HOMEBREW Digest #2698 Mon 27 April 1998

[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

  0.08; Dark Stout of the Force; Clinitest; split boil; magnets (Samuel Mize)
  Subject:	RE: Corny keg source (Trish Driver)
  Clean burners (Joseph A. Clayton)
  First Wort Hopping (CV Steam Update) (Jim Bentson)
  NNERHBC ("Martin Stokes")
  electric stove boiling and vigor (Andy Milder)
  Re: Dr. Lewis Article in American Brewer (brian_dixon)
  re:CO2 gas detectors (Art Steinmetz)
  200,000 BTU ("Michel J. Brown")
  Measuring SG / Munich Malt ("Mort O'Sullivan")
  stuff (Louis Bonham)
  Re: Apple Flavor ("Timothy Green")
  re:apple cider (Jon Macleod)
  Maris Otter confusion ("Mort O'Sullivan")
  Lewis (pbabcock)
  Oregon fruit products/chiropractors and a question ("Eric R. Tepe")
  FWH article in zymurgy ("Dave Draper")
  split-fermentation variables (Randy Ricchi)

JudgeNet is under repair and will return online May 1. BURP's Spirit of Free Beer competition is June 6-7 and entry information is available by contacting Jay Adams (adams at burp.org). NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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 hbd.org 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: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:44:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: 0.08; Dark Stout of the Force; Clinitest; split boil; magnets Greetings to all, and especially to: Jim Booth, who writes: > I doubt that .08 as a national limit would have much impact on much of > anything, and I don't think it is a step onto the slippery slope toward > prohibitation. I basically agree. My concerns are: 1) It would redirect enforcement resources in a less-effective way. 2) It would increase Federal intervention in State policy decisions. 3) It would enhance the national political power of anti-alcohol (as opposed to anti-drunk-driving) zealots. > Michigan's > zero tolerance for underage drinker-drivers seems to have slowed down > the high school crowd. My point exactly. A state-level policy of enhanced enforcement. This is good. The correct political level, and the correct action. I bet they had a big dose of high-school-age education in the mix -- at least educating them how likely they now were to get busted. - - - - - - - - - - > From: "Aanakin Skywalker (Dan Szemenyei)" <iamelvis at esu.edu> > > I brewed a coffee stout. No, Aanakin -- turn from the dark side! > I want a little more > sweetness. Can I add lactose with my priming DME for bottling? Will DME > give me enough residual sweetness? Is chocolate syrup a good idea? Lactose should work, but don't call it a milk stout if you're in England. DME and chocolate syrup will just ferment, giving you carbonation but not much more sweetness. As a last, best hope for sweetness, you can add a few drops of simple syrup (1 cup sugar boiled in 1 cup water) at serving time. - - - - - - - - - - > From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> > Subject: Refractometers, Electric Boil, Clear Wave > Rather than spring for a refractometer , ... > use this diluted sample with a Clinitest Kit from the Pharmacy. Hot diggity dog, I get to argue with Dave Burley about Clinitest. :-) smiley added for the humor impaired Dave, here's what I thought you have said before: Use Clinitest only to determine whether fermentation is complete. You agree that it does not measure some sugars, but this is irrelevant because they won't affect completion. Do I recall correctly? Harlan is wanting to track the progress of fermentation -- how much fermentation has occurred set times during the fermentation. I don't think Clinitest will give him an accurate view of the degree of fermentation -- just whether it's done or not. I don't think he will find this to be a valuable measurement -- too much batch-by-batch fluctuation -- but that's his business. - - - - - - - - - - > From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> > do not buy a large kettle for a boiler. Buy two cheap 4 gallon > SS boilers. It is much easier to handle and boil these than > a large kettle. This is rather a dogmatic statement. Some people do split boils with great success; others, like me, do just fine with a single kettle. A large kettle isn't all that difficult to manage. If you move up to a stronger heat source, like a propane burner, you'll have a fun time with two small pots. With two pots, you'll have to split your hops and any flavoring items, and it may affect your utilization. Certainly you don't want to lug around five gallons of hot wort. Chill in place, or siphon/drain through a counter-flow chiller. > Secondly, I control the boil rate and reduce > oxidation during the boil by having the lid partially (80%) on > the kettle. This is a good point, thanks. Dave's right: let enough steam evolve to get rid of the DMS, but don't add more heat than needed to maintain a rolling boil. Partially covering the pot can reduce the heat input needed. I've read that some people drape the pot with tinfoil to reflect back heat losses. I haven't needed to do so, so I haven't bothered. Take care if you do so, as metals foils can burn. - - - - - - - - - - "Fuggles McFirkin" <humulus at hotmail.com> ("Kelly") and Dave Burley also discuss whether or not to use unproven magnet technology. I'd be interested in any references to studies disproving the effect of magnetic water softeners or magnetic medical effects. Remember, science never proves anything. It disproves wrong theories. After multiple, sustained, repeated attempts to disprove a theory, it may be generally accepted -- but never proven. I'd be disinclined to mess with the water softener magnets, especially for brewing, since: 1) I haven't heard a good explanation of how they're supposed to work, or seen peer-reviewed research showing their effect (disproving the hypothesis that there is no effect). 2) I've heard that the people claiming to have done research say that the relationship between the pipe geometry and magnetic field is critical, so (I would think) a mass-market device is almost guaranteed to fail. 3) I think they claim that it leaves the "hard" chemicals in the water, but puts them into a state where they don't deposit on things for a while. Even if they work as advertised, then, the chemicals will still be there to affect your flavors. As for the medical magnets, I'm more lenient. Dave says to not use them since they're unproven, Kelly asserts that the placebo effect is definitely responsible: > Heck, you could replace the magnets with beer nuts, and the device would > be just as effective. It's what you believe that enables such a product > to work, not what the device actually does. Again, if you have references to research in this area, they would be useful to me. Otherwise, I'd put magnetism in the category of things you can try if you want, as long as they're CHEAP, and see if you get some relief. Whether the secret ingredient is magnetism or "placebin," the real question is: did you personally stop hurting? Of course, pain often signals an underlying problem. Seek treatment for that problem. But if you've got a pain that regular medicine hasn't helped without unacceptable side effects, you might try it. Pain and stress are largely subjective, so hard research is difficult and expensive. And, different things work for different people. Something that works "sometimes" will have a hard time getting FDA approval as being safe and effective. We set a much higher hurdle for new medical products than most countries. On the one hand, we didn't accept thalidomide. On the other, we don't know how many Americans die or suffer because we're so scared of another thalidomide. But since it does take almost an act of God to win FDA approval, I'm more willing to consider lesser studies and anecdotal evidence -- not blindly believe them, but consider them. And I can imagine that magnetism has an effect on the human body, otherwise an MRI would come out blank. But if somebody tries to sell you an expensive product, keep looking. The people at the alternative medicine 'n' herbs shops will tell you how to use magnets for almost free (e.g., the price of a few refrigerator magnets). If a product costs, say, $25, and is really effective, they could afford to go for FDA approval. I'm not a believer, but hey, if it works for you, call it "decoction" and ignore the people that say it does nothing. :-) (ob brewing comment) Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada personal net account -- Die Gedanken Sind Frie Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Trish Driver <trish at kleinedu.com> Subject: Subject: RE: Corny keg source >Vaugn in Auburn wrote....... >I've seen a couple posts regarding brewers looking for kegs in N. Cal. >And decided to come out of lurker status to share a local source. RCB >equipment in the Sacramento, CA area is currently advertising a special >price on 5 gal corny kegs at $11.50 each. I have not yet contacted them >but will likely do so in the near future. No affiliation, blah, blah, >blah. An even better deal can be found through Robert Arguello of Davis, Cal. He sells the same kegs, (5 gallon, ball-lock), for $11.00. The kegs were clean, dent free and shipped with pressure in them. He also has some dented kegs that work as well but arn't as pretty for $8.50 each. His URL is http://www.calweb.com/~robertac his e-mail address is robertac at calweb.com. No affiliation etc...just a happy long time customer. Trish D. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:31:16 -0400 (EDT) From: ak753 at detroit.freenet.org (Joseph A. Clayton) Subject: Clean burners G'Day brewfolk, George DePiro asks: > With all the talk about burners, and the flaws in the recent Zymurgy > burner article, I figured that I would ask a question: > > What burners are the cleanest burning? Well, I use the much maligned Superb burner that I converted to natural gas. I love this burner because it is VERY clean burning (I get no soot) from a barely visible flame to full blast and because it is quiet, a disadvantage for the Top Gun types who like brewing next to an F-16 ;-). I fire it up at the beginning of the sparge with a barely visible flame and keep turning it up as the keg fills. Ten minutes after the sparge, it's boiling. I have some discoloration on the bottom of my keg but it is from the heat not soot (won't rub off with a Scotchbrite pad). I can't say if the cleanliness is due to the natural gas because I have never used it with propane. I can't address the fuel consumption factor as well. I think the adjustability would make it great for use under a mash tun but I us a gott cooler so I don't need one. Oh GrEaT BrEwHoLiO, are you looking for a spile for your bunghole? ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resist the Bevis & Butthead reference) BTW, I haven't forgotten about the open ferment summary, I haven't had the time to type it up yet. Good brewing to all, Joe C. - -- Joe Clayton Farmington Hills, MI USA ak753 at detroit.freenet.org or yyzclayton at aol.com (Preferred) claytonj at cc.tacom.army.mil (If you must) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:48:08 -0400 From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at longisland.com> Subject: First Wort Hopping (CV Steam Update) Hi All Well the CV Steam which used first wort hopping ( + secret ingredients) has finished its primary ferment and REALLY TASTES GREAT going into the secondary. Compared to the previous batches made using the same ( well, almost the same) recipe, it has a much "smoother" taste profile. I am definitely going to continue this method ( ie the First Wort Hopping not the secret ingredients!!!) I just gave my wife a taste of this sample and her impressions were identical to mine ( she is totally unaware of the past history of this brew). She always tastes the beer as it moves from primary to secondary and immediately recognized that this batch was better tasting than anything else she has tasted at this point. Her comment was that it tasted like finished beer that is uncarbonated. In setting up my hopping schedule I made the assumption that FWH would give me 30% utilization. I added all the hops to my kettle and then collected the sweet wort from my lauter tun. There were no additional hops added during the 90 minute boil. All in all, with wort collection, heating to boil and the 90 minute boil, the hops were in the kettle for 2 1/2 hours from start of sparge to knockout. I have added 1/2 ounce of Cascades to the secondary to lift the aroma and will report back as the beer develops. BTW, one aspect of FWH that is interesting arose after I recently purchased a copy of Dave Line's book 'Brewing Beers Like Those You Buy'. Dave Line died in 1979, so his recipes are 'time capsule' material compared to present thinking. However, almost every recipe in that book uses a full 90 minute boil of the hops, whereas 'modern' recipes with a 90 minute boil often call for an initial unhopped 30 minute boil and then first addition. In Chapter 3 of Dave's book he tries to walk a beginner through the steps of brewing an extract version of Fuller's ESB ( Yummm!). If you read his advice , he has the brewer add his extract to "hot water". After the extract is dissolved, the hops are added and then heat is applied. If I interpret Dave's term "hot water" to indicate "not yet boiling" then this really seems to me to be the same as the extract equivalent of first wort hopping!! In case one wishes to dismiss Dave's recipes as leading to bad beer, Allan Talman told me that last year's winning recipe at his homebrew shop's mini-contest was one of Dave's recipes brewed verbatim from the book. Jim Bentson (Head Brewer) & Sylvester (Quality Control Manager) Centerport NY Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:26:38 -0500 From: "Martin Stokes" <Mstokes at apollo.umenfa.maine.edu> Subject: NNERHBC M.A.L.T. (MAINE ALE and LAGER TASTERS) present the NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL HOMEBREW COMPETITION Hosted by The Cask and Hive Winery and Chick Orchards Monmouth, ME May 30, 1998 THE COMPETITION IN BRIEF Those coming from the deep south should travel north on Interstate 95 to exit 30, Augusta/Winthrop, and head west on route 202 towards Winthrop. Pass through Manchester and Winthrop and after about 15 miles turn left on to Norris Hill Road. The winery is signposted before this turn on yellow DOT signs. Chick Orchard and the Winery is on your left in about 1 and 1/2 miles and is easily seen. NNERHC signs will be posted. COMPETITION RULES AND ENTRY INFORMATION Anyone may enter this competition providing the entries have been brewed at home, not at a commercial brewing facility. Entry fee is $5.00 per entry ($4.00 per entry if entering five or more beers). Checks or money orders for entry fees should be made out to MALT. No cash, please. Brewers must submit three (3) bottles for each entry. Bottles should be between 10-16 ounces, with all labels removed. Caps must be plain or blacked out, carbonators are allowed. Any number of entries per subcategory. Single large bottles of mead are acceptable but the risk is yours if it gets spilled, agitated or broken. Please ensure there are no distinguishing marks to alert judges to your entry. Please indicate ingredients + style used for meads, ciders, or fruit/specialty beers on the entry form. The deadline for entries shipped or delivered to The Cask and Hive Winery is Wednesday, May 27, 1998. Beers received after this date will not be judged, nor will they be returned to the brewer. Entries will NOT be accepted on the day of the competition. NO EXCEPTIONS! Bottle label forms must be attached to each bottle with a rubber band. NO TAPE! Recipes are not necessary, but the competition organizers reserve the right to request a recipe after the competition for publication in our club newsletter. Competition entry forms must accompany each set of entries. Entries may be sent via UPS or dropped off to: NNERHC c/o Cask and Hive Winery, 155 Norris Hill Road Monmouth, ME 04259 For additional information, contact Martin Stokes 207-827-5659 (H) 207-581-2737 (W) 207-581-2744 (W Fax) Stokes at Maine.Maine.edu Style guidelines may be viewed and entries can be dropped at the following locations. Please note that the entry deadline at these locations is variable and earlier than the shipping deadline to allow travellers to pick up these entries. Seven Barrel Brewery Shop - W.Lebanon, NH. (603) 298- 5566...May 16 The Hop Shop - Gray, ME (207) 657-5550 ..... Friday, May 22 Whip & Spoon - Portland, ME (800) 937-9447 ....Friday, May 22 Purple Foot Downeast - Waldoboro, ME (207) 832-6286 ........ May 20 Brewer Cook and Baker - Portsmouth, NH (603) 436-5918 .....May 22 The Store/Ampersand - Orono, ME (207) 866-4110 ...... May 22 Natural Living Center, BrewNet Cafe - Bangor, ME (207) 990-1441 ...... May 22 JUDGES & STEWARDS Judges and Stewards registration and waiver forms can be obtained from: Tom O'Brien 752 Stevens Ave. Portland, ME 04103 Judges & Stewards must report to the judging site no later than 8:30 am. Judging will start at 9:30 am. BJCP experience points will be awarded as per the BJCP rules and on an "as available" basis. Appropriate consumables will be provided to welcome judges and stewards and an afternoon lunch of wonderful home cooked fare will be provided for all judges and stewards. This will be May Blossom Time, one of the most beautiful times of the year in Maine. After the awards ceremony come smoke cigars around the brewers bonfire while we BBQ a turkey, deer, or other quadrupedal herbivore. Complimentary beer and cider will be provided by Maine craft brewers and a great time will be had by all. (Feel free to bring your own kegs too). Free beds are available for judges, stewards, and their associates in bunk houses provided by Chick Orchards. An excellent homecooked breakfast will then be available on Sunday to set you well on your way. COSTS Overnight accommodation FREE Dinner and entertainment $10 per head Breakfast $ 5 per head COMPETITION ENTRY FORM Entry forms and bottle labels can be obtained from from Martin Stokes (see above). 22 NE Regional HBC styles of beer and cider will be judged together with: 23a. Traditional Mead. 23b. All other meads (melomel, cyser, metheglin, pyment, braggot, etc.) Specify style and special ingredients. 24. Sake. Martin Stokes (The Mainiacal professor) Beer, wine, silage, rumen digestion, it's all fermentation chemistry. Carbohydrate to a waste product of a microorganism. 186 N Fourth St Home phone (207) 827-5659 Old Town ME 04468 Work phone (207) 581-2737 STOKES at MAINE.MAINE.EDU Work fax (207) 581-2744 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:35:13 -0500 (CDT) From: Andy Milder <milder at rs6k1.hep.utexas.edu> Subject: electric stove boiling and vigor In Homebrew Digest #2695 (April 23, 1998) Bill Goodman asks about using an electric stove for boiling. I have experience with 2 different stoves. The first gave great results, I was able to maintain a nice rolling boil in an uncovered 8.25gal pot using 2 burners. When I moved to another apartment, I was disappointed to find the stove was pretty weak. 45 min to boil seemed like forever and the wimpy simmering boil was very unsatisfying. I needed to almost completely cover the pot to get what I considered a decent boil-- then I had boil-over problems and I was worried that I wasn't evaporating enough undesirable volatiles. I have since supplemented the stove with a hot water heater element and I now get very vigorous boils (very satisfying.) My first point may be obvious: not all stoves give the same results. This brings up a interesting pointy-headed point that I haven't seen discussed here very much. My understanding is that a vigorous boil is needed to coagulate hot break and optimize hop utilization. I.e., these things rely on the mechanical motion of the liquid, not just temp. Does anybody know how to quantify the "vigor" of a boil? The evaporation rate is clearly correlated to uninteresting things like pot geometry, ambient air temp and humidity(?) but maybe we can use it as an approximation. If you cover the pot you may increase the boil vigor but you will lower the evaporation rate so the rule of thumb approach gets blown out the window. Can any of the nice and helpful experts out there describe what they think a good boil looks like? Like, how fast are the hop chunks moving? :-) Besides carmelization, is there a danger of boiling too vigorously? How much can one cover a pot while boiling without worrying about DMS? I typically lose 1.5 gals to evaporation in a 90 min uncovered boil, this corresponds to ~14%/hour starting as I do with 7 gals. This is on the high side of Jim Busch's 7-15% (HBD#2694.) Thanks, Andy Milder Austin, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 98 14:00:57 -0700 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: Dr. Lewis Article in American Brewer I didn't catch Dr. Lewis' article, but the remark about decoctions not making any difference to the brew is abominable ... so much so, that I really suspect that the statement must be out of context or something. It _must_ have been referring to one particular aspect of a brew that doesn't (significantly) change when comparing decoction mashes to ______(fill in the blank)______ mashes. Anyone know a little more on this one? I doubt any "megabrewery" affiliation could lead him or anyone else to make such a wild statement either. And from his perspective, "megabrewery affiliation" is necessary to obtain research funding. I suspect that the research done with such funds also benefits the micro- and homebrewer too, e.g. via articles published in the various journals. I hope people realize that. On the remark about the average micro- or homebrewer not having more than a vague sense of what an 'experiment' is, I agree wholeheartedly. Engineers (I'm one also) should be all rights have a pretty good background in experimentation, much more so than the average micro- or homebrewer, yet they don't. Not right out of school anyway. I'd say most people in most disciplines don't, unless they were lucky enough to get an education from an institute that included formal training in it (there _are_ a few out there!). Just so nobody misconcludes what I'm talking about here, I'm speaking mostly about formal design of experiments (D.O.E.). If terms like full or partial factorial, with and without repetition, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and others are familiar to you, then you are at least familiar with designed experiments and their analysis. If you haven't heard these terms, then you are not. If you can effectively design, conduct, and analyze DOE types of experiments, then you are "in the know" about what Lewis is probably talking about and probably also realize how few people are knowledgeable and good at these things. Ok, I'll get off the bandwagon! Flames welcome! Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:19:15 -0400 From: Art Steinmetz <asteinm at pipeline.com> Subject: re:CO2 gas detectors Might I suggest a candle? - -- Art asteinm at pipeline.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:53:03 -0700 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: 200,000 BTU I just picked up a Metal Fusion King Cooker rated at 200KBTU, and man this thing cooks! Full wort boils in less than 10 minutes, 3 gallons/hour evaporation rate, and talk about fast, jeez, this will make my 55 gallon system managable. The model designation is 90S/H PK for those who are interested. Got it at Steinbarts for $64, what a deal -- I'm making my favorite IPA with it right now (Harper Valley IPA) ;^) Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. homemade at spiritone.com http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.shtml "In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind" L. Pasteur Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 03:17:07 +0100 From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com> Subject: Measuring SG / Munich Malt I've been reading the posts lately about measuring specific gravity using refractometers or narrow range hydrometers for quality control purposes. At Heriot-Watt we use electronic density meters, as they are deemed accurate enough for government work, but if I were on a tight budget and looking for a quick, cheap, and accurate way to measure specific gravity I might consider using a specific gravity gradient tube. A specific gravity gradient tube is a vertical tube filled with a water-immiscible liquid in such a way that the density of the liquid varies from top to bottom. When a drop of aqueous solution is placed in the column, it falls until it reaches a point in the gradient of corresponding density. By comparing against standards of known SG (conveniently prepared to gravities of 1.010, 1.020, 1.030, etc.) you can determine the SG of unknown liquids (worts, beer, fermenting worts, etc.) fairly accurately and rapidly. All that is needed is the necessary hardware (500 ml graduated cylinder, battery jar, a piece of copper wire, and pipettes or medicine droppers) as well as the necessary reagents (bromobenzene+kerosene for the gradient, and copper sulfate for the standards). Once a tube is prepared it can be used several times daily for 3-6 months before the gradient is diffused enough to warrant remaking the tube (sand and salt are used to "erase" previous measurements). When this setup is calibrated properly it is more accurate than the best hydrometer and it nearly approaches the accuracy of a pyncometer--plus you only need a drop of liquid to take a measurement. If anyone is interested in pursuing this idea further I can give a reference to a paper from the 1940's that describes in detail how to set up a specific gravity gradient tube. - --------------------- George De Piro asks about using higher nitrogen barleys for the production of Munich and Vienna malts. While I have also read that higher nitrogen barleys are used for making these specialty malts, I don't think this is necessarily the case, and maltsters probably use a rather wide range of barleys to make these malts (in fact the spec sheets on Munich and Vienna malts that I looked up showed total nitrogen content ranging from 10.5% to 12.5%). What the maltster is concerned with is producing a malt of consistent quality that will always meet the specifications of the customer in terms of extract, color, flavor, DP, etc. For Munich and Vienna malts the primary concerns are color, flavor, and extract and particular attention is paid to controlling the conditions of Maillard reactions to produce consistent color and flavor. As only a small percentage of the amino acids participate in Maillard reactions, I would not think that using barley with 12-13% nitrogen would be more advantageous than using barley of 11% nitrogen (plus the higher nitrogen would inherently mean less available extract). What *is* important to the maltster in producing these types of malt is controlling parameters that influence Maillard reactions. They generally shoot for a higher TSN/TN ratio than for typical pilsner malt and cure off at 85-105C (the higher end of the range for Munich, and the lower end for Vienna). But even if these parameters are strictly controlled, there is likely to be some variability in the color and flavor depending on exactly which amino acids and sugars react with each other (e.g. glycine+maltose=dark/malty, but alanine+glucose=light/biscuity) - ------- Mort O'Sullivan Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:26:32 -0500 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: stuff A couple of additional comments re: checking gravity during fermentation: Narrow range hydrometers can be had from Mangel, Scheuermann & Oeters, a supply firm that caters to breweries. Call them at 215-674-5500 and ask for a catalog. Hydrometers in various ranges are about $11 each, or $21 each with a built in thermometer. Regarding degassing, the ASBC method of analysis states that he beer should be degassed. The approved methods are real complex: pour the beer back and forth between two beakers until it don't foam no mo, or put it in a large flask and shake, gently at first, vigorously later, until it don't foam no mo. If you are brewing batches of the same recipe repetitively (i.e., in a commercial brewery), you *can* use a refractometer to check gravity, although methinks it would be better practice to use a hydrometer (or better still, a pycnometer and a milligram balance). Just check the gravity each day with a hydrometer (or pycnometer) and a refractometer, and construct a calibration curve plotting those values against each other. On future batches of the same recipe, just take a refractometer reading and use the calibration curve to tell you what the gravity is. (There's a similar ABSC method for assessing alcohol content, which is what I'm gonna use to do the alcohol content testing of the HBD Palexperiment beers.) On bench refractometers, do hit the surplus auctions and look for them -- most people haven't the foggiest notion what they are, and thus you can sometimes can get lucky. I recently scored a Abbe 3 bench refractometer (list: about $3500) for a song at a local medical school surplus auction. But the best score was my friend Phil Endacott (Bay Brewery), who scored a top-of-the-line digital bench refractometer (about $6,000) at another local surplus auction for $10. Both work perfectly. Finally, on the oft-suggested method of using Clinitest to determine when fermentation is finished, I humbly suggest that it is a much better practice to simply run a forced fermentation test of some of the pitched wort. This will tell you within 48 hours (less if you use a stir plate) what your final gravity should be, given the particularities of the yeast and sugar profiles in that batch. Louis K. Bonham Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:18:55 -0400 From: "Timothy Green" <TimGreen at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Apple Flavor Jason asked, >anyone ever make any type of beer,wine,mead,or whatever with apple cider or >apple juice which ended up with the apple flavor. i would appreciate >anyones experience on this topic or a direction to any writings on the >subject. I was a maker of mead and cider long before I learned to brew beer. It seems that during fermentation, the volitile compounds which carry the "apple" flavor are driven off by the release of CO2 gas. All the ciders I have made have turned out tasting like sweet or dry wines rather than alcohol bearing apple juice. The cisers (mead with apple juice) have turned out as meads with some apple character, but only hints of it. I made a batch of cider for a friend who was looking for an apple flavored beverage, so when the fermentation and aging was finished, I blended 1/2 gallon of fresh apple juice with 1 gallon of the cider wnich created something much more like the "hornsby style apple cider" (tastes more like alcoholic apple pop to me) I hope this helps. Tim Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:43:17 -0400 From: marli at bbs2.rmrc.net (Jon Macleod) Subject: re:apple cider I have made cysers quite a few times, and been happy with the results, especially at the 18-24 month point (haven't gone farther yet). Basically, I make mead but use fresh cider instead of water (5 gals cider, 15 lbs honey). I boil my meads about 10 minutes and skim off as much foam as possible. That and Irish Moss and they clear very nicely (plus no infections). I have also added several pounds of thinly sliced apples to the secondary, with nice results. You asked about "apple flavor". Well, the cyser is unmistakably apple based, but I wouldn't say it tastes like apple pie. If you pick the right yeast you might be able to finish sweeter with more residual appleness. Personally, I like 'em dry. Good luck. Mike Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:15:53 +0100 From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com> Subject: Maris Otter confusion Regarding Maris Otter Fred Wills says: - ------------------------------------- >I'd like to try to help clear up some of the pervasive confusion >regarding this malt. My understanding (heresay only) is that there is a "Maris" >company that produces barley for malting among other things, one strain >of which is named "Otter". >This barley is (has been) malted by several companies (maltsters) the >most well known of which in the US is "Crisp Maltings". I think the use of >both the "Crisp" and "Maris" company names in describing Crisp Maris Otter >malt has led to some of the confusion. Another contributing factor to the >confusion may indirectly be due to the purported high quality attributed >to this Crisp malt at least in homebrewing circles. >Of course, now that we are seeing other malsters selling the Maris Otter >barley variety in the US that are taking good advantage of the Crisp >company's earned reputation and marketing their maltings only as "Maris >Otter". Not Munton's Maris Otter as an example... get my drift? Fred, I do hope you are kidding. But just in case some unsuspecting folks on the list actually believe you, I'd like to say for the record that Maris Otter did not originate from a company called "Maris" and was not made famous by Crisp Maltings. In fact, Maris Otter is a winter 2-row barley that came out of the breeding trials of the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany in Cambridge, UK in 1965. It is a cross between Proctor and Pioneer. Both Proctor and Pioneer, in turn, came out of the same breeding program that attempted to cross Plumage-Archer (the first barley grown specifically for malting in the UK) with barley varieties that had shorter stalks and greater disease resistance (such as Kenia). Plumage-Archer (as well as Spratt-Archer) was developed around the turn of the century by breeding pioneers Beavan and Hunter, who decided to cross breed the landrace varieties, Archer, Spratt, and Plumage in order to obtain varieties better suited for malting. As far as the "purported high quality" of Maris Otter goes, this perception did not arise out of homebrewing circles, but rather from commercial breweries in the UK. For reasons not entirely understood, Maris Otter seems to be better suited to the brewing equipment of many breweries in the UK (it processes more efficiently than many other varieties which, on paper at least, should perform as well or better). For this reason many smaller brewers (such as Youngs and Maclays) pay a premium (perhaps 25-50%) to maltsters (who in turn pay a premium to farmers, who grumble because of Maris Otter's lower yields) to ensure that they will continue to be supplied with this malt. Larger brewers cannot justify this higher cost, so they typically do not use Maris Otter. Were it not for the smaller brewers in the UK, Maris Otter would probably not be available to anyone, much less those in the home brewing community--the typical useful lifespan of a modern barley variety is about 10-15 years and at the ripe old age of 33, Maris Otter is surviving only because of the loyalty of its users and their willingness to pay a higher price (one wonders how long this can continue). - --Mort O'Sullivan Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:56:50 -0400 From: pbabcock at oeonline.com Subject: Lewis Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... On Lewis: recall his brilliant remarks regarding stout not as a style, but as merely a black beer (Style Series Stout - an exercise in employing Lewis, his family and friends to create a book fairly useless to the average homebrewer). Black beer, in and of itself, is not a style, but a classification of sorts, no? - Much like "pale beer" would be. ie, in Lewisesque terms, Pilsner wouldn't be so much a style of its own, but a pale beer. - And among the "black beers", I can think of no other that stands out as clearly and easily from the others as does stout, so what would be the basis of his comment aside from some demonstration of pomposity or a full and complete misunderstanding of beer styles? Further, why would someone with such apparent disdain for the style have been chosen to write the "bible" on it? Was the book reviewed before publication? How was such tripe allowed to publish? Was the "name" deemed more important than the content? Anyway, rant mode is off. Rojotte's Belgian Ale in the series raised a few eyebrows here and there, but that seemed to be more poor editing and typographical errors. Stout takes the cake. I have never been able to look at the Style Series the same way since its (Stout's) publication, and will likely not buy another without first reading it or getting a review from someone whose opinion I value. Stout has quite literally whacked the Series' credibility for me. It has done the same for Lewis' credibility. See ya! -p Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:35:00 -0400 From: "Eric R. Tepe" <erictepe at fuse.net> Subject: Oregon fruit products/chiropractors and a question I am sorry if this is a repeat but my browser performed and illegal operation and shut down and I don't know it this got sent. Collective, I am usually a lurker and collector of the vast brewing knowlege of this forum but for several months I did not have e-mail and I just wanted to say that I am glad to be back after an extended abscence. I don't claim to be overly knowlegable about anything so it is kind of neat when I can post or comment. First- A question. When in the fermentation process is high krausen? The reason I ask is because recently I brewed two beers from the same mash-both O.G. 1.044, fermentation temperature:62F, wyeast 1272: American Ale 2 - and after adding the yeast(on saturday)-they were fermenting happily in 10 hours (sunday morning). The next day(Sunday eventing-about 30 hours after adding the yeast) the airlock was bubbling ballistacally and there was a 4 inch head with the normal hop goop on top. It was like this for 3 days (wednesday evening) but on thursday morning and friday morning my airlocks were filled with foam and yeast( I put on blowoff tubes) but the airlock activity(once I cleaned and sanatized them) is a lot slower. Is high krausen not the point where the most vigorous fermentation is happening? Please enlighten me as to what is happening here. Secondly, Steve Jones asks about Oregon Fruit Products puree. Thier web site is www.oregonfruit.com and they have a whole range of fruit purees but only several in cans. If you belong to a homebrew club you could arrange a "fruit buy". While in some cases the shipping could be more than the fruit, the boxes are 42lbs and decrease your cost a lot. The product is seedless and commercially sterile and you can easily divide the fruit in gallon freezer bags and store frozen. It really makes a nice beer and the people from our fruit buy have been very happy with the results. You will need to use pectinase. Finally(on a non-homebrewing note), It apperars that Dennis Johnson thinks that chiropractors are quacks (if not they why the reference to the web page?)First-have you ever went to one? I had carpel tunnel syndrome in my right wrist and was looking at surgery(several thousand dollars) to repair it (which is not always 100% successful). This was fixed by two trips ($50) to the chiropractor where he manipulated the bones in my wrist, told me to keep it immoble for 1 week then rehabilitate it by sqeezing an old tennis ball. I have had no pain or weekness in 10 years! The same chiropractor fixed my fathers back when he heneriated 2 disks and my father has the x-rays to prove it! I am also sure that there are a fair amount of people on this forum that use chiropractors and swear by them. Eric R. Tepe Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:18:10 +4 From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: FWH article in zymurgy Dear Friends, In #2697 Bret Morrow outlined some coverage of First Wort Hopping in a 1997 zymurgy special issue. I think that it is worth pointing out that the work that the zymurgy author summarized came from Brauwelt International, and the same research was written about here in HBD by George Fix in mid-96, more or less starting the FWH "craze". The article is summarized on my own beer page as well, where interested readers can find the original reference to look up if they so desire. Apologies to regulars who have seen me flog this part of my web page so many times before. Leaving in the morning to interview for a faculty position at Portland State University in Oregon-- wish me luck friends, I sure would love to morph one more time, into "Dave in Portland." Cheers, Dave in Dallas "Jeff Renner is right." --- Dan McConnell - --- *************************************************************************** David S. Draper, Dept. Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas ddraper at utdallas.edu http://hbd.org/~ddraper ...That's right, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway... Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:15:35 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: split-fermentation variables Jim Wallace noticed his spit-batch attenuated differently, even though the two fermenters were fermented side-by-side, same quantity and type of yeast, same everything. It is possible that one of the fermentors had more cold-break than the other, and if so, I would bet that the one with more cold-break is the one that fermented quicker, and more completely. I have noticed this same phenomenon when I split batches between two fermentors. Now, after chilling I give the wort a good stir with a sanitized spoon to homogenize it, then run it out to the fermenters. I end up with equal amounts of cold-break in each vessel, and uniform attenuation. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 04/27/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96