HOMEBREW Digest #1663 Tue 21 February 1995

Digest #1662 Digest #1664

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  re:IBU Arguments/spoiled starters/CO2-filled keg... (usfmchql)
  Dual kettle IBU calculation (Robert Mongeon)
  Lots o stuff (c-amb)
  TRASH  V homebrew competition (RCBEER)
  please cancel my subscription (Stan VanDeWetering)
  Holy Gott, look at all this stuff! (Christopher P. Weirup)
  Dropping = Racking?! / My new Web Page (John J. Palmer)
  Wichita Competetion ("Lee Bussy")
  Re: IBU formulas (Zeek67)
  Re: Wheeler on "Dropping" (Tel +44 784 443167)
  Extended Mashes ("DAVID SCHLEEF")
  Re: BJCP Judge Rank Questions ("Lee Bussy")
  Internet resources for the Homebrewer ("Keith Royster")
  GOTT mash tun/lauter information ( Neil Mager )
  chicago brewpubs (Tim Lawson)
  Superb gas burners (mlloyd)
  Extraction rate help! (Jeff Stampes)
  Bonehead Update ("Harrington, Stephen J")
  Use of leftover wort for yeast starter (Chris Strickland)
  Re: BJCP Judge-Rank Questions... (Spencer.W.Thomas)
  Garetz's Book (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Klages, water ("Harralson, Kirk")
  overpitching/poor body/pale ale ("Timothy P. Laatsch)
  Grain Mill: Roller Texture (andrew keegan)
  AHA/IBU (Norman Pyle)

****************************************************************** * 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. 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 ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 14:34:11 EST From: usfmchql at ibmmail.com Subject: re:IBU Arguments/spoiled starters/CO2-filled keg... -=> There is an on-going discussion about IBUs and hop utilizations... A point I feel is being missed in the current discussion regarding whose hop utilization formulas should be golden on what day, I think we are missing the point of having them at all. The benefit, IMHO, is that having a consistent method of determining IBUs will assist in duplicating the results of a recipe's author when attempting to do so. Miller's method, in his TCHBOHB, of saying to use xx IBUs of XXXX hops is a good start as samples of any one specific hop variety taken from different sources (be that 'source' geographical, conditional, or temporal) are not created equal. Perhaps the nextlogical step on this path would be to add the author of the equation used to determine the IBUs of the resulting brew. Calibrating your pallet; or using your own utilization equation or method are irrelevant when brewing an unfamiliar beer style from a written source. Having hops quoted per expected contribution to the overall bitterness, given the calculation used, will. Just my opinion. -=> In HBD 1660, Art McGregor asks about his contaminated starters. The acidity of your beer aids in combating infection. Your starter worts, on the other hand, do not have that capability. More than likely you will experience no problems using your sanitation methods for bottling your beer (as you reportedly haven't had any problems to date). I do, however, boil my caps a little longer than that. Usually around 15 minutes. It may be brewers superstition, but somewhere I came up with a rule of thumb that, if it has to be boiled, it has to be boiled at least 15 minutes. Adding hops is said to help. Refrigeration, in this case, would just delay the action of the offending beasties. They'd still be there, just colder. I use canning methods to prepare my starters using a 15 minute pressure canner boil at 15 psi. You can do the same with a longer boil in a water-bath canner (ie: your brewpot). Just make sure the water boils, that it does so for about a half an hour, and that the mason jars are under at least two inches of water. I've never experienced an infection in one of these rascals... -=> In HBD 1661 Algis Korzonas comments on the CO2 keg to Beer Keg gravity tap method... Is my face red... Algis, you are quite correct. ;-) The post did read very 'blue sky'. And the CO2 will eventually diffuse with the incoming air. However, this is really no different than the preventative methods we use to avoid oxidation while racking (following a CO2 purge); unless, of course, you are using a totally closed system. More 'containment' than prevention. To further thoughts on this subject, my 'CO2 keg' is equipped with a pressure relief valve which remained open only for dispensing beer, and for 're-purging' with CO2 in effect, enriching the CO2 environment contained inside - this contributed greatly to my success with this method. I apologize to anyone who may have read more into the method than was intended (and I nod to A.K.). The laws of statistical physics, regrettably, still apply. -=> Matt K asks about B-Brite... In its less costly form, B-Brite is known as Arm & Hammer Super Washing Form. Sodium Carbonate, for the most part. -=> Tom Gehrmann asks whether to buy a ss or an enamel pot... My vote goes to the ss. Easier to clean, and won't rust if you chip it. "The land of milk and honey? At least we can make mead." - Lost passage from The Book of Exodus Patrick G. Babcock USFMCHQL at IBMMAIL (313)33-73657 (V) (313)59-42328 (F) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 15:49:13 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Mongeon <rmongeon at together.net> Subject: Dual kettle IBU calculation Hello everyone, I've got a question I've been pondering for some time now. It envolves calculating IBU when boiling in 2 different kettles. I don't have the cash to invest in a 7.5gal kettle so I have to use my existing 16 and 20 quart brew-pots to brew my all-grain batches. My method now consists of filling both pots up and boiling the wort down so that the entire batch will fit into the 20 quart pot. Once done, I take a hydrometer reading so I can calculate an accurate IBU reading. Because the batch will equal 5.5 gallons in the end I use that as my volume amount. This seems to work very well as my beers all come out balanced. My question is this: If I hop the two batches separatly, but together, how do I calculate the IBU for the total batch when the SG of the two kettles are different. Can I take two hydrometer readings and plug them into the equation using 5.5 gallons as the total? Would the total IBU then be equal to the sum of both batches? ----------------------------- Thanks in advance ------- Rob Mongeon ------- Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 17:50:24 +0000 From: c-amb at math.utah.edu Subject: Lots o stuff Hi all! I went into lurking mode for the last several months due to the unexpected time demands of opening my homebrew supply store. But now that everything is underway, and I am down to a resonable 70 hours a week, I seem to have a little time to become more active in the digest :-) Several people wrote to me for info about opening a store while I was trying to get everything up and running. However, in the transfer of computer equipment I lost all my old mail. So, if you asked me some questions and I rudely ignored you please ask again. First my question, I am confused about the Great Western Malt. I know (?) that it is 50% klages. However, I have seen Klages refered to as both a pale and a lager malt. I know that Klages is a barley strain not a malt variety. However, is it made into both Pale and Lager malts? I have ordered it as both and I seem to get the same bags of malt from Great Western so I am a little confused. > I suspect that the problem was not in the headspace, but in the container > itself. All the "pressure barrels" I've seen coming from the UK have been > made of polythene (called polyethylene in the US). This plastic is > notorious for being permiable to oxygen and, despite what appears to be How does this relate to the Party Pig? Have people noticed their beer getting stale during storage in a Pig? Matt_K at ceo.sts-systems.ca wrote: > Message: > I feel kind of stupid asking but what is B-Brite and where can I get > it? I tried several homebrew stores and drew a blank. > B-Brite is a santizer/cleanser which cleans with active oxygen. It also contains sodium carbonate and sodium silicate. It is a product of Crosby and Baker whom your supplier should know about. If your supplier carries one-step cleanser this can be used as a substitute as they are nearly identical in my understanding. Jim Cave wrote: > Here is what Wheeler says about Dropping (Wheeler and Protz. 1993. > Brew your own real ale at home. ISBN: 1-85249-113-2 > > "After the ale has been fermenting for a couple of days, when it has > attenuated to about half of the original gravity..... > "The beer should be syphoned from one container to another, taking > care to leave as much yeast and sediment as possible behind in the primary > vessel and taking care to admit the minimum of air into solution; although > some air may be beneficial for certain strains of yeast. This can be > achieved by using a syphon tube, the outlet of which should always be kept > submerged under the transferred beer......The quality of the ale is much > improved by dropping." > > So....Wheeler says _not_ to admit a lot of air during dropping but > don't be too anal about it! This is really interesting. "Brew Your own Real Ale at Home" was written at the same time Graham's book "Home Brewing, the Camra Guide" was updated. If fact, they were published at the same time. In "Home Brewing", Graham writes: "The dropping system is an alternative to the single vessel fermentation system. With this system, when the beer has fermented a day or two, it is "dropped" into a secondary fermentation vessel leaving the dirty primary yeast head, mutant yeast cells, trub, and other debris behind....The advantages of the dropping system are that the dirty primary yeast head and the debris on the bottom of the vessel gets left behind, and the yeast gets thoroughly roused. However, a good many active yeast cells are also left behind on the bottom of the vessel, and some highly flocculant yeast strains *require* re-aeration to encourage the yeast to multiply and restore the yeast count to resonable levels [emphasis mine]. It is this re-aeration that is the stumbling block for many home brewers due to the fear of airborne infection. It is true that re-aeration goes against the normal rules of sound home-brewed beer, but it is my view that the advantages of the dropping system outweigh its risk......[the dropping should be done after the yeast has gone anaerobic, about 36 hours after pitching. Or when roughly half the fermentable material has been used]...It is safe to run the beer from the primary vessel to the secondary vessel via the tap because aeration is required.....Alternatively, the beer can be siphoned from one vessel to another and re-aeration performed [by pouring the wort from one fermentation bin to another a few times, generating plenty of violent, mechanical, sloshing action.]" So either Graham simply forgot to update this section of "Home Brewing" or he simply didn't feel that "Brew Your Own Real Ale..." was the proper book to introduce such a controversial topic. He does spend much more time discussing "dropping" in "Home Brewing" than in "Brew Your ..." so I would tend to belive that he simply didn't want to make "Brew Your..." too confusing.+ If and when I have the time I will try a split batch to explore the advantages or dissadvantages of dropping with aeration and without. It would seem that it would only be advantageous for highly flocculant yeast. Graham does mention that "It is probably true that the performance of some yeast strains is improved by dropping whereas other yeast strains object to it. I have always used the dropping system and have never had difficulty." Well, sorry about such a long post. I seem to have been more anxious to rejoin the fold than I thought. Mark Alston (c-amb at math.utah.edu) The Beer Nut, Inc. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 10:53:48 -0500 From: RCBEER at aol.com Subject: TRASH V homebrew competition The Three Rivers Alliance of Serious Homebrewers will be hosting their fifth homebrew competition on may 20 in Pittsburgh Pa. The deadline for entries will be may 6.. Last year we had 180 entries and just enough judges. If you are interested in judging or entering this competition please send a message to me or call Greg Walz at 412-331-5645 and we will mail you an entry/judging packet. If you plan on entering and judging you can hand carry your entries if you pre register them before the competition deadline. Ralph Colaizzi rcbeer at aol.com or 75444,1225 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 09:22:16 -0800 (PST) From: Stan VanDeWetering <vandewes at ucs.orst.edu> Subject: please cancel my subscription please cancel my subsription- thank you. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 13:43:41 -0500 From: cerevis at panix.com (Christopher P. Weirup) Subject: Holy Gott, look at all this stuff! First off, let me thank everybody who responded to my request for Gott mash/lauter tun information. I got a lot of responses and wasn't able to reply to each and everyone, so my thanks go out to you now. Hopefully in the not-too-distant future I'll be able to share my Gott "expertise". A number of people were as interested in the Gott cooler setup and requested that I forward this information to them or post on the digest. See how there was quite of bit of information, I didn't want to use all that bandwidth. Therefore, if anyone wants this Gott info, you can e-mail me and I'll send you the info in a handy digest format. The Homebrew Digest In Action. It's a beautiful thing. Thanx again! Chris Weirup cerevis at panix.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 12:15:45 -0800 From: johnj at primenet.com (John J. Palmer) Subject: Dropping = Racking?! / My new Web Page Hi Group, I was just reading Saturdays HBD and saw Jim Caves post on Wheeler. Do you mean to tell me that we have been getting excited about racking to a secondary fermenter for Ales!? No wonder it greatly improves the beer! I have been using a secondary since my second batch and havent looked back. We have had discussions of Single vs Two Stage Fermentation before with pros on both sides, but I have always thought I got a smoother clearer beer out of Two Stage. Here I was wondering if Dropping was something new. Did everybody else realize this? Am I the last one again? At least I didnt fall for the Coriander thread. ** By the Way, I have hit the 90% mark on my new Web page located at: www.primenet.com/~johnj/ It is the Palmer House Brewery and Smithy and contains my How to Brew file, will contain my other writings on zymurgical metallurgy, has my winning Chili recipe, and my How to make Chainmail Armor files (if you are interested). Parts of it are still under construction and I am running out of weekend. Cheers, John Brewing is Fun! johnj at primenet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:36:00 +0000 From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb at southwind.net> Subject: Wichita Competetion This is probably one of the last notices about the Wichita Competition coming up in March (who was that cheering???!!) Date: March 25th, 1995 Deadine: March 17th, 1995 Classes: All Beer, Mead and Cider For info contact: Me (duh!) Judges seats still available, beds for brewers offered. - -- -Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... | leeb at southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 23:42:14 -0500 From: Zeek67 at aol.com Subject: Re: IBU formulas Richard Webb writes: >What does >this tell us? It tells us that we are GUESSING as to what leads to hop >utilization and bitterness. We know what makes it go up and down, but >we are clueless as to the 'real' numbers. I encountered the same problem when trying to come up with a formula on a post several months ago. I found that everyone is using different utilization percentages. A book I read by (Englishman) Graham Wheeler stated that most homebrewers get a maximum of only ~20% utilization. This seemed to work for me based on previous batches. (I adjust for gravity, time). What percentage rates were used for the different ibu's given in your post? Also, I have read several places that there is no significant increase in utilization after a 60 minute boil. Have you found otherwise? ~Zeek ZEEK67 at AOL.COM Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 09:19:06 +0000 From: Brian Gowland <B.Gowland at rhbnc.ac.uk> (Tel +44 784 443167) Subject: Re: Wheeler on "Dropping" In HBD 1661, Jim Cave <CAVE at PSC.ORG> wrote: > > Here is what Wheeler says about Dropping (Wheeler and Protz. > 1993. Brew your own real ale at home. ISBN: 1-85249-113-2 > > [Part of quote cut] > > "The beer should be syphoned from one container to another, taking care > to leave as much yeast and sediment as possible behind in the primary > vessel and taking care to admit the minimum of air into solution; although > some air may be beneficial for certain strains of yeast..." > > [Rest of quote cut] > > So....Wheeler says _not_ to admit a lot of air during dropping but > don't be too anal about it! The text from "Brew Your Own Real Ale At Home" has, to a great extent, been condensed from Graham Wheeler's first book "Home Brewing - The CAMRA Guide" which I consider to be more complete. Here's what he has to say in this book.... "The advantages of the dropping system are that the dirty primary yeast head and the debris on the bottom of the vessel gets left behind, and the yeast gets thoroughly roused. However, a good many active yeast cells are also left behind on the bottom of the vessel, and some highly flocculant yeast strains require re-aeration to encourage the yeast to multiply and restore the yeast count to reasonable levels. It is this re-aeration that is the stumbling block for many home brewers due to the fear of airborne infection. It is true that re-aeration goes against the normal rules of sound home-brewed beer, but it is my view that the advantages of the dropping system outweigh its risks". Having read this for the first time in many months, I can see that the wording is "....some highly flocculant yeast strains require re-aeration..." and not that it should be done as a matter of course as I have been suggesting in the past. This was a mis-interpretation by myself when I originally read the section many months ago and resulted in me re-aerating everytime. In saying that though, I have discovered that the British ale strains that I use, tend to cope with re-aeration well and so I will continue to re-aerate as a matter of course. What is interesting is that my two favourite strains so far (Wyeast and Yeast Lab's British Ale strains) are supposedly only medium-flocculant according to Zymurgy Summer 1994 and that the only yeast that I have had trouble with (Wyeast #1007 German Ale) is supposedly highly-flocculant as detailed in the same article - go figure! Cheers, Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 11:57:40 +0200 From: "DAVID SCHLEEF" <SCHLEEF at hali.edv.agrar.tu-muenchen.de> Subject: Extended Mashes In HBD 1662 Robert Mech writes: I would think that if for instance the mash time at 154 for 1 hour, was extended to lets say 1.5 hours, you could increase your extract efficency. Extending your mash times will not neccesarrily increase your extract. If your using well modified malt and you're treating your water properly(Beta-amylase works best when the water is slightly acidic)in addition to a relatively thin mash(1:3.5 or so), then the times you are using should be more than adequate, assuming those times do not include the time you're spending to reach your target temperatures. In the lab I've gotten 80%+ effenciency by using well modified malts(munich light, Kongress Maischverfahren) and holding my various temperatures no longer than 30 minutes each. I hope this helps some, Dave Schleef TU-Muenchen, Weihenstephan "mit Weihenstephan faengt Bier an." dschleef at hali.edv.agrar.tu-muenchen.de Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 06:55:49 +0000 From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb at southwind.net> Subject: Re: BJCP Judge Rank Questions Jim Powell asks about the BJCP: Good questions Jim. As some of you know, alot of these are subject to change but here's what's current (to tyhe best of my knowlege): > What is the BJCP? The BJCP is the Beer Judgce Certification Program started jointly by the AHA and the HWBTA as a means of providing quality judging and helpfull feedback to brewers entering their efforts into sanctioned/recognized competition. > How does one become a judge? Practice, practice, practice! ;) Alot of studying up on the worlds beer styles, sampling commercial examples and experience are the best ways. Most start judging local contests and stewarding at larger ones to gain experience/knowlege and to prepare for the examination. The current certification examination is a gruelling 3 hour essay test with 4 tastings thrown in for good measure. The test is formidable but it does help to ensure that the feedback ou receive from your entries into a competition is helpfull and hopefully correct (we're human too). > How does a judge go about obtaining the next highest rank? You must score a certain level on the exam to be eligible to rise to the next level and have the appropriate level of experience points which are awarded by judging at, stewarding at or organizing competitions. > Are there classes to take; fees to pay? Many clubs hold preparation classes but the bulk of the knowlege you must get on your own through personal study and experience. The fee for 1st time takers of the exam is currently $50 and $30 for re-takes. There are currently no yearly dues or maintenance fees. > Is there an anual membership fee for a judge to maintain his present rank? Again, not currently. All that is required is that you continue to judge competitions that present themselves. There is no "magic number" of competitions that you need attend to maintain your status. > Does a judge have to take future classes/exams to maintain his present rank? No, but the better ones will try to maintain proficciency and increase their knowlege of individual styles. > What type of power is invested into each judge at each given rank? The only power is to be able to help brewers with their beers. A higher level is really a thing for the judges themselves. There are many good judges out there that aren't even members of the program. > What can these judges do with their certificates? Buy a beer at a local tavern for $2.50? :) The certificate is really a donation to the brewers in his or her community. The judge donates his time to competitions to better the craft. > Can the obtained skills and knowledge of a judge be used to offer a service > to breweries? Yes and no. The program is volunteer only but it is the only nationally recognized accreditation program in the US. I suppose if you were to solicit your services then it would add some credibility to your efforts. Hope that clears some things up for you. I'm sure others will add their oopinions to mine and you will be painted a better picture of the program as a whole. - -- -Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... | leeb at southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 09:50:00 EST From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: Internet resources for the Homebrewer Hello all! I've recently joined a local Brewing Club and the president is requesting help in writing the news letter. I thought a short article on all of the great Internet resources for the homebrewer might make for an interesting article. One problem, though, is that I'm new to this Internet stuff and I also (temporarily?) only have access to e-mail so all I get is this Digest. So my request is this... I would like my fellow homebrewers out there to send me info on any Brewing/Beer related internet mailing groups, Usegroups, WWW sites, etc... And remember, I'm new to this, so a brief description of the site, what can be found there, and any relavent/specific instructions for accessing would be greatly appreciated. I will also be glad to forward the compiled info to anyone who requests it. TIA!!! +------------------------------+-------------------------+ | Keith Royster | NC-DEHNR / Air Qualtiy | | n1ea471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us | 919 North Main St. | +------------------------------+ Mooresville, NC 28115 | | "I think I ran over my | Voice: (704) 663-1699 | | Dogma with my Karma." | Fax: (704) 663-6040 | +------------------------------+-------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 10:10:26 -0500 From: neilm at juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Neil Mager ) Subject: GOTT mash tun/lauter information There is an archive I put together about 18 months ago containing many articles about lauter-tun/mash-tun design for all-grain brewing. Its at ftp.stanford.edu, in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer/docs/all-grain-equipment.Z I gathered posts from several years worth of hbd's to put it together. There's several other archives and files that'll be helpful there also. Good luck, Neil =============================================================================== Neil M. Mager MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lexington, MA Weather Radar - Group 43 Voice (617) 981-4803 (W) Internet neilm at ll.mit.edu =============================================================================== Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 10:54:16 EST From: Tim Lawson <lawson at clcunix.msj.edu> Subject: chicago brewpubs I've heard that there are 3 new brewpubs in Chicago. I haven't been there since last May but plan on going again this May. Can anyone give me the names & addresses (& any info on their beers) of these brewpubs? (I know about Weinkeller's, Goose Island, & Berghoff's). Thanks in advance!! Tim Lawson Cincinnati, Ohio lawson at clcunix.msj.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 09:04:10 EST From: mlloyd at cuix.pscu.com Subject: Superb gas burners Does anyone have any experience or words of wisdom regarding the Superb gas burners? I was looking at one the other day at Liberty Malt Supply in Seattle. I believe I have read that their heat output is -only- 35,000 BTUH which strikes me as somewhat low. Please post to the group your experience or opinion on this product. Thank you. Michael G. Lloyd Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 07:55:41 MST From: jeff at neocad.com (Jeff Stampes) Subject: Extraction rate help! Ick! I made a batch of all-grain honey ginger lager on Sunday, and while most everything appeared to go quite well, My extraction rate...well...it stunk! I'll briefly summarize my procedures (so as to not create another 100 line description of my brewday...)... Grain Bill: 9 lbs. German 2-Row Pils, .5 lb. Dextrine, .5 Lb Wheat Malt .25 Lb Crystal Malt - 20L (Oh I wish they had the 10L :) Mashed in grains with 11 qts. boiling H20 in coleman cooler. Mash stablized at about 155F...After 75 minutes, temp was down to 151F, so an additional 3 qts boiling H2O was added to bring the temp to 159F...45 minutes and temp was down to 156F. Transferred mash to Phalse Bottom lauter-tun, and sparged with 4 gallons 170F H2O. Boiled 60 minutes with hops, 4 oz. grated ginger root and 2 lbs. honey. FDinish hopped, cooled, pitched, etc. (I could tell you a REALLY funny story about a 1/4 full carboy getting knocked onto it's side and rolling down a flight of wooden steps into our front yard, without cracking or losing a drop! But I'll save that for an aeration antecdote). Anyway, when it was all said and done, I ended up with a OG of 1.047. At LEAST 15points lower than I had wanted...I figure this is about a 47% yield? What am I doing wrong? What water chem,otry affects yield? Oh collective hbd wisdom, save my next batch! - -- Jeff Stampes -- NeoCAD, Inc. -- Boulder, CO -- jeff at neocad.com -- - -- Ultimate Frisbee...It's not just for dogs anymore. -- - -- Any fool can make bread out of grain...God intended it for beer! -- Return to table of contents
Date: 20 Feb 1995 09:55:59 -0800 From: "Harrington, Stephen J" <sharrington at msmail4.hac.com> Subject: Bonehead Update It's alive, it's alive......... The 'cursed' SNPA starter has been raised from the dead. After about 4 days of looking at the dead starter, I had pretty much written it off (until I read a post from someone who said that it took them a long time to culture the yeast from a Chimay). I have long sinced brewed, so I guess I will use this one for my next batch (I plan on doing the same thing but experimenting with mash schedule to see how it impacts extraction/clarity, etc.). My question is, how can I tell if the starter is any good? It has led a troubled life and I really do not trust it. Is it as simple as smelling it, or should I take a taste of the 'beer' and see if it is bad? Cheers, Stephen Harrington Manhattan Beach, CA P.S. How does one avoid having the hops they are dry-hopping with clog up the airlock? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 13:09:17 -0500 From: cstrick at iu.net (Chris Strickland) Subject: Use of leftover wort for yeast starter I've been trying to figure out ways to use the left-over wort. Kraustening was a failure because of the extra crap it left in my beer (I have to filter each bottle to drink it). So I thought, why not make a hopped LME and freeze it. So after straining I took the left over wort and boiled it some more to thicken it, then froze it in the freezer. Is there any reason why I shouldn't use this as a yeast starter? - -------------- Chris Strickland cstrick at iu.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 13:53:48 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Re: BJCP Judge-Rank Questions... Well, the answer to that is in flux at the moment, given the AHA pull-out from sponsorship of the BJCP to establish their own program. However, you can look at the "Judgenet Archive" at the following addresses: ftp: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge gopher: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu www: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Judge/ (capitalization important) The best file to look at is probably 'studyguide_v2'. =Spencer in Ann Arbor, MI Return to table of contents
Date: 20 Feb 95 10:19:00 -0600 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: Garetz's Book Thanks to David for pointing out my mistakes. Indeed, I should not have let my zeal interfere with the facts. I should have brought in my copy of his book to check the text before commenting. However, regarding my referring to "Garetz's *Laws* of Hop Utilization," what I had feared *DID* in fact occur. Many, many unsuspecting homebrewers have bought the book and have brewed with the formulas that Garetz published and they have brewed overhopped beer with them. Even experts among us were forced to dump batches as a result of these formulas. How many copies of beer calculation software have been distributed with these formulas? See what I mean? All the disclaimers in the world did not protect these brewers from the waste of ingredients and time. No, David, I did not check my copy before engaging my keyboard, but the fact remains that the formulas are so far off from reality, that even the disclaimer, in my opinion, was not strong enough. In my opinion, it should have read like this: "I've done a few isolated tests on a few beers, but most of these formulas are guesses. The beer brewed with these formulas could have as much as twice the expected IBUs. I'm sorry that I could not be more accurate and did not have the time to test all the formulas, but I have been advertizing this book in numerous magazines for over six months and this book is already late, so I despite the fact that I'm presenting untested formulas, I'll just try my luck, hope nobody sues me, and maybe get the formulas right in the second edition. This way, you're sure the buy the second edition, right?" Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 14:16:20 EST From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh at news.roadnet.ups.com> Subject: Klages, water Just now catching up on about a week's worth of digests: Seems as if there is a difference of opinion on how best to mash domestic 2-row. I was always under the impression that domestic 2-row did not need a protein rest. I have had chill haze problems with single step mashes, but didn't make the link to less body and/or mouthfeel. Haze is not a priority with me, but body definitely is. I have always relied on the temperature ranges in TNCJOHB for the different rests (protein, sacc., etc.). The quotes attributed to Dr. Lewis would seem to indicate these ranges to be different for Klages. Is this correct? Has he (or anyone else) ever quantified the benefits of using various step programs for Klages? After reading this post, I dug out the Sept/Oct 1994 issue of Brewing Techniques in which Dave Miller discusses the pros and cons of step vs. single infusion for domestic 2-row malts. The article left me with the impression that either method would produce good beer. I have used the 40-60-70 mash described by George Fix, and liked the results, even though it extends an already long brew day. I have thought about trying Papazian's schedule (something like 122F for 30 min, 146-152F for 60 min, 168F for 10 min...). Would this be better for domestic 2-row? We had a representative from the local water company at one of our brew club meetings (Northern Maryland). He said that our water supply is very shallow and affected greatly by run-off, if I remember correctly. A water analysis done today would be completely different from one done next week, and was therefore meaningless. I used to follow water treatment as written in recipes until I realized the end result would of course be dependent on the water I started with. I see a lot of beginning brewers doing the same thing. I wonder why recipes often give amounts of gypsum, etc. to add without stating the targeted concentrations. The one area I know I could improve on is ph monitoring. Not having a ph meter, I have to rely on papers that range all the way from a tan, semi-medium brown to a brownish semi-medium-dark tan. Needless to say, when checking mash runoff that contains dark malts, I don't have a lot of faith in my numbers. Kirk Harralson Bel Air, Maryland Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 14:32:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "Timothy P. Laatsch <LAATSCH at kbs.msu.edu>" <LAATSCH at kbs.msu.edu> Subject: overpitching/poor body/pale ale Hey HBDers, Yesterday I brewed an all-grain Munich (OG 1.052) and poured the chilled wort directly onto the dregs of the primary from my last Munich. This may have been a bit of a no-no given the amount of break material and hop residue on the yeast-cake. Regardless, it's been done. I aerated 30 minutes following "pitching" and noticed the airlock bubbling almost immediately after being placed on the carboy (6-gal). I moved the beer to my lager fermentation room (50 F) and checked it 4 hours later just out of curiosity. It had a huge head and the airlock was bubbling at about 60/min! I was astounded. This morning (15 hours after pitching) the airlock was bubbling so fast I could hardly count the bubbles coming out, but I estimate the rate to have been somewhere around 120 bubbles/min. And this is lager yeast! I'm concerned that the large amount of yeast may have resulted in overpitching this batch, which can lead to oxygen depletion, autolysis, and sulfury odors in the beer (or so I've read). I plan to rack to secondary as soon as the head starts to recede. Will this avoid the above-listed problems? What other problems could result from this very rapid burst of activity? Am I just worrying too much? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POOR BODY: Many of my extract beers were lacking body and seemed a little watery despite using the appropriate volumes of water and no dilution. This is one of the big reasons I switched to all-grain----I was hoping for better body and more maltiness. Now, some of my all-grain batches are suffering the same problem. I've stopped doing protein rests, tried adding cara-pils, and mash in the high-body end of the spectrum (158 F). I'm at a loss and REALLY want to correct this situation. I realize the above-info is sketchy, but can anyone suggest anything---I can give more details by private mail if necessary. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PALE ALE: In hopes of correcting the above problem with poor body, I plan to do a series of pale ales to refine my mashing/sparging techniques. Below is the basic recipe I plan to use: 8.0 lbs briess 2-row pale malt 1.0 lbs 20L crystal malt 0.5 lbs cara-pils BC Kent Golding hops (24 IBU according to the LATEST v. of SUDSW) ---bittering, finishing, and dry-hopping I thought that I might start with a standard single-infusion mash and experiment from there (working towards the 40/60/70 schedule). Any suggestions on mashing programs or recipe modifications would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for any help. Bones ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Timothy P. Laatsch Graduate Student in Microbial Ecology/Bioremediation Michigan State University / W.K. Kellogg Biological Station Kalamazoo, MI laatsch at kbs.msu.edu "...and your face looked like somethin' death brought with him in his suitcase..."----WZ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 17:18:49 -0500 From: andrew keegan <akeegan at kierkegaard.helios.nd.edu> Subject: Grain Mill: Roller Texture I am attempting to build a grain mill and I have read that many people recommend or at least talk of texture on the rollers. My question is what type of texture? Is this simply rough vs. smooth or is there some sort of pattern or teeth idea? I am starting with smooth 2" diameter maple dowls. Any help or guidance would be appreciated. Private email preffered and if anyone else is intrested I will forward them the info. Thanks alot, Drew Keegan (akeegan at trudeau.helios.nd.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 16:32:46 MST From: Norman Pyle <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM> Subject: AHA/IBU Jeff Hewit writes: >Lately, I have seen much trash talk on HBD and R.C.B regarding >the AHA. I don't profess to know much about how the >organization is run, or what lead to the rift with the Beer >Judges. However, as a relatively new brewer (1 year, 12 >batches), I have found membership in AHA to be very helpful. (I The AHA is designed to bring new brewers into the fold, and they do a very good job of this. >just renewed my membership for 2 years.) When I first asked AHA >for info, I received a package that include some very helpful >hints. I also find ZYMURGY very helpful and interesting. In >response to those who complain that it is a "catalog," I find the >adds helpful as I search for sources of equipment and After you've been brewing for 3 years or so, those ads get very tiring. How many times do I need to sift through the same ads for Charlie P slogans and sayings? After you've seen them 10 or 20 times you start to wonder if the magazine couldn't fill that space with something a little more useful. >ingredients. As far as judging goes, the only judge I worry >about is me. I brew beer to satisfy my taste, not to score >points and win trophies. Overall, the AHA is addressing my >needs as a homebrewer, and I will continue to support it. I do the same thing, but I also appreciate the need for organized judgings and such. I also wonder how the AHA can make such rash decisions (like withdrawing support of BJCP) without even a discussion from the hundreds (thousands?) of members affected by these decisions. I don't think the AHA supports experienced brewers like they do the beginners. One might argue that more experienced brewers don't need as much help, which may be true, but we all pay the same fees, right? Each year when renewal comes around we have to decide for ourselves whether we are getting our money's worth from the organization. on the same subject, Scott Bickham writes: >I agree that Zymurgy is a decent publication, especially with the >improvements that have taken place in the past year. The advertising is >a little bothersome, but it has some usefulness when you're searching >for ingredients and I'd rather have it there than see the price of >the magazine increase. The AHA has significantly helped the craft of Ah, but you can now have both the advertising AND a price increase! Price goes up to $33 next year. >homebrewing, but remember that they are motivated by profits and will do >anything they feel is necessary to protect their position. Regarding renewal, I'm not sure I will; I'm riding the fence. The current issue of Zymurgy is a quality issue, probably the best I've seen in over a year. This makes the $33 a little more bearable. ** Fred Waltman brings up a very good point: >There has been much discussion about calculated vs. measured IBU's in >homebrew. One common thread seems to be that people are taking the IBU >numbers on the raw hops as gospel. It would seem that if you are going to >try and fit actual IBU numbers to a formula, you should also send in a >sample of the hops used to see what their actual amount of alpha acids >are. The difference between actual alpha acid and the number written on >the package may explain some of the wild variations Bingo! If you are buying your hops from a local homebrew store, I'd ask a LOT of questions: Who do you buy your hops from? Do you separate them yourselves into 1 oz. packages? How is this done? Do you use O2 barrier packaging? Does your supplier? How are they stored? etc. etc. etc. If you buy hops from The Hop Source (now owned by Just Hops) or HopUnion, or HopTech, then I think the alpha acid is probably pretty accurate. Once I discussed with Glenn Tinseth the issue of rechecking alpha acid late in the hop season (many months after harvest). He indicated that if the hops are stored properly (barrier packaging, purged, low temp) then the %AA will not have changed much from the original value, and can be used as is. The good hop outlets will store properly, but I've seen very few retail stores who do it right. One other issue that comes to mind is weighing the hops. I've seen a dozen different scales used to weigh hops (mostly small food scales), and most of them won't give you a guaranteed accuracy. They are probably all "pretty close" but you don't really know how much error you are adding at this simple step. Using a laboratory-grade scale is a different story, but many of us haven't invested in one. I for now, have taken the tack of aiming for precision, rather than accuracy. If I have as a foundation the ability to duplicate a certain bitterness within acceptable limits, I can take it one step further and adjust it upwards or downwards to meet a goal. This is basically the same argument as Rich Webb's. Another thing to think about. Cheers, Norm (I still think having Fort Collins, or Seattle, or San Francisco in your .signature constitutes "rubbing it in", but I can live with that!!!) Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1663, 02/21/95