HOMEBREW Digest #2283 Tuesday, December 10 1996

Digest #2282 Digest #2284
		(formerly Volume 02 : Number 003)

  glen brew secret yeast
  Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #1
  Mash Temp
  WELCOME BACK!/poor extraction efficiency
  How to live with the HBD
  Digest New Home
  Re: Job well done!
  MCI Mail Partial Posting Notice
  subject lines
  Yeast bite
  Women in Brewing
  Re: Burners
  glen brew secret yeast
  RE: Hop pellets vs. whole flowers / kraeusening
  Re: HBD functions
  mixed beers
  extraction efficiency info
  Starter fermentation
  War of the Worts Competition
  Wyeast #1728 (scottish) question
  Re: Burners -- Conversion to Natural Gas
  RE: No sparge/Counter pressure bottling
  Brew Water/Hop Aroma
  beer bottle collectible sale
  Homebrew Digest V2 #2
  Welcome back
  AOB Corporate Structure

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:26:41 -0500 From: Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering <gmoore at wacko.East.Sun.COM> Subject: glen brew secret yeast Anyone have experience with glen-brew (or is it glenn brew) secret yeast? Our local brew shop owner said it was EDME yeast with amalayse(SP?) enzyme. I used this yeast in an old english strong ale thats in my secondary and has been fermenting away for over 3 weeks now. While the fermentation has slowed considerably, it is still plainly visible. The wort is a lot clearer than it was 2 weeks ago, but it's still 'cooking' away. Just wanted to find out if this is normal for the glenn brew secret yeast? The brewshop where I bought it from said it was. (also said that since I have it in a 65-68 degree environment, that the fermentation process may have been slowed down due to the 'low' temp.) Comments? Suggestions?? (I'm beyond having another homebrew already!) - -G Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:51:07 -0500 From: shane at cais.cais.com Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #1 So what is the new address to post? The address for the digest janitor? Shane Saylor, Eccentric Bard Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:51:25 -0500 From: David Root <droot at concentric.net> Subject: Mash Temp I mashed 16 lb Klages, 1/2 lb crystal, 1/2 lb carapils, and 1 lb english brown malt. 1 hour at 140 and 1 hour at 155. OG 1.043, wich is what I expected. FG 1.005!! This is the lowest FG I have ever gotten. It is still fermenting in my basment at about 65 F. I used 1056 with a 1/2 gallon starter. Is this because of the cooler ferment? Or mostly form the low mash temps? I have always gotten FG of 1.014 or so. The beer tastes pretty good. It is still fermenting at about 15 blips per minute (BPM). David Root Droot at concentric.net Lockport NY Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 19:52:40 -0500 From: Rick Gontarek <gontarek at voicenet.com> Subject: WELCOME BACK!/poor extraction efficiency Yay! The HBD is back! My days just weren't the same...there was a huge void in my life. After almost 6 years of getting the HBD, I was suffering from serious withdrawal symptoms. I am sooo glad we're back in action. I know that the AOB has often taken a lot of heat from many of us, but I am heartened to see that they worked to get us back in business. Thanks! Anyway, I wanted to thank those of you who took the time out to respond to my post to the HBD lastmonth regarding my poor extraction efficiency.Sorry I haven't had the time to respond and thank you individually. You all hadgreat advice, and I appreciate it. I brewed a Steam beer shortly after getting lots of good advice, and I was astounded to get 32.8 points/lb/gallon from 9.5 lbs. of grist! I calculated an efficiency of 89.6%! Boy, was I surprised. I feel like such a homebrew stud! So, what'd I do differently? Perhaps the biggest two things were that I mashed on the stovetop using a 40-60-70 routine, and I had a longer sparge.Normally I mash in my 10 gallon Gott cooler, altering the temps by adding water at different temps. I feel that on the stovetop today I had greater temperature control, and I can mix everything much better. After the mashout, I transferred to the cooler (avoiding aeration of the mash), and sparged for about 1 hr and 15 minutes. I also acidified my sparge water to pH 5.5 with lactic acid. Several of you commented on my crush, but I feel that I am getting a crush that is fine enough. I think that the biggest difference was a longer sparge, and better control over mash temperature. So it looks like I have found out where I was encountering problems. It's amazing what can happen when you pay close attention to your method. There are probably a lot of you out there who don't really give a squat about getting a few more points of extract from your grain, but as one who loves the technical challenges and rewards of all-grain brewing, I'm glad that I was able to use the advice I got from others and learn from my experiences. Thanks again to everyone who helped me out! If anyone else out there has had similar problems with lousy extraction efficiency and wants to hear a bit more about my experiences, please email me. See ya 'round, Rick Gontarek Owner/brewmaster of the Major Groove Picobrewery Trappe, PA gontarek at voicenet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 96 18:05:45 PST From: michael j dix <mdix at dcssc.sj.hp.com> Subject: How to live with the HBD some humble suggestions: It is probably easier in the long run to stick to commonly used mailing list software. Managing a custom mailing list program such as Rob's has to be a labor of love, as well as a major time sink. Maybe we can all cope with Majordomo. The two faults with Majordomo (or any list software) seem to be 1) Ability to constantly get undigested posts in real time, instead of one tidy digest. 2) Ability to send half-baked or redundant responses to the list, w/o a cancel feature. I would propose two solutions: 1) No one should subscribe to the undigested list. 2) Even so, wait a day before replying (unless you have some stunningly appropriate answer from hard-won experience.) This should keep the number of digests down. Third: I innocently posted a response into the teeth of the meltdown. A torrent of copies of this message came to me. A larger torrent of messages came from angry people who wondered why I (not HBD, but little me) was flooding their mailboxes with unwanted messages. To me, this points up another danger of custom mail list software, as opposed to industry standard. My proposal: Make it so that all HBD messages appear to come from HBD (reply-to address). This does appear to be in place, so I will try to breathe easily. Fourth: Non-deliverable HBD's are being bounced back into the HBD (this was a persistent problem even during Rob's stewardship.) This will also cause extra digests to be sent out, as the 1500 line limit is reached. I don't know the answer, but I expect it can be fixed in Majordomo. Finally: The more the list members, the more list traffic and thus the more digests. I don't see an easy answer to this unless the list owner controls access and/or membership. This solution has little appeal for me. Mike Dix Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 21:53:55 -0800 From: Dave Greenlee <daveg at mail.airmail.net> Subject: Digest New Home Dear Folks: Welcome back to the HBD! For those who haven't found out about it already, status of Pat Babcock's new home for the digest can be found at: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/hbd/ Let's all give Pat a toast for taking on this project, and support him however we can! Nazdrowie, Dave Greenlee Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:37:43 -0800 From: bobh at thorin.instanet.com (Bob H) Subject: Re: Job well done! Welcome back to the real world! Thanks for getting it back together! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 00:49 EST From: POSTMASTER <POSTMASTER at mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Mail Partial Posting Notice - -----------------MCI Mail Internet Gateway Service Message------------------ Message Post Time: 05:48:42 GMT, Tue 10 DEC 1996 Status: Message Posted into MCI Mail - INVALID Addresses were encountered Message Information: From: homebrew EMS: Internet MBX: homebrew at dionysus.aob.org Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #2 Message Statistics: Total Recipient Addresses In Envelope: 13 Invalid Addresses and Reasons: 607 Either no address or no MCI Mail user matches recipient information BCC: 0005631241 EMS: MCI MAIL MBX: 0005631241 Additional Message Information: - ------------------------------ Received: from gatekeeper2.mcimail.com by mailgate5.mcimail.com id aa05399; 10 Dec 96 5:48 WET Received: from dionysus.aob.org (dionysus.aob.org []) by gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with ESMTP id FAA11355; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 05:54:28 GMT Received: (from dionysus at localhost) by dionysus.aob.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA14637 for homebrew-digest-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:40:42 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:40:42 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612092340.QAA14637 at dionysus.aob.org> X-Authentication-Warning: dionysus.aob.org: dionysus set sender to owner-homebrew-digest at using -f From: To: homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #2 Reply-To: homebrew at dionysus.aob.org Sender: Errors-To: Precedence: bulk - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:40:12 -0500 From: "William D. Knudson" <71764.203 at compuserve.com> Subject: subject lines HBD is back and I assume that the *powers* that be are still working the kinks out of the new system. I'd like to mention that I prefer the old format of having the senders name included in the subject line. This helps scan the large volume of posts. I'd like to add that I concur with other comments about two dropped features of Rob Gardner's HBD. 1. The ability to unpost 2. The daily size limit. Sorry about the lack of beer discussion, oh yeah, yesterday I dropped a 5 gal carboy in the garage full of young beer - 2 hour clean up at #%&*$# at *# Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 23:06:03 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca> Subject: Yeast bite I recently entered an ESB into competition which the judges claimed suffered from yeast bite. I re-evaluated the beer as I read the score sheet and I believe that I have isolated the effects of yeast bite palate-wise (it's basically a harsh bitterness right?), but I'm not sure what would have caused it, or how to take steps to avoid it. I used the Wyeast British Ale (1098) strain. The batch was a partial-mash effort (1.8kg Baird Pale, 1.5kg LME, 115g 10L crystal, 230g 90L crystal; 1oz NB for 60 mins, 1 oz KG for 60 mins, 1 oz KG for 15 mins, 2 oz EKG for 0 mins; mashed at ~152F for 1.75 hrs) OG 1.049 The ferment was at 60F for 4 days. Appearing complete (via bubble rate), I checked the SG... 1.028!* So, I brought into a warmer (72F) area, swirled the carboy gently and let it go for 2 more days... SG 1.015 - racked to secondary. Bottled with 2/3 cup corn sugar, 6 days later. * I was trying to use a refractometer (calibrated for salinity and adjusted to give SG by a linear least-sqaures to fit for a series of sugar water solutions). This method seems to work fine for unfermented solutions, but appears to break down when used on fermented and/or partially fermented solutions. I suspect that the alcohol in solution is transparent to the instrument so the reading is high (perhaps C02 has an effect also). The bottom line here is that the ferment may have actually been complete at the 4 day point and my SG reading was wrong. Sorry to be long-winded.. this sort of turned into 2 postings... Dave Riedel, Victoria, BC, Canada (still in favour of a daily limit, cancel feature and no undigested mode, but glad to see HBD back!) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:29:02 -0500 (EST) From: Shannon Cates <scates at college.antioch.edu> Subject: Women in Brewing In between batches, I am researching the history of women brewers/brewsters in the U.S. Specifically, I am interested in several issues: - --Groaning beer, or beer that was brewed for consumption during childbirth - --The "widow industry," or women who took over their husbands' commercial breweries after their deaths - --Brewing and domesticity, or the notion that beer, like food, was something that should be produced within the home by women - --The "criminalization" of beer within the context of women's temperance work and Prohibition Please let me know if you can recommend books, articles, or other sources which deal with these subjects. I'm especially looking for historical information referring to the period 1700-1930. Thanks in advance for your help. Private e-mail on these issues welcome. - --Shannon Cates, Springfield, OH Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:39:25 -0500 From: Jim Merrill - SMCC hardware <jmerrill at brauhaus.East.Sun.COM> Subject: Re: Burners >> hollen writes: >> on tall stands, shorts stands, round stands and square stands. Metal >> Fusion will sell individual pieces, like just ring burner and gas >> regulator if you are building one into a stand. I also have to put in a good word for the Metal Fusion Co. I bought just the ring burner and the needle valve regulator for $30 and put them into my home made stands. I picked up over 30' of 2"X2" angle iron at a local scrap yard for $12. Then I got some box steel with holes all the way down the side. I made a square box to fit my kegs using the angle iron and welded the box steel to each corner as legs. I then made an "H" out of the box steel and bolted it through the holes between the legs. The burner mounts right in the center of the "H". I can change the height of the burner by loosening the wing nuts and attaching the "H" to a diff. set of holes. I welded a black pipe coupling into the bottom of the legs, screwed in a nipple, and put one of those round threaded feet on the bottom. This made the legs easy to adjust for uneven floors/driveways. I made my stands high enough so that another keg can fit under the keg in the stand. The result was a much stronger stand than any I have seen for sale. Although, my welding skills need some improvement. - -Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:43:33 -0500 From: Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering <gmoore at wacko.east.sun.com> Subject: glen brew secret yeast It appears that HBD still likes to drop some mails - Here's mine that I sent yesterday and appears to have gone into /dev/null. You have received this message because you are subscribed to the homebrew mailing list. For information on how to unsubscribe and other commands which are available to you, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "help" in the body. If you need assistance, send mail to <owner-homebrew at aob.org> Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:10:49 -0800 From: George De Piro <George_De_Piro at berlex.com> Subject: RE: Hop pellets vs. whole flowers / kraeusening Howdy all! Nice to see that the patient has awakened from its coma. There was a question about using hop pellets instead of whole flowers (cones, leafs, call them what you will...) You will find that you need less pellets to achieve similar bitterness and flavor of whole hops (18% less according to Papazian. Nice round figure). I've also read, and my experience seems to bear this out, that they don't need to be boiled for quite as long as whole hops to extract the bitterness (allegedly because the lupulin glands are already burst during pelletizing, so you just need to isomerize the alpha acids. I believe that this is from Miller, but I could be wrong). I like using pellets for two reasons: they are exceedingly easy to remove from the wort through whirlpooling, and around these parts, fresh hops don't usually look very good (I don't think they should look like a dried floral arrangement, with lots of autumn colors, should they?). ----------------------- There was also a question about kraeusening. The wheat beer book by Eric Warner has a very good and concise discussion about how to calculate the amount of wort that needs to be reserved for kraeusening. In short, you need to know how fermentable the wort you are kraeusening with is in order to accurately calculate the amount needed to achieve the desired level of carbonation. Kraeusening lagers and ales is done with the same procedure, the only difference being the temperatures (keep the lager yeasts cool, etc.). I really don't know if it makes any difference to use this method of carbonating. I've used kraeusen, speise (saved wort), and corn sugar, all to good effect. Kraeusening is the only choice (other than force carbonating) for lagers because a properly lagered beer won't have enough active yeast left in suspension to carbonate the beer in a reasonable amount of time using corn sugar or speise. Kraeusening is also a good choice for higher alcohol beers because the original yeast may be too stunned to finish the job. I guess you should choose kraeusening whenever you want to add fresh yeast for whatever reason! Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 07:14:36 PST From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: HBD functions >> Bryan L Gros writes: BLG> Good to have the digest back. BLG> If we're starting from scratch, is there any means to discuss what BLG> functions we want/need? Is there enough demand for a reflector BLG> list to keep it? And does that mean that the cancel post feature BLG> can't be implemented? What you have to realize is that Rob Gardner "rolled his own" and if anyone is going to take over the HBD, they would be foolish to use anything but widely accepted "tried and true" mailing list software and the only two of those worth anything are ListProc and Majordomo. And pretty much, the features are fixed, unless you want to have someone hacking the code, and then it becomes an upgrade nightmare when new versions of the software come out. I am a professional programmer and *I* would not want the job of maintaining modified list server software. 99% of the mailing lists in the world probably use these two packages and all of those people seem to get along quite well with their functions. The HBD is an *unusually* large list and we should just be happy that someone is will to take on the task at all, let alone ask them to make it work by putting in custom features. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:02:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu> Subject: mixed beers Daniel Goodale (good lagers as well) writes: >>I've made an IPA that screams hops for days. My unenlightened friends >>find it too bitter. Being the eager to please type, I was toying with >>the idea >>of diluting this batch with a lightly hopped batch in another carboy. >>Stylistically bankrupt I know, but has anyone ever blended beer and >>gotten satisfactory results? Does two good beers make a bad beer or >>will they have a synergistic effect? Sure will. There was an article about this in some magazine (Zymurgy probably, last year, doesn't help you much I know). In fact, two bad beers may make a good beer. Things should balance fine. - Bryan grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, TN Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:10:09 -0500 From: Jeff <mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil> Subject: extraction efficiency info Hi All, It sure is great to have the HBD back !!! Before the big crash I tried to post the following but it got eaten by the "none ()" daemon. With the recent (ie. pre-crash) threads on no-sparge mashing and extraction efficiency as a function of mash thickness, I thought that I would post the following. I saved this from an earlier HBD from around the time of George Fix's post about no-sparge mashing. >>>> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:05:01 -0400 From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at mendel.hgp.med.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Sparge Rates If you completely drain your mash water without sparging, you should get about 1/2 - 2/3 of what you would get with careful sparging. I did some experimentation, and *with my system*, and with the grains I was using at the time, I got the following numbers (explanation follows): water (qt/lb) SG Collected (qt/lb) Yield 1 1.105 0.6 16 1.25 1.090 0.8 18 1.5 1.080 1.1 22 2.0 1.060 1.6 24 As an example, look at the second line. This says that if you mash with 1.25 quarts of water per pound of grain, the specific gravity of the run-off *without sparging* should 1.090, and you should collect about 0.8 quarts of water per pound of grain. This corresponds to a homebrew yield of 18 point-gallons/pound (ppg). I was getting about 30 pgg *with sparging*. Thus, without sparging, I was extracting 60% of what I would have gotten, had I sparged (50% of the theoretical yield of 36 ppg, and a sugar extraction rate of 40% of the dry weight of the grain.) Note that the yield goes up as the mash thins. However, you *should* do even better by sparging with an equivalent amount of water. I.e., if you mash with 1.5 qt/lb, and then sparge with 0.5qt/lb, you should get a better yield than if you mash with 2 qt/lb and don't sparge. As an example, suppose you want to make a 1.045 wort, and you want an initial boil volume of 3 gallons. You need 1.075 (5 / 3 * 45 = 75) into the kettle. This corresponds to about 1.6 qt/lb, yielding 1.2qt/lb into the kettle. To get 3 gallons (12 quarts), you'll need to use 12/1.2 = 10 lbs of malt and 1.6*10 = 16 quarts = 4 gallons of mash water. As usual, YMMV, but the basic pattern should be the same (more water = better efficiency). =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) <<<< So it seems that a thinner mash may help to improve extraction efficiencies whether you sparge or not. Hoppy brewing, Jeff ============================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 841-7210 x152 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 841-7250 Launcher Technology & Analysis Branch email: mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Naval Undersea Warfare Center Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2 Newport, RI 02841-1708 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:23:52 -0800 From: Larry Johnson <Maltster at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Starter fermentation Denis Barsalo <denisb at cam.org> said in HBD V2 #2 : >I made a starter with Yeast Lab A05 Irish Ale using the recommended >"recipe". (5 tbs DME and two cups of water, boil, cool, pitch) >I hardly saw a krausen in the starter and the activity was very >slow. But in the primary, (an Irish Stout) it became a real monster. Blow >off hose and everything! Lots of activity, big krausen, rolling boil kind >of fermentation. >Is this a usual occurance? This has happened a few time lately where my >starter and my primary have very different fermentations. There has been a bit of discussion lately on the newsgroup, rec.crafts.brewing. about the fact that DME seems lacking in a group of nutrients that are critical for yeast growth, called FAN's. Don't ask me what that stands for - it's something like Free Amino Nitro-something-or-other. (Gee, I hope my technical approach doesn't put you off.) Try a pinch of yeast nutrient in your starter recipe next time, included in the boil. I do this, and I have plenty of activity in my starters. Good luck with it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Way down south they had a jubilee, Them Georgia folks, they had a jamboree. They were drinking homebrew from a wooden cup, The folks that were dancin' there got all shook up. Chuck Berry - "Rock 'n Roll Music" Larry Johnson / Athens, GA / Maltster at ix.netcom.com Come and see the Web page at http://www.netcom.com/~maltster +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:13:39 -0800 From: Alan Folsom <folsom at ix.netcom.com> Subject: War of the Worts Competition This is a second notice (now that HBD appears to be back) of the upcoming "War of the Worts" homebrew competition, to be held January 18th, at the Buckingham Mountain Brewery and Restaurant in Lahaska, PA. Lahaska is on Rt 202 near New Hope, just across the river from New Jersey, about half way up the eastern side of the state (oops, "Commonwealth") of Pa. We will be judging entries in all beer, cider and mead categories. Entries should consist of TWO bottles, 12-16 ounces, green or brown. Judging starts at 9:30, and we will be announcing results at 4:30, just in time for a few celebratory (or consoling) brews at the pub. For further information, rules, or a really nifty flyer with pictures and everything, you can contact me at: Al Folsom folsom at ix.netcom.com (215) 343-6851 Please include your USmail address! If you are interested in judging or stewarding, contact our judge coordinator: Rich Rosowski richroso at msn.net I believe I have sent flyers to everyone who has requested one to date, so if it doesn't show up in the next day or so, drop me an email and I'll send another. Thanks for your support! Al Folsom Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:59:44 -0500 From: Jeff <mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil> Subject: Wyeast #1728 (scottish) question Hi All, I'm getting ready to brew a scottish ale using Wyeast #1728 (scottish ale yeast). This will be my first time using this particular yeast. The recipe will be a variation of one that I posted in HBD #1976. I've read here in the HBD that people get varying amounts of the smokey flavor from this yeast and I was wondering if anyone knows what conditions influence this flavor. Could it be fermentation temperature? Any info on this subject would be appreciated. Hoppy brewing, Jeff ============================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 841-7210 x152 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 841-7250 Launcher Technology & Analysis Branch email: mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Naval Undersea Warfare Center Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2 Newport, RI 02841-1708 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 10:38:12 PST From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: Burners -- Conversion to Natural Gas >> Ackerman, John F (MN17) writes: JA> Could you tell me (or the HBD list) what you learned about conversion JA> from propane to natural gas? Did you successfully make the conversion? JA> Thanks! JA> John Ackerman (ackerman at skyler.mavd.honeywell.com) >> When I wanted to switch from propane to natural gas, one of their >> technical people talked to me for 15 minutes discussing the options. Well, basically with the KampKooker, there is nothing to be done but to remove the regulator and replace it with some sort of controlling valve (since NG pressure does not need to be regulated). The burner will work just fine on NG, however, it will lose 50% of the BTUs that it had on propane. Yes, other burners need to be rejetted when converting from propane to NG, but he said the KampKooker did not. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:55:17 -0600 From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> Subject: RE: No sparge/Counter pressure bottling Jeff Frane spoke of trying George Fix's no sparge technique for arriving at maltier tasting beer. I have some questions about the process. 1) How much water should be in the mash tun before starting the runoff? I use a 10 gal. Igloo cylindrical for a mash/lauter tun and generally mash with about 16-17# of grain and water to about the 6 gal. mark. When I mash out the level will be between ~8 to 10 gallons. Obviously, the amount of water in the tun would affect the amount of runoff collected and the maltiness if the no sparge technique means anything. What would be recommended? 2) Without sparging I would assume that the runoff would be higher gravity. Given that, would the runoff be diluted with water to the desired gravity? If that is the case, why would diluting with sparged runoff dilute the maltiness more than diluting with plain water? Would a better solution be to use less grain and not dilute the runoff with water? In this case it would appear to me that doing this to achieve lower OG would mean using a higher water to grain ration. Why is this different from sparging? This no sparge technique doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Can Jeff, George, or anyone else explain away my doubts? On another note, George Techentine asked about gently drawing kegged beer to a bottle and capping it rather than using a counter-pressure filler. I regularly fill chilled Grolsh bottles from a keg of well chilled carbonated beer using a tube in the spigot and the pressure turned low. I usually have good luck with this method although it is usually in the bottle less than a day. I have left it as long as two weeks and still retained good carbonation and no apparent (to me) staling. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at imtn.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 13:35:26 CST From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com> Subject: Brew Water/Hop Aroma Kirk writes: >What do all you "outdoor brewers" do for a water >source? I have an outdoor spigot on my porch, but I don't think I >want to run my brewing water through 50' or so of rubber garden hose. Good point. I use a "drinking water safe" garden hose which I got at Ace Hardware. On my last batch, however, I brought gallon jugs of HOT tapwater from the kitchen, just to speed things up. What are your thoughts on using HOT tapwater? I've read about thermophillic bacteria living in hot water heaters, but I'm skeptical. I'm going to boil it all anyway, so it shouldn't make a difference, but what about mineral content? Any experts online in this area? *** Back in the old HBD, John writes: >If >the CO2 released during primary fermentation "scrubs" away some of the aroma >from dry-hopping too soon, does the aroma from a late kettle hops addition get >"scrubbed" away also? I know that the aroma from dry-hopping is different >from late kettle additions but how is it different? Can anyone please explain >what the reaction is that "scrubs" away the aroma and how I can get a good >aroma with late kettle additions and with dry-hopping? >from dry-hopping too soon, does the aroma from a late kettle hops addition get >"scrubbed" away also? I know that the aroma from dry-hopping is different >from late kettle additions but how is it different? Can anyone please explain >what the reaction is that "scrubs" away the aroma and how I can get a good >aroma with late kettle additions and with dry-hopping? The answer to the first question is "yes." In my opinion, the aroma from dryhopping is more similar to that of the raw hops themselves, whereas the aroma from finishing hops (say, last 5 min of the boil) don't have *all* the aromatic components of the raw hops. Some brewers (especially German commercial lager brewers) don't dryhop because they don't feel the aromas from dryhopping are appropriate in a German lager. I tend to go with the methods of the commercial brewers of the style I'm brewing, so I'll dryhop British ales, American ales, Orval clones and Sticke (a dryhopped version of Duesseldorfer Altbier) and use finishing hops in all the other styles that require a hop nose. I once dryhopped a Bohemian Pilsner... BIG mistake. It didn't smell anything like the style -- very grassy, I feel. [SPECULATION MODE ON] I *believe* that the physical reaction of scrubbing is because the walls of bubbles are like semi-permeable membranes and since the concentration inside the bubble is nearly 100% CO2, there is a tendency for other gasses to diffuse into the bubbles as they rise up and out of the beer. [SPECULATION MODE OFF] As for how to get a good aroma with kettle hopping, the answer is to add a *LOT* of hops -- a lot more than for dryhopping. I usually dryhop with 1/2 oz in 5 gal for a mild hop aroma, 1 oz for an average hop aroma and 2 oz when I really want the aroma to punch you in the face. With finishing hops, I usually use 1 ounce in 5 gallons for a very mild hop aroma and 2 ounces for a less-mild one. I don't have experience with higher finishing hop rates. Incidentally, I might add that my experience with first wort hopping seemed (in my opinion) to only add hop flavour and not much aroma. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korzonas at lucent.com korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:38:52 -0400 From: mbunster at saturn.vcu.edu (Mark Bunster) Subject: beer bottle collectible sale Hey folks! I'm not a professional vendor, and I won't post more than this once--but I have a medium-size collection of mostly European beer bottles (empty) from the 70s and 80s I'd like to get rid of. If you are interested in this type of thing, send email to my return address(es) and I will send you a list of included bottles. I much prefer to sell them all at once, but will sell portions if necessary. Thanks ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Mark Bunster * In such an ugly time mbunster at saturn.vcu.edu * the true protest Survey Research Lab * is beauty Va. Commonwealth U. * Richmond, VA 23284 * -Ochs or try rbunster at richmond.infi.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 13:22:38 PST From: "Pete W. Hembrow Profs PWH Phone 893-84" <FM00HEMB at UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU> Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #2 *** Reply to note of 12/10/96 04:54 Please take me off your list. Thank You *************************************************************** * Pete Hembrow, Zone Operator Facilities Management, UCSB. * * E-Mail FM00HEMB at UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU Pager# 568-6097 * *************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:49:22 -0600 From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu> Subject: Welcome back There are still a few bugs to be worked out, but the HBD appears to be back on its feet. To all interested parties, I am too busy now to work on a revised article on sunstruck flavor in beer. Peter Ensminger has written a great article on this in the most recent Zymurgy mag. Darn this end of the semester paper writing baloney!! Jeff Jeffrey M. Kenton finger for PGP public key ElEd/SecEd 301 Teaching Assistant N013 Lagomarcino Hall "Information comes, knowledge lingers" jkenton at iastate.edu - Alfred Lord Tennyson Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:26:01 -0800 From: cathy <cathy at aob.org> Subject: AOB Corporate Structure There seems to be some confusion about the corporate structure of the Association of Brewers its relationship to the American Homebrewers Association. While it may seem confusing, our corporate structure is very conventional. The Association of Brewers a non-profit educational company with 3 divisions: the American Homebrewers Association, the Institute for Brewing Studies and Brewers Publications. We have an affiliate company that runs the Great American Beer Festival. The AOB is a non profit corporation. What that means is that any surplus at the end of the year is reinvested in our programs and projects rather than being distributed to shareholders. The president of the Association of Brewers is Charlie Papazian, the vice president is Cathy Ewing. All division heads, the president of the American Homebrewers Association, the director of the Institute for Brewing Studies and the publisher for Brewers Publications report directly to Cathy. There are 40 people employed that work in the divisions or in support roles including accounting, customer service, production, event management, marketing and information systems. The Assocation of Brewers has a board of directors. They are business people in Colorado who oversee the direction and financial health of the organization. The American Homebrewers Association has a board of advisors. They are people in the homebrewing industry who provide guidance and suggestions to the AHA. The Institute for Brewing Studies also has a board of advisors that are people from the craft brewing industry who provide guidance and suggestions. Some of the names have already been listed and are available in in Zymurgy and The New Brewer. The staff of the Association of Brewers, the American Homebrewers Association, the Institute for Brewing Studies and Brewers Publications work hard to bring high quality information to those interested in beer and brewing. We all homebrew and we even have a few professional brewers on staff. We welcome comments, concerns and new ideas from our members. We wont be able to act on every suggestion and some really good ideas may not be feasible for us, but we want to hear them. We understood that HBD was important to the homebrewing community and we brought it back on line as quickly as possible. There is a new home being built for it that will accommodate the increased traffic and subscription volume (it has gone from approx. 3,000 to over 5,500 subscribers in 4 months). - -- Cathy Ewing Vice President Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 120 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 cathy at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://beertown.org/aob (web) Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2283