HOMEBREW Digest #2781 Wed 29 July 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

  "Brew U" evaluation program (Samuel Mize)
  Redhook Blonde clone (Danny Breidenbach)
  omega fax (dbgrowler)
  starters (Alan Edwards)
  Wheat Beer flavor profile (Tom Barnet)
  mashing temps for decoction brew (Laurel Maney)
  mega-hopped IPAs (revised) (Vachom)
  re: soot ("Lou Heavner")
  Re: extract % vs grist weight % (Al Korzonas)
  Re: dry yeast amounts (Badger Roullett)
  Malt modification and analysis (long and technical) (George_De_Piro)
  Chlorine Attacks Stainless !!! Wet T-shirt Fun (Bob.Sutton)
  re:Cold trub removal (Dean Fikar)
  Tripel (Al Korzonas)
  % extract vs. % weight (Al Korzonas)
  Promoting Homebrewing (Dwayne Robert McKeel)
  Points vs. Pounds - yeah, but.... (Bob.Sutton)
  Mega IBU? ("Rob Jones")
  Corrosion of Stainless Steel (David lamotte)
  re: Pear Cider (Dick Dunn)
  Spelling schmelling (pbabcock)
  botox (yes, that's botulism) (Mark Tumarkin)
  Re: How do I remove TSP stains from my carboy? ("Lutzen, Karl F.")
  Benjamin CP filler (MicahM1269)
  Forced fermentation / fermenting in cornies (George_De_Piro)

Sunday Digest courtesy of a 3-day queue... 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: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:36:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at mail.imagin.net> Subject: "Brew U" evaluation program Greetings to all. Away back in March 1997, the AHA announced: > Brew U, the long awaited beer evaluation program, is approaching >roll-out! A complete class schedule and in-depth self-study course will >be available [later]. Is there any news on this? I assume they may have changed the name to avoid conflict with "Brew U" in Houston. I'm interested in actual announcements, inside info, speculation, slander BUT If you aren't forwarding official info from AHA, PLEASE don't post to HBD, just email me. Thanks. I'd rather this post weren't used as an excuse for another round of AHA bashing. Also, please let me know if it's OK for me to forward your comments to other interested parties (if any). Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:42:21 -0400 From: Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach at nctm.org> Subject: Redhook Blonde clone Hey, I've been avoiding Redhook products on general principle's lately (I'm a support-your-local-brewery kind of guy), but the description on the label of their Blonde Ale intrigued me enough to convince me to buy a six-pack. Yum! Any suggestions on how to reproduce it? Thanks, - --Danny Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:36:50 -0400 From: dbgrowler at juno.com Subject: omega fax Chuck, I use Omega CN9000's a lot, not for RIMS but for ferment temp controls. My friend Bob (rzuk at ix.netcom.com) has successfully adapted one he bribed offa me for 5 gallons of tasty steam beer. I'd be happy to send you a copy of the manual, just let me know. Mike Bardallis Recovering from Portland in Allen Park, MI _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com> Subject: starters Steve Alexander answers: > Starters - wheh - there's a lot to cover here. > - -- > Alan Edwards writes re: a better starter method? Sorry Alan, Actually, I said I have a *simpler* method. I said nothing about having a better method. But the subject line may have made it look that way. > a 0.8L extract > only starter should produce a marginal sized yeast crop at best. You'd be > better off with 1+L for ales, 2L for lagers and some yeast nutrient that > includes amino acids or an ammonia source. For what I'm doing, I'll take your "marginal" anyday. If I apply your statement to my experience, then the definition of "marginal" must be "enough to consistently make great beer without too much hassle". That is my guiding principal. If you say that 1.0L is fine for ales, then why must you put down my "marginal" 0.8L? The difference in volume is insignificant; and not as nearly as important as process. I even admited that my process is not optimal, right up front: I wrote: | I'm going focus on the mechanics and avoid theory of when to oxygenate, | and when to decant and add fresh wort, and how soon after that is optimal | for pitching. I'll leave that to the more knowledgeable. THIS was my point: | I wanted to take this opportunity to show those of you who think making | a starter is a hassle, that it doesn't have to be hard at all! If you | don't make starters, please have a look--it's easy (and important). | And for those of you who do, maybe you'll find this method a bit easier. | | The reason it's a bit easier is that you boil and ferment in the same | vessel: If you perfectionist types want to step up your starters four times at optimal volumes and time intervals, to reach an optimal pitching rate, go right ahead. You will assuredly be reducing your odds of the possibilities of infection, etc. But what I'm saying is that you don't *have* to go to all that trouble to pitch the absolute optimal amount of yeast into your beer. Two words: diminishing returns. Of course they are very subjective words. Define them as you wish. That is what's great about making beer; you can put as much effort into it as you wish. Tinkerers can be tinkerers; worriers can be worriers; perfectionists can be perfectionists. And I can adjust my effort knob to lower the effort enough to make great beer AND keep the process fun! That's what I'm tuning for. > You also didn't mention > aerating/oxygenating the starter - this is critical to get adequate growth > rates. Acutally, I did. I said shake it until it foams. Now if you are going to tell me to stuff an airstone into my 1L flask and pump pure O2 into the starter, I'm probably going to laugh. (Not to your face; but I will be chuckling to myself.) I challenge your definition of "critical". To me, the word critical means that if I don't do it just right, then my beer will come out horrible. Or actually, I should instead question "adequate growth rates". Maybe I will not acheive *optimal* growth rates; but if I always make great beer, then isn't that "adequate"? > Pitching the dregs from several bottles of SNPA is also a formula for > more serious underpitching problems. Pitching the dregs of a few bottles of beer into an 0.8L starter *may* be asking for problems; but it hasn't produced any so far. That's good enough for me. (You should always taste your starters before using.) I usually make starters at night, and they always have a kreusen by the next morning. Maybe not good enough for you; but good enough for me. Take it or leave it. -Alan in Fremont, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:16:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Tom Barnet <barnets at physics.auburn.edu> Subject: Wheat Beer flavor profile Hello all, I've brewed a few batches of wheat beer this summer and have been somewhat unsatisfied with the results. I've been employing a step-mash procedure, with rests at 100F,122F,155F and 170F, followed by a thorough sparge. I've made a starter with Wyeasts Weihenstephan yeast and have had strong fermentation. The flavor however does not seem to have the character i've read it should. For example, there isn't really any bannana or clove-like flavors, and there seems to be a somewhat bitter aftertaste--also some smoke-like flavor. I'm following the basic recipe in Warner's book on german wheat beer. The fermentation temperature was 75-80F, and i'm wondering if this is the reason for the beers taste profile. Warner suggests that these higher fermentation temps. result in 'Fusel Alcohols' and 'Esters'. I have know idea what that tastes like. Are the high fermentation temps. my problem? What do these 'Fusel Alcohols' and 'Esters' taste like? thanks. tom barnett. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:55:18 -0700 From: Laurel Maney <maney at execpc.com> Subject: mashing temps for decoction brew I've been reading up on decoction mashing lately in preparation for an upcoming weizen, which will also be my first decoction. I'm wondering why everything I've read so far calls for incredibly high sacch. temperatures, like 158-162F. Warner also mentions a "maltose rest" at 149 that I've never heard of. Now, I know what mashing at these temperatures would mean for a "normal" mash, so what is it about decoction that needs these seemingly high temperatures? Like you, I don't have a lot of experience with decoction brewing, but enzymes are enzymes. The two principal starch converting enzymes have different optimal temperature ranges (beta amylase in the 140s F, alpha amylase in the 150s F), but they continue working on both sides of the range until inactivated by very high temps. So besides the rest temp, you have to consider how long it takes to get to and from that temp. (i.e., the ramp time). This is usually a function of your equipment: Since beta amylase can only chew up straight chains of starch in units of two sugars, it produces only maltose - extremely fermentable. Alpha amylase randomly attacks any straight chain link (can't get at the branches though), so it produces a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-unit fermentables and a lot of unfermentables. Now, if you're doing a decoction, you know you're going to inactivate all the enzymes by the time you add the boiled portion back into the main mash. So it probably makes sense to get as much saccharification as possible done, before that happens. A rise and hold at 149 F would be delightful for beta amylase, and it would allow the alpha to start working as well - which just provides more attack sites for the beta! Then a rise to 158 F would give the alpha lots of opportunity in adddition to its rest at that temp. The longer you take to arrive at and leave each of these plateaus, the more of a field day those enzymes have. The alpha will keep on plugging away till at least 165 F. (In fact, if someone wanted to make a very fermentable, low residual carbohydrate beer - i.e., low calorie lite - they might just use that kind of mash profile, taking a nice long ramp between the two plateaus. Now what major brewer might have turned that idea into a household word???) Meanwhile back in the main mash, the temp is going to be increased by each addition of decocted mash. If you add it very fast, the ramps will be relatively short, with less opportunity to convert over the range of rise. So maybe that's another reason to get all you can out of the decocted portions. And of course, as the temp in the main mash gets higher, the next portion you take out can only saccharify at that temp or higher, thus forcing up the rest temp. Well, that's all I can think of. I've read lately about the toasty/bready flavors that the Maillard reaction(s) bring about, both in the kettle boil and in decoction boiling: proteins + sugars >>>> browning reaction. I can see how this contributes to a nice amber or dark beer, but I don't get any of that flavor in weiss beers. Is that because there's so much else going on flavor-wise, because of the yeast? Does anybody have any thoughts or experience on that? The Woodstock Brewer / MATC Brewing Certificate Instructor Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:08:16 -0500 From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us> Subject: mega-hopped IPAs (revised) There have been several posts of late about 100+ IBU IPAs. My question is for those whose palates are more finely tuned than mine. Is there an IBU level above which differences cannot be perceived? Could an experienced judge discern the difference in taste between a 70 IBU beer and a 120? Mike New Orleans, LA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:20 -0600 From: "Lou Heavner" <lheavner at tcmail.frco.com> Subject: re: soot From: "Schultz, Steven W." <swschult at CBDCOM-EMH1.APGEA.ARMY.MIL> >>>I used the side burner on my gas grill recently and totally sooted up the bottom of my wife's sauce pan. I don't want this to happen to me (my kettle, actually) when I start using a propane burner for boiling wort. Therefore, I would appreciate recommendations for propane burners that don't soot up the kettle. And-- are there any "secrets" which contribute to soot-free boiling?<<< Steve, soot usually means you are operating fuel rich... check the air register. There are actually a couple tricks you can try, but most of these outdoor burners used for brewing don't soot too badly unless you try to turn them down too far. For cooking the beans on the side burner, use some aluminum foil to protect the pot. Just make sure to get as good a contact between the foil and pot as possible, or you won't get good heating. I only use the side burner on mine as a warmer, do the cooking inside. The other trick is to make a paste with pot&pan cleanser like comet or tsp and coat the kettle with a thin layer. We used to this when we were camping out regularly and cooking over an open fire. Liquid soap is supposed to work too, but I've never used it. Cheers! Lou Heavner - Austin, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:47:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Re: extract % vs grist weight % I apologise if this topic has been beaten to death in the last week or if it there has been no interest, but Rick Cc'd me with his post and I've been off-line (a week in Portland at the AHA Conference and Oregon Brewers' Festival). I figured it would be better to comment now than to wait until I got caught up... by that time the thread would certainly be long dead. Rick posted: >It seems clear (to me) that if one is trying to document a recipe for >the masses, who >are likely to have access to somewhat (or very) different ingredients >and different >extraction efficiencies, that weight % of grist is not adequate >documentation and that >recipes based upon extraction might be useful. >Al K, in your post you commented that: >> I *always* have meant percentage by weight and I'm willing to bet that >> no poster to the HBD or author of a brewing book (except for perhaps Ray >> and Lewis) has meant percentage by extract when talking about grists. > >I think we can all agree with that statement. Could you (or anyone >else) comment on the >additional value of recipe documentation based upon extract % rather >than >grist weight %. Do you think that the additional info is useful or is >there so much >variability for other reasons in reproducing beers that the additional >precision >is really not beneficial. And even if that is so, isn't removing, as >much as possible, >wort variability not useful? Actually, I don't know how much more accurate is %extract over %weight. If you really and truly know the exact extract you get from *all* your grains, you can then be more accurate, but consider the following: * Have you ever made an all-wheat malt and all-rye malt batch? If not, then how can you know exactly what extract you got from these malts? You would have to make the same recipe with and without the specialty malt and compare the extract you got... how many of us have done that? * You can't make a batch from 100% raw grains (oats, wheat, barley, spelt, rye, etc.)... again, you have to make two batches in which the only difference is a certain percentage (it will *have* to be by weight the first time, right?) of the raw grain and compare the extract you get. I haven't done this yet... have you? * While DWC Biscuit and Briess Victory will (eventually) convert themselves, I would be surprised if the extract was the same when you mash them with more enzymatic malts... you have to do an experimental pair of mashes. * There is a difference in extract between steeping and mashing crystal malt, dark malts and roasted barley... you have to do an experimental pair of mashes. Let's face it: 99.9% of us are really only guessing at the extract we're getting from any of our ingredients (I have made a few batches that were 100% DWC Pale Ale or M&F Pale Ale or Crisp Maris Otter Pale Ale malt, so I have *MY* numbers for these malts, but what about DWC Aromatic, Weyermann Rauchmalz, DWC Caravienne, etc.?). If I write that I used 87% Weyermann Pils and 13% Weyermann Rauchmalz by weight, and you measure out the same percentages by weight, I contend that we are much more likely to get similar results than if I *guessed* at what my extract was for the Rauchmalz and then you *guessed* at what your extract will be for it. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:12:36 -0700 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: Re: dry yeast amounts Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:55:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: dry yeast amounts Samuel Mize wrote: "Dry yeast does contain about 50 times the yeast in a Wyeast pack, but I still don't think it's enough for pitching directly. If you believe your dry yeast is 100% viable (is that a big or little if these days?), then 2 typical-sized packages (5g) would be about the minimum for a 5 gal. batch. If you don't trust that your yeast is 100% viable, then scale up from there. It's cheap and effective." Since my brew days are random, and i have no clue when i am or am not going to brew, i do not make starters. i have however taken to pitching *2* packets of yeast for each 5 gallon batch. it works like a charm. i pitched without rehydrating to my stout, and had to clean up the mess as it went Boom.. (yes, i forgot the blow off tube) The moral here, is that if your worried about not enough yeast from dry yeast, then rehydrate and pitch two packets. they're cheap, and easy.. what more can you ask for!?!? (ok, shush up about them flavor profiles, and stuff..) badger *************************************************** Brander Roullett aka Badger Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:49:33 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Malt modification and analysis (long and technical) Hi all, Jim Liddil writes in to talk about (amongst other things) malt modification and analysis. In one of his posts he points out that I misquoted Kunze: >> not only is the acrospire allowed to grow to almost the length of >>the kernel, but they then rest the green malt right in the middle of >>the proteolytic temperature range. It is indeed well modified (yes, >>even the pils malts). >George read Kunze more carefully. Note that it is suggested that the >acrospire be only 1/2- 3/4. Actually, Jim is misquoting Kunze, too. For Pils malt it is recommended that the acrospire be 2/3-3/4 the length of the kernel while for "dark malt" (i.e., Munich, Vienna, or crystal) it be 3/4-1/1 the length of the kernel (p. 125). Of course, acrospire growth is not the only (or even best) way to determine the degree of modification. Kunze goes on to describe an example of a "good" pale malt (p. 160). *His* "ideal" analysis specifies: Total Protein: <10.8% Kolbach Index: 38-42% (<35=undermodified, 35-41=well-modified, >41=very well-modified) Fine-coarse difference: 1.2 - 1.8% soluble N in malt: >0.65 g/??? (this is missing from the text!) Friabilimeter value: 80-86% (<75% is unsatisfactory) Acrospire length: up to 1/4: 0% up to 1/2: 3% up to 3/4: 25% up to 1/1: 70% above 1/1: 2% According to the text in Kunze, all of these numbers are representative of well-modified malt. This is desirable to German brewers because of the high energy costs associated with multi-step and decoction mashes. Sure, it takes the maltster a little more time and some more money to produce well-modified malt, but it is cheaper to let the young barley plant break down its proteins than for the brewer to do it in the mash tun (if a brewer spends more than 2 hours on any one step of the process, they cannot brew 12 batches/day. Eliminating the protein rest may allow an extra 500 bbl batch to be brewed *each* day. Think of the production boost there and compare it to the cost of producing well-modified malt). At least one modern barley strain germinates pretty quickly (as my limited experience with Harrington taught me). It may be that the maltsters aren't using any more time or energy today than they were 50 years ago to produce a higher degree of modification (if all modern barley germinates as quickly as Harrington). If somebody else knows more about this, please chime in. How do Kunze's numbers for an "ideal malt" compare to an American megabrewers? *One* such man, Paul Smith (Coors), has said (Siebel notes): Protein: <12% for 2-row, <13.5% for 6-row Kolbach Index: 40-42% ideal (38-46% possibly acceptable; <35 should be rejected and >42 is very highly modified) Fine-coarse difference: <1.5% is good, 1.8% is marginal and 2.0 is right out! Soluble Protein: 0.7-0.896 Friabilimeter value: 75% is marginally low, while >85% is desirable Acrospire length: 3/4-1/1: ~95% Please note that Paul Smith is the one who put the emphasis on this being *one* brewer's opinion. It would be interesting to hear from some other large-scale brewers, but I doubt they are perusing this electronic tome. So now that I've thrown all of these numbers at you, what does it all mean? A comparison of these two brewers "ideal" pale malt shows that the American does desire a slightly higher degree of modification than the German. The German still wants a well-modified product, though. The biggest difference between the two "ideals" is acrospire length. The American wants to see almost all the kernels at 3/4-1/1, while the German is willing to accept some kernels that have less acrospire growth. Kunze points out that with increasing modification, there is decreasing extract value. This may be more important to a brewer who must use 100% malt in beer production, as opposed to a brewer who gets a substantial amount of extract from other (cheaper) sources. The American mega brewer is brewing a relatively light -colored, -bodied and -flavored, high-adjunct beer. Protein is not desirable in this product (you wouldn't want to shock your customers with rich mouthfeel or meringue-like foam). They also like the highest possible diastatic power (to convert all of that rice starch). This could be some of the reason for the difference in acropsire length. Another difference is in the absolute number for soluble protein (and total protein). Again, the American wants more, showing a desire for more modification. I believe this is because the American is more concerned about adequate Free Amino Nitrogen (FAN) in his wort. Since his wort will derive up to 50% of its extract from protein-free sources (rice, corn syrup, etc.), he needs more FAN in his malt to ensure adequate yeast nutrition. More total protein allows the absolute number for soluble protein to be higher, while the Kolbach number remains about the same as the German ideal. The other numbers are closer, with substantial overlap. This indicates that the German also desires a well-modified product. While Kunze's ideal malt would not be perfect in Paul Smith's eyes, it would probably be acceptable. The German malt is well-modified. In closing, I will explain the term "friability." It is a measure of the malt's hardness. A higher number means more of the malt kernel was soft enough to be crushed in the test. Softness is an indicator of complete modification. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:58:24 -0400 From: Bob.Sutton at fluordaniel.com Subject: Chlorine Attacks Stainless !!! Wet T-shirt Fun Let me share a chlorine stainless steel anecdote. One of our pharmaceutical clients prepared a 200 PPM chlorine (industry "standard") sanitization rinse for a 316L SS filling line. The normal protocol involved a 15 minute ambient circulation followed by rinsing with high purity water. One Friday afternoon the manufacturing folks decided to let the chlorinated solution remain in the system over the weekend. The following Monday the rinse cycle was activated. Guess what? No shortage of "leaks" at failed welds. I'd not take the risk with my equipment. If I could afford a stainless boilpot, I wouldn't put it at risk. And if you kegging, you're creating a major safety hazard that the poppet valve won't protect against if the unit is materially weakened. All for now. Bob Fruit Fly Brewhaus Yesterdays' Technology Today PS: Philip J Wilcox said: "If you agree, Its time for the wet t-shirt and a fan." Gee Philip - sounds like fun - but I hardly know you.... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:21:19 -0500 From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net> Subject: re:Cold trub removal Cold Break - removal ("Steve Alexander") writes: >You say you are pumping directly from the kettle to the fermentor - so I >assume >you are using an immersion chiller. Between the pot scrubber filter and the >'filter bed' formed by the hops residue you are actually removing the majority >of the break material at least this is my experience when I used to use a >slotted copper manifold, immersion chiller and whole hops. Together this >was >adequate (tho not ideal) for break removal (see below). Yes, I do use an immersion chiller and filter through a pot scrubber covered by whole hops. Still, I get a fair amount of whitish trub in the bottom of the fermenter. I would assume that most of this is cold break, no? >Fatty acids are also another threat if carried over into final beer. Their >oxidized products are the most despicable staling products imaginable. > Well, I've never had anything like cardboard, sherry, soapy, etc. flavors in any of my beers so I would assume that I don't have excess fatty acids in the final product. <Now when making lagers I collect all wort in carboys and leave them in a >chest >freezer overnight. This creates a wonderful separation of the cold break in >the near freezing wort. Then I aerate while transferring to another carboy and >pitch. It is amazing to see the nearly trub free wort go into the freezer and >an inch or even two of separated cold break come out. Sounds like an interesting idea. I assume that you have not had any infection problems by delaying yeast pitching. I might give this a try on my next pilsner and see if I can tell any difference. - -- Dean Fikar Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:15:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Tripel Attention everyone: "Tripel" has only one P. Look at a Westmalle label. Only New Belgium's "Trippel" has two Ps and that may have been intentional. It seems like a half dozen posters have written it with two Ps in the last month. Al. P.S. LordPeter: Tripels typically don't have bitter orange in them and that Wyeast #1214 will make you banana and nailpolish remover beer... it may be ready for the 2001 MCAB. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:36:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: % extract vs. % weight As I'm catching up on HBD, I'm seeing more and more people post on this issue. I'd like to point out that when I formulate a recipe, I do use all that math (actually in a much less complicated form) that Peter suggested. The way I formulate a recipe is that I first decide what percentage I want of each grain, then I weight them all by their relative extract potentials (slightly seat-of-the-pants... slightly closer to the way Sam does than the way Peter does) and figure out how many pounds of grist I'm going to need altogether based on points per pound and gallons, including my system efficiency and OG. Then, I multiply the grist weight by each percentage to get the pounds of each grain. Yes, this could all be done very technically as Peter suggests, but rarely do homebrew shops ever get the actual data sheets for the lot of malt they have and it's even rarer for hombrewers to get it. Yes, if you buy 385 pounds of Munton & Fison Pale Ale malt at a time like I do, you can call Munton & Fison and get the actual data for that lot (although I've often gotten several different lots out of 7 bags!), but I've grown tired of that and I get get within 0.001 SG by just using my intuition. I'd like to say this is the last word on this topic, but that would be far too pompous. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 20:06:21 -0400 From: Dwayne Robert McKeel <drmckeel at twave.net> Subject: Promoting Homebrewing Greetings Fellow Brewers, In the current issue of Brewing Techniques, Stephen Mallery, publisher of BT, announces a joint effort by BT and the Home Wine & Beer Trade Association to promote homebrewing to the general public. While I applaud this effort, I think it is a perfect example of the pathetic atrophy of the AHA. Afterall this is a stated goal of that organization and their attemps to do so have thus far fallen way short of the mark! I challenge the readers of this forum to contribute to this effort by teaching a friend or acquaintance how to brew. Also, in the near future, when I find the time, further post on the removal of medium weight protiens by IM (not!), fridge cycling and RIMS pumps. Teach A Friend to Brew Dwayne (I've never met a beer I didn't want to brew) McKeel Musty Olde Cellar Homebrewery The smallest artisanal brewery in North Carolina, brewer of the finest belgian-style and Scottish Ales in Alexander County and as far as I know the only steam heated RIMS in both the Carolinas mentioned article http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue6.4/editorial.html Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:51:41 -0400 From: Bob.Sutton at fluordaniel.com Subject: Points vs. Pounds - yeah, but.... Although I've enjoyed the banter discussing how to ratio recipe percentages, it seems that we've lost track of what we're attempting to do. That is, recreate a particular example of a model beer. "Lord Peter" describes the means to compute point-based clone, which except for moisture characterization (this shortcoming is also present in the weight based examples) is a great homework problem. "Lord Peter" concludes: "Summary rounded to three digits: Target : 5.177 Test Brew with: Briess 2 Row DW/C Pale DW/C Pils 5.167 lbs extract 5.016 lbs extract 4.974 lbs extract" Admittedly I haven't checked the math, but assuming it sound, the conclusion it leads to is faulty. These aren't equivalents!. Although they may be point equivalents, numerous flavor profiles of these grains will influence the taste and feel of the final beer. If you're going to clone, you need to duplicate the malts. If you make substitutions, at best you might create a similar beer, but odds are you probably will miss your mark. Using the same malts obviates the weight vs. point percentage calculations. All for now! Bob Fruit Fly Brewhaus Yesterdays' Technology Today Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 02:57:14 -0400 From: "Rob Jones" <robjones at pathcom.com> Subject: Mega IBU? Whoops, My original post, as one HBDer pointed out, didn't include any %AA. They are as follows: Northern Brewer - 8%AA Fuggles - 4.4%AA Goldings - 5%AA Thanks again. Rob >Hi all, > >Here's one for the mathematically inclined in the crowd (or those >spreadsheet inclined). I calculated the IBU's for a recipe for a British >style pale ale that I really like after hopping up the original recipe a >bit. > >According to my calculations I get 84 IBUs! Could this be true? I'm >skeptical about the accuracy of my calculations given that it doesn't seem >that bitter to me. Could it be my math is right and I'm a lupinomaniac after >all? > >Here's the facts: > >45g Northern Brewer at 75 minute addition >30g Fuggles at 75 minute addition >30g Fugles at 15 minute addition >60g East Kent Goldings dry hopped in pop tank ( if this is felt to be a >factor) > >All are whole hops. I assumed a kettle utilization of 30% for the 75min, and >10% for the 15min. Starting boil volume is 27L, or 7.12 gal. Final volume >post fermentation is 19.5L (5.14 gal). Equipment losses probably total about >2L ( 0.53gal). OG at 19.5L was 1.052. > >Thanks, >Rob Jones >Toronto, Canada > > Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 15:50:55 +1000 From: David lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Corrosion of Stainless Steel I have been following the excellent comments and observations posted on the damage that bleach can do to stainless steel. Rather than add to the 'Does/Does Not' type of debate by dusting off my old metallurgy text books, I would like to refer you good people to the excellent article by John Palmer on Brewery Corrosion. This was published in Brewing Techniques (March/April 1995). and is available online at http://realbeer.com/jjpalmer/ Stainless steel is stainless due to the presence of a passive oxide layer, and chlorine in the cleaning or sanitizing solutions can cause this protective oxide layer to deteriorate. This WILL happen at any change on the keg surface e.g. screw threads on a fitting, a deep scratch, rubber gasket or the waterline between the liquid and air. The Chlorine in the cleaning solution acts to deplete the area of oxygen, which then breaks down the passive layer. It can also occur by allowing chlorinated water to evaporate and dry on a steel surface allowing the chlorides to become concentrated. The next time the surface is wetted, corrosion will immediately take place, creating a shallow pit. This will continue with each drying cycle causing it to eventually corrode through. The key issues is not does bleach corrode stainless (it does), but how much corrosion occurs. If you use weak, cold solutions for a short time, no damage will be done. If however a stronger/hotter/longer cleaning is used, then you will probably see little pits develop at the waterline. Maybe not the first time you use bleach, but sooner or later you will forget and leave it soaking too long. This is just a quick summary of John's article, and I would encourage everyone to read it in full if you wish to understand all the issues involved. David Lamotte Brewing down under in the steel city of Newcastle NSW Australia Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Jul 98 00:38:12 MDT (Tue) From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: re: Pear Cider caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) wrote: [liked Wyder, didn't find recipe he liked] > Where can I find a simple pear cider recipe and how many pounds of pears do > I need to crush to get 1 gallon (I'll scale up)? "Perry" is the name you want. (perry:pear :: cider:apple) The simple recipe is to get a bunch of pear juice and ferment it, period. You don't need any additions; if you get fresh juice you probably don't even need to add yeast. (This is not like brewing beer! It's a lot more like making wine.) When making cider or perry, you don't want a rip-roaring fermenta- tion...slow and gentle will give you a better result. Keep the temp down. Figure at least a couple months for a nice fermentation. Use fresh juice, and keep everything clean. Ferment it out, then decide what combination of sweet/dry and still/fizzy you want, and stabilize or prime at bottling accordingly. You get about the same yield for pears as for apples--it depends on the grinder and the press, but somewhere in the ballpark of 40-60% yield depen- ding on the fruit and the efficiency of the equipment. By this I mean that you'll get about half the weight of the fruit you start with as juice by weight. (I figure 20 lb fruit to get a gallon of juice; this way if I'm ever surprised it's a pleasant surprise.) Figure that the juice will be around 1050-1060 SG. If you ferment it out, it will finish below 1000. You're not going to find perry pears...nobody who has them is likely to be looking to give away those pears or the juice...but fortunately, "dessert" (eating/cooking) pears make a good perry (much better than dessert apples make a cider). I think you might be surprised how much character you can get from pears, given the (apparently bland) taste of the raw fruit. Don't let the pears get too ripe before juicing. Again, compare/contrast with apples, you want to get apples ripe and a bit soft to improve the yield, but with pears if you get them too ripe the pulp gets slippery and harder to press. If you use a mesh filter bag in your press, the pulp of ripe pears is slippery enough that the bag can slide around and let the pulp ooze through. Perry is notoriously hard to clear. You can work on it with pectinase ("pectic enzyme") at the start, or you can be *very* patient, or you can accept some cloudiness in the result (or a bit of each). Oak chips or shavings during fermentation add character and will also help clarify. Apple and pear combine well...if you've ever got a few gallons of not-too- interesting apple juice, add a gallon or two of pear and ferment. - --- Dick Dunn rcd at talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA ...Mr. Natural says, "Get the right tool for the job." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:21:55 -0400 (EDT) From: pbabcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com> Subject: Spelling schmelling Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lahgah... Mark Twain once said that it is a very limited man who can only spell a word one way. Now go have a tripppppppppel. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:32:22 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: botox (yes, that's botulism) I'm sure some of you saw 20/20 last night. They had a segment on Botox - yes, that's botulism toxin. It was being injected into facial muscles to eliminate or lessen forehead wrinkles, crow's feet, etc. It paralyzes the muscle, making it unable to cause the "squint lines", it lasts approx 6 months. There was dissent, some people saying that it is too dangerous to be used in such an unnecessary way. As usual for the news media, the coverage was mostly superficial, no depth. They didn't mention brewing issues once - although I did notice that some of the proponents were wearing plaid. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:06:46 -0500 From: "Lutzen, Karl F." <kfl at umr.edu> Subject: Re: How do I remove TSP stains from my carboy? Jeff Winkler writes: > I tend to clean my carboys after use with a water/bleach mixture and > then add several tbsps of TSP to soak for several days. Well, I screwed > up and left a carboy full of this solution for about two weeks. This > weekend I finally emptied my carboy and now I have this white film on > the inside of my carboy that nothing seems to remove. I've scrubbed and > resoaked with bleach and it will not go away. Does anyone have any > ideas on how to remove this?? Well, Jeff, it has been my experience with TSP that it will etch glass and ceramics. It says so on the box. Take a look at your box of TSP and see if it says this. It does depend on the concentration of TSP and length of contact, so you have been lucky up to this point. As for removal, I think you're stuck with an etched carboy. Sorry. ===================================================================== Karl F. Lutzen | Computing and Information Services Scientific Programmer Analyst II | University of Missouri - Rolla E-Mail: kfl at umr.edu | 114 Math-Computer Science Bldg. Fax: (573) 341-4216 | 1870 Miner Circle Voice: (573) 341-4841 | Rolla, MO 65409-0360 ===================================================================== Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:05:52 EDT From: MicahM1269 at aol.com Subject: Benjamin CP filler >Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:13:08 -0400 >From: David Sherfey <sherf at warwick.net> >Subject: Re: Counter pressure filling / Benjamin filler >I'm still using my Benjamin Machine Products filler which uses quick >release valves for the gas and purge lines instead of the rotary valves. >Much easier to use IMO. Are these still in production? Does anyone >sell a similar three valve CP filler? I would like to have source to >send people who see mine and want one like it. >Cheers! >David Sherfey >Warwick, NY Yes, the BMP fillers are still available, the web site is http://members.aol.com/bmpbfd3/index.html or call 209-523-8874 BTW, I have been using my CP filler for some 10 years now. I would never consider any other method of filling beer bottles ( at home ). micah millspaw - brewer at large Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:37:29 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Forced fermentation / fermenting in cornies Hi all, Charley is having trouble with his Bocktoberfest not getting down to the final gravity he desired. Jim Busch asked the very good question about whether or not Charley had performed a forced fermentation to determine the actual fermentation end point. Charley replied that he had not. Is this the end for Charley? Will he never know what his final gravity should have been? Will he have to buy a Clinitest kit? For the answer to these, and other burning questions, tune in next week... Oh, heck, enough dramatics. The answer to all of the above questions is "No." Charlie can determine his final gravity even at this point. Simply perform the forced fermentation on the young beer. Remove ~100 mL sample from the fermenter using aseptic technique. Pitch in a packet of dried yeast (don't rehydrate in water it or you will be diluting your fermentation sample and get an erroneously low gravity reading). Let it ferment out at 80F or so for a couple of days (just to be sure). Measure the gravity. Simple! ------------------------------ Badger asks about using blow-off tubes when fermenting in Corny kegs. He is concerned that the narrow diameter of the tube could invite trouble in the form of a clogged tube (and subsequent uncontrolled pressure release). I have always used small diameter blow-off tubes without a problem. Before you try this at home read on: I always get excellent separation of hot break and hop debris from my wort in my whirlpool. There is NO visible hop debris in my fermenters. There are no visible chunks of any kind. Cold break is there, but cold break particles are far too small to clog a blow-off tube. The Corny keg itself is rated for quite a bit of pressure (~120 psi if I remember correctly), so even if the tube did clog, you aren't going to send shrapnel flying all over your house. The tube would come loose (or the clog blown out) before the keg would even think that it was feeling stressed. I still wouldn't fill a Corny to the rim, though. You would end up losing a lot of beer in the blow-off. Why not just use two kegs? Used cornies are about the same price as carboys (sometimes cheaper) and you really have to go out of your way to break them. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 07/29/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96