HOMEBREW Digest #1884 Wed 15 November 1995

Digest #1883 Digest #1885

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Re:   ss airstones (Tim Fields)
  40-60-70 and highly modified malts (Tim Fields)
  OG and chemistry (Tom Lombardo)
  Salt City Brew Club Winners (fwd) ("Kieran O'Connor")
  Yeast Nutrient (Tim Fields)
  dry hopping  & gushers (Greg Heiler)
  grain mill suggestion summary / force carbonation ("Keith Royster")
  BRF v2.0 released! (chris campanelli)
  Re: Blue Fin Stout (Jeff Renner)
  When is a boil a boil? ("Dan Wilson")
  skunky/correction (Dan McConnell)
  Mead (Jeff Knaggs)
  Shipping Boxes, Keg Headroom (Bill Rust)
  Re: Partial mash in 10 gallon coller. (Krste Asanovic)
  SA Stock Offering/ SA Recipe information ("Have you seen Lucky?")
  Re: MotoMaltMill (Mark E. Thompson)
  Re: Wyeast redux (Jeff Frane)
  Re: Grain Mill/Manifold Slits (Jeff Benjamin)
  Heirlom Grains as Adjuncts (Stephen_W._Snyder)
  Boiling Stones for Wort? ("NORM R SMITH")
  Prefer Extract Brewing? (Michael K. Cinibulk)
  re: Manifold Slits (KennyEddy)
  beer names (Bryan L. Gros)
  sand, yet more on yeast ("Tracy Aquilla")

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! November 5 thru November 11: The digest !!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if !!! you make any requests during this time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****************************************************************** * 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. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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 alpha.rollanet.org 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: 14 Nov 95 07:49:11 EST From: Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com> Subject: Re: ss airstones in #1882, AGNORCB at miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes: >Subject: Stainless Steel Airstone Request > >Hi! > >Does anybody know where I can get stainless steel airstones for wort >aeration? >I have tried all the local pet stores and Wal Mart stores to no avail. > >I am attempting to construct the wort aeration system described by Dave >Miller >in the May/June 1993 issue of Brewing Techniques. Thanks in advance Got mine thru Brewers Resources catalog. There are certainly other sources. No afffiliation, etc. Dont have the number handy tho (try 800 directory at 800-555-1212). "Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA timf at relay.com (non-brewing time) 74247.551 at compuserve.com (weekends) Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Nov 95 08:06:09 EST From: Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com> Subject: 40-60-70 and highly modified malts Hello All, I've read and reread Dr. G. Fix's postings concerning a 40 60 70 (deg centigrade) mash schedule, and am still unable to nail down whether this schedule is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" or "either way" for use with highly modified malts. Did this discussion ever settle down firmly in any camp? On a related note: 1) is this schedule covered in Fix's (first?) book, and 2) is there really a second book on the way? "Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA timf at relay.com (non-brewing time) 74247.551 at compuserve.com (weekends) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 07:12:38 -0600 (CST) From: favt3tl at rvcux1.RVC.CC.IL.US (Tom Lombardo) Subject: OG and chemistry OK, here's one for all you chemists out there: As I was aerating my wort the other day (and noticing all the nice foamy stuff on top), It occurred to me that by adding air to the wort, I'm probably affecting my SG. I normally measure OG *after* I aerate. So tell me, IMGRR? (is my gravity reading ruined)? Thanks, Tom ******************************************* Homebrewers get better head. Tom Lombardo (favt3tl at rvcux1.RVC.CC.IL.US) ******************************************* Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:24:11 -0500 (EST) From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor at syr.edu> Subject: Salt City Brew Club Winners (fwd) Subject: Salt City Brew Club Winners Below please find the list of winners from our recent contest (Nov 11) We had 270 entries, and 40 judges particpating. Thanks to all who judged, stewarded, and entered our contest. Kieran ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kieran O'Connor koconnor at syr.edu Syracuse, N.Y. USA In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Classic English Pale Ale (13 entries) 1st Francois Espourteille, Latham, NY 2nd Kieran O'Connor, Syracuse, NY 3rd Ron Maliwacki, Binghamton, NY Brown Ales (17 entries) 1st Bill Cronise, Syracuse, NY 2nd Denniss Everett, Syracuse, NY 3rd Matt House, Syracuse, NY Light Lagers (17 entries) 1st Mickey Kramer Syracuse (Boh. Pils) 2nd Tom LaBarge, Syracuse (Germ. Pils) 3rd Rich Loud, Ballston Spa, NY (Boh. Pils) Dark Lagers (17 entries) 1st Lee Turner, Baldwinsville, NY Dopplebock 2nd Peter Garofalo, Syracuse Oktoberfest 3rd Mark Zaccheo, Phillipsburg, NJ Munich Dunkel Specialty (14 entries) 1st Martin Stokes, Old Town, ME, Xmas beer 2nd Chuck Lutz, Montgomery, NY 3rd Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY Herb/Smoked Beers (15 entries) 1st William Schreher, Tully, NY 2nd John Zelazny, Webster, NY 3rd Martin Stokes, Old Town, ME Bitters/IPA 1st Mike Lucia, Endicott, NY, ESB 2nd Roger Haggett, Endicott, NY, ESB 3rd Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY IPA American Ales 1st Rober Bullock, Syracuse, NY Steam Beer 2nd Tom LaBarge, Syracuse, NY, Altbier 3rd Tim Olsen, Rensselaer, NY American Pale Ale Belgians 1st Francois Espourteille, Latham, NY Belg. White 2nd Bill Heller, Pennelville, NY, Belg White 3rd Gary Maraia, Cicero, NY, Strong Ale Meads 1st Patrick Bigelow, Watertown, NY Sparklinh Metheglin 2nd Chuck Lutz, Montgomery, NY, Sparkling Hippocras 3rd John Carlson, Denver, CO Still Metheglin Ciders/Cysers 1st Brian O'Malley, Hamburg, NY NE Style Cider 2nd Brian O'Malley, Still Cyser 3rd Pat McHenry, Syracuse, NY Still Cyser Melomels 1st John Carlson, Denver, CO, Still Melomel 2nd Lee Turner, Baldwinsville, NY Sparkling Melomel 3rd Bill Heller, Pennelville, NY Sparkling Melomel Stouts/Porters 1st Martin Stokes, Old Town ME, Classic Dry Stout 2nd Dave Manley, Limestone, NY Robust Porter 3rd John Barnes, Marcellus, NY Imperial Stout Wheats/Kolsch 1st Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY Kolsch 2nd Peter Garofalo, Syracuse, NY Germ. Wheat 3rd Mark Croshek, Denver, CO Germ. Wheat Fruit Beer 1st Peter Garofalo, Syracuse, NY 2nd John Zelazny, Webster, NY 3rd Andrew Jones, Rochester, NY Scottish Ales 1st Matt Hanley, Dave Grimes, Strong Scottish Ale 2nd Jim Taylor, New Paltz, NY Strong Scotch Ale 3rd Frank Deveney, Baldwinsville, NY Scottish Export Strong Ales (B-Wines, Strong Ales) 1st Bill Giffin, Maine B-Wine 2nd Roger Haggett, Endicott, NY B-Wine 3rd Keith Houck, North Carolina B-Wine Best of Show: Beers 1st Matt Hanley-Dave Grimes, Strong Scotch Ale 2nd Lee Turner, Dopplebock 3rd Francois Espourteille, Classic English Pale Ale The winner of the beer best of show won a $200 gift certificate to a local brew shop. Mead/Ciders Only First place was given for meads/ciders since there were only three categories in the BoS. 1st Place: Brian O'Malley, NE Style Cider. Mead/Cider BoS winer won a $50 gift certificate to a brew shop and 3 bottles of commercial mead. Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Nov 95 08:29:40 EST From: Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com> Subject: Yeast Nutrient Hello All, After using yeast nutrient for the first time, I have to post in strong support of it's use! After reading HBD postings and other articles associating low FAN levels with extracts, I decided to try using some yeast nutrient in hopes it would improve the fermentation. I brewed an all extract recipe (Phil Fleming's Xmas Ale). The yeast nutrient pkg called for 1 tsp per gal; I used 4 tsp for a 5 gal batch. Wyeast 1007 German ale yeast. Fermented in a 6.5 gal carboy. Within 24 hrs of pitching, I had to add a blowoff tube (!) because of the activity. Fermenting at 64F. With the exception of Wyeast 3068 Weihenstephan :-), this is the most active all extract ferment I've had. By far. At the risk of making a very subjective and un-replicated conclusion, and not knowing if this is normal activity for 1007, I would strongly advise you extract brewers to try some yeast nutrient with your next batch. "Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA timf at relay.com (non-brewing time) 74247.551 at compuserve.com (weekends) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:41:04 -0500 From: gheiler at hoppy.kodak.com (Greg Heiler) Subject: dry hopping & gushers Love that slap me in the face dry hopped beer. Have been dry hopping all batches for a years or so. I do mini-mashes and until recently have had no problems. Recently I aquired some Brittish whole leaf hop and have dry hopped with them. The types are Bramling, East Kent Golding & Challenger. Previously I had used plugs and pellets for dry hopping. The beer turned out good but when I pour into a glass the cold pale ale instantly foams up and fills the glass. When it settles, I'am left with 1/5 of a glass. I noticed ring around the collar on the bottle and suspect a bacteria infection. Since I propagate yeast, in this case YL Brittish Ale, I chain brew and have this problem in 2-3 batches. All of which I used these whole leaf hops for dry hopping. I'am very careful with my bottles, caps, priming sugar and equipment. Religious about sanitization. I suspect the hops were contaiminated and infected the beer. Further evidence is the extended resurgence of air lock bubbling after dry hopping. Does the wisdom concur this is a bateria infection? Is dry hopping with whole leaf riskier than plugs or pellets? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:09:56 +0500 ET From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: grain mill suggestion summary / force carbonation I would like to thank everyone who responded recently to my request for suggestions for a grain mill. I had erroneously thought that the Glatt mill was *the* mill and was concerned about the company's recent demise. Many HBDers quickly convinced me that, while the Glatt mill is a quality mill, Jack Schmidlings MaltMill is by far the favorite. Now if I can just get my local homebrew store to carry them..... Of the nine responses I received, eight people said that the MaltMill was a very high quality mill. One of these eight even owned the Glatt but recommended the MaltMill. Comments regarding the MaltMill include: "bullet-proof"; "indestructable"; "no plastic gears"; "excellent grain crush"; and "the warrenty is valid even if you motorize it". Apparently there is an adjustable and non-adjustable version. Most people said the non-adjustable works just fine if you crush only barley malts. Wheat and other odd grains would require the adjustable type. On a slightly humorous note, the one poster who did not recommend the MaltMill used a Glatt and was very happy with it. I responded to him regarding a concern that the plastic gears in the Glatt have been known to break (according to the other eight responders) and that it would be difficult to replace them now that the company is no longer. The next day I had a note from him stating that he had tried to crush the grains for an IPA and his gear broke! Is that Murphy's Law, or what!? Luckily for him he had some backup mills. ########################################################################## And now for my question regarding carbonation. I've seen it stated many times on the HBD that naturally carbonated beer has better carbonation than beer that is forced carbonated in kegs, but I've never seen an explanation. If I remember correctly, many of you beleive that the carbonation from priming bottles or kegs gives finer bubbles than the coarser, soda-pop type bubbles that you get from force carbonating. My question is, can anyone explain this alleged phenomenon? I've used both proceedures for carbonating my brew, and I'm not sure I see any difference. And I also can't imagine a scientific explanation for why it would make such a difference. Is this just another HBD MOMism that should be put to rest, or can someone explain the mechanics behind it all? Keith Royster - NC DEHNR - Mooresville, NC, USA Voice: (704) 663-1699 x252 Fax: (704) 663-6040 email: KRoyster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us etalk: KRoyster at ws21.mro.ehnr.state.nc.us Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 07:56 CST From: akcs.chrisc at vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli) Subject: BRF v2.0 released! Now that the short-lived hoopla over the Windows 95 release has finally subsided, the really BIG software release announcement for 1995 is: Beer Recipe Formulator v2.0 "Son of Zippy" BRF is out, it's available and it's still free. New features include inventory control, full-blown AHA style descriptions and the ability to save recipes and brewing notes to disk. BRF continues to be a DOS-based recipe formulator. System requirements are MS-DOS 3.3 or higher and 640K RAM. BRF may be run from either hard disk or floppy. You can obtain a copy of BRF v2.0 from one of the following sites: - Homebrew Digest archive site - No Tarmac Brewing BBS (DC): (703) 525-3715 - HBU BBS (Chicago): (708) 970-9778 - HBU BBS (Milwaukee): (414) 238-9074 The file name is BRFV20.EXE. The HBD archive site has graciously taken the time to uuencode & compress an additional copy named BRFV20.EXE.UU.Z. Chris Campanelli akcs.chrisc at vpnet.chi.il.us Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 09:48:59 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Blue Fin Stout In HBD 1883, Kit Anderson says, regarding Blue Fin Stout, > Ringwood yeast is used and is available from Yeast Labs > as their London yeast. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yeast Lab A09, English Ale, is Ringwood. London Ale, A03, is Whiteshield. Here are the complete Yeast Lab IDs from a post last December by Dan McConnell, producer of Yeast Lab liquid cultures: A01 Australian Coopers A02 American Chico A03 London Whiteshield A04 British Whitbread A05 Irish Guinness A06 Dusseldorf W164 A07 Canadian Molson A08 Belgian Brigand A09 English Ringwood L31 Pilsner W34/70 L32 Bavarian W206 L33 Munich W308 L34 St Louis A/B L35 California Anchor W51 Bavarian Wheat W66 W52 Belgian Wheat Bruge M61 Dry mead Pasteur champagne M62 Sweet mead Steinberger 3200 Brettanomyces Cantillion 3220 Pediococcus Cantillion - ----- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Nov 1995 09:02:09 GMT From: "Dan Wilson" <DWILSON3 at EMAIL.USPS.GOV> Subject: When is a boil a boil? Greetings to the collective While brewing this weekend a question came up that has bugged me since I started brewing. When is a boil a boil? When I get close to boiling, (this is with extract) I can hear what sounds like a large group of marbles rioting. But no bubbles on the top. About 5 minutes later Mr. Bubble shows up. The recipe called for removing the grains when boiling commenced. So when did it? I've also seen that grain bags should never be boiled. Why's that? And finally, when grain is used in the recipe (like crystal, or chocolate malt) is that what's referred to as a partial grain batch? Here's a comment that may get some noses out of joint, sorry about that. With the controversy about SA buying votes at the gabf, lets consider for a moment those that sold their vote for a lousy tee shirt. I personally would have happily snagged the shirt and then voted for the best beer, not necessarily SA. I wonder if most people did that anyway. I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Welcome to capitalism! :-) I have my asbestos suit on, ready for flames. Cute but Corny Signature Line Dan Wilson (dwilson3 at email.usps.gov) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:06:12 -0500 From: danmcc at umich.edu (Dan McConnell) Subject: skunky/correction From: harperj at olympus.net (Jim Harper) > >I've never had a skunky batch until now......... Is there any >way to rescue it, at this time, or should I chuck it or just tell my >friends it is a Molson recipe??? > >Dan McConnell suggested adding fruit, so I added one half cup and three >quarters cup of pure apple juice to two pint test bottles..... In the meantime, >anyone with experience in rescuing skunky batches please advise me. I'll admit that I had to drop back and punt on that one. What I had in mind was a whopping load of fruit to mask the skunk. Maybe one of the red fruits or peaches. It's still a good question. Someone is bound to have a better alternative. ******************************* From: kit.anderson at acornbbs.com [Deleting Kit's make-you-wanna-run-out-and-have-a stout discription of Shipyard's stout] > Ringwood yeast is >used and is available from Yeast Labs as their London yeast. Corection: English Ale-A10 is Ringwood (the source was an East Coast brewery, BTW).not London-A03. Dan McC "I gotta go for the gusto" KimB (ex SO who quoted a *really* bad beer commercial as she was dumping me) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 11:26:37 -0500 From: jak at absoft.com (Jeff Knaggs) Subject: Mead > ... > I see no bubbles rising or other signs of active fermentation. Is this > typical for a mead fermentation? Am I just worrying too much? Or is > something amiss? Osmotic trauma, anyone? Thanks for any help. After > becoming somewhat adept at making beer, I now again feel reduced to a > bright green, flaming newbie. >From one newbie to another... My first batch was prep'd in the same fine fashion as yours -- brew first... read FAQ & others later. After about a week I had zippo signs of activity, I had the carboy in my wine-cellar at -65F, moved it upstairs to a warm closet at 75+F, stuff took off like a volcano... 1. move it to a warmer location, (don't worry) 2. my bee-keeping honey supplier says, some batches seem to ferment slower than others, dependent on differnces in honey. (don't worry) 3. The white stuff on top is probably coagulated wax and proteins (don't worry) 4. If you didn't add any acid, do! It helps invert sugars. If you don't have "acid-blend" (Malic/Citric/Tartaric), many *old* recipes call for lemon juice (Citric) (don't worry) 5. Yeast nutrient is highly recommended by all modern mead references. (don't worry) Jeff Knaggs jak at absoft.com <- we don't make mead,beer, or wine at work. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:26:54 -0500 From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com> Subject: Shipping Boxes, Keg Headroom Mark Peacock of Birmingham, MI said... >I want to ship a couple of cases of homebrew from my femto-brewery = >(outside of Detroit) to a condo in Lake Tahoe for the ski season. Any = >suggestions on carrier and packing method, and any idea on cost would be = >appreciated. I have used old 'Beer of the Month Club' shipping boxes in the past. You can only ship 12 at a time, but I had absolutely no problems with shipping! If you can't get them, you can try to make an equivalent. They are laid out like this... top view /+-------------------------+ <-- 2 layers of corrugated / |+-----------------------+| cardboard / || | | | | | || | || --+---+---+---+---+-- || | || | O | O | O | O | || O = beer bottle | || --+---+---+---+---+-- || | || | O | O | O | O | || Styrofoam top & bottom | || --+---+---+---+---+-- || | || | O | O | O | O | || | || --+---+---+---+---+-- || | || | | | | | || <-- outer row of cells empty | |+-----------------------+| | /+------------------------/ |/_________________________/ You could probably make one out of a long neck case from your neighborhood liquor store. Curt asks... >Can I keg up, say, 4 of the 5 gallons in a batch and bottle the remaining >gallon? Is there any problem with the additional head space created by only >filling the keg 80% of the way up (yes, I will purge the head space w/ CO2)? >I am looking forward to being able to keg up my brew, but I would also like to >hold back 8-10 bottles as gifts, for competitions, etc. I've been kegging for the past year and a half, and I have done that very thing a couple of times. It works great, but if you carbonate naturally, make sure to adjust for the lower volume of beer. If you force carbonate, make sure to purge carefully, otherwise you will force oxygenate you beer! I use CO2 to force rinse water out of the dip tube immediately before filling. The CO2 falls to the surface of the beer, and helps to ensure an oxygen-free keg. Hope this helps. Cheers. - -------------------------------------------------------- Bill Rust, Master Brewer | Jazz is not dead, Jack Pine Savage Brewery | it just smells funny! Shiloh, IL (NACE) | -FRANK ZAPPA - -------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:35:49 -0800 From: Krste Asanovic <krste at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Re: Partial mash in 10 gallon coller. >>>>> Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca> writes: *Question: This mashing | stuff is great fun.... I haven't even tasted the beer yet and I'm | already hooked. With one eye on the future, I'd like to get a 10 | gal cooler to mash/sparge in. Is it possible to sparge a | partial-mash amount of grains (about 4 pounds) in one of these big | coolers? Or will the bed be spread too thinly? After about a dozen partial mash batches, I moved up to all-grain mashes in a 10 gallon cylindrical cooler with a slotted PVC manifold. I would worry about the grain bed depth with only 4 pounds of grain. If you've managed a partial mash or two, I'd strongly recommend just going straight to the full mash when you have the equipment together. It's really not much extra work or time compared to a partial mash (you actually save the "stir in the syrup" step), the mash *will* convert, and it's cheaper too! Krste Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 11:44:05 EST From: "Have you seen Lucky?" <johnm at giant.IntraNet.com> Subject: SA Stock Offering/ SA Recipe information A few people have inquired about the status of the Boston Beer CO. (Sam Adams) stock offering. An article in the local paper indicated that the consumer offering of 990,000 shares at ~$15/share had sold out. The stock is expected to go off at between $10 and $15 some time this month. I recently received some promotional literature from SA including a brochure with some recipe formulation information for all of their brews. Reprinted here without permission of course. John McCafferty Chelmsford, Ma Merrimack Valley Brewers Brew S.G. Malts Hops - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Lager 1.052 2-Row Harrington, German Hallertau Crystal Tettnang Tettnanger Boston Lightship 1.032 2-Row Harrington, German Hallertau Crystal Tettnang Tettnanger Boston Stock Ale 1.056 2-Row Harrington, Saaz, Fuggles,Goldings Crystal Honey Porter 1.058 2-Row Harrington, Kentish Goldings Crystal, Chocolate, Fuggles, Saaz Munich Cream Stout 1.056 2-Row Harrington, Fuggles, Goldings Crystal, Wheat Chocolate, Roasted Barley Scotch Ale 1.069 2-Row Harrington, Fuggles, Goldings Chocolate,Crystal, Munich, Peated malt Double Bock 1.081 2-Row Harrington, Tettnang Tettnanger Crystal Tettnang Hallertau Dark Wheat 1.046 2-Row Harrington, Saaz, Wheat Malt, Roasted Tettang Tettnanger Wheat Malt, Chocolate Malt Cherry Wheat 1.050 2-Row Harrington, Saaz, Crystal, Munich, Tettang Tettnanger malted wheat Octoberfest 1.055 2-Row Harrington, Tettnang Tettnanger Crystal, Munich Saaz Winter lager Varies 2-Row Harrington, Saaz, Kentish Goldings, Crystal, Wheat Malt, Tettnang Tettnanger Munich Cranberry Lambic 1.040 2-Row Harrington, Tettnang Tettnanger, Wheat Malt, Saaz Triple Bock 1.176 2-Row Harrington, Tettnang Hallertau Chocolate Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 8:36:27 PST From: Mark E. Thompson <markt at hptal04.cup.hp.com> Subject: Re: MotoMaltMill Full-Name: Mark E. Thompson > Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:00:57 MST-0700 > From: "Dave Ebert" <Dave.Ebert at UCHSC.edu> > Subject: Helping Santa ... > Secondly, if Santa gets me s JS mill I'll want to motorize it. > Suggestions? I used an 8" pulley on the mill and a 1 or 1.5 on the 1700rpm 1/4 hp motor. The problem was that the shaft on the mill is 3/8" (i think) and the smallest pulley that i could find was 1/2". I had to come up with a shim arangement. Otherwise the thing works great. I did have to increase the size of the hopper and put a new screen over the rollers though. Good luck. Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:17:49 -0800 From: jfrane at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Wyeast redux >The complaint leveled against Wyeast was that the label did not accurately >reflect the contents of the package, and when they were called on this >publically, they threatened lawsuit. I have already noted that this is a mis-statement of the actual incident, and suggested that you verify your facts before continuing to make this claim. The fact that you corresponded with the homebrewer in question doesn't mean that you have all the facts -- did you likewise correspond with Wyeast? In point of fact, homebrewer X was not threatened by lawsuit for "calling Wyeast" on anything, but for a series of other activities that extended far beyond writing criticism -- which may well have been justified. If you are interested in the facts, once again I suggest that you contact Dave Logsdon directly and try to get the "other side" of the story, as you mention. The label was ill-advised; I believe the original decision was made on account of space limitations and the accompanying literature available at the retail level reflected the blended nature. I also think it was a bad decision, and it has been corrected. The implication has been that this was a case of blatant fraud, and I know for a fact that this is not the case. I've known Dave for more than a decade; I've been around to watch the development of Wyeast, to prod him when necessary and to nag him at times. He is a resolutely honest person, and runs a very clean operation, and he is the hardest-working person I've ever known. It gripes me no end, frankly, to see the case so badly mis-stated. This was all I was saying, and given Why must a homebrewer need to bring this to the attention of the >homebrewing community in the first place, and worse, why is he/she >threatened with lawsuit for doing so? Most of us will shut up when >threatened with lawsuit--we have jobs, homes, families, in a word, we have >something to lose--but that doesn't change the veracity of the initial >statement. I agree that the flow of information requires responsibility, but >it also requires the FREEDOM to flow. > Once again, please check with Dave and get the other side of the story before you continue to spread this calumny that the poor innocent homebrewer, merely seeking to spread the truth, was crushed by Jim Koch (whoops!) in a lawsuit, threatening the poor innocent little homebrewer's livlihood. - --Jeff Frane Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 10:15:54 MST From: Jeff Benjamin <benji at hpfcbug.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: Grain Mill/Manifold Slits "Matthew Hanley" <mwhanley at mailbox.syr.edu> writes: > While browsing in the local homebrew shop yesterday, I saw > a new grain mill. It's made by Murcato (sp?), the folks from Italy > that make the manual pasta makers. I bought a Marcato for my first grain mill, and used it for quite some time. Advantages: inexpensive, gives a good crush, adjustable. Disadvantages: very low throughput (due to hopper size, and the small hopper opening doesn't allow grain to feed really well), messy - produces a good bit of flour around the work surface. I "motorized" it - found a flat-head screwdriver that fit perfectly in the slot where the handle went, cut off the handle, and put the shank into the chuck of my drill - I could mill a pound of grain in about 2.5 minutes. Slow, but usable. By hand, it would take you all day. Using the drill is quite noisy, as well. I eventually spent the money on a JSP MaltMill, and haven't regretted it. THaby at swri.edu asks: > Ola Brewers, I'm in the process of building a copper manifold for my lauter > tun and I have some questions. > 1. How many slits per inch? > 2. What orientation are the slits? > 3. In the lauter tun do the slits face up or face the bottom of the tun? I use about 1 slit per cm, or 2.5 slits/inch. The slits go perpendicular to the length of the pipe; you don't need to slant them or anything. Cut them about one-half to one-third the diameter of the pipe. In the tun, the slits go face down against the bottom of the pot. For more details, grab the all_grain_equipment file from the FTP achives; my post with complete plans for my manifold setup should be in there. - -- Jeff Benjamin benji at fc.hp.com Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado "Think! It ain't illegal yet." -- George Clinton Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Nov 95 12:28:49 EST From: <Stephen_W._Snyder at metcapw1.ccmail.compuserve.com> Subject: Heirlom Grains as Adjuncts Dear Collective, Does anyone have any experience using Spelt or Quiona as adjuncts? A local supermarket here in Seattle has raw Spelt, Quiona and a couple other funcky grains that I can't remember. I would be interested in malting these grains also, so any tips anyone could provide would be useful. I checked old issues of HBD and there was little information on Malting at home. Thanks in advance. Stephen W. Snyder Systems Analyst/Powerbuilder Developer MetLife Capital Corporation, Seattle, Washington Stephen_W._Snyder at metcapw1.ccmail.compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 11:51:03 cst From: "NORM R SMITH" <NRSMIT at ccmail.monsanto.com> Subject: Boiling Stones for Wort? Got a quick ? for everyone: For years I've used different types of boiling stones in various Chemical applications. Would it be possible to use something similar when boiling Wort? I would imagine that if it were possible, one could control the boil a bit more, and avoid boil-over. Any ideas? Cheers, Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 12:49:31 -0500 From: Michael K. Cinibulk <cinibumk at ml.wpafb.af.mil> Subject: Prefer Extract Brewing? Since subscribing to the HBD (last Spring) I have seen many brewers post that they have finally made the move to all-grain and will never go back (to all extract). But, I can not recall anyone saying that they tried all-grain and decided to go back to extract because it was too time consuming, or equipment was too expensive, or the difference was not worth it, or it was simply a PITA. Is it really true that everyone does not go back once they've tried all-grain? For now I am happy with extract and frankly, do not have the time or resources to try all-grain. What about partial mashing; is there anyone that found this to be a good compromise (if one was necessary)? Mike Cinibulk.............cinibumk at ml.wpafb.af.mil Bellbrook, Ohio Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:52:32 -0500 From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: re: Manifold Slits Tim Haby writes: >Ola Brewers, I'm in the process of building a copper manifold for my lauter >tun and I have some questions. >1. How many slits per inch? >2. What orientation are the slits? >3. In the lauter tun do the slits face up or face the bottom of the tun? Conventional Wisdom seems to say to cut across and about halfway through your tubing every half inch, and orient your slits to the bottom of the tun. A recent article in Brewing Techniques makes it more scientific by relating the total cross-sectional area of the cuts to the outlet area. If there's less area in the outlet than the slits, your flow rate will be limited. If you have the opposite condition, then your outlet is the only limiting factor. This is the condition you are after. You can calculate the outlet area using Area = 3.14 x half the diameter x half the diameter or pie-are-squared for us math nerds. The slots each contribute Area = half the circumference x slot width = 3.14 x half the diameter x slot width Assuming a hacksaw makes a cut about 0.030" wide, halfway through a 1/2" inside diameter pipe, each cut contributes 0.024 square inches of flow area. If your outlet is also 1/2" inside diameter, its area is 0.785 square inches. Thus you need 0.785 divided by 0.024 slots minimum (which is 33). Now you'll want to assume the grain will partially block some of the slit area (but not necessarily "clogging" the slit), so increase this by say 50% (I'm pulling that figure from a sunlight-deprived portion of my anatomy). So figure on about 50 slits. Going further, if you cut them every 1/2", you then need 25 linear inches of pipe/tubing. An 8" - 9" diameter circle or a 7" per side square would provide about enough tubing. The Brewing Techniques article also discusses fluid flow distribution as it relates to different types of collection devices. A false bottom, with its evenly-distributed pattern of inlet holes, is "ideal". Gravity drives wort straight down evenly across the grain bed. A pipe manifold causes some "channeling" since the fluid flowing straight down into a slit has an easier time than the fluid that has to flow "sideways" or at an angle to find a pipe with an opening. An "Easymasher" type arrangement of a single rolled screen or pipe makes for worst efficiency since wort to the sides of the Easymasher has a tougher time flowing to the outlet in the absence of the boost that gravity gives the wort directly above the Easymasher. YMMV, and this is all dependent on a lot of things. Easymasher fans swear by the efficiency of the system. But it raises good points for thought. The manifold I used in my Coleman Drinking Water 5 is made from 1/2" copper pipe in the shape of a square, but I added a "crossbeam" member to improve distribution (closer approximation of a false bottom). I drilled 3/32" diameter holes straight through the pipes and fittings about every 1/4" using a drill press (beats the hell out of cutting slits). The larger diameter of the fittings compared to the pipe actually suspends the pipe above the cooler bottom, so the bottom holes are not at all "blocked". In addition, I toss a cut-to-size piece of 8 hole-per-inch nylon needlepoint backing mesh over the manifold, in effect creating a false bottom in addition to the manifold. While it isn't rigid like a true false bottom, it does significantly increase the drainage area. I rotate the pipe sections a few degrees so that the mesh isn't directly over the pipe holes. I *assume* the mesh is helping the extraction and sparging, but the bonus points really come from the fact that it protects the manifold from the onslaught of my stirring spoon! A plani-spiral loop of soft tubing is another popular choice, since it presents itself as a close approximation to a false bottom because of the close & even distribution of slits across the grain bed. Again, drilling holes instead of cutting slits would make fabrication much more relaxing. By the way, Tim, it's "hola" with an "h". Pero te entendemos. Ken Schwartz El Paso, Tejas Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:23:59 -0800 From: bgros at mindseye.berkeley.edu (Bryan L. Gros) Subject: beer names >John Boots <jboots at pacifier.com> writes: >... >The Brewmeister and Brewmistress of the Purple Helmet Brewing Co. are >preparing to release three new products. The DOMINATOR is our newest >stout, and we are releasing two wheat beers, Patti's Vestal Virgin >Dunkelweizen and an as yet unnamed Hefeweizen. To many brewers, a name like DOMINATOR implies that the beer is a doppelbock. While I like when brewers get creative with the names of their beers, I like to stick with tradition also. My two cents. - Bryan bgros at mindseye.berkeley.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 13:43:53 CST From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu> Subject: sand, yet more on yeast In Digest #1881: Mark Melton <piobaire at accessnv.com> sez: [snip info on sand] >as red pepper. Silt is composed of grains smaller than sand and silicon >dioxide silt inhaled over a long period of time can result in silicosis. >This fact is the excuse for the regulatory actions of OSHA and other >government agencies. To extrapolate from the bad effects of silt-sized >silicon dioxide to bricks, which have a minor component of SiO2, or even >sand (which may or may not be composed of SiO2) is so ludicrous and >intellectually dishonest as to be worthy of the French Revolutionary >solution. I agree that OSHA goes way overboard most of the time, but I happen to know more than one bricklayer with silicosis. It's a nasty way to go too, coughing up blood and all that. There are many different types of brick and they aren't all made from the same clays. Firebrick is mostly SiO2 and bauxite. Working with it over many years can easily kill you if you don't protect yourself. Then in Digest #1883: Harlan Bauer <crosen at wwa.com> sez: >Well, apparently my comment about Wyeast ruffled a few feathers. I'm certainly not offended and my feathers aren't ruffled. However, I think this critical issue merits further discussion. >1.) I personally corresponded with the individual homebrewer involved As have others. >For example, FRUIT DRINK may not be labeled as FRUIT JUICE; there >are legal definitions distinguishing one from the other. Labels are also >required to list ingredients in decreasing order of volume or quantity Is a package of Wyeast a food product? I don't really know. I've never seen the ingredients listed on a can of malt extract either. In fact, most items I buy for brewing do not have the ingredients listed, including such things as yeast nutrient, yeast energizer, hop pellets, etc. I don't know for certain, but maybe the FDA doesn't consider these items to be food (I doubt if anyone ever eats them). It's also possible that you've recently consumed food products which do not have the ingredients listed on the package. I have in front of me one such item (vending machine snack crackers). Interesting, isn't it? >given that Wyeast has in essence admitted that their package was misleading >by changing it I would not make this assumption. I doubt if it's just a coincidence, but they aren't necessarily "admitting" anything by changing the package. I believe the real reason the package was changed was to avoid similar problems in the future. Some people apparently assume that these packages contain pure, single-strain cultures. Wyeast probably felt that this change was necessary to make it more clear that this is not the case. >If the package contains anything in addition to Brettanomyces then >the label should reflect that fact. Oh, but it does! You said yourself that the package states: ADVANCED YEAST CULTURES. To me, this indicates that there is yeast in there. Fairly simple, isn't it? Brettanomycetes are bacteria, not yeast. Since the product is intended for brewing, I assume the yeast is S. cerevisiae (it is). There are also some Bret. sp. bacteria in there as well. I think even the old label made that clear, but the new label goes one step further. >Unlike most of the yeasts Wyeast sells, this particular yeast was labeled as >a specific strain (note the use of the latin) and not as a general style. Not really. It's labelled as an "advanced YEAST culture" containing B. brux. It does not state (or even imply) that it is a pure bacterial culture. In fact, none of their packaging implies that the cultures inside are pure, and several of their 'strains' are actually mixtures. This is a fact well-known by many homebrewers. It might be a bit confusing to the uninitiated, but it has always been clear to me what's in that package of #3278: yeast and bacteria. >and worse, why is he/she threatened with lawsuit for doing so? They threatened to sue because someone claimed that they (Wyeast) were willfully and knowingly deceiving the public. In essence, they were publicly accused of fraud. Responding to such accusations with the threat of a lawsuit was appropriate, IMO. I don't think there was any intent to deceive potential customers and the accusations which were made by the individual had the potential to negatively impact the company's image, as well as sales. Thus, the accuser might also be libel for defamation. >threatened with lawsuit--we have jobs, homes, families, in a word, we have >something to lose--but that doesn't change the veracity of the initial You seem to assume that those statements were factual. I would not make that assumption and they may even be untrue. As far as I know, the veracity of those comments has never been confirmed. Both "sides" have something to lose. >statement. I agree that the flow of information requires responsibility, but >it also requires the FREEDOM to flow. No one has taken away anyone else's freedom here. What they did was to inform the accuser that if he persisted with his accusations that they would respond by challenging him in court. He is still free to accuse all he wants, but in court, he would be required to provide evidence to support his claims and to pay restitution if he can not provide reasonable proof. There is this pesky little concept called due process, you know? Everyone in the US has the right to confront their accusers and to cross-examine them, to ask to examine the evidence, etc. How else could Wyeast respond to accusations of fraud? Tracy in Vermont aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1884, 11/15/95