FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor


Contents:
  muskros wine (mitch)
  Specific Gravity... (U-E68882-John Bloomberg)
  Cider Recipe Request (Ian_Sutherland_at_AMSNYO01)
  Re: BAA kits and AB Bashes (home)Brewers (Norman Farrell)
  Mead stuck?? - Help (Robert Pyle)
  SRM colors--charts, anyone? (David Draper)
  Malt aroma (Richard Nantel)
  Hot water heaters ("pratte")
  Chocolate Beer? (schmitjc)
  Re: Sucking siphons (Mark Wells Wilson)
  Head Retention (Vanek)
  Re: Irish moss (Paul Anderson)
  SG adjustments for temperature differentials (Mark Evans)
  Use of Dextrin Malt in Extract Brewing (Greg Heiler)
  Flotsam in the primary/secondary: it's....beer! (Mark Evans)
  HBU BBSs: phone number correction ("J. Andrew Patrick")
  Apology for screwed up nutrition table (Nancy.Renner)
  left over infection taste (Gregg Tennefoss)
  Using Spruce Essence (perkins)
  Question on Krauesening (Jack Skeels)
  MaltMills (George Danz)
  Resp to Jeff Franes Response -- RE:Sucking siphons (S29033)
  Re: Fermentation Vessel Variations--a new idea ("Mark B. Alston")
  comparison of mills/soapy head/ethanol for sanitation (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  New Englan Micros (Montanoa)
  maple sap brews, Zima taste opinion ("Dan Houg")


Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! 
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
FAQs, archives and other files are available via anonymous ftp from 
  sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via 
  mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu.  Send HELP as the body of a 
  message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) 
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 15:54:33 -0500
From: mitch at molbio.su.se
Subject: muskros wine

Greets from Sweden.  I'm sorry to use the hbd for a non-strictly beer 
question, but the meadows beside Stockholm U. are covered with 
flowers, and I'd like to try making dandelion wine before the sheep get
to them.  Can anyone send a recipe or tell me where to find one?
Many thanks - tack sa mycket
         Mitch Dushay   "mitch at molbio.su.se"



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 8:21:34 EDT
From: U-E68882-John Bloomberg <bloomberg_john at ae.ge.com>
Subject: Specific Gravity...

Rich Larsen asked:

>Does anyone out there have a mathematical calculation for temperature
>adjustment for specific gravity of wort.  It seems that by my observations
>the adjustemtn isn't linear, but probably closer to parabolic.
>In Short, I would like the formula to adjust the specific gravity reading
>of a sample that is, say, 150F, to the proper reading at 60F.

In the September/October issue of Brewing Techniques there in an
article entitled "Understanding Specific Gravity and Extract" by Martin
P. Manning.  Martin is an engineer so the paper is full of all sorts 
of graphs, equations and references.  If what you want isn't there it
doesn't exist.

Adios, jb

bloomber at c0368.ae.ge.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 08:31:55 EST
From: Ian_Sutherland_at_AMSNYO01 at mail.amsinc.com
Subject: Cider Recipe Request


     I have acquired an amount of frozen "cider" that I would like to convert
to "Real" cider in the Blackthorne (is that the correct spelling?) tradition.
Does anyone have a recipe they would be willing to share with me?

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 07:34:59 -0500
From: nfarrell at ppco.com (Norman Farrell)
Subject: Re: BAA kits and AB Bashes (home)Brewers

Item 1: I heard from a brewing friend that Beer Across America is
getting in to the homebrew supply business by starting a kit(s) of
the month plan. Sounds like you would get one or two brewing kits
per month. Beer styles would vary throughout the year. That's all
I heard. This is not an edorsement of any kind. I thought it was 
interesting that Beer Across America would think the market was there
for such a venture.

Item 2: There a some (relatively) new AB radio spots in our area
(that's the Texas Gulf Coast) disparaging homebrewing. These adverts
may not be going nationwide (or you may already be sick of them).
In the first one, there is a passing mention of beer made in somebody's
basement. In the second ad, is a supposed conversation between a 
homebrewer and his friend. The homebrewer has saved a Pumpernickel (sp?)
Stout for his friend to try. The friend asks disparaging questions
about strange smells and chunks or floaters in the beer and wants
his Bud back.

Interesting that AB would spend more on a radio ad camoaign than several
thousand home brewers would spend on brewing in a year. Does AB imagine
that homebrewing is taking a bite out of their bottom line? 

At a recent beer tasting led by Michael Jackson, the "un-gloved one" 
said that homebrewers were the vanguard of the good/real beer movement
in North America. Maybe AB thinks he's right.

Best Regards,

Norman  (nfarrell at ppco.com)  
May your last beer be your best!


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 08:38:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: rpyle1 at ef2007.efhd.ford.com (Robert Pyle)
Subject: Mead stuck?? - Help



Howdy,
This is my first post to the HBD after lurking for about 8 months and
picking up a wealth of useful information.  I started a mead back in
March using 15 lbs of honey, 1/2 oz yeast extract, 4 tsp acid blend
and Lalvin champagne yeast.  O.G. was 1.108 for 5 gallons.  When I
racked it in mid-April, the S.G. had dropped to 1.090.  It continued to
ferment through the beginning of May (1.065) but seems to have
stopped.  I racked again on the 21st and the S.G. had only dropped
to 1.062.

I have tried to relax and wait it out, but am at the point where I need
some reassurance.  The mead was sitting pretty consistently at 62
degrees F (via a Fermometer on the carboy, what a geat product!)
and now has gone up to about 66.  Is this cool for mead, or is there
anything else I am missing?  Please e-mail with suggestions or just
reassurance to wait and the mead will get there.

Thanks a lot.

Rob Pyle
rpyle1 at ef2007.efhd.ford.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 22:39:45 +1000 (EST)
From: David Draper <ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Subject: SRM colors--charts, anyone?

Whud id iz: In today's digest, Rich Webb asked about the SRM values of
extracts and chocolate malt (to which I replied offline). This jogged me
into asking something I've been meaning to for a while: does anyone know
where I can order a color chart showing srm colors?  I'd like to be able
to assess whether I've come close to the target color values, and whether
my calculated estimates are anywhere close to what I get in reality. Mind
you, I have no desire to adhere slavishly to someone's definitions, I just
want to get a better handle on how to control color, particularly in that
subtle territory of pale ale/bitter to amber.  I have no aversion to
ordering from back in the US.  Many thanks; private email is probably best.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney

- -- 
******************************************************************************
David S. Draper			School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University
ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au	NSW 2109 Sydney, Australia
Fax: +61-2-805-8428		Voice: +61-2-805-8347

Return to table of contents


Date: 24 May 94 08:49:56 EDT
From: Richard Nantel <72704.3003 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Malt aroma

I posted a request for information on HBD last week on how to increase the malt
aromas of all-grain beers. Thanks to all who sent their suggestions. One reply
in particular, by Jim Ellingson, was extremely helpful. I'm reposting it here in
its entirety for the benefit of all HBD readers. Thanks Jim. 

Richard,

Here's what I do.  YMMV.

I don't add my specialty grains until late in the mash.
They don't need to be mashed, and letting the alpha and
beta enzymes hack away at them for 60 minutes seems to
reduce their flavor contribution.  I add them at mash-out.
You may need to use 10-25% more of the specialtys to get the 
same color contribution.  If I'm making porter/stout, I'll use
enough black grain at dough-in to get the pH into the correct 
range without using gypsum.  Also, wheat malt and roasted barley 
should be mashed to avoid haze problems.  Adding the specialty
grains at mash-out was suggested by Bob Jones.

I do a decoction.  You mention Pilsner Urquell as having a great
malt aroma.  PU is made with a triple decoction!  I've been
doing a 2 step mash with my ales, doughing-in at 145^F or so,
holding for 15 minutes, pulling a 1/3 decoction, heating 
to 158^F, holding for 15, then boiling for 15-60.  Adding this
back puts the mash at 158^F or so.  I rest there for 15-30
minutes.  I then add my specialty grains and enough 190-212
degree sparge water to warm the mash to 165-170^F mash out.
Using decoctions to enhance flavor has been suggested by Jim
Busch and others.

Pilsners also have noticeable amounts of DMS.  It's a fine line 
between having enough DMS so your brain says "Malt" and having too 
much so your brain says cooked/canned corn.  DMS is produced whenever
the wort is hot.  It's driven off by a vigorous boil.  You might
try steeping your brew for 15-60 minutes after flame-out. 

My impression is that homebrewers are too anal about quick
chilling.  I believe PU uses open shallow vat cooling.  Other
commercial brewerys use this traditional method of cooling.
This method is much slower than immersion or counterflow 
and seems to be an invitation for Hot Side Aeration.  It's
not uncommon for commercial brewers to allow the hot wort 
to settle for 15-60 minutes after knock-out before they begin 
counter-flow chilling.

Choose a yeast with a maltier flavor profile.  Chico Ale
(1056?) is my LEAST favorite yeast, because it's TOO CLEAN.
No malt, mineral, wood, etc.  It's the lager yeast of ale yeasts.  
SN wants all that lovely Cascade aroma and flavor to come through.  
They don't want the yeast, or the malt, to get in the way.  Rick 
Larson and I made 10 gallons of Pinatubo Porter. We fermented in 
carboys, London Ale in one and 1056 in the other. The LA version 
scored 7 points higher in the club competition (1st vs third place).  
Comments referred to the LA version having better balance because 
it had more malt character.  I have less experience with lagers, 
but choose yeasts that are described as malty over the ones 
described as clean.

Many on the net believe that the Belgian, British and German
malts are much maltier than the domestics.  They're also more
expensive.  OTOH, Belgian specialty grains can be had for
about the same price as domestics and are certainly worth
the effort.  DeWolf Cosyn makes an "aromatic malt" and it is.
Try a pound of that in your next brew.  Since I've switched to 
DWC specialties, my beers have had "killer head".  It's thick
and it lasts, even with domestic 2-row as a base.

Another way to add to the malt character is to use more specialty
grains.  If John Isenhour stamps MORE MALT on your AHA score sheet, 
he's not asking you to make a bigger (stronger) beer.  He's talking 
about malt character and flavor.  Many styles benefit from the addition 
of a pound of carapils.  You may also consider substituting more of a 
lighter specialty malt for less of a darker one.  3 pounds of British 
Crystal OR 1/4 pound of chocolate malt will give you about the same 
color contribution, but the flavors would be quite different.  Likewise 
2 pounds CaraVienne vs 1/2 pound of CaraMunich.  

Serve your beer warmer.  My perception is that the sweeter,
maltier notes in the flavor profile come through much better
at warmer temperatures.  Homebrew at 32^F is usually very bitter.
That same beer served at 45-55^F will taste maltier/sweeter.

So in summary, you can enhance the malt flavor in your brews by:
1.  Adding the specialty grains at mash-out.
2.  Decoction mashing.
3.  Choosing a maltier yeast.
4.  Using better malt, more and better specialties (imported).
5.  5-60 minutes of steeping after mashing.
6.  Serving your beers at the proper temperature.

Cheers,
Jim

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*  James Lee (Jim) Ellingson                         jimme at arc.umn.edu *
*  AHPCRC/University of Minnesota                    tel 612/626-8084  *
*  1100 Washington Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55415    fax 612/626-1596  *



Return to table of contents


Date:          Tue, 24 May 1994 08:46:14 EST
From: "pratte" <PRATTE at GG.csc.peachnet.edu>
Subject:       Hot water heaters

In yesterday's HBD, Norm mentions ripping apart a hot water heater for 
the control unit and burner for use in mashing grains.  This same 
idea struck me 2 weeks ago when my hot water heater developed a hole 
in it and it had to be replaced.  Before I threw away the rest of the 
unit, I removed the control unit and burner.

The problem that I have now is how to make this into a viable masher. 
I haven't had much time to inspect it (too many student projects to 
grade), but it looks like some major machining is in order.  The 
control unit measures temperature by 2 rods that are sticking out the 
back of the unit.  These 2 rods are kept in the fluid by SCREWING the 
control unit through the wall of the pot (see graphics)

              |                    |
              |                    |
              |                    |  Pot
           __ |                    |
          |  ||                    |
  Control |  ------                |
    unit  |  ------                |
          |  ||                    |
          |  ||                    |
           -- |                    |
           || |                    |
           || |                    |
           || ----------------------
           ||__________|   | Burner
           -----------------
           
This means that I will need to drill a large hole in my pot (over 1" 
in diameter) and weld some type of threaded pipe in it.

My question is:  Has anybody else tried this?  Is there an easier 
alternative to drilling and welding?  Personal replies by e-mail 
gladly accepted.

John

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 09:12:32 EDT
From: schmitjc at lp.musc.edu
Subject: Chocolate Beer?

Last fall I brewed Papazian's "Goat Scrotum Ale".  Being an avid chocolate
lover as well as a beer lover, the thought of both together was too much to
resist.  Even though chocolate malt and 6 oz. bakers chocolate was added to
the brew, no real chocolate flavor or taste resulted.  Is there anyway to
get an actual chocolate flavor(or aroma) in beer without having to eat
chocolate before you drink the beer?

I will be doing some traveling over the next month and was curious to any
recommendations(beer related) anyone might have. Tulsa,OK; Montreal and
Quebec City.

TIA
John Schmitz

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 09:37:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Wells Wilson <mw4w+ at andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Sucking siphons

Excerpts from internet.homebrew-beer: 20-May-94 Sucking siphons by
S29033%22681 at utrcgw.utc. 
> I agree with Ulick Staffords opinion (an educated one at that) on sucking
> siphons.  I have been homebrewing for the past 4 years and I too use
the mouth
> siphon method -  I have never had a problem with it.  I think an important
> thing to remember for those people that worry about 'contamination' is
that as
> long as the proper "infection" is started quickly (pitching yeast - 8oz or
> more) there is no problem with siphoning by mouth.  Also, there are many
> sources of bacteria in our homebrewing environments that may pose a threat to
> those sterility mongers out there (other than mouth siphoning that is).


    I must disagree.  I've had two batches of gushers that could only be
attributed using the mouth-suction method.  While gargling with vodka or
other high-proof substance seems to help, It's easy enough to start a
siphon without your mouth that I can't see any reason not too.

    Mark
 

    

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 09:05:56 
From: uu1072!Vanek at uu5.psi.com
Subject: Head Retention


In response to Dana Cummings' question on head retention:

I have found that using dry malt gives "softer" longer lasting bubbles
than the more processed alternative.  Also, looking at your recipe,
you might consider adding more hops.  Hops help stabilize the head on
beer.  Adding a few more hops probably would hurt (Low bitterness
hops if you don't want to add too much hoppy character).  The third
thing is make sure that your glassware is clean and is the right
shape.  Both of these factors affect head retention.  I'm not an
expert (but I play one on TV). . . I'm sure that others on the list
will have other ideas.  Good luck

Tom Vanek
vanek at aepco.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 09:44:13 -0400
From: paul at grammatech.com (Paul Anderson)
Subject: Re: Irish moss

Steve Scampini writes:

> I was on an educational outting sponsored by the Audubon Society
> on beachcombing this weekend (Massachusetts).
> To my delight, one of the seaweed samples collected on the beach was
> identified as Irish Moss.  I told everyone about beer and Irish Moss
> and they all mumbled yeah, yeah, yeah and went on to look at the 
> nperiwinkles.  Has anyone out there picked their own Irish moss for 
> brewing and how does one process it?

I was back in Ireland the Christmas before last and I found
a packet of Irish moss in a grocery store.  Although it was dried,
it was not flaked or processed in any other way.  I bought it
for 79p (about $1), took it home and halved it with a friend.
I have used it in all my brews since, with seemingly good results.

To `process' it, I wash it (it has many baby barnacles attached),
and chop it as finely as I can manage.  Then I just dump it in.

Paul Anderson.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 09:02:26 -600 (CDT)
From: Mark Evans <evanms at lcac1.loras.edu>
Subject: SG adjustments for temperature differentials


An HBD poster asked about about SG adjustments due to temperature
differences.  Here is a chart from Byron Burch's book:

degrees C.    degrees F.     correction
- ----------------------------------------
   0		32 		subtract 1.6
   5		41		subtract 1.3
  10		50		subtract  .8
  16		60		read as observed
  20		68		add 1.0
  25		77		add 2.2
  30		86		add3.5
  35		95		add 5.0
  40		104	        add 6.8
  45		113		add 8.8
  50		122		add 11.0
  55		131		add 13.3
  60		140		add 15.9

I imagine you can use the proportions to figure gravities for higher
temps.  When I want to check the SG of sparge runnings, I just put the
hydrometer jar in a little water bath until it cools into one of these
ranges.  Burch's skinny little book has a few real handy charts in the
back that I use all the time.

Brewfully yours, mark Evans

<evanms at lcac1.loras.edu>
Dubuque, Iowa





Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 10:34:40 EDT
From: gheiler at Kodak.COM (Greg Heiler)
Subject: Use of Dextrin Malt in Extract Brewing


I plan on brewing a recipe that calls for 1 oz of dextrin malt and
wonder what the difference is between steeping American Carapils
Dextrin Malt, along with the crystal malt that is called for, and using
the dextrin powder that is offerred in many catalogs. Will a 1 oz steep
really add much body? What about using dextrin powder and when should
it be added?
 

Waiting for the wind to blow, Full Sail ahead;




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 09:19:25 -600 (CDT)
From: Mark Evans <evanms at lcac1.loras.edu>
Subject: Flotsam in the primary/secondary: it's....beer!


I've been staring at floating junk in and on the top of my fermenting
beers for a few years.  Whenever I get worried I just think about what
went into making the beer: everything was clean, organic beer stuff--food
for the yeast, stuff to create a certain flavor profile, etc.  Then
I remember those laws of thermodynamics: there ain't no such thing as a
free lunch, etc.  Like sweaty marathoners, I rekon that my yeasties
probably work up a sweat and release a few "by-products" on the way to the
finish line.  Plus I know that after a few days of ferment, there are few
'dangerous' substances that could possibly take up residence in my beer. 
So I merrily rack the beer from place to place, eventually in to bottles,
where any mysterious flotsam settles hard on the bottom with the exhausted
yeast.
	Now if I have been lazy and neglected my carboy for many months,
I might expect some fuzzy growth to appear.  But any other time, I view
the mysterious foamy islands as just another wonderful part of the
fermentation process.  Take the motto to heart: Don't worry, have a homebrew!

If you are brewing some sour mash/lambic creature (don't forget your pink
spiders) then sure, expect some weird wort occurences. Don't be sold on
the cleaner/clearer the better mentality of this modern world.  Some of the
foggiest brews are the tastiest ones (e.g. those wheat beers).  The mega
breweries filter the life out of their products because they think that
appearance is more important than flavor.  Enjoy the process and the
greatness of your hombrew and don't worry about the flotsam.  It will take
care of itself.

(Don't you love these highly technical homebrew notes?)

Brewfully, Mark Evans***Mashing on the upper Mississippi******************

<evanms at lcac1.loras.edu>
Dubuque, Iowa





Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 10:12:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "J. Andrew Patrick" <andnator at Venus.mcs.com>
Subject: HBU BBSs: phone number correction

My good friend Rich Larsen writes in HBD #1431:
> As Sumner has access to a PC and MODEM I invited him to join in on
> conversations on HomeBrew University Midwest at (780) 705-7263
                                                   ^^^
HBU-Midwest is located in Chicago's NW suburbs, and the correct phone number
is *708* 705-7263 (not 780).  Contrary to my recent posting, this number
will NOT be changing anytime soon.
 
HBU-Southwest is located in Houston, and can still be reached at 
713-923-6418.  (Both BBSs are N,8,1, and support baud rates up to 14,400)
 
E-mail to HBU should be directed to my Internet account, listed below.
 
I am planning to distribute the Summer '94 issue of the HBU E-News on or 
about the Summer Solstice (June 21st).
 
|Sysop         |         Andrew Patrick          |       Founder|
|Home Brew Univ|  AHA/HWBTA Certified Beer Judge |Home Brew Univ|
|Midwest BBS   |  SW Brewing News Correspondent  | Southwest BBS|
|(708)705-7263 |   Internet: andnator at mcs.com    | (713)923-6418|

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 12:23:58 EDT
From: Nancy.Renner at um.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Apology for screwed up nutrition table

>From *Jeff* Renner 
 
I'm terribly sorry to have spent so much bandwidth on an unusable table of 
beer nutrients in HBD 1430.  I obviously need to learn to use tabs. 
 
The only nutrients which differed significantly from Beer Magazine's are as 
follows: 
 
Iron:  Beer Mag-12 g, obviously a transcription  error; Zymurgy - .11mg or 
1.1% of RDA(10mg). 
Folic Acid:  Beer mag. - 52-62%RNI; Zymurgy - 20mcg or 5% of RDA(400mcg). 
Pantothenic Acid:  Beer Mag. - 7% RNI; Zymurgy - .169mcg or 1.7% of 
RDA(10mcg). 
 
Rich Webb's posting of the values from Grant's Scottish Ale are encouraging 
and probably closer to what we brew.  Thanks.  But does anyone know anything 
about the depletion of B-complex vitamins from alcohol ingestion? 
 
With egg on my face but not in my beer. 
 
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 12:49:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: greggt at infi.net (Gregg Tennefoss)
Subject: left over infection taste


First, thanks to all who responded to my "sour taste" question!!!

A thought. If an extract, yeast or any adjunct has an infection would the
off flavor remain even if the bacteria was killed off in the boil.
I base this on the question does the bacteria itself (as a living organism)
taste bad or is it the by-products of the bacteria that gives off flavors.
I fully understand that basicaly everything that come into contact with
the wort has some degree of "infection" including the air. But these are
relatively small amount. If a bucket of extract was infected in packaging,
then by the time it was shipped and used there could be a major amount of
bacteria/by-products in the wort prior to boiling. The boiling would kill
the bacteria but would take away any off flavors.
I guess I could take one of my buddy's infected bottles and boil it to kill
off the bacteria and see if the sour taste remains, but I think the alcohol
has more than likely done this for me already.

cheers
gregg



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 13:06:34 EDT
From: perkins at zippy.ho.att.com
Subject: Using Spruce Essence

Fellow HBDers--
    I want to try my hand at a spruce beer.  Given the recent discussion of
disasters w/ such brews when using spruce cuttings, I thought I'd use
spruce essence.  I would like to make a lighter brew (say a Pale Ale),
since I think that would make a better summer drink than the dark spruce
ales in Cat's Meow or Papazian.  I was thinking of something with the body
of SNPA or Liberty, but I don't want the hops and spruce fighting with
each other.

    My questions are: 1) how much spruce essence do I use? 2) when should I
add the essence (boil or bottling)? 3) should I adjust the hopping schedule
to account for the spruce?  For 1), Papazian suggests 2-5 tsp / 5 gal.  I
would be inclined to start on the lighter side unless someone w/ experience
can advise differently.

    Can anyone help me out with this one?

Thanks,
Mark
perkins at zippy.ho.att.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 13:03 EST
From: Jack Skeels <0004310587 at mcimail.com>
Subject: Question on Krauesening

I've read Papazian.  I've read Miller.  I've read Noonan.  Now I'll try the
HBD....

Now that I fully understand the value and methods of krauesening :-), I've
been trying to figure out why I can't do it the "easy way".  All of the
authors that I have read seem to indicate that I should save some of my
fresh wort in a sterile container for use later (the big "K").

Question:  How about just cooking up about 2 gals of generic wort (say using
Klages or something very neutral, with a simple bittering hop?),
bottling/canning it, and using as much as is needed at any point in the
future for "K"-type priming?

It seems to me to be much easier to make a set of sterile containers full of
wort all at once, rather than risk infection in the reserved wort every time
I brew a batch.

What say you all?  Does anybody out there actually do this already, or am I
some sort of budding brewery genius (not)?

Post or e-mail's fine.  If I get some neat responses, I'll post it.

TIA, and good brews!

Jack 
JSKEELS at MCIMAIL.COM



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 14:40:58 EDT
From: danz at schedar.rtp.semi.harris.com (George Danz)
Subject: MaltMills

I've been looking for a MaltMill and all the articles I've seen over last
week have been related to the wonders of the MM, but no addresses or company
names where I can call, write, or telephone for a catalogue, prices, etc.
Was this covered in earlier news?  Any help will greatly be apprecieated
plus any info. concerning problems with these.  I'm looking for a good
quality mill, which will probably never be used to crush more than 20 to 30
pounds at a sitting.  Speed is important, however, because I don't want to
spend the day crushing and then having to take another day to brew.

Quality and "reliability" would be very high on my list, as well as a
reasonable degree of adjustability, but I wonder if this is important unless
you're going to come across grain which has a wide variability in size.  Is
this likely?  Would the Mill be of use in crushing other grains and
therefore need adjustability?

Any comments welcome.



Best Regards,

George E. Danz
                     
IPP Applications Engineering                   
Internet: danz at rtp.semi.harris.com 
(919)549-3632 voice                
(919)549-3651 FAX                  




Best Regards,

George E. Danz
                     
IPP Applications Engineering                   
Internet: danz at rtp.semi.harris.com 
(919)549-3632 voice                
(919)549-3651 FAX                  


Return to table of contents


Date: 24 May 1994 14:50:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: S29033%22681 at utrcgw.utc.com
Subject: Resp to Jeff Franes Response -- RE:Sucking siphons

>Lance Stronk writes:
>I think an important thing to remember for those people that worry about
>'contamination'is that as long as the proper "infection" is started quickly
(pitching yeast - >8oz or more) there is no problem with siphoning by mouth.  

To which Jeff Frane responds:

>I'm not sure why Lance has "contamination" in quotes; perhaps he doesn't
>believe it's a real issue in brewing?  In that case, it would be
>difficult to explain why so many commercial breweries (small and large)
>spend a huge percentage of their time sanitizing.

I believe that Jeff has taken the point I was trying to make in the article and
twisted it.  I can only say that I am surprised that he, who is obviously
concerned about sanitation (and not that a person shouldn't be), is fond of
putting words in other peoples mouths (or computers - take your pick) -- an
obvious unsanitary act.
The main point I was trying to instill in the brewers out there is that putting
enough live yeast culture into the "sterile" wort will "choke out" other
foreign bacteria present in the brewing/fermenting process.  It isn't difficult
to explain why the commercial breweries take care in sanitation - they wish to
control their process in order to ensure that they obtain batches that are
consistent - batch after batch.  If care wasn't taken in sanitation (as well as
brewing temp, fermentation, water conditioning, etc.) then the consumer
expecting a particular taste from the commercial beer that they had a week ago
would be displeased with same label because of the batch differences.  And if a
person gets turned off by the second one they will probably not buy the beer
anymore.  So, I would say that money is the main reason.  There is a counter to
this idea though.  I have a good friend who works in the UK and he visits many
pubs and breweries.  I asked him about the breweries with open fermentation
vessels.  He confirmed that they do have many breweries in the UK which ferment
their ales in open fermenters.  So, one may ask, how do they prevent the
dreaded "contamination monster" from ruining their beer?   They pitch yeast,
and a lot of it.  I believe that some places in Europe ferment their beer with
only the naturally occurring yeast's indigenous to that area.  This is one of
the good uses for 'contamination' (and yes I quote, Jeff).  Hence,
contamination is a relative thing - some peoples trash is other peoples
treasure.

Now, as for siphoning by mouth, I agree that putting bacteria from the mouth
into a sterile batch of wort is unnecessary.  But, by putting a live culture in
and getting the fermentation going quickly (I have done this with yeast from a
previous batch and the airlock bubbles within an hour - at ale fermenting
temps) one can rest easy that their wort is fermenting with the desired
'contamination' (yes, in quotes again, Jeff) and not from their mouths.  Who
knows?  Maybe someone with a certain yeast in their mouth will produce a beer
with the success of say, Budwater (many of you know which beer this is). 
Imagine the possibilities.  Those of you with halitosis may want to pass on
trying this.

Let me say that sanitation is important to the homebrewer  --- I am not
suggesting that everyone toss out their B-Brite, bleach, etc.  What I am
suggesting is that one must have an open mind about the endless possibilities
of homebrewing techniques.  I don't particularly like the idea of "pine" beer
or spicy beer or even 'red chili Cajun' beer, but that doesn't mean that I
won't keep an open mind as I am trying them.  I mean if one can brew, bottle
and submit to a contest a 'hot pepper' beer or spruce beer, then why not spit
beer???  

I want to thank Jeff for stimulating my thoughts on this subject.  I
think this internet forum for homebrewers is wonderful -- it is exactly this
kind of discussion that invokes others to join in and discuss and then next
thing you know, people are learning from one another -- even Jeff.  I would
have explained myself in the first article but I didn't realize that I would be
ripped apart by one who has strong convictions  (I really didn't feel like
typing this much the first time).  That is the limitation of such a forum
though - something I learned when I read Jeff's response.  I would like to say
Jeff,  that I am only a happy idiot if I drink too much homebrew.  I will be
the first one to say that I don't know everything -- it is the idiot that
claims that he does.








































































Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 12:54:42 MDT
From: "Mark B. Alston" <c-amb at math.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: Fermentation Vessel Variations--a new idea

I have used both the BrewCap and the soda keg methods for
fermentation.  I have now stuck with the soda keg method for various
reasons. 

1) the inability to watch your beer ferment is actually a plus.
   Keeping light away from your beer at all times will eliminate the
   possibility of getting that light-struck smell.  I did use a blanket  
   over my carboy but could not help peeking several times a day.

2) The storage space is much smaller.  When using the BrewCap you need to 
   have your stand (milk crates) up above the ground and slightly over the
   edge of a counter to allow the yeast collection hose to run strait to 
   the floor.  Well, I didn't want to leave it out in the garage where I 
   have temp fluctuations of over 20 deg from day to night.  So I have it 
   on a kitchen counter.  With this hose hanging off the counter I was 
   constantly worried that visiting small children would pull it over on top
   of them.  With the keg method I simply set in on the floor in some hidden 
   corner and don't worry about it being bothered nor taking up valuable 
   counter space.

3) Ability to ferment in a fridge.  I am not currently brewing in a fridge
   but to do so with a brewcap would be nearly impossible and is recommended
   against in the instructions.  To do so with a keg is simplicity itself.  
   Moreover, you can fit many more kegs into a given fridge than carboys, not
   to mention the stands for the brewcap which would have to be up on stilts
   of some kind.

Your idea to use the keg inverted is interesting.  However, let me
point out a few things about using them in the normal position.
First, you suggest a plus to using the inverted method:

   On the plus side, I wouldn't need to shorten the dip tube for fermentation,
   so the same keg could be used for dispensing with another batch.

However, you do not actually have to shorten the dip tube for the
fermenter.  I use a short 1-2" brass end-cap over the end of my dip
tube.  The dip tube also has some v-shaped groves filed into the end.
This keeps the dip tube from sucking up the last inch of trub and
yeast.  The v-shaped groves are necessary to allow the flow of beer
when the endcap has been sucked onto the dip tube.  I made four groves 
by filing it into quarters so to speak.  With this method, if you wanted
to use the keg to dispense with simply remove the cap.


                   |  | <----- dip tube
                   |  |
	         | |  | | 
                 | |  | | <--- end-cap
                 | |  | |
                 | |/\| | <--- V-shaped grove in dip tube.  
                 -------- 

Secondly, in order to transfer your beer into the serving vessel you
would either need to rely on gravity or have a separate line from your
CO2 tank with a liquid fitting to allow you to push the beer out of
the IN connect.  I guess that you could simply invert your keg back
into the upright position to transfer but I would advise against
disturbing the beer in that manner.

Thirdly, I am planning to use a settling tank of similar design, with
a shorter endcap, to eliminate much of the trub which would normally
make it into the fermenter.  Thus, the sediment in the fermenter
should be mostly pure yeast.  Then I plan on using a sterilized water
rinse to collect this yeast or simply pitch my next brew right on top
of it.  The beer can be transferred between the settling tank and the
fermenter using the same simple transfer tube which is used to
transfer between the fermenter and serving tank.

Finally, this method allows for easy filtration between the fermenter
and the dispensing keg.  I know that filtration is a nasty word around
here; however, it is a great way to speed along the finishing of a
brew when you are out of homebrew.  Often we drink it faster than I
have time to brew it so using this method I can get a batch of bitter
to drinking condition in around 6 or 7 days.  Much faster than
allowing it to clear naturally.  I imagine that you might be able to
do this with the inverted setup but the yeast at the bottom would make
filtering much slower.

However, keeping the fact that you don't need to shorten the dip tube
in either case, I see no problems in trying it out both ways and
deciding for yourself which method you like the best.  I would keep
from modifying the keg in either case so that you could switch between
the methods easily.  I.e. don't alter the check valve, simply use a
short piece of hose with a cobra head tap as your yeast collection
hose.  Connect this hose to a gas quick connect and hook this up to
the IN connection on the keg.  

One final suggestion (boy this is becoming a long post!), run the wort
through some sort of filtering bag before going into the keg.  A
single hop leaf could theoretically clog up the tube and screw up the
whole system.  Use the nylon grain bag kind not the cheesecloth hop
bag kind.  The wort simply does not flow well through the hop bags.  I
had an awful mess doing it through one once.  

Sorry about the length,
Mark Alston
(c-amb at math.utah.edu)

Return to table of contents


Date: 24 May 94 19:19:00 GMT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: comparison of mills/soapy head/ethanol for sanitation

Jim writes:
>I especially find offensive your attempt to compare the 
>price of the adjustable Glatt to that of your fixed roller mill in an 
>attempt to claim that they cost the same.  (rather than comparing to 
>your adjustable mill, as would be more appropriate).

I have been opposed to advertising in the HBD, but feel that discussions
regarding products will inevitably involve the manufacturer/distributor
if they are subscribers.  Just as I would expect Kinney to defend the
BruHeat if someone was to say that it was inferior to some competing
product, so I cannot imagine Jack not responding to a misrepresentation
of the JSP MaltMill.

I personally believe it is reasonable to compare the Glatt or any other
mill to the fixed JSP MaltMill.  I used a fixed MM for crushing customer's
grain at my store for more than a year and, with the plump DeWolf-Cosyns
malts, the crush was absolutely wonderful.  I've since purchased an adjustable
one and motorized it, but the only reason for choosing to get an adjustable
was because one time I had to run some scrawny 6-row malt through the fixed
and it took two passes through the fixed mill to get a good crush.  If a
customer were to order 50 pounds of 6-row crushed, the time savings will
have made up for the $30 difference in price.

Jim, I suggest you read the instructions again: the only "warnings" about
motorization are simply liability disclaimers.  Anyone who has seen a MM
will attest that your claim of difficulty removing the handle is hogwash.

Yes, I'm a retailer... no, I don't do mailorder at this time, so my intentions
are not to advertise on the HBD... I do sell all three mills (and the Corona
if you a foolish enough to ask me to special order it), but if you ask my
opinion, I'll tell you the JSP MM is the best built and best value.

***********
Dana writes:
>2 cans John Bull light unhopped malt extract
>1/2 # dark crystal malt
>handful of choc malt
>2 oz. cascades

>The beer is 3 weeks in the bottle.  It tastes great, looks good, but 
>lacks a good head.  I thought that I had enough malt to get a good head but 
>when I pour a bottle I get ~1/3 in. of head that quickly disappears.  
>Even in the short time that the head is present it consists of large soapy 
>type bubbles rather than smaller bubbles that stay longer.  What's up???  TIA

The soap-type bubbles indicate that you either have soap residue in your
glasses or you introduced it somewhere during brewing.  I NEVER EVER use
soap or dishwashing liquid on any of my brewing equipment.  I use Sodium
Carbonate (washing soda), Bleach or just water and elbow grease to clean
my equipment and glassware (okay, I dishwasher powder on the glassware,
but it's unscented, uncolored and does not contain any rinsing agents).

*********
Jack Dawson writes (regarding starting siphons with the mouth):
>rinse mouth with 1/2 oz. Jack Daniels or similar immediately before sucking.

This shouldn't be much of an improvement.  The contact time for sanitation
with 50% ethanol (100 proof) is 30 minutes according to a sanitation
textbook whose title escapes me.  If you were to hold whiskey in your mouth
for a lot less than 30 minutes, you would certainly die from alcohol poisoning
(the vapors would be absorbed in your lungs very quickly and you would expire).

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 May 94 17:05:10 EDT
From: Montanoa at aol.com
Subject: New Englan Micros

By all means, please post a summary


Return to table of contents


Date:          Tue, 24 May 1994 16:20:33 CST
From: "Dan Houg" <HOUGD at mdh-bemidji.health.state.mn.us>
Subject:       maple sap brews, Zima taste opinion

The recent post on maple sap brewing prompted me to post also!  Last 
year I made an extract brew using sap as the entire water source.  
I'd made it into a 'maple-ginger lager' and while it was a fine, 
light summer-y drink, I have to admit that little if any maple flavor 
came through.  The water or rather sap did seem to produce an 
excellent, clean beer tho.  While we made about 15 gallons of maple 
syrup this year (that's about *500* gallons of sap!), I didn't sneak a 
brewing session in.  I think a fine, mapley beer could be made 
however with the sap boiled down to the specific gravity of say 1.040 
or so.  Anyone try this?

Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1432, 05/25/94