FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org *************************************************************** THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739 Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site! ********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html ********* Contents: Brew Pot Advice (thamric) Re: Leffe clone (Bill Rogers) Re: Sealing a conical lid - Why Bother? ("Don Van") I stand corrected - partially ("Jon Steinhauer") RE: Stupid pump questions ("Lou King") Saccharomyces infections (Kevin Kutskill) Harsh bitterness in CAP ("Dan Gross") Wrong Address Posted... ("Eric R. Theiner") Asheville Beer (David Perez) Saccharomycoses (Jon Steinhauer) Homebrewing in Czech Republic (Stan Burnett) chi-square and triangle tests ("Frank Tutzauer") Re: Brewer's yeast and yeast infections ("Steve Dale-Johnson") Triangel Test ("A.J. deLange") statistics and homebrew ("Christopher T. Ivey")
* * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:42:00 -0600 From: thamric at attglobal.net Subject: Brew Pot Advice Greetings, After a dozen years of extract brewing, I am preparing to make the jump to full grain brewing and have an equipment question. I secured a surplus Sankey keg and have placed a hole in the top suitable for a lid (so far so good). I also plan on having a SST nipple welded into the side of the keg just above the bottom seam. I have read how others recommend running a tube arrangement in to the center of the lower dome to effectively drain all wort. Given that I plan to use this primarily as a brew pot (boiling vessel), won't this arrangement simply ensure that I effectively drain all of the accumulated trub and hop residue from the bottom, or am I missing something? Would it not be better to leave the drain port a couple of inches off the bottom and away from the center to enable drain of the clear wort only? I've obviously never had the luxury of a drain in my brew pot, and would benefit greatly from some sage advice. Tim Hamrick Boise, ID Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:09:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Rogers <bill6beers at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Leffe clone Jay Wirsig asks about a clone for Leffe Blond. I haven't tried this recipe because I've just recently bought the book, but it looks like it might be close. I'm actually very interested in trying the Rochefort 10 clone in this book next. mmmm. ************************ ** Leffe Blond recipe ** ************************ from "Beer Captured" by Tess amd Mark Szamatulski OG=1.067, FG=1.016, SRM=7, IBU=26, abv=6.5 Mash: 11.75# Belgian Two-row Pilsner Malt 4 OZ. (113 g) Belgian Biscuit Malt 4 oz. (113 g) Belgian Aromatic Malt 4 oz. (113 g) German Munich Malt 2 OZ. (57 g) Honey Malt Mash at 152F (65.6C). Bring the water to a boil, remove from the heat and add: 8 oz. (226 g) Belgian Clear Candi Sugar 2 OZ. (57 g) Malto Dextrin 1/2 OZ. (21 g) Pride of Ringwood at 9.3AA (4.7 HBU) (bittering hop) Boil for 45 minutes then add: 1/2 OZ. (14 g) Styrian Goldings (flavor hop) 1 tsp. (5 ml) Irish Moss Boil for 15 minutes. Chill and pitch. 1st choice yeast: Wyeast 1762 Belgian Abbey II; Ferment at 68-72F (20-22C) 2nd choice yeast: Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes; Ferment at 68-72F (20-22C) Primary for 7 days, then rack to secondary. Bottle when fermentation is complete, target gravity is reached and beer has cleared (approximately 3 weeks) with: 1/2 cup (120 ml) Corn Sugar and 1/3 cup (80 ml) Belgian Clear Candi Sugar that has been boiled for 10 minutes in 2 cups (473 ml) of water. Let prime at 70F (21C) for approximately 5 weeks until carbonated, then store at cellar temperature. Note: Scott Murman has notes (http://smurman.best.vwh.net/zymurgy/wyeast.html) which indicate that 1762 is Rochefort yeast and 3522 is Chouffe yeast. Myself, I think the 1388 -- Belgian Strong Ale Yeast (Duvel) yeast might be really good for this beer. Bill Rogers Madison, WI Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:27:07 -0700 From: "Don Van" <dvanv at earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Sealing a conical lid - Why Bother? Regarding sealing a conical lid ---why bother? Fermentors don't have to be 100% sealed from the outside environment. If you ever go on a tour of Anchor Brewery in San Francisco, you will see fermentors that are shallow open air fermentors. This is not the only brewery that uses open fermentors. I have successfully used a simple window screen placed on my plastic bucket to test the open fermentation concept with no problem. As long as the conical lid overlaps over the top of your conical, it will keep things out and work fine. Just don't leave it in the fermentor too long. when krousen (sp?) is gone, transfer to a closed system. Relax, have a homebrew Don Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:06:22 -0500 From: "Jon Steinhauer" <jsteinha at charter.net> Subject: I stand corrected - partially As I said, my search was brief, and had I included "vaginitis" in the parameters, it would have yielded several recent articles in respected publications, that I have now seen the corresponding abstracts for. I apologized for my impulsive, perhaps reckless response. However, I am still not convinced that the very small number of women in these series are not immune compromised in some fashion. Some of you may have these articles sitting handily on your shelves, and can readily find out. They may have been diabetic (I strongly suspect this is often the case), IgA deficient, on unrelated medications, etc. Perhaps they also participated in bizarre behaviors that would predispose to such things. I also suspect that the selection criteria were subject to significant bias. It would take a clinical history of baking or brewing for a living to even suggest to most clinicians to culture for S. cerevesiae (Candidal vaginitis rarely confirmed by culture). It may turn out, if appropriately studied, that the proportion of women in those reports who are colonized with S. cerevesiae does not differ from those with recurrent or persistent Candidal vaginitis or even those without symptoms. It would be also be interesting to know if any had celiac disease (sprue), with which anti-saccharomyces cerevesiae antibodies are known to be associated, although the reason for the association is unknown. I am still not convinced that normal, healthy adults get S. cerevesiae infections. Regards J. Steinhauer Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:18:57 -0400 From: "Lou King" <lking at pobox.com> Subject: RE: Stupid pump questions Michael - you'll need to place your pump at the lowest part of your system and prime by letting the flow of your liquid enter the pump before starting the pump. I wouldn't worry about pumping up some distance. I do this all the time with a similar pump from March. The lower the pump is in the system, the easier it is to prime. See http://www.lousbrews.com and click on "Lou's Brewery" . You can barely see the pump mounted on some wood on the floor next to the fermenter in the first picture. I regularly pump between the kettle and the fermenter, and between the kettle and the hot liquor tank on top. I put the pump on a chair to pump to the hot liquor tank, but I think it is because my hose is too short. You can also see a similar pump on the RIMS page, and I will tell you that this one is harder to prime because it is so close to the bottom of the mash tun and the wort doesn't flow into it thoroughly because of that. Lou King Ijamsville, MD ============ Michael <grice at binc.net> (of indeterminate location) said: > I just received a pump from morebeer.com as a belated birthday > present. It's the one sold by morebeer.com as model H315, > corresponding to March model 809HS. >: > First, do I need > to do anything to prime the pump besides starting it up > slowly? With the discharge valve cracked open and the suction > valve open completely, it seems. > : > Second, how critical is pump placement here? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:25:39 -0400 From: Kevin Kutskill <beer-geek at comcast.net> Subject: Saccharomyces infections Just a point of clarification. I believe the original question was that if drinking homebrew could lead to kidney infections. I agree with Jon, that fungal infections of the kidneys only occur in immunocomprimised individuals (i.e., HIV patients, chemotherapy patients, etc.). These kinds of infections are typically very difficult to get rid of, usually requiring hospitalization/IV anti-fungal therapy. I also agree with Alan, that otherwise healthy women can have Saccharomyces vaginosis (a Saccharomyces yeast infection of the vagina). So, in response to the original post, no, drinking the scrumpy the night before did not lead to Alex's wife's kidney infection--pure coincidence (unless she is immunocomprimised). Kevin beer-geek at comcast.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:32:34 -0400 From: "Dan Gross" <degross at starpower.net> Subject: Harsh bitterness in CAP I brewed my first Classic American Pilsner in early March and it's finally in the keg. There is a harsh bitterness in the finish that is not at all pleasant. I suspect that a couple of things might have caused the unpleasant bitterness and wonder if anyone can help me sort it out. My hopping schedule should have been: 1oz Saaz -- first wort .5oz Cluster -- 45 min .25oz Styrian Goldings -- 15 min Total boil time was planned to be 90 min. Due to distraction during the boil, I missed adding the Cluster hops at 45 minutes and didn't realize it until the boil had reached 90 minutes. Soooo, I decided to extend the boil and simply added the Cluster after the boil had already reached 90 minutes. The Styrian Goldings was added after the boil reached 120 minutes bringing the total boil time to 135 minutes. This of course meant that the Saaz added at first wort had boiled for 135 minutes. I added water to the boil to bring the final volume up to 4 gallons rather than the 5 gallons that was planned. In my mind the extended boil and lower final volume may be the two primary causes of the harshness. I also wonder about my water chemistry and it's effect on this style. The only water data I have comes from the municipal water web site and it is about two years out of date. Another complication is that my area could be served by one of two very different water sources (the Patuxent and Potomac rivers), or perhaps a combination of the two. The best information I can get has my water with the following mineral content: Ca 38ppm Mg 10ppm Na 20ppm SO4 33ppm Cl 36ppm HCO3 unknown (I cannot find a reference to bicarbonate levels in the tap water analysis, is this called something else in the anaylsis, perhaps alkalinity?) Total dissolved solids 226ppm Hardness 133ppm Alkalinity 84ppm Thanks, Dan Gross Olney, Md Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:33:50 -0400 From: "Eric R. Theiner" <rickdude02 at earthlink.net> Subject: Wrong Address Posted... Hey Guys, My last message (a shameless plug for myself and my new European distributor) included the incorrect address for Das Bier! If you're interested, try www.das-bier.de Sorry. Rick Theiner LOGIC, Inc. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:38:52 -0400 From: David Perez <perez at gator.net> Subject: Asheville Beer James is looking for the brew scene in Asheville. Barley's Taproom, at 42 Biltmore Ave, is my favorite. http://www.barleystaproom.com/ They have really good pizza and an excellent tap list. Try the Cottonwood The Green Man Pub aka Jack of the Wood, on Patton St. have 3 or 4 of their own brews with one of them on cask. Nice atmosphere, pretty good (not great) beer. The Bier Garten, (don't remember the address but right in downtown) has an incredible bottle list and a good draft selection, and excellent food. There is an Irish Pub across the street from Barley's that is pretty good but a bit smokey for my taste. I will get their name and address for you this evening if you need it. Hope this helps and bring us back some good beer. You do have to drive through Gainesville after all. Dave Perez Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:40:57 -0500 From: Jon Steinhauer <jsteinha at PATH.UAB.EDU> Subject: Saccharomycoses While I was supposed to be doing other things, I was able to retrieve three full articles online at the office. Nyirjesy, et al. in Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:326-329 acknowledge that "(S. cerevesiae vaginitis) has been suggested in few cases; to our knowledge it has never actually been demonstrate." While this is not evidence, I assume these investigators from Temple and Wayne State Universities reviewed the literature. They identified eight women out of a symptomatic 750 with S. cerevesiae. They admit that six of the eight had known "predisposing" factors. They do not disclose any of this information in their paper, nor do they disclose whether they sought to rule out predisposing factors in the other two patients. McCullough, et al. from Stanford and Duke Universities and other institutions in J Clin Microbiol 1998;36:557-62 retrieved 19 isolates of S. cerevesiae from 16 vaginitis patients. When comparing the study group (with S. cerevesiae and vaginitis) to the control group (No S. cerevesiae and with vaginitis) the rates of exposure to S. cerevesiae in the environment was not found to differ. They mention in their methods that they reviewed medical records for "related medical history," but did not elucidate and showed not even a summarization of this data. Thus, we have no knowledge of the health status of these individuals. Posteraro, et al. from Italy in J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:2230-35 included 30 women with and without symptoms who had positive S. cerevesiae vaginal cultures. Only 16 were symptomatic (the others were "colonized" but not "infected"). Interestingly, 22 of the thirty were pregnant (a state of relative immune suppression, insulin resistence and glycemia and altered vaginal environment). They do not mention how many of the sixteen vaginitis patients were pregnant. No mention of other health conditions was mentioned. I conclude that while there is abundant evidence that S. cerevesiae can colonize humans, there is no conclusive evidence that it can cause infection in healthy, immune competent adults. There is also no evidence that I have found or in these articles that shows those with high environmental (occupational or otherwise) exposure have a higher rate of colonization than the general population. A somewhat common theme among S. cerevesiae vaginitis patients in these and other papers is recurrent vaginitis and women who repeatedly self-treat with antimycotic agents. Assuming some of the recurrent vaginitis is real (I would lay down money saying some of it is not), it is impossible to say without experimentation how repeated or prolonged exposure of S. cerevesiae (or other rectal or vaginal flora) alters the virulence of this organism or the vaginal environment. I thank those involved for stimulating my interest, as I have learned much that I did not know two days ago. Regards, Steinhauer Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:16:42 -0600 From: Stan Burnett <stanb at xmission.com> Subject: Homebrewing in Czech Republic Ahoy, homebrewers! I-ll be moving to the small town of Tabor, Czech Republic this fall for an extended 8-12 month visit. I'd like to set up a home brewery with my brother-in-law (who has never brewed before, but speaks Czech fluently). My brother-in-law has not been able to track down any homebrewers in Czech Rep. (A Czech contract, Radek Hauser, can be found on several "international homebrew" sites, but has out of date information.) Does anyone have any suggestions for finding homebrewing support in the CR or a neighboring country (probably Germany)? Thanks, Stan Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:47:11 -0400 From: "Frank Tutzauer" <comfrank at acsu.buffalo.edu> Subject: chi-square and triangle tests Larry from Texas has some good advice on setting up the triangle test for statistical analysis: "A die can be used to help randomize how the samples are to be given to the judges, such as whether they get two samples from population A or from B, and where the unique sample will appear in the arrangement. It is important that is be completely random! For each judge, roll the die and arrange the three samples as follows: 1 = AAB 2 = ABA 3 = ABB 4 = BAA 5 = BAB 6 = BBA The judges are merely asked to identify which of the three samples is different from the other two. All you record is whether they are correct or not, and feed this information into the Chi Square analysis." Beware. Major geekitude follows. If we're going to get geeky enough to run statistical tests on this, then I would use a z-test of proportions instead of a chi-square. The problem with the chi-square in this application is that there is only one degree of freedom, and the chi-square runs into continuity problems. The issue is that the chi-square is a continuous distribution, but the situation here involves a discrete variable (a binomial, actually), hence the choices are only approximately distributed as a chi-square. If the degrees of freedom are large enough, then then the approximation is fine, but with only one degree of freedom, many would argue that a continuity correction needs to be applied. The catch is that a continuity correction drastically decreases the ability of the chi-square to detect differences. Instead, I would side-step the issue by conducting a z-test of proportions. As Larry correctly notes, the judges would be correct one-third of the time by chance alone, so you test the null that the proportion of correct answers differs from one third. It is true that the z-distribution is also continuous, but the adequacy of the approximation does not depend on the degrees of freedom. (In fact, the z-distribution has none.) Instead, the adequacy of the approximation depends on the sample size and the proportion. As long as the proportion is not too extreme (too small or too large) and as long as the sample size is adequate, the z- would be fine. If you really want to do this and need the appropriate formula, let me know. After counting the correct answers it will take you about 30 seconds on a pocket calculator to get your results. If, for some reason, you think that the z-approximation is inadequate, then you are left with an exact binomial test of proportions, which, for most people, is too much trouble to calculate by hand (but I could show you how to do it). As for 8 beers instead of two, I'll need to think the design through more before I offer advice. Geek mode off. --frank in Buffalo (on my way to administer a stats final to my grad students!) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:35:20 -0700 From: "Steve Dale-Johnson" <sdalejohnson at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Brewer's yeast and yeast infections Pete Calinski asks: >What would we get if we cultivated it and stepped it up to make a 5 gallon >batch? Isn't this is what Anheuser Busch means when it says they "know of no other beer which costs so much to make" as Budweiser? ;) Steve Dale-Johnson Brewing at (1918, 298) Miles Apparent Rennerian Vancouver, BC, Canada. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:48:05 +0000 From: "A.J. deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: Triangel Test Paul asked about the triangle test a couple of days ago. First, with respect to the distribution of beers among glasses, the ASBC MOA says " All possible arrangements of the two beers among the three glasses should be distributed approximately equally among the tasters by appropriate random distribution, e.g. by the use of a table of random numbers." Some other points of significance (1) the tasting room should be quiet and free from extraneous odors (2) the glasses should have been freshly washed and drained and should preferrably be ruby red (3) tasting should be conducted between 10 and noon or between 2 and 4. No more than two sessions per day with at least an hour between tests. Only one set of sample should be given to panelists in a session. (4) Serving temperature should be between 40 and 60 F. (5) Panelists should be isolated from one another so that their determinations are independent. Panelists should be instructed to smell, swirl and smell again. The more odoriferous sample (or samples) should be tasted after the less. The beer which is different from the other two should then be selected and then a determination shoud be made as to whether the different one tastes better or worse than the others, is hoppier or less hoppier or has more or less of whatever quality you are looking at. The Tables are the "Bengtsen Tables" but are not particularly hard to construct (for a single or a couple of panelist numbers) using Excel or another spreadsheet. If you want to recreate the whole table a computer program should be written). A panelist choosing at random has a chance of 1/3 of picking the odd (the one that is different from the other two) beer. Thus if N panelists pick randomly the probability of choosing correctly m times is (m,N)*(1/3)^m*(2/3)^(M-n) where (m,n) is the binomial coefficient. The Excell function Binomdist will calculate this formula for you. So use Binomdist to calculate the probability of correct random choice of 0 or more out of N (this is 1), 1 or more out of N, 2 or more out of N and so on up to N or more out of (N). P(m or more out of N) = 1 - BINOMDIST(m,N,(1/3),1) + BINOMDIST(m,N,(1/3),0). Calculate this for m = 0 up to the number of panelists, N. Now decide on the confidence level you want and go down your table until you find the n which gives you a probability less than this or, and here is where the spreadsheet is beetter than the publsihed tables, find the number who picked correctly and read the probability that this could have happened from random guessing. For example, suppose you had 25 tasters and 15 correctly identify the odd beer. The table so constructed shows the probability that this outcome was by chance is 0.6% i.e. it is very likely one of the beers is noticeably different from the other. The next step is to take all the ballots in which the odd beer was correctly identified and count the number which are the same with respect to the property of interest. For example, suppose out of the 15 panelists in the example, 5 say the beer is hoppier. If this is less than half, subtract from the number of correct votes (15) and interpret the result as saying that 10 find the beer less hoppy. To see if this is significant we need the probability that 10 or more find the beer less hoppy. To get this we need the joint probabilities P(10 say less hoppy,10 correctly picked), P(10 or 11 say less hoppy,11 correctly picked), P (10, 11, or 12 say less hoppy, 12 correctly picked and so on up to the number of panelists. Correctly picked refers to correct identification of the odd beer. The sum of these probablilities is the probability P(10 or more picked out of correct guesses). We want this to be less than the desired confidence level. The joint P(m or more say lesshoppy, M correctly picked) = P(m or more say less hoppy | M correctly picked)*P(M correctly picked) where the | is read "given that". This is (m,N)(1/2)^N + (m+1,N)(1/;2)^N + other terms up to (N,N). Again (m,N) is the binomial coefficient and, again, the Excel function Binomdist comes to the rescue. Putting the requisite spreadsheet together is more involved than I thought it would be when I started to write this so I won't give the further details. Someone with familiarity with statistics ought to be able to do it from what I've described. For the example, the probability that out of the 15 who correctly identified the odd beer would call it less hoppy by chance (tossing a coin to make the decision) is about 1%. From this we conclude with high confidence that the test beer is different from the control beer and that it is less hoppy. The tables are found in the MOA's and in Bengtsson, K, Wallerstein Labs Commun. 16:231(1953) so just go back to your Wallerstein Labs Commun collection from '53 and there you are. As the triangle test is used widely in the food and beverage industry you ought to be able to find the tables on the net (I couldn't, however) and elsewhere. A.J. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:15:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher T. Ivey" <cti3c at unix.mail.virginia.edu> Subject: statistics and homebrew Now there's a subject worth drinking about. I like Larry's randomization suggestion (using a die). I don't see this as a problem for a "chi-square" or other contingency table approach. My impression is that Paul simply wants to know, for each trial, whether the taster successfully identifies the "unique" sample. Thus each trial will have an outcome of "success" or "failure." This seems like a classic binomial problem, and the formula for calculating the test statistic should definitely be in that dusty old textbook. (Don't trust your Excel spreadsheet calculation; the National Institutes of Standards and Technology have slammed Excel's performance on standardized statistical calculations in every release for nearly a decade now, though Microsoft doesn't seem to care) Paul if you actually perform this test, please share; this would be an example that would get students' attention! Larry points out: A statistical curiousity about the Chi Square test is that it cannot be used to PROVE anything; all it can do is DISPROVE something. That something is called the "null hypothesis", which stated simply, is that there is NO significant difference between the two populations A and B. Me again: ...the populations being the "success" and "failure" to identify the unique beer. The characteristic that Larry reminds us about chi square tests is of course not unique to this test, it is also true of binomial and all hypothesis-based statistical tests. I'm not sure what would be gained by Larry's suggestion of testing outcome A against B, and A vs. C, etc. (other than a few more glurgs of tasty brew downed!). You might consider just using pairs of samples, randomly paired as the same or different beer, in a double blind setup. Okay 'nuf geekiness--back to beer. Homebrew in my basement: a wit, a few APA bottles, ESB, barleywine, imperial stout. Commercial beer: some 2003 Bigfoot Barleywine, 2003 Celebration Ale, a couple Pyramid Snowcaps (2003), and some Bell's Expedition Stout. Next to be brewed: I think it will be another APA. Cheers, Chris Ivey Champaign, IL Return to table of contents
HTML-ized on 04/24/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96 |