HOMEBREW Digest #2594 Sat 27 December 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Hypochlorous acid ("David R. Burley")
  Merry Christmas... (Rosalba e Massimo Faraggi)
  Falstaff Tapper (Jack Schmidling)
  Question about Dry vs. Liquid Yeast ("Eric Bonney")
  Extraction Efficiency & Tables (Steve Alexander)
  Thermometer in cooler side (LaBorde, Ronald)
  blow off brushes ("Bob Spiers")
  Filling,Stuck,NA/LA BS ("David R. Burley")
  BruHeat Gasket (Douglas Flagg)
  glass carboy carrier (Mark Tumarkin)
  xingu (DOUGWEISER)
  brewing challenge (Heiner Lieth)
  Re: Racking ("Brendan Persinger")
  Pils, pilsner, pilsener (Torbjorn Bull-Njaa)
  Racking Problems (Richard S. Kuzara)
  Guinness Clone?? ("Jonathan G. Ingram")
  Nitrogen and Sportwear (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: Using Malto-Dextrin/Lactose (Rob Miller)
  Re: east vs. west Am. pilsner ("Bruce Gill")
  hop tea, grain tea, (?) tea (dan salai)

Happy Holidays! - The HBD Janitors and Steering Committee NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:55:47 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Hypochlorous acid Brewsters: As soon as I pushed the button to send my previous comments on their way, visions of the CRC Handbook danced in my head and I looked up the dissociation constant of hypochlorous acid. There it was, at 2.95x 10^ -8. Yep pretty weak acid. Which means in an acid solution ( like chlorine/water mixtures) HOCl will be the predominant species. But how about in a caustic solution such as bleach? Using freshman chemistry we can get an idea of the concentration of the HOCl species in bleach. If we assume the NaOH concentration is 0.5% as previously stated, then the OH ion concentration is 5g/l or 5/40 is 1,25 X 10^ -1M in OH ion. We know the dissociation constant of water as 1 x 10^ -14, so the hydrogen ion concentration of bleach is 8 X 10 ^ -14. We know that NaOCl in bleach is 5.25%(52.5 g/l) from the label on the bottle so the OCl ion concentration is calculated as 0.7M = Now we can calculate the HOCl species concentration as [ HOCl ] equals (8X10 x^-14)*(7X10 ^ -1)/2.95 x 10-8 or [HOCl] is 1.898 X 10^ -6 M. = This is 9.79 X 10^ -4 g/l or <<about 1 ppm in HOCl in bleach from the bottle>>. If we do this same calculation for a chlorine solution which contains HCl as a result of the reaction of the chlorine with water to form HOCl and HCl, then such a solution which contains the equivalent concentration of hypochlorite (0.7 M) as bleach ( and therefore an HCl content of 0.7M) would have a hypochlorous acid content of virtually 0.7M or a conc. of 25 g/liter or 25,000 ppm HOCl. Obviously, there is a huge difference between 1 ppm of HOCl in household bleach and a chlorine solution of the same stoichiometric makeup of chlorine at 25,000 ppm. = Diluting bleach reduces the concentration of HOCl even more or does it, since the hydroxide in conc is lower? At the more dilute concentration, the hydroxide ion is say 0.007M (therefore the hydrogen ion concentration is 1.42 X 10 ^ -12) and the OCl concentration is likewise 0.007M. Therefore, Now we can calculate the HOCl species concentration as [ HOCl ] equals (8X10 x^-12)*(7X10 ^ -3)/2.95 x 10-8 or [HOCl] is 1.898 X 10^ -6 M. = This is 9.79 X 10^ -4 g/l and is the same concentration. Conclusion: The sometimes stated proposition that dilute bleach = is better than the concentrated stuff does not appear to be borne = out in the case of HOCl as the active species. Since this tremendous disparity exists in the concentration of HOCl between bleach and chlorine solutions and we know that bleach is an effective disinfectant , it is unlikely that HOCl is the microbioloically active species in alkaline solutions like bleach/water mixtures. If this is the case, then the argument that dissociation of HOCl = reduces its concentration and the conclusion that higher temperatures produces a poorer disinfectant solution is questionable. = If another species in bleach is active (I suspect it is OCl) then it is likely that the rate of disinfection is higher at a higher temperature and a higher concentration in line with most chemical reactions showing an increase in rate with increasing temperature and increasing concentration. Any clue as to the active species in alkaline solutions? Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com = Voice e-mail OK = Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:19:32 -0800 From: Rosalba e Massimo Faraggi <rosamax at split.it> Subject: Merry Christmas... ...and Hoppy New Year! Sorry for the obvious joke, but I always wanted to send this kind of wishes, where else could I do it? Thanks to Jeff and the others who emailed me. Thanks to all the people who helped me to find the best beer during my short stay in US in September (I'll post my view about US beers sooner or later). Cheers to all the San Diego homebrewers I could met there at the QUAFF meeting (Dion, Tom, Randall, don't know all the names... if any of you is reading HBD, please extend my best wishes to all the others). And again, best wishes to all the HBDers in the world! Massimo Faraggi - Genova - Italy (Many, many miles East of all the US Celebration Ales you don't want to export to Europe :^(...) - ----------------------------------- http://www.split.it/users/rosamax/ Max Beer Page (now with some Xmas labels also) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:59:10 -0800 From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net> Subject: Falstaff Tapper From: "Keith Royster" <keith at ays.net> Subject: Falstaff Tapper "Anyway, does anybody know if this thing has any value to a homebrewer? I converted a bunch of these in another life but with the advent of Corney kegs and stainless, I recycled them as scrap. What goes around comes around as they say. It's a lot of work to make them work and I do not think worth the trouble these days. The CO2 is in a cylinder that is inside, attached to the lid which is released with a C'ring. Don't know where to get the odd sized cylinder so I just removed it. I drilled and tapped a hole in the top for a fitting for CO2. They fit nicely into a fridge but without CO2, it doesn't do much good. Have fun, js Visit our WEB pages: Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:38:41 -0500 From: "Eric Bonney" <ebonney at fuse.net> Subject: Question about Dry vs. Liquid Yeast Sorry if this thread has been here before, but I has some questions = about dry and liquid yeast. First what is the difference, if any in = taste of the beer? What are the differences in brewing with dry yeast = vs. liquid? As in the actual steps to use, is one harder / easier than = the other. I have read some posts both here and in the = rec.crafts.brewing newsgroup, of rehydrating <sp> yeast, what is this = all about? Thanks for the help. -Eric Bonney ebonney at fuse.net Check out my home page at: http://home.fuse.net/ebonney/ Prejudice is a learned trait, SO WHAT are YOU teaching YOUR children?! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:38:28 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Extraction Efficiency & Tables Since comparison of extract efficiency with extraction tables in HB books and magazines, is so popular, I've decided to propose a suggested 'standard' for deriving this figure from dry basis coarse gring % (DBCG%) or Hot Water Extract (HWE) figures and moisture content (MC%). Given: Moisture Content = MC, expressed as a percentage. Analytic Extract = DBCG, expressed as a percentage. Constant 46.15 pt-gal/lb, as per sucrose at 20C(68) or 385.14 degree-L/kg. Note the conversion constants to metric units: 1 pt-gal/lb = 8.3454 degree-L/kg Define the practical extraction potential (PEP) of a malt as: PEP (point-gallons/pound) = 46.15 * (DBCG/100) * (1.0 - (MC/100)) or in metric PEP (L-degree/kg) = 385.14 * (DEG/100) * (1.0 - (MC/100)) Example: MC = 2.5% DBCG = 79.5% PEP = 46.15 * (.795) * (1-.025) PEP = 35.77 pt-gal/lb PEP = 298.5 L-deg/kg - -- Proposed Methods of calculation: In order to derive figures from malt data sheets I propose the following methods: 1/ If a range of values for MC% or DBCG% of HWE is given, the arithmetic average of the range will be used. e.g. MC% is 2.5% to 3.5%, use MC = 3.0% 2/ If a lower or upper bound is listed for MC%, the bound value will be used for calculations of PEP. 3/ If a lower or upper bound is gtiven for DBCG%, the bound will be carried through the calculation using the less-than '<' or 'greater-than' '>' symbols. 4/ If DBCG% is not available, but hot water extract (HWE) is, then a conversion from HWE to estimated DBCG% is as follows: DBCG% (est) = 100 * HWE (L-degree/kg) / 385.14 e.g. HWE = 308 L-deg/kg, DBCG% = 100 * 308 / 385.14 = 79.97% (as DBCG%) Since HWE is derived from an essentially different mash methodology than DBCG%, all PEP figures derived from HWE rather than DBCG% must be so noted. - -- Table: In the following table I have calculated PEP figures for all of the malts and grains given in the Brewing Techniques 1997 Market Guide ((800.427.2993,~$10US) which have sufficient detail to permit calculation. Figures derived from HWE are noted with an asterisk. I'd like to extend this table to include comparable data on additional malts, and would greatly appreciate assistance in the form of email (steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net) including information, preferably from "TYPICAL" malt data sheets including: Maltster name, Malt Name/type, Moisture percentage, and either Dry Basis Coarse Grind extract percentage (DBCG%): or Hot Water Extract (HWE%): and any other identification information. Table: In order to be comparable to other published tables, figures for PEP are expressed as SG equivalents for one lb/gal extraction. (1.00000 + ((PEP in pt-gal/lb) / 1000)). - -- Base Malt -- Bioriginal Organic Malt 1.0340 Brewing Products Scotmalt1 1.0363 Brewing Products Scotmalt2 1.0354 Brewing Products Scotmalt3 1.0352 Breiss Organics 6-row 1.0341 Breiss Organics 2-row 1.0345 Breiss 6-row 1.0341 Breiss 2-row 1.0354 Breiss Winter 6-row 1.0341 Breiss Winter 2-row 1.0350 Schreier 6-row 1.0341 Schreier 2-row 1.0350 - --Lager/Pils -- Beeston Chariot Pilsner 1.0353 Crisp Finest Pilsner Lager 1.0353 Durst Pils 1.0347 De Wolf Pilsen 1.0348 Muntons Lager >1.0343* - -- Mild -- Muntons Mild Ale >1.0343* - -- Munich -- Breiss Munich 10L 1.0336 Breiss Munich 20L 1.0333 Breiss Organics Munich 10L 1.0336 Durst Munich 1.0342 DeWolf Aromatic 1.0344 DeWolf Munich 1.0344 Gambrinus Munich 90 1.0348 Gambrinus Munich 100 1.0348 - -- Pale -- ADM 6-row Pale Lager >1.0339 ADM 2-row Pale LAger >1.0346 Beeston Best Halcyon 1.0363 Beeston Best Maris Otter 1.0363 Beeston Best Pipkin 1.0366 Beeston Golden Promise 1.0358* Breisss Pale Ale 1.0358 Crisp Eng Pale Ale 1.0365 Crisp Maris Otter 1.0365 DeWolf Pale Ale 1.0344 Gambrinus ESB Pale 1.0354 Gambrinus Pale 1.0354 MFB Pale Ale 1.0352 Muntons Pale >1.0352* Schreier Special Pale 1.0356 - -- Vienna -- Breiss Vienna 1.0337 Durst Vienna 1.0339 - -- Other Base -- Gambrinus Honey 1.0348 - -- Caramel -- Beeston Caramalt 1.0309 Beeston Crystal 1.0319 Beeston Dark Crystal 1.0323 Beeston Pale Crystal 1.0311 Durst 40ebc 1.0302 Durst 120ebc 1.0319 Durst 200ebc 1.0296 Muntons Crystal >1.0315* Weyermann Carahell 1.0330 - -- Roasted/Toasted Malts -- Beeston Amber 1.0334 Beeston Black 1.0315 Beeston Brown 1.0343 Beeston Chocolate 1.0313 Beeston Roasted Barley 1.0310 DeWolf Biscuit 1.0339 - -- Wheat Malts -- Beeston Wheat 1.0349 Brewing Products Scotmalt4 1.0351 Breiss Wheat 1.0354 Durst Wheat 1.0355 DeWolf Wheat 1.0357 Gambrinus Wheat 1.0361 Muntons Wheat >1.0358* Schreier Wheat 1.0357 - -- end -- Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 17:29:17 -0600 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: Thermometer in cooler side I use an Igloo 10 gallon round cooler for my mash tun and would like to mount a dial thermometer into the side. Has anyone any advise on how to do this? Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 18:28:46 PST From: "Bob Spiers" <gotcha500 at hotmail.com> Subject: blow off brushes >The closed ( carboy and hose attached to lead the foam away) >fermenter's main appeal to homebrewers is that, at first glance, it >appears to be more resistant to infection from outside sources. >The first few times you use it, all may go well and that is the real >danger of this method. Infection is insidious. It is my opinion and >others agree (and others differ) that, unfortunately, this overflow >tube is difficult ( nearly impossible IMHO) to clean of this gunk and >represents a potential harbor for unwanted microorganisms. Personally I ferment both ways, blowoff and non-blowoff, depending on what carboy is available(6.5 or 5). If you are to do a fruit beer however, or get the liquid anywhere near the top of the carboy, you will have to blow off. Attest that knowledge to a batch of apricot mead in a 6.5 gallon carboy that clogged the airlock and then blew the bottom out of my carboy...you ever come home to see beer or mead oozing out from under the bedroom door. Not good. You will be thinking blowoff pretty quick. I know the stopper should blow off first, but it obviously didn't and was still very much intact laying on the floor :) I mentioned this a few months ago, but the thread on cleaning these hoses or not using blow off has continued. After this incident I searched everywhere for long hoses to clean blow off tubing, because I absolutely could not have this happen again.(see divorce attorney) I found them online at Beer, Beer & More Beer. 3/8", 1/2" and 1" diameter brushes in 4' lengths. The website is http://www.morebeer.com The main reason I never used blowoff tubings before was because of the difficulty I had cleaning them. Now I dont hesitate to use blowoffs, because cleaning the lines is a breeze and does not involve any chemicals that eat the top layer of skin off my hands. So what am I missing? Everyone keeps talking about infections in tubing and how hard it is too clean and then whether or not the infection matters. Why not clean them with a brush like we do everything else and not worry about it? Just my 2 cents, Bob Spiers ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:10:36 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Filling,Stuck,NA/LA BS Brewsters: AlK says: >I don't understand the science behind it, but I've proven to myself >many times (most recently this weekend) that underfilled bottles carbonate >no differently than "normally" filled bottles. Overfilled bottles, >however, carbonate *much* slower and may actually end up less carbonated >no matter how long you wait. Perhaps it is the lack of oxygen in the headspace which is not permitting the few yeast in the beer to re-grow. The yeast need to grow in this alcoholic, lower ( than the wort) nutrient beer and may need oxygen to do it. Have you or anyone else tried pitching an active bottling starter as I do when bottling? Which is maybe the reason I don't see this effect. Although I've never tried an actual experiment ( a double blind and deaf experiment as I recall {8^) ) like Al, I cannot say I recall such a difference. How about actually measuring the CO2 content of sample bottles? Can anyone do this? - ------------------------------------------ John Varady has four batches which have apparently stuck, at least based on his hydrometer readings. The operative word is "apparently" First make sure that the carboys do or do not have fermentable = sugars by checking with Clinitest. If they have more than 1/4% by Clinitest then they are stuck, if not then you probably have = a mashing temperature problem in which your thermometer is reading too low and you are making an excessive amount of dextrins by mashin at too high a temperature or other similar process problem. If they are less than 1/4% by Clinitest, then you can bottle these with a *reasonable* assurance that you will not get bottle bombs. I have never had such a problem when using Clinitest. - ---------------------------------------------- Jack Schmidling says about his low alcohol beer process on his web page: >There is an Applicaton Note on my web page on a process I worked >out along with lab analysis of the beer after processing. The bottom >line is you can not get rid of all the alcohol without additional >steps but you can get rid of enough that it will not turn on >an alcoholic person. I'd like to see this "proof". This sounds really dangerous to me and I believe you are wide open for a lawsuit. Please send me the analysis methods and results privately, especially the part where you establish the level of alcohol which will not affect a recovering alcoholic. Until then, I will maintain my position that this is likely to cause real pain to someone who is a recovering alcoholic out there who believes this. Take this note off your page. PLEASE!!! - ------------------------------------------------ Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com = Voice e-mail OK = Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:31:30 -0500 From: Douglas Flagg <dflagg at agate.net> Subject: BruHeat Gasket I use my BruHeat Boiler to boil my wort. Unfortunately, the gasket sealing the heating element to the bucket has gone south! And I feel the urge to brew once again... Does anyone have a source of supply for these gaskets? I have tried Home Depot/Home Quarters and my local hardware store (not many left...see Home Depot/Home Quarters) with no luck. I have also left an e-mail with the supplier (I think) with no reply to date. Doug Orono, ME dflagg at agate.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:47:04 -0500 From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at mindspring.com> Subject: glass carboy carrier Hoppy Holidays to All, I just wanted to interject something into the carboy vs plastic fermenter discussion. Not so much as to which is better (although I use glass carboys generally), but to address the peripheral issue of danger from glass carboy breakage that has been mentioned by several people, such as Kirk Harralson who writes: >The biggest drawback to glass, in my opinion, is the possibility of dropping >a full carboy. I've been very lucky so far, but every time I carry a carboy >down the steps to my basement, I get a little paranoid. As creative as some >of the people on this list are, I'm sure someone will find a better way. I don't know if my solution is terribly creative but it certainly works. I use plastic milk crates as cradles, you know - the kind you see in stacks at the back of the grocery store. But please, don't "borrow" these. You can pick them up for a couple of bucks at many discount dept stores. They make moving carboys safely a breeze as they give you two handles to making lifting easier, and they also protect the glass from bumps and bangs in moving or setting down. I have always distrusted the carboy handles that go around the neck of the carboy. It seems to me that lifting a full and heavy carboy puts a lot of stress on the glass. It may be up to it until it gets shocked or stressed by a slight tap against something in transport or setting it down on a concrete floor - with possibly scary results. The milk crates are light, strong, and cheap. They are also great for storing 16 oz bottles (22 oz fit too, but are taller so you can't stack the crates). Any way, they work great for me, YMMV. Mark Tumarkin The Brewery in the Jungle Gainesville, FL PS - the X-mas poem Rob Moline posted was great. Santa was good to me as well - I found bottles of Chimay and New Glarus Belgian Red nestled under the tree. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:26:42 EST From: DOUGWEISER <DOUGWEISER at aol.com> Subject: xingu Hey All! I'm looking for some style and brewing info on Xingu black beer from Brazil. To me it tastes more or less like a lager version of a sweet stout like Mackeson's on draft (not the bottled stuff). But Michael Jackson refers to it as a Kulmbacher-style lager, which I take to mean like a Schwarzbier. Not even close in my opinion. Someone on the web even calls it a smokey Rauchbier style brew. Again, not even close in my opinion. Neither of these styles would include roast barley, which is definitely a part of the Xingu recipe. What do you all think? Can anyone offer any help in formulating a recipe for this fine brew? The closest I've come so far has been with a sweet stout recipe, but the roastyness has been too sharp. Roast seems to be the appropriate grain to use, but needs to be softer than in a stout. A malty lager strain would help a little. Would calcium carbonate help to further soften the sharpness of the roast? TIA, Doug in Winnetka, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:44:09 -0800 (PST) From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org> Subject: brewing challenge I have nothing to say about business practices of big companies; this post is about the beer they brew: Quite frankly I think it is pointless to insult the big boys' product (A-B, etc) or the consumers of their product (as is routinely done in this forum). Virtually all consumers going into a store to buy beer have a choice as to what they want to buy and they buy the best that they can for the money they have to spend. It is an insult to them to say that they don't know what they are doing. The big beer companies have been at this a long time and have tried many recipes over time. They have settled on something that works in the market. If you want to brew a beer that is the best beer for the most number of persons, then you would probably not brew the stuff we brew as homebrewers because it has the wrong price/value ratio for most consumers. The same is even true for me as a homebrewer (and probably many others here): I don't spend $6 on a six-pack of the good stuff (because I can, and do, brew it myself for a quarter of that price), but I _would_ go and buy a six pack of Bud, Miller or Coors because I have guests who prefer that over most the heavier beers that I brew. I did recently try to brew a batch that would be pleasing to such guests. That batch came out OK, but it could have been a lot better. So, that got me thinking: It would really be interesting if we had a discussion as to how to brew a beer that could compete in the marketplace with that of the big boys. It seems to me that the key characteristics would be: (1) fairly low alcohol content (2.5-3.5%, I guess), (2) low to moderate hop flavor, (3) only slight bitterness, (4) light yellow color, (5) just a hint of maltiness, and (6) low cost. OK so here is THE CHALLENGE: Let's see some recipes that will accomplish this and have a better price/value ratio to for millions of consumers than any of the stuff the big boys brew! The rule I'm making for this challenge is for the cost to be lower than $10 per 5-gallon batch. Tell us how you brewed it (including gravities), how much it cost (per 5 gallons or 19 liters), and how it tasted. Please don't post recipes that have not been tried unless you are sure that they will compete. If you have an aversion to this sort of beer, then just consider this an academic exercise. It would be nice to have some discussion on the posted recipes. Fine Print: I know that different places have differences in the cost of ingredients and/or beer, so if you don't like the $10-number, then for the sake of this challenge, find the best price that you can for 48 12-oz cans or bottles of Bud, Miller, or Coors and use 40% of that. For me that is $9.58 (40% of $23.96) per today's grocery store ads in the newspaper. Don't include the cost of deposits, bottles or kegs in any of your numbers; or if you feel that you must, then make sure you use an acceptable amortization schedule (but please don't tell us about it). Let's not argue about the $10-number in this challenge. I know that it is a key element in the argument, and we all know that it's probably much higher per 5 gallons than what it costs A-B to brew a batch. For us all to get the most out of this excercise, we need a set of base-line constraints, and since I'm making the rules, I get to pick the number. It would be moderately interesting to know what it actually does cost the big boys to brew. But then you would have to figure in all those other costs (you know: the lawyers, the marketing folks, big factories, ad campaigns,..., dividends to their stock holders (which, by the way, may include you and me via our mutual funds), etc... Actually, I just lost interest in that part of the subject... I'd rather read about making beer. Remember: the object of this exercise is not to brew the stuff you personally like best, but the stuff that millions of others would find to have the best price/value ratio. Heiner Lieth Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:55:00 -0800 From: "Brendan Persinger" <kapital at exo.com> Subject: Re: Racking Drew Buscareno writes: >>> I have tried Phil's siphon starter and another brand without much luck. The homebrew store I order from just recommended starting the siphon with my mouth which is counter to everything I have read. Is there a fool proof way to rack beer from one carboy to the next and what would the equipment cost? Is there some sort of siphon starter pump that has been developed for this very purpose?<<< I have a "KAF Safety Siphon", which is similar to Phil's siphon starter, only it's made of metal and already attached to a length of tubing (there's a little plastic bit at the end of the tubing, so you can attach more if needed). It works great! I've never had any problem starting a siphon with it. Try checking your local outdoor/survivalist stores for this or something similar (I bought mine from a booth at a gun/military/outdoor show). Hope this helps! -Brendan Persinger Tustin, CA kapital at exo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 02:12:23 +0100 From: Torbjorn Bull-Njaa <bull-njaa at interpost.no> Subject: Pils, pilsner, pilsener I agree with Brad Macmahon that the difference (in German language) regarding Pils and Pilsner is where the beer comes from. The distinction is interesting - but not related to Nathan's question! Roger Protz mentions in his book Classic Bottled Beers of the World that there once was a German court order ruling that German brewers must add the suffix "-er" to differentiate between pilsner (from Pilsen) and pilsener (pilsner-type). Nathan's question however, was regarding the difference between pils and pilsener, not pilsner. The spelling is the point. And then the answer must be that generically, there is no difference. Not in German. As far as I am informed, the terms Pilsener and the abbreviated version Pils, now exist side by side in German language. And on beer labels, meaning exactly the same. Whether the spelling "Pilsner" is used in German language today, I do not know, but as far as I know, it is not. I should however, very much appreciate also to have a "real" German with some etymological knowledge comment on this? In Norway, and I believe also in the other Scandinavian languages, the terms pils/pilsner/pilsener all exist side by side and are used without the slightest differentiation. This seems to me, also to be the case in several other languages. Skaal and god jul! Torbjorn e-mail bull-njaa at interpost.no Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 19:23:19 -0700 From: rkuzara at wyoming.com (Richard S. Kuzara) Subject: Racking Problems "Drew Buscareno writes - I... I have had some problems with racking from primary to secondary and from secondary to my bottling bucket, especially since my brewing partner moved away...Is there a fool proof way to rack beer from one carboy to the next and what would the equipment cost... I wanted a siphon method that would work for both racking and for siphoning from my bottling "carboy" (I don't use a bottling bucket) to the bottling wand and I ended up using the "T" method with a couple of plastic valves. Basically, the long siphon tube is connected to the left branch of the top of the "T" tube fitting with the right branch of the top of the T going to a short tube then a valve and then on to another short tube which can be connected to the bottle filler or can go to the target carboy. The bottom leg of the T similarly goes to a short tube and to a valve (and then to a short tube if desired). To start the siphon, I close the right top valve, open the leg valve, suck to fill the siphon, close the leg valve, and open the right valve. The only drawback is the potential of infection if the tube-T-valve setup is not appropriately cleaned (mine tends to get a bit discolored where the tube and the T or valves connect and I occasionally clean it - however, I use it to siphon bleach solution from my carboys and this is somewhat cleans it). However, I've had no problem even thought there is a bit of discoloration at some of the junctions. I do suspect that this should be dissembled and soaked in bleach solution (or boiled) either periodically or every time used. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 22:50:11 -0500 From: "Jonathan G. Ingram" <jgi105 at psu.edu> Subject: Guinness Clone?? Does anyone have a stout recipe that they would be willing to share with me that would produce a guiness like stout? A liquid extract recipe would be prefered. Thanks, Jon Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:57:08 -0800 From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net> Subject: Nitrogen and Sportwear From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: Nitrogen and stout taps "Well, dunno, it would seem like a lot of trouble and expense for the purpose of selling beer faster, after all, how fast can customers drink it? Ever been to a ball park? Time is money and with nitrogen, the beer can come out like from a fire hose and never foam. If you kept the keg pressure that high with co2, you would not get any beer. Many busy servers have switched to cans to sell it faster but canned beer costs more and they have to deal with the empties. That's why the money is in nitrogen. "It has always been my experience that the nitrogen/CO2 mixture with the special tap actually is a slower pour. I have watched as the Barista dispensed, waited, dispensed, waited, and asked my patience for the full pint. Don't know bout the special stout tap or what a Barista is but the classic "Pilsener Pour" is a foamy pour that is repeatedly refilled until the glass is full of beer and the head is like an icecream cone. Most clods do not want to wait that long so unfoamy beer is in. But it has nothing to do with nitrogen. You can buy special Pilsner taps that hiss out the beer to make the foam on demand but you can use an ordinary tap and just crack it open a bit to get all the foam you want. This of course assumes that it is real beer capable of producing a head. All bets are off with Bud. Come to think of it, my Pilsner tap never worked right unless I had enough keg pressure to over carbonate if left that long and so rather than raise and lower the pressure everytime I serve, I just quit using the feature. Enter nitrogen.... You could serve and store at high pressure, use the foamy tap and not worry about overcarbonation..... sounds like where I came into this. But again, it is not the nitrogen that produces the foam, it's the beer and co2. The nitrogen just makes it foam, if you see the difference. If not, I quit. "Guess you are getting smarter yet, Jack! :>) But my brain keeps getting smaller so I am running out of place to put all the new found genius. ............... From: MacRae Kevin J <kmacrae at UF2269P01.PeachtreeCityGA.NCR.COM> Subject: Roller Wear... "I'm about 6'2" 205 - 215lbs. Does this classify me as a "Heavy Brewer"? I said "heavy user". Unless you are a USER, you will never notice it. Brewing doesn't count. I would be concerned about a 10 lb variation in weight, especially if it occurs right after "using". "Where can I find the new line of "Roller Wear"? It's not at Sears, Home Depot or any of the Big and Tall Men Shops nearby. You need to go to the yuppie sports wear departments. It's with the skating stuff.. you know like for ROLLER blading. I almost said roller skating but none of the young folk would know what I was talking about. "I do agree with the point of efficency and throughput dropping off,if only slightly. We can't remain teenagers forever. But I know of folks in their 60's and 70's who haven't yet experienced Total Failure. I should be so lucky, but then again, it depends on how one defines "total". If one can grab a piece of grain now and then, the rollers can not be totally worn, can they? js - -- Visit our WEB pages: Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday - -- Visit our WEB pages: Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 19:08:31 -0900 From: Rob Miller <robm at alaska.net> Subject: Re: Using Malto-Dextrin/Lactose Christopher from Newmarket NH wrote: >I had the same problem w/ a blueberry ale that I brewed up >this summer. After all the fermentation had completed, the >nice blueberry flavor had disappeared and there was now a >strong sourness to the beer. And in fact, I posted the >same questions to the hbd about it, try a search. Everyone told >me not to use malto-dextrin at bottling because it may ferment, >etc... I would like to relate a similar experience of mine. First off, = blueberries are notorious for needing some "help" in retaining their = flavor--without said help they can be pretty insipid. This is true for = jams, blueberry pies, whatever. Lemon juice is the usual cure, but = obviously does little to help the sourness problem. I recently brewed = up a 6-gallon batch from essentially a brown ale recipe. It was a = bumper year in southeast Alaska for wild blueberries, and we picked lots = so I tried putting the secondary ferment on 2 lbs. of berries per gallon = (12 lbs.total berries). Upon tertiary racking, my partner and I took a = measured volume of the brew, had a couple of pounds of lactose on hand, = and determined just how much lactose it would take to knock out the = sourness. What worked for us was 2 1/2 cups of lactose (scaling up from = a cup sample of beer and teaspoons measurments). Yes, it needed all of = 2 1/2 cups--it was SOUR. The result was not anything resembling = sweet--just not puckering sour. =20 Following that, we got out the plastic squeeze-lemon of lemon-juice and = started counting drops. What we came up with was 7 teaspoons for the = entire 6 gallon batch. =20 It has been bottled for about 3 weeks now (used 3/4 cups of corn sugar). = I took a bottle to a party last weekend to get some people's opinions. = I was a little apprehensive because it tastes like a "blueberry kriek = beer", not a "mildly fruit-flavored beer". But that was the effect I = was after. Yes, I know that 'kriek' means cherry, so spare me the = technical correction but you get my point. It is not a fruit-flavored = beer, it is a FRUIT beer. I think it will require a lot of aging to get = anywhere near its potential, but damn....it's good already and I'm not = the only one who thinks so. =20 I'm just supplying this as a data point. Anyone wanting more = particulars is welcome to email me. The brew was OG 1.042 (not counting = the fruit addition) and I used Wyeast #1056 (American Ale). =20 I guess my point is....don't hesitate to dump in those unfermentable = sugars if they suit your purpose. Provided your sanitation measures are = adequate. I guess there are some wild yeasts that can ferment the = stuff, but so far the only carbonation I've seen is just what I would = expect from the corn sugar and the beer shows some real promise. In = fact, I never noticed much fermentation as a result of the blueberry = addition, just some very slow secondary action for a few weeks. Since I = could find no reliable advice on how much stuff to add (the best info on = fruit beers I could find was in Randy Mosher's "The Brewer's = Companion"), I decided to go with the tried and true taste test. Of = course, YMMV.=20 Keep on Brewing! Rob Miller=20 Nunatak Brewery Juneau Alaska about 5 miles from the Alaska Brewing Company (winner of the most medals = of any brewery so far in the GABF...no affiliation, yada yada yada, just = local pride) and thousands of miles NW of Jeff Renner (but it's probably = warmer here!) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 97 04:30:17 UT From: "Bruce Gill" <b2g at classic.msn.com> Subject: Re: east vs. west Am. pilsner Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 20:53:32 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: east vs. west Am. pilsner GuyG4 at aol.com wrote: >. . . . What was the difference between "eastern" beer and "western" beer, if there's anyone out there old enough to remember when there was a distinction? Jeff (nerenner at umich.edu) replied: >George Fix says that it is the use of rice rather than corn in western Pilsners. I really like the flavor of corn, and I think rice is pretty flavorless (I've never tried it though). While Jeff's take on rice is generally accurate, rice does have its place. I say "generally" because I find the use of 10% white rice with 25% corn (the balance six-row, with a touch of wheat) makes for a very good cream ale -- happened to take second place in the American lager/Cream Ale category in the Georgia Peach State contest a few years back. And *wild* rice -- well, that's another story. I recently made a blonde ale with 30% wild rice (70% six-row) and Northern Brewer, Tettnanger, and Spalt hops that's been getting great comments. Used the BrewTek Australian yeast, which enhances the wild rice nutty, sweet flavor. Rice, per se, is not a bad ingredient. Like any ingredient, just watch what you're trying to acheive and how you craft the recipe. Happy Brewing, Bruce in Atlanta Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 00:21:53 -0600 From: snowshoe at webtv.net (dan salai) Subject: hop tea, grain tea, (?) tea I recently made a porter in which I wanted to try using the method of boiling some of my hops separately to make a "tea" to add to my wort. All went well, I kegged and force carbonated. However, when I drew my first beer I realized that I didn't steep nearly enough roasted grains for the color and taste I was aiming for. I wondered if I could make a "steep" tea with some 500L black patent (and a little malto dextrin to gravity balance the additional water) and add this directyly to the keg. It seemed to work. So then I added to the keg some cherry flavoring in small increments to get just where I wanted the cherry flavor to be. Again success. Is there a down side to this? As far as I know things like specialty grains, hops, artificial flavorings, etc. don't play an extremely significant role in fermentation. What's then to stop one from starting with a general, fermented, "base" beer, kegging and dialing in the flavor profile later on? The only difference between my favorite pale ale and porter recipes are hops and specialty grains. Wyeast 1028 seems to work for both and both have O.G. s aroung 1050. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/27/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96