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


Contents:
  Re: Pump Aeration Foam & fridges (Jay Reeves)
  Styles Again (Ken Schroeder)
  RIMS Process/Temperature Control ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  Low/no alcohol ("Bruce Eckert/Info Systems/Holland Community")
  Web sites (eg Homebrew Flea Market) via email (Kelly E Jones)
  Thanks and Hops in Starters; Effective?? (Robert S Wallace)
  white spots revisited (Rolland Everitt)
  Re: Styles Again (CHARLIE SCANDRETT)
  Re: Re:   Pump Aeration Foam (Jack Stafford)
  Mead- Slow(No) Start w/Re-pitched Yeast (Brian Travis)
  green stuff (DONBREW)
  Carbonater (dludwig)
  oak in IPAs/styles/enamel pots/flat bock (Algis R Korzonas)
  root beer apology (Scott E. Bratlie)
  Mashing temperatures & saccharification (Derrick Pohl)
  Re:   1056 and little green apples (Tim Fields)
  metric conversion (Tim Fields)
  Sanatizing questionSanitizing questions (PAUL_TULLY)
  Pumpkin Ale (PAUL_TULLY)
  Injection of Oxygen ("Todd A. Darroch")
  IPA and Oak (Delano Dugarm 36478)
  Re[2] RIMS process questions ("Keith Royster")
  Hello Goodbye (Jerry Miller)
  Re: Re[2] RIMS process questions (hollen)
  Re: Concrete Roller (Todd Kirby)
  Wort Chiller Construction Question (Guy A. DeRose)



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! October 3 thru October 13: The digest
!!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if
!!! you make any requests during this time
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

******************************************************************
* 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.
******************************************************************
 
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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 alpha.rollanet.org
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: 16 Oct 95 15:22:05 EDT
From: Jay Reeves <73362.600 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pump Aeration Foam & fridges

Bob (Btalk at aol.com) & Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com>
talk about their air pump setups/woes.

Here's what I've done:

I made a double hole stopper.  In one hole I insert a racking cane & attach
a SS "air stone" via various tubing pieces to the end.  I insert the air pump
hose (?1/4"?.) in the other end of the cane (curved end) .  In the other hole
of the stopper I insert a short piece (3") of 3/8 hard tubing (broken piece of
an old racking cane).  I then use short pieces of various dia tubing on that
to step up to a 5/8 tube which I run into a bucket of water.

I turn the pump on for 15 minutes at a time and let the foam blow
into the bucket.  I use an electronic timer ($20) to automatically cycle
the pump for the next 4 or 5 hours: on for 15 min, off for 1 hour.  After that,
I remove the assembly and replace with a 1" blowoff tube.  I loose less
than a qt of wort but that can easily be accounted for in advance.

The reason I use a 5/8 tube for the blow-off is because it takes less
pressure to push the foam thru the hose as compared to the same length
of 3/8 tube.

Now I need a little guidance and advice:

I'm ready to invest in a brewing fridge.  I've seen some of you mention
that you use a chest-type frezzer - others use an upright refridgerator.
What are the pros/cons of each?

				-Jay Reeves
				Huntsville, Alabama, USA


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 12:18:07 PDT
From: kens at lan.nsc.com (Ken Schroeder)
Subject: Styles Again

Charlie Scandrett and Rob Lauriston have started the styles thread up 
again. To summarize from the last go round on this thread, it was
generally agreed by the paticipants, that styles are the common standards
by which beer is judged. As contrived as the styles may be, brewing to
a style helps any brewer refine brewing skills. The goal in refining
brewing skills is to be able to brew to a style and be consistant with
each batch (RIMS anyone?). This is about all that was agreed upon during 
the last conversation on this topic.

Charlie and Rob point out that styles are linked to history and due to the 
evolution of agriculture and technology, it is very difficult to brew true
to the orginial style. This idea has a lot of merit. But, in my opinion,
style definitions are based on today's interpretation of yesterday's style.
There is no reason to cask a barrel of beer and send it in a non-refigerated
slow sailing boat through the tropics to it's finial desitnation. Because 
this is no longer common practice, the IPA style has evolved. Today's
style "guideline" for IPA leans toward a much more balanced beer without
any mention of the oak flavor imparted by the cask trip in the slow boat. 
The style has evolved, reflecting today's brewing environment. I like to 
think styles are referanced to historical styles and are modified by modern
brewing practices. The most styles do evolve as time marches on.

Charlie and Bob's irritation source, IMHO, seem to be borne from the ridged 
definitions applied by a standard bearing association. I must agree that the 
current condition of style "guidelines" that are most often employed by 
competitions seem out of step with the current brewing practice. This opinion 
appears to be acknowledged by both the AHA and BJCP. The BJCP, I believe, is 
attempting to redefine styles and the sugested catagories the styles belong 
to. I am ignorant of any attemps from the AHA to do the same. We, the 
brewers, have influenance to the BJCP process, but I do not know the 
mechanisim of that influance. Help anyone?

Short of changing the style "guidelines", competitions have the power to
define styles and catagories employed in that competition. A large porporton 
of competitions rely on the AHA "guidelines" because they are recognized by 
virtually all brewers and judges as one "definition of beer characterisitics". 
Coordinating a competition is a tremendous amount of work, the AHA 
"guidelines" relieves a lot of work. It is just plain easy to do. On the left 
coast there are a few examples of competitions that have taken the time to 
evaluate the styles and their catagories. The Mayfair competition, organized 
by the Maltose Falcons, is a great example. They have taken the AHA 
"guidelines" and realigned many styles and their catagories. They have
defined a couple of styles that are not in the AHA "guidelines". The
"World Cup of Beers" (held by BAM?) catagorizes via country of style origin,
totally rejecting the AHA catagories. The California State Club Homebrew
Competition (San Andreas Malts) shortened the number of styles and catagories
and included a entry subcatagory of "other", for those beers which do not
conform to the stated styles of a catagory but are similar. The AHA 
"guidelines" are just that, guidelines. Each competition may alter those 
"guidelines" to suit the needs and desires of that competition.

Creating a new style is not hard to do. Obtaining the hard facts (color, 
bittering units, ect.) may be a little expensive (lab testing), but best 
estimates should suffice until the style is widely recognized. The verbal
description of the overall characteristics is required and should be a 
relatively easy task. The object in defining a style is to give the 
"guidelines" of the styles characteristic so a beer may be evaluated by 
agreed evaluation criteria. Recognition of a style is very difficult. The 
"hegemonistic" (great word Charlie) quality of standard organizations may 
prove the largest road block. Again, the BJCP may have a mechanism to 
circumvent this issue.  I am ignorant of any attempt by the AHA. Because
a style is not "recognized" does not preclude it's use in a competition. It
just is not recognized by one or another standards association. Big deal.

We, the brewers, have the power to define styles and catagories. We may 
choose to influance standards organizations or employ new styles in our 
competitions. Charlie claims "the market....will begin to rationalize 
styles." I disagree. I believe it is the influential brewers, both commercial 
and homebrewer that will define new styles. I think, as more brews take on a 
particular unique style, the brewers will demand the style be seperate from 
other styles. I believe the experienced judges will recognize that a style 
is emerging as larger number of competition entries don't not quite fit 
current style guidelines but yet, have common characteristics. One or two 
breweries producing a new style may not have enough horespower to create a 
new style. (Unless the one or two breweries are the likes of Budswilloors!) 
Hundreds of competition entries should. I am convinced that both the AHA and 
the BJCP are willing to listen to our opinions. The problem is finding the 
method to having our opinions heard in a strong enough voice that these 
standards associations are encouraged into action. 

Is there such a style as American or Californian Stout? Hmmm......


Ken Schroeder
Sequoia Brewing  (Redwood City, Ca.)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 15:28:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: RIMS Process/Temperature Control


Steve Dragon (dragonsc at aol.com) asked about where to pick up the
temperature.  He noted getting different temperatures everywhere
in the system.  I see two criteria: you'd like to get a good
representative temperature, one that best describes what the bulk
of the enzymes see during the mash, and, you'd also like to read
the temperature in such a way as to guarantee no overshoot or
scorching.

The only way you can get a "good representative temperature" that
I can think of is to either design or use the system in such a way
as to eliminate gradients.  This means you can't have channeling
in the grain bed, and *may* mean the tun should be insulated too.
If you can do this, then the first criteria is met with the probe
placed anywhere--it just doesn't matter.  The main motivation for
building a RIMS is to maximize temperature control of the Whole
Mash.  It does no good at all to control the heater effluent
temp to a knat's ass, only to have it cool down 10 degrees at the
walls of the tun, IMO.

The best way to meet the second requirement is measure the temp
of the wort downstream of the heat application source.  If you're
using a heating chamber, then you should measure either in the
chamber or at the exit of the chamber.  If you heat the bottom of
the tun (with any method) then measure in the pipe exiting from
the tun.  Yes, you want to control the Whole Mash temperature,
but it's THIS temperature that absolutely cannot be allowed to
go above the setpoint (at least not by some unknown amount).

> How critical are these temperature points?

Well, I'll be opinions vary on this one, but...I did a stovetop
all-grain recently, using recirculation by hand to control temp.
Batch One was controlled very well at about 152F, and the beer
turned out tasty, but just a tad thinner than I wanted.  My notes
said "mash at about 154F next time to enhance body".  Okay.

I duplicated the recipe and procedure down to the millisecond/
microgram, but dorked up the temperature control.  Almost 45 minutes
of the Big Rest was done at precisely 150F, with the final 15 min
done at about 154F.  Result: noticeably watery porter.  That's all
I have to say about that.  YMMV.

KRF Colorado Springs
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
I may not know a helluva lot, but I'll know even less tomorrow.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Return to table of contents


Date:          Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:25:18 EST
From: "Bruce Eckert/Info Systems/Holland Community" <BPE at zonker.hoho.org>
Subject:       Low/no alcohol

I have a question for the collective wisdom out there.  How can a 
homebrewer reduce (or even eliminate) the alcohol content of his
brew?   With the variety of non-alcohol commercial "beers" available 
now (some LOOK like they are probably good) I am wondering if 
whatever commercial techniques are used can be transferred to 
homebrewing.  Of course, I would PREFER to hear about techniques that 
do not affect the taste ...
- ----------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Eckert / Director, Info Systems
             / Holland Community Hospital
             / Holland Michigan  USA
bpe at hoho.org

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

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:26:29 GMT
From: Kelly E Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com>
Subject: Web sites (eg Homebrew Flea Market) via email

Patrick Babcock proposed posting his Homebrew Flea Market to the Digest on
a regular basis.  I voted no, but I'll offer the following alternative
to those web-impaired brewers who would like to see such info:

Web pages can be accessed via email (text only, obviously) by using a
WWW email server such as Peter Flynn's.  To get information on this,
send email to webmail at www.ucc.ie with HELP as the text of the message.
To retreive a web page, mail to the same address using the single-line message 

GO <url>  

where <url> is the uniform resource locator, for example 
GO http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/4sale.html 
to get Patrick's fleamarket page.

Hope this helps a few people,

Kelly
Portland, OR

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:16:18 CDT
From: Robert S Wallace <rwallace at iastate.edu>
Subject: Thanks and Hops in Starters; Effective??

Beery G'day to you all,

    First, thanks to those responding to my query about the banana blasting
qualities of Wyeast 1214 (Abbey); the takehome on this is that it is a
notorious isoamyl acetate producer, almost regardlesss of temperature.  Some
recommended better pre-pitching aeration; one said use a wit yeast (3944) or
an altbier yeast (don't know how this would hold up to high OG/high alc.
concentration, though).  Encouragingly, some experience is out there that
their banana beer from hell conditioned after 6-12 months into something
wonderful. I'm packing mine away into a deep dark cold part of the cellar to
be revisited next summer.....

Question/Comments du jour.....

     USING HOPS IN STARTERS.....  What component of the hop chemical profile
has been shown to be of bacteriostatic value? (Note - it is not bacteriocidal,
per se, nor is it "antiseptic" as has been also disseminated).  
    Of course, using hops for bittering requires a boil induced
isomerization of alpha acids, etc.  If it is not this isomerized organic acid
which confers bacteriostatic properties to the sweet wort, what is it? 
Is/are the compound(s) known, and more importantly, what is/are its/their
solubility.  For example, is it necessary to boil hops for extended periods
to obtain bacteriostatic properties in starters, or is it sufficient to heat
to boiling for wort sterilization purposes as well as solubilzation of the
active compounds.
     I like having the possible 'built in' advantage that using hops in
starters may confer, but in practice does anyone have any data (or short of
this, opinions) as to how long hops (I use pellets) need to be boiled to
obtain bacteriostatic effects (I could care less about bittering my
starters; I decant the supernatant anyway, and only pitch the slurry of a 2-3
liter starter.)?   Have any experiments been done along these lines?

     I think many homebrewers would like to know this if they use starters
regularly (I always do); furthermore, suitable extracts might be developed
including the bacteriostatic compounds which would enable a few drops of
extract to keep potential infections at bay, particularly when yeast are
successively repitched.  Data??  Thoughts??  Opinions??  Speculation??

[I'm sorry if I am resurrecting an old thread, but I don't recall ever
discussing this in recent HBDs, nor ever getting an adequate answer from
printed info.... please direct me if I'm wrong or mis-/under-informed.]

     Good brewing,

     Rob Wallace

- ---
Robert S. Wallace
Assistant Professor of Botany                     "In cerevisia veritas est."
Dept. of Botany - Iowa State Univ.
Ames, Iowa 50011-1020             rwallace at iastate.edu       FAX: 515-294-1337
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_ooo000ooo_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 18:24:38 -0400
From: af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: white spots revisited



A couple of weeks ago I posted a message describing white spots
which appeared inide the bottles of a 4-week-old batch of ale.
I asked whether these were yeast or bacteria colonies.  Their
appearance was soon followed by a considerable increase in 
carbonation, and a tendency toward gushing.  The flavor and
aroma of this ale were fine - quite good in fact, but being
afraid that spoilage was in progress, and that explosions were
iminent, I consumed the batch.  None of those who assisted in
its disposal had any complaints.

Several people have responded to me privately to say that they
thought the spots were yeast.  One or two had seen something
similar (although nobody mentioned the gushing).  I used
Edme dried ale yeast for that batch, and am still wondering
what the spots are all about, and in general, what the 
symptoms of bacterial and wild yeast contamination are.  I hope
those more knowledgeable than myself will clue me in.  Private
responses or public are welcome - I will post a summary.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 08:52:52 +1000
From: CHARLIE SCANDRETT <merino at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Styles Again

Ken Schroeder replies:

 >Charlie Scandrett and Rob Lauriston have started the styles thread up 
>again.(SNIP)
With some trepidation!

>Charlie and Rob point out that styles are linked to history and due to the 
>evolution of agriculture and technology, it is very difficult to brew true
>to the orginial style. This idea has a lot of merit. (SNIP)
> I like to think styles are referanced to historical styles and are modified 
by modern
>brewing practices. The most styles do evolve as time marches on.
I hope so, but like most evolution, it is slow and a bit of a mystery!.

>Charlie and Bob's irritation source, IMHO, seem to be borne from the ridged 
>definitions applied by a standard bearing association. I must agree that the 
>current condition of style "guidelines" that are most often employed by 
>competitions seem out of step with the current brewing practice. (SNIP)
>. I am convinced that both the AHA and the BJCP are willing to listen to our 
opinions. The problem is >finding the method to having our opinions heard in a 
strong enough voice that these 
>standards associations are encouraged into action. 

>Is there such a style as American or Californian Stout? Hmmm......

It is always worth risking a few flames to get such well researched, thoughtful 
and balanced replies. Being relatively new to the Internet, I can often make 
statements in ignorance of past discussions and events. However I always end up 
much better informed. 
Thanks Ken.

Charlie  (Brisbane, Australia)













Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 17:21:10 PDT
From: stafford at alcor.hac.com (Jack Stafford)
Subject: Re: Re:   Pump Aeration Foam

>Bob (Btalk at aol.com) writes in #1855 about aerating with an aquarium pump:

>My experience is that the foaming is so great that it becomes a
>humongous PITA, even with 5 gal of wort in a 6.5 gal carboy.
>I can run the air pump for about 10 min, then have to shut it off and wait
>20-30 min for the foam to subside before I can turn the pump on again. 3 or 4
>of these cycles is the limit of my patience.

  Why not attach a 1" dia. blow off hose?  Run your smaller diameter tube
attached to the air pump and stone inside that fat one.  Immerse the
open end of the big tube in a pint container with a little sanitizing
solution in the bottom.
  When you're done aerating, just reel in the smaller tube out the open
end of the big one. Leave the big tube in place for the massive rocky head
that typically appears the next day.

  Personally, I'm too cheap to use the powered aereation method. I just 
shake the hell out of the carboy (or bucket).  It works pretty good. 
I could see the logic behind power aereating batches of 10 gallons or more.
10 gallons of beer probably weighs a ton.

Jack  stafford at alcor.hac.com
Costa Mesa, CA

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:30:01 -0400
From: btravis at cy.com (Brian Travis)
Subject: Mead- Slow(No) Start w/Re-pitched Yeast

A question for the brewing gurus out there...

Though I am a fairly experienced beer brewer, I recently racked my first
ever batch of Mead to a secondary fermenter and I carefully salvaged and
refrigerated about 24 ounces of thick yeast sediment from the bottom of the
carboy.  I had used 3 packs (about 21 grams) of Red Star champaigne yeast
along with a teaspoon or so of yeast nutrient (some stuff called "fermax")
in that batch and had seen a rapid, vigorous and thorough fermentation
result.  I pitched the salvaged yeast into a second batch of mead this past
Sunday, along with a teaspoon of the "fermax" nutrient, fully expecting to
see another rapid fermentation start - perhaps even MORE rapid than the
first batch considering the much larger quantity of yeast being pitched.  I
should note that I have repitched yeast frequently in my 35 or so batches of
beer brewed previously, so I was careful to insure that #1, the temperature
was under 80 deg F (75 F when the yeast was pitched) and #2 that the wort
(excuse me - the 'must') was vigorously aerated prior to pitching the yeast.
I always use liquid yeast cultures in my beer, but went with the dried
champaigne yeast in my mead and figured there would be no problems with
re-pitching the sediment from the dried yeast.

Unfortunately, some 32 hours after pitching the yeast there is NO sign
whatsoever of fermentation.  Since all my nearby homebrew stores are closed
Mondays, I could not acquire any more champaigne yeast and in the effort to
get some sort of fermentation going before the bacteria get a foothold, I
pitched a Wyeast 1056 starter that I was culturing up for my planned beer
batch this week.  My questions for the collective:

#1 Any ideas why the champaigne yeast I re-pitched failed to "ignite"?  Is
it possible that the alcohol level of the mead killed the yeast rather than
the yeast going dormant after converting the available dextrins?  Is
re-pitching yeast in meads a brewing no no?

#2 What effect will the ale yeast I added today have on the mead?  (I plan
to add more dried champaigne yeast tomorrow evening, but felt it essential
to get some sort of fermentation head start on the bacteria.)

Perhaps I should note that the original batch from which the yeast was
salvaged started at 1.088 OG and at racking to secondary was .992 gravity.
This occurred within a month and the mead is already essentially clear.
(Recipe is Papazian's "White Angel Savior Mead" with 3 lbs of prickly pear
fruit & 13.5 mesquite honey).

The batch that failed to "ignite" is a higher gravity "sweet mead" with 7.5
pounds of raspberrys and 20 lbs of "generic" honey (OG 1.135).  I used
frozen raspberries but a check of the package indicated pure 100% fruit (no
yeast inhibiting preservatives).

Your input will be greatly appreciated!
TIA!

Brian Travis
btravis  at cy.com 





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:40:20 -0400
From: DONBREW at aol.com
Subject: green stuff


John Palmer sez:
>Brass and Bronze are primarily copper and are safe for drinking water usage.
>Some alloys contain a small percentage of lead to aid machining and these
may
>be soaked in a 2:1 vol:vol solution of white distilled vinegar and hydrogen
>peroxide (common grocery store varieties) for 15 minutes to dissolve off any
>surface lead. The metal will turn a buttery gold color when its done. If the
>solution turns green, it means its past done and you are starting to
dissolve
>copper.
>
    My question is does the vinegar or the H2O2 cause the green stuff.  Also
how do you fix the misteak ;-) or is any damage done?
    Come to think of it should I have put silicon tape on the heating element
threads in my copper heating chamber to avoid one of those unlike element
electrolytic thingies, or if there is a worry in that regard, would grounding
the copper do the job?

Don


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 22:31:02 -0400
From: dludwig at ameritel.net
Subject: Carbonater

Hey all!
I found a used device called a "carbonater". Consists of a motor(probably
1/4 hp, small brass or bronz pump, a tank about the size of a propane torch
canister and made out of SS. The tank has electrical power feeding into a
connector on top. Somewhere on the device was stamped 190 psi. The name
plate had the manufacturer as "AVCO" (or something like that-definitely a
four letter name starting with "A") with "dispensing equipment" printed on
it. Anybody know what this thing does? Is it a device for carbonating
beverages? 

Brewing in the land of pleasant living! Southern MD
Dave Ludwig



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 13:53:33 CDT
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: oak in IPAs/styles/enamel pots/flat bock

Charlie writes:
>is just a heavily hopped Pale Ale with a more romantic name. If someone calls 
>it an IPA, shout "where's the oak?!"

Sorry Charile... the oak used in UK beer casks (and lambiek/lambic casks for
that matter) is *european* oak and imparts virtually no flavour or aroma even
when new.  After a few uses, it adds absolutely no flavour or aroma.  American
oak does add a lot of oaky flavour, but is not used for beer casks (it was
used for Ballentine's IPA years ago and their IPA did indeed have an oaky
flavour).

Note that there is a small amount of oak flavour imparted by fresh european
oak, most notably in Rodenbach Grand Cru.  Considering that the beer sits
in these huge oak tuns for 3 years and that the tuns are disassembled so
the staves can be scraped to expose fresh wood, but that Rodenbach Grand
Cru has but a mild oakiness shows how little oak flavour is imparted by
european oak.  Surely the ship to India did not take 3 years and they
probably did not use brand new casks.

Charlie also says:
>1/ Why can't an  excellent American Bock beat a very good  Helles Bock in a 
>competition? They are close enough to be compared and contest.

Of course it could, but only if the American Bock was judged as an American
Bock and the Helles Bock as a Helles Bock.  Head-to-head the American Bock
(e.g.  Augsburger Bock, Frankenmuth Bock...) would be far too weak and watery 
compared to Ayinger Mai Bock, Einbecker Mai Ur-Bock or Forschungs St. Jakobus
Bock.  Judged as American Bocks, these three would be tossed out for being
too big and too alcoholic for style.

Finally, Charlie says:
>Let the brewer woo the palate within broarder categories!

Is something broken?  Does something really need fixing?  Yes, there are
some commercial beers that don't fit into the current AHA guidelines
(Orval, for example), but how many people (although I'm not saying that
this is Charlie's or Rob's motivation) calling for relaxing the guidelines
are asking to do so in response to some judge writing that their beer was
"too this for style" or "not enough that for style?"  Judges' jobs are
tough enough already without having to artificially broaden the categories
that MOST judges have agreed are close to the mark.

Regarding historical depth to styles, perhaps there isn't and it would be
quite refreshing to see someone try to take a crack at "Original Porter"
albeit in the Specialty category.  Sure we can't buy brown malt anymore,
but who says we can't try and make it at home?

****
Calvin writes:
>I suggest not using enamel pots like that.  It's difficult, if even
>feasible at all, to repair the damage you'd do to the enamel by drilling.

My EasyMasher is mounted in an enamel pot and although I know there is
a tiny amount of rust forming down there, I have not (in about 30 batches)
noticed any metallic or rust-like flavours in any of my beers, even the
very mildly-flavoured ones.

***
Calvin writes (regarding DANVATH's uncarbonated bock):
>Is there any yeast sediment at all in the bottles?
>If so, it might just need (even more) time to carbonate.  Perhaps almost
>all the yeast had settled out, and the beer racked off was nearly yeast-
>free.

While Calvin had some other very good suggestions, I don't think that
settling of yeast is a likely candidate for undercarbonation.  I have
bottled several beers with no additional yeast that had sat in secondaries
for 3, 6 or even 12 months and had no carbonation problems.  Now, if the
beer was very strong (8%, 9%, 10%...) and the wort was underaerated, then
fresh yeast (a la Pierre Rajotte) added at botting might help.  Dan noted
that the fermentation was "very long."  This can be an indicator that
the wort was underaerated.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:16:02 -0600
From: bratlie at selway.umt.edu (Scott E. Bratlie)
Subject: root beer apology

I apologize for th line wraping that I did in my root beer posting.  Also I
have recieved a couple of responses regarding the root beer recipe.  This
recipe was not fermented but bottled when cool.  it does have alchol , but
less than 1% (I let my daughters drink a bottle at night and they don't get
goofy, so no worries).  Also the worry about bottle bombs with naturaly
carbonated soda is real.  A friend's wife took two bottles that I gave them
out of the fridge and left them out, well to put a long story short they had
a interesting science experement hypothesis testing  session.

Scott Bratlie
Missoula, Montana  
Bratlie at selway.umt.edu

      "A nation may lose its liberties in a day and 
       not miss  them in a century."
                                                       Montesquieu 


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:16:50 -0700
From: pohl at unixg.ubc.ca (Derrick Pohl)
Subject: Mashing temperatures & saccharification

I've been following the recent thread on mashing temperatures,
saccharification, etc. with the greatest interest.  Just one quick
question:  when people speak of "sweetness" vs. "dryness" of the finished
beer, are we really talking about finishing gravity (F.G.)?  That is, is a
"sweet" beer one with a higher F.G., and a dry beer one with a lower F.G.?
Further, does "body" correlate with these?  Look, here's a little chart -
have I got it straight?

Higher temp. mash           Lower temp. mash
Higher F.G.                 Lower F.G.
Sweet               vs.     Dry
Full-bodied                 Light-bodied
"Big" mouth-feel            "Thin"

[Disregarding the effect on these of yeast and adjunct grains - focussing
only on mash temperatures.]

- -----
Derrick Pohl <pohl at unixg.ubc.ca>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada



Return to table of contents


Date: 17 Oct 95 07:52:42 EDT
From: Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Re:   1056 and little green apples

In #1859, Jack from West Point asks about Wyeast 1056:
>Has anyone else had this problem with the September crop of Wyeast 1056?
nope - all fine here.  Since Wyeast stamps a specific date, I imagine 
there is more than one Sept batch. Were all yours the same date?  Could 
there be something with your yeast nutrient?
I am building a starter from what I think was a Sept 1056.  I'll let you 
know if anything crops up.

"Reeb!"
      - Tim
           Tim Fields...Fairfax, VA
           74247.551 at compuserve.com _or_ timfields at aol.com (weekends)
           timf at relay.com (non-brewing time)



Return to table of contents


Date: 17 Oct 95 07:52:44 EDT
From: Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com>
Subject: metric conversion

Hello all,

Would someone please post a conversion formula for converting metric temp 
into arcane Fahrenheit so I can follow along with some semblance of 
usefulness?  I'm not about to ask posters to do the conversion for me 
:-), so a formula would be helpful.


"Reeb!"
      - Tim
           Tim Fields...Fairfax, VA
           74247.551 at compuserve.com _or_ timfields at aol.com (weekends)
           timf at relay.com (non-brewing time)



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 06:05:00 -0600
From: PAUL_TULLY at HP1700.desk.hp.com
Subject: Sanatizing questionSanitizing questions

I'm new to homebrewing and I'm about to attempt my second batch of beer
(the first batch came out great). I have a few questions concerning
sanitation and I though I'd post them here to get your opinions.

What is the best sanitizer to use? I recently read in a homebrewing
book that B-Brite is not a sanitizer, it's a cleanser. Is a household
bleach solution a better sanitizer to use? Also, has anyone tried the
new no rinse C-Brite?

I also read (same book) that bottles can be sanitized by heating them
in your oven  at  200 degrees for 10 minutes. Is this a good idea? Does
anyone use this process?

What is the best way to sanitize your bottle caps? Is it necessary to
boil them or can you just soak them in a sanitizer solution. Won't
boiling have an effect on the rubber seal inside the cap?

I appreciate any comments or suggestions. Please feel free to post
responses or write to my personal e-mail at:

E-Mail          MEHY09A at PRODIGY.COM

                    PAUL_TULLY at HP1700.desk.hp.com

Thanks

Paul Tully

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 06:08:00 -0600
From: PAUL_TULLY at HP1700.desk.hp.com
Subject: Pumpkin Ale

The following is a Pumpkin Ale recipe that I am about to brew. My
question
> is, what is the procedure for cooking the pumpkin? Do you bake it?
Boil
> it? Cut it into larger pieces? Small pieces?
>
> Yield - 5 gallons
>
> Ingredients
>
> 2 - 3.3 lb. cans Light Malt Extract of your choice or 6lbs. light
      Dried Malt Extract.
>
> 1 1/2 oz Mt. Hood Hop Pellets
> 6 lbs. pumpkin meat (2 small)
> 1 Burton Water Salt
> 1 tsp. Irish Moss
> 1/2 tsp. Vanilla Extract or 1/2 Vanilla Bean cut open
> 1/2 oz Tettnager Hop Pellets
> Liquid Yeast
> 1 tsp. Cinnamon
> 1/2 tsp. Nutmeg
> 1/2 tsp. Allspice
> 1/2 tsp. Mace
> 1/4 tsp. Clove
>
> Peel and remove seeds from pumpkin and cook until soft. In your brewpot,
> add your malt, Mt. Hood Hops and cooked pumpkin meat and boil for 30
> minutes. Add burton Water Salt and Irish Moss and boil for 15 minutes
> more. Add finishing hops and boil for 5 minutes more.
>
> Primary ferment to SG 1030, rack to secondary fermenter and add the
> spices.
>
> You help is greatly appreciated! Please feel free to post any
responses or
> write to me at:
>
> E-Mail       MEHY09A at prodigy.com      or
>                 Paul_Tully at HP1700.desk.hp.com
>
> Paul Tully

Return to table of contents


Date: 17 Oct 95 08:21:57 EDT
From: "Todd A. Darroch" <75602.1137 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Injection of Oxygen

While touring a micro brewery recently a saw a large tank of oxygen which
promped me to ask.  Hey, what do you use the oxygen for? The brewmasters reply
was that the wort is injected with it after its chilled and prior to pitching.  

Do we all need to go to our local gas supplier and make a purchase?  Would it
improve the beer?  I sure does sound alot better than shaking the carboy.


Todd A. Darroch
Birmingham, Alabama


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:31:06 +0000 (GMT)
From: Delano Dugarm 36478 <ADUGARM at worldbank.org>
Subject: IPA and Oak

	In HBD 1856 Charlie Scandrett posted a very lively 
article about beer styles, and used as an example India Pale Ale.
 Here he repeats the old canard that IPA must be oaky.  It ain't 
true, folks.  I've been researching for a talk on IPA for our 
local homebrew club, so bear with a long post.  
	The reason homebrewers originally thought IPA must be 
oaked is that Ballentine Brewing Co. told them so.  Come to think 
of it, they still give that story on the bottle label of their 
IPA.   This goes to show that bottle labels aren't the best way 
to learn history.
	The best source for the history of India Pale Ale is Thom 
Tomlinson's two part article "IPA and Empire" published in 
_Brewing Techniques_ vol. 2, no. 2 & 3 (1994).  At the end of the 
article he tackles the wood issue, and maintains, "My research 
indicates that the oak used for cask production in 19th century 
Britain was harder and contained fewer tannins than the oak we 
use in this country.  I find no evidence that oak casks used in 
shipping contributed to the beer's flavor profile."  In a 
response to a letter to the editor, he also points to 
contemporary British practice, where brewers are horrified at the 
idea of an oaky beer.
	Regardless of the quality of the wood, a 19th century IPA 
would not taste of the oak because the cask was probably lined.  
We know from Wahl and Henius, the 1908 source book for American 
pre-prohibition brewing practices, that American brewers used 
varnishes and brewer's pitch to line both wood fermenters and 
wooden casks.  According to Wahl and Henius, American brewers 
used these substances to a) keep the wood from flavoring their 
beer, and b) keep the beer out of the pores of the wood, where an 
infection might take up residence.  From the descriptions of how 
to apply first aid to brewers injured when the pitch they are 
heating (to soften it) burst into flame, I'll stick with glass 
and stainless.
	Why did people think that Ballentine's oaky IPA was the 
proper example of the style?  Because it seems to have been the 
only one available in the US from at least World War II till 
1975, when Anchor first issued its Liberty Ale.  Tomlinson 
guesses that Ballentine was the last example of an American IPA 
style, based on stronger tasting American oak casks, but I think 
that the oak taste might have just been an eccentricity of 
Ballentine.
	I love India Pale Ale, and am always disappointed to 
encounter a home-brewed version that tastes like gnawing on a 
tree.  I say keep the wood out of the beer. 

Delano DuGarm
Arlington, Virginia
adugarm at worldbank.org

Return to table of contents


Date:          Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:15:58 +0500 ET
From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject:       Re[2] RIMS process questions

Dion states:

> I put my temp controller probe in the wort stream before the heater and
> the digital temperature readout in the outflow stream from the heater. 
> <snip> I base my system calibration on the fact that if the outflow of the
> wort from the heater is 158F, the mash will eventually come up to 158F and
> cannot ever exceed that.
> 
> <snip> If you adjust your setpoint based on the mash temp, you will
> *always* get returning wort several degrees hotter than your mash setpoint
> until equilibrium is reached and I feel that this is not a good plan,
> especially if you are trying to mash at the upper limits of an enzyme's
> range.  I think limiting the wort outflow temp is much safer, but you do
> have to deal with the mash lagging behind. 

It sounds like you are basically using two temperature readings, although
a computer chip (temp controller) is monitoring one for you. For those of
us that are EE challenged and are willing to control things manually, I
wonder if two simple thermometers could achieve the same goal.  Here's my
idea:  Place one thermometer before, and one after an electrical hot
water heater element whos heat output is controlled by a dimmer switch. 
Then manually lower the power to the heating element as the outlet
temperature approaches your set point.  Once the two thermometers read the
same temperature you are at equilibrium and you can turn the element off,
until it's time for the next temp ramp.  

I must admit that I don't even have a RIMS system (or even an all grain
system for that matter) yet.  I'm just trying to think ahead as I plan to
build both very soon.  So, my question is, how naive is my idea?  Does it
sound like too much work?  Or conversely, is Dion's statement that the
outlet temp should not exceed the set point not true?  I know many of you
have a RIMS setup using a propane cooker as the heater which would be 
difficult to monitor inlet temp.  How do you keep from denaturing your 
enzymes by over heating, or is this not a real concern?

Keith Royster - Mooresville, NC, USA (KRoyster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us)

	>O.J. Simpson's email address:  OJ at //.\\.[Esc][Esc] (think about it)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:56:56 -0400
From: Jerry Miller <gmiller at CS.SunySB.EDU>
Subject: Hello Goodbye



Hi All,

This is my first - and probably only - post to the list since I subscribed
several months ago.  I just haven't had the time to go through all the mail
I get, so I've been saving the digests for possible future reference.

I have a question, for which I'd prefer that responses go to me directly
(for the above reason), although you may also want to post them for the
benefit of others:  If anyone is familiar with a book by a British author
named Bravery on brewing beer, ale, stout, cider, and mead, could you tell
me where I can buy another copy?  (I had it about 20 years ago when I made
my first beer.)

Also a tidbit of information: marjoram (the spice) was used in making early
beers, prior to the discovery of hops.  I learned this from a cooking ency-
clopedia - it works!  (I tried it in my first beermaking attempt, in which
I did everything from scratch, including malting the grain.)

Thanks for any info.

Jerry Miller
Jerry at Creb.Rad.JHU.Edu
GMiller at CS.SUNYSB.Edu
http://creb.rad.jhu.edu/u/miller/internet/gam.html

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 07:10:03 -0700
From: hollen at vigra.com
Subject: Re: Re[2] RIMS process questions

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Royster <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> writes:

Keith> It sounds like you are basically using two temperature
Keith> readings, although a computer chip (temp controller) is
Keith> monitoring one for you. For those of us that are EE challenged
Keith> and are willing to control things manually, I wonder if two
Keith> simple thermometers could achieve the same goal.  Here's my
Keith> idea: Place one thermometer before, and one after an electrical
Keith> hot water heater element whos heat output is controlled by a
Keith> dimmer switch.  Then manually lower the power to the heating
Keith> element as the outlet temperature approaches your set point.
Keith> Once the two thermometers read the same temperature you are at
Keith> equilibrium and you can turn the element off, until it's time
Keith> for the next temp ramp.

This is a perfectly feasible solution.  In fact, I did it with a
simple on/off switch until I got my temp controller working.  The only
problem with both solutions is that you can get distracted and in the
case of an on/off switch, turn it on when you meant to turn it off.
Since the lag is long, this can be disastrous (as I nearly found
out).  It is quite easy to overshoot by 10 degrees before you realize
what is occurring.  Granted, the dimmer makes it easier to control.

The dimmer is a fine way to work your way into RIMS economically, it
just removes one of the benefits of a temp controller, you have to be
on the edge of your chair controlling the temp the whole time.

Keith> How do you keep from denaturing your enzymes by over heating,
Keith> or is this not a real concern?

This is definitely something I am concerned about.  If you get any
answers that are not posted, I would appreciate getting a copy very
much.

I would assume that denaturing of enzymes would be done in a decoction
because the removed portion is boiled.  However, there is a portion
left behind which is not subjected to high heat and therefore retains
lots of enzymes.  In a RIMS, you are potentially subjecting all the
enzymes to excessive heat.

Thanks,
dion

- -- 
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119       Email: hollen at vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer     Vigra, Inc.  San Diego, California

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Kirby <mkirby at isnet.is.wfu.edu>
Subject: Re: Concrete Roller

I thought C.D. Pritchard's use of concrete rollers was quite interesting. 
Seems like an excellent idea, however I'm curious how much of the flour at
the end of the grind might have been concrete dust? Did you coat the roller 
with anything to prevent this problem? Chemicals from concrete dust are 
supposedly harmful to breathe, so I would think you would want to avoid
getting it in your wort as well. Would it be possible to coat the roller
with epoxy or polyurethane as a preventative? Comments anyone? Is his beer
ruined?

Todd Kirby

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 08:17:03 -0700
From: derose at Alice.Wonderland.Caltech.EDU (Guy A. DeRose)
Subject: Wort Chiller Construction Question

I am finally making an immersion chiller for my beer (after about a dozen 
extract and partial-mash batches) out of copper tubing and have the 
following question.  How should I clean the copper to remove any oils or 
solvents from the manufacturing process (3/8" x 50' of "refrigerator coil"), 
and should this be done before or after bending the tubing into its final 
form?  I have a process in mind, but won't mention it now so as to not bias 
any opinions anyone with expertise in this area might have.  Thanks in 
advance for your help.

Guy A. DeRose
Physicist, Homebrewer, KE6JTN, PP-ASEL


Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1860, 10/18/95