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


Contents:
  Mill Plans (Kerry Drake)
  Roller Mill Plan Response (Chris Barnhart)
  Re: NA beer (Ed Hitchcock)
  Sam Adams ... hop pellets? (Chris Lyons)
  Grain mills, KitchenAid etc. (Bob_McIlvaine)
  How Spam can improve your beer (bickham)
  Carboy glug no more ("v.f. daveikis")
  Benard Convection ("pratte")
  Jim(tm) Kock(tm), smoking grain (Mark Worwetz)
  Good Beer (EDGELL)
  Draft Beer System (Wade=Landsburg)
  Finally to All-Grain... (Bob Bessette)
  Convection/cold ale yeast/FOOP flame ("geo")
  virus ranting, newbie lager H2S question (Eric Schauber)
  Perth, Australia / clbarnha's Roller Mill project (Barry Nisly)
  Fermenter Geometry and dead horses (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Thanks for the help (M_MACADAMS)
  Homebrew Digest #1602 (December 12, 1994) (Ray Peck)
  High Gravity Brewing (Paul Sovcik)
  Re: BrewCap (Gordon Baldwin)
  Bellevue brewery (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Australian Ale Yeast (ANDY WALSH)
  Slow Cider (t.duchesneau)
  Starter data points (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Flavor "wheel" (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  blunder (Eric Jaquay)
  "Sparging" by any other name - would it smell as sweet?? (Andrew Patrick)
  HOLIDAY BEER ("MARYANNE ZELEZNIK, WNKU HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, KY 41076 E-MAIL: ZELEZNIK)
  Oatmeal Stout Tip ("Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616")
  mild rant (Ray Robert)
  strainers/fridgemare before xmas (Michael T. Lobo)
  Hot Water Thermostat (Terry Terfinko)



******************************************************************
* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
* 
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
 
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: 12 Dec 94 06:42:10 EST
From: Kerry Drake <75347.2350 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Mill Plans

Chris "Barney" Barnhart wrote:
 "Send me private E-mail with your snail-mail address for a copy." He was
 referring to a home built roller mill project. Barney - I tried your address
 as posted and it was returned. Please contact me by E-mail. Thanks, Kerry

75347,2350 at Compuserve.Com


Return to table of contents


Date:     Mon, 12 Dec 94 7:30:01 EST
From: Chris Barnhart <clbarnha at letterkenn-emh1.army.mil>
Subject:  Roller Mill Plan Response

Hi all,
Wow, I never expected there to be so much interest in my plans!
The response was so overwhelming that I'm afraid I need to ask
interested folks to send me a Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope. 
There are 12 pages in the package so two first class stamps on
the return envelope are required (or whatever is required outside
the U.S.)  My address is:

Chris Barnhart
2720 Falling Spring Road
Chambersburg, PA. 17201

I apologize that I couldn't respond to everyone's E-mail
directly.

Merry Christmas and a Happy Brew Year!

Barny

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 09:51:38 -0400 (AST)
From: Ed Hitchcock <ehitchcock at sparc.uccb.ns.ca>
Subject: Re: NA beer


	Bruce DeBolt talks about heating beer to 170-180 for ten minutes 
to drive off the alcohol, and wonders exactly what the ETOH content of 
the result is.  Answer:  What was it before you started?  Subtract zero.  
That's right folks, taking a 5% etoh solution and heating it to 180^F 
will not reduce the alcohol content.  If you want to use the boiling 
point of ethanol as a guideline, set up a nice fractionation column 
still, boil your solution, and open the vent when the temp at the outlet is 
at the boiling point of alcohol.  You will find that you have to keep the 
solution boiling for quite a while to extract all the ethanol.  Don't let 
the authorities catch you doing this by the way.  "Honest officer, I 
built the still to *remove* alcohol fom my beer..."

	ed

   ----------------
Ed Hitchcock, now on the right side of the student/staff division
ehitchcock at sparc.uccb.ns.ca



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 09:10:18 EST
From: Chris Lyons <Chris.Lyons at analog.com>
Subject: Sam Adams ... hop pellets?

Fellow HBDers,

Could someone put an end to the speculation of Jim Koch's use of hop
pellets?  Does anyone know for certain if he is using pellet or whole
hops?

I think the flavor & aroma characteristics in Sam Adams Lager are
well done.  The SA hoping process is something I would like to know
more about.

Regards,
Chris

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 09:22:08 EST
From: Bob_McIlvaine at keyfile.com
Subject: Grain mills, KitchenAid etc.

Well after reading all the posts on both HBD and recs.crafts.brewing
about grain mills I decide I have to give my $.02.

As Brett points out about the Kitchen Aid attachment, I agree it
probably is not appropriate for and can't be adjusted to get a grain
crack correct for all grain brewing. It's really designed for flour
making only.

I happen to agree with the results of the crush off which was reported
in BT a couple of issues back. There may be manufacturing quality
differences, but the ones tested can all provide an acceptable crush for
homebrewing.

Many may disagree. As JS pointed out, the group of award winning, BJCP,
MIT engineer homebrewers who performed the test, probably don't
understand how to design a test and didn't want to offend any of the BT
advertisers. ;-)

Just as a data point, I use a motorized Corona. I routinely do 30 pound
grain bills and get close to or theoretical extraction rates with a RIMS
tower system.

Regards,
Mac

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 09:33:16 -0500 (EST)
From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu
Subject: How Spam can improve your beer

I recently read through an article describing the annual Spam and beer
meeting of the Boston Wort Processor homebrew club.  This may seem like
a random event to most of you, but it's no coincidence that several of the
brewers from that club who win awards in the AHA National Competition
are also Spam-lovers.  I was finally able to piece together why they
are able to brew consistently good beers.

Most of our worts, especially extract brews, are low in Free Available
Nitrogem (FAN).  There is some data on this in the Winter issue of
Zymurgy.  The FANs are essentially the amino acids and nitrogenous
compounds that are essential to yeast growth and a healthy fermentation.
Now Spam obviously has an abundance of fatty acids, and these are
also important in the early stages of fermention.  The connection to
the Boston Worts is that not only eat Spam, but they use it in their
*brewing*.  Hence they have none of our standard problems such as
stuck fermentations, long lag times, etc. and are able to produce some
outstanding beers.

Now I urge them to come clean and tell the rest of us how Spam is
used in their brewing.  There's no reason Steve Stroud and the rest
of the Boston group should selfishly keep these secrets!

Cheers,
	Scott
- -- 
========================================================================
Scott Bickham
bickham at msc.cornell.edu
=========================================================================

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 09:56:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "v.f. daveikis" <vdaveiki at julian.uwo.ca>
Subject: Carboy glug no more

One last point: If you blow into the hose that goes into the carboy, you 
will evacuate the water in it at a much faster rate.
Happy holidays!

Return to table of contents


Date:          Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:01:15 EST
From: "pratte" <PRATTE at GG.csc.peachnet.edu>
Subject:       Benard Convection

To clear up some questions in today's HBD:

To Manning Martin:

Please note that I did not say stratify when I was talking about 
density variation throughout the fermenter.  Stratification implies 
that there are distinct layers of sugar, water, and alcohol.  I do 
realize that they do mix.  However, this does not release them from 
gravities effects.  Unless by dissolving there are significant 
intermolecular forces to counteract gravity, the heavier elements 
will tend toward the bottom of the fermenter and the lighter toward 
the top.  An idealized version of this occurs in air, which is a 
mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc.  Since the 
intermolecular forces are almost nil at atmospheric pressures, carbon 
dioxide tends toward the bottom, displacing a good deal of oxygen.  
We use this fact in brewing to protect our beer from oxygen.  In the 
fermentation tank, intermolecular forces are probably greater than 
they are in air.  However, my experience leads me to believe that 
they are not great enough.  I have gently poured liquid off the top of 
the fermenter (after two weeks), taken a hydrometer reading, siphoned 
the remainder of the beer into a bucket, and taken a second 
hydrometer reading on the liquid from the bucket.  I have found that 
the first reading can be as much as .003 less than the second 
reading, meaning that the alcohol does tend toward the top in the 
fermenter.  While I'll admit that I don't expect to find this to be 
true during the vigorous fermentation stage, it is true as the 
fermentation begins to settle down to a more quiescent stage.

Also regarding the top vs bottom fermenting, I agree that the yeast 
are doing there thing throughout the fermenter.  However, it was my 
understanding (and I'm probably wrong about this) that ale yeast tend 
toward the upper stages of the tank (i.e. there is a greater 
concentration of them there) and lager yeast tend toward the bottom
portion.  I was using this to localize the heat sources toward the 
top and bottom accordingly (A tendency we physicists have.  ex. 
"First, approximate the horse by a sphere of water....").

To Norm Pyle:

I agree Norm.  That's the point that I made at the end of my message. 
This is an extremely complicated system (multicomponent fluid, 
transient heat sources, bubble formation, etc.) and a simple analysis 
is usually incorrect.  However, that does not negate somebody else's 
comment that as long as heat is being produced in the tank, then 
cooling the sides of the tank will create convection for any amount 
of cooling.  Therefore, if you want to insure greater movement in 
your fermetation tank, cool the sides.

John

- --------------------------
Dr. John M. Pratte
Clayton State College
pratte at gg.csc.peachnet.edu
Office (404)961-3674
Fax (404)961-3700
- --------------------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 09:14:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Mark_Worwetz at Novell.COM (Mark Worwetz)
Subject: Jim(tm) Kock(tm), smoking grain

Howdy from Zion!

I was watching TV the other day and came across a program on CNN called
"Pinnacles".  The subject of this particular episode was a well-known
producer of the "Best Beer in America"(tm).  It was quite a good show
and showed JK doing a lot of fun guy stuff like serving beer at a
festival, sitting on a dunking tank filled with old beer, having product
meetings at work (drinking beer!), etc.  He came across as a very
affable fellow, and a good spokesman for the anti-megabrew forces.
Obviously there was no mention of lawsuits, etc.  Despite my prejudice
about his character, I was quite impressed with the guy.  An interesting
note: during the sit-down interview part, a barrel of triple-bock could
be seen in the background behind him.  Not what I expected to see in the
offices of a business.  Probably fork-lifted in for the show ;-).

On the subject of smoking grains,  I have to advise against it.  I tried it
once and coughed for 10 minutes!  Yuck!

Hoppy brewing!
Mark_Worwetz at Novell.COM

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:08:08 -0600 (CST)
From: EDGELL at uwmfe.neep.wisc.edu
Subject: Good Beer

Warning if you get an email letter titled "Good Beer" DO NOT READ IT!

It contains a virus! If read it will IMMEDIATELY infect any beer you have in
the primary. Beer in the secondary or bottled/kegged will not be affected as
the alcohol level in them is sufficient to make the text of the email seem
blurry and unreadable.  :)


Dana Edgell
Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild
edgell at uwmfe.neep.wisc.edu

PS: All these government reports denying the existance of the Good Times virus
seems to me to sound like a cover-up. THEY probably don't want US to know the
TRUTH! That reading email can affect not computers but the actual BRAINS
of the readers. It can erase not hard drives but THOUGHTS! Free exchange of
information can erase misconceptions! The truth is out there! :)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 13:49:42 AST
From: Wade=Landsburg%SC_INV%Moncton at MNCGFC.GFC.DFO.CA
Subject: Draft Beer System

 I started putting together a draft beer system several years ago, and
its finally completed. I'm having a few problems getting the carbonation
correct.  I am told there is a formula used to calculate this, ie.temperature,
pressure, volume, etc..  Can any one help me out in this respect?

Other than that, its great having a tap in my kitchen that beer comes out of,
and beats washing bottles.


Thanx

Wade

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 12:54:11 EST
From: Bob Bessette <bessette at hawk.uicc.com>
Subject: Finally to All-Grain...

Dear HBDers,
 I finally did it! I finally did my first all-grain batch. I've been signing my
correspondence "Future all-grainer" now for about a year in anticipation of 
becoming an all-grainer and this past weekend it happened. I can't say 
everything went perfectly though but I guess these are the fortunes of a 
first-timer. I have done 10 extract batches prior to this all-grain venture 
and I am fairly happy with these extract brews but I always knew that I had to 
take the inevitable plunge into all-graining before I felt that I was truly 
creating my own distict brew rather than a brew from someone else's extract. 
No matter how this turns out I feel now that I have created something all my 
own.
 
 Let me give you some details of my setup. If there are other extract brewers 
interested in going to all-grain I'm sure you'll find this of interest. And to 
you current all-grainers I would like to get some advice from you. I used a 
Phil's latertun set up but I did not use the rotating sparging arm at the 
advice of a co-worker. I just used the white bucket with the false bottom for 
both sparging and for mashing. I kept this bucket in an insulated cardboard 
box during mashing and added hot water for mashout. At sparging time I just 
poured the sparge water over a spoon just keeping the water level about 1 inch 
above the grains at all times. My major problem was that at the time I put my 
mash water and grains in the pail with the false bottom I did not hold the 
false bottom down with a spoon. As a result, my sparge took 2 hours! The wort 
simply trickled into my keg that I use for boiling and I never thought I would 
collect enough wort for boiling. I acually thought that the hose had come 
loose from the false bottom but after the fact I checked and it was still 
intact. Upon lifting up the false bottom I noticed that there were mucho grains 
under it. This is what must've caused the "trickle sparge". Since I could not 
occupy my kitchen any longer with the sparging I ended up getting less wort 
than usual and had to top off with water to get 5 gallons. I really didn't like 
having to top off but I wanted to get 2 cases from 7 hours of beer-making. 

 In an effort to inprove my process and to prevent the "trickle sparge" from 
re-occurring I have been thinking about a way of weighing down the false 
bottom so that the worry of it floating upon adding the mash water and grains 
would be eliminated. Maybe some fairly heavy copper or stainless steel pieces 
put on the edges of the false bottom might do the trick. Any suggestions would 
be more than welcome. Also, since I boil outside in a converted Sankey keg, I 
was out there boiling and wort chilling last night in the dark due to the 
prolonged sparge. Another problem is that I occupied my kitchen in the middle 
of the day to the dismay of my wife. I did this so I would have daylight to 
boil and wort chill outside. A friend of mine (who also has a wife and 2 kids) 
has solved this problem by doing the whole process in his house after the kids 
go to bed. He does this by using a Bru-Heat and wort chills using his inside 
faucet. He uses the same setup as I do other than that. It seems to me that 
an investment in a Bru-Heat would solve a lot of problems for me. The main 
problem being that I am in the way when I brew beer during the day and I don't 
get the chance to spend the time with my kids if I do. I could start the mash 
around 6:00 PM and by the time the kids are ready for bed I would be ready to 
sparge. I would like to hear a little more about the Bru-Heat before I make 
the $100 investment. I have read a few postings mentioning that they may 
impart a plastic taste to the beer. Well, FWIW, I tasted my friend's Pete's 
Wocked Ale clone and I tasted no plastic. I would really like to hear more 
about the Bru-Heat from both satisfied and non-satisfied customers. It just 
seems like it would make my life a whole lot easier. Also any ideas on 
weighing down the false bottom on the Phil's latuer tun would be greatly 
appreciated. 

 I look forward to brewing my next all-grain batch with this first-time 
experience out of the way. Even though it turned out to be a lengthy process I 
feel more excited about brewing beer now than I ever had previously with 
my extract beers. After all of the problems with this first-time all-grain 
beer I can guarantee you that the final product will be superior to my extract 
brews. I will keep you posted. Please email any Bru-Heat info or false bottom 
solutions to me at bessette at uicc.com. TIA.


Bob Bessette (current all-grainer...)
bessette at uicc.com
Systems Analyst
Unitrode Integrated Circuits
Merrimack, NH 03087


Return to table of contents


Date:          Mon, 12 Dec 1994 12:00:45 CST
From: "geo" <WOLFF at albert.uta.edu>
Subject:       Convection/cold ale yeast/FOOP flame

Greetings everyone.
It seems to me that the recent discussions about fermenter 
geometry and the effect of temperature distributions on convective 
vigor in the fermenter have been missing something, namely that the 
buoyant forces exerted by bubble-laden wort are far greater than 
those due to the amount of thermal expansion produced by temperature 
differences of a few degrees.  Non-uniform distribution of bubbles, 
which can arise randomly, produces "blobs" of wort more bubble-rich 
than their surroundings and hence more buoyant, so they rise as blobs. 
Loss of bubbles at the wort surface produces other bubble-deficient 
blobs which are denser than the rest of the liquid and therefore 
sink.  I'm somewhat fluid dynamically impaired so can't offer
any quantitative predictions, but suggest that these effects are most 
marked at overall high bubble concentrations, i.e. when the ferment 
is at maximum activity and the rate of gravity drop is highest.  If 
you have an open fermenter, part the foam at high krausen and watch 
the surface of the wort; it moves and seethes, looking truly alive.  
This is because blobs of wort are being dragged around by virtue of 
their transient bubble contents.  The wort is thoroughly mixed on a 
short time-scale, and the effect of any temperature gradient 
across the fermenter will be swamped.  This is not true during 
secondary fermentation, when the overall bubble contents are much 
less and bubble motions are largely decoupled from the wort, i.e. 
bubbles rise through near-stationary liquid.  In secondary, 
temperature gradients should play a more important role in governing 
convective motions in the fermenter.
- ------------------------------------------------------
Chris Goll asked about ale yeasts that might work below 60 
Fahrenheit.  I've had a pale ale fermenting with Wyeast 1028 London 
Ale for 2 weeks in an ambient temperature of 55-60 F; the only time 
the wort temperature went above 60F was during high krausen in 
primary. It's slow, of course.  Wyeast ???? Scotch Ale also comes 
recommended for low temperatures.
- ------------------------------------------------------
While I'm here, to the individual who found the protein denaturing 
thread to be absurd, useless, and the last straw, all I can say is 
that I found it fascinating and I suspect that many others did too. 
If it weren't for the human passion to know how and why things work 
the way they do, none of us would be brewing beer worth talking about 
in the first place.

A PINT OF PLAIN IS YOUR ONLY MAN (Flann O'Brien)

John Wolff
wolff at uta.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 10:03:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Schauber <schaubee at ucs.orst.edu>
Subject: virus ranting, newbie lager H2S question

Hi brewers!

I hate to start off my first post with a flame but:  enough of the "good 
times" virus stuff already!!!  Point taken: its a hoax, you can't erase 
your HD by reading mail.  On with brewtalk.

I'm working on my fourth beer, a darkish lager (Sam Adams(TM) clone? 
gasp!) from extract.  I used Wyeast American Lager strain, popped, 
started, and pitched around 75F as per packet instructions.  
Unfortunately, I lowered the temperature too quickly once fermentation 
began and shocked the yeasties into 2 days of dormancy.  Thereafter, 
fermentation proceeded normally and is about finished now, 4 days after 
it restarted.  Here's my problem:  I'd like to lager in the bottle, but 
when I opened the fermenter to take a hydrometer reading, I could smell 
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) fairly strongly.  I use plastic buckets for 
fermenting and bottling and don't want to have to add a carboy secondary 
because I plan on moving soon and don't want to cart it around.  What 
went wrong?  How can I get rid of the smelly stuff without investing in a 
carboy secondary?  Possibilities I can envision:  (1) rack off from sediment 
and other nasties into bottling bucket (having purged O2 with CO2), clean 
fermenter, rack back into fermenter (purged with CO2) and reseal, or (2) 
bubble CO2 through the stuff before bottling in hopes of carrying H2S away.  
Any suggestions?

Eric Schauber
President, founder, and primary customer of BrainChild Brewing Co.
schaubee at ucs.orst.edu
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
"She is the least beknightedly unintelligent creature it has been my 
profound lack of pleasure not to have avoided meeting" -- Douglas Adams
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 10:36:11 -0800
From: barry at odf.UCSD.EDU (Barry Nisly)
Subject: Perth, Australia / clbarnha's Roller Mill project 

Howdy,

I am going to the Perth/Fremantle area next month and would like some info
on brewpubs there.  Heck, if you're around, I'll sport you a few pints for 
your trouble.

***
clbarnha at letterkenn-emh1.army.mil I suspect that many people are having trouble
getting email to you regarding your roller mill.  My email bounced too.
Please email me.

Thanks,

Barry Nisly
bnisly at ucsd.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: 12 Dec 94 16:57:00 GMT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Fermenter Geometry and dead horses

Martin writes:
>The fact that the blow-off batch went much faster says something else is
>going on here. If anything, the blow-off is removing yeast, and should slow
>the fermentation.  I think (and I am simply guessing, don't you sometimes,
>Al? ;-)) that a temperature trace for the full carboy would show a higher
>peak, and is again a suspect for an unconstrained variable.  The (1-3/8
>gallon) non-blow-off batch had the higher surface area/volume in this case,
>and the CO2 in the space above the beer might even have contributed to
>cooling the non-blow-off batch by convection.  Both of these factors would
>surely drive the full carboy to a faster fermentation rate as observed, and
>possibly affect the FG too.  

I agree that temperature may be another unconstrained variable, and, if you'll
recall, my original contention was that there were too many variables in the
experiment to draw any conclusions.  So in effect, we agree then, that it is
difficult to tell which variables caused the difference in speed of the ferment
and difference in FG.  Finally, I'm afraid you got the data backwards... the
blowoff batch went *slower* and had a higher FG.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 14:12:20 -0500
From: M_MACADAMS at Mail.Co.Chester.PA.US
Subject:  Thanks for the help

A week or so ago I posted a request for help stemming from the
lack of activity in my airlock.  Thanks to all those who replied.

As most of you were able to guess, my fermentor is plastic.  
Anyway things have worked out just fine.  I bottled the beer when
the gravity reading leveled off at 1.010 (by the way, the samples
tasted fine and I will continue to taste hydrometer samples in
the future).  I received many good suggestions about this batch
and things to consider for future projects as well.

Learning to relax,

      Mike


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:32:53 -0800
From: rpeck at pure.com (Ray Peck)
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1602 (December 12, 1994)
Full-Name: Ray Peck

>Date: Fri,  9 Dec 94 11:44:00 UTC
>From: t.duchesneau at genie.geis.com
>Subject: Kitchen Aid Grain Mill
>
>  Brett Hunt asked about the Kitchen Aid grain mill accessory.  I wondered
>about that a couple weeks ago and read my Kitchen Aid mixer manual.  Whether
>it would give an acceptable crush I don't know, but the manual cautions not
>to process more than 10 cups of grain at one time and to let it cool at
>least 45 minutes before using again.  This could make for a long crush.

But I believe that is advice for making *flour* from grains, not just
cracking them.  The former is surely more taxing than the latter.


Return to table of contents


Date:         Mon, 12 Dec 94 13:27:06 CST
From: Paul Sovcik <U18183 at UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Subject:      High Gravity Brewing

I was wondering if anyone could comment on the practice of high gravity brewing
 .  I know commercial brewers use the technique quite a bit because of economic
concerns, but I am wondering if it has a place in homebrewing.

    I am thinking that I would use high gravity brewing to avoid the blowoff
hassles that I often get when brewing ales (especially wheat ales) in carboys.
I figure I could leave about a 2 gallon headspace if I brew a extract or
partial mash ale and not worry about blowoff hoses, etc.

    But, the ultimate question is:  will high gravity brewing affect
the taste of the finished beer?

 -Paul
Paul Sovcik       University of Illinois at Chicago   pjs at uic.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 15:55:07 -0800 (PST)
From: gbaldw at zaphod.usin.com (Gordon Baldwin)
Subject: Re: BrewCap

From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR at conrad.appstate.edu>
> 
 - snip -

> Besides, I invented the whole concept of upside down brewing and have been
> advocating it for almost 11 years now.  I covered all the bases and offered
> an affordable product to the homebrewing community from day one.  Why does
> everyone think the Fermentap is such a great, new idea?  I don't get it. 
> 
I think the Fermentap folks saw your stuff and the fact that you have
not been advertising as much lately and have blantently ripped you off. I
used to see your stuff advertised more and I havn't noticed it much
lately. Maybe I'm not noticing it much anymore, or maybe in the 9 years
since I started brewing, your ads have gained more competition.

> While we're on the subject, there appears to be one other big difference 
> between our two products.  The BrewCap uses a 1/2" blow-off tube.  The 
> Fermentap blows off through a *siphon cane*.  Anyone ever popped a cork on 
> their carboy because a hop leaf clogged the siphon hose? 
> 
The half inch blow-off tube on yours makes me just a tad nervous,
anything smaller I would really worry about catastrophic failure. With
the carboy upside down, best case failure you dump the whole 5 gallons
on the floor as opposed to blowing the cork and a couple gallons out the
top. And it seems a lot more likely that you will have the worst case, a
5 gallon glass grenade.


- -- 
Gordon Baldwin
gbaldw at usin.com
Olympia Washington

Return to table of contents


Date: 12 Dec 94 20:50:00 GMT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Bellevue brewery

Dave writes:
>I had the most fortunate opportunity to tour the Bellevue brewery
>in Brussels this past summer.

and:
>I asked our tour guide about this and he told me that 
>many lambics, including thier own, were sweetened at bottling time.
>He personally does not agree with this, but like any other business,
>they are driven by the market.  I suspect that Lindeman is doing the
>same.  

Indeed, Lindemans is a sweetened product.  I also wanted to point out
that Bellevue is owned by Interbrew (the Anheuser-Busch of Belgium)
and that tradition and loyalty take a back seat to whatever their marketing 
departments say.  If you were impressed by Bellevue, you would have been
stunned by a tour of Cantillon, also in Brussels.  Cantillon, by the way,
is one of the most traditional lambik breweries and as such, may not be
your cup of beer, but in the grand scheme of things, Lindemans and Bellevue
beers have more in common than do Bellevue and Cantillon or Bellevue and Boon.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 18:44:05 +1100
From: ANDY WALSH <awalsh at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Australian Ale Yeast

Ronald Dwell asks about the Australian Ale Yeast in winter.
I believe that the Australian Ale yeast was originally cloned
from Coopers Sparkling Ale. This beer is very popular here
amongst homebrewers as you can easily go to the bottleshop
and buy your yeastbank! If the strain still behaves in the
same manner I do not think you will find that it works very 
well below 18C (65F). It is in fact, a favourite here to use in 
summer as it tolerates heat quite well.
If Ronald wants to buy a heater I find the best  is a fish-tank 
heater. These are pretty cheap and simple, and can
be set for pretty well whatever temperature you like.
Another option is to go for yeast strains that work at
the ambient temperatures at that time of year. For
example, amongst the Wyeast Ale range, 1007 (German
ale), 1728 (Scottish ale) and 2565 (Kolsch) are 
reputed to work as low as 55F.








Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 03:10:00 UTC
From: t.duchesneau at genie.geis.com
Subject: Slow Cider

  Jason White asks about slow cider.
 
  Jason, did your cider by any chance have preservatives in it?  They are
yeast inhibitors and could have this effect.
 
  My last batch whih was:
 
   5 gallons cider (SG=1.050)
   4# honey
   3# dark brown sugar
   2 packages red star champagne yeast
 
   Mix & pitch (no heat, no campden)
 
went from OG 1.096 to SG .993 in less than 3 weeks.  Very harsh taste when I
racked it about a month ago.  Tasted it last Saturday night with some
friends and it was already much improved, crystal clear, and a nice color
from the brown sugar.  I was expecting to bottle it around April, but it may
not need that much time (I'm lazy, it may get it anyway).
 
                                ...Tom
 

Return to table of contents


Date: 12 Dec 94 19:11:00 GMT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Starter data points

Bones writes:
>Wyeast strain           Age  at  pitching  Stage  at  pitching  Hours to "start"
>---------------         --------------  ----------------  ----------------
>1028, British Ale       26 hours        hi kraeusen             9-12
>1098, London Ale        36 hours        post-hi-kraeusen        16
>1056, American          70 hours        long post-hi-kraeusen   20

If you had done this experiment with the same yeast strain, I think we might
have something to compare.  Also, You need to make sure that you are using
the same "age" yeast, i.e. not a 1-month-old versus a 2-month-old, etc.
There are other factors (not just time-to-start) that should be considered
when deciding when is the right time to pitch a starter, for example diacetyl
production, final gravity, time-to-ferment, alcohol tolerance, just to name
a few.  The article that Mike Sharp brought to my attention, which stated
clearly that the "proper" time to pitch a starter is post-hi-kraeusen, is
titled:

 Impact of Yeast-Handling Procedures on Beer Flavor Development During
 Fermentation by Pickerell, Hwang & Axcell
 1991 American Society of Brewing Chemists, ASBC Journal, volume 49, no.2

Here are some pieces of text from the article (the text in square brackets
is from Mike):

>Quain et al and Murray et al found that glycogen levels in pitching yeast play
>a very important role in determining yeast growth, subsequent fermentation
>rate,and quality of fermentation.  Therefore, glycogen levels may be used to
>determine the pitching rate.  This means that if the slurry has a high
>glycogen content, a relatively lower pitching rate may be used;  to some
>extent, low glycogen levels may be compensated for by using higher
>pitching rates.  Relatively higher pitching rates do not necessarily compensate
>for excessively low pitching yeast glycogen, as the yeast slurry may be
>physiologically inert.  Conversely, Cantell and Anderson found no relationship
>between initial yeast glycogen content and fermentation performance in brewery
>fermentations.  [note the academics disagreeing]
>....
>Glycogen is the major storage polysaccharide in brewing yeasts, accounting
>for up to 40% of the dry weight of cells.  During its catabolism, yeast
>glycogen decreases from around 40 to 5% dry weight.  This occurs during the
>first few hours of fermentation, when dissolved oxygen is available in the
>wort,and it coincides with the stoichiometric increase in total sterols and
>unsaturated fatty acids.  In the presence of oxygen, glycogen breaks down
>and acts as the major endogenous source of energy for sterol and unsaturated
>fatty acid synthesis.  Since sterols and unsaturated fatty acids are integral
>components of the yeast cell membrane, their concentration determines the
>extent of yeast growth and membrane integrity.  Consequently, insufficient
>glycogen is likely to be a limiting factor in the biosynthesis of these
>essential lipids as well as in producing sufficient yeast growth and
>achievement of acceptable fermentations.  Fermentations pitched with
>low-glycogen yeasts were more sluggish than those pitched with high-glycogen
>yeasts.  Poor flocculation, poor alcohol production, slow attenuation,
>high diacetyl, and high levels of dimethyl sulfide were also observed.

Notice that time-to-start is not directly mentioned here (it may be tied to
"yeast growth" but it's not clear how) and that the quality of the fermentation
is the main point.

The bottom line really is that these researcher's data indicates that the
most healthy ferments are achieved using high-glycogen yeast.  The yeasts'
glycogen levels are highest during the stationary phase (post high kraeusen),
but note that even 8 hours after the start of the stationary phase (at room
temperature, I believe --  I don't have the paper with me here) the glycogen
levels have begun to decrease substantially.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: 12 Dec 94 19:39:00 GMT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Flavor "wheel"

First of all, I'd like to commend Rich for the effort of typing in the
"beer flavor wheel."  I just wanted to comment on a few of the items.

>0111   Spicy   OTW   Allspice, nutmeg, peppery, eugenol. See also 1003 Vanilla

eugenol is clearly a clove aroma and belongs in Category 5 along with
the other phenolics.

>0170   Hoppy   OT   Fresh hop aroma. Use with other terms to
>        describe stale hop aroma.
>        Does not include hop bitterness (See 1200 Bitter)
> 
>0171   Kettle-hop   OT   Flavor imparted by aroma hops boiled 
>        in the kettle.
> 
>0172   Dry-hop   OT   Flavor imparted by dry hops added in tank 
>        or cask.
> 
>0173   Hop oil   OT   Flavor imparted by addition of distilled hop oil.

I have a big problem with them lumping all of the different hop aromatics
into four categories.  Clearly the citrusy "grapefruit" aroma of Cascades
is nothing like the resiny aroma of East Kent Goldings or the earthy
aroma of Fuggles.  If they can tell the difference between "Dry-hop" and
"Hop oil" then I think that they should be able to differentiate hop varieties.
What I'm saying really is, that these four categories are useless and the
actual hop aroma (earthy, resiny, citrusy, etc.) should be used in stead.

>Class 5 - Phenolic

Again, no mention of clove aroma, i.e. 4-vinyl-guaiacol, or smoky, two
*pleasant*, positive pheonlic aromas.

>0505   Iodoform   OT   Iodophors, hospital-like, pharmaceutical.

I've smelled both dilute and concentrated Iodophor and do not feel that
it has any medicinal or phenolic aroma.

>0722   Mercaptan   OT   Lower mercaptans, drains, stench
 
>0724   Lightstruck   OT   Skunky, sunstruck

Note that both the compound in beer and in skunk scent is, in fact,
a mercaptan, so why should these be separate?

>0733   Cooked tomato   OT   Tomato juice (processed), tomato ketchup.

Ketchup contains vinegar and to me, acetic acid is a dominant aromatic
component in ketchup.  I don't feel it belongs here under 0733.

>0830   Leathery   OT   A later stage of staling, then often 
>        used in conjunction with 0211 Woody.

Leathery is often used to describe oak-aged beers, not surprisingly, since
leather is (or at least used to be) tanned with tannins extracted from oak.
It is not always due to staling and is a welcome component in lambiks, for
example.

I felt it important to add my opinions here just to point out that, IMO, this
table is not 100% correct and contradictions like the eugenol problem will
only confuse inexperienced readers.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 01:32:33 -0800
From: Eric Jaquay <erjaq at wopr.gsm.uci.edu>
Subject: blunder


Here's the scenario...

I'm scrolling the HBD, via a modem/terminal set up in my bedroom.  My 
roommate, who has a similar set-up in his room, and who shares the modem 
line with me, tries to log on.  He is denied, and a random generation of 
characters and commands begins flashing on my screen.  One of these 
commands is the reply command, and so a reply to the current message I'm 
reading is composed.  Then, this random generation of characters enters a 
"y" before an "n", of course to the "include original message in reply" 
prompt.  At about this time I realize what is happening and start 
pressing the "n" key frantically, trying to break through the random 
generation and respond to the "send message?" prompt, and it flashes on 
the screen a few times, apparently not receiving either of the answers 
that it expects.  But then, to my great dismay...the "sending message" 
line I feared.  

In retrospect, I realize that I should have flicked off the modem switch, 
but this all happened in the course of about 15-20 seconds, the first 10 
of which I spent yelling to my roommate that I'd be off in a moment.  I 
did send a message to the request address explaining what had occurred, 
but there's no way for me to know whether it was sent in time to do 
anything.  Now, if the message was caught and removed from today's 
digest, have a little chuckle.  But, if yesterday's digest is included as 
a message in today's digest, please don't flame me.  I apologize.  
Unreservedly. 

Yes, I am relatively new to the digest, and the internet for that matter, 
but I don't think that this was a result of any negligence or stupidity 
on my part.  Sorry for any inconveniences.

Humbly and bumbly yours,

Eric Jaquay

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 03:35:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Andrew Patrick <andnator at mcs.com>
Subject: "Sparging" by any other name - would it smell as sweet??

Somebody recently said this:

>Incidentally, one brewer gently scolded me for using the term "sparging"
>to refer to the process of pouring the contents of my cookpot through a
>strainer (to remove hops, etc.) into my primary fermenter; he wanted to
>reserve the term for the process of rinsing mashed grains as part of the
>all-grain process.  Is there a consensus on this?

If there isn't, there should be.  Sounds like you have been taken in by 
some of the sloppy terminology in Papazian's books.  Sparging refers 
EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY to rinsing malted grains after the mash with hot 
water to extract the wort.  This word comes from the great German brewing 
tradition which some of us here in the Upper Midwest still practice...

Running your wort through a strainer AFTER the boil is NOT sparging.  It 
is a crude form of filtering.

Hope that helps,

Andy Patrick (andnator at mcs.com)
Certified Beer Judge;  Brewing Instructor-College of DuPage County,IL
Founder, HomeBrew U BBS Network:
Chicago 708-705-7263, Houston 713-923-6418, Milwaukee 414-238-9074

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 07:20:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "MARYANNE ZELEZNIK, WNKU HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, KY 41076 E-MAIL: ZELEZNIK at NKU.EDU"
Subject: HOLIDAY BEER

Thanks to everyone who responded to our request for information about
holiday/seasonal beers.  We've had more responses than we ever dreamed...and
some very good interviews.

Margaret Ulveling
Maryanne Zeleznik
WNKU radio news

Zeleznik at nku.edu

Return to table of contents


Date:     Tue, 13 Dec 94 7:27:30 EST
From: "Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616" <wagnecz at PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Oatmeal Stout Tip

When making oatmeal stout, get the temperature of the oatmeal to the mash 
temperature _before_ you dump it into the mash, as it has tremendous
thermal capacity and will screw up your strike temperature in a big way.
I use one pound (dry weight) for every five gallons of intended wort.
For my typical 15 gal. run, this is a _big_ family pot of gloop.  Hit your 
strike temperature with the grains and stabilize.  Then add the mess from
hell to the top of the mash and gently work it in.  My material of
choice: Shoprite Old Fashioned Oates (label says rolled oates).  I'll
try to post the recipe for the stout as soon as I can dig myself out of
the avalanche of XMAS related stuff ...

			Glen

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 09:07:00 PST
From: Ray Robert <rayr at bah.com>
Subject: mild rant


I would just like to say, "Can't we all just get along"

In the year or so that I have been brewing and reading the HBD, It has been 
a fantastic resource.  I don't purport to speak for other people, but the 
HBD is a wonderful amalgamation of people, experience, and humor.  We have 
scientists, engineers, brewmasters, and regular joes (like myself) who share 
a passion for both the art and science of brewing (and let's not forget) 
drinking beer.  I would not want to see the HBD change to suit one group or 
another.  If there are particular aspects of the HBD that you don't like 
skip them, that's what I do.  *But* I do save every HBD I can, because as I 
work to become a better brewer it is an excellent reference of the combined 
expertise of everyone out there.  Keep it all coming!

no apologies for the bandwidth, just had to vent.

Robert Ray

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 08:35:11 EST
From: mlobo at sunwr23 (Michael T. Lobo)
Subject: strainers/fridgemare before xmas

Holiday greetings:

Michael Minter asks about strainers -- I too, have one of those "useless"
filter in a funnel gizmos.  Useless for straining anything but maybe a teaspoon
of hops.  I use a LARGE seive ( sieve ? ).  Its 12" in diameter and sits
quite nicely on the primary bucket.  Look in kitchen supply places.  I also
( out of lazyness ) use a boiling bag for hops & grains.  When done, the bag
 comes out & there is nothing to filter.

John Palmer's Christmas Tale...great stuff!  Thanks for sharing.

happy holidays,

Michael T. Lobo
mlobo at foxboro.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 10:03:43 EST
From: terfintt at ttown.apci.com (Terry Terfinko)
Subject: Hot Water Thermostat

     I plan to upgrade the thermostat on my hot liquor tank.  Currently the 
tank is constructed from a sankey keg and has a thermostat from a hot
water heater mounted on the side which controls the electric water 
heater element inside the tank.  This thermostat is not very accurate
and I have a hard time reaching / holding a specific temperature.  I think 
the poor conductivity of heat through stainless steel is part of the 
problem.
     I plan to install a circulation pump to get a more even temperature 
throughout the tank and would like to install a sensor in the circulation
loop to control the element.  Does anyone know were I can purchase a
thermister and control circuit to accomplish this?  I would prefer a pre 
made unit, but circuit plans would be acceptable.  If anyone is interested
in building and selling a circuit, please E-mail me.

Terry Terfinko - terfintt at ttown.apci.com

Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1604, 12/14/94