HOMEBREW Digest #4243 Mon 12 May 2003

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          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 *********

  Even scarier story (Pat Casey)
  A generalized triangle test ("Frank Tutzauer")
  Commercial Kegs (NO Spam)
  Proper Steinbier Lithology (guy gregory)
  Recipe for Spaten Optimator? (Glenn M Gardner)
  NHC 2nd Round:  Call for Judges and Stewards (Steve McKenna)
  How popular is Cascade hops? (Jeff Renner)
  Chile Beer ("Scott")
  HSA (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Jalapeno Lovers Unite! (Larry Bristol)
  Harshness and water chemistry, take two (Michael)

* * 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: Sat, 10 May 2003 16:04:28 +1000 From: Pat Casey <pat at bmbrews.com.au> Subject: Even scarier story Pat D.'s original post about the possible evolution of malting/mashing resistant barley was humorous - that so many respondents did not see the humour is really scary. Pat Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:07:34 -0400 From: "Frank Tutzauer" <comfrank at buffalo.edu> Subject: A generalized triangle test I meant to post this a couple of weeks ago when the thread was still active, but it's the end of the semester and I've been absolutely slammed with work. Anyway, I've been giving some more thought on how to conduct a "triangle" test when one has more than two beers. BTW, I'm glad to see that Paul's Big Brew tasting of 8 beers went well. It looks like it was informative and fun. And Paul's approach was exactly my first thought: Conduct a triangle test on each possible pairing. The problem with this approach is that if each judge is to triangle-test each pairing, then the number of beers to be sampled gets ridiculously large. As the number of beers grows arithmetically, the number of pairings grows combinatorially. With two beers, there's only one pairing, but as the number of beers grows to eight, there are, as Paul correctly notes, eight-choose-two = 28 possible pairings. And if each pairing generates a triangle test, then there are 3*28 = 84 samples to be tasted. There's got to be a better way. (Paul dealt with this by not having every judge taste every pairing.) I approached the problem from a different angle. The first thing to notice is that a triangle test is not only a test of difference, but also, quite obviously, a test of sameness. If a judge correctly identifies the different beer, then, perforce, the judge has identified the two beers that are the same. So another way to approach the general idea of the triangle test is to pull aside, as a standard, one of the beers that's the same. Have the judge taste the standard, and then ask the judge to identify which of the two remaining beers (the test beers) is the same as the standard. We once again are left with a binomial problem to which we can apply the methods previously discussed (though, of course, the appropriate test probability is no longer 1/3 but rather 1/2). How would this work for, say, 4 beers? Here's how: Randomly order the beers and number them 1 through 4. Pour samples of beers 1 through 3, and identify them as standards. Pour samples of beers 1 through 4 as test beers (without identifying them to the judges, of course). Have the judges taste each of the 4 test beers and decide which is the same as Standard 1, which is the same as Standard 2, which is the same as Standard 3, and which is different from each of the standards. Conduct 4 separate z- or binomial tests with a test proportion of 1/4. A significant result means that the beer under consideration is sufficiently different from the other three that it can be consistently identified. With a little care concerning probabilities, one could also make claims such as "Although beers 1 and 3 can't be distinguished from each other, they can be consistently distinguished from beers 2 and 4." Whenever many beers are to be tasted, there will be problems with palate fatigue and the inability of the human brain to hold numerous facts in mind at once. But, nonetheless, note the quite dramatic improvement in terms of the number of samples to be tasted. With 4 beers, pairwise triangle tests would require tasting 18 samples instead of the 7 required by the generalized test. With 8 test beers, the 84 samples from pairwise triangles is reduced to 15 samples in the generalized test. Heck, I've seen flights at competitions with more than 15 samples. To put it in general form: If we have N judges who are to distinguish among T test beers, choose T-1 of them as standards. Have the judges attempt to determine which of the T test beers matches each of the T-1 standards, and which matches none of them. For each beer, count how many of the judges correctly identified it, and test the null hypothesis that the proportion of correct identifications is greater than 1/T. If you chose to do a z-test of proportions, the formula that I published in HBD 4229 is NOT correct. That was for the very specific case of a test proportion of one-third. To conduct a z-test for each of the i = 1, 2, ... , T beers, the general formula is: z = (P - t)/sqrt[t(1 - t)/N] where P = the proportion of judges who correctly identified beer i = (no. of judges who correctly identified beer i) divided by N; and t = 1/T = probability of identifying beer i by chance. The critical value for a one-tailed, 5% level of significance is 1.64. One problem here is that as the number of test beers increases, the test proportion grows small, and, as I mentioned before, the adequacy of the z-approximation decreases. A common rule of thumb is that the z-test is appropriate if the product of N and the proportion is greater than 5. So for 8 beers, you'd need around 40 judges, which you might not have. In such a case, you should use a binomial, and a spreadsheet set up along the lines suggested by A.J. would be sufficient. Actually, I think I'll table the critical values of the binomial for the particular proportions of interest to brewers and I'll post the tables in the HBD for those who don't want to mess with something more complicated. But it'll have to wait until I'm done grading my final exams! --frank in Buffalo Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:01:14 -0400 From: NO Spam <nospam at brewbyyou.net> Subject: Commercial Kegs Saw the recent posting asking for info on how to use Hoff Stevens Kegs for homebrew. I'd also like to know where to find info on this, and also about using regular Sanke kegs. I understand Sanke kegs can be dangerous if not opened properly, and also that there is a special tool for filling and cleaning them. Anybody know what the tool is, where to get it, how much it costs, etc? >From what I can determine, Hoff Stevens Kegs seem ideal for hombrewing use. It looks like all you have to do is drill out the bung in the side, clean and sanitize the keg, then fill it and put in a new bung. I suppose it would be easiest to prime, and naturally carbonate in the keg, but I'm not a fan of keg priming. I like clear beer and don't want to have to pull off pint after pint of cloudy, yeasty beer. So how does one force carbonate a Hoff Stevens? Again, I suppose there's a special tool involved? I doubt you can just do it using the regular Hoff Stevens keg coupler? I am concerned that alot of the Hoff Stevens kegs seem to be made of aluminum. I have an older Schmidt's keg that is stamped "Alcoa", so I know it is aluminum. Are these safe to use, can beer such as a bock or dopplebock you wanted to age for months be stored in them long term without any ill effects or health risks? I know there's a debate as to use of aluminum brewpots, but what about kegs? Lastly, I've heard the Golden Gate kegs are supposedly the best for homebrewing use, but are really hard to come by, and that these are often also mistaken for Hoff Stevens alot of the time. Thanks in advance for info. Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 13:39:56 -0700 (PDT) From: guy gregory <ggre461 at yahoo.com> Subject: Proper Steinbier Lithology Jon Sandlin of Bend, Oregon writes: >What does the collective think about using basalt for the stones used in the >making of steinbier? Any comments will be greatly appreciated. Well, as a geologist, homebrewer and sometime visitor to Bend, I offer the following practical advice. Basalt is a wonderful rock to use for steinbier, with a couple of problems. Basalt is a volcanic rock, and like all volcanics, it entrains some water. When you heat this rock, it may begin to shard, that is, chips and cracks may form quickly from expanding entrained water. The rock may explode. Traditionally, steinbier is made with granite or metamorphic rocks, which usually lose their water during formation, or contain the water in mineral species rather than as captured little bits. To test: Heat it up in a fire. If it breaks, its probably not what you want. Stand back, those shards can be sharp! Good luck! ===== Guy Gregory Lightning Creek Home Brewery Spokane WA (1660.4, 294.3) Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 19:47:54 -0500 From: Glenn M Gardner <ggardner at juno.com> Subject: Recipe for Spaten Optimator? This stuff is seriously addicting, and I would like to do my share to make the world a little fuzzier. Anyone have any suggestions on a recipe? Thanks Glenn Plano, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 21:07:53 -0500 From: Steve McKenna <mckennst at earthlink.net> Subject: NHC 2nd Round: Call for Judges and Stewards The 2nd Round of the AHA National Homebrew Competition will be held June 19-20 in conjunction with the National Homebrewers Conference at the Holiday Inn O'Hare International in Rosemont, IL. Judging sessions are Thursday 1:30-5:30 and Friday 9:00-noon, with a judges' breakfast Friday 8:00-9:00. Please help us evaluate some 672 of the best homebrews in North America! We need lots of judges to pull this off. If you are a BJCP judge, or a pro with judging experience, and plan to be at the conference or merely in the neighborhood, please send me a note. Here's what I need to know: 1. Your BJCP rank and membership number. 2. Which categories do you have entries in? 3. Which categories do you prefer to judge? 4. Which categories do you prefer not to judge? 5. Which judging sessions are you available for? Steward volunteers are also welcome. For more details on the conference, please check out the website at http://www.chibeer.org/aha03. Cheers, Steve McKenna NHC2003 2nd Round coordinator mckennst at earthlink.net (630) 305-0554 Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 09:40:32 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> Subject: How popular is Cascade hops? Brewers On the Oz Craftbrewing group, there is a discussion of the Australian hop variety Pride of Ringwood, which is a distinctive part of the profile of Australian mainstream lagers, and so, is generally disliked by Aussie homebrewers, or craft brewers, as they prefer to call themselves (homebrew being that strong, nasty stuff your uncle brews with lots of sugar). One of the brewers suggested that their dislike of POR hops was similar to Yanks' dislike of Cascade hops: >It does seem that Ozzies have a Hatred for POR, as the Yanks have a hate >for their Cascade Hop I replied that I didn't think we particularly felt that way about Cascade, and I was told that this came from the Skotrat chat group (based here in the US). My feeling is that Cascade is regarded highly for its purpose - the new generation of American pale and amber ales, and to some extent for American interpretation of other ales such as porters and stouts. I like Cascade lots for this. It also seems to go well with Centennial. In my early days of brewing, we never knew what kind of hops we were getting - they were in one ounce lots in brown paper bags that were stapled shut. They were very stale! Then around 1975 or so we got a brew shop at a town 20 miles south of here that cared about quality. They decided to sell only Cascade pellets, but we customers still didn't know what variety they were unless we asked. They were just hops. When I discovered that there were other varieties, I started asking for them, and in time we got them. So I put to this group - what are our thoughts about Cascade hops? Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 09:53:21 -0700 From: "Scott" <sejose at pacbell.net> Subject: Chile Beer Hello! A recent issue of Zymurgy contained an article on brewing chile beer. So now I'm up for brewing such a beer. What I am looking to achieve is chile flavor with just a hint of heat in the mouth, with the warmth becoming evident as the beer makes its way to the stomach, where the glow is sustained. My question to the collective is this: I notice there are two methods for producing chile beer; one way is to do a first wort addition, another is to steep after fermentation. Does either method produce the effect I desire better than the other? Also one can produce either a green chile beer or a red chile beer. Is one preferrable for producing a warm glow with chile flavor such as I desire? The Zymurgy article did not touch on these questions of mine, so I put it to the collective. I'll be brewing next Sunday, so the time is now! Thanks Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:08:28 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> Subject: HSA Bill Tobler <wctobler at sbcglobal.net> writes from Texas that when a friend >circulates his HLT, the return line is above the >water line sometimes. The return line is too short. I said something >stupid like, "Wow, you're aerating your hot liquor!" I saw the worry lines >pop up, and he got worried. Does he have anything to worry about? I think it's never a bad idea to minimize hot side aeration. It's not a good thing, even if it's not demonstrably bad in some cases. It should be easy to fix, so why not do it? He may not notice a dramatic difference, but it might be just a little edge over what he was brewing before. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 19:46:25 -0500 From: Larry Bristol <larry at doubleluck.com> Subject: Re: Jalapeno Lovers Unite! On Thu, 8 May 2003 08:06:19 -0500, "Dewalt, Scott" <Scott.Dewalt at st-systems.com> wrote: > I'd like to take my annual post to rise in defense of jalapeno beer. > Dash S writes: > >But is it beer ? Mom always told you not to play with your food... > >Mixing the two together is colossal mistake... > >If we don't agree - that's not bad. > Ah, jalapeno beer. I love it. Since when is adding an ingredient a > colossal mistake? > Opinions and derisions. > Scott > http://texanbrew.com Lots of opinions are being expressed. So, should I have to be the one who points out that opinions are like Aholes --- everyone has one? [And most of the time they are full of s**t.] Be that as it may, here is mine [opinion, that is]: I actually agree with that offered by Mr. Dash S. The very idea of putting jalapeno [SIC! SIC! SIC! --- and I'm still looking to get that chauvanistic gringo that does not allow the use of inyas in the HBD!] peppers in beer is really quite annoying. [BTW: Is this "Mr. Dash" thing some sort of Freudianism? Does not Mrs. Dash have something to do with spices and all that? But I digress.] Yes, as Scott points out, I also brew such a beer. But in my defense, I wish to call attention to the name I have given this beer: "Cerveza Chingaquedito con Chili". OK, let's see. Everyone should get the "cerveza" part --- that's "BEER"! And the "con chili" is equally easy - --- it's just "with pepper". And all that leaves is... Now before anyone gets too excited, "chingaquedito" actually has little to do with that rather vulgar Spanish word that appears to be its base. "Chingaquedito" only means "annoying but subtle". [Well, OK, maybe I would not use the word in polite company, but after all, this IS only the HBD for crying out loud, about as far away from "polite company" as one can get!] Is it beer? Well, I have to say that it looks like beer, it smells like beer, it tastes like beer, and that taste goes great with tamales! [Oh, what a givaway!] Well, at any rate, I have to say it is. It certainly is not a DUCK, after all. But I have to be honest --- it is an annoying little chingadero. [I will leave that one as an excercise for the brave at heart]. > P.S. Speaking of Larry Bristol, I'm ratting him out: HE HAS BREWED A > JALAPENO BEER, TOO! And it had witches in it! But, of course it did, Scott. ALL of my beers have witches in them. After all, I PUT them in my beer on purpose! What do we do with witches? Burn them, of course. [Is this not simply another word for oxidation?] And what do we burn APART from witches? "MORE WITCHES!" So here we are, talking about that dang DUCK again... [sigh] - -- Larry Bristol [Cunning Linguist] The Double Luck Bellville, TX http://www.doubleluck.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:58:10 -0500 From: Michael <grice at binc.net> Subject: Harshness and water chemistry, take two Thanks to those of you who responded to me off-line about this. The brewer formerly known as Steve asked what I meant by harshness. In affected beers, the harshness isn't necessarily immediately obvious. However, the beer has a lingering, bitter harshness on the back of the tongue. There may be a bit of a metallic element to it, too. Steve asked about corrosion in the kettle and possible contamination with iron; this isn't an issue with the kettle, fortunately, and I performed the experiment with a smaller, decidedly un-corroded kettle. To try and figure out the nature of my problem here, I made three mini-beers with a pound of DME and half an ounce of hops (AA in the range of 4.5-5%). I used softened water for the first batch, unsoftened water from a garden hose for the second, and a combination of spring water and distilled water for the third. The water was adjusted to a pH of 6.0 with 10% phosphoric acid, which was probably overkill. I used some partial bags of pellet hops for the hops--Fuggles, Williamette and Hallertau. If I'd been thinking, I would have mixed them and added a third of the mixture to each beer. I boiled each for an hour. The one stupid thing I did was to throw the hops for the garden hose beer into the hot (almost but not quite boiling) water for a couple of minutes before adding the extract (I was on the phone at the time and a bit distracted). Will plain water extract anything nasty? It wouldn't surprise me either way. Anyway, upon tasting the wort after cooling the worts made with the softened and unsoftened water were both affected with the harsh aftertaste I described above. The wort made with the spring/distilled water did not have the harsh aftertaste. I am fermenting them now, so we'll see... - --Michael Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/12/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96