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


Contents:
  help:  huge bubble up!!!! (Alejandro Midence)
  cherry weiss et cetera... (jason affourtit)
  carbonation quality / club web page sponsor ("Keith Royster")
  Re: uncompress (.Z) (Mark Stevens)
  homebrew catalog websites? (Btalk)
  Cold Plates (Mark Montminy)
  Re: uncompress (.Z)/converting SS keg to brewpot (hollen)
  Old fridge smells (Guy Mason)
  Grant's-SOLD (ea_nyberg)
  more SA/Celis (Alan)
  fritz vs jim ("Dulisse, Brian")
  Caramel Burners (Bob Waterfall)
  DON'T - DANGER: Yeast Starter in an Oil Bath (Steve Alexander)
  Irish Moss, Why? (Bill Rust)
  Cornelius Dispenser Conversion ("Doug Geiss")
  Laaglander dried malt extract/sour flavor? ("Michael R. Swan")
  Flame Control in Cajun Cookers (Rob Reed)
  More IBU thoughts (Sr. SE)
  Unscientific Science/Wyeast 1056 (Algis R Korzonas)
  Boiled kegs ("Michael A. Owings")
  Munich HEAVY ("Michael A. Owings")
  Racking Wort off Hops (TMartyn)
  Sierra Non-Celebration Ale (tfields)



******************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 02:54:10 -0600
From: Alejandro Midence <alex at conline.com>
Subject: help:  huge bubble up!!!!

My very dear fellow brewers:

I have a rather  inconvenient and extremely messy problem for y'all this 
fine day.  You see, I bottled some of that Toadspit Stout of Charlie's 
and I've just had a major scare.  I put some bottles in the fridge two 
days ago,  (two weeks to the day of bottling).  I drank them and they 
seemed fine.  Now, I'd left some others out for more carbonation time or 
something.  I was hoping the dark grains' bitter burnt flavor would 
mellow out some too. Well, I drank a chilled one earlier and I opened a 
room-temperature one right now.  What was my surprise when the bloody 
thing overflowed!!  There was a dome of bubbles coming from this 
huuuuuuuuuuuuuge kraeuzen in the botttle and the thing began to run down 
the sides. Like an ass, I went and put my mouth to it trying to stop it 
like that and like to drowned because I had to swallow so bloody fast 
since the beer didn't stop flowing.  Well, now my head is a-spinning and 
the room is a-turning 'round and 'round and I'm wishing to hell I'd gone 
to bed without a beer.  Can you tell me what this is a cause of?  None of 
my other batches have acted this way.   Thing acted like it'd been shaken 
up a lot!!  You know, like I'd just drove it around a bumby block wit the 
six pack sitting on the tire.  Is the beer infected?  

I sincerely hope you can come up with an answer for me.  Send it by 
e-mail or hbd.  If sent by e-mail and I don't see a similar suggestion on 
the hbd, I'll post it, of course.  

Alex

ps   I hope you can think after laughing as hard as you are at my 
expense.  *chuckle*



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
If I were to tell you that everything I say is a lie, and then if I were 
to turn around and say that what I just told you is the truth, would you 
believe me?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:08:59 -0500
From: jason affourtit <affouj at rpi.edu>
Subject: cherry weiss et cetera...


hi!  just a brief note, thanks to all for advice about the cherry
vanilla weiss beer, it came out great!

let's see if i can remember this...

3.3lbs wheat liquid extract (i used M & F)
3 lbs light dme (i used wheat)
1 oz. 5% cascade hops
3 cans good quality cherry juice concentrate
	(unfortunately couldn't get my hands on cherries fresh or froz)
3 gal. boil volume

american ale yeast (didn't go with the weiss yeast to reduce those
		    normally desired esters of banana and clove -
		    wanted to preserve the cherry/vanilla aroma 
		    the best i could)

OG - 1.054 (could be off a bit)


very rapid fermentation for 4 days, slowed _finally_ and racked to
secondary after 8 days, left it 6 more days in carboy, great clarity!
once in secondary i added 2tbs. pure vanilla extract for flavor and
mostly aroma, and i tbs. cherry essence for aroma (taste was grrrreat,
didn't need any more flavor, wanted better aroma)

at bottling added 8oz malto-dextrin for better head and mouth feel - 
was of course very dry...and priming sugar

after 7 days conditioning - WOW!

great stuff, i was very pleased, great pink color also!

thanks again for the advice!

PS	as far as really toxic substances how about this one:
	1g (that's one gram) of clostridium botulinum toxin
	(yes, that's the happy little guy that causes you to
	get botulism) would kill the entire human race off the
	planet :)

	now _that's_ nasty.  i love my work :)


 -j

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jason Affourtit  '95 BIO               Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
| email - affouj at rpi.edu           |       http://www.rpi.edu/~affouj     |
| #include <std-disclaimer.h>      |         ...Gone PHISHing...          |
| Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity      /|\ "...you've lost it, you'll never get|
| LET'S GO NY RANGERS !!!!!!!!!  / | \    out of this maze !!!" -Phish    |
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to table of contents


Date:          Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:51:14 +0500 ET
From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject:       carbonation quality / club web page sponsor

Thanks to all who responded to my question regarding the quality of 
carbonation that is achieved by forced VS natural methods.  All responders
indicated that they believe that there is no real difference, so I guess 
we'll have to let that HBD MOMism die peacefully.

On another note, our brew club is interested in moving it's "unofficial"
web page from my office computer (shhh! don't tell the boss) to an
official web server so that we can more freely advertise it.   The problem
is that this costs money that we can't afford, so we are looking for
sponsors.  The deal is that if we can find two interested sponsors to
split the price, I would write them a full multi-page web page
advertisement each (at your own web address, not intermingled with the
club's and the other sponsor's page), including graphic images, catalogs,
and online order forms (total size up to 100K).  I would also maintain the
pages including monthly updates/changes to information such as prices and
advertised specials.  There would also be a clickable icon (your logo) on
our club's page noting you as a proud sponsor.  Visitors who click your
logo will be sent to your page.  The total cost to the sponsor is about
$70 per YEAR! each (or less than $6 per month) and I do all of the work. 

In the interest of saving band-width, please email me for more info,
including any questions you may have. And visit our club's unofficial
page at http://149.168.19.21/brewmast.htm (but realize that it is *very*
new and not in its final form).

Keith Royster - NC DEHNR - Mooresville, NC, USA
Voice: (704) 663-1699 x252
  Fax: (704) 663-6040
email: KRoyster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us
etalk: KRoyster at ws21.mro.ehnr.state.nc.us
                             

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 09:01:50 EST
From: Mark Stevens <stevens at stsci.edu>
Subject: Re: uncompress (.Z)



In HBD #1894, mmoss at PO-Box.McGill.CA asked about how to
handle .Z files from the archives.

This is a common question. If you're using FTP to retrieve the
files, just leave off the ".Z" when you do your "get" command
and it will uncompress automatically.

If you're not able to do that (for example, if you're using a
semi-brain-dead graphic FTP front-end), then you'll have to
uncompress it at your end. There are several ways to do that,
here are a few ideas for different platforms:

Unix: Use the "uncompress" command.

Macintosh: Use Stuffit Expander with Expander Enhancer
     (ftp://ftp.aladdinsys.com/Pub/)

PC running Windows: Use WinZIP
     (ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/cica/win3/util/)

If you've got questions about some of the other common formats
found on the net, look at a discussion of file formats that
we've got on the Brewery web server:
http://alpha.rollanet.org/library/FileFormats.html

Cheers!
- ---Mark


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:12:38 -0500
From: Btalk at aol.com
Subject: homebrew catalog websites?

A friend has been considering going into the homebrew supply business.
He is wondering how many homebrew supply retailers have websites.
Does anyone have a feel for this?
email to me is okay...don't want to get too commercial here, do we;)

Regards,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk at aol.com>

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:27:06 -0500
From: Mark Montminy <markm at dma.isg.mot.com>
Subject: Cold Plates

I tried to search the archives for this, but short of ftp'ing the whole 
archive and grep'ing it, I couldn't find an easy way :(

I'm looking to set up a kegging system using a cold plate.  I've got Foxx's 
catalog and they have several different models.  I'm looking for advice from 
people who have used them.  The model they recommend for beer dispensing is 
expensive (compared to the others) and bigger than I'd like.  My feeling is, 
it's overkill for my application.  The goal is, a small cheap plate to fit in 
my little "dorm" fridge.  I have no intention of drawing glass after glass, so 
chilling speed isn't too big a factor.  The intent is to have ready access to 
a cool glass of beer without a big fuss.  If it takes 10-15 minutes to chill 
the next glass, it's not a big deal.  Here are the plates Foxx lists:

13A02-211 10"x15" Single Circuit 18' 1/4" stainless tubing designed for 
correct resistence in a beer system (21.6lbs resistence). $69.42

In the wine section:

13A02-201 6"x10" Single Circuit 5' 1/4" stainless tubing $38.18
13A02-202 8"x12" Single Circuit 12' 1/4" stainless tubing $44.51

The 201 is the ideal size, and I figure I can make up for the resistence with 
extra beer line.  In fact, that seems better, since it's tunable.  If the 18' 
of the 211 is too much, I can't shorten it (I guess I'd have to up the 
pressure).  All 3 will fit in the fridge, but the 201 is the most practical 
since I can place it in an unused portion of the fridge (bottle don't fit 
there).  Will 5' be too short for adequate cooling?

Does anyone have any practical experience with these things?

- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Motorola ISG (508)261-5684       Email:  markm at dma.isg.mot.com 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When one woman was asked how long she had been going to symphony
concerts, she paused to calculate and replied, "Forty-seven years --
and I find I mind it less and less."
		-- Louise Andrews Kent



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 07:53:17 PST
From: hollen at vigra.com
Subject: Re: uncompress (.Z)/converting SS keg to brewpot

>>>>> "Mike" == mmoss  <mmoss at PO-Box.McGill.CA> writes:

Mike> I logged on to ftp.stanford.edu and found a number of
Mike> interesting articles which I downloaded.  They all had a ".Z"
Mike> extension and none of my unzip programs worked with these files.
Mike> I searched the internet for an uncompress program and have asked
Mike> my computer maaven friends but all to no avail.  Can anybody
Mike> help?

The .Z files are in UNIX "compress" format.  If you actually used the
ftp program, not some Windoze or Mac work-alike, you could have said
"get keg_conversion.faq" where keg_conversion.faq.Z was the file in
the directory.  It would have run the UNIX uncompress program on the
other end and pumped the ASCII results at you.

I am sure there are PC/Mac versions of the UNIX uncompress program
around as shareware/freeware.  If not, there is a fine version in the
MKS Toolkit which is a commercial set of UNIX tools for the PC.

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: Mon, 27 Nov 95 11:04:59 EST
From: Guy Mason <guy at opus.matrixnet.com>
Subject: Old fridge smells

All Hail the Collective,

I have recently had the good fortune to purchase a brewery/primary residence.
As an added bonus (besides the bar in the basement and 2nd gas stove in the
basement) I was left with an old fridge.  When I opened it for the first
time a lovely aroma wafted through the basement.  After a heavy duty scrubbing
with pinesol then bleach (including the drip tray) the smell will not leave.
Baking soda has not helped.  This is not a mild odor, literally your eyes
water.  Anyone have any helpful hints to get rid of the odor?

Thanks in advance.
- --
o   o
 \ /     M A T R I X
  o--o
 / \   O    Guy Mason               voice: 203-944-2020x190
o   \ /     guy at matrixNet.com       fax: 203-944-2022
  O--O--O
    / \     MATRIX, 2 Trap Falls Road, Shelton, CT 06484
   O   O

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:28 -0800 (PST)
From: ea_nyberg at ccmail.pnl.gov
Subject: Grant's-SOLD

   To All: 
   I did not see any mention of this on the HBD, so I thought I would pass on 
   the info.  Our neighbor up the highway, Bert Grant, sold his business to 
   Stinton Wineries.  They are a regional (Washington State) company owning 
   several wineries including Chateau St. Michelle. 
   
   I did not get to read the newspaper article personally so I don't know all 
   the details.  Do know for sure that the BrewPub is under new ownership as 
   well.
   
   To All: 
   I did not see any mention of this on the HBD, so I thought I would pass on 
   the info.  Our neighbor up the highway, Bert Grant, sold his business to 
   Stinton Wineries.  They are a regional (Washington State) company owning 
   several wineries including Chateau St. Michelle. 
   
   I did not get to read the newspaper article personally so I don't know all 
   the details.  Do know for sure that the BrewPub is under new ownership as 
   well.
   
   Eric Nyberg ]:-)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:38:57 -0600
From: alan at mail.utexas.edu (Alan)
Subject: more SA/Celis 

In HBD 1890, I wrote:

>What about the lawsuit issues?  Koch is filing lawsuits left & right
>against just about anyone he can.  He threatened to sue a brewpub here
>in Austin for serving Sam Houston Austin Lager.  Koch cliamed to own
>the trademark on Sam Houston.  He also keeps harrasing Boston Beer
>Works, a small Boston brewpub, because he claims he owns the rights to
>the name of Boston.

And in HBD Greg wrote:

>Most definitely he should sue.  In the highly competitive marketing world
>your names and trademarks are your LIFE.  Terms like "Boston" and "Sam" (most
>of us call Sam Adams simply as "Sam") are the means that the public uses to
>identify Boston Beer Company's products - and, like any company posed with
>the threat of somebody ripping off their name to promote a competing product,
>they have every right in the world to take all legal measures possible to
>prevent this from happening.

>What would happen if the Boston brewpub would come out with names for their
>beers like Boston Ale or Boston Lager?  This would be an obvious
>trademark infringement.  Same with calling any other beer "Sam", regardless
>as to who the "Sam" in question is - especially a closely alliterative name
>like "Sam Houston Austin Lager."

I really works like this.  Koch had an intent to use trademark on the name
"Sam Houston".  The way it works is that the keeper of the trademark has
claims for six months.  If the keeper doesn't use the trademark, they lose
it.  Koch never used it; he just kept re-trademarking the name.  When
Waterloo Brewing here in Austin decided to use it, Koch threatened to sue.
Apparently, Waterloo won out.  They are still using the name two years
later.  Since Waterloo doesn't serve guest beers, & it's clear in their
advertising that they are -not- serving Sam Adams, there really is little
confusion.  Patrons laugh it off as a Texified pun.  Did you know that Koch
also does the same thing with the name George Washington & Thomas
Jefferson?    Sure, trademark & copyright infringements are crimes, & I
support those laws, but I also think that the holders should keep honest
intentions, & not simply lock others out of other marketing possibilities.

Greg also wrote:

>If you really want to go after somebody for misleading the public - try
>Pierre Celis.  If his "Pale Bock" that's really an English Pale Ale isn't
>grossly and unfairly misleading the public then what is?  Yes I know he
>supposedly has to do this in Texas because of the archaic liquor laws
>defining "ale" as a strength, but this kind of restriction didn't stop Sierra
>Nevada from calling their Bigfoot a "Barleywine-style Ale" when BATF said
>they couldn't call it a "barley wine".  If Celis had been more inventive he
>could
>have gotten around this - he could have called it a "bitter", for example.
>Or he could have put some sort of description in the label's fine print.  And
>this also doesn't explain why it's still called Pale Bock without any sticker
>or explanation when I see it in in the coolers in the Northeast.  At least
>with a Cranberry Lambic I know I'm getting something made with fruit that
>will taste tart.

Texas law simply forbids him to do that, plain and simple.  He can't put
the words "Ale" or "Bitter" anywhere on the label at all.  There's another
brewer here in Austin that markets a "Pale Malt".  They don't like calling
it that, but what else can they do, short of an entire reformulation of
recipes?  I don't believe he's even allowed to put on stickers.  Sure, you
can calling it misleading, but he does what he can with it.  It's the same
law that prevents Texas from getting lots of good beers, by the way, simply
because of the word "Ale" or "Stout".  We're working on it, though, so be
patient.  You may get to drink a Celis Pale Ale soon enough.

Also,

>Personally, one of the things that bugs me the most about the
>present state of the good beer revolution is having to go to "trendy"
>places full of yuppies and/or self-righteous politically-correct types to
>drink good beer when I go out, because these seem to be the only places at
>present that attempt to serve more than one or two varieties of good beer.
>I'd much rather drink homebrew at home or with my friends than go to places
>like this.  I believe in choice - I should be able to go anywhere, a sports
>bar, a neighborhood bar, even a country and western bar, and be able to drink
>the good beer of my choice - like people can in Europe.  And it's
>people like Jim Koch who are going the distance to make this happen.
>More power to him.

Then come on down here to Austin & drink.  You'd be surprised how many
regular old guys are drinking good beer here.  We have several brewpubs &
two breweries running, plus several beer bars that feature many craftbrews,
& all have a good mix of patrons.

Wheeeee!  Ain't this fun?

 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
   Alan P. Van Dyke                                       "A beer a day
   Technical Staff Assistant II                      keeps the
   Preservation Dept.                                      cardiologist away."
   The General Libraries                                              -me
   University of Texas at Austin                alan at mail.utexas.edu
 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 12:01:00 EST
From: "Dulisse, Brian" <bbd4 at CIPCOD1.EM.CDC.GOV>
Subject: fritz vs jim


the latest back and forth over jim koch's brewing/marketing/legal tactics 
has for some reason been more entertaining than the previous ones.  a number 
of folks have been discussing whether koch has done more to introduce 
americans to "better" beer than anyone else; some agree, some nominate 
someone else.  fair enough.  one thing that i think is interesting, though, 
was raised by ken schroeder's recent post.  the gist of his argument (in 
favor of fritz maytag as the person who's done the most to improve things) 
was that fritz has done alot of good guy things,  and that he does it 
honestly and without law suits.  no argument about the first part; this 
isn't intended to knock maytag (or ken) *at all*.  but let's not forget that 
only one brewery can market a "steam" beer, and that's anchor.  why? 
 because fritz maytag has a bunch of lawyers who are every bit as litigious 
as jim koch's, and if anyone tried to market a "steam" beer, fritz would be 
all over him in a heartbeat.  michael jackson even refers in one of his 
books to the vigorous protection of the term employed on fritz's behalf.

again, i'm not knocking maytag for this.  what he's doing is certainly 
legal: he's using the rights the law grants him.   further, there's a solid 
economic rationale behind trademarks in general.  but in many cases, this is 
what koch is doing, too (protecting terms he has been assigned the rights 
to).  maybe the process for assigning rights to names needs to be changed; i 
don't know.  but for the most part, i think (i don't want to start defending 
everything koch has done ), koch is taking full advantage of what the law 
allows him to do, and that's what he's getting knocked for.  what's good for 
the goose . . .

shields up

bd

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:21:32 -0500 (EST)
From: waterr at albany.net (Bob Waterfall)
Subject: Caramel Burners

Hi folks,

I was catching up on my HBDs after the long weekend and found a few things
to bring me out of a long lurk.

Denis Barsalo (denisb at CAM.ORG) said in HBD 1892:
>So I broke down and bought a beautiful Vollrath 38.5
>quart (40 liters) Stainless Steel brewpot.

Last I checked, 40.0 liters would be 42.27 US qt. or 33.81 Imp. qt.  On the
other hand, 38.5 liters is equal to 40.68 US qt. (perhaps a nominal 40 qt
container).  No flame intended, I just hope you're not diluting your beer
too much due to a bass-ackwards conversion!
- ----------------
Tomlinson, James <TomlinJa at ctls.sch.ge.com> said:
>In addition to the propane burners that Walmart carries, they carry a nice 2 
>burner Coleman "white-gas" stove($40-45). The cost of white gas is about 
>$3/gallon. The newer stoves state they can be run on unleaded gasoline ($ 
>1.0069 here). As  soon as Christmas is over, I plan to purchase on of these 
>for camping, and brewing.

I suggest you check the BTU rating of the Coleman stove (if I was at home,
I'd check it myself).  I have one of the dual-fuel models and love it for
camping, it doesn't throw off anywhere near the heat that my Cajun Cooker
jet burner does.  The Cajun Cooker brings several gallons of mash water up
to strike temperature in about 15 or 20 minutes depending on outside temp.
It takes the Coleman stove almost that long to start perking a pot of coffee
on a cold October morning.  Of course, if I knew then what I know now I
would have bought one of the ring-type propane burners described by Harlan
Bauer in HBD 1894.  The jet burner (pipe with a hole in it) Cajun Cooker
gives a very sooty flame when you try to turn it down.  From what I hear ,
the ring type burners turn way down with a blue flame the whole way.
- ------------
Andy Walsh (awalsh at world.net) said in HBD 1894:
>Since  dark candi
>sugar is said to be caramelised, I thought that sweet caramel might be an
>option. The problem is that I do not know whether caramel is fermentable by
>yeast. Just what is caramel anyway? It starts off as sucrose, but what does
>it end up as? It is not very soluble in water (unlike candi sugar, or
>sucrose), so I imagine it turns into something quite different by the
>cooking process.

Caramel for cooking is made with lots of butter and sugar.  The candy type
may have some corn starch or emulsifier to smooth it and give it the right
consistency.  Either way, I don't think you want it in your beer.

Bob Waterfall <waterr at rpi.edu>,
Troy, NY, USA


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:36:07 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: DON'T - DANGER: Yeast Starter in an Oil Bath


Jason Henning in Homebrew Digest #1891 (November 23, 1995) writes:

>I just started doing yeast starters (the only way to go) and 
>downloaded Kirk R. Fleming's "Preparing Yeast Starters".  After 
>reading through it, I decided that sterilization was the most 
>important thing.  So I decided to take his ideas one step 
>further.  I filled eight 22 oz. bottles with 16 oz. of water 
>and 6 tbs. of  DME.  Then put them in an 8 quart stewpot and 
>filled the pot with cooking oil.  I took the cooking oil up to 
>215-220F and boiled the starters for ten minutes. I then pulled 
>the bottles out and sat them in the sink to cool with caps set 
>on top of them.  After about an hour, I used my capper on seven 
>of them and pitched yeast in the eighth one and washed the oil 
>off.  I recycle the oil of course.  I now have seven sterile 
>"starter starters" for future use.  If you don't mind the mess, 
>I think an oil bath is very effective way to sterilize the wort 
>and the bottles.

I didn't see any other responses to this post but it is important to
realize that this method is not only ineffective but more importantly
EXCEEDINGLY DANGEROUS !!

The purpose of using a pressure cooker as a sterilizer is to attain
complete eradication of sporulating organisms and is dependent on the
fact that water under pressure reaches a temperature above 212F.
without boiling.  Whether it is importantant to achieve a temperature
above 212F in order to sterilize wort for yeast starters is arguable,
but an oil bath surrounding open bottles containing wort will still
achieve a wort temperature of only 212F.

The huge danger with this method lies in the fact that the oil is
undoubtedly hotter than 212F - if any of these wort filled bottles
were to tip over or break the hot wort would hit the hot oil and could
immediately be raised over the boiling point causing a explosion
filling the room with spattered hot oil.  If there were any open
flames the aerosol oil could also explode.  Being covered with boiling
oil and set afire isn't a fun way to brew IMO.

You can acheive the same wort temperature by using a boiling water
bath, tho it may take a few minutes longer to reach temp.

Stevea

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:37:20 -0500
From: Bill Rust <wrust at csc.com>
Subject: Irish Moss, Why?

Rian Rademeyer <rrad at lss.co.za> wrote...
>Subject: Irish Moss
>
>I use Irish Moss in all my beers as a matter of course. I know that it is

I understand there was a big Irish Moss thread a couple of years ago, and I
heard the merits of one clearing agent over another.  My question is this:
Why use it at all (or polycar, or finings, etc.)?   I have been brewing for
several years now, and I used to always use Irish Moss.  I had the chance to
meet a pro brewer (Ben Pierson, if you're curious), and he recommended that
I try brewing a few batches without it.  Ever since then I have used no
clearing agents at all (truely, just the basic 4 ingredients), and 98% of
the time my beer is beautifully clear!  I also think my beer tastes better,
even the rare hazy ones.  The other members of our brew club also practice
this.  Granted, I use a vigorous boil during the brew, a wort chiller, good
sanitation, and two stage fermentation.  I mean, isn't that the point; good
beer through technique, rather than through additives?

Just an opinion, any others?

- --------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rust, Master Brewer     |         Jazz is not dead,
Jack Pine Savage Brewery     |     it just smells funny!
Shiloh, IL        (NACE)     |             -FRANK ZAPPA
- --------------------------------------------------------


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:40:58 EST
From: "Doug Geiss" <usfmckge at ibmmail.com>
Subject: Cornelius Dispenser Conversion                                   

                                                                               
I recently bought a used Coke Fountain Machine (made by Cornelius) with        
4 tappers, and was wondering if anyone has converted one of these to           
dispensing beer?  Of course the kegs are the same, but as I recall             
from using the Fountain machines in the past, the syrup and CO2 are            
combined with water to make the finished soda pop.  Is there a way             
to bypass this feature on 3 of the 4 tappers, while still maintaining          
one working taper for coke dispensing?                                         
                                                                               
Thank you,                                    [~~\    /~~]                     
Doug Geiss                                     ||\\  //||   GO                 
Production Control Analyst - Luxury Car Lines  || \\// ||  BLUE                
Internet: USFMCKGE at IBMMAIL.COM   PROFS:DGEISS [__] \/ [__]                     

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 14:52:07 GMT (Original EST)
From: "Michael R. Swan" <mswan at fdic.gov>
Subject: Laaglander dried malt extract/sour flavor?

	I had read on the HBD that Laaglander dry malt extract was useful if 
you were trying to brew a beer with a high final gravity because it contains 
a lot of unfermentables.  However, after buying some (but before using it), I 
came across a posting on rec.crafts brewing that said that Laaglander should 
*not* be used because it turns out beer with a "sour off-flavor".  The post 
also mentioned that this extract has a small percentage of corn sugar in it.

	Does anyone know if this is true? 

Mike Swan
mswan at fdic.gov
Dallas, Texas
Standard Disclaimers Apply

=============================================================================
"One of my friends once told that substance abuse rehab was a place for 
drinkers and druggies to hang out, talk with each other and discover new and 
interesting ways of putting chemicals in their bodies.  Sounds more like a 
Kennedy family reunion than a treatment program to me."                      
				
					Joe Capasso
=============================================================================

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 15:58:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Reed <rhreed at icdc.delcoelect.com>
Subject: Flame Control in Cajun Cookers

Harlan Bauer <blacksab at siu.edu> writes about alternative
heat sources for brewing:

> 2. Gas burner. BTW, I'm now totally turned off by those cheap Cajun Cookers
> and their ilk--way too much wasted gas, they burn dirty, i.e., lots of CO,
> and there's not nearly enough control at low heat.

I certainly can't claim credit for this idea, but I and at least two other
Cajun Cooker equipped brewers I know have rejetted their cookers
successfully.  The factory orifice is 1/16".  This works OK at high output 
levels with large diameter kettles: smaller kettles result in excessive
flame splashing - localized atmospheric heating - and low output levels
result in incomplete combustion (carbon soot).  But with a simple 
modification, efficiency can be increased and low-end performance can
be improved at the expense of peak output.  

If you buy another brass cap, and drill a *smaller* hole (45-50 mils), you 
will greatly improve your low end performance. You may have to experiment, 
because my first attempt was an orifice about 0.043" diameter and at 
full power (you know, carrier launch with full ordnance), the flame 
tended to blow itself out.  I enlarged the hole to 50 mils and am 
satisfied.  This modification obviously reduced the maximum output, but 
with factory orifice, the unit advertises 200K BTU.  With a 50 mil 
diameter orifice, back of the envelope calculations suggest my power 
output is still in excess of 100K BTU.

In conclusion, I get 50-75% more batches per tank fill and at the lowest
setting used (typically used to maintain boil), I experience no 
sooting (my kettle doesn't either 8<{) 

Cheers,

Rob Reed   

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 16:17:51 -0500
From: joep at informix.com (Sr. SE)
Subject: More IBU thoughts

>>>>> Tim Fields writes:
 Tim> The basic point I was making is still, IMHO, valid: different
 Tim> approaches yield different numbers.  For those without a selected
 Tim> IBU calculation system, I'd suggest trying them all to see which
 Tim> makes the most sense for your particular brewing methods.

Tim makes a valid point.  There is one problem with it.  There are many
of us out here that will never know about the IBU's in our beer.  We do
not have access to an HPLC or any other lab equipment.  We
cannot accurately measure the mg/L of alpha acids in our beer.
Therefore, we will never know if the equations we are using are correct.

I, personally, have chosen to go with Glenn Tinseth's equations.  Why?
They make the most sense.  Read that as the numbers make the most sense
to me, after the fact.  I have tried Rager's calculations, but the IBUs
come out extremely high.  YMMV.  

Most of us are shooting blind, hoping that the equations that we choose
to use are, indeed, accurate for our own brewing.

joe.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Joe Pearl, Sr. Sales Engineer, Informix Software, Inc.                      |
| 8675 Hidden River Parkway, Tampa, FL, 33637 813-615-0616                    |
| Competition is good for the consumer.                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything.  |
| -- Theodore Roosevelt                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 15:17:42 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Unscientific Science/Wyeast 1056

Martin writes (quoting me):
>>Don't forget that there's also an article in the Great Grains Special
>>Issue of Zymurgy which makes it *less* scientific by simply splitting
>>a single mash between 6 different types of lauter tuns. 
> 
>I agree, *much less* scientific.  The way in which the mash was split-up
>leaves me with considerable doubt as to the value of the extraction levels
>quoted for each system (to two decimal places of SG points, or 0.03%, yet!). 

Well, you're right -- two decimal places is well beyond the resolution of
my hydrometer -- I would have gotten points off for that in college.  The
general rule is that you should not include more precision in the result
than you have in any one of the factors contributing to that result.  Shame
on me.

>Varying amounts of extract could well have been delivered to each lauter tun
>as the mash was distributed.

That was mentioned in the article.  I admitted that the distribution was done
as evenly as possible: not filling one mash tun at a time, but rather putting
one quart of mash into each tun, then another, then another... I did the
best I possibly could and still I admitted in the summary that the errors
in the measurement are probably greater than the differences between the tuns.
This is not to say that one tun could have done much better if the errors
all happened to have added up against it in the first run of the experiment.
I think that the results are probably accurate to about 5%, but the bottom
line is that 30+ points per pound per gallon could be acheived from any one
of the designs.

My reason for doing the experiment was because of all the posts saying "oh,
you have got to get rid of that Zapap lauter tun -- you'll get 10 points
more per pound per gallon if you switch to a ..."  I was suspicious and
decided to do something about it.

> Also, the fact that no underletting was done
>could have had a varying effect on the mechanical performance of each design.
> While this could have been mitigated by stirring each lauter mash and
>allowing it to resettle, the volume of wort recirculation required to clear
>the run-off would still be suspect.  The article did not say if any stirring
>was done or not.  

There was a small amount of stirring done on each tun before doing the recirc
just to even out the surface of the grain bed, really.  Yes, the recirculation
was very subjective (yes, it was unscientific too), because my turbidity
analyser was in the shop ;^).  Since all were treated equally, without any
foundation water, the ones with smaller underlet volumes were at an advantage,
however, had you been there and seen the recirculation being done, you would
have seen that some designs simply ran clear almost immediately, some took
a quart or two and others simply would have taken gallons.  There were
disclaimers about that in the article too.

>Time permitting, a number of individual runs on each
>system, with the results averaged, is the right way to make such a comparison

Absolutely.  There was no time.  This was already an all day affair.  I
happen to know that you are working on some experiments (or are about to
start) too.  You should know as well as I that this unpaid experimentation
doesn't get the time it deserves.

>By the way, as long as we're sensitive to giving proper credit, what was
>Steve Hamburg's role in this endeavor?  The text of the article refers to the
>experimenters as "we," yet there's only one name on the by-line. What gives?

Steve came over, helped me get all the equipment together (he is part owner
of the picoBrewing system that we used to make the huge mash) and helped me
run the experiment.  I wrote up the experiment and bounced the draft off of
Steve.  Perhaps I should have explicitly said to Dena, the managing editor,
to put both our names on the article.  Steve certainly did as much work
as I did and his risk of getting heat stroke was just as high as mine (it
was 100+ F that day).  I left for Germany and Belgium after submitting the
article and the next time I saw the article was when I got the assembled
Zymurgy proofs.  I had to review the entire issue's proofs in about two
days and I was more concerned about the accuracy of all the tables, graphs
and illustrations (the proofs are my first chance to see what these look
like) than any of the text including the by-lines.

***
Tom writes:
>(and this is really stuck.  1056 in a 1.062 OG pale ale (all grain) and
>after 12 days in the primary at 65F the kreusen fell at 1.044!!!)

Are you sure the temp is 65F?  Wyeast American Ale (#1056) is notorious
for shutting down when it gets cold (I have it in my notes at home, but
62F comes to mind).  Is the fermentor on a slab of concrete in the
basement?  If so, then the temperature of the beer can be quite a bit
lower than the room air temp.  I've solved several brewer's bottle
conditioning problems by simply telling them to put something between
the bottles and the cement floor in the basement.  Incidentally, if the
Wyeast #1056 gets too cold, it will eventually start up again when
you warm it, but it won't be quite the same -- I made that mistake once
(temp dropped down to 57F) and even at 70F the beer took two weeks to
finish.  Eventually the FG was a bit high and the beer overcarbonated
after six months in the bottle.  My advice: check your thermometer,
warm up the wort, pitch more yeast and keep the temp well above 63F
at all times this time if that was the problem.  I don't know about
the #1084's temperature sensitivity, but this certainly could not have
been the problem with the Czech Pils yeast.... Hmmmm....

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:12:48 -0600 (CST)
From: "Michael A. Owings" <mikey at waste.com>
Subject: Boiled kegs

Is boiling water a viable means of sanitizing cornelius kegs?  I have 
been pouring a couple of quarts of boiling water and sloshing in my 
cornys between the last few batches,  and haven't yet had an infection 
problem.  The keg seems to get plenty hot and stay that way for a 
while,  with some significant pressure built up inside from the steam 
(probably not autoclave pressure,  tho).  Of course,  I've had no prior 
infections in these kegs,  just clean beer,  so they're pretty sanitary 
at the outset.

So does the collective deem this a good way to sanitize kegs?  Or 
am I courting disaster?  Could this damage (melt,  deform) soft 
rubber o-rings?  A search of back issues of the HBD reveals at least 
one comment to this effect. Any other opinions?   Hey,  it sure is cheaper 
than Idophor....


=============================================================================
Michael Owings                                            Chief of Operations
Uncle Leroi's Hazardous Materials Storage and FemtoBrewery    New Orleans, LA
=============================================================================


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:09:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Michael A. Owings" <mikey at waste.com>
Subject: Munich HEAVY

Still another high FG question for the collective:

I recently completed my first all-grain lager,  intended to be a Munich 
Helles-style lager.  The grain bill was:

	8 pounds pale lager malt
	1 pound home toasted (20 mins at 350 F) pale malt.

The original recipe ("Green Mountain Light" from the last Zymurgy Great
Grains Special Issue) called for starch conversion at 152 F. and OG 
1.050,  FG 1.012.  

In my infinite wisdom ,  however,  I decided it would be neat-o to  
conduct starch conversion at 158-159F to give the beer "just a tad 
more body".  The result was OG 1.048 (close enough) and a fairly high 
FG (1.020) using Wyeast 2206.  Apparent attenuation:  58%. I think 2206 
normally runs 72-75% attenuation.

Am I correct in assuming my high mash temp caused the high FG?  The 
resulting beer is actually pretty good,  and not particularly sweet,  
so I assume the yeast did their job.  Nothing like a Munich Helles,  
though ...  Also,  are there any rules/formulas for predicting 
fermentables vs. unfermentables based on mash temp?  Even a rule of 
thumb would be useful.  TIA -- mikey


=============================================================================
Michael Owings                                            Chief of Operations
Uncle Leroi's Hazardous Materials Storage and FemtoBrewery    New Orleans, LA
=============================================================================



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:22:50 -0500
From: TMartyn at aol.com
Subject: Racking Wort off Hops

Help!

Since going to a SABCO 1/2 barrel boiling kettle, I've been struggling with
the best way to separate the boiled wort from the spent hops and break
material.  As a matter of course, I've been using a stainless steel scrubbie
under the built-in pickup tube, leading to a ball valve.  This helps, but
still isn't great.  I've been avoiding pellets, which has also helped, but
just did a doppelbock with only 1/2 oz of Halletauer pellets and 2 oz of Saaz
flowers, figuring that the flowers would adequately filter the pellet goo.
 Wrong - totally plugged.

I've tried siphoning off the top of the cooled wort.  Also marginal - I get
80% of the way done, and plug my siphon (plastic pickup tube with a racking
"tip") if using flowers, or suck up vast quantities of hop goo if using
pellets.

There's got to be a better way - I'd like to be able to use pellets or
flowers interchangeably, and I'd like to be able to finish a long day of
brewing without swearing, worrying and POURING the wort out of the kettle
into the fermenter.  AAAARGH!

Please share your system - I'll buy you a beer next we meet.  Private e-mail
is fine, and I'll post a summary.

Tom Martyn
Brattleboro, VT
TMartyn at aol.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 17:34:04 EST
From: tfields at relay.com
Subject: Sierra Non-Celebration Ale

     Hello All,
                
     Sad sad day here in Vienna, VA :-(
             
     I am told that Sierra's Celebration Ale will NOT be distributed east 
     of Colorado this year.  I got this second hand and hope it aint so.  
     Does anyone have the full story on this?
    
     "reeb!"     Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA 
                         timf at relay.com (non-brewing time)
               74247.551 at compuserve.com (weekends)
                                               
     
          


Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1895, 11/28/95