HOMEBREW Digest #1514 Wed 31 August 1994
Digest #1513
Digest #1515
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Boiling off alcohol in beer (Clay Glenn)
Re: Advertising on HBD (djt2)
Belgian Beer Series/Hops Stuff (npyle)
Sparge Rate (Jack Schmidling)
References, Indices, New D-C Maltings (George J Fix)
Dishwasher Bottle Washing (Jack Skeels)
non-alcoholic brew (Richard Lahusen)
Please Resend ("OAKQM3")
Homebrew on the www (DAVIN SLADE)
Brewing Schools, again... (Ash Baker)
INBOX Message (See Below) (Mailer.MC1)
hop rates? hop schedules? (sean v. taylor)
Kegging question/ not in faq (Spencer.W.Thomas)
Learning tastes in beer (Dr Beer) (Spencer.W.Thomas)
My Slow London Ale Yeast Mixed with a Belgian Yeast (Chris Strickland)
Chilling wort in hot weather ("geo")
Use of gelatin for cleari (Jeff Guillet)
Wyeast #1968 Questions (PAULDORE)
Other uses for Hops..... (PAULDORE)
Southern New England BPs/Micros request (uswlsrap)
5 gallon Gott is too small (Ulick Stafford)
Re: Kegging question/ not in faq ("Mark B. Alston")
******************************************************************
** 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: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 10:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: clayglen at netcom.com (Clay Glenn)
Subject: Boiling off alcohol in beer
First off, I'd like to thank Jack Schmidling for the periodic
posting of his file on how to brew a low alcohol beer. I've tried
the procedure and I have some observations and hypotheses to throw
out for discussion.
The procedure involves fermenting the wort as usual, then before
priming and bottling, reheating the solution to boil off most of
the alcohol. Since this will kill off all the active yeasties, you
have to pitch some fresh yeast along with the priming sugar
solution after everything cools down to room temp.
I decided to try out the procedure about two months ago. I made up
a batch of amber ale, and at bottling time I bottled half the batch
normally. The other half I drained back into the brew pot and
started heating it up. As it heated, thick foam/head started
forming on the surface. I assumed this was due to the alcohol
boiling out of the solution. I continued to heat it up (uncovered)
to about 185F, then kept it at that temp for about 20 minutes and
turned off the heat. When it had cooled back down to about 160F,
I covered the pot and let it cool overnight.
The next morning I pitched about a half-teaspoon of the dry yeast
that I had saved originally, into the half of the priming sugar
solution that I had left. After it was well dissolved and stirred,
I gently stirred it into the boiled beer solution and then bottled
as usual.
The results were that the "normal" beer cleared normally,
carbonated normally, and tastes pretty "normal". The boiled beer
did not clear (now two months in the bottle!), has almost no
carbonation (nearly flat), but still tastes pretty good.
Here is my first hypothesis on why the beer did not clear. My
understanding is that live yeasts tend to "clump" together
(flocculate) and then drop out of the beer, settling to the bottom
of the bottle. My guess is that the boiling process killed off the
yeast, which then didn't "clump" as usual. Thus they remain
suspended in the beer, leaving it very cloudy. Perhaps adding more
Irish Moss during this extra boil would have collected the dead
yeasts together and aided in clearing. I'll try that next time.
My second hypothesis is on why the beer came out nearly flat. When
the beer is in the fermenter, a lot of CO2 is produced. At
bottling time, the beer is saturated with CO2 and the small amount
of extra CO2 that is generated during bottle conditioning provides
the carbonation for the beer. My guess is that by boiling the
beer, I drove off all of the CO2 that is normally the starting
point for bottle conditioning, creating a "CO2 void". To fill this
"void" and get carbonation, greater than normal priming sugar
should have been used. How much more? 50% more? Double? More
experimentation is needed here.
Now I get to the troubling question: How much alcohol did I boil
off? I haven't taken the beer samples to a chemist for analysis.
I don't even know where to get this kind of analysis done. Now I
am not a chemist (although I play one on the Net), but I do
remember a little bit from my college chemistry and thermodynamics
courses. As I recall, if you have two liquids in solution which
have different boiling points, a mixture of the two liquids will
have a boiling point somewhere between the two separate boiling
temperatures.
Here is an example. If pure water boils at 100C, and ethyl alcohol
boils at 80C (just guessing here), then a 50/50 mix of water and
alcohol might boil at around 90C (assuming for a moment that the
gradient is approximately linear). If this is true, then we can
calculate the boiling point for beer (which is approximately 95%
water and 5% alcohol), to be about 99C. As the solution boils and
the alcohol leaves, the boiling point will rise to 100C. Actual
temperatures would probably be a bit higher since there is still
some unfermented sugar and other "stuff" in the beer. We'll
neglect the affect of these other constituents for now.
This analysis would suggest that until I reach 99C, I don't really
start to boil off the alcohol from my beer. And that the total
boiling point shift that I am looking for is only about one degree
Celsius! So now my questions are, did I boil off ANY significant
alcohol? Since I only heated it to 185F (85C), did that really
accomplish anything? What was the foam that was produced during
the process? Was it just the CO2 being released from solution? My
guess is that the only thing I accomplished was to create cloudy,
flat beer without really reducing the alcohol measurably.
I would like any comments, expecially from someone who knows a bit
more about chemistry than I do. Is there some flaw to my logic
which says that you don't really start boiling the alcohol until
about 99C? Am I overlooking some crucial point? Or did I just
waste my time by boiling off a bunch of CO2 leaving me with flat
cloudy beer?
While we're at it, if I put the beer in a sealed pot (like a
pressure cooker) and hooked up a vacuum pump to draw off the
pressure, can I get the boiling point low enough to boil off the
alcohol without killing the yeast or "cooking" the beer?. If so,
what pressure would I have to draw down to, to get it to boil at
perhaps 90F to 100F? (Wow! Five "to's" in one sentence. Is that
a record?)
Anybody got any good ideas?
- --
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ O
>>> Clay Glenn clayglen at netcom.com >>> /|\
/////////////////////////////////////////// /'\
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 13:34:48 -0400
From: djt2 at po.cwru.edu
Subject: Re: Advertising on HBD
Hey, "Lynne O'Connor" <stpats at bga.com>
Let's keep the advertising off of HBD. *Very* bad behaviour, that.
By the way, that is not just a suggestion, that is the stated role of the
internet, even if you have a .com account.
dennis
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 12:10:09 MDT
From: npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM
Subject: Belgian Beer Series/Hops Stuff
Scott writes:
>Has anyone compiled all of the Belgian beer postings that have appeared
>recently? My e-mail system makes it really difficult to cut and paste
>things together, so I was wondering if someone could e-mail me a copy.
If anybody has this, it would make a nice addition to the sierra archives; it
was a really nice series.
**
Regarding my post, Don O'Connor wrote:
>There was a post by Norm Pyle regarding the information in the St.
>Patrick's catalog concerning hops. To be honest I'm confused. The
>catalog seems to say almost precisely what Norm says. St. Pat's catalog
>states explicitly that "It is the packaging that keeps it fresh, not its
>form." St. Pat's has been warning brewers for months about hop plugs
>that are not good because they are not packaged properly.
Here's a direct quote from the St. Pats catalog on my desk (dated March 25,
1994):
"The only whole hops I stock now are hop plugs. Loose whole hops don't sell
because homebrewers are now well aware of the superior quality of hop plug
packaging. Hops are pressed into 1/2 ounce plugs and _foil wrapped in packs_
of 10."
Saying that "loose whole hops don't sell" is wrong, plain and simple. Saying
that "homebrewers are now well aware of the superior quality of hop plug
packaging" is one of those "facts" that can't be proven. *This* homebrewer is
well aware that oxygen barrier packaging is key, and that yes, foil wrapping
is very good for this, but so is other packaging. Who's to say what other
homebrewers are "well aware" of? Oxygen barrier packaging is used for loose
whole hops these days, and used very well. The hop plug packaging is no
better than a good O2-barrier plastic used for loose whole hops, IMHO. I
just think that, for whatever reason, St. Pats likes to stock plugs, and
their catalog is trying hard to imply that plugs are the best. I consider
them a reasonable substitute when I can't find fresh whole hops, but only
then.
**
Todd Swanson writes:
>I've read the Hop FAQ (good job and thanks to all who participated in that
>venture) and I want some more info. I'm dissatisfied with my local
>suppliers
>hops (read not fresh, sometimes yellow, uncertain age) and want some
>recommendations of mail order suppliers so I don't have to put up with bad
>hops. There were a few mentioned in the FAQ but no addresses or phone #s.
Beers to you, Todd, for reading the FAQ first! Here's a list of suppliers I
have handy. There's other good ones I don't have handy, but this should
help:
The Hop Source
11886 Paradise Alley Road NE
Silverton, OR 97381
HopTech
P.O. Box 2172
Danville, CA 94526
Oops, I thought I had more than that. Hope this helps.
>How can one tell if oxygen barrier packaging is being used? Is this sort of
>packaging detectable by eye or does it require more subtile testing?
Oxygen barrier bags use a thick plastic which is almost soapy feeling. I
don't know what the plastic is made of, but here's what makes it obvious:
aroma, or the lack thereof. If you cannot smell the hops, then you can be
sure it is a barrier package. I bought some hops from The Hop Source a few
months ago and when they arrived, the first thing I noticed was that you
couldn't smell a thing. This is goodness. If you can smell the hops through
the package (at all) then keep looking for someone who'll pack it better.
>I live in Nebraska (read, hot summers). Will hops exposed to the high
>temperatures of a summer shipment be seriously damaged? Or are shipping
>temps. not a concern?
All temps are a concern, but you can't do much about it during shipping.
The reactions take place wrt temperature AND time, so if you pay more for
faster shipping, you're better off. Then, just keep them cool at home and
they should be fine. It beats the alternative of waiting for winter to
brew!
Cheers,
Norm npyle at hp7013.ecae.stortek.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:17 CDT
From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Sparge Rate
>From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
>In any case a sparging period of 3*9.5 = 28.5 mins. to process 9.5 gals of
sparge water is what I use as a target. How all this shakes out for`copper
coils or for that fact the EM is anyones guess. Very likely different
considerations are needed.
I am not sure it would be useful to develop a formula as the EM is pretty
well defined. The following numbers are from a batch I made a few months ago
with`an EM in a 10 gal Polar kettle.
14 lbs D-K Munich Malt
5 gallons mash water
First seven gallons.... 60 min
Total ten gallons.... 72 min
That's an average of 7.2 minutes per gallon.
I netted 13 gal at 1.044 for an extract of 31 pts.
Please note that this is a worst case because the flow rate was actually
determined by my ability to heat sparge water in the EASYSPARGER. The spigot
is throttled back to this rate.
On a different batch I measured the actual wide open flow rate and it was 13
secs for 1 cup or 3.46 min per gal. This is amazingly close to George's
numbers but both of these batches were made in Jan so I could not have cooked
the numbers.
I don't have the total time for this batch but it had a more traditional
grain bill and an extract of 33 pts.
I suppose one of these days, I will have to find some way to heat up ten
gallons of sparge water just to see how fast one could sparge with an EM but
the ES habit is a tough one to break even if it takes a little longer.
js
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:56:41 -0500
From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: References, Indices, New D-C Maltings
I been asked for specific references on Dr. Narziss' work on malt
and mashing. IMHO the most informative are the following:
1. "Comments on some taste factors in Beer", Brauwelt, Vol.IV, 1992.
2. "Qualitative and Quantitative aspects of Mashing ", Brauwelt,
Vol. III, 1993.
The first discusses (among other things) the negative effects on a beer's
malt flavor arising from excessive protein modification. The second discusses
his ideas on how malt with a high degree of protein modification is best
mashed.
I have been asked about the comment in M+Br. Sci. (p.260) that malt whose
Kolbach index is in the range 37-40% is overmodified. It is my belief that
this is possibly a typo. The German malts I have been playing around with
(Durst, Irek, and the new one from Stuttgart) range from 36-38%, and the
original D-C Pils malt (according to the Siebel data) came in at 38%. For
these a protein rest is highly advantageous. Narziss is taking about malts
whose Kolbach indices are in the 40s. BTW this index is virtually the same
as soluble protein as % of total protein (which is sometimes shortened to
the "S to T ratio").
I have also been getting some e-mail from people expressing some
disappointment with the malt flavors they are getting with lagers made using
D-C Pils malt. Terms like "dull" and "neutral" have been used to describe
the effect. I personally have been busy comparing the ones from Germany,
and have not brewed with the D-C version for some time. I got a copy of
Schreier's new malt analysis sheets to see what changes might have occurred
over the original version with which I have the most practical experience.
The assortment data looks terrific (those using floor maltings always always
seem to get nice uniformly plump kernels!). The protein level is at 10%, which
is in the dead middle of DeClerck's preferred range of 9-11%. The bad news is
seen in the modification data. As far as starch modification is concerned,
just about all brewers (lager or ale) prefer a high degree. One index that
is used for this is the fine/coarse grind extract difference. The D-C Pils
comes in at 2.2%, which is a tad high and indicates a slight undermodification
of grain starch. The other D-C malts come in at 1.5 or lower which is ideal.
The original version of the D-C Pils malt came in at 1.7, which also gets
good marks. Perhaps this change may explain some of the yield problems with
the new version which have been communicated to me. (In general, the lower
the f/c grind difference, the higher the degree of starch modification and
the easier it is to extract carbohydrates).
The protein modification is exactly the reverse, and the S/T of the new D-C
malt of 48.6 is the highest I have ever seen for commercial malt of any type.
E.g., domestic malts and malts from Canada typically are in the range 40-43%.
The D-C ale malt comes in at 43%, which is close to values I have seen
for H-B and M+F's pale ale malts. Values I have seen for Maris Otter range
from 42-43%. Even British maltsters would regard anything over 45% as
undesirable overmodification.
I promptly called Arthur Spurlock at Schreier, who BTW was very helpful and
friendly (Schreier is indeed a great company!). His own measurements indicate
that the Kolbach index is lower than the values quoted, but still in the mid
40s. The references cited above have hinted than many of the new spring 2 rowed
varieties (e.g., Alexis) are displaying a tendency toward a high degree of
protein modification even with continental Pils malting procedures. This
means that the current situation with the D-C Pils malt may soon be typical
of most lager malt from Europe. The practical significance of this for us
is unknown to me, and I have no way of telling if this is the real problem
behind the complaints. Current research points clearly to the desirability
of having a high degree of starch modification without protein
overmodification, and these new varieties seem to displaying the reverse.
Narziss (reference 2) says in effect that not to worry for altered mashing
schedules can overcome any difficulities. I for one need to get some of
the new D-C pils and brew with it.
BTW Alexis is a hybrid from Triumph (I believe it called Trumpf on the
continent) and wild barley. Triumph made some great malt in its day, but
now appears to be on the way out. It never displayed a tendency to protein
overmodification, and many feel this property in the new varieties (all
Triumph hybrids) may be coming from genetic material in the wild barley.
George Fix
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:46 EST
From: Jack Skeels <0004310587 at mcimail.com>
Subject: Dishwasher Bottle Washing
"BRCMRC.BRMAIN.MMENDENH" asked about using a dishwasher to sterilize
bottles. Well Mr. BRCMRC, (if that's _really_ what your name is) here's my
2 Yens worth....
I've been using the dishwasher for the last ten or so batches, and it works
great:
1) I use B-Brite and nothing else
2) I rinse and scrub all bottles with a bottle brush to remove any
yeast crud
3) I use the power-blaster setting with heated drying
4) I let the bottles cool for a couple of hours before I try to use
them.
5) I have removed all rinse aids, and don't use anything except plain
Cascade for the dishes that precede my bottle batch. I had a batch
with poor bubbles in the head that I attribute to rinse aid con-
tamination
6) When I bottle I just pick the bottle out of the washer, fill and cap
(Well, my wife does a lot of it, but you get the idea....)
Hope this helps!
BTW, say "hi" to the missus and little BRCMRC.BRMAIN.MMENDENH junior (or did
you give him a different middle name?) ;-)
Jack Skeels
JSKEELS at MCIMAIL.COM
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 14:14:50 -0700
From: rlahusen at pwavan.wr.usgs.gov (Richard Lahusen)
Subject: non-alcoholic brew
I have been interested in making a DRINKABLE na also.
I think dry hopping and force-carbonation would REALLY help!!!
Alas, I have lots of ideas but no time to implement them, improving my
microprocessor controlled RIMS circuit is of higher importance!!!
For those interested, here is a little info on boiling points vs pressure.
Sorry about the units, this is how they are put out in my texts.
Boiling points for water and ethanol at selected pressures:
PRESSURE BOILING POINT, in degrees C
mm, Hg Water Ethanol
10 11 -3
40 34 19 (room temp.)
100 51 35 (body temp.)
400 83 64
760(atmospheric)100 78
Conversion factors:
psi= mm Hg x (.01934 )
inches water= mm Hg x (.535)
degrees F= (degrees C x 1.8) + 32
I suggest shooting for a body temp. removal needing a vacuum of
100mm Hg absolute. That is about 26 inches Hg less than atmospheric.
Vacuum pumps are typically rated in inches Hg reduction from atmos.
Allowing an additional inch of vac for leaks, aging seals, etc I would target
a minimum 27 inch Hg vacuum.
Options and sources for vacuum pumps:
Plastic aspirator
1) Nalgene vacuum pump $5.85
Fisher Scientific Cat. No. 09-960-2
Offices all over country - look in phone book or
get their 800 # from 1 800 555-1212
Disadvantage: Uses about 2 gal/min water
Advantage: No moving parts to corrode or wear out
Max. vacuum 28.5" Hg below atmos.
Metal aspirator
2) Nickel-plated brass aspirator $35.00
Fisher Sci. Cat. No. 09-956
Motor driven
3) Lots of choices $300 to $3000
More expensive units generate very high vacuums and
high volumes for ethanol extraction at room temp.
Advantage: Greater vac. possible, no water used
Disadvantage: Cost, maintenance, noise
Low cost - Low water-use alternative:
4)Get an aspirator and a water pump and a water tank
RECYCLE the water again and again
(Not an original idea, commercial units do this)
Advantage: water pumps are much less $$$$
Disadvantage: uses more electricity than a vacuum pump.
Hope this helps!
Rick L.
Return to table of contents
Date: 26 Aug 1994 02:19:04 U
From: "OAKQM3" <OAKQM3 at oakqm3.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Please Resend
Mail*Link(r) SMTP Homebrew Digest #1511 (August 26,
!!!! Original Message >= 24K; See following enclosure. Preview follows !!!!
HOMEBREW Digest #1511 Fri 26 August 1994
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
UK Homebrewers' Association (G.A.Cooper)
Belgian Beer postings (BUKOFSKY)
Propane cookers (smtplink!guym)
thermostat (CLAY)
1994 THIRSTY Homebrew Competition (Wolfe)
AHA and ignorance of homebrewing's legality (tfirey)
Mills Zymurgy (Jack Schmidling)
Mills Zymurgy (Jack Schmidling)
thanks / Tumbleweed & Richbrau (Chris Lovelace)
Celis White Clone and Cleaning Brushed Stainless Steel Oven tops (Dean J
Miller)
Victoria Beer Festival ("Phil Atkinson")
Results, California State Fair (Martin Lodahl)
George Fix yield posting (Chuck E. Mryglot)
Maltings near Milwaukee ("CANNON_TOM")
They're picking hops in the Pacific NW (Glenn Tinseth)
Zymurgy's Fall Issue (Dennis Davison)
exciting post #1 ("Lynne O'Connor")
really exciting post #2 ("Lynne O'Connor")
Re: Wyeast Ale Yeasts (Tel +44 784 443167)
Re: Fuller's ESB Clone (Tel +44 784 443167)
A Great Many Thanks (Thomas Junier)
Portland Microbrews (DrewStorms)
Semi-closed Systems (Chris Strickland)
Available: Saaz hop rhizome (Mark Evans)
Brits and Wyeast / Blow your Horn (npyle)
Brewing in Louisiana (David P. Atkins)
Need Hop Help! (Todd Swanson)
finings and bitter taste (Barry Allen, Industrial Engineering)
******************************************************************
** NOTE: There will be no digest administration from August 15
** through August 26. PLEASE be patient when requesting changes
** or cancellations.
******************************************************************
**Please send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests to BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU**
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
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: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:06:55 +0100 (BST)
From: G.A.Cooper at greenwich.ac.uk
Subject: UK Homebrewers' Association
Simon_W._Bedwell at metro.mactel.org (Simon W. Bedwell) writes:
>This post is mainly directed at UK HBD'ers, but any ideas from the wider HBD
>community would be very welcome.
My reply is also mainly (but not exclusively) for the UK HBDers
>I have been chatting to a fellow UK HBD'er, Brian Gowland, about the
>possibility of producing a UK Homebrew Newsletter. The newsletter would
I think that is an interesting idea. The problem you might have is
publicity. But read on.. you might find one way of reaching some people...
>such a newsletter would also stimulate interest in both local and national
>brewing competitions, and provide the impetus necessary to start a UK
>Hombrewers' Association.
There are already several local/regional homebrew competitions in the UK
and a national one. The national one (1992 in Weston-super-mare, 1993
Blackpool, 1994 Scarborough, 1995 North Wales are the recent ones) is
organised by the National Association of Wine and Beer Makers (NAWB for
short) which this year attracted around 3500 bottles of wine plus 1000
bottles of beer. As you see, the organisation is both wine and beer with a
heavy bias in numbers on the wine side, but the beer entries are not
trivial and the standard is very high.
The bias towards wine is also reflected in the qualified judges in the UK.
The National Guild of Wine and Beer Judges (NGWBJ) has around 300 members
of which around 50 are beer judges (the others being wine judges) and
membership is by examination. Most amateur wine and beer
- ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by oakqm3.sps.mot.com with SMTP;26 Aug 1994 02:18:49 U
Received: by motsps.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.1)
id AA21300; Fri, 26 Aug 94 00:20:45 MST
Received: from UA1VM.UA.EDU by spsgate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email 2.1
10/25/93)
id AA15250; Fri, 26 Aug 94 00:17:47 MST
Message-Id: <9408260717.AA15250 at spsgate.sps.mot.com>
Received: from UA1VM.UA.EDU by UA1VM.UA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 0559; Fri, 26 Aug 94 02:18:06 CDT
Received: from UA1VM.UA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV at UA1VM) by UA1VM.UA.EDU
(LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3830; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 02:18:02 -0500
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 01:15:39 -0600
Reply-To: Posting Address Only - No Requests <homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com>
Sender: Homebrew Digest Redistribution List <BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU>
From: beer-l-request@ UA1VM.UA.EDU
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1511 (August 26, 1994)
X-To: beer-l at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
To: Multiple recipients of list BEER-L <BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU>
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 11:08:03 GMT+1100
From: DAVIN SLADE <DBSLA1 at eng3.eng.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Homebrew on the www
Is there a homebrew server or directory anywhere on the World Wide
Web.
If anyone knows of one can they please mail me the http address.
- -----------------------------------------------------
Davin Slade - Civil Engineering, Monash University
Clayton, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
dbsla1 at eng3.eng.monash.edu.au
baldrick at yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
I was cured all right! Alexander de Large
- -----------------------------------------------------
Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 01:14:45 EDT
From: Ash Baker <3AVHB at QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA>
Subject: Brewing Schools, again...
Many thanks to all those who have replied to my questions. However there has
been a slightly unfortunate incident: everyone who replied to the ash at io.org
address had their letters killed. :( I'm hoping the io.org tape backup has
them somewhere, but... Could I please prevail on those who were kind enough
to reply to me, to resend those letters, if they could? If not, I understand
completely, but if it's not too much trouble...
Thanks again, and profound apologies to all who have been inconvenienced.
Ash Baker
ash at io.org -- Whitby, Ontario
3avhb at qucdn.queensu.ca -- Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario
Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Aug 94 02:32:55 U
From: Mailer.MC1 at hesdmail.mmm.com
Subject: INBOX Message (See Below)
InBox Message Type: Error
InBox Message Subject: Undeliverable message
InBox Message Text Follows:
Message not delivered to 'MC2' (Disk full)
- ------------------------- Original Message Follows -------------------------
Message too large (greater than 30000 bytes).
See enclosure!
- ------------------------- RFC822 Header Follows -------------------------
Received: by hesdmail with SMTP/TCP;27 Aug 94 02:29:11 U
Received: from pigseye.mmm.com by mmm ( 3M/SERC - 4.1/BDR-1.0)
idAA27813; Sat, 27 Aug 94 02:40:03 CDT
Errors-To: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Received: by pigseye.mmm.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA13321; Sat, 27 Aug 94 02:32:30 CDT
Errors-To: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Errors-To: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Received: from hpfcrdg.fc.hp.com by hpfcla.fc.hp.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.4/15.5+IOS 3.20) id AA04600; Sat, 27 Aug 94 01:33:12 -0600
Received: by hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(1.36.108.4/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA04406; Sat, 27 Aug 1994 01:00:49 -0600
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 01:00:49 -0600
Message-Id: <9408270700.AA04406 at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com>
To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
From: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Reply-To: homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
Errors-To: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1512 (August 27, 1994)
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 20:14:16 EDT
From: sean v. taylor <sean at chemres.tn.cornell.edu>
Subject: hop rates? hop schedules?
When I brew (which is not often enough these days), I usually chuck
in my bittering hops, then add my finishing hops at the end of the
boil. Nice and simple. But lately, I've been perusing recipes that
call for a certain number of IBUs at 15 min., a certain amount at 30 min.,
and so forth. Why do you do this? My guess is to control the amount of
bitterness in the beer, and presumably, to drive off less volatiles
during the boil. If that is the case, why not just add bittering hops
later in the boil (which, I think would accomplish both points). What
am I missing here by my "barbaric" hop schedule?
Private e-mail is greatly appreciated, and thanks for the
enlightenment.
Sean V. Taylor
sean at chemres.tn.cornell.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 10:01:52 EDT
From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu
Subject: Kegging question/ not in faq
Victor Franklin writes:
> question(s): Is there a difference in the end flavor of the beer if I
> force carbonate vs. "natural" with dme or corn sugar?
Stand back! Here come the opinions!
On this note, I was reading an article in _The Malt Advocate_ (a neat,
little, newsletter-format magazine about beer and whiskey) wherein the
author (a BJCP certified judge & homebrewer) claimed that force
carbonating produced the "nasty" bitterness that one finds, e.g., in
American mega-swill. As opposed to hops, which give a "nice"
bitterness.
Eh?
=S
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 10:07:13 EDT
From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu
Subject: Learning tastes in beer (Dr Beer)
If you can, try to find a beer to doctor that doesn't come in
twist-off bottles. I tried to doctor some Bud recently, and found
myself unable to recap the bottle with my two-handled capper.
Instead, I broke the lip off. Good thing it was only Bud.
=Spencer in Ann Arbor, MI
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 08:32:48 -0400
From: stricklandc at cocoa12.ksc.nasa.gov (Chris Strickland)
Subject: My Slow London Ale Yeast Mixed with a Belgian Yeast
Several postings ago I mentioned I was worried about the slow start of my
London Ale Yeast, so I pitched the slurry from two champagne bottles of
beer I made with Belgian yeast. The beer made from this "mess-up", was
excellent. It was a pale ale, with a nice malty taste, but with the slight
fruity taste of the Belgian yeast. I've made two more batches with this
yeast mix.
For you chemist out there, do I have a hybrid yeast here, or what happens
when you mix yeast.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Chris Strickland | Allin1: stricklandc |
| Systems Analyst/Statistician | Email : stricklandc at cocoa12.ksc.nasa.gov |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 23:03:42 CST
From: "geo" <WOLFF at albert.uta.edu>
Subject: Chilling wort in hot weather
Here in Texas the water comes out of the faucet (at least it does in
my house) at 90-95F, not much use for chilling wort to pitching
temperature without some assistance. I use open plastic
containers for the primary, so I regard pitching asap as of
primary importance. Recently I've been fooling around with trying to
get a satisfactory arrangement for chilling the wort to ca. 65F, and
thought others in a similar situation might be interested. Here's
what worked (after a couple of other configurations were tried):
First stage cooling: 15' 3/8" copper pipe coil in a water bath (any
container will do) using tapwater maintained below 110F;
Second stage cooling: 30' 3/8" copper pipe coil in an ice bath, with
just enough water to ensure good thermal contact between the pipe and
the bath. I use a cylindrical 3-gall water cooler for the ice bath.
Inlet, outlet and hose connecting the two coils are the regular food-
grade plastic sold in brewing shops. There's no reason to have a
flexible connection between the two coils; it works better with the
space I have, is all.
Procedure: Hook up the system. Flush with sanitiser (I use a
moderately strong bleach solution and let it sit for 5-10 min).
Flush with rinse water for a few minutes. Any bucket with a spigot
will do as a holding tank for sanitiser and rinse water. Pinch the
outlet tube to keep air out of the system, hook up the inlet tube to
wherever your hot wort is coming from, release the outlet, let the
rinse water be replaced by wort (easy to see), and you're in
business. Regulate the flow of tapwater through the first-stage
cooling bath to maintain it below 110F and let it run onto the grass
(water at this temperature will definitely not hurt plants - around
here the damn rain isn't much cooler). If you're siphoning wort out
of the boiler, the total drop height can be adjusted to give the
required flow; in a dry run with boiling water I found that 3'
(decreasing to 2' as the liquid levels in the boiler and fermenter
change) works to give 5 gall at 70F for the price of about 10lbs of
ice. Buying/making ice beforehand and storing it at around 20F
definitely helps; new store-bought ice is rarely much below freezing.
Yesterday, I tried it for the first time with real wort, and
collected 3 galls at 62-64F (the small volume was intentional - with
my system I can't handle much more than 13-14 lbs of grain, so if the
beer is to be strong (this was an Imperial Stout), the volume must be
low).
Here's a neat trick: have the outlet tube secured onto the second
coil with a clamp in such a way as to suck a tiny stream of bubbles
into the tube, and you have auto-aeration. I found this out by
accident on my dry run using loose-fitting low-grade soft tubing, the
kind the hardware store sells, and a hose clamp. There are a number
of ways of achieving this effect; the easiest for me was to use a
short length of the soft tubing and a connector to food-grade just
downflow. The food-grade tubing is made of sterner stuff (or maybe
has a slightly smaller I.D.), and won't do it. Keep dust out of the
entrained air by wrapping the pipe/tubing join with rolled cotton
(cotton wool to any Brits reading this) secured with rubber bands.
Total cost was about $20. Didn't keep the receipts, but 50' of
copper cost about $16, and I'm pretty sure I didn't pay more than $5
for tubing.
Hope that's useful to someone. Incidentally, I'd be interested in
the response to the guy from New Orleans who asked about malt storage
in hot/humid climates (sorry, I didn't make a copy of the posting).
Although the humidity here is a little lower than in New Orleans,
I've been wondering the same thing as I can't always brew when I feel
like it, and often wind up storing malt for several months. The 2-
row I used yesterday has been stored (uncrushed) in a 50lb sack for
about 10 months, at about 80F and moderate humidity, and both mashing
time and extract yield (single-stage infusion mash) were worse than
the last time I used malt from the same sack (back in March).
May your worts run true,
John Wolff
Dept of Geology
University of Texas at Arlington
wolff at uta.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 19:44:00 GMT
From: jeff.guillet at lcabin.com (Jeff Guillet)
Subject: Use of gelatin for cleari
As I was boiling the wort for my Steam beer two nights ago, I
discovered I was out of irish moss (aka God). I used 2 tsp.
Sparkalloid 15 minutes before the end of the boil.
Would anyone recommend using gelatin for a clarifying agent in the
secondary? I usually don't really care if there's some haze in my
beer, but I think this style deserves to be crystal clear.
How do you use the gelatin? TIA.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jeff Guillet - <jeff.guillet at lcabin.com>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 20:24:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: PAULDORE at delphi.com
Subject: Wyeast #1968 Questions
I have read some old HBD issues and I'm looking to try this Wyeast #1968
yeast strain in making a true English Ale.
I have a few questions:
I have read that this yeast is a heavy flocculator and requires some
addition aeration and agitation, but no one mentions how one should go about
this?!!
I use glass carboys, should I just swirl the carboy around for a few
minutes? Is that enough to get things going again? And at what point should
this be done, I mean when there are only how many bubbles a minute?
Any and all help is wanted! ASAP! I'm itchen to make my next brew!
Pauldore at delphi.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 18:07:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: PAULDORE at delphi.com
Subject: Other uses for Hops.....
Does anyone have or know of any other uses for HOPS? Besides using them for
making beer and meads..
Can they be used in Tea, Baking...etc...etc? If you have an ideas or have
any true and testing uses please tell me!
Pauldore at delphi.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 14:32:03 EDT
From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com
Subject: Southern New England BPs/Micros request
- ----------------------- Mail item text follows ---------------
To: I1010141--IBMMAIL
From: Bob Paolino
Research Analyst
Subject: Southern New England BPs/Micros request
Please send information (lists, reviews, personal experience, et cetera)
on micros and brewpubs in Connecticut and Rhode Island. I'll be in
Hartford, but may have a day to go elsewhere, perhaps as "far" as
Providence. (Note: I know I said CT & RI, but if there's anything
worthwhile in Springfield, that counts, too.)
Email (rather than hbd post) is probably best: USWLSrap at ibmmail.com.
Thanks!
Bob Paolino
Disoriented in Badgerspace
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 14:16:29 -0500 (EST)
From: ulick at ulix.rad.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Subject: 5 gallon Gott is too small
Someone said he returned a 10 gallon Gott and got a 5. I use a 7 gallon
Gott and at times it is too small. There is no way I could brew
comfortably with a 5 gallon Gott. Admittedly my batch size has crept up
to around 6 gallons, but still I feel the 5 gallons is too small. A rule
of thumb is that your mash tun should be the same capacity as fermenters.
If you are brewing little enough beer that a 5 gallon carboy is sufficient
for fermentation, a 5 gallon cooler is fine. If you use larger fermenters
consider a larger cooler. Heat capacity concerns are not significent.
Preheat the cooler with boiling water and they become less. The only
problem with a larger cooler, is that if used as a lauter tun it may have
a less than optimum grain depth, but this is not too significent a problem.
If you brew a stronger beer or have to thin out the mash more than planned
doing an infusion mash, the extra space is essential.
__________________________________________________________________________
'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s at &* ... | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng.
Pabst Blue Ribbon!' | Notre Dame IN 46556
http://ulix.rad.nd.edu/Ulick.html | ulick at darwin.cc.nd.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 11:45:43 MDT
From: "Mark B. Alston" <c-amb at math.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: Kegging question/ not in faq
Victor asked:
question(s): Is there a difference in the end flavor of the beer if I
force carbonate vs. "natural" with dme or corn sugar?
With respect to flavor you might notice some differences when using
dme simply due to the unfermentables which are present. However, corn
sugar, being completly fermentable, should not alter the taste as
compared to force carbonated. However, many people have noted
differences in head retention and the quality of carbonation (the size
of the bubbles) between the two methods. While this in not strictly a
flavor it has a great infuence on the overall perception of quality.
I have come to the conclusion that these differences in head retention
and carbonation quality are due simply to the amount of time the beer
is allowed to sit with carbonation before dispensing. If you give
your beer at least one week to sit with pressure on the keg I think
that you will find you get the same great head retention as with
natural conditioning.
I have read that shaking the keg to get the co2 to disolve into
solution is bad and will flavor the beer. is this true?
Again, I believe that the greatest problem in shaking the keg to force
carbonate is that this method assumes that you want to drink you beer
within minutes. This difference in conditioning time is what I
believe to be the greatest cause of the perceived differences.
However, I must note that at the AHA conference I tasted a porter that
was force carbonated using a stainless carbonating stone (huge). It
took about 30 seconds to carbonate the beer. The head retention
seemed fine. I belive that this method worked because of the very
fine CO2 bubbles which the stone produced. This allowed them to
diffuse into the beer much more quickly than with the shaking or
sitting method. In any event I have been more than happy with my
result of force carbonating by simply letting the beer sit under
pressure for at least a week.
Mr. Impatient
Don't be impatient. That is the most important part. (God would my
girl friend laugh if she heard my tell someone else to be patient.
This is not a virtue I have mastered :)
Mark Alston
(c-amb at math.utah.edu)
Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1514, 08/31/94