HOMEBREW Digest #2032 Thu 09 May 1996

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Al's hops (Robert Paolino)
  Attn: Milwaukee & surrounding area brewers / question for Jack (Dan Aleksandrowicz)
  Re: High Temp Washers/thanks (Nigel Townsend)
  More grain mills (David C. Harsh)
  thanks to Rob too! (slcocker)
  Corny keg destruction (Charlie Scandrett)
  aob and hbd (Spencer W Thomas)
  Flaked Barley (Jim Busch)
  LA-North Brewpubs (tedben)
  RE: keg bombs ("Keith Royster")
  Re: Extraction Yield Sucks! (John Keane)
  re:  Honey Malt in IPA (DEBOLT BRUCE)
  HBD Content/Quality (Bob Grabhorn)
  More Grain Mills! ("Clark D. Ritchie")
  fermenting in kegs ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Old Goldings (Jeremy Bergsman)
  honey malt (Steve Alexander)
  Idophor / HBD & my opinion (Simonzip)
  brewing kits (HAND9)
  Re: Jack's Offer (Bill Rust)
  Wort Chiller-Displacement?? (Pete Farrow)
  re:  water and extract ales ("Alvin M. Clement")
  Re: Extraction Yield (Algis R Korzonas)
  Re:Black Butte Porter Clone (Guy Purdy)
  hop oxidation (Andy Walsh)
  newbie all-grain success (Gus Iverson)

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: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:22:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com> Subject: Al's hops Al wrote: >Bob writes: >>I agree it was WAY underhopped, but how did you get 28 IBUs--and that [[back to Al here]] > >I don't know where you got your formula from, but I used Rager's formulas >from the 1990 Hops Special Issue of Zymurgy. Here's the math all filled in: > > (1.130 - 1.050) > BA = --------------- = 0.4 > 0.2 > > 0.30 * 0.135 * 7462 302.21 > IBUs = ------------------- = ------ = 28.78 > 1.5 * 1.4 * 5 10.5 > >I think I may have rounded a little differently the first time so I got >something like 28.4 which I rounded down to 28 for the post. I believe we used the same formula (but with one big problem for Al, as noted a couple paragraphs below). You retain the decimals for U% and A% and use 7462; I move those four decimal places onto the 7462 and round to .75, or 3/4, for the convenience of doing the calculation quickly on paper rather than with an electronic device. No difference there worth arguing about. (13.5 A% * 1.5 oz * 20 U% *3) / 5 gallons * 4 cancel 20s.... 13.5 * 1.5 * 3 = 60.75, or roughly 60 Make that 15 U% and you've got roughly 45, so call it something in the low 50s if you want to split the difference I didn't use Rager's formula to calculate an adjustment for gravity; I simply picked a U% to account for the higher gravity, using my sense that it would be somewhere in the upper teens (and used a range of 15-20% as upper and lower bounds) Imprecise, sure, but is that worse than fooling yourself into believing you can get a prceise figure? Is 28.78 IBUs any more likely to be true than, say, 30, or even 35 or 20? Perhaps not. The fact that you simply pick a utilisation figure as a starting point to which you apply a gravity adjustment is a source of imprecision anyway. Al started with what he conceded to be an optimistic 30% I'd have said 25% as a starting point. Al's 30% becomes 21.4%; my 25% becomes 17.8%. Either way we're right around 20%, which is what I used as my optimistic figure for the purpose of showing that the beer was at best at the bottom of the IBU guideline, never mind the idea that it was also just _over_ the gravity guideline and would need (much) more hopping for balance. But here's where Al slipped up: his calculation appears to say "the more hops, the less bitter." Why is that 1.5 ounces (assuming that's what you mean to say with the 1.5) in the denominator? Al says, "Ooops!" (or "Doh!" --choose your exclamation) **(I hope _I'm_ not putting foot-in-mouth here by not consulting with a printed reference to confirm my own understanding.)** Now, let's redo the Unabrewer's calculation with the 1.5 put in the numerator and taken out of the denominator: 64.7595, or round to 65, or a bit higher than the approximate 60 I put at the top of the range I calculated. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino Madison rpaolino at earth.execpc.com You may now go back to your regularly-scheduled beer Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 20:33:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Dan Aleksandrowicz <bbh at execpc.com> Subject: Attn: Milwaukee & surrounding area brewers / question for Jack Milwaukee and surrounding area homebrewers: Some of you know me, some don't. I own Bristol Brewhouse, a homebrew store in Milwaukee. While I know this isn't a place to post ads, I didn't think you'd mind a freebie. (I'll try to keep this short) I want to thank all the area homebrewers (Milw., Madison, Chicago, etc). You're the reason we're in business. Starting Monday, May 13, we'll be giving away over 100 lbs of Nugget hop pellets at 14.5 alpha. You don't need to buy anything; free means FREE. Bring your own bag/jar/crock/whatever. Limit 8 oz. per brewer. Yes, I bought them in bulk, so they're not in oxygen barrier bags. No, they're not old & stale. Hops are free, bags are a buck. Bring your own bag! Sorry; walk in only. Bristol Brewhouse 818 E. Chambers St (inside Lakefront Brewery) Milwaukee, WI Mon - Fri 3:PM - 7:PM Sat 11:00 - 5:PM (Thanks for letting me post that) Question for Jack Schmidling: In HBD 2026; you said that you add Saaz hops to the kettle when you start to sparge. That sounds like it works great, but I'd heard that you can have clarity problems if you add hops right at the start of the boil. Have you had any problems, or has it been a 'non-issue'? TIA Dan Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:26:37 +1000 From: nigelt at delm.tas.gov.au (Nigel Townsend) Subject: Re: High Temp Washers/thanks Rich Byrnes asked: "HELP! Any recommendations for washers (Garden hose size) to use on a re-circ pump? " <snip> Rich, would the following washer fit? Its the washer you place at the junction of the flexible (ie. machine inlet) hose which is screwed onto the tap (ie. mains water) for dishwashers and washing machines. They take hot water. "Thanks!" I would like to take this opportunity to add my thanks to Rob for running this digest. Like (I suspect) many others, most of my knowledge was previously from books and trial and error. This has considerably broadened my knowledge and saved a number of the errors. Thanks mate! Good luck in the future. Whilst pontificating, I do not have the resources to run this dog and pony show. I am grateful to any offers from any other people who have the resources, motivation and the necesssary heat proof suit. I am happy to accept the current proposal for a new mug, oops digest manager (and thank you too, I liked your reasonable and measured response, I would have been a **** sight ruder). If there are problems after the initial foul ups that occur following any handover, then those with positive suggestions should make them, those with the resources and motivation may wish to offer to take over, and I suggest the rest of us pull our heads in and talk brewing for as long as we can. I, for one, have found the page down key. Nigel Townsend Hobart, Tasmania (Too close to Port Arthur for those wondering) Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 08:50:04 -0400 From: dharsh at alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh) Subject: More grain mills First: Yes, I forgot about the Valley Mill. I don't know anyone who has one; as a single-pass roller mill it should work fine if the preset adjustments are at the appropriate widths (and the comments from owners make it sound like they are) After I wrote: >> Any single pass mill is almost guaranteed to give the same sort of >> size distribution. Keith (keith.royster at ponyexpress.com) wrote: >...it seems to me that roller length, roller spacing, and whether >the spacing increases from one end to the other (or not) would at >least effect the ease of use, if not also create noticable differences >in the size distribution of the crushed grain. Of course, roller spacing affects the amount and distribution of the crush. I was referring to single-pass roller mills operating with the same spacing. No meaningful comparison can be made unless you are comparing them at the same gap; and if the rollers aren't parallel, all bets are off. A well designed mill shouldn't have this problem. If the rollers are parallel, then length should only affect total throughput, and from what I've seen the PhilMill throughput is probably at the low end. (no data, just judging from the roller sizes) Keith also wrote: >Yes, but will motorizing it (the PhillMill) void any warranties? I'm not sure about that - if its a concern, read the fine print! A lot of our club members motorize theirs with electric drills and I haven't heard of a problem. Jack also said: >If the rollers are sufficiently long, they can be skewed to provide >non-linear spacing from one end to the other without damaging >the bearings....MM rollers are 3" longer than the >Valley Mill and two or three TIMES longer then the rest of the ones >you mentioned and does NOT use plastic bearings Thus, the longer rollers of the MM would be more likely to be skewed. Reason enough to buy a different mill. And anyway, who uses plastic bearings? My PhillMill has brass bearings. Of course, none of this will bother Jack because he makes his living cashing dividend checks, not selling MaltMills :) REMEMBER MY MAIN POINT: "...all will give equivalent quality crushes - just decide which one you like the best. Our local club members have all varieties and I've only heard complaints about the Corona." Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 08:16:07 -0500 (EST) From: slcocker at cord.iupui.edu Subject: thanks to Rob too! Hi fellow homebrewers! I also would like to take the opportunity to thank Rob for all his hard work. I will be signing off the digest for the summer as I am heading to China. I will miss reading all of your posts, but most importantly I will miss the hoppy brews I am so fond of! Hopefully the digest will appear much the same when I return. Good luck and good beer! Sandy C. (Shanghai bound) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 22:18:52 +1000 From: merino at cynergy.com.au (Charlie Scandrett) Subject: Corny keg destruction Keith Royster posted, >I recently siphoned a batch from the secondary into a new (to me) >corny keg only to find a pin-hole leak near the top. Apparently when >this keg was sitting in the back of some restaraunt, some kids >thought it amusing to shoot at it with their new Red Rider BB-gun. >Most of the shot just dented it, but one created a small, almost >undetectable crack in the dent. For godsakes, ditch the keg! Remember the F111's, well you have a metal-fatigued bomb in your brewery. SS work hardens as soon as it is hit(apparently because it is full of chromium). Welders and sheet metal workers are careful to bend and press it. All your BB dents are harder and more brittle than the surrounding metal and will stress fracture as you expand and contract your keg with pressurising (yes, they change size!). One day it will blow up! Remember, even 7 psi is 1/2 a tonne force on the top of your keg alone! Charlie (Brisbane, Australia) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 09:41:56 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: aob and hbd There's sure a lot of paranoia out there. What happened to "relax, don't worry ..."? (Oops -- maybe that's not the right thing to say to this crowd! :-) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 09:47:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Flaked Barley Jack notes about the stuck Guinness clone in a EM: <<The recipe was: <<6-lbs DWC Pils Malt <<2-lbs flaked barley <<1-lb Roasted Barley <<Any ideas, or is this typical of flaked barley? <You took the words of of my fingers. I have never had a stuck sparge AND <I have never used flaked barley. For what it is worth, I have used flaked <corn with no problems. This is not double blind science but the finger points <that way. Its always refreshing to hear of Jack's scientific method! In this case he defends his product by implicating the adjuncts, sortof. Having just brewed two pilot batches of a "Guinness clone", each consisting of 25% flaked barley, 10% Roasted Barley and the balance Briess 2 row, I feel I can report some actual experience here (and I think I already did!). Briefly, the first mash was 40/50/60/70C and the second 60/70. Both lautered very well. I use a SS perf sheet false bottom in my 1 BBL pilot brewery. There is significantly more open area (versus an EM) in a perf sheet screen. Perhaps this could be a factor? Certainly the size of the malt crush is a factor but I was horrified to see how finely the Briess malt was crushed when my co-brewer for this batch brought it over and it still went smoothly. Prehaps using a EM with adjuncts or 70% weizens is not so great an idea? I will note that the use of Pils malt in this recipe is not required. I cant see it causing all the problems as the DWC pils malt these days is pretty highly modified (too much IMO). Also, I believe that Guinness uses a 60/70 mash program with pale ale malt. <Aside from the flaked barley as a potential problem, my standard advice <is to let it rest a full 30 mins before starting to drain tun. 30 minutes! I thought the *wonder* of the EM was that it cleared within seconds or 1/2 Qt of runoff or somesuch. Maybe a better option is to be sure the mash is very loose during lautering, in an attempt to somewhat emulate the "floating mash" concept of UK brewers. This is a good idea for Wit biers too. <However, I will point out that MM rollers are 3" longer than the <Valley Mill and two or three TIMES longer then the rest of the ones <you mentioned and does NOT use plastic bearings. And I was taught that size didnt matter! Hummph. ;-} RE: AoB/HBD. Is there a good reason why this cant be automated more through a majordomo program, or is it already? Good brewing, Jim Busch Colesville, Md Copywrong 1996 Phil Lesh (make tapes freely but dont bootleg CDs!) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 08:11:54 -0700 From: tedben at solusys.com Subject: LA-North Brewpubs I am seeking good beer in the North-LA/Ventura County area and was wondering if there are any Brewpubs in the North San Fernando Valley area or Ventura County. Thanks! Please reply to address below. - -- /~~\ /~\ / \ / \ / \ /~\ / \ /~~~~~~~~\ / \ /~~~~~~~/ \ /~~~~~\ / Ted Benning \/ \ _/ / \ \ / / \ \_ / Solution Systems Technologies, Inc \ / 6968 Springhill Dr. \ / Niwot, Colorado 80503 \ / Phone 303-652-3810 Fax 303-652-3810 \ / / \ \ / / Email tedben at solusys.com \ \ ================================================= THE VME VERTICAL MARKET SPECIALISTS Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 10:03:00 -0500 From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at ponyexpress.com> Subject: RE: keg bombs Charlie warns me about my keg-bomb... > For godsakes, ditch the keg! Remember the F111's, well you have a > metal fatigued bomb in your brewery. SS work hardens as soon as it > is hit <snip> Remember, even 7 psi is 1/2 a tonne force on the top > of your keg alone! Now seriously Charlie, do you really beleive this!? I understand the principles of what you are saying. I took a few Strengths of Materials classes while getting my Engineering degree a few years back, so I understand how metals can become brittle when they are warped, dented, and/or bent. But let's think about the reality here and not the theory.... 1) Think of all of the kegs out there that homebrewers are using. I'd bet that 90% of them, if not more, were obtain in a very USED condition. If we had to throw them out everytime one got nicked or dented, we wouldn't have any kegs left. 2) Think of all of the nicked and dented kegs in use out there now. Have you ever heard of a homebrewer telling about how his blew up. 3) Think about how used and dented the kegs are you see behind fast-food restaraunts. Soda is under much more pressure than our beer is, yet you never hear about "an explosion at Burger King." 4) You say "even 7 psi is 1/2 a tonne force on the top of your keg alone!" Yeah, so. It's still just 7 psi. That's why we measure the force "per square inch". In summary, here's what'll happen IF/when a dent in your corney keg finally cracks open... beer and foam will come out of the hole with the violent force of a trickle and you'll have a huge mess to clean up in your beer fridge. Keith Royster - Keith.Royster at ponyexpress.com at your.service - http://www.wp.com/ at your.service/ Web Services - Starting at just $60 per YEAR! Voice & Fax - (704) 663-1098 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 10:35:58 -0400 From: John Keane <keane at cs.rutgers.edu> Subject: Re: Extraction Yield Sucks! In HBD #2031, Denis Barsalo writes: > I know I'm not suppose to worry about my extraction and just use > more grain if it's too low, but this is the third recipe in a row that I > end up with a much lower OG than expected. > [snip] There are a number of factors that can affect your yield. You mention a few of them: mashing out at a higher temperature (~170), sparging slowly, and the quality of the crush. There's no question that crush quality can have an effect, and the grain mill in my local HB store is also set a little wide. One thing you can do to improve your crush quality using the same mill is run the grain through twice -- it won't over-pulverize already crushed grains, but will catch some of the intact grains going through again. Since I started doing this, I got about a 10% improvement in yield, with no additional sparge difficulties. An ideal crush would have the grains well-pulverized (though short of flour), with all of the hulls intact. Since this is nearly impossible to achieve, you should be looking for a crush that produces few completely intact grains (<5%) but still has most of the grain crushed at least in half. I am of the opinion that accepting a slightly lower yield to avoid sparge problems is worthwhile. Another critical factor you don't mention is mash pH. If your pH is outside the 5.3-5.7 range, it can reduce your yield. You should check and adjust it if you are not already doing so. I think yield predictability is a more important aspect in homebrew mashing than total yield. With my mashing system, I consistently get 80% of the "Miller Yield" when mashing, which is normally in the 28-30 ppg/lb range, depending on grains used. I need 7 pounds of pale malt to get 5 gallons at 1.040. If you are getting 22 ppg/lb, you would need 9 pounds, or about 30% more grain. On a large scale this is significant, but at the 5-gallon level, you are talking about perhaps $1.50 more in grain per batch (or about $0.03 more per bottle). On the other hand, if you can reliably predict your yield, you can always get your OG to come out where you want it. Not that you shouldn't try to improve your yield, but if you're getting good end results with your current system, why mess with it? > BTW, I'm assuming you figure out the math for extraction rate > *before* you boil, right? Actually, it doesn't matter. If you measure before the boil, you get a lower gravity multiplied by a greater volume of liquid. After the boil, the gravity will be higher in proportion to the amount of liquid lost during the boil, and the ppg/lb calculation will be the same. As an afterthought, though, don't forget to compensate for temperature when taking your SG reading. An uncompensated reading at 160 degrees can *really* lower your computed yield! _John_ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 96 10:49:35 -0400 From: DEBOLT BRUCE <bdebolt at dow.com> Subject: re: Honey Malt in IPA Sam Nickerson <samn at broc.com> - your address bounced so I'll reply on the digest. Reply to my post regarding Columbus hops in an IPA. > What do you call the recipe? America Discovers Columbus IPA. >Bruce, in the following recipe you mention Honey Malt and I was wondering >if you could clue me in on the malt since I have never heard of it untill >recently. Where is it purchased, is Lovibond,and OG if you have the info >and what it imparts to the brew. Sounds like a great adition to a honey >porter so any info appreciated. Gambrinus is the malt company, from Canada. Honey malt is a 20-25 Lovibond crystal malt that has some honey-type flavor. I believe it was made as a substitute for a malt made in Germany called Brumalt or Brewmalt. I first heard of it from a brewer in the club who made an excellent pale ale with it in the recipe. Later I saw some technical details in the Zymurgy 1995 Special Issue on Grains. Other than that I don't have any more information. The Zymurgy issue is back at the house. Let me know if you need anything else. Bruce DeBolt bdebolt at dow.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 09:05:50 -0700 From: Bob Grabhorn <grabhorn at olywa.net> Subject: HBD Content/Quality In HBD #2031, Russell Mast very eloquently described the recent decline in the relevance of topics on the HBD and the manner in which they have been "discussed." He ended by saying that "...anyone considering a legitimate response to this, remember - If you take things too seriously, you wind up sounding even stupider than I do." I don't want to make this into just one more thread for bickering, but I agree wholeheartedly with Russell, and I'm a certified moron. I subscribed to the HBD with issue 1976. I learned a lot in February and March, and I got my cousin to subscribe, too. When the network guy at his office said he couldn't continue receiving it, he unsubscribed. As Russell did for Jake, I forwarded relevant posts to my cousin. It's been weeks now since that's been necessary. Russell listed most of the superfluous nonsense that has constituted the majority of the HBD lately. His only omission was the whole "plaid thing," which I can see being fun for some folks. You might say, "Bob, the HBD is what we make of it. Why don't YOU post something MORE meaningful?" I have. The problem with my posts was that they pertained to beer and brewing. One was a request for advice on doing something experimental (for me anyway). I got private e-mail responses from two people for each of these posts. While I greatly appreciate the time and thought given to me by those four (total) people, I had hoped for more, given the combined resources of HBD readers. I've been thinking maybe it's just a learning curve. You get the most from the HBD in the first 2 months. After that, gains come very slowly. If so, I might as well unsubscribe, since wading through the nonsense makes these gains too hard-fought to be worthwhile. For the past 2 weeks, I've continued to subscribe, hoping that "today will be the day..." Unfortunately, Russell Mast's post (copyright Tito Jackson) is the best thing I've read on the HBD during those 2 weeks. Look, flame me if you want. Send me e-mails agreeing or disagreeing. It really doesn't matter. My preference would be that the HBD revert to containing meaningful dialogue on beer and brewing. If this doesn't happen, I will unsubscribe. Frankly, I don't see what about the HBD is so precious that the AoB could screw it up. Bob Grabhorn Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 09:12:22 -0700 From: "Clark D. Ritchie" <ritchie at ups.edu> Subject: More Grain Mills! For a good grain mill discussion, including plans for building one at home, check out the latest issue of "Brewing Techniques". Appearing on page 26 is Rob Brown's article: "Roller Mill Roundup -- A Review of Homemade Grain Milling Systems". It is very informative... CDR PS - Timing is everything! Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie at ups.edu Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu> Subject: fermenting in kegs Al K writes: >There have been a number of people who have mentioned fermenting in kegs >lately. [...] I would like to caution that these connector openings are very small >and are very likely to clog if there is blowoff. While these kegs are >rated to 130psi, I think it's a good idea to not try and see if yeast >can generate 130psi. I know that a lot of people will write and say that >they have fermented in Corny kegs for years with no problems, but I >still contend (after two carboy explosions due to clogged blowoff tubes: >one 5/16" ID the other 3/8" ID) that it is better to be safe than sorry and >any chance of blowing off through a Corny fitting can be *dangerous*. My question is What do primary fermenters clog with??? Common advice on HBD is to get rid of the orange caps on your carboy during primary fermentation and shove a large diameter blowoff hose right in the carboy neck. This way it won't clog. But what does it clog with, CO2? Do people throw the trub, hops and all from the kettle right into the fermenter? Or is it just that so much CO2 is being created that it can't escape fast enough through 3/8" tubing. Sounds like a dumb question, but I've heard that there are no dumb questions. - Bryan grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, TN Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 09:02:31 -0800 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu> Subject: Old Goldings Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au> made a post that really caught my eye. > What I often notice in many homebrewed beers (particularly hoppy British ales) > is a kind of a burnt, cigarette-ash bitterness, that is obvious on the palate, > but also on the nose once you are used to it. I used to think it was just > Goldings hops, but the list has been extended to Fuggles, Northern Brewer and > Cascade. My current thinking is that is not so much dependent on the hop type, > but on the age of the hop and how it has been stored (although obviously some > types keep better than others). Goldings seem particularly vulnerable however. 3 out of 5 recent batches of mine had this same taste. It took me a while to name it, but when I did I said "used ashtray." I looked through my brewing notes and the only thing I could find in common was the use of a batch of old, whole Kent Goldings. I keep mine in CO2-purged glass jars in the freezer, but they were >1 year from when I bought them. I'd be interested in hearing if others have had similar *or contrary* experiences. If you email me I'll summarize. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:33:20 -0400 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: honey malt Paul Brian asks, >Hello Brewers, > >A couple of recipes that have come over HBD >lately have included Honey Malt. This is the >first time I've heard of this variety. Can >someone explain the characteristics of this >malt and what benefits it provides to the fine ales >(and lagers) that we brew? The Canadian maltster Gambrinus has introduced a brumalt called Honey Malt. Brumalt is a traditional european malt that is made by taking 8 day malt in a relatively deep pile and covering them for 24 hours. The temperature rises quickly to to ~122F, until the O2 is used up and CO2 accumulates. It is then kilned at a low temperature, but has a very dark color and is rich in simple sugars. (almost a quote from Malting & Brewing Sci.). My guess is that significant saccharification, proteolysis and maybe carmelization take place in these processes. I haven't used Gambrinus malts, tho' I hear good things about them periodically. Anyone care to comment on Gambrinus malts ? On a US mail order source ? RSVP email I'll summarize. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:29:53 -0400 From: Simonzip at aol.com Subject: Idophor / HBD & my opinion I'm going to start using idophor, primarily in my kegging endeavors to begin with. I did a search on the HBD but didn't find answers to all my Q's, or contradictions anyway. Here goes: 1) What is the correct concentration? I've read anywhere from one half to 2 oz. per 5 gallons. 2) While it claims no-rinse, does the piece of equipment *need* to air dry? In the case of pulling a SS spoon from the solution to stir cool wort, can I just shake off the excess? Or in kegging, can I just pour out the solution and syphon my beer right in without turning it upside down and waiting for it to dry? 3) I've read it will keep in solution for extended periods of time. Those references were in closed containers like kegs. What about a 1 gallon glass jug, will light affect it's viability? Any other tips or suggestions on usage certainly appreciated. - --------------------------- I would also like to applaud Rob for keeping this going for sooooo long by himself. It's gotta be a record of some sort. I will also, for the record, indicate I think this forum should continue to be conducted from the private sector. I wish I had the means. Darrin Proprietor--Simpleton's Cosmic Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:35:14 EST From: <HAND9 at homer.sit.ecu.edu> Subject: brewing kits Are there any places that someone can obtain some kind of homebrew kit? I'm am a beginner but very interested. thanks, james gray Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:46:59 -0400 From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com> Subject: Re: Jack's Offer I just wanted to comment on a previous post... In HBD #2031, Robin E. Decker says... >Date: Tue, 7 May 96 13:16:00 -0500 >From: "Decker, Robin E." <robind at rmtgvl.rmtinc.com> >Subject: Jack's Offer > > >Well folks, >It appears to me that we have a reasonable compromise to the ownership of >the HBD on the table. I believe that in issue #2029, Jack Schmidling >offered to provide the resources necessary to run the HBD, if Al Korzonas >would provide the labor.... I'm assuming that Jack would follow through >with his offer even if Rob thinks there is another individual more suited >for janitorial work <g>. >FWIW, I think this idea is great because it gives us a kind of "separation >of church & state".... I have a couple of issues to take with these statements: 1) The HBD has already been turned over to the AOB. I hadn't realized there was some kind of open forum/debate platform, after which there would be a referendum of the HBD readership. I believe Rob has done what he felt necessary to handle the problem. It's done. If someone is not happy, it's unfortunate, but they do have options available to them, all of which have been (and more than likely, will be further) discussed in detail. 2) I don't see where Jack Schmidling is a better choice than the AOB in terms of "separation of church & state". Jack certainly has a profit motivated interest in homebrewing. Further, he has on numerous occasions, used the HBD as a vehicle to promote his own products. While I respect Jack as a brewer and inventer, I cannot agree with Robin's reasoning on this point. Well, that's it for now. Dang, all this talk makes me thirsty... Skol. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | You can't be a real country unless you have Bill Rust | a beer and an airline - it helps if you Master Brewer | have some kind of a football team, or some Jack Pine Savage Brewery | nuclear weapons, but at the very least you Shiloh, IL (NACE) | need a beer. - FRANK ZAPPA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 10:59:19 -0700 From: Pete Farrow <pfarrow at unix.sri.com> Subject: Wort Chiller-Displacement?? How much wort does the 25ft coiled copper chiller displace? Thanks in advance. Pete Farrow pfarrow at unix.sri.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:40:12 -0500 (CDT) From: "Alvin M. Clement" <aclement at mail.orion.org> Subject: re: water and extract ales OK, neophyte question time. Our city well water is incredibly hard (we go through 2-3 coffee makers a year) but still tastes ok. Since I haven't made the leap to all grain and am brewing with extracts and speciality grains just how concerned should I be about water chemistry. Al Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 96 14:47:32 CDT From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: Re: Extraction Yield Denis writes: > I'm doing everything "by the book". Step infusion, mash out, sparge >at the right temperature, at the "proper" rate, etc. I take a sample before >I start boiling, figure out the math and WHAT! 22 pts!!?? I'm using 10 >pounds of grain, how can that be? How many gallons of runnings are you taking? If you are only taking 5 gallons of runnings, then you are leaving a lot of sugars in the spent grain. You should take at least 6.5 gallons of runnings and boil that down to 5.5 (leaving 1/2 gallon to hop and trub losses). I often take 7.5 gallons of runnings, boil that for an hour to lose a gallon, add my bittering hops and begin another 1-hour boil (during which I lose another gallon). I have been re-thinking this procedure (maybe I'm taking too many gallons of runnings... what do you think?) since commercial brewers usually lose only 5 to 15% of the water during the boil and I'm losing nearly 27%!. > I've decided that it *must* be the crush. I'm using a grain mill at >the homebrew store, and I have a feeling that it's set too loose. > What does properly crushed grain *really* look like anyway? In the >last batch I crushed, I remember seeing quite a few grains that seemed >intact. Should I be seeing a few pulverised grains ? Depends on the mill. With a Corona mill you cannot crush all the grains without pulverising some. That's its main problem. With a roller mill you should be able to get 99% crushed without shredding the husks. I generally set my mill (JSP adjustable) so that it breaks most of the grain into 3 to 6 pieces. A small percentage of the grain will look uncrushed but in reality will have been split down the middle and will break apart between your fingers. Indeed, too coarse a crush will make your yield suffer. > BTW, I'm assuming you figure out the math for extraction rate >*before* you boil, right? Well, yes and no. If you want to measure the efficiency of your mashing and lautering, then you measure pre-boil gravity and volume (don't take 6.5 gallons of runnings and use 5 gallons in the formula!). If you want to measure the efficiency of your entire system (including losses to hops, trub, boilover, spillage, etc.) then you use the volume and gravity of the wort in the fermenter. I usually calculate my system efficiency and get between 26 and 32 points/lb/gal. The range is because I don't always use the same amount of grain, take the same volume of runnings, use the same grain bill or the same brands of malt. The pH can be a factor too. Check your mash pH and adjust it down with either gypsum (English pale ales) or lactic or phosphoric acid (if it's a style which requires low sulfate water). If the pH is too low, raise it with Calcium Carbonate. You want your mash pH to be between 5.2 and 5.6 or so. There are a number of other factors which you may want to consider: 1. Fresh malt gives you much better yield than stale -- ideally the malt should be stored in a sealed plastic bag or airtight container to protect it from moisture. 2. If you crush the malt one day and then weigh it out the next, it will have absorbed moisture (it is then called slack malt) and will give you lower yield (I've read as much as 10% but this depends *so* much on humidity that it is incorrect to assume anything). 3. Although this is a much bigger issue when brewing partial-boil extract batches, don't forget to stir before taking a measurement -- the first runnings are much higher gravity than the final runnings and there will be a gradient (albeit a small one) from top to bottom until you stir. 4. Is your hydrometer accurate? Is your thermometer accurate? Are you compensating for temperature properly if you measure the OG at any temp other than that for which your hydrometer was calibrated? Are you reading the hydrometer right? Note that despite the fact that most hydrometers that are meant to be used on non-clear liquids are calibrated to be read at the top of the meniscus, every hydrometer manufacturer I contacted said that theirs are calibrated to be read at the BOTTOM of the meniscus. Sure, it's only 0.001 or 0.002, but factors can add up. 5. Is your measurement of volume accurate? This is a biggie! An error of only 2 quarts can be the difference between 30 pts/lb/gal and 28.6 pts/lb/gal. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at pubs.att.com Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 23:34:32 GMT From: Guy Purdy <GUYPURDY at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re:Black Butte Porter Clone Hello H.B.D., In response to several inquiries regarding ny posting of the Black Butte Porter clone, here is additional information that I neglected to include in that post: 1. The O.G. was 1053, the F.G. 1010. 2. A.A.U.s were; Galena-11.1 Cascade-5.1 Tettnanger-3.7....It didn't taste overly bitter. On the contrary, it was very well balanced, as the original is. Also, thanks to Jennifer at Deschutes Brewing for divulging the hops types they use. It provided my "breakthrough"! Happy Brewing, Guy Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 09:43:55 +1100 From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au> Subject: hop oxidation Al K. writes in response to my oxidised beta acids post (ie. old hops used for finishing can cause a very unpleasant, smoky bitterness): >I believe that it's not the solubility that is changed with oxidation, but >rather the bitterness. I've read that un-oxidized beta acids are not very >bitter but oxidized ones are. My original information was from the hop FAQ: "Although isomerized alpha acids are the biggest contributers, hops contain beta acids which also add bitterness to beer. The beta acids are similar to alpha acids both in structure and abundance. In contrast to alpha acids, it is not isomerized beta acids that add bitterness, it is the oxidation products of the beta acids, which are bitter and soluble, that make their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ presence felt. It should be noted that oxidized beta acids are not as bitter as isomerized alpha acids. Both the alpha and beta acids are very susceptible to oxidation, especially at temperatures above freezing. Theoretical losses of alpha acids of up to 60% have been calculated for hops which are packaged and stored poorly. This is important because once alpha acids have been oxidized they can no longer be isomerized into iso-alpha acid, thus decreasing the hop's bittering potential. As stated above, oxidation components of beta acids contribute to bitterness, thus the bittering potential of oxidized hops may not decrease as much as is commonly thought. This does not, in any way, argue against storing hops well, since essential oils are dramatically and negatively altered by oxidation." I am not sure where this information comes from. Is it correct? I have also just checked George Fix's book. He makes no mention of oxidised beta acids' solubility, but does say, "It has been firmly established that the mellow and pleasing hop bitterness found in beer is derived from the a-acids" and later (concerning b-acids): "Their brewing value is uncertain, however, it is known that old hops devoid of a-acids can still bitter beer, albeit with a less pleasant bitter than that obtained from fresh hops." This seems to support my argument. Whether "less pleasant bitter" is what I am tasting, and oxidised b-acids' increased solubility, are still in some doubt. - -- Andrew Walsh CHAD Research Laboratories Phone (61 2) 212 6333 5/57 Foveaux Street Fax (61 2) 212 1336 Surry Hills. NSW. 2010 email awalsh at crl.com.au Australia. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 21:16:40 -0700 From: Gus Iverson <iverson at halcyon.com> Subject: newbie all-grain success [posting attempt #2 as netscape does not default to a 80 character width message] I have been thinking about all-grain brewing since I started as an extract brewer a couple years ago. Basically the only thing keeping me from trying it was lack of understanding of the process and a lack of understanding of what equipment I would need. While strolling through Pike Place Market in Seattle I stopped in Liberty Homebrew Supply (no affiliation, etc) and found some of Phil's stuff for sale. A nice guy helped to show me the process I would go through with the two bucket system and I tried it the next weekend. My brewing friend and I are both stout lovers and we decided that a high gravity beer may be good to start with as we were not likely to get much of a conversion on our first attempt anyway. Here is the recipie we decided to try: Single infusion mash. Mash in at 170F dropping temp to 158 10 lbs pale english 2row 1.5 lbs 500L roasted 1 lbs flaked 2 oz Kent Goldings 6.9AAU 90min .5 oz Cascade 6.1AAU 90min .5 oz Cascade 6.1AAU 10min WYeast liquid Irish ale yeast We made many mistakes with our first attempt including mistaking the celsius side of the thermometer for the farenheit. (Our thermometer only shows F in double digits above 100 degrees. With this in mind it would not be *too* difficult to make this mistake once). We figure our mash temperature varied from ~170F to 140F due to our errors. Even so we ended up with a SG of 1.060 for 4 gallons of wort after boiling (we did not have enough sparge water ready). Using the excel spreadsheet I found on the net this gives us an extraction rate of 19. Heartened by the fact that our beer actually started to ferment we decided to try the above recipe again to see if we could improve our skill. Armed with an IBM 15" monitor box which I lined with mylar bubblewrap insulation (sold for insulating water heaters) and a better understanding of our thermometer and sparge water needs we ended up with a SG of 1.066 for 5 gallons of wort in the fermenter. The spreadsheet says this is an extraction rate of 26 - a marked improvement. Even having not tasted our beer, one is in the primary now and one in the secondary, my friend and I are both hooked and do not wish to go back to using extracts. My point in writing this is to give testamony of another all-grain newbie success and hopefully prompt some other newbie to try it this summer (or perhaps on National Homebrew Day - I'll be there). Next task is converting the unused fridge in the garage to a lagering fridge. Any pointers out there? I have collected at least one set of plans and specifications. I have not seen Mark G(insert rest of name)'s plans however. All grain is indeed more fun! Gus Iverson and brewbuddie Andy Tritch Return to table of contents