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


Contents:
  Steep vs Mash (Rich Larsen)
  RE: Lautering (Darryl Richman)
  Barrels (MTL) <fcost at ARL.MIL>
  Hop Union Address/Tel. No. (Mark)
  Decoction mashing : thickest portion? (c.e.) wallace" <cwallace at bnr.ca>
  beer in Phoenix area ("Dave Suurballe")
  Triple Bock (David Haas)
  Re: Keg Fermenting (Larry Barello)
  going to London ("Dr. Robert Ford")
  Pike Place Brewery.. kep it up!/ bentonite results/ Corny keg as ("McGaughey, Nial")
  water analysis (JOHN KLECZEWSKI)
  U-Brews and competitions (Stuart Cole)
  Attention UBC Brewers (Stuart Cole)
  Fuller's ESB (Chuck E. Mryglot)
  Re: Dry Hopping/Keg Fermenting (Art Steinmetz)
  What the hell is Wyeast 1056 (Patrick Casey)
  Re: when to add fruit (David_Arnone)
  Copper Boiler OK to use? (Kevin Cawley [IL33])
  Brewing Belgian Beers (#6): Triples ("Phillip Seitz")
  Re: Mill test (Mark A. Stevens)
  Gott Cooler Spigot (Mark)
  Breweries in Antarctica ? (Conan-the-Librarian)
  New Brewpub Review (Knoxvil (Paul Hethmon)
  Des Moines, IA Brewpubs ("THOMAS L. STOLFI")
  BrewHumor (Mark Evans)
  Fermenting Lagers? (Ed Blonski)
  Irish Moss / Straining / Filtering (Turner)
  Yield (George J Fix)
  slotted screen and gigantic sigs (brewing chemist Mitch)



******************************************************************
**  NOTE: There will be no digest administration from August 15
**  through August 26. PLEASE be patient when requesting changes
**  or cancellations.
******************************************************************
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: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:35:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rich Larsen <rlarsen at squeaky.free.org>
Subject: Steep vs Mash

Hello all,

Specialty grains... mash or steep?  This is about as controversial as
counterflow/immersion chillers.

I recently had the opportunity to set up a full scale experiment and
test the pros and cons of steeping VS mashing specialty grains. I set out
to make up a 10 gallon batch of beer for a block party.  I wanted something
the unenlightened masses would enjoy, so I decided on a simple amber ale.

Recipe follows:

For 10 US Gals Avers Avenue Amber Ale

12 lbs English Lager
 4 lbs Belgium Pale Ale
 6 lbs English Mild (poor crush)
 2 lbs Caramunich

NB = Northern Brewer 9.3%  1/2 oz
KG = Kent Golding 5.0%       2 oz
F  = Fuggle 3.6%             2 oz

Hop Table in ounces

MIN  NB   KG   F
60  1/2
45        1
30        1    1
15            1/2
F             1/2

SG 1.050  FG 1.010

A problem arose with the amount of grain as I do not have the capacity
in my humble homebrewery to mash this much grain at once.  I decided to
split the batch down the middle and brew two batches at once.

After dividing up the grain into both brewpots, I came to the Caramunich.  I
tossed in one pound in the first pot for the mash as usual, and held back
the second pound for the second pot for later steeping.

The first pot was brought up to conversion temperature.  When this was
mashing away, the second pot was brought up to temperature.  The second batch
was allowed to continue to mash during the sparge of the first.  This resulted
in a longer mash time than the first had received due to a longer than
expected sparge.

Once batch 1 was sparged and placed on the stove to boil, batch 2 was sparged.
Batch 1 boiled over slightly and additional bittering hops were added to
compensate for the loss.  Closer monitoring of the pots followed ;-)
During hopping of batch 1 batch 2 was brought to a boil.  The one pound of
caramunich that was reserved for batch 2 was placed in a grain bag and
steeped in 170F water.  It was then "sparged" repeatedly by dunking in hot
clean water until it drained fairly clear.  This "tea" was then added to the
boil pot with the rest of the runnings and brought to a boil.  Batch 2 was
visibly more turbid in the pot than batch 1.  Batch 2 may not have reached
as rigorous of a boil as batch 1 due to the use of a different stove.

Both brews were hopped, and chilled with an immersion chiller.  Batch 2 had
a larger volume by about 1/2 gallon than batch 1.  Specific gravity's
differed by .005.  BRF verified that 1.050 at 5 gals drops to 1.045 with the
addition of 1/2 gallon of water.

Both batches were fermented side by side at a controlled 60F. (Fridge/Airstat
combo) on the trub for 1 week.  Transfer to secondary and fermentation
continued under the same conditions for an additional week.  The beer was
fined with 1/2 tsp gelatin to each carboy for a period of 10 days.

Both batches were kegged and force carbonated.

FG for batch 1 was ~1.010, batch 2 ~1.005.  (Surprise!)  I estimated the
color difference was approximately 1 L difference, and BRF also verified
that.  The main observable difference is a slight haze in batch 2 (steeped)
batch 1 is brilliantly clear.  Flavor difference batch 2 tastes a bit thin,
almost watery, apart from that the flavor is identical.

Conclusions :
I feel that the haze may be a starch haze.  There may have been a bit of
unconverted starch in the caramunich that caused it.  The process of mashing
converted this starch in the mashed batch (batch 1) which resulted in a clear
final product.  There is the possibility that the soft boil batch 2 received
could have attributed to the haze as well by not precipitating the protien
as well as it should.  This haze however did not seem to change with chilling
or warming.

Color/body differences can be attributed to the additional sparge water needed
to steep the specialty malt and the initial difference in volume of the total
wort fermented.  Keeping this in mind, the difference in flavor/color/body was
minimal.

FWIW be it the difference in the body or maybe a better utilization of the
caramunich, I felt that batch 1 was a superior beer.

SO.... IMHO mashing does not appear to affect the contribution from the
caramunich, but may reduce the risk of starch induced haze.  I will continue
to mash the specialty grains.

This of course does not draw any conclusions for the use of black grains.

=> Rich Larsen (708) 388-3514
rlarsen at squeaky.free.org (715) 743-1600  HomeBrew University (708) 705-7263
(WHAT?, HOW?, SORRY? <-- A shiny new dime to whoever identifies these first)

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 10:31:47 PDT
From: Darryl Richman <darrylri at microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Lautering

gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) writes:
> I do not believe optimal run off times scale well with respect to brew
> volumes. A striking case in point is provided by the recent article

One of the interesting things I learned while researching "Bock", and 
which I included in the book, is that the folks at Weihenstephan have a 
general recommendation for lautering decoction mashes at a pretty slow 
rate, which is based on the surface area of the lauter tun (assuming a 
uniform depth and a uniform drainage).  By specifying the rate per 
square area, they are really describing a particular flow rate of fluid 
through the bed.  The rate recommended was approximately 1 gallon / (6 
minute * square foot) to start, speeding up to 1/4 as the wort thins 
out.  (I'm quoting from memory, always a dangerous thing.)  These 
figures are quoted from volume 2 of Narziss' "Die Technologie der 
Bierbereitung".  Also, Narziss indicates a shallower bed for decoction 
mashes than Hough et al in "Malting and Brewing Science" do for 
infusion mashes.

> "Lautering: Back to the Basics" which appeared in MBAA Tech. Qr.
> (Vol.30, No.3, 1993). The authors are senior brewers at Millers, and
> they describe their lautering procedures in detail. There is much here
> of conceptual interest, their intriguing mash up/vorlauf procedure being
> a case in point. However, their flow rates, which range from 700-750 
bbls./hr.
> for the first wort to 900-1000 bbls./hr. during sparging, are of zero 
relevance
> for us. Their batch size is 1100 bbls., and they collect 1200 bbls. of sweet
> wort to get this. Counting up the times quoted their total time is 
near 120-130
> mins.

It would be interesting to know how their flow rates compare to those 
suggested by Narziss.  One might expect a mixed mash system such as 
Miller/AB/Coors employ to behave more like a straight infusion than a 
decoction, since most (90% or so) of the barley malt husks do not 
undergo boiling.

		--Darryl Richman

Return to table of contents


Date:     Wed, 17 Aug 94 14:34:39 EDT
From: Fred Cost (MTL) <fcost at ARL.MIL>
Subject:  Barrels

My dictionary claims that a barrel is 31 1/2 gallons, which is alarming when
you consider that a 1/2 barrel keg holds 15.5 gallons.  I think we're 
getting hosed out of a quart of beer each time we buy a keg (a pint per
1/4 barrel keg).  Is this correct?  Write your congressman.

Fred 

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 13:44:54 -0600
From: Mark <markc at ssd.fsi.com>
Subject: Hop Union Address/Tel. No.

Anybody out there have the address or telephone number for Hop Union.

Thanks.......mark

Return to table of contents


Date:  Wed, 17 Aug 1994 16:41:00 -0400 
From: "chris (c.e.) wallace" <cwallace at bnr.ca>
Subject:  Decoction mashing : thickest portion? 


In references to decoction mashing both here on the net and in published
literature (namely Warner's "German Wheat Beer" and Papazian's "Home
Brewer's Companion"), I've noticed comments to the effect that the
decoction should be taken from the "thickest part of the mash."  I find
this a bit confusing given my (still extremely limited) all-grain
experience.

All of my mashes have been pretty homogenous, or have had at most an
inch of liquid on top of the grain...ie. there's no discernable 'thick'
portion.  I typically use 2.7 L mash water per kg of grain (as per Fix's
"Principles of Brewing Science").  In any case, do you draw off this
'thickest' portion via a spigot at the bottom of the mash tun?  (I use
a picnic cooler as a mash tun, so that would be no problem.)  Otherwise,
if you were just scooping out the mash for your decoction, how would you
get the thickestportion?  What's the reasoning behind using a thick
decoction?

I'm planning on trying to follow Warner's technique for an all-grain
Hefe-Weizen in the next month or so...any suggestions would be
appreciated. I'll post a summary of e-mail responses, so feel free to
reply privately...

BTW, looking up 'decoction' in my Oxford pocket dictionary, it reads:
"boiling down to extract essence; the essence produced."  This seems to
be a bit of a misnomer, doesn't it, since the object of boiling the
drawn-off mash is mainly to re-add it to the main mash and increase its
temperature.  Perhaps in the Old Days, the object of the decoction mash
was to boil it down to concentrate the liquor??

Cheers....CW

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Wallace           | Opinions expressed |                            |
| cwallace at bnr.ca         | do not necessarily |   <This space for rent>    |
| Bell-Northern Research  | reflect the views  |                            |
| Nepean, Ontario, Canada | of BNR.            |                            |
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 

Return to table of contents


Date: 17 Aug 1994 13:52:43 -0700
From: "Dave Suurballe" <suurb at farallon.com>
Subject: beer in Phoenix area

I'm going to Phoenix/Scottsdale for a weekend, and I would
appreciate some advice about brewpubs and other beer bars.

Dave Suurballe

suurb at farallon.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:53:07 -800 (PDT)
From: David Haas <dhaas at poway.csusm.edu>
Subject: Triple Bock


 I have been homebrewing for almost 9 months, and just recently got into
the information forum here. 
 My friend just returned from a summer trip to visit his sister in Chicago
and while there he enjoyed some brew at a few pubs.
 He heard from a owner of a Pub that Samuel Adams is releasing a vary
limited Triple BOCK, 18% STRONG and 75$ bucks a case.
 Maybe I just missed the posts about this brew as I have only be aboard
for 2 weeks.
 Any other information regarding this Triple Bock?

                     Big Wave Dave



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 15:19 PDT
From: larryba at polstra.com (Larry Barello)
Subject: Re: Keg Fermenting

In article <32sf1m$67d at seattle.polstra.com> you write:
>Just four words of advice to those contemplating fermenting in Cornelius
>Kegs: "beware of clogged blowoff."  By using a poppetless valvebody as
>Dion suggests, you are hoping that the small hole (about 1/4" or so) in
>the top of the valve body will not clog with hop bits.  This can be a very

A solution is to remove the poppet valve body during fermentation
and replace them (dip and gas line) when you are ready to transfer or 
carbonate.
- -- 
Larry Barello			larryba at polstra.com
10034 NE 22nd ST		(206) 454-6958
Bellevue, WA.  98004

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 18:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dr. Robert Ford" <rford at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Subject: going to London


I am going to London in a week and would like to know if their are any 
brewpubs in the area that I should stop at.  Also what are some good 
beers that I need to find on tap?  

				Loren R Ford


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 14:55:00 PDT
From: "McGaughey, Nial" <nmcgaugh at hq.walldata.com>
Subject: Pike Place Brewery.. kep it up!/ bentonite results/ Corny keg as 


>I was informed that the management/administration of the brewery had 
enacted a policy of no >longer supplying people with yeast. This was a sad 
day for me as Pike Place has always >been friendly to homebrewers,

>If Charles Finkel and the other business partners in Merchant Du Vin/Pike 
Place Brewery were >to know about the fact that their decision was an 
unpopular one, that homebrewers comprise a >large share of their market, 
they might possibly change their policy. This really bums me out. >Pike 
Place/Merchant Du Vin's business office can be reached at (206) 322-5022. 
call them and >let them know what you think about this. I know I have..

I am hearing from people that the phone campaign against the yeast 
stinginess policy is working! All of those who have called in, thank you! 
All of those who haven't, please do! And get your spouses/S.O.'s to call, we 
might be able to turn this around. Please remember, a little courtesy goes a 
long way over the phone.

 ->To all who have tried to E-Mail me, and failed... Our company just 
relocated to a new corporate office, and the SMTP server has been 
unreliable, to say the least. So: sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks to 
all who have tried to get through to me.

bentonite findings: (quickie)- I have just finished comparisons with 
bentonite as a clarifier in racking procedure, I added 1/4 cup of bentonite 
slurry to the fermented beer during racking, then racked to the corny keg 24 
hours later. the beer was an IPA, and It turned out wonderful. It was 
crystal clear as opposed to the 3 quarts of unclarified beer that was hazy 
and cloudy that it was compared against. The clarified beer was cleaner 
tasting, but a little thinner flavorwise, but _very_ delicious nonetheless. 
YMMV.

 ->Corn keg fermenters:
I split my 15 gal master batch into 3 sub batches, one was fermented in a 
corny keg, all I did was loosely cover the latched opening with the rubber 
ringed cover during primary, and then racked to another corny keg that was 
closed, and the gas input valve was held open by a gas out fitting that was 
connected to a fermentation lock. All this during one of the worst fruit fly 
conventions en masse that I have ever seen. All in my basement. All in all I 
was very happy with the results, and i'm now pondering how to use all this 
extra equipment (food grade SS fermenters disguised as dispensing units)that 
I've discovered laying around idle.

Nial McGaughey
Wall Data Product Development

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 03:10:34 GMT
From: john.kleczewski at gco.com (JOHN KLECZEWSKI)
Subject: water analysis

I just received my water an. from my new city and could use help in
treatment of it. Analysis follows
Calcium                         72 ppm
Alkalinity Total (CaCO3)     278 ppm
Chloride                     007 ppm
Copper                       <.010 ppm
Fluoride                     .89 ppm
Iron                         .179 ppm
Lead                         <.005 ppm
Magnesium                     26 ppm
Manganese                    <.010 ppm
Nickel                       <.050 ppm
Nitrate                      <.100 ppm
Nitrite                      <.010 ppm
Potassium                     13 ppm
Silica                        9.4 ppm
Sodium                        24 ppm
Sulfate                       60 ppm
Zinc                         .020 ppm
Chloroform                   <.0005 ppm

JOHN.KLECZEWSKI at GCO.COM
Private Email for treatments would be appreciated.

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 22:05:49 -0330
From: swcole at mail.unixg.ubc.ca (Stuart Cole)
Subject: U-Brews and competitions

Though I am personally (and speaking for myself) a staunch HOMEbrewer, I'm
curious about the acceptance of "U-Brew" beers at competitions (AHA and
otherwise). -- For those unfamiliar with the term "U-Brew" stores are
commercial ventures where would-be homebrewers go to brew using on-site
equipment, with the help of on-site staff.

Some might argue that because of the way these stores operate U-Brewers
aren't actually creating their own beer (they are just adding
pre-determined ingredients and being told when to stir.) On the other hand,
is this not the case with beginners using kits? (The difference perhaps is
that U-Brew stores do quite a lot of damage control ... first time brewers
rarely end up with a bad beer ... and consequently they are less likely to
learn from mistakes.)

Can and should U-Brews be entered in competitions? Is there an "official"
line on this? What do those on the Net think?

Kind of curious,
Stuart Cole
Vancouver, B.C.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 22:06:01 -0330
From: swcole at mail.unixg.ubc.ca (Stuart Cole)
Subject: Attention UBC Brewers

Are there any University of British Columbia grad/faculty brewers out
there? I believe I have seen posters for homebrew competitions in the past
and I'm wondering if there is an actual UBC brewing club. If not, would
there be any interest in starting one up?

Stuart Cole
History Grad


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 07:54:11 EDT
From: cem at cadre.com (Chuck E. Mryglot)
Subject: Fuller's ESB


  Anyone have any good experience/results with cloning Fuller's ESB. 
Care to share your recipe and process?
ChuckM

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 08:55:06 -0400
From: Art Steinmetz <asteinm at pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Dry Hopping/Keg Fermenting 

hollen at megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) gave some good advice on 
using soda kegs for fermentation.  Let me add a couple twists 
that work well for me.

Dion Says:
"A non-obvious trick is to use liquid dip tubes (these are the 
tubes
attached to the liquid "out" valves - the ones the beer 
actually flows
through when leaving the keg) which are shorter than
standard length so that when you rack, the trub is left 
behind."

I don't cut the dip tube.  I let the trub come throught the 
line first then pour it out once the running becomes clear.  
This avoids wasting beer if the trub level is well below where 
you cut the dip tube.  You do have to muck about more with 
what's supposed to be a closed system.

Dion Says:
"Attach a bleeder valve to the gas valve of the secondary."

I'm too cheap.  I just bleed the pressure off the keg once a 
day.

Dion Says:
"[Bleeder valves] allow one to measure the *real* pressure in a 
keg
(the guage on the CO2 regulator only registers how much CO2 
will be
applied, not the actual pressure at the destination)."

I'm still too cheap. I turn up the pressure at the regulator 
from zero until I hear gas start to flow.  The regulator 
reading at that point should be just above the keg pressure - 
say 1lb.  Same principle as a blood pressure cuff.

- -- Art Steinmetz NYC/NJ
Internet: asteinm at pipeline.com
Compuserve: 76044,3204






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 09:16:48 EDT
From: pacasey at lexmark.com (Patrick Casey)
Subject: What the hell is Wyeast 1056

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

In HOMEBREW Digest #1497 (Wed 10 August 1994), Glenace L. Melton
writes:

> (2) I used Sierra Nevada(tm) Pale Ale yeast cultivated from a bottle to
> make a starter; Wyeast 1056, that I have used and is an excellent yeast,
> is not the same at all, although some people continue to propagate the
> erroneous statement that it is.

which threw me, since I've heard here repeatedly that Wyeast 1056 IS
the Sierra Nevada yeast...

Then in HOMEBREW Digest #1500 (Sat 13 August 1994), SPEAKER.CURTIS
asks:

> what's the truth about Wyeast #1056 ?

> I'm very confused about Wyeast #1056; many folks on the HBD talk about it as
> "Sierra Nevada's yeast".  Someone else came back and said that it is not SN's
> yeast.In the last issue of Zymurgy's yeast guide, the say it is Sierra's
> yeast.A day or two ago, someone came back on the digest and said it isn't...
> Does anybody know for sure???
> I've also heard that SNPA has a different yeast used for bottle conditioning
> vs. fermentation...again, anybody know for sure???
> Confused in PA

And I haven't heard any discussion yet.  So what's the deal????????

 - Patrick

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 09:30:48 EDT
From: David_Arnone at Warren.MentorG.com
Subject: Re: when to add fruit


First of all it is important to remember that we are homebrewers and
can add fruit whenever we want.  But certainly there are points in the
brewing process that are better that others primarily for sanitation 
reasons.  A number of my friends are brewers and we have formed a
small brewing group.  We get together twice a year on a weekend and
make a planned number of brews (as many as 12 batches and as little
as 6).  Our first fuit beer was a variation of the cherry stout recipe
in Charlie Papazian's New Complete Joy of Homebrewing.  Just before
the recipe we following is a recipe called "Cherries in the Snow".
In "Cherries in the Snow" there is a brief procedure to follow for
adding fruit.  This is what we have mostly followed in all of our 
fruit beers.

> What about soaking the fruit in a mixture of alcohol and
> corn sugar before adding to the primary?  Anybody done this?
> It seems that it would create a syrup with more intense
> fruit flavors drawn out, and have the side benefit of
> sterilizing the fruit to some degree...

Most of the time we have added fruit to the end of the boil.  What
I did recently with an apple ale was to chop up 10 lbs of apples and
juice half of that quantity.  I added the apple juice directly to the
boil close to the end of the boil.  I then added the apple chunks 5
minutes before the end of the boil and let it steep for 15 minutes
after boil before transferring the wort into the primary fermenter.
The results were very good.  This will work for both all-grain and
extract recipes. 

Be careful though.  The longer you cook fruit the more it will break
down and the harder it will be to rack the beer into a secondary
fermenter.  This is because the little pieces of fruit in you wort
will clog the racking tube and/or hose. 

Take a look through Papazian's book for "Cherries in the Snow".  It
is an excellent place from which to start.

Dave Arnone
dja at warren.mentorg.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 8:41:59 CDT
From: Kevin Cawley [IL33] <kevinc at wes.mot.com>
Subject: Copper Boiler OK to use?

This is my first post to this illustrious group (have mercy!). 
A friend of mine and I are relatively new extract brewers.
We've brewed about 15 batches (all successful so far) since January.

To the point, we have purchased an old copper double boiler at a antique flea
market to hopefully use in our brewing. It needs alot of cleaning but it will
easily hold 5 gallons of water to brew with. It looks like it was probably
plated on the inside with nickel or tin at one time. This is mosltly worn
off.

Whats the consensus on using copper in brewing? I would think it would be ok
to use for the pre-boiling of water, what about copper coming in contact with
the wort? Any reactions when hops are added?

Private email is fine.
- --
many thanks in advance,

Kevin

email kevinc at wes.mot.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 09:28:31 -0400
From: "Phillip Seitz" <p00644 at psilink.com>
Subject: Brewing Belgian Beers (#6): Triples

Brewing Belgian Beers (#6): Triples

Description:

     1.080-1.095, 7-10% ABV, 18-25 IBU, 3.5-5.5 SRM
     Light or pale color.  Low ester, malt or hop aroma ok.  Low
     hop bitterness or flavor ok.  Malt sweetness in flavor ok. 
     Low esters ok.  Medium to full body.  High carbonation.  No
     diacetyl.  Strength should be evident; alchohol flavor ok. 

Overall this is a strong, very pale beer with a relatively
neutral character.  These beers should have low esters (by
Belgian standards, anyway), and comparatively light body and
flavor for their strength.  Frequently they are somewhat sweet. 
Alchoholic strength should be evident, followed by a subtle mix
of yeast products and hop and malt flavors.  Some commercial
examples are well hopped, but most use hop bitterness sparingly. 
Some spicy (phenol) character is ok.  High carbonation levels are
the norm.


Brewing method:

Standard infusion or step mashing techniques are used, with grain
bills usually consisting only of pilsner malt (or light extract)
and blond sugar.  The comparatively light body is achieved by
substantial additions of sugar in the kettle (several pounds per
5 gallons) and high carbonation.  Hopping levels should be kept
low, with classic varieties preferred.  Some Belgian yeasts may
be too estery or aromatic for these beers, particularly as high
gravity ferments accentuate this.  

One cup of sugar should be used to prime a five gallon batch. 
It's a good idea to add some fresh yeast at bottling time to help
with carbonation; a 1-pint starter is sufficient.

As with all beers of this strength, high pitching rates and good
aeration are a must.  Low fermentation temperatures (65F or
lower) should be used to avoid creation of headache-causing
fusels.

Extract brewers should have no trouble making good triples


Common problems:

1) Solvent flavors.  Fermentation temperature too high, poor
     yeast health (under pitching) or both.

2) Body too full.  Decrease malt and increase sugar portions of
     OG.

3) Insufficient carbonation Increase priming sugar, or add a
     dose of fresh yeast at bottling.


Commerical examples:

Brugse Tripel (9.5% ABV), Affligem Tripel (9% ABV),
Grimbergen Tripel (8.13% ABV), Steenbrugge Tripel (9% ABV)


Sample recipes:

Delano Dugarm's Batch #28 Tripple (Extract recipe for 5
     gallons) ADUGARM at WORLDBANK.ORG

3 1.5 kg boxes of Northwest Gold liquid extract
1.5 lbs corn sugar
1.3 oz Hallertau (4%) boiled 60 minutes
0.3 oz Saaz (3%) boiled 60 minutes
0.3 oz Saaz (3%) boild 2 minutes
Wyeast Belgian yeast

OG: About 1.080
FG: Wasn't paying attention

Full boil for 60 minutes, cool and pitch slurry from 1.5
quart culture.  Ferment very cool (60 degrees F).  Rack to
secondary and bottle when ready.

[Phil's note: this was the first homebrew *I* ever had that
tasted like a real Belgian.  A wonderful experience.]


Charlie Gow's St. Egregious Tripel (all grain for 5 gallons)
CGOW at MAILSTORM.DOT.GOV

1.5 lbs   Belgian pale ale malt (ran out of pilsner!)
13.25 lbs Belgian pilsner malt
1.1 lbs   Belgian blond candy sugar

1.3 oz    Kent Goldings (5.1%), boiled for 60 minutes
0.4 oz    Saaz (4.2%) boild for 5 minutes

Ferment with Wyeast Belgian White yeast (#3944)

OG: 1.096
FG: 1.012
SRM: 4.1
IBU: 19

Mash in at 130F and hold at 124F for a 45 minute protein
rest.  Boost to 154F for 90 minute starch conversion rest. 
Mash out for 10 minutes at 165F.  Sparge to collect 6
gallons and boil for 90 minutes, adding candy sugar at the
beginning of the boil.  Force cool to 64F and pitch dregs of
a 1.5 liter starter of Wyeast #3994 Belgian White Beer
yeast.  
     Primary fermentation lasted 8 days at 62F.  Secondary
lasted 16 days at 60F.  Prime with 1 cup dextrose.

[Phil's note: at a recent advanced judging class for Belgian
beers this brew was tasted alongside Affligem, Brugse Tripel
and Grimbergen, and preferred over these by many of those
present]

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 09:50:18 EDT
From: Mark A. Stevens <stevens at stsci.edu>
Subject: Re: Mill test


In HBD 1504, Ulick Stafford (ulick at ulix.rad.nd.edu),
writes:

> I notice the Mill test was finally mentioned by, no surprise, you know who.
> And he complained that no recommendation was made, tsck, tsck.  Now,
> I think the test was the ultimate in pointlessness, because there is
> no way Zymurgy, who accepts advertising money from the manufacturers
> could give a biased response.  And when they said that the Corona was
> closer than any of the mills in the test to the 6 row mill parameters
> they were using as a gauge, it became close to a joke.  However, I did
> read a number of things between the lines
 . (stuff deleted)
 .
> If I were you know who, I would be more than happy with the review, useless
> and all as it was.

I disagree. 

Jack brought up some good points and I think he's entirely right that
the review is totally worthless. Recommendations should have been made,
and without them, the article comes off as incompetent fluff. A *GOOD*
review would have set up some sort of criteria ahead of time and
measured each mill with respect to those criteria. Bar charts could
be done showing graphically how each mill stands up against the
others. Screen tests are an easily measured result. Force needed
to crank handle might be a criterion. Durability and construction
perhaps...cost certainly. Let each mill stand up on its own merits.
I'm sure that Jack's ***MALTMILL*** would do fine in all of the
technical aspects, and the cost factor can be left up to the
buyer to decide if the better performance is worth the additional
cost. 

Bottom line: Zymurgy should be serving the READERS not the
advertisers, and we should have a right to decent reviews.
Right on, Jack!!



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 08:41:41 -0600
From: Mark <markc at ssd.fsi.com>
Subject: Gott Cooler Spigot

Now that I've gott my gott cooler, what are you guys using to convert
that pushbutton spigot to a controllable valve.  I tried a plastic 
one like on my fermenter, but it leaks.  Is there one that doesn't
require any drilling of the cooler, etc?  Thanks for the clues.

mark

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 07:04:40 -0700
From: pascal at netcom.com (Conan-the-Librarian)
Subject: Breweries in Antarctica ?


Hi. I'm travelling to Antarctica this winter ( summer, by their view :-),
via Mexico City, Caracas, Rio De Janeiro, Buenos Aires and Cape Horn, via
nuclear submarine.

Of course, on the way I'll be stopping in every single eff'ing brewery I
can find, asking stupid questions, taking pictures, and playing tourist.
( Also getting drunk and selling naval secrets, of course. )

Unfortunately, I can't hack using a phone book. Can everyone give me some
pointers to all those great breweries you've found crawling around in the
South American and Antarctic continents ?

I understand that lagers are common, although many prefer Penguin Coladas.

I'll be happy to summarize replies, provided they are repeatable.	(-:

< sarcasm alert for the humor-impaired >


- -- richard

                 Law : The science of assigning responsibility.
              Politics : The art of _distributing_ responsibility.

   richard childers        san francisco, california        pascal at netcom.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:27:49 EST
From: hethmon at apac12.ag.utk.edu (Paul Hethmon)
Subject: New Brewpub Review (Knoxvil

  New Brewpub Review (Knoxville, Tennessee)

Well, last night (Aug 17) I had the pleasure of dining at Knoxville's
newest (and only) brewpub, the Smoky Mountain Brewing 
Company. I'll try and give some descriptions, but please pardon 
my knowledge (or lack of) styles.

The brewery and restaurant is located in downtown Knoxville
on Gay Street for those of you that are familiar with the area.
You enter the main floor from the stree entrance and have 
the bar area right in front of you. Seating stretches around
the perimeter. The brewing equipment is right past the bar
toward the back of the building. They've got two copper vessels
about 10 to 12 foot tall. You can actually walk up and touch
them. I didn't talk to anyone from the brewing end of the
business, so I'll end this part right here.

Next, the beer. Last night, they had 3 beers on tap. The first
we tried was the Peach Beer. This was a fruit ale with a very
nice aroma of peach as you raised the glass. The beer itself
almost had a peachy tone to it. I enjoyed the beer, as did my
wife, but my lack of style knowledge shows up here. The 
beer was smooth with a nice head and a very nice peach 
mellow peach taste. The aroma of peach was actually stronger
than the taste.

The second beer was a wheat beer. This was the first wheat
beer I've had and I enjoyed it. Smooth, full bodied would be
how I would describe it.

The last beer was a porter. Very dark, low carbonation with
a mild bite to it. I don't have a reference to compare it
to (Knoxville is a beer wasteland) but it was a winner in
my book.

I also want to mention a bit about the food before this post gets
too long. The menu has an English bent (at least to this
American :-) with such items as "Poacher's Pie", "Toad in a Hole",
and "Lancashire Shepherd's Pie". I tried a dish entitled
"Coat of Arms Chicken" which is marinated and basted with
a Raspberry-Orange Glaze, grilled, and served with a herb
rice. As a side dish, "Welsh Country-Style Cole Slaw" was
served. Very delicious. My wife had a spinach pesto dish 
which was good, but not to different for Knoxville. 

The place is already a success. Since they opened on August
8, without any advertising, they've had dinner waits
of one to two hours. We had to wait a hour to be seated and
another hour before we had all of our food, but worth it.
For those that are interested, from newspaper and other
places, the proprieters invested something like 1.5 million
in the business including buying their building, remodeling,
brewing equipment, etc.

If you come throught Knoxville, give it a try.





Paul Hethmon
hethmon at apac.ag.utk.edu
Agricultural Policy Analysis Center
615-974-3666


Return to table of contents


Date: 18 Aug 1994 07:30:07 GMT
From: "THOMAS L. STOLFI" <OBCTS at CWEMAIL.CECO.COM>
Subject: Des Moines, IA Brewpubs


     I have a friend going to Des Moines, lucky guy, for a wedding and he
     would like to kill a few hours at a brewpub.  If you know of any
     brewpubs in the area please email me directly at
     OBCTS at CWEMAIL.CECO.COM.  Thanks in advance.

     Tom Stolfi
     obcts at cwemail.ceco.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:57:41 -0600
From: evanms at lcac1.loras.edu (Mark Evans)
Subject: BrewHumor

Jerry Writes in the August 18th HBD about the consequences of "homebrew
expansion:"

>>    * New House    - Since I don't have room for additional frig - 
$175,000

    * Divorce - if my wife ever reads this = half? of my net worth = $20

    Grand Total = $175,850.  So, $275 doesn't seem that bad.  My apologies 
for this frivolousness.

 - Jerry

Within a group that--judging from the digest itself--either takes itself
too seriously (too often) or enjoys lighting the illicit "flame," I'm
pleased to see a bit of humor.  I laughed out loud!  Thanks.   
Brewfully. Mark Evans
signature (footnote) removed  :-)



Return to table of contents


Date:         Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:21:13 CDT
From: Ed Blonski <S851001 at UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU>
Subject:      Fermenting Lagers?

Greetings fellow brewers.

Here's my newbie question:

 I just got a Marzen Lager going and I'm doing a two stage fermentation. Am I
doing this right? If a lager is bottomfermenting, how do I rack it into my
secondary? First stage is a plastic bucket, second stage is a glass carboy.
It's sitting in my lager fridge right now in a bucket with lock at 44 degrees.

Maybe I'm not even asking the question right. E-mail is fine.

Thanks!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
better people - better food - better beer                        +
why move around the world when Eden was so near?                 +
Ed Blonski   <s851001 at umsla.umsl.edu>                            +
(is this sig line acceptable?)                                   +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:29:47 EST
From: turner at cel.cummins.com (Turner)
Subject: Irish Moss / Straining / Filtering

Neophyte Stupid Question #42:

When using Irish Moss as a clarifying agent, should the wort be strained? Is a
kitchen strainer sufficient, or should something more fine like a juice strainer
or coffee filter?

My last batch (#3) was the first in which I tried Irish Moss. My buddy and I
figured that if we strained it out it wouldn't work, so we just dumped it into
the primary fermenter (plastic). I just racked it into the secondary (glass) and
there was a lot of clumps of hops etc. I tried to avoid sucking it up, but some
innevitably got through.

Now I am thinking of running it through a coffee filter when racking from the 
secondary to the bottling bucket. Good idea?

Comments can be sent directly to me and I will summarize as best I can.

Steve Turner                                              turner at cel.cummins.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:24:46 -0500
From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: Yield

I have found that the two most important operational variables affecting
yield are the mash pH and the time/temperature program used.

For infusion mashes I have found that it is highly advantageous to keep
the mash pH at 5.4 or lower. Decoction mashes appear to be more forgiving
in this regard. The negative effects of a high mash (and wort) pH are
numerous, and I plan to treat this subject in great detail in my new book.

It appears that yield (which is a measure of the extent we dissolve grain
carbs.) is strongly influenced by the lower temperatures used, while the
composition of the carbohydrates dissolved (i.e., % fermentability) is
influenced by the higher temperatures. The following batch is typical of
the results I have been getting with highly modified malt.

   Data
         brew size = 15.5 gals
         total water = 9.5 gals in mash + 9.5 gals for sparging
         grain bill : 24 lbs. D-C Pale Ale malt
                       2 lbs. D-C Caravienne
                       1 lb.  D-C Aromatic

   Temperature Program

         40C (104F) - 30 mins.- 24 lbs. base malt + 6.5 gals. water
         
         Transition 40 to 60C - add 3 gals. of boiling water - add 
             adjunct malts at the end as a brake - less than 5 mins.
             is needed

          Note - I now feel (with Narziss) that the time spent in the
             range 45-55C should be keep below 15 mins. if highly
             modified malt is used.

          60C (140F) - 30 mins.

          Transition 60 to 70C - external heat is needed and this can 
             be done in 15 mins.

          70C (158F) - 30 mins.

   Mash Data
 
          Vol = 9.5 gals.
          % extract = 22P (i.e., 22 grms extract per 100 grams mash)
          SG =1.092

   Converting to wt/vol and US units the % extract comes out to 62.24
   lbs/bbl. (~2 lbs/gal). This means that the mash has
 
          62.24*9.5/31 = 19.1 lbs. extract.

   Yield in commercial units is 

          19.1 * 100/27 = 70.7%.

   Yield in homebrew units is

          92 *9.5 /27 = 32.3 pts/(lbs/gal).

   The value of the rest at 40C can not be understated. The rise in SG
   in this mash is almost 3 times faster than what I get when this rest
   is omitted. The final mash yield is ~20 % higher. Clearly there
   is a lot of favorable activity going on including preparation of the
   enzyme systems, beta glucanase activity, and highly favorable enzymatically
   assisted grain liquefaction.

   This wort clears up very quickly (for European malts), and after ~2 gals.
   of recirculation it will change from a milkly turbidity to a moderate see
   through clarity. The 1st wort is then run into the kettle until 1 inch of
   liquid covers the grain surface. At this point sparging is started
   with the inflow and outflow rates adjusted to ~1/3 gals/min. It is of course
   very important to maintain the liquid cover of the grain bed. After ~30
   mins. the sparge water is depleted, and the outflow is increased to
    ~1 gal/min. The following is typical data at kettle full:

                   Vol = 17 gals.
                   % extract = 12.3 P
                   SG = 1.050.

    Repeating the above calculations, this means that 18.3 lbs. of extract
    was carried over to the kettle. The losses in sparging were

                   water = 19 -17 = 2 gals.
                   extract = 19.1 -18.3 =.8 lbs.

     By using a slower runoff and a higher fraction of sparge water it is
     likely one could leach most of the residual extract out of the grains.
     I choose not to do this because this is not the way I brew. The finished
     wort in the fermenter typically cames out as follows:

                   Vol = 15.5 gals. 
                   % extract = 13.3 P
                   SG =1.053
  
      This means that a final yield of 30.4 pts was obtained. With a single
      temperature mash (or 60-70 combo) this would have dropped into the
      26-28 pts/(lbs/gal) range.

      The % fermentability as determined by a liter sized forced fermentation
      at 30C usually gives an ADF near 79% (RDF = 65%). This means that
      FG limit is 1.011. The ale strain that I am using does not completely
      ferment maltotriose, so I usually wind up a 1.012 to 1.013 in this 
      context. The ADF is greatly influenced by the times spent at 60 and
      70C. E.g., 15 mins. at 60 followed by 45 mins at 70 will typically
      drop the ADF into the low 70s. The reverse will increase it into the
      mid 80s. For my ale strain spending at least 15 mins. at 60C is
      crucial for it greatly increases the maltose/maltotriose ratio.

      I strongly prefer moderately modified malt for lager beer, and I have
      found that a protein rest at 50C (122F) has numerous advantages. I have
      done test brews with a 40-50-60-70 schedule, but little is gained in 
      yield over a 50-60-70 program. I personally am going to stick with the
      latter since among other things half of the 3 gals of transition
      water can be used to go from 50 to 60, while the other half can be
      used to go from 60 to 70. Thus very little external heat need be
      applied to the mash. Another point I have noticed is that most lager
      yeast are insensitive to maltose/ maltotriose ratios. W-34/70 for
      example starts taking in maltotriose at the same time it takes in
      maltose, and metabolizes both sugars at approximately the same rate.
      Thus the rest at 60C can be used with such strains simply to adjust
      ADF.

          
      George Fix



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 11:06:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: gellym at aviion.persoft.com (brewing chemist Mitch)
Subject: slotted screen and gigantic sigs

Howdy.

Does anyone know of a good supplier of that *beautiful* slotted screen for
a lauter tun ? You know, that stainless v-wire type screen. I am looking to
upgrade from the old perforated screens. 

Also, in HBD 1504, pauldore at delphi.com gripes:

> If have seen some peoples messages containing HUGE footnotes. Keep them
> smaller because it wastes space in the HBD and that inturn makes the HBD
> issues smaller and it takes longer for messages to appear.
>  
> Yes you should leave your name an email address at the end of a message, but
> why have a 10-20 line farewell message. Example:
>  
> [-----------------------------------][---------------------------------]
> [                                                                      ]
> [                        Blah Blah Blah University                     ]

Hey! I went to BBBU ! Is this some sort of crack ???

I suggest moving this to alt.flame.gigantic-sigs. I usually draw the line 
when a sig takes up more than one screenful. Other than that, a sig is part
of a persons net-personality. We can't like everyone we meet. Life is harsh
(particularly when you have to pay for your feed, eh?)

Moving on,

Mitch

- -- 
|                       - Mitch Gelly -                        | Zack Norman |
|  software QA specialist, systems administrator, zymurgist,   |     is      |
| AHA/HWBTA beer judge, & president of the Madison Homebrewers |  Sammy in   |
|      - gellym at aviion.persoft.com - gelly at persoft.com -       | Chief Zabu  |

Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1506, 08/20/94