first scientific study >of the factors associated with hop utilization that is to be shared with >the homebrewing community. I await their results also, especially since >I am one of the project's financial sponsors. I've since learned that work is progressing and that Jim Liddil's name should be added to the list of researchers. Sorry for ommiting you initially Jim... *** Mark writes: >BTW: How is biscuit made? (I hear that some people only use a small >amount of it in their grist, how much). DeWolf-Cosyns Biscuit malt is a toasted malt. It is similar to Briess Victory malt, but it is made from 2-row barley. It differs from DWC Aromatic in that the Aromatic is like a dark Munich malt -- it is malted and then kilned wet at a high temperature. Biscuit, on the other hand, is first kilned at cooler temps, like a Pale Ale malt, but then the temp is raised and the malt is "roasted." Basically, it adds a toasty flavour to your beer and some colour. DWC Biscuit is about 25 Lovibond. It will not convert itself (Aromatic will), so it must be used along with a malt that has some spare diastatic power. I would recommend using no more than about 15% of it in a grain bill, however, sometimes breaking the "rules" results in something very interesting. *** Art writes: > I use 4 oz of light DME in 1 qt of water ( SG~1.040, but no hops though) >and boil for 5-7 min, cool the pot in cold bath, then bottle with previously >sanitized bottles and caps with previously sanitized caps. These starters >are stored unrefrigerated in my basement, and within a week or two there >is all kinds of critters growing in them. Some of these unwanted visitors >coat the top layer of the starter wort with a 1/8 inch thick mat, and other These are aerobes. If you flushed the bottle with CO2 before capping, this would help reduce the chance of them. >times there are fluffy looking balls (1/2 inch dia.) floating around the >bottom. All the bottled starter wort has some other junk sitting at the >bottom of the bottles, I'm guessing it is a combination of hot/cold break, >as well as more living creatures, as they tend to get larger over time. The living stuff at the bottom is probably anaerobic bacteria, like lacto- bacillus or pediococcus. Perhaps what you need to do with the starters is can them -- really, just like canning fruit -- get a pressure cooker and follow the directions. It sounds like you have a lot of life in your air. > My concerns are that I use bottles and caps sanitized by the same method >for bottling beer, and I can't seem to make any safe starter wort. If your concern is that your beer may be contaminated, then you may be over-reacting. Your beer is contaminated. So is mine. So is everybody elses. Nobody can make five gallons of completely sterile wort in their home and keep it sterile during fermentation, racking, bottling, etc. The key is to give the yeast a head start and minimize the amount of contamination. If your beer gushes after a few weeks in the bottle, then you may want to re-assess your procedures, but if it doesn't show any off flavours or aromas then don't worry, etc. Beer and wort are two completely different animals. Even a small infection in stored starter wort can ruin it, but beer has far less available sugar, very little oxygen, few nutrients (amino acids) left and the hops help out too. > I sanitize >bottles with bleach or iodophor, and bottle caps by steeping in boiling water >for 5 min. Is a small addition of hops to the starter batch necessary (and >now 30 min boils), and/or refrigeration needed, or should I cook up the >starter just prior to use? Any other suggestion would be appreciated. I >think this will be of general interest, so please post replies. TIA! If you suspect infection, I recommend tossing the starter wort even if you could boil to kill whatever got in there. Canning may be a way to get better results. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 22:08:51 -0500 From: Art Steinmetz <asteinm at pipeline.com> Subject: HSA ignored at Breckenridge I was at the Breck brewpub in Breck. the other day (can you say "multiple feet of fresh powder?") and saw the sparge in progress. The hot wort flows into an open stainless bucket called a "gran-<something>" and from there is pumped into the boiler. Much foaming occurs in this bucket. The brewer on duty said HSA was not a concern, that's just the way the system was designed and that their Denver location uses a completely closed system. This setup looks to be a very efficient HSA *generator*. Can anyone explain what's going on? Thanks. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 21:51:18 -0700 From: wself at viking.emcmt.edu (Will Self) Subject: Introducing myself Hi. I'm new to this group, and would like to introduce myself briefly. I've been away from brewing for a while and am thinking of taking it back up. I brewed my first batch in San Diego around 1973. At that time, information was scarce and hops were worse. They came packaged in paper and sat on the shelves of the store; their "aroma" was reminiscent of dirty socks. Once I bought a 90 lb sack of feed barley and tried to malt it. I did succeed in clogging up the sink. I also did manage to brew some "beer" out of it, the likes of which I have never tasted before or since. I remember drinking some of my brother's home brew from that era, and waking up the next morning not particularly caring to go on living. I have some questions about fermenters. Rather than go on here, I think I'll post them in later messages. Will Self Billings, Montana, on the Yellowstone River, longest undammed river in the US Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 01:27:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Robert W. Mech" <rwmech at eagle.ais.net> Subject: Re: Aluminum > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:47:10 EST > From: "Robert Bloodworth > Subject: 5l party Kegs, Is Aluminum a problem? > > Another question: What problems are there with aluminum containers and hot > wort? > A local restaurant supply store has some 60 and 80 liter aluminum > alloy boiling > pots complete with a draining valve which cost less than half that of > stainless. > Thanks in advance. > Robert, Brewing Techniques just covered the whole aluminum subject in the 1995 Jan/Feb issue. For those of you who dont get this periodical, heres a breif summary. If you want more information than this, I suggest picking up the issue. It also covers alot of medical information and research which im not going to cover here to save space. Much to *MY* surprise aluminum is in alot of foods and such that you eat. And standard diatary intake is something like 25mg a day (Sorry dont have article in front of me.). Foods such as mushrooms are in fact high in aluminum. Its also present in most water supplies. BT also ran a test in the article where they used a Stainless Pot, and an aluminum pot, to boil the same type of wort. Then then sent it out for testing. The results came back revealing that the amount of aluminum in the wort was about the same as whats present in most water supplies. This is CONSIDERABLY less than the diatary intake of aluminum. They went on further to add however, that the PH of the wort will modifiy the amount of aluminum that will be released into the wort. They summed up the article by saying that there really isnt any reason not to use aluminum if you have enough trust in the Gov to believe them that minimal amounts of aluminum are not dangerous. IMHO, I tend to believe this. If youre getting 25mg or more of aluminum a day in just your diatary intake, why are we all paranoid about aluminum pots? Its going to have to take ALOT of wort before youll boil off 25mg of your aluminum pot. I really do suggest that those of you who have been paranoid about using aluminum read this article. I have for a long time been paranoid myself, but after reading this artcile, I have changed my views considerably. Robert - -- Robert W. Mech | All Grain HomeBrewer. President, Fermentors At Large Elk Grove, IL. | Author Of "Frugal Brewers Guide To Brewing Aids" rwmech at ais.net | For More Information: http://www.cl.ais.net/~rwmech Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 22:22:20 +1100 (EST) From: David Draper <ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> Subject: Mash thickness/IBUs one *last* time Dear Friends, a few recent posts have gotten me thinking about the effects of mash thickness on extraction efficiency--*all else being equal*. I'm not knowledgeable enough to extrapolate from my limited experience, so would some of you mashmeisters kindly comment on this? At what point does a mash become "too" thin? My main motivation for asking this is that I am engaged in some experiments with the 40-60-70 program, and am currently infusing from 40 to 60 and heating directly for the rest, and in a couple recent batches have had water:grain mass ratios approaching 3 (e.g. 3 litres/kg of grain), but my extraction has been fine. Thanks in advance. OK, one last comment from me on this IBU biz: I do believe strongly that there is great value in accurate (more or less) IBU prediction. Having said that, I also agree strongly that one should use what works in one's own setup, as has been stated a few times recently. Let's say I want to make Style X, which is known (from sources like Jackson's books) to have an IBU range of say 28-33 IBUs. It is all very well for me to have a good idea what works in my own setup, but this is only as good as my ability to estimate bitterness using my palate (in the absence of lab analysis). A *reasonably* accurate IBU formulation will allow me to at least get into the ballpark for my target Style X, and to me this is very important, given that life is short (although grain is cheap) and one has only a finite number of batches one can brew before going to the great Yeast Ranch in the Sky. I just had my first real judging experience the other night and learned just how poor my palate is--I don't want to muck around for N batches zeroing in on my Target. So if an IBU formulation appears that is pretty close to the Truth, I want to know about it. OK, I'll shut the heck up now about this... Cheers, Dave in Sydney - -- "Never trust a brewer who has only one chin" ---Aidan Heerdegen ****************************************************************************** David S. Draper, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109 Sydney, Australia. email: david.draper at mq.edu.au fax: +61-2-850-8428 ....I'm not from here, I just live here.... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:04:11 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Zymomonas In HBD 1661, Patrick Babcock wtote, > Miller talks of Zymomonas, a bacteria that dwells in the soil and pesters > breweries having new construction in The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing > page 180. Fix speaks of them in Principles of Brewing Science on page 202. My > question is this: How long before one can say an area is safe to brew in? Is > infection via Zymomonas worthy of worry? While fortunately I don't have any direct experience with this bacteria, according to Malting and Brewing Science, Zymomonas can spoil cask beer in a few hours. The optimum temperature is 86 F, but it grows rapidly at 59 F. It can also grow over a wide pH range, and is not extremely sensitive to hops. It grows in a microaerophilic conditions and primarily uses glucose as its carbon source - hence the problem with cask conditioned beers that are primed. Symptoms include the unpleasant stenches of hydrogen sulfide (rotten eggs) and acetaldehyde (green apples), and it requires a thorough cleaning if it becomes a contaminate. As far as prevention in your friend's newly constucted basement, I don't feel the conditions are any worse than when brewing in the summer when the air is full of microorganisms. Minimize exposure to air during rcaking and bottling, and be careful not to stir up dust with vacuum cleaners, clothes dryers, etc. Healthy yeast starters are very important, since the yeast will consume the wort sugars before the bacteria grows enough to cause problems. So although I hate to use this phrase - don't worry (unless the beer begins to smell like rotten eggs). Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 09:05:06 EST From: cem at cadre.com (Chuck E. Mryglot) Subject: Mashing and a fine grind Thought I'd pass along this recent experience... A few weeks ago I ran into the brewshop to pick up some grain for the next days brewing. I was in a hurry (wife and kids waiting in car) and quickly ran the grain thru the Malt Mill and was on my way. Next day (Sunday) as I was about to start mashing I saw that the grain was barely crushed....The previous user of the mill must have opened up the settings. So, I took out my Waring Blender and 'processed' all of the grain. What I ended up with was something between nicely crushed grain and flour....e.g. more floury than a Corona. I expected to have problems. I mash on the stovetop and sparge in a picnic cooler with slotted pipes. Mashing went fine. Sparging was quite slower than I am used to but the runoff became extremely clear with very little re-circulation. I had to knife the grainbed once or twice to keep it going, but the entire sparge was completed in about 45 minutes. My extraction went way up. from my usual 24, 25 p/p/g to 30/31. The beer is still in ferment so I can't comment on flavor, but it was one of the cleasest worts I have produced. So, I brewed again this weekend and tried the same thing again....not because the grain was poorly crushed this time (is was not), but I wanted to see if the results were repeatable. I re-processed the grain in my blender and proceeded. Same results... real clear runoff with little re-circ, slow sparge and higher extraction... 31 p/p/g. I believe that the increased extraction is due solely to the fine grind. I usually sparge in 20 - 25 minutes and produced the same results with longer sparges, so I don't think that the longer sparge in contributing much. Now, should I expect any bad flavor components from having ground husks? Once I taste the finished beers I'll pass on my comments. cheers for now ChuckM Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:56:45 EST From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: Testing a yeast starter In HBD#1663 Stephen Harrington asked how to tell if a yeast starter is good. >how can I tell if the starter is any good? It has led a troubled >life and I really do not trust it. Is it as simple as smelling it, >or should I take a taste of the 'beer' and see if it is bad? Smell and taste can't hurt. However, I had a similar question concerning a starter of mine. I called the advise line of my local supply store and explained that I wasn't sure if my yeast starter was active or not. They instructed me to take a pinch of sugar (table sugar is fine) and drop it into the starter bottle. If the yeast are active in sufficient quantities, they will attack the sugar agressively, almost consuming it all before it hits the bottom of the bottle. The result will be a column of CO2 bubbles rising quickly to the surface of the wort. It is actually quite amazing to watch! >P.S. How does one avoid having the hops they are dry-hopping with >clog up the airlock? I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'll have to assume that you are putting the hops in the primary and the fermenting wort is bubbling the hops up into the airlock. If this assumption is correct, try dry hopping in the secondary. Or, if you are using single stage fermentation, then at least wait until after the most active part of fermentation is over before putting the hops in. +------------------------------+-------------------------+ | Keith Royster | NC-DEHNR / Air Qualtiy | | Environmental Engineer (EIT) | 919 North Main St. | | n1ea471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us | Mooresville, NC 28115 | +------------------------------+ Voice: (704) 663-1699 | | "I think I ran over my | Fax: (704) 663-6040 | | Dogma with my Karma." | | +------------------------------+-------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: 21 Feb 95 07:03:33 PST From: "Dutcher, Pier" <PEDU at chevron.com> Subject: "Cheep" pumps From: Dutcher, Pier -PEDU To: OPEN ADDRESSING SERVI-OPENADDR Subject: "Cheep" pumps Date: 1995-02-21 06:51 Priority: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Ellsworth asks: <Anyone know of a source for a better, small, cheep pump?> Brian, I don't know what you consider cheap, but I went to my local "Home Improvement" - type discount hardware store and picked up a small pump used to circulate water in those little garden fountains. The price, as I recall, was ~$30 - $50 (it was a LONG time ago), and it's supposed to recirculate 360 gal./hour. (If it ever starts to make a "cheeping" noise, it's wearing out and needs replacing. :-) Pier Dutcher (pedu at chevron.com) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 10:45:59 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: RE:Dropping More on Wheelers dropping: <However, a good many active yeast cells are also left behind on the bottom of the vessel, and some highly flocculant <yeast strains require re-aeration to encourage the yeast to multiply and <restore the yeast count to reasonable levels. It is this re-aeration that <is the stumbling block for many home brewers due to the fear of airborne <infection. It is true that re-aeration goes against the normal rules of <sound home-brewed beer, but it is my view that the advantages of the <dropping system outweigh its risks". But does Wheeler cover the issue of increased diacetyl levels when using this procedure? I would guess that an important factor in addition to the yeast flocculation characteristics is the yeasts reducing ability. Diacetyl will be increased, but in some strains this could be then be reduced, no? I had a bitter made with the Rockville 1187 strain. First cask was drained a few days after casking, and had a nice subtle diacetyl component. Tasted the second cask yesterday and this was gone. BTW, Jim was absolutely correct in his point about isinglass in a cask, the cask is stored between 10-15C for proper dispense and the isinglass stays put on the bottom of the cask. Its also quite correct that some strains have no need for isinglass. The 1187 is one in point, as is the Wyeast 1056, they drop brilliantly without finings, but then we dont usually ship our cask ales across town. - -- Jim Busch busch at mews.gsfc.nasa.gov "DE HOPPEDUIVEL DRINKT MET ZWIER 'T GEZONDE BLOND HOPPEBIER!" Return to table of contents
Date: 21 Feb 95 09:51:00 -0600 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: perfect score/irish moss/beer engine/B-Brite/isinglass/London ESB/banana Jim writes: >I feel that we should not be afraid of awarding a perfect score, even >if what we consider "perfect" changes over time. There are some >perfect beers and homebrewers are making them too. I agree, but what if the next beer is even better? The highest score I've given was a 47 at the 1st round of the AHA Nationals. It went on to win 1st place in the 2nd round and then Best of Show. *** Jerry writes: >maybe?) wrote concerning the optimum amount / time-in-boil when using >irish moss. I think they had _actual scientific evidence_ to back it up, >too! Does anybody still have this info? Lately I've seen widely varying >opinions about how much to add (anywhere from 1/4 tsp - 3 Tbs) and when. The bottom line, as I read it from Dr. Fix's research was that "refined flakes" are the best form of Irish Moss and that there is a compromise between a rate of 1/16 gram per liter and 1/8 gram per liter. In my opinion, the best compromise is 1/8 gram per liter. I once figured out what this is in teaspoons per 5 gallons, but lost my note. Somebody may want to check this, but I believe it was 1 teaspoon per 5 gallons came out to 1/8 gram per liter, using the flaked irish moss I have. It works best when rehydrated overnight in water and then added in the last 15 minutes of the boil. Also: >ps What's a beer engine? It's a pump, basically. It is one of the two most traditional ways of dispensing real ale (the other being gravity). There are two other acceptable ways of dispensing real ale, according to CAMRA, and they are electric pump and air pressure, the latter being more common in Scotland. Another name for a beer engine is a "handpump." In the Pacific Northwest (and increasingly throughout the US), you will note pubs advertising: "Cask Conditioned" ales. This implies that the beer is a real ale and that it will be served via beer engine or gravity. *** Matt writes: >I feel kind of stupid asking but what is B-Brite and where can I get >it? I tried several homebrew stores and drew a blank. It is basically Sodium Percarbonate and a few other less-important ingredients. Your suppliers can get it wholesale from Crosby and Baker Ltd., Westport, Mass. or a similar product called One-Step is available wholesale from L.D. Carlson, Kent, Ohio. *** Robert writes: >I wasnt aware that *any* preparation had to be done to isinglass. Ive >been using the stuff for at least 2 years now, the only preparation I do >is when making my priming soluition. As for the 20C thing, im not sure >thats entirely true either. Ive been adding my isinglass with my priming >solution when boiling it before adding it to the beer. Ive always >ended up with crystal clear beer. <snip> I'm afraid you have been throwing your money away. Boiling isinglass (or gelatin, for that matter) denatures it and it does nothing for your beer. I'll bet your beer would have come out perfectly crystal clear without it. When you buy it, it should be refrigerated and rather thick. If it is thin and watery, then it has already gone bad. *** David writes: >I remember a recent discussion about the decreased carbonation using the >Wyeast London ESB yeast <snip> >I have used this yeast twice and both times the carbonation >was on the low side. The beers were excellent but less carbonated. Has >anybody here had the same experience? Also, is the yeast that many of >the british bitter and pale ale producers use the reason why many of the >english beers are less carbonated? What you may be experiencing is that this yeast is an excellent flocculator and thus there is less of it available for carbonation after bottling. I suspect that if you haven't changed your priming methods, you should get the same carbonation, it just may take a little longer. British real ales are less carbonated because they are brewed that way and then served via handpump (aka beer engine). All beers used to be relatively low carbonation until most brewers stopped using wooden fermenters and bottling and CO2 dispensing became popular. The british are a stubborn lot (God bless them) and thankfully there are enough traditionally-minded ones among them to have retained the traditional methods of brewing and dispensing ales. Incidentally, Dennis would slay me if I didn't take this opportunity to plug the Real Ale Fest (RAF) to be held in/near Chicago on October 13th & 14th. If you love real ale or think you might (and you're not in your cousin's wedding party that weekend!) you should make it a point to attend. *** Sean writes: > the last couple batches I've brewed have been plagued with a very >noticable "banana" smell that seems to develop after about a week in the >primary. Unless you are using Wyeast #3068 (Weihenstephan #68) or Wyeast #1214 (Belgian Ale) or some really, really old Red Star Ale yeast, you may have a wild yeast infection. These three yeasts are well-known for producing banana esters. Switch to a different yeast or watch your sanitation. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 10:22:50 CST From: "MICHAEL L. TEED" <MS08653 at MSBG.med.ge.com> Subject: Beer Line Pressure Drop .int homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com I was looking through a catalog I just recieved and found a table of line resistance of various hoses. This should allow you to calculate line pressure drops with ease. Line Size resistance per foot (psi) capacity per foot ( oz ) Vinyl hose Polyethylene 3/16" 3 lb 2.2 lb 1/6 oz 1/4" .85 lb .5 lb 1/3 oz 5/16" .40 lb .20 lb 1/2 oz 3/8" .20 lb .07 lb 3/4 oz 1/2" .025 lb - 1 1/3 oz In addition to the above it is necessary to add .5 lb of drop per foot of vertical rise to the above values, regardless of tubing diameter. This should help you to design your system to pour the perfect beer... Mike Teed Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 9:26:12 MST From: Norman Pyle <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM> Subject: Mill rollers Drew Keegan writes: >I am attempting to build a grain mill and I have read that >many people recommend or at least talk of texture on the >rollers. My question is what type of texture? Is this simply >rough vs. smooth or is there some sort of pattern or teeth idea? >I am starting with smooth 2" diameter maple dowls. Drew, with 2" diameter rollers you will definitely need some texturing. I think you would need at least 4" diameter rollers (6" would work for sure) if you want to get away without roughing up the rollers. Another problem you're likely to have: the maple dowels may not stay roughed up. I tried this with oak and by the time I had ground 8 pounds, they were smoothing out to the point that they wouldn't pull the grain through. If you are going to stick with wood rollers, I suggest you use very large diameter, like 6", and you'll never have to worry about the surface. If you are going to use smaller rollers, they will probably have to be metal, something that'll stay rough with use. Good luck, Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 11:39:16 EST From: dturner at ganymede.sca.com (David Turner) Subject: Dry-hopping in primary Greetings! As a novice extract homebrewer, I ferment my brews in a plastic bucket (i.e., primary only). I would like to try my hand at dry-hopping, but am wondering about the necessity of using a secondary fermenter. I normally bottle after 10-14 days of fermentation. For my next batch, I was thinking of adding some fresh Cascade hops (probably in a cloth bag of some sort) after the initial vigorous fermentation has died down (i.e., after about a week), and removing them before bottling (i.e., about another week). Does this sound reasonable (i.e., anyone out there done this before)? Is my writing annoying (i.e., too many (i.e.) constructs)? Thanks all...later...DT - --- David Turner dturner at sca.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 10:41:04 CST From: dmoore at adc.com (Dale Moore) Subject: Strange Taste in SA Double Bock Hi all, I have been homebrewing for about a year and occasionally produced a brew with an "off" flavor that I have not been able to pin down. I beleived that is was either the DMS "cooked corn" taste or the "sherry like" aeration flavor described in several books. I had not had the problem for a while, I thought because I started cooling the wort before adding to the fermenter, until a recent batch of partial mash Pale Ale in which it reappeared. Anyway, I recently saw that SA Double Bock was back in season so I picked up a six pack. When I opened the first one, I was greeted with the exact bad flavor that has been in my homebrew. My question is, has anybody out there noticed this flavor in this years SA and is this really a "bad" flavor or just a taste I don't care for in my beer. I swear that last years SA didn't have this flavor present. How do I avoid this in the future, I don't like pouring beer into the sewer system. Thanks in advance and private E-mail is fine. A Confused Rookie dmoore at adc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 11:59:00 -0500 From: "Thomas Aylesworth" <t_aylesworth at lfs.loral.com> Subject: Re: Dual kettle IBU calculation Robert Mongeon <rmongeon at together.net> asks: > If I hop the two batches separatly, but together, how do I calculate the > IBU for the total batch when the SG of the two kettles are different. Can > I take two hydrometer readings and plug them into the equation using > 5.5 gallons as the total? Would the total IBU then be equal to the sum of > both batches? Since IBU by definition is a measurement of bitterness content _per volume_, the total IBU should be equal to the _average_ bitterness of the two kettles, not the sum. I am also using two kettles for my boil. I sparge into a large bucket, stir to mix the wort so that it should all have the same gravity, and then divide it in half between the two boilers. I then take my hop additions and divide them in half. Since both boilers have the same gravity and the same amount of hops, I can treat recipe design as if I was using one boiler. Just to toss in my own $.02 on the whole IBU discussion, as several have already mentioned, the only thing that matters in the end is the taste. I do use an approximation of Rager's numbers to get my beers in the ballpark, (actually I use the spreadsheet designed by Martin Manning that appeared in a Brewing Techniques last year) but after that I just taste the beer. If it isn't exactly what I had in mind, I make a note of it in case I ever make the beer again. IMO, there never will be completely accurate formulas for calculating bitterness - there are just too many variables. So getting bent out of shape over which of these formulas to use just doesn't make sense to me. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Aylesworth | t_aylesworth at lfs.loral.com Space Processor Software Engineering | Loral Federal Systems, Manassas, VA | (703) 367-6171 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:32:42 -0800 From: danpack at grape-ape.che.caltech.edu (Dan Pack) Subject: IBU measurements First of all let me say this thread on hop utilization has been great. I'm anxiously awaiting some *definitive* data that can answer this question once and for all. However, in the mean time I have a prediction as to what the answer will be........ IT DEPENDS.... Anyway, the real reason for this post....Last week (#1657) Daniel F. McConnell posted his results from measuring his own IBUs. Daniel if you're out there I've tried to e-mail you a couple of times but it keeps bouncing back. I would really like to try these measurements myself an I would appreciate it if you could send me a quick description of your procedure (volumes of beer and hexane, wavelengths, extinction coeffs., etc...). Private e-mail would be fine. But it also seems that there are an awful lot of addresses that end with .edu on the digest which may mean more of us have access to a spectrophotometer than one might think. Anyone else interested in seeing the procedure? Thanks in advance, Dan Pack danpack at grape-ape.caltech.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 10:56:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: Dropping Beer and The KGB RE: HBD #1663 Dropping Beer ------------- >From: johnj at primenet.com (John J Palmer) >Subject: Dropping == Racking?! I started this thread with a question to Brian G. re: his processing of beer to ensure a clear, cask-conditioned ale. Brian came back with his process, which included racking the beer after 24-36 hours of ferment. He called it "dropping", and yes, I agree we'd just call this racking the beer after two days. BUT...the process Brain described was unique and differentiated it from what we usually think of as racking to a 2ndary: first, the beer is just coming down from high krauesen, and second, he aerated during the rack. These two unique aspects of the process may warrant the use a new term ("new" to some of us in the States, anyway), if in fact it is only used to describe racking at the 24-36 hour mark and with aeration. But then there are several quotes from G Wheeler's books, wherein Wheeler refers to "dropping" the beer as a routine, but aerating only the most flocculant yeasts. So....I don't see any need for US brewers to use a term many may find unnecessary or confusing. Now, there are two claims Wheeler makes that I challenge, in my igorance. By challenge I mean I'm soliciting your inputs. These are: 1) Dropping the beer leaves mutants behind, and 2) highly flocculant yeasts require re-aeration to restimulate their regeneration. In item 1), Wheeler is implying mutants precipitate faster or to a higher degree than the primary, desired strain. Is there a basis to this? Again, in my ignorance of yeast, I can see no reason to believe the mutants are any more likely to precipitate. Are most mutants a particular class, e.g., respiratory deficient types, and is there a reason they drop out first or to a greater degree? I would like to hear the explanation. In item 2), I see no connection between flocculation levels and oxygen depletion. Well sure, a highly flocculant yeast will deplete the available local oxygen, and leave itself in a highly oxygen-depleted region. However, given you initially oxygenate to some initial "sufficient" level, the needed oxygen is still in solution and only needs to be made available to the yeast by mixing the stew--getting the yeast dispersed into an oxygen-bearing region of the liquid. This raises another question: shouldn't this be done prior to the yeast going anaerobic? IOW, I think Wheeler is describing a scenario where the yeast has flocculated strongly and has gone anaerobic, THEN he re-aerates it. To me you would really rather keep the yeast de-flocced (not defrocked) until all the dissolved oxygen has been used, then let it do what it will. Finally, does any of this nonsense have anything to do with a clear beer? The KGB (Korzonas-Garetz Bru-ha) -------------------------------- Now *this* is the thread that will not die. >From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) >Subject: Garetz's Book >Many, many unsuspecting homebrewers have bought the book and have brewed with >the formulas that Garetz published and they have brewed overhopped beer with >them. Even experts among us were forced to dump batches as a result... >...All the disclaimers in the world did not protect these brewers from the >waste of ingredients and time When I brew from any recipe published anywhere I usually feel it's a crap throw, to some degree. I've used Miller's recipes for Scottish ale and ended up with colorless, flavorless brew resembling Coors Light more than any Scottish ale. In addition, brewers have written at length about their efficiencies in terms of Miller's (extract yields) and only one person I've ever heard from has attained those yields. This means that by using Miller's data only, the brewer may get a 30 OG instead of the desired 40 OG. I also see recipes at length in Papazian (and elsewhere) that call out water treatments (this much gypsum, that much salt, etc) that I know will have different results for me than they did for the author. Do I go into a flaming fit of rage and claim "worthless"? I think not. I see an opportunity to do some lab work and provide (hopefully) more useful info to the community--in this tiny area. I see no difference with hop recommendations, nor do I see why I should expect the results to be any more deterministic given the state of the practice. This is why I keep lab notes, and use them as guidance for followup work. None of these sources of information has saved me from wasted ingredients by being absolutely repeatable. I now know that (for me) Miller's extraction numbers are rough guidance, and that my lab notes are very good guidance. Garetz' disclaimer (as quoted in a recent HBD) seems like far more than I've seen explicity stated in other sources. As for Al's suggested disclaimer he says Garetz should have used in his book, this is just a blatant, sarcastic, personal attack that serves no purpose whatsoever. My OPINION is such sarcasm would fit in better on the alt.beer forum. Lurkers who remain silent while personal (and apparently unfounded) attacks are *repeatedly* made, yet cry out when they see the words "orgasm" or "pissed-off" used, should maybe wake up. With that said, I'm certainly glad someone is working to *make* hop utilization deterministic and well-founded. That's great, and it's greatly appreciated--as are Al's selfless responses to all the questions fielded here on the HBD. I plan to spend quite a chunk of change to get better yield numbers for use by folks with RIMS systems comparable to my own--we be just a bunch of heroes, eh? Kirk R Fleming -flemingkr at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil -BEER: It's not just for breakfast anymore. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1664, 02/22/95