HOMEBREW Digest #2851 Fri 16 October 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

  fruit fly bitter (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
  240V GFCI Breakes ("Dave Flotree")
  RE: 240 grounding (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Non-pumpkin ale ("John Watts")
  Spray-on Sanitizer (Al Korzonas)
  Pumpkins... (Al Korzonas)
  Brewer's Gold (Al Korzonas)
  EEs (Al Korzonas)
  Cereal mashes ("Michel J. Brown")
  Re (sorta):no hot break (dbgrowler)
  Re: first wort hopping (Jim Graham)
  240V GFCI ("Nate Wahl")
  smoked malt (Randy Ricchi)
  Re: Gluten free beer recipe ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  homebrew cooking - salmon baked in foil (Scott Murman)
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  Re: Mailing of HB Entries & Private E-mail Replies (John Simonetta)
  CO2 Cartridges ("Arthur McGregor")
  Kentucky Common (MaltyDog)
  lactic vs. phosphoric acid and Ca3(PO4)2 (Matt Comstock)
  Subject: Mild Ale ("John Arnish")
  SPAM source (Steve Stroud)
  Mash Thickness (Nathan Kanous)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for 3rd Annual Music City Brew-Off yet? Details: http://www.theporch.com/~homebrew 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:11:38 -0400 From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil> Subject: fruit fly bitter collective homebrew conscience: paul n. wrote some stuff about how one fruit fly in my starter is not going to ruin my beer. i hope this is correct, since i ended up using the starter. i had discovered the fruit fly during the first step up, about 5 days before brew day. after extricating the fly from the foam (it never was immersed in the liquid part of the starter), i decided that i would decide whether or not to use it based on how it smelled and tasted over the next 4 days. i stepped it up two more times, and each time sampled the decanted liquid. nothing unusual - just like every other starter i've done. the beer was pitched sunday at 4 pm. it's gone past high krausen and is going to be ready to rack this weekend, at which point i will probably make a decision on whether to use the sediment for the beer i'm brewing saturday. this will again be based on nothing but sensory analysis (taste the green beer). any lurking long-term infections will be easily detected by the judges at the st. louis brews happy holidays homebrew competition this december, where this beer (and/or its successor) will be entered. i'll be sure to post back about those results. my decision to use the starter was based on my belief that every batch of homebrew i brew (and i believe this about all non-pasteurized homebrew - yes even yours, dear reader), is infected. it's simply a question of degree. i guess i'll find out if i made the wrong decision when i get the judges sheets back. (i'm assuming that nothing else in the process is going to cause an infection - based on past experience.) sorry about the drilled stopper question, paul, but i need two or three holes in the stopper, not one. to all who responded - thanks. brew hard, mark bayer Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:24:10 -0700 From: "Dave Flotree" <flotree at halcyon.com> Subject: 240V GFCI Breakes Someone asked if the subject breakers exist and what the price is. I installed a 50A GFCI breaker for a spa in my Square D panel. Here are the details: Mfg: Square D Model: QO250GFI (2 poles, 50A) Price: $137 (retail at Stoneway Electric Supply, a Seattle electrical wholesaler) This breaker has both neutral and +/-120V connections, good for 4-wire (+120, -120, Neutral, Ground) circuits to supply both 240V and 120V equipment with ground fault protection. The literature said that Square D 60A breakers do not support neutral (i.e., 240V loads *only*, no 120V loads allowed). (Side note: someone asked about 3-prong outlets like those used for electric ranges & clothes dryers. According to the Square D literature, some of such equipment is frame-grounded to the neutral and installers are warned not to use GFCI breakers for such circuits. It appears, according to Alan T's post, that the NEC has been updated to obsolete such 3-wire circuits) - Dave Flotree flotree at halcyon.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:59:27 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: 240 grounding >>> So, the circuit to your brewing equipment must have 4 wires, two "hot" wires for the 240V source, one neutral and one ground. <<< I like the >>>, looks nice, think I will start to use it too. Thanks for all the info. from several knowledgeable posters. It's great when you ask a question, and get so much good info. Just when you think you thought of everything, someone comes along and has more to offer, keep it up guys and gals. What still puzzles me, is why you would need a neutral conductor on a standard 240 volt outlet. We are talking about outlets here, as opposed to stove wiring, which would not use an outlet. No, a stove would be hard wired in. It's a good point that the clock, etc.. would use 120 and require a neutral conductor. But would this be a standard 240 volt circuit, it sounds like a combination 120/240 hookup. Please correct me, cuz I really want to know, on a standard 240 outlet (USA), should any appliance use the neutral? I think not, it would seem to violate the rules. Back to the 4 wire thing, the neutral should be nonexistent. You have 240 between the two hot wires, and the third wire should be ground for safety. No neutral should be needed. Now this dosen't mean that someone could not wire up something using the ground for a neutral, but this would be against the standard. Am I crazy? (I can take kidding). Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:35:12 -0500 From: "John Watts" <watts at top.net> Subject: Non-pumpkin ale Thought since the Pumpkin ale posts were starting (now I know it's fall!), I would share what happened with my NonPumpkin ale. If anyone remembers (or cares!) I had asked a couple of months back about a pumpkin ale without pumpkin. After a couple of replies, I plunged ahead. I used a single mash w/7 lbs pale malt, 1 lb of crystal and, instead of pumpkin, I grated up a couple of yams into the mash. The color came out PERFECT! I used first wort spicing with 2 cinnamon sticks, 5 or 6 cloves and 1 tablespoon of Pumpkin pie spice. Now if I had just made sure that the temp was right! Problems aside, I wound up with 2 gallons to bottle. After a week, it was well carbonated, but a little heavy on hops. After another week, hops mellowed nicely, but very little pumpkin flavor. :( All in all, at least it came out as a nice spiced ale. Hoppy Brewing! John Watts watts at top.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:53:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Spray-on Sanitizer Badger writes: >What do people use a >spray on, and use right away sanitizer? and what ratios? I know some >people use this for quick sanitizing of funnels, taps onsite, etc. I have >heard of bleach solutions, idofor solutions, etc. what ratios though? to >be used in spray bottle. I know that some do that with 70% ethanol, but that's: 1. dangerous (it flams!), and 2. 70% ethanol requires a 15 minute contact time. Bleach is definitely out... any concentration strong enough to kill anything is going to taint the flavour/aroma of your beer. Forget bleach. Iodophor, *technically* should be allowed to dry before use... it will kill virtually all beer spoilers in 2 minutes or less, but some people say they can taste/smell it even in very small quantities. Personally I can't but that doesn't mean that I'm representative (I may have low sensitivity to iodine). So, you can do this with iodophor, but you run the risk of getting a judge who is sensitive to it and your beer getting dinged. Peracetic acid is a possibility, but I don't know it's contact time. Can someone who has that sanitation textbook look it up? Peracetic acid is strong hydrogen peroxide and strong acetic acid (I'm pretty sure it's stronger than just drugstore H2O2 mixed with vinegar... anyone?). I suppose you could get some off-aromas from the vinegar, but in such small quantities? You could try it with unchlorinated water in place of beer and see if you smell it... Actually, strong hydrogen peroxide could be enough, and it certainly is flavour-neutral. Still, contact time is an issue. I wish I had that sanitation textbook, but there are quite a few other books that are ahead of it on my grocery list. Oxine and StarSan are two other possibilities, but I don't know their contact times. I know that Oxine (chlorine dioxide) is said to be completely flavour-neutral, so it's a good candidate if the contact time is low enough. Where can we find the contact times for Oxine and StarSan? I would try Five-Star's website, but at the moment my Web access is down. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:28:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Pumpkins... Scott writes (quoting Eric): >> Am I the only one who makes beer INSIDE pumpkins? > >Someone here used the pumpkin to lauter in. Stuck a slotted copper >manifold in the bottom of a XXX-large one, and mashed inside. Was >that you? I believe someone a few years ago actually FERMENTED in a pumpkin! Now *that's* intrepid! I would also like to note that some brewers (me, for example) make "pumpkin" beer without any pumpkin. I just used pumpkin pie spices and actually won an award for it at the CBS Spooky Brew Review a few years ago. Incidentally, the Spooky Brew Review is coming up soon (judging is on Halloween). I'm sure there will be flyers at the Real Ale Festival (near Chicago) this weekend or there's a hyperlink to the CBS website from my website. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:50:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Brewer's Gold Jeff writes: >"Jay Krause" <krause at galis.com> asks: >>A simple question I hope. I am having trouble finding Brewer's Gold hops in >>any form. What would be a good substitute for this variety? > >In _Using Hops: The Complete Guide to Hops for the Craft Brewer_, Mark >Garetz suggests substituting "Northern Brewer, Galena, or any other >bittering hop to your liking." He also says that its aroma is "not highly >regarded, but reasonably neutral in character." I think that flavor of >boiling hops can come through even after a long boil, so you might get some >differences. He says that Bullion shares the same wild Canadian ancestor >as Brewer's Gold, so it might be a good choice, although its "High oil >content means that aroma may come through stronger if boil times are short >or when used in a very light lager." He also says that Galena was bred >from open pollination of Brewer's Gold. I'm sorry, but this is another example why I say that "Using Hops" is a book of fiction. If Brewer's Gold aroma is "not highly regarded," then why is it used for aroma in Pete's Wicked Ale? Furthermore, anyone who has actually smelled Brewer's Gold will attest to the fact that they have a strong "black currant" aroma, and are therefore not "reasonably neutral in character." My recommendation would be Northdown, Cluster or Phoenix, all of which have a "black currant" aroma (sorry that I forgot to mention Cluster and Phoenix in my private email, Jay). Lineage rarely works when it comes to substitution... only if you are unable to get a sample would I use lineage to speculate on a substitute. For example, Cascade is first-generation descendant of Fuggle... smell any similarity? I don't. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:02:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: EEs Excuse the non-beer post, but since a lot of EEs have been active lately, I'd like to consult with one that actually recalls some of the basics (unlike myself). Please email me directly. Thanks. Al. korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:46:00 -0700 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: Cereal mashes As its that time of year (again) to start making lager and steam beer, I've a small question on cereal mashing. Do you really *need* to mash with a small (~10-15% of the grist) minimash, or can you simply add enzymes to the cereal, and saccharify as usual? It would appear that there would be no difference, but what the heck do I know ;^) Anybody ever try this? I'll be making Steem (tm) beer rsn, and follow-up with a CAP (Logger lager), and wanted to do a corn grits cereal mash for the CAP. TTYAL, God Bless, ands ILBCNU! Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR} 2222 miles due west of Jeff Renner homemade at spiritone.com http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html "In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind" L. Pasteur Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:57:52 -0400 From: dbgrowler at juno.com Subject: Re (sorta):no hot break Jim, Heat loss from a cheap cooler? Have you insulated the top? The manufacturers don't insulate 'em because they're not concerned with trapping rising heat. Get some expanding foam insulation, "Great Stuff" or similar, and fill in the top. Makes a BIG difference. If you must decoct to maintain temperature, I'd recommend pulling thick mash to heat. Boiling kills enzymes, and mash enzymes are concentrated in the liquid. Kinda works at cross purposes to what you want to do. Mike Bardallis 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:46:40 -0500 From: Jim Graham <jim at n5ial.gnt.com> Subject: Re: first wort hopping I've missed all of the discussion on first wort hopping until now (didn't even see it), so my apologies if all of this has already been said..... In HBD #2849, From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> writes: > Allen writes: >> methods/algorithm/programs for calculating IBU. Should these hops be >> considered to been added to boil for some particular time (90', 60' 30', >> 10')?, or at some fraction (1.5 x, 0.5 x, etc) of their alpha acid >> content. I'm not a professional brewer, but I am learning from several...and from several advanced homebrewers who are much more experienced than I am, and the general consensus around here seems to be: 1) First wort hopping doesn't do much for flavor or aroma except with noble hops 2) First wort hopping does, on the other hand, seem to help reduce the problem of boil-overs. I'd already noticed this in my own brews before hearing others mention it, btw. Note that this doesn't mean that it *PREVENTS* boil-overs...just that it *HELPS*. 3) The brewmaster that I've learned most of what I know these days from has a fixed amount that he uses for first wort hopping---take 30% of your 60 minute hop addition and make that your first wort hop addition. I basically follow this rule, but I also try to keep the amounts something easy to measure w/o a good scale (e.g., if I'm using pellets, some even fraction of an ounce, or if I'm using plugs, some even fraction of a half-ounce). Oh, one thing to keep in mind: As your boil time for hops goes beyond 60 minutes, the extraction rate more or less levels off. You might get a bit more extraction than you would at 60 minutes, but unless you're really, really set on an exact number, the difference is probably not worth worrying about. I started out using 90 minutes as the boil time for my FWH addition, and comparing that to using 60 minutes. That didn't last very long.... Being a hop-head, an extra 0.2 IBU (that's a real number I just grabbed from the recipe for my red ale---I re-calculated it based on using 90 minutes for the FWH instead of just lumping it in with the 60 minute hop addition) here or there just isn't going to bother me. :-) > As an aside: Personally, I felt that the FWH added no aroma, and a lot > of hop flavour. I typically add hop flavour with additions at T-15 > and my gut feeling is that I would rather put the flavour hops in the > boil for 15 minutes rather than 70 minutes. I agree.... I don't change my flavor/aroma hop schedule when I'm doing first wort hopping. If I get a bit more flavor or aroma, fine.... Btw, when I brew a style that specifically wants less hop flavor/aroma (e.g., the oatmeal stout I just brewed), I don't do any FWH. Oh, one other thing...when the brewmaster I mentioned above and I brewed his No Doubt Stout (and the accompanying Russian Imperial Stout he makes using the first 1/2 BBL of wort) at the brewery this weekend...no FWH. For him, definitely the exception to the rule. Later, --jim - -- 73 DE N5IAL (/4) Ft. Walton Beach, FL graham at tybj2.eglin.af.mil || jim at n5ial.gnt.net MiSTie #49997 Ask not what your country can brew for you, but what you can brew for your country. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:16:13 -0400 From: "Nate Wahl" <cruiser at dcache.net> Subject: 240V GFCI Brewers; The GFCI I had installed for my spa was made by Square D, but it's rated 50 Amps. I would think that they would also make 240V ones for smaller ratings like you would want for a RIMS or whatever. Nobody else seems to make them, according to my electrician. Unfortunately, I didn't have a Square D breaker box, so I had to put in a 50A feeder to a seperate box for it. Try a nearby electrical supply house. Regards, Nate Wahl An hour and a half South East of Jeff, in Oak Harbor, Ohio PS, anyone going to the Real Ale Fest in Chicago this weekend? Email and we'll meet, provided they don't work me too hard! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:59:48 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: smoked malt I am thinking of making a strong scotch ale with a hint of smoke character, sort of along the lines of Old Skullsplitter (Orkney). I was planning on using 1# of Hugh Baird peated malt from L.D. Carlson, with the balance being pale ale malt; 5 to 6 gallons, 1.100 OG. Does anyone have experience with this malt, and if so, can you tell me if 1# will be enough to get a hint of smoke (that's all I want)? It seems to have a very light smoke character. I am also curious about the German beech-smoked malt from Weyermann, available from Crosby & Baker. I know this would be used more for a Rauchbier, not a scotch ale; but I'm wondering how much should be used, percentage-wise, in the grist. Anyone? TIA. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:56:36 -0700 From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com> Subject: Re: Gluten free beer recipe I'm forwarding the following message about a gluten-free beer recipe. I'm no expert, so must take the writer's word for it that this recipe is gluten- free. I also replied with my comments directly. The main concern I have with this recipe is the possibility of adding unconverted starch due to not mashing the buckwheat malt. This could cause stability problems, as although starch is not fermentable by beer yeast, it is fermentable by many bacteria and wild yeast. Is there any reason why home malted buckwheat couldn't be mashed and lautered like barley malt? I'm unfamiliar with this "grain", does it have a husk? If it's huskless, possibly rice or oat hulls could be added at mash out to make lautering possible. The malting regimen might also need tuning to preserve enough enzymes for mashing. If malted buckwheat is too low in enzymes to convert, then the bulk enzymes available at homebrew stores could be added. I have a bottle I keep as backup in case of infusion accidents which has a GW Kent label. The reason fermentation takes longer may be poor yeast nutrition, I'm unfamiliar with FAN levels in rice syrup, but my guess is they're lower than in normal malt extract. Adding some yeast nutrient or boiling a tablespoon or so of dried yeast with the extracts might help. I personally dislike the flavor molasses adds to beer, so wouldn't use it. The recipe definitely has possibilities, though. With the addition of a high temperature mash to add some body and dry and/or first wort hopping to add more flavor, this could get close to something us beer snobs would like ;-} Prost! -Grant Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei Des Moines, Washington, USA >>> <MOTORADD at aol.com> 10/14/98 07:38PM >>> I saw your posting and dug up the following from my archives. (My wife is gluten intoleran also) I made this, and it was a bit "thin" almost like a light cider. I hope to tinker with it a bit to darken it up. I would appreciate any suggestions. I plan on emailing it to the fellow in Australia also. Feel free to post this, as I'm not a member of this newsgroup. Cheers! In my obsessive quest for a good-tasting gluten-free beer this recipe is the best so far. It ends up tasting a little like Coors light, which is at least slightly better than no beer at all. (really!) This beer is still in the experimental stages, so feel free to play with the amount of hops, etc. or to add other GF ingredients such as molasses or malted millet. Ingredients for 5 Gallons: 3 lbs. malted buckwheat (recipe follows) 1 cup corn sugar 1 oz. Saaz hops 2 oz. Hallertauer Hersbrucker hops 6 lb. rice syrup 1 pkg. ale yeast (EDME) Put crushed malted buckwheat into strainer bag, add to 1+ gallons of water in brewpot. Keep buckwheat in brewpot, stirring, until water starts boiling. Remove buckwheat and add rice syrup, corn sugar and + oz. each of the Saaz and Hallertauer hops. Boil for 30 minutes and add + oz. each of the Saaz and Hallertauer hops. Boil for 15 minutes and add another + oz. of each type of hops. Boil for another 15 minutes to make a total boiling time of 1 hour, then let the remaining 1 oz. Hallertauer hops steep in the wort for 2 minutes. Strain into your fermenter and pitch yeast when cooled. This "beer" will ferment for longer than most ales, for about 10 days. Add + cup corn sugar for bottling, and let the beer age for at least 1 week before drinking. Instructions for Malting Buckwheat: Since as gluten-free homebrewers we can't just go to our homebrew supply store and buy malted buckwheat or millet, we must malt it ourselves in order to brew with it. Luckily, this is a pretty simple process. First, obtain raw (that is, uncooked and untoasted) buckwheat from a health food store or co-op. (Cooked or "toasted" buckwheat WILL NOT germinate!) Rinse about 1 lb. and let it sit for 30-48 hrs completely submerged in water, rinsing it off every 8 hours or so. The buckwheat will expand as it soaks up some of the water and also produce a sticky oily substance which should be rinsed off. Now put the buckwheat into a strainer or fine-mesh colander and let it sit in the open air in a cool dark place, rinsing off every 8 hours to prevent mold. After 1 day you will see rootlets forming. Let the buckwheat sit in the open air for about 2 days, or until some of the rootlets are about twice as long as the grain bodies. Spread the buckwheat out in a thin layer on several cookie sheets and bake in a 200-250 oven until the buckwheat becomes hard and crunchy (and tastes remarkably like Grape-Nuts) At this point you may increase the temperature and make dark-roasted buckwheat, for darker- colored beers. Use a rolling pin or a glass jar to crush the buckwheat. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:16:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: homebrew cooking - salmon baked in foil Thought I'd given up, didn't ya? No, just been busy with other things, and also some of my beer-inspired culinary experiments didn't turn out too well (like the BBQ sauce that I posted). This time we're making a more "serious" dish, since they seem to get the most response. Also, I'm probably going to put the recipes on my web page (http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy) since I get requests from time-to-time from people who missed the original posts. Check there in the future. 1 salmon fillet (1/2 lb. feeds about 1 person with a decent appetite) 4 oz. beer (give or take. Don't drown the fish, but don't be gun-shy either) assorted veggies to taste (sliced onions or carrots work well but aren't necessary) 1 or 2 garlic cloves 1 bay leaf dill weed (huh, he said dill weed Beavis) salt and pepper Take a fairly large piece of aluminum foil and place the fillet in the center, skin side down. You can make this in a baking dish, or a fish poacher, but where are you going to find one of those when you're out camping?, and it doesn't really seem to taste as good. Fold two sides of the foil up, and crimp the corners (sort-of make a little boat). After everything is inside, you're going to crimp-seal the rest of the foil. Pour the beer over the fish into the foil boat. A nice fruity light ale will work best, such as a pale ale, or Belgian ale. Hoppy beers would be fine. Add the veggies (if desired), garlic, and bay leaf, then sprinkle with dill, salt and pepper. Crimp close the foil. You want it to keep the steam inside. Bake at 350F for 15-20 min. Serve au jus (that means with the cookin' juice goober) with rice (or whatever you like really). If you're out fishing, you'll have to improvise, but just remember not to puncture the foil so that the fish gets steam cooked. I've made this dish with other fish, but it seems to work best with salmon. Maybe because I really like salmon though. Halibut is worth trying, but beware of it drying out. Stick with meaty fish. Buon appetito and good fishing -SM- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:39:46 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report The Jethro Gump Report Just when you thought you were safe from further indignities, such as Clinitest and Censorship, here comes another plague.....more JG Reports! And you should be afraid, very afraid......Salman Rushdie heard about new JG Reports years ago.....and he has been in hiding ever since.....Eric Rudolph heard about them....and has been in hiding ever since.....Bill Clinton heard about them.....and took up smoking cigars! No, really, he was so afraid that he risked the Presidency to avoid them! And you thought this was all about lying under oath!! NO, it was the JG Reports! Hell, even Dave Burley heard they were coming back....and even he has hit the highway!!!! >From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> >Subject: 1998 HBD Name-Dropping Award > ...and the 1998 HBD Name-Dropping Award goes to (envelope please)... >John Adams for "GABF: Trip Report" in which John name-dropped: > 11 breweries, > 8 bars and brewpubs, > 25 people, and > 15 commercial beers Dammit Al! There you go, naming a winner when you haven't even seen all the contestants! Why I could blow John Adams' doors off with all the name dropping I have on hold!!! Hell, he only posted on the GABF!!! I've got 2 MBAA conferences, 2 Iowa Beer Festivals, an upcoming BrewPub convention, and a GABF to enter into the "Name Drop Shop!" Next thing I know, YOU will be named an "Independent Counsel" and I will be seeing your name AND photo in the 'Impulse Buy Rumour Rag' magazine rack when I pay for kitty litter! SHAME, Sir! Just give an old fella that is getting some motivation back some time, eh? ETOH Related Accident!!! Jethro has been hanging onto this one for some time, but this is undoubtedly listed as an Alcohol Related Accident in the Highway Safety statistics..... I went from the brewery in Des Moines to my home in Ames, a distance that takes about 45 minutes, in mid afternoon, to retrieve some bits, on a day in.....ah....June, or July of this year....and came across this.....the aftermath..... Subsequent info revealed that the driver of the NEW truck had fallen asleep at the wheel, in the morning, on his way north on I-35.....on waking, he tried to correct, but found himself bounced about, as his fully laden vehicle did a roll and spilled the contents of the lorry through the roof onto the roadside..... The driver suffered no injuries greater than bruises and abrasions, praise God, and though he still works for his employer, he is now driving an old truck!!! (This one was valued at over 50K$, the load had been valued at 25-45K$, depending on who was asked.) Go to http://mozart.andinator.com/~zymie/jethro/dumpedtruck1.jpg and http://mozart.andinator.com/~zymie/jethro/dumpedtruck2.jpg and http://mozart.andinator.com/~zymie/jethro/dumpedtruck3.jpg to see the debris left after several hours of clean-up. And Al, I not only drop names, I can document dropped beer! Clinitest/Censorship? As one that has seen this debate bark on for more than a bit, I am pleased to see it get a 'scientific' enema, courtesy of Louis Bonham.....one of the many folks I would trust to handle the matter fairly.....but one of the few that would know the difference between chook's and emu's...... Someone mentioned NoKOMAREE, and some threats.....if you want to get personal, I will......I was a subject of those rantings from that wastrel....and I considered them no more threat then, than I do an objective review now, in a scientific treatment of a subject that has continued to create more than a wee bit of controversy..... MY .02........"Thanks, Mr. Bonham." Cheers! Jethro Gump Rob Moline Court Avenue Brewing Company, Des Moines, Iowa. "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:24:36 -0400 From: John_Simonetta at ittsheraton.com (John Simonetta) Subject: Re: Mailing of HB Entries & Private E-mail Replies On mailing homebrew competition entries: I would appreciate advice on the mailing of entries for homebrew competitions. I'm fairly sure that I can pack a box tight enough for the entries to be intact when they reach their destination. However, I wonder if they will be shaken enough to be unsuitable (disturbed sediment, exploding bottles) for the competition. By the way, I am aware it is illegal to ship homebrew, so let's just say I have this friend... Regarding private e-mail replies: Being new to the HBD, I am curious as to why some people post requesting private e-mail replies. Isn't one of the premises of the HBD an open discussion? Thanks for all your insights so far... John Simonetta Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:53:42 -0400 From: "Arthur McGregor" <MCGREGAP at acq.osd.mil> Subject: CO2 Cartridges Hi Everyone! There have been a few posts recently on using 2/3 liter PET bottles for portable kegs, and using bike tire CO2 pumps to dispense with. I have also used the bike CO2 pumps for regular 5 gallon kegs and have found that the standard CO2 cartridges sold for BB guns and paint ball guns have small amounts of oil in them. The purpose of the oil is for lubricating the metal parts of the guns, and the taste of the oil becomes apparent if the CO2 from the cartridges is used as the gas to dispensed the beer from the keg. The off flavor (after taste) became noticeable at an office picnic when I first tried this (I didn't want to lug a 5 lb. CO2 tank and regulator around). The only place that I have found pure CO2 filled cartridges is from Williams Brewing Co. (no affiliation, etc.). I used them at a recent office picnic where we had 2 kegs of homebrew for those who like real beer. It worked great, and added no off flavors. It took bout 5-6 cartridges for empty both kegs. As a side note, you can also take a regular bike or ball pump and attach a quick disconnect to dispense beer if your going to consume it in a few hours. Hoppy Brewing, Art McGregor (Lorton, Virginia -- near D.C.) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:55:56 EDT From: MaltyDog at aol.com Subject: Kentucky Common Some time ago, I picket up Randy Mosher's book (I believe it is called Homebrewer's Companion, but since I'm at work, I can't verify that) and in it, in a list of beer styles, he included a style called "Kentucky Common," supposedly a old-style of beer made in Kentucky, using a sour mash. This is the only reference I've ever seen for this style. Does anyone out there have any additional information on it? Was it made commercially? If so, when? What companies made it, what did it taste like? Anything along those lines would be interesting to me. Thanks, Bill Coleman MaltyDog at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:21:12 -0400 From: Matt Comstock <MComstock at shepherdcolor.com> Subject: lactic vs. phosphoric acid and Ca3(PO4)2 Regarding recent posts about lactic vs. phosphoric acid and Ca3(PO4)2 Al wrote: >However, there is the issue of two hydrogens versus three and the issue of varying concentrations (the lactic acid I get is 88% whereas the phosphoric is only 10%). Perhaps the chemists could comment on these also? I wrote to Al (and then edited today and sent to you, to check my answers): First, I think lactic acid is a monoprotic acid, CH3C(OH)CO2H. The 'acid' part is the carboxylic unit on the end. I don't think the H on the 'OH' group releases a proton under normal conditions (pH = 7 water). In any case, if you look in the CRC Handbook it gives the pH values for 0.1N solutions of (ortho-)phosphoric and lactic acid: Phosphoric = 1.5 Lactic = 2.4 That is, for identical concentrations of phosphoric vs. lactic acid, the former has a lower pH, as it is a stronger acid. More bang for your buck. This is reflected in the acid constants for the two: KA = Phosphoric = 7.52 x 10E-3 (first proton dissociation) Lactic = 1.37 x 10E-4 If you look at your acid sources, lactic = 88% and phosphoric = 10%, this gives the approximate molarities: Phosphoric = 1M Lactic = 12 M Let's say we take 1 mL of each and dissolve in 1000 mL, to give roughly 0.001M phosphoric and 0.01M lactic, I calculate the following pH: Phosphoric = 3.05 Lactic = 2.96 Again, I'm rusty, and I'm completely ignoring the polyprotic behavior of H3PO4 (like I did on that General Chemistry final exam, damn!), but it looks like, as far as acidity is concerned, your two acid solution sources are equivalent. This is cake to test empirically, just take two glasses the same size, filled with water to the same level. Add the same number of drops (or whatever) of each acid source. Check the pH (have a meter?). Is it the same for both solutions? If so, 'acid strength' is the same for both acid sources. I'll trust lab results over my math any day. The solubility of calcium salts is another story, and I'm already treading on old, no-longer familiar ground, but it's clear that calcium lactate is more soluble. The CRC lists calcium lactate, Ca(C3H4O3)2, as soluble to 3.1 g in 100 cc cold water, and calcium phosphate, Ca3(PO4)2 to 0.002 g in 100 cc. However, I don't know enough about water chemistry yet to comment further (but I will anyway). But you're right, if a few calcium ions see a couple of phosphate ions, it's all over, baby, true love, it was written in the stars. They precipitate. Interesting diversion. Check my math. After A.J.'s post today: As a chemist, this current discussion about calcium phosphate interests me (ah jeez, so call me Dr. Matt). I have been wallowing around in the organometallic heteronuclear cluster realm a little too long, however. This is all very unfamiliar. OK, so you add H3PO4 to a solution with calcium in it. What ppts first. Ca(H2PO4)2, Ca(HPO4)...? Why do we have to wait for the (as A.J. points out) small fraction of PO4--- to react/ppt Ca? The CRC lists solubilities in 100 cc of cold water: Ca(H2PO4)2.H2O = 1.8 g CaHPO4.2H2O = 0.0316 g Ca3(PO4)2 = 0.002 g Further, Le Chatelier would tell us that if one PO4--- ion was chewed up, another would run out to take his place. Precipitation is one hell of a driving force. Even further, with regard to the phosphate as yeast nutrient, isn't common yeast nutrient diammonium phosphate, (NH4)2HPO4, and urea? Adding yeast nutrient could screw up your calcium concentrations the same way adding H3PO4 would, by ppt calcium phosphate. I'm having too much fun with this. DAP, (NH4)2HPO4, diammonium phosphate, or ammonium hydrogenphosphate.... Further yet, I just tried this: Two vials full of DI water, to one I added a spatula full of DAP. To the other, a spatula full of Ca(NO3)2 (hydrated - this is just a source of soluble Ca++). Both solids dissolved in water to give nice, clear colorless solutions. A third vial was charged with one squirt from each solution. This immediately formed a cloudy white precipitate in the third vial. So (NH4)2HPO4 + Ca(NO3)2 => 2 NH4(NO3) + CaHPO4 ? (white ppt) The CRC handbook says CaHPO4.2H2O has a solubility of 0.032 g / 100 cc of cold water. (Oops, ammonium nitrate.... Now all I need is some diesel fuel). Yeast nutrient + calcium = ppt'n of calcium. OK now here's the kicker: why the hell did I just add both gypsum *and* yeast nutrient to my mead (gypsum = CaSO4, yeast nutrient = DAP (?)) CaSO4 + (NH4)2HPO4 => (NH4)2SO4 + CaHPO4 ppt Effectively, I just added ammonium sulfate to my must and gave it a nice white precipitate at the bottom (if it ever settles!). OK, here's another. Yeast nutrient, if it contains urea, should not be boiled if it needs to stick around as urea. I swear I've seen recipes that call for addition of yeast nutrient at the end of the boil. Urea decomposes above 80 C or so to give NH3 (quickly tied up as NH4OH is water) and CO2. Boiling solutions of urea are used to slowly increase pH in reactions where slow precipitation of M(OH)n are desired. Uh, so take the chemistry out of my lab and into yours. What's the deal with yeast and calcium and phosphate and urea and ammonium ions. As usual chemistry is tricky. Even if yeast simultaneously would like to have both Ca++ and PO4--- around, adding both to the wort/must doesn't seem to me like it'll work. Dr. Matt Ain't chemistry fun Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 98 08:50:00 -0600 From: "John Arnish"<arnishj at smtplink.dis.anl.gov> Subject: Subject: Mild Ale The Greenman wrote ...Now I'd like to formulate a good mild recipe. My homebrew budget is sacred yet small, so I can't afford to expirement too much. Usually what I do is search every recipe archive and book and ask for people's good recipes, then I formulate from everything, or go with whatever recipe sounds best.... I would suggest picking up the Sept/Oct issue of Zymurgy. Ray Daniels has a really good article on Milds, He also throws in a couple of recipies. John Arnish Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:50:43 -0400 From: Steve Stroud <strouds at gis.NET> Subject: SPAM source > If the HBD is still being gatewayed to rec.crafts.brewing, > this is probably where the spammers are picking up email > addresses. It is still being posted on rec.crafts.brewing. Every issue is also immediately published as a HTML document at http://hbd.org/hbd/ This another easy source of email addresses for a web miner. Just be aware that if you post to HBD it is likely that you will start receiving SPAM - personally I have a trigger finger on my delete key. Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:04:16 -0500 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Mash Thickness The original question (I forgot the poster) was: >Was reading up on stout in the Lewis book and he suggests using "a >liquor-to-grist ratio of 2.5:1 to 3:1 ... for infusion mashing." > Can anyone clarify this for me? Now, I have a question...and a statement...whatever, here goes. In Fix's book (VMO - don't have it with me at work) I seem to have come away with the impression that he calculates a total amount of water necessary and uses half the water in the mash and half for the sparge. I've tried this. I think I came out with a water:grist of 1.7 quarts per pound of malt (sorry for the antiquated un-metric units). That's a little higher than the responses to the above question. I've seen various ratios recommended for different styles of beer. Here's my question... How does mash thickness influence the various enzymes in the mash? More specifically, how does a thick mash influence saccharification (alpha and beta) as well as proteolysis (again, peptidases and proteases)? Similar question for thin mashes. Is a thick mash a more favorable environment for proteolytic events? Is a thin mash more favorable for saccharification? Sorry so many questions at once, just trying to clarify what I'm asking. nathan Nathan in Madison, WI Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/16/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96