HOMEBREW Digest #2036 Tue 14 May 1996
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/up_level_button.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Skewed Brains, Part 2 (Jack Schmidling)
A Slug's Guide to Ale Brewing (Steven W. Schultz )
Home Made Wine (Jmccompany)
Marbles (stencil)
Extract Recipe For True Hopheads (Bruce E Cockerham)
Re: freezing yeast (Jeremy Ballard Bergsman)
Re: Measurement conversions (Mike Kidulich)
Valley Mill Experience ("Houseman, David L TR")
SSR-SCR/Delbruekii (A. J. deLange)
Re: Size (Robert Paolino)
Freezer Thermostat Suggestions ("Barry Wertheimer")
How do I use TSP for sanitizing? (Lenny Garfinkel)
starter cultures ("Dave Higdon")
Job (DAVID KEVIN MICHAUX)
Skewed mills, brains et al. (David C. Harsh)
How is your grain mill (Bill Giffin)
beer glasses ("Bryan L. Gros")
raw cane sugar ("Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM")
Fuller's clone (Domenick Venezia)
Maibock results (Domenick Venezia)
How 'bout some guidance (Maestro)
hard water/hop FAQ (Algis R Korzonas)
OOOPS!/Ads/Parallel Rollers/Honey Malt/clogging blowoff (Algis R Korzonas)
A Slug's Guide to Ale Brewing (Steven W. Schultz )
Bleach in Airlocks. (Russell Mast)
Hop Plugs vs. Leaves / Wet T-Shirts ("Sutton, Bob")
NHC First Round Results (Shawn Steele)
Sa Beers (Dennis Morton)
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: Sun, 12 May 1996 09:51:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at maxx.mc.net>
Subject: Skewed Brains, Part 2
-
>From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
stdin<You took the words of of my fingers. I have never had a
stuck sparge AND <I have never used flaked barley. For what
it is worth, I have used flaked <corn with no problems. This is
not double blind science but the finger points <that way.
>Its always refreshing to hear of Jack's scientific method! In this
case he defends his product by implicating the adjuncts, sortof.
That's a mighty big sortof. The original poster implicated the adjuncts
and I offered that he might be right but my experience made it
ambiguous.
>Having just brewed two pilot batches... Both lautered very well.
I use a SS perf sheet false bottom in my 1 BBL pilot brewery.
There is significantly more open area (versus an EM) in a perf
sheet screen.
Is this just a "duh" or are you seriously trying to compare a 6" long,
3/8" diameter tubular screen with a who knows how large, 1 BBL
false bottom? i.e. $23 vs how much $300 maybe?
>Prehaps using a EM with adjuncts or 70% weizens is not so
great an idea?
Perhaps you need to elaborate on that. I do not think the experience
would support that notion. What do you mean by an adjunct? Are
you suggesting that a half pound of crystal malt will jam up an EM?
My only experience with wheat is 50% crushed raw wheat.
Now that is not 70% but raw wheat is far less forgiving that malted
wheat.
<Aside from the flaked barley as a potential problem, my standard
advice <is to let it rest a full 30 mins before starting to drain tun.
>30 minutes! I thought the *wonder* of the EM was that it cleared
within seconds or 1/2 Qt of runoff or somesuch.
You thought incorrectly and your "somesuch" is no defense AND
there is a great difference between the two statements. I never
claimed that it cleared within seconds. You invented that one.
I do claim it will run clear with very little run off and 1/2 qt is
probably conservative. This may take only a few seconds but
has nothing to do with drawing off wort while stirring the mash.
If you claim that your wort will run clear while stirring the mash, I
certainly will not argue with you (nor would I believe you) but letting
it settle for 30 mins after the last stir certainly seems prudent and IS
the correct way to use the EM.
> Maybe a better option
is to be sure the mash is very loose during lautering, in an attempt
to somewhat emulate the "floating mash" concept of UK brewers.
This is a good idea for Wit biers too.
Not sure what all that means but I was going to suggest a thin mash
but three gallons of mash water for a 5 gal batch seemed thin enough.
<However, I will point out that MM rollers are 3" longer than the
<Valley Mill and two or three TIMES longer then the rest of the ones
<you mentioned and does NOT use plastic bearings.
>And I was taught that size didn't matter! Hummph. ;-}
This is your day for learning great wisdom, isn't it?
- ---------------------------------------
>From: Todd Mansfield <102444.1032 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Grain Mills
>People who say adjustability isn't important tend to own mills
with fixed roller clearances (or mills that are inconvenient to adjust!)
Are you suggesting that the opinions of people who have no
experience with a pre-adjusted mill are better qualified to judge
them?
I really get tired of this petty smearing. Let the market speak for
itself and this is what I hear. We have sold over 6000 MM's and
the breakdown between adjustable and fixed is too close to even
to count. Of all those pre-adjusted mills out there, we have
up-graded exactly ONE in 5 years. That was a guy who got his
tax refund check after ordering.
As far as I know, we do not have a single unhappy customer so
all these pre-adjusted mill owners just don't know what they are
missing.
I will go one step farther and point out that I get frequent feedback
from owners of adjustable mills who tell me they have never adjusted
their mills since owning them.
>I find that each grain type has its own optimal setting. (In most cases
the settings differ only slightly--the tooth-breaking domestic cara pils
being a prominent exception. :)
No one will argue with what you find but you serve no useful purpose
pre-disposing folks to complicate their lives. Brewing is complicated
enough without gratuitous and unfounded smears of well accepted
products.
>From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp at mcst.ae.ge.com>
>Jeremy Bergsman writes:
>I have a little mill FAQ that I send around when I see people
ask about mills.
I checked it out and was going to drop him a line. It's worth
reading AND most importantly, objective and unbiased.
>Early (Glatt) models had Delrin gears, and these proved to be a
problem. Later ones had Nylon gears, and, when I spoke to Glatt
a year or so ago, he said that this had cured it.
I think that is a bit of wishful thinking. Reports of gear failure
continued up and after the time he disappeared without notice.
The other fix he claimed was mixing powdered metal with the
plastic. This simply is not a job for plastic gears and he designed
himself into a hole with the small rollers.
(Both in length and diameter) They just will not self-feed and require
gears. Gears are expensive and he opted for plastic.
>The Glatt is no longer being made, but there are quite a few of
them out there, and they may change hands from time to time,
so I think it's worth clearing this up. Mine has been motorized,
and works beatifully.
No doubt it does but beware of the problem and don't push it.
> Somebody really should buy the tooling and start making
them again.
Why would anyone want to restart a failed product? I would be
interested in expanding our market but it is a bad design. If it is
so great why did Mr Glatt vanish and disconnect his phone?
Says something about the value of a lifetime warranty.
WARNING to all! I now have local access to the internet and
at 5 cents for unlimited time, I will probably again become a
plague on the Mommies. I actually download the Digest now
instead of scanning for relevant articles. Even Wall Street Barons
need to watch our pennies.
***********************
Visit our Web page for product flyers and applications information.
http://dezines.com/ at your.service/jsp/
js
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 10 May 96 16:29:52 EDT
From: Steven W. Schultz <swschult at cbdcom.apgea.army.mil>
Subject: A Slug's Guide to Ale Brewing
Rather than additional hand-wringing over the impending AOB management
of the HBD, I thought a BEER-RELATED post might be a nice diversion (sorry
about the shouting).
Like many homebrewers, I switch from lagers to ales with the approach
of summer. I find ales to be easier to make, more forgiving of errors,
faster to ferment, and often drinkable within 1-2 weeks of bottling.
Being cheap, lazy, and not very smart, I have sought to develop a
suitable method for brewing. Below is my low-tech, low-work ale brewing
method, provided to elicit comments in the hope of improving it, and also
to provide information that someone may find useful:
1. 4-5 days before brewing: pop the yeast packet.
2. 1-2 days before brewing: make a yeast starter, unless I forget, or
don't feel like it. (I really do recommend yeast starters; never mind
that I don't always follow my own advice).
3. 1 day before brewing: boil 2 1/2 gallons of water; cover; set aside.
4. Brew day: boil 3 gallons, add fermentables, hops, etc. (I no longer
use Irish Moss. Nothing against it, but since I so often forgot to use it
in the past, and the beer turned out okay, I figured I didn't really need
it. Besides, it costs money.)
5. Cool with wort chiller; dump into fermenter, along with pre-boiled
water. Hot and cold break are not made to feel unwelcome in my ales.
6. Pitch yeast. My primary fermenter is a tall plastic bucket. (For the
siphon-impaired, try a bottling bucket. These work well except that the
spigot hole may not be high enough to clear the trub.)
7. Place a clear, 16" square piece of thin plexiglass on top of the
bucket. Once or twice a day after fermentation starts, use a large,
holey, scum-skimming spoon to skim off the, ah, scum that collects on top.
Prior to use, rinse the spoon with hot tap water; A/R brewers may soak in
iodophor.
8. Rack to secondary when I can't bottle for a while. This is based
upon my perception of risk. While I am not concerned about trub affecting
my beer, or autolysis, I might w***** about the beer getting oxidized once
CO2 is no longer being produced (my plexiglass sheet doesn't do much to
keep oxygen away from the beer).
9. Take gravity readings. Cheap and lazy means I don't waste beer or do
more work than need be, so once the foam subsides, I drop the hydrometer
into the beer. Now, I can "see" a reading whenever I want. When I have
two consecutive daily readings that are the same (as well as being close
to the predicted final gravity), I am ready to bottle.
9. Bottle. I regard the custom of sanitizing bottles as quaint, hard,
useless, and not for me-- I gave it up two years ago. Now, I clean my
bottles by rinsing them with tap water, and letting them drip dry on a
bottle tree. You may have guessed this by now, but I don't sanitize or
boil my bottle caps. I have used the above method of bottling for over
1,500 bottles, and have experienced no problems with contamination. Do
try this at home.
10. A few closing comments/opinions:
a. It's okay to bottle straight out of the primary with ales. There
may be a bit more sediment in each bottle, but you probably won't
notice much degradation in clarity, head retention, or flavor. My ales don't
live long after bottling - 6 or 8 weeks is tops - so whatever ill effects
my techniques may cause don't have time to assert themselves.
b. The semi-open method seems to result in much faster fermentation
than a carboy with an airlock-- almost as fast as with dry yeast. With
OGs under 1.050, I usually can bottle in no more than 7-10 days, even if I
don't use a yeast starter.
c. My final gravities seem to be a bit lower, and I haven't had any
stuck fermentations. I think the yeast enjoy the open work environment,
work harder, and experience a concomitant increase in self-esteem.
d. Scum-skimming is easy, and fun. It's nearly a thrill, going down
to the basement every morning and evening, faithful spoon in hand, ready
to skim scum that would otherwise exit via a blow-off tube. I imagine
myself standing on a wooden platform somewhere in Bavaria, listening to
the yeast, peering down at a 10-meter copper fermentation vessel, large
ladle at the ready position, looking for something in need of ladling,
becoming one with my beer, etc.
That's it! I've used up a lot of band-width-- but at least it was about beer.
Steve Schultz - Cheesehead-in-exile
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/`-_
{ }/
\ . / <--------- Arlington, Wisconsin.
|___|
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 13:59:47 -0400
From: Jmccompany at aol.com
Subject: Home Made Wine
Hell again, I finally located the Video entitled: "Making Fine Fruit Wine at
Home."
If anyone would like to know how I obtained this video, please E-Mail me at
Jmccompany at aol.com
The Video describes, in a step by step manner, how to make a wide variety of
delicious fruit wines in your own kitchen. It's 45 minutes in length
E-Mail me at Jmccompany at aol.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 20:08:43 GMT
From: stencil at bcn.net (stencil)
Subject: Marbles
Glass marbles, especially the flattened variety used by florists,
make a fairly effective trub filter. I put about a half-gallon in the
bottom of the primary and siphon down only to the top of the layer.
The marbles have a block coefficient of better than one-half, so the
liquid lost doesn't make two pints - and it's usually just nasty olive
sludge, particularly when I've used pellets.
I started using them when I discovered I'd put the spigot too far
up from the bottom of a bottling bucket and got tired of trying to tip
the bucket while manipulating the spigot and the bottle. At first I
used marble chips to displace the lost beer (must be some nifty
technical term for lost liquid at the bottom of a pot; like the other
end of "ullage") but then I discovered the glass marbles.
The best source is American Science & Surplus, (847) 982-0870 and
http://www.sciplus.com. They run around a two cents apiece. I've
seen them in the local variety stores (craft supplies) at several
times that price.
Down sides: They're a PITA to clean (rinse by the handful, boil
just before use); they couldn't be used in a glass carboy or an
enamel sink or pot; and the round ones' desire to plug the bottling
spigot necessitates using a wisp of mylar or copper sponge in the wet
side of the spigot.. Finally, all the extra handling violates the
KISS principle and raises the risk of contamination.
For all that, I use 'em, I like 'em, I endorse 'em.
- ----------------------------------------
If at first you don't succeed, you're probably doing it wrong.
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 14:28:12 -0700
From: skystar at ix.netcom.com (Bruce E Cockerham)
Subject: Extract Recipe For True Hopheads
Ted Gaskell posted his experience with what might be the
ultimate in highly-hopped brews--Pacific Coast Brewery's
Blue Whale Ale (as supplied in kit form by Hoptech). Recently,
a friend visited the brewery and was allowed to copy recipes
from the brewmeister's own notes. Following is my best
approximation of this extract/specialty grain brewery's
BIGGEST ale, adjusted to a five gallon recipe:
9# Pale LME
.5# 17 L Crystal--Steep 30 minutes at 160F
.5# 55 L Crystal-- " " " "
.5# Chocolate Malt " " " "
2.0 oz Nugget (AA about 13) 60 minutes
2.0 oz Chinook(AA about 12.7) " "
.7 oz Willamette 5 minutes
.6 oz Centenial " "
.5 oz Perle " "
.5 oz Chinook " "
1.5 oz Chinook Dry-hopped
Liquid 1098 yeast
O.G. = 1.070
F.G. = 1.022
If you're into hops, give this recipe a try.
Bruce Cockerham
skystar at ix.netcom.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 15:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeremy Ballard Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: freezing yeast
Probably you'll get several replies, but:
I store all my yeast frozen. I never buy a yeast more than once,
just freeze a sample of each one I get and reculture from that each
time. My method is to freeze in 15% (not 10% as in your post) glycerol
(glycerine) at -80C. I have tried this in a home freezer and it
doesn't work, as you report. Others have had success this way
however. It could be either the temperature (I don't think 15%
glycerol even freezes at -20C) or the daily defrost, or both
that makes this not work. If it is the latter, placing the
yeast in an insulated container in the freezer might help.
A friend who got his masters in brewing science from UC Davis
says they store yeast on slants covered with sterile mineral
oil at room temperature. (Sterilize the oil by heating to 150C
for 20' or, probably, don't bother.) Just lift a sample through
the mineral oil, streak on a plate, and pick a colony or three.
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 19:03:47 -0400
From: Mike Kidulich <mjkid at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Measurement conversions
Greetings,
I noticed recently some discussion on volume measurements, i.e, tsp to
ml, etc. According to my HP48GX, the following are the correct
English-Metric conversions.
1 tsp = 5 ml (ml and cc are the same)
1 Tbsp = 15 ml = 0.5 US fl oz
Hope this information is of use.
- --
Mike Kidulich
mjkid at ix.netcom.com mjk at rfc.comm.harris.com
DNRC Minister of Home Brewing, Relaxation, and Really Cool Toys
Holder of Previous Knowledge O-
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 12 May 96 21:58:00 EDT
From: "Houseman, David L TR" <DLH1 at trpo3.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: Valley Mill Experience
Several posts noted that they didn't know of anyone using the Valley Mill.
Well I bought one and can
report from experience that this mill is the best quality of any of the
mills I've looked at or used. I had
occasion to look at several in stores and at the AHA conference last Summer.
I was routinely using
the JS MaltMill at a local store after giving up on my corona. The Valley
is much better built than any
of the others, the adjustment of rollers is very easy, the directions to
mount and use are very simple.
All in all, I'm very happy and haven't had any of the house character
(astringency) since moving to the
Valley Mill. At $99 for an adjustable mill, it's the best bargin on the
market. Now $15 for "shipping and
handling" does seem excessive, but then the customs people do have to earn a
living a suppose. BTW, no connection to the Valley Mill people; just a
satisfied client.
Dave Houseman
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 08:00:19 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: SSR-SCR/Delbruekii
A minor correction to Jim Nasiatka-Wylde's post on solid state relays. They
are usually refered to as Solid State Relays (SSR). They component that
actually does the switching is referred to as an SCR which originally meant
a partucular kind of 4-layer semiconducter device called a Silicon
Controlled Rectifier but that now appears to have been broadened to include
other similar devices. The statement that the device "closes a contact" is
misleading as the big advantage of SSR's is that they DON'T close a contact
but rather establish the current flow by controlling whether the SCR
conducts or not on a particular cycle of the AC line. Absence of the
contact means no arcing, no pitting, no wear and the switching can be much
faster than with a mechanical contact to the point that the device can be
switched on for only a fraction of the cylces or even for only a portion of
a cylce. At this level of sophistication we have a SCR Controller or Solid
State Power Controller rather than the simpler SSR's which are basically
on-off devices.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Geoffo" posted a rather confusing item in which it appears that there is
some confusion between Saccharomyces delbrueckii and Lactobacillus
delbrueckii. The former is a strain of yeast which is supposed to lend the
phenolic character to Bavarian wheat beer. I have never seen it so called
anywhere but in Wyeast literature. Most authors refer to it as simply
another strain of S cerevesiae. Taxonomists change names all the time. That
is their job. The other strain, Lactobacillus delbrueckii, isn't a yeast at
all but a bacterium which is found on the husks of barley and, as it
produces lactic acid as its fermentation process, is used to sour mash
(where Reinheitgebot bars the use of additives for that purpose) and, of
course, to sour Berliner Weisse (and Wit).
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel at interramp.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 06:49:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Size
I received a number of responses to my puzzle on the variation in carbonation,
from almost none to "perfect" depending on bottle size.
Most of the responses were variations on the idea that carbonation varies with
proportion of head space to total volume, noting that it takes less priming to
carbonate a larger container (e.g., a 5l "minikeg") than a smaller one (i.e.,
a bottle), and that although the contents of the larger bottle attained
carbonation earlier, the smaller ones would come along eventually in another
week or two.
There may be something to that, but I don't have much hope for the
"eventually" part, because it's a beer I brewed and bottled last autumn.
Any other ideas?
Thanks.
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino
Madison rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
You may now go back to your regularly-scheduled beer
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 08:33:30 EST
From: "Barry Wertheimer" <wertheim at libra.law.utk.edu>
Subject: Freezer Thermostat Suggestions
I know this has been beat to death on more than one occasion, but I
wasn't paying close attention because it was before I stumbled on to
my used chest freezer this weekend. Now I need a thermostat. I'm
not inclined to build one. I've heard of problems with the Hunter.
If anyone has suggestions for purchasing an effective, but not too
expensive thermostat, I'd love to hear them. I'd like to be able to
control within a range of 35-75 F. E-mail or posts to the digest are
fine.
Thanks,
Barry
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:48:33 +0400
From: Lenny Garfinkel <lenny at parker.inter.net.il>
Subject: How do I use TSP for sanitizing?
The subject says it all. I have seen references on using trisodium
phosphate (TSP) for sanitizing, but I don't remember ever seeing specifics.
Could someone who uses TSP write about exactly how they sanitize?
Concentrations and times, etc.
TIA,
Lenny Garfinkel
Leonard Garfinkel, Ph.D.
Biotechnology General
Kiryat Weizmann
Rehovot
Israel
Tel: 972-8-9381256 (office)
972-8-9451505 (home)
FAX: 972-8-9409041
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:08:10 EST
From: "Dave Higdon" <DAVEH at qesrv1.bwi.wec.com>
Subject: starter cultures
I have had recent problems with my yeast producing in my fermenter.
It sometimes takes up to 3.5 days to get into rapid fermentation.
Does anyone know the right mesurements of extract, water , and other
ingredients that I will need to get a starter culture going.
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 15:12:01 +0100
From: DAVID KEVIN MICHAUX <neu94dkm at bridge.anglia.ac.uk>
Subject: Job
Anyone out there in a good possition to help a poor cambridge student
get a job with a US company for a 1 year placement?
Anyone in such a possition please mail me.
thanx for your time
david michaux
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:57:10 -0400
From: dharsh at alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh)
Subject: Skewed mills, brains et al.
Jack said:
>The ability to skew the rollers is a FEATURE not a flaw. Differential
>spacing from one end of the rollers to the other is the only way one
>can simulate a multistage mill with a single set of rollers in a single
>pass.
>
>You didn't bother reading the ref I offered, did you?
It's also called SARCASM, but I guess in text form it loses some of the
impact. I'll have to work on making it a bit more obvious in the future.
Yes, I did read your advertisement/reference. As far as skewed rollers
simulating a six-roller mill, I think this would be called a mommily.
>quantitative tests and very many satisfied customers have shown
>it to be effective.
Our club did crush/sieve testing and obtained no significant difference in
size distribution from any of the mills tested. Club members that own a MM
are very satisfied and get great yields. The same may be said for owners
of the Brewers Resource, Glatt, PhilMill, and we even have one advocate of
a Corona.
Jack's web page states: "the proof...is the extract YOU get in YOUR system
and not some perceived idea of 'crush quality'..." (emphasis original) So
if you can get 99% yield using a Corona, the best mill for you may be a
Corona.
>to point out that you dismiss all the superior features of the MM
>as "who needs them" and latch on to a larger hopper on your
>favorite and the most important feature in the world.
To me, issues like hopper size seem a little ridiculous, but everyone's
priorities are different. For some the most important factor may be hopper
size, others may consider cost to be the major interest. Hmmm... We might
all look at the facts and make a different decision on what is best for us.
Dave
http://blatant.self.promotion/buy/my/stuff.html
Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 22:58:24 -0500
From: Bill Giffin <billg at maine.com>
Subject: How is your grain mill
Top of the morning to ye all,
How is your malt mill? Compared to what?
Let's compare your mill to what Malting and Brewing Science think is
an adequate mill.
U S standard Mesh Characteristics % of Grist
Mesh Width
10 .0787" Husks held>
14 .05512 Husks held.> 15%
18 .03937 Husks held>
30 .02323 Coarse grits held 25
60 .00984 Fine grits held 30
100 .00587 Flour held 20
100 .00587 Fine flour falls through 10
The above is what you would expect with a good six roll mill. The
screens that are mentioned above are available through any scientific
supply house and are fairly expensive.
One of the screens that is readily available is screen 18 which is about
what a standard window screen happens to be.
To expect that all but 15% of your grist that has been milled with other
then a mill that has rollers of 250 mm diameter is unrealistic but a goal
to trive for.
The poorly thought of Corona Mill comes close to the ideal when
properly set. 78% of the grist passes through a window screen of
about .039" leaving the hulls whole. This is what crushing the malt is
about, leaving the hulls whole while everything else should fit through a
hole that is less then a 1/16". The price of a Corona Mill is about $40
bucks and does as good a job as all the roller mills that are on the
homebrew market. My question is why would anyone want a roller
mill that doesn't get any higher extract from the grain, nor does it make
any better beer ( Three of the top competition brewers in New England
use a Corona Mill). Why pay the additional money?
I have brewed about 200 batches of all grain beer over the past
five years with all the grain milled with the Corona. For British and
American malts I average about 32-34 ppg. With German malts the
average is 31-33 ppg. Save your money and make more beer!
May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you are dead,
Bill Bill Giffin
61 Pleasant St.
Richmond, ME 04357
(207)-737-2015
All you need is a few good friends and plenty to drink because thirst is a
terrible thing!
Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Subject: beer glasses
Paul J. Morstad <pmorstad at comp.uark.edu> writes:
[re: traditional beer glasses]
>Here in the States, the trend for most brewpubs/pubs seem to favor
>two types: the typical straight sided pint glass, or the "dimpled mug" w/
>handle that you refer to. Both are of English origin, if I'm not mistaken.
This is a bit of a pet peeve of some people I know. Those straight
sided "pint" glasses that the majority of pubs in the US use are not
beer glasses, they are for mixing mixed drinks. Nor do they hold a pint
of beer. They may hold 16 oz. of water if you try real hard, but you're
likely only getting 12 oz. of beer for your "pint". Think about it as you're
pulling out your $3.50 next time...
- Bryan
grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville TN
- Bryan
grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville, TN
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:07:00 -0500
From: "Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM" <GoodaleD at HOOD-EMH3.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: raw cane sugar
In HOMEBREW Digest #2034 Jake writes:
>Anyway, I highly recommend playing around with cane sugar in your brews. But
>don't be cheap. Reach for the sucanat. It's got a more complex flavor
>because it's just evaporated cane juice, unpurified and unprocessed.
The good folks at the biohazard brewing company swear by priming
with raw cane sugar. I get it at an international grocery store called
Fiesta
(indigenous to TX I think). It comes in a hard brown cone shaped mass
that is perfectly portion controlled for priming 5 gallons (perhaps a
little too
much for some English ales). It takes a little longer to carbonate, but
the
added complexity (inarticulable to my amateur palate) is worth it to me.
It is imported from a variety of Latin American countries and costs
approx. $00.35.
I'm not in any way associated with Fiesta, the sugar cane
industry,.........
............not now or have ever been a member of the communist party.
Daniel Goodale
The Biohazard Brewing Company
Sure its gonna kill ya, but who wants to live forever?
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com>
Subject: Fuller's clone
Once again I am on the quest for a Fuller's ESB clone. Had some yeast
problems but traced it to a need for vigorous aeration including dropping
into the secondary. Malt, hops, adjunct, and process suggestions are all
welcome.
In the past I have had conflicting information concerning the use of
sugar and flaked maize, so if someone has definitive information about
that I'd appreciate it.
I'm also thinking that perhaps the use of first-wort-hopping will let me
get away without dry-hopping. Suggestions about this are also welcome.
Post or private e-mail and I will summarize for the HBD in a few days.
Domenick Venezia
Computer Resources
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia at zgi.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com>
Subject: Maibock results
This spring I did my first lager, a Maibock, with suggestions from Al
Korzonas and Rick Gontarek (Thank you). I tried to do everything "right"
and it turned out great. First a nice maltiness, then bit of hop flavor,
then a LONG maltiness finish mingling with hop bitterness. I thought I
would share the salient points.
OG: 1.060
FG: 1.017
IBU: 37
153F Single step infusion mash
Summary: 1 gallon starter (1.050) of Wyeast 2206 Bavarian lager fermented
at 50F for 2 weeks then decanted all liquid off of the yeast cake.
Aerated wort with an aquarium pump for 60 minutes. Pitched at 51F.
Primary fermentation 2 weeks at 46-53F, then 2 week secondary at 46-51F,
followed by a 6 week lager at 34F.
If you are really interested in the grain bill and hop schedule e-mail
me and I'll send it.
Domenick Venezia
Computer Resources
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia at zgi.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:58:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Maestro <krusemje at martin.luther.edu>
Subject: How 'bout some guidance
Hello everyone,
I've been lurking here for about half of a semester (I'm a college
student) and have really enjoyed the expertise and light banter between
all contributors. My brother and I started brewing when I was home for
spring break. We love the challenge,fun, and novelty of making our own
beer. For my brother that's where it ends, I on the other hand love the
beer. We have done two extract brews, and we are already somewhat bored.
But we're kind of scared just to jump into all-grain. We don't know any
other brewers, and we live about an hour away from our supply store.
Anybody out there live near Quincy, IL or Hannibal, MO?
I will be down in San Antonio for the month of June building, cleaning
and repairing pipe organs. Would anyone be willing to let me watch or
help you brew while I'm down there.
I would like to give dormbrew a shot. Luther College is not a dry
campus. Have any of you college students (or former college students) out
there tried it in the residence halls. I suspect I'd have to get by with
the bare essentials.
Thanks for all the fun and input,
Jesse Krusemark
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 96 12:07:21 CDT
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: hard water/hop FAQ
Al (a different one) writes:
Our city well water is incredibly hard (we
go through 2-3 coffee makers a year) but still tastes ok. Since I
haven't made the leap to all grain and am brewing with extracts and
speciality grains just how concerned should I be about water chemistry.
If your water is high in sulfates, this will increase the percieved bitterness
of your beer and give the beer a long, lingering bitterness in the finish.
If you are trying to make an IPA, this is a blessing, but if you are trying
to make a Bohemian Pilsner this is problem. You can use bottled water or
mix bottled and tap water if this is the case. It sounds as if your water
is high in carbonates, however. You may want to pre-boil your water and
decant off the precipitate for pale beers. Carbonates increase the pH and
will extract tannins from your specialty grains. For dark beers such as
Porter and Stout, go ahead and use the water without pre-boiling -- the
carbonates in your water will balance the acidity of the dark grains and
the dark grains will balance the alkalinity of your water.
Rather than throwing out 2-3 coffee makers per year, run some lemon juice or
vinegar through it when the flow starts to slow down. Then run plain water
through a couple of times to rinse. You may want to pre-boil water and
decant off the precipitate and then use that water for making coffee -- the
high pH of your water will affect your coffee too! This pre-boiled water
will also require less frequent de-calcification of your coffee maker.
***
Andy writes:
>My original information was from the hop FAQ:
and
>I am not sure where this information comes from. Is it correct?
It was collected (by Patrick Weix, if memory serves) from information
that has been posted to the HBD over the last 7 or 8 years. I was a
contributor and reviewed the first one or two revisions, but have not
looked at it for well over two years and I know that has been updated.
Therefore, the Hops FAQ is only about as accurate as the HBD, which is,
oh, say 70% on the first pass, and then maybe 90% after corrections (like
Badgerific Bob's). I believe that my information was based upon several
ASBC Proceedings articles and DeKlerck's A Textbook of Brewing.
Incidentally, I believe there is even a mistake in the text you quoted:
>Theoretical losses of alpha acids of up to 60% have been calculated for
>hops which are packaged and stored poorly.
The 60% loss of alpha acids is probably referring to the storagability table
that has been posted for various hop varieties (I know I posted them once).
This is not a theoretical value and should be interpreted as 60% loss of
alpha acids in 6 months at 68 degrees F in whole (aka raw) form in the
presence of air. In a year it would be far more than 60%, you see...
The storagability table is really pretty useless if you store your hops
properly, however. I have a heat sealer and a tank of CO2 with which I
purge the air out before re-sealing the oxygen-barrier packages. I've used
four-year-old hops stored this way without any problems or off flavours.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 96 12:06:33 CDT
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: OOOPS!/Ads/Parallel Rollers/Honey Malt/clogging blowoff
Bob writes:
>**(I hope _I'm_ not putting foot-in-mouth here by not consulting with a
>printed reference to confirm my own understanding.)**
Nope... I did. I have the IBUs-to-ounces formula memorized and I quickly
(and sloppily) converted it to an ounces-to-IBUs formula rather than
unlock my drawer, pull out the copy of the 1990 Zymurgy Special Issue and
read the proper formula out of the article. Bob's absolutely right. When
I flipped the formula, I forgot that I was passing 1/ounces over to the
right and it ended up in the denominator rather than the numerator. Sorry
about the confusion.
***
Dan's shameless ad for free hops is just that, a shameless ad. Whether
there are free hops in this ad or not, it is nothing more than a
promotion. I have already written privately to Dan and others who have
posted ads and *insist* that HBD not be used for advertising. If this
becomes a regular occurrance, I'll take my questions and my answers elsewhere.
***
Dave writes:
>No meaningful comparison can be made unless you are comparing
>them at the same gap; and if the rollers aren't parallel, all bets are off.
>A well designed mill shouldn't have this problem. If the rollers are
>parallel, then length should only affect total throughput, and from what
>I've seen the PhilMill throughput is probably at the low end. (no data,
>just judging from the roller sizes)
The JSP MaltMill(tm) has non-parallel rollers that have been much maligned
both here and in the current issue of Brewing Techniques. As the results
I get with mine as well as those of the hundreds of satisfied MaltMill
owners will attest, there is no problem with the non-parallel rollers.
Jack has posted many times that it is the non-parallel nature of the
MaltMill's rollers that allows them to create a "textbook quality" crush
(the textbook being The Practial Brewer, published by the ASBC). While
I have seen the results of sieve tests that bear this out and have read
George Fix's glowing review of the MaltMill as compared to a $4500 commercial
mill, I don't believe that Jack intentionally made only one end of one roller
adjustable with the sieve tests of The Practical Brewer in mind. I suspect
that he did this just to make the mill more affordable and the fact that it
happens to result in a textbook crush was unplanned (I base this upon the
fact that Jack is, let's say, rather *independent-minded* and probably doesn't
have many brewing texts on his shelf).
I am posting this as well as Cc'ing Jack in an effort to head-off what I
would consider similar to advertising. For the record, I do not sell ANY
brand of malt mill and have nothing to gain from this post other than to
clarify the issue at hand.
Furthermore Dave writes:
>My PhillMill has brass bearings.
It now has brass bushings, not bearings. There is a big difference.
***
Bruce writes:
>Gambrinus is the malt company, from Canada. Honey malt is a 20-25 Lovibond
>crystal malt that has some honey-type flavor. I believe it was made as a
>substitute for a malt made in Germany called Brumalt or Brewmalt.
According to the Great Grains Special Issue of Zymurgy, Honey Malt is *not*
a crystal malt, but rather an 18 to 25 Lovibond malt that should be mashed.
I too have read that it has a honey-like flavour. If it is a Brumalt as
Steve Alexander says in a later post, it is quite a bit paler than most
Brumalts which are typically 30 to 40 Lovibond.
***
Bryan writes:
>My question is What do primary fermenters clog with???
>Common advice on HBD is to get rid of the orange caps on your carboy
>during primary fermentation and shove a large diameter blowoff
>hose right in the carboy neck. This way it won't clog. But what does
>it clog with, CO2? Do people throw the trub, hops and all from the kettle
>right into the fermenter? Or is it just that so much CO2 is being created
>that it can't escape fast enough through 3/8" tubing.
Many people do throw all the trub, hops and all from the kettle into the
fermenter, but most try to get rid of some or all of it. Every brewer
is slightly different regarding how much of that stuff they allow into the
fermenter. Personally, I use hop bags and pellets in the boil and perhaps
5% of them slip through the bags. Most of this is left in the bottom of
the kettle (I brew to 5.5 gallons and then usually only pour 5 to 5.25 into
the fermenter, leaving much of the break and most of the hops behind).
What is in blowoff? Well, I had initially believed that it was mostly hop
resins, bits of the vegetive parts of the hops, and the hot and cold break.
However, I have recently noticed that my unhopped starters have a brown ring
around the flask, just above the surface of the liquid and I don't use any
hops in my starters. This indicates that this sticky, brown gunk is from
the malt and not the hops. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that there is
plently of gunk that floats up on the kraeusen and that this same stuff that
makes up that brown ring around the fermenter is just aching to clog your
blowoff tube.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 10 May 96 16:29:52 EDT
From: Steven W. Schultz <swschult at cbdcom.apgea.army.mil>
Subject: A Slug's Guide to Ale Brewing
Rather than additional hand-wringing over the impending AOB management
of the HBD, I thought a BEER-RELATED post might be a nice diversion (sorry
about the shouting).
Like many homebrewers, I switch from lagers to ales with the approach
of summer. I find ales to be easier to make, more forgiving of errors,
faster to ferment, and often drinkable within 1-2 weeks of bottling.
Being cheap, lazy, and not very smart, I have sought to develop a
suitable method for brewing. Below is my low-tech, low-work ale brewing
method, provided to elicit comments in the hope of improving it, and also
to provide information that someone may find useful:
1. 4-5 days before brewing: pop the yeast packet.
2. 1-2 days before brewing: make a yeast starter, unless I forget, or
don't feel like it. (I really do recommend yeast starters; never mind
that I don't always follow my own advice).
3. 1 day before brewing: boil 2 1/2 gallons of water; cover; set aside.
4. Brew day: boil 3 gallons, add fermentables, hops, etc. (I no longer
use Irish Moss. Nothing against it, but since I so often forgot to use it
in the past, and the beer turned out okay, I figured I didn't really need
it. Besides, it costs money.)
5. Cool with wort chiller; dump into fermenter, along with pre-boiled
water. Hot and cold break are not made to feel unwelcome in my ales.
6. Pitch yeast. My primary fermenter is a tall plastic bucket. (For the
siphon-impaired, try a bottling bucket. These work well except that the
spigot hole may not be high enough to clear the trub.)
7. Place a clear, 16" square piece of thin plexiglass on top of the
bucket. Once or twice a day after fermentation starts, use a large,
holey, scum-skimming spoon to skim off the, ah, scum that collects on top.
Prior to use, rinse the spoon with hot tap water; A/R brewers may soak in
iodophor.
8. Rack to secondary when I can't bottle for a while. This is based
upon my perception of risk. While I am not concerned about trub affecting
my beer, or autolysis, I might w***** about the beer getting oxidized once
CO2 is no longer being produced (my plexiglass sheet doesn't do much to
keep oxygen away from the beer).
9. Take gravity readings. Cheap and lazy means I don't waste beer or do
more work than need be, so once the foam subsides, I drop the hydrometer
into the beer. Now, I can "see" a reading whenever I want. When I have
two consecutive daily readings that are the same (as well as being close
to the predicted final gravity), I am ready to bottle.
9. Bottle. I regard the custom of sanitizing bottles as quaint, hard,
useless, and not for me-- I gave it up two years ago. Now, I clean my
bottles by rinsing them with tap water, and letting them drip dry on a
bottle tree. You may have guessed this by now, but I don't sanitize or
boil my bottle caps. I have used the above method of bottling for over
1,500 bottles, and have experienced no problems with contamination. Do
try this at home.
10. A few closing comments/opinions:
a. It's okay to bottle straight out of the primary with ales. There
may be a bit more sediment in each bottle, but you probably won't
notice much degradation in clarity, head retention, or flavor. My ales don't
live long after bottling - 6 or 8 weeks is tops - so whatever ill effects
my techniques may cause don't have time to assert themselves.
b. The semi-open method seems to result in much faster fermentation
than a carboy with an airlock-- almost as fast as with dry yeast. With
OGs under 1.050, I usually can bottle in no more than 7-10 days, even if I
don't use a yeast starter.
c. My final gravities seem to be a bit lower, and I haven't had any
stuck fermentations. I think the yeast enjoy the open work environment,
work harder, and experience a concomitant increase in self-esteem.
d. Scum-skimming is easy, and fun. It's nearly a thrill, going down
to the basement every morning and evening, faithful spoon in hand, ready
to skim scum that would otherwise exit via a blow-off tube. I imagine
myself standing on a wooden platform somewhere in Bavaria, listening to
the yeast, peering down at a 10-meter copper fermentation vessel, large
ladle at the ready position, looking for something in need of ladling,
becoming one with my beer, etc.
That's it! I've used up a lot of band-width-- but at least it was about beer.
Steve Schultz - Cheesehead-in-exile
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/`-_
{ }/
\ . / <--------- Arlington, Wisconsin.
|___|
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:57:31 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com>
Subject: Bleach in Airlocks.
> From: cdp at chattanooga.net (C.D. Pritchard)
> Subject: re: Iodophor
>
> I LOVE Iodophor!
I think it's about time I try this stuff . . .
> I never use bleach anymore except in airlocks.
I heartily recommend against that. A little temperature fluctuation, and you
get suck-back. And you don't want bleach in your beer. Gives it a nasty
plastic/aluminum/artificial kind of flavor. Yucky.
Be more succinct, Jack. And Mr. Stanbridge- nice try, but I won't bite.
-Russell Mast
Copyright 1996, Peter Laughner
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 14:27:00 -0800
From: "Sutton, Bob" <bob.sutton at fluordaniel.com>
Subject: Hop Plugs vs. Leaves / Wet T-Shirts
Now that I've stumbled across a local supplier of "fresh" hop
leaves,
I wondered how I might convert my recipes which use plugs. Can I
substitute ounce for ounce, or is there a fourth order
Runga-Kutta
formula for determining equivalence. I hoping for something more
exact
than trial-and-error.
This past weekend I honored National Homebrewer's Day by
starting a
SNPA clone of sorts. Since I'm now paranoid of summers coming, I
outfitted my primary with a Boulder Brewery T-shirt (no
affiliation -
burp) and placed it in a water bath and cranked up my window fan
for
cooling. Well, it seems a weather front came through the
following day
and dropped the house temperature to the upper 60s, and the
fermentor
temperature fell to 65-68F. Since I'm using an ale yeast, is
this
harmful to the end quality. Is there a minimum temperature
concern
with ale yeasts. I have not run across anything lately. The
fermentation rate looks steady, and I'll transfer to the
secondary to
dry hop later today.
Re: Summer brewing... do ya thing the Budfolks shutdown during
the
summer to maintain the high quality of their product ;^)
Bob
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 14:07:19 -0600
From: Shawn Steele <shawn at aob.org>
Subject: NHC First Round Results
The 1996 NHC first round results are available by sending e-mail to
info at aob.org and including the key word "FIRSTROUND" somewhere in the
message. It is also be available on the web at
http://www.aob.org/aob/firstround.html
- shawn
Shawn Steele
Webmaster
Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 118 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 shawn at aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://www.aob.org/aob (web)
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:12:52 +0200
From: dennism at eastcoast.co.za (Dennis Morton)
Subject: Sa Beers
South Africa
Once again world champs.
Our version of Carling Black label
beat the best of the world's beers
to win a gold medal for bottled beer in the
Brewing Industrys International Award.
Judges had to swig their way through 140
beers apiece over two days of judging in Burton-On-Trent's
City Hall.
I never knew this - but am celebrating.
I knew I chose a winner when i put
the first Black Label to my lips 18 years ago.
OK no exactly home brew news. New to the forum.
Over the next few postings will gladly post
answers to requests on African home brews - include
brews such as Gavien and Skokiaan and Mampoer.
Will also try and include recipes. Just give me time
Cheers. Hic!!::::
Dennis
Return to table of contents