---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  Pale Ale Recipe! (Carrick Legrismith)
  Recipes/AHA-GABF (Jim Busch)
  Zip City Lager (Paul A. Hausman)
  New 3-Tier System ("Kenneth D. Joseph")
  filters (Scott Dornseif)
  Two-Step Fermentation / Recipes (Rob Reed)
  Summary - 5 vs 10 Gallon Gott ("Herb B Tuten")
  Heat Diffusers for Thin Bottom Pots (Dave Greenlee)
  Ethanol as a sterilant (korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com)
  SG of dextrose in water (Gregory King)
  Use of secondary/brewing with chocolate/sharing recipes ((George De Piro))
  Have a beer on me (Don Trotter)
  Motorizing Maltmills (Todd Kirby)
  Suggestions wanted for mash transfer ("Paul Kensler")
  Re: How Much Fills a 10 Gal Gott (Don Trotter)
  Racking/Filtering (mikehu at lmc.com)
  Unconditional Election (Russell Mast)
  Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 1) (Michael Gerholdt)
  Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 2) (Michael Gerholdt)

For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
  homebrew at aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org
  and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.

Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
  a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
  then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org.

OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
  http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
  http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
  info at aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.

ARCHIVES:
  At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp.  Also
  http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.


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

From: Carrick Legrismith <hiscope at c4systm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:39:02 -0700
Subject: Pale Ale Recipe!

Here is one of my favorite brews: 
 
Carrick's American Pale Ale 
Batch number: 5 
Batch size: 12.0 
Brewer: Poison Ivy Brewery 
Style: American Pale Ale 
 
    
Brewing: 1.050  
Racking: 1.015  
Bottling: 1.014 
Alcohol: 3.8% (w/w) 
Alcohol: 4.7% (v/v) 
 
Ingredients: 
 
2 Row Pale Ale 14.0 pounds  
Crystal 20  2.0 pounds 
Munich   1.0 pound  
Wheat Malt  1.0 pound 
 
Chinook   1.0 ounce 60 min 12.7 % AA leaf  
Chinook   0.3 ounces 30 min 12.7 % AA leaf  
Cascade   1.0 ounces 30 min  5.5 % AA leaf  
Cascade   2.0 ounces  2 min  5.5 % AA leaf  
Cascade oil  2.0 tsp at bottling 
Irish Moss  2.0 tsp 20 min  
 
Water Treatment: 
 
15.0 Gallons, distilled,  (it takes 20 gallons but my tank is only 15.5!!) 
Salts used: 
Chalk 3.6 grams 
Gypsum 3.4 grams 
CaCl 2.4 grams 
 
Ions Boil Target Difference 
Ca  54  75 -21 
Na   0   2  -2 
Mg   0  17 -17 
Cl  27   5  22 
CO3  38  15  23 
SO4  33  10  23 
 
Mash water amount: 18.0 
Strike temperature:  70  Fahrenheit 
Mash pH: 5.2 
Sparge water amount: 27.0 quarts 
Sparge water temperature: 168  Fahrenheit 
Sparge water pH: 5.2 
Extraction efficiency: 86 % 
 
Sparge liquor collected: 14.0 gallons 
Topping water amount: 0.0 quarts 
Boil size: 14.0 Gallons 
 
Mashing schedule 
minutes  Fahrenheit 
15 70 
25 154 
100 154 
120 168 
130 168 
 
Fermentation 
Wyeast #1056 American Ale 0.3 package , starter: 1 ltr per 5 gal 
Primary fermentation: Stainless Steel, open 
Secondary Fermentation: 6 Gallon Carboy 
Primed with: 40f/12 lbs CO2 
 
Fermentation schedule 
days  Fahrenheit 
 8 68 primary 
 14     64 secondary 
 
If you make it and like it, e-mail me. If it turns out a dumper-brew, it was 
your fault!
 That's the beauty of a recipe! 
>Homebrewers unite with the NRA!! Switch to priming your brew with 3 cups corn 
sugar!! Watch out ATF!
 
Carrick Legrismith 
Poison Ivy Brewery, where our motto is: 
Once you have it, you'll be itching for more 
hiscope at c4systm.com 

Return to table of contents


From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:54:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Recipes/AHA-GABF

Regarding exchanging of recipes.  In general I will give tips and 
techniques of some beers and keep some of the more intricate and 
personally communicated details secret.  I wont jump up and divulge 
some Belgian or Bavarian "secret" if it was told to me in the spirit 
of a one to one friendship. 
 
<YMMV, but I think that improving the general quality of homebrew 
<is much more important that winning ribbons.  Anyway, after you 
<have more than a couple of dozen ribbons, it gets hard to find a 
<place to hang them. 
 
Very true but the last thing I want to see is Jim Koch marketing a 
HopDevil knockoff because someone gave him a great recipe in the 
Longshot program.  Let the big boys develop their own beers!  Its 
not worth the temporary fame of being on the six pack, and it seems 
that your real recipe wont be used anyway (if they dont feel like it). 
 
<"In my basement, there are cob webs over the fermenter."  --Jim Busch 
 
But now its a unitank!  (Cobwebs remain). 
 
<A couple of questions come to mind -- 1) Is La Chouffe a wit-like beer 
<without the lactic acid component?; or 2) Is Jim Busch's Esprit d' Boire 
<recipe from Winter 95 Zymurgy a better starting point? 
 
Somewhere between the two.  Esprit de Boire was a little heavy on 
caramel malts and sweet orange for the real thing.  Chouffe is much 
more than a wit like beer, its stronger and the yeast character is 
pronounced.  I suggest using my recipe as a guidline and if its 
Chouffe you want go easy on sweet orange in favor of Curacao and 
keep the caramel malts around 3-5% DeWolf caraPils. 
 
<The 
<people involved have financial interests (as in job security) in the 
<continued success of the organization and as the organization grows it 
<takes more money to run it.  Do the math! 
 
It been many many years since I let my AHA membership lapse and there 
are many reasons for this.  The current story of being dropped from 
a simple calander of events listing in Zymurgy is a good case in 
point.  Money and math, eh?  Look at the Ad versus substance ratio 
in Zymurgy and make your own guess there. 
 
<Didn't I hear once that the GABF 
<was a money loser for AOB?  I don't know if that's still the case, but the 
<anuual financial statements for these non-profit organizations are public 
<record.  Anyway, I seriously doubt that the GABF is a financial windfall for 
<AOB. 
 
This is published info and I dont recall a loss, ever.  AOB, correct 
me if Im wrong here.  Unlike other major beer events including the 
Great British Beer Festival and the Oregon Brewers Festival, brewers 
are not compensated for the costs incurred in brewing and sending beer 
to the event.  Its all a giveaway for the brewers.   ( I know , you win 
a ribbon and rush off to advertise the hell out of it, FWIW).  Im sure 
the costs are held down at the gate but with the main attraction being 
donated it is hard to lose money here. 
 
Jim Busch 

Return to table of contents


From: Paul A. Hausman <paul at lion.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Zip City Lager

 
Narvaez Ronald <RNarvaez at phs.org> wrote: 
 
I was wondering if anybody has heard of this beer. The full name on the 
label was " Zip City Lager, Zip City Lager Brewing company Vienna" I am 
intrested in getting a bottle of the beer for two reasons. 1) I want to 
try it, 2) I collect bottles and the beer is bottled in a cool bottle. 
If anyone knows where I can get this beer please let me know. 
Thanks 
Ron Narvaez 
 
Zip City Brewing Company is a brewpub located in downtown Manhattan 
(New York City) somewhere around the Columbus Circle, NYU area. 
"Vienna" is the name of one of their lager beers.  The "cool 
bottles" (I've got one in my collection) are available only for 
take out, directly from the brew-pub.  You hafta leave a hefty 
deposit and are supposed to return it for refill or refund.  But 
my understanding from the folks at the bar are that they commonly 
never see the bottles back. 
 
The beer is reasonably good.  Not a "must try", but worth stopping 
by if you're in the area.  If you do happen to get there, ask for 
one of their brewery tours.  They basically just go and get the 
brewmaster or asst. brewmaster, take you  through and answer your 
questions.  Since it's just your group and the brewmaster, it 
isn't hampered by the commercialization of some "tours" and they 
talk to you at whatever level of knowledge you come to them with. 
 
*************************************************************************** 
* Paul A. Hausman                                           Paul at Lion.com * 
* Lion Technology Inc.                             Voice:  (201) 383-0800 * 
* P.O. Box 700, Lafayette, NJ  07848                 Fax:  (201) 383-2459 * 
*************************************************************************** 

Return to table of contents


From: "Kenneth D. Joseph" <74651.305 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 12 Aug 96 11:12:20 EDT
Subject: New 3-Tier System

Good Day All, 
 
I have just completed my new 3-tier system and am anxious to get brewing.  I 
have been exclusively all grain brewing for about 3.5 years now in an enamel 
8.5
gal pot on the stove and a Phalse bottom in a plastic bucket. 
 
I would love to glean any words of wisdom on the use of my new brewery since I 
have never seen one in action and don't have the slightest idea what to expect 
in this new world of propane burners, simultaneous action, and larger batches. 
If this subject was covered extensively in past issues, please give me 
references.  Please reply by direct email since today is the due date for our 
third child to be born, and I doubt that I'll be able to read the digest for a 
while.  If it would help any of you in helping me, I do have a CAD drawing of 
the system that could be faxed for review/critique.  Thanks in advance for the 
help. 
 
Ken Joseph 
74651.305 at compuserve.com 
 
"Sleep?. . . We don' need no stinkin' sleep!" 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Scott Dornseif <SDORNSE at wpo.it.luc.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:18:15 -0500
Subject: filters

From: EDWARD SPADONI <SL9YN at cc.usu.edu> 
Sun, 11 Aug 1996 
Subject: racking, filtering\ 
 
ES> ... Also, any feedback on when to filter or ways to make your own filtering
setup
would be appreciated. <ES 
 
Ed n ALL: 
www.AmericanPlumbingSupply.com Chico CA. has a $15 whole house filter housing  
and reasonable priced filters, ( ~$4-$5 / pr) which are replaceable at most 
hardware /
WalMart stores. I use these to filter my brewing water and to filter my beer 
from keg
to keg. Feel free to E-mail me with further specific Qs. Thanks to Scott Abene 
for
filtering out the more expensive yet similar setups and showing me the way. 
Scott Dornseif 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Rob Reed <rhreed at icdc.delcoelect.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:36:39 -0400 (CDT)
Subject: Two-Step Fermentation / Recipes

 
"Gregg A. Howard" <102012.3350 at CompuServe.COM> writes in #2140: 
 
> is there any real benefit to be gained by racking to a secondary, other than 
> avoiding autolysis? 
 
Racking to secondary has numerous benefits with only a few drawbacks: 
 
1) Secondary fermentation allows time for yeast to drop and allows 
   time for your beer to clear naturally (via tannin-protein complexing) 
2) A two-step process frees up your primary fermentor and allows the 
   brewer to bottle or keg as time permits (weeks to months) 
3) Two-step fermentation allows much of the dissolved CO2 to outgas 
   and yields more consistent carbonation for bottled beers 
4) Clarity can be assessed easily and fining agents may be added 
   as desired.  While Polyclar, Si Gel, and bentonite seem to work 
   quickly, gelatin takes longer in my brewery. 
 
Drawbacks include more work to sanitize carboy, racking rig, etc., and 
perhaps increased chance of oxidation and contamination. 
 
- ----- 
 
 
Don Trotter <dtrotter at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> writes: 
 
> How many of us give up our recipes? 
> 
> Seeing all the recipe requests in HBD doesn't make me feel well.  Can't 
> any of the requesters develop their own recipes?  It really isn't 
> difficult.  A little light reading and a little light math, or a recipe 
> formulation program is all it takes. 
 
Brewers brew for many different reasons and homebrewers' motivations, 
experience, and aptitudes vary widely.  Some brewers I know brew one 
or two styles of beer.  Many brew from grain, culture yeast, and seek 
to understand every detail of brewing.  I believe it takes many batches 
and a lot of reading before one feels confident in recipe formulation. 
I know judging beers and properly completing all the background study 
for the BJCP exam help immensely. 
 
Anyway, who says that Papazian, Miller, or other author has the best recipe 
for an Altbier, Dopplebock, or Cream Ale? 
 
I don't think giving up your recipe is going to hurt you in competition. 
Could many people duplicate Bridgeport Blue Heron or Boulevard Porter if 
their exact recipe was known?  Your brewing procedures, ingredient 
sources, fermentation conditions, etc. have much to do with the quality of 
your beer. 
 
Cheers, 
Rob Reed 

Return to table of contents


From: "Herb B Tuten" <herb at zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:44:41 -0500
Subject: Summary - 5 vs 10 Gallon Gott

Thanks to everyone who answered my question about 
which Gott to get. Here is a summary of the responses: 
 
1. Get the 10 gallon         -  10     (coincidence?) 
2. Get the  5 gallon          -    3 
3. It depends on what 
    size batches you brew -    3 
4. It doesn't matter, 
    just use anything         -    1 
- ----------------------------------------------- 
       Total Responses      -   17 
 
Comments - "a 10 gal Gott allows room for growth" 
                     "no problem with 5 or 10 gal batch in 10 gal" 
                     "bought a 5 gal, later went back and got a 10" 
                     "5 gal is ok unless you want to brew big beers" 
                     "grain bed depth in 10 gal can be a concern" 
                     "5 gal is perfect if you stick to 5 gal batches" 
                     "5 gal is fine up to 14 lbs of grain" 
 
Cheers, 
Herb 
herb at zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us 

Return to table of contents


From: Dave Greenlee <daveg at mail.airmail.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:18:17 -0500
Subject: Heat Diffusers for Thin Bottom Pots

I'm just getting ready to put my first 5-gallon batch into the bottle and 
early returns seem to promise good things (except for my intentional, and 
now apparent, insistence on using far more Cascades hops than anyone in 
his right mind would use).  This was an extract-plus-specialty brew 
semi-mashed and boiled in a 2-gal aluminum pot on a kitchen electric 
burner with a bent coathanger between the pot and the element, per 
Charile P.  The coathanger trick worked, but made the boil far less 
vigorous than I would have hoped, though still okay.  However, the 2-gal 
boil, rather than being a convenience as I thought it would be, was a 
real p.i.t.a. and I went out and bought a 21 quart enamel menudo boiler 
(new for $16).  The bottom is thin and concave (though flat, once 
indented) and the indentation is so deep that the kettle almost touches 
the stovetop when the element is in contact with the bottom of the pot. 
 
I'm considering having someone cut me a disk of aluminum or copper the 
outside diameter of the pot to sit between the electric element and the 
pot, but I'm concerned about the following: 
 
+  how thick? 
+  is it going to cost a zillion bucks? 
+  a major concern is the air void that will be created by the disk and 
the bottom of the pot; dead air is supposed to be an insulator, so will 
the center of the pot get no heat at all while I just create a new hot 
spot in a ring where the outside ring sits on the disk? 
+  I've also heard that large volume kettles can cause electrical 
elements to overheat and damage themselves, which is one the problems 
that I'm trying to solve by using a disk to raise the pot to permit more 
air circulation around the electrical element.  In this connection and in 
connection with the dead air as insulator question, should the 
diffuser disk be perforated, and if so, how (holes in the center, radial 
cuts coming out from the center to the edge, how much?) 
+  In a 1995 HBD, Pierre Jelenc suggested using a sand bath as a 
diffuser, which seems like a great idea since it would mold to the bottom 
of the pot.  Should/can the sand be damp at the beginning of the heating 
process?  How about the damage to the element issues?  Can just about any 
'ol container for the sand be used?  How much will this slow down the 
heating process if the sand layer is just kept to the bottom of the pot 
and doesn't extend up the sides?  How thick should the thinest sand be 
between the bottom of the pot and the element?  Could the sand just be 
used to fill up the concavity while the outside edge rests on the 
aluminum or copper disk described above (the disk could be then wired to 
the pot handles to keep it and the sand in place); if so, could it just 
be set on a thin - say 14 or 16 gauge - sheet of steel, rather than 
something fancy like aluminum or copper, without much fear of scorching 
on the outside ring before the sand heats up?  Would it be cheaper / 
easier / better just to have a copper or aluminum disk machined so that 
the metal of the disk fills the concavity (I can't believe this wouldn't 
cost more than just buying a decent SS pot)? 
+  Incidentally, do range elements come in different heat ranges?  Could 
I buy a real hot one (or two!) and just mount it on some sort of 
homebuilt or scavenged stand and wire it to a plug for the proper 
voltage?  I know that Ken Schwartz has done this with electric water 
heater elements, which can be obtained in various temperatures and sizes, 
but I'd prefer not to have my heating element inside my pot. 
 
As you can see, I'm trying to cheap this out, which seems to be one of 
the continuing traditions in homebrewing. 
 
Hopeful for erudite assistance, 
 
Nazdrowie, 
Dave Greenlee 
 
cc:  Pierre Jelenc and Ken Schwartz 

Return to table of contents


From: korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 11:36:05 CDT
Subject: Ethanol as a sterilant

Ed writes: 
>70% ethanol make a good sterilant for soaking most small instruments 
>and rinsing out bottles.  I also flame sterilize the mouths of the bottles 
>before and after filling (habit).  A quick pass over a propane torch flame 
>achieves this. 
 
If I'm going to be picky with Dave, I guess I should be picky with Ed too. 
70% ethanol (and indeed 70% is better than 100%) is a good sanitizer but 
not a sterilant.  Flaming indeed does sterilize a clean, unscratched 
surface (I'm not 100% sure about dirty or scratched surfaces). 
 
In addition to the article in Zymurgy by Steve and Jim, there is a good 
summary of sanitizing and sterilizing methods in an early issue of 
Brewing Techniques.  It was an article by MaryBeth Raines.  I regret that 
she omitted iodophor, peracetic acid and oxygen-based sanitizers, but she 
did cover alcohol, bleach and both dry and wet heat. 
 
Check out: http://brewingtechniques.com/brewingtechniques/index.html 
 
I don't think the relevant issue is online yet, but it's an early issue 
and will soon be online. 
 
Al. 
 
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL 
korzonas at lucent.com 
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas 

Return to table of contents


From: Gregory King <GKING at ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:50:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SG of dextrose in water

Don Pearson (dpearson at ghgcorp.com) brought up an apparent paradox concerning 
the specific gravity of a solution containing 1 pound of dextrose dissolved 
in 1 U.S. gallon of water: 
 
>"A Treatise on Lager & Beers" notes that 1 pound mass of dextrose (corn sugar)
>equals 2 2/3 cups 
>[alternatively 1 cup weighs 6oz], and that 1 pound dextrose dissolved in 1 
>gallon water gives a specific gravity of 1.040. 
> 
>The way I see it, 1 lbm of dextrose is 453.6 grams. 1 gallon of water is 3785 
>ml of water, 
>weighing 3785 gm. So the total mass of the material is (453.6+3785)gm. The 
>volume of the 
>resulting solution is 3785 ml plus the volume added due to you putting the 
>dextrose in. 
> 
>I've made a few measurements and found that 1/4 cup of dextrose increases the 
>water volume by 20ml. 
>So 2 2/3 cups of dextrose should increase the water volume by 213 ml, and the 
>resulting total volume of solution is expected then to be about 3998 ml. 
> 
>The density is then the mass/vol = 1.060,  not 1.040 !!! 
> 
>OK, what went wrong? The dextrose dissolving measurement of 20ml was carried 
>out at 26C, close 
>enough to the 60F that I don't need to correct for temperature. 
 
This made me curious enough to do an experiment of my own.  I measured out 
1/4 cup of dextrose and then weighed it.  It weighed somewhere between 36 
and 37 grams.  This works out to 3.06-3.15 cups dextrose per pound, which is 
about 16% higher than the ratio 2.67 cups dextrose per pound that Don quoted 
from "A Treatise on Lager & Beers". 
 
Next I dissolved the dextrose in 500 ml of water (the water measurement was 
pretty exact; I used a volumetric flask).  The specific gravity of this sol- 
ution was 1.026 (liberal margin of error: plus or minus 0.001). 
 
This information can be used to calculate the additional volume V added to 
the solution by the dissolved dextrose: 
 
      1.026 = (500 + 36.5)/(500 + V) 
 
Solving for V yields: V = 22.9 ml.  This number is 14% larger than Don's. 
Now if 36.5 g of dextrose increases the volume of the solution by 22.9 ml, 
then 1 pound (453.6 g) should increase the volume by 22.9*453.6/36.5 = 
284.6 ml. 
 
So, 1 pound of dextrose dissolved in 1 U.S. gallon of water should have the 
specific gravity: 
 
      SG = (3786 + 453.6)/(3786 + 284.6) = 1.0415 
 
When all sources of measurement error are accounted for, the range of 
specific gravities 1.039-1.044 is obtained. 
 
It looks to me that a SG of 1.040 for 1 pound dextrose dissolved in 1 U.S. 
gallon of water is on the money.  Don's number (1.060) was arrived at by 
assuming a 2.67 cups dextrose per pound equivalence, and a slight inaccuracy 
in measuring the additional volume added by the dissolved dextrose. 
 
Greg King 
gking at arserrc.gov 
 

Return to table of contents


From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:52:44 -0700
Subject: Use of secondary/brewing with chocolate/sharing recipes

     Gregg Howard asked about the necessity of using a secondary.  There 
     have been other postings on this, so I will be brief.  As others have 
     said, it is not always necessary, but is sometimes beneficial. 
 
     I find that certain styles (Weizens, in particular) don't really need 
     to be stored in a secondary, although I get them off the yeast cake as 
     soon as possible. 
 
     Yes, I've experienced autolysis (in mead that I've made) and it is NOT 
     pleasant!  All of you who are not knowing, be happy! 
 
     When making beer that I intend to lager, I use a secondary, and 
     sometimes tertiary fermenter, because I have tasted autolysis, and am 
     quite fearful of it!  It really helps the clarity of the product, too. 
     -------------------- 
     Kevin asks about brewing with chocolate.  I've used 2 lb. of Baker's 
     chocolate in a 6 gallon boil.  There are many dangers (as I 
     unfortunately found out).  First, the chocolate is VERY bitter.  Go 
     VERY light on the hops, and use a high mash temp to leave sweetness to 
     balance the brew. 
 
     I used a low mash temp, and regretted it.  The resulting beer took 
     months to mellow.  I even added lactose to half the batch, but it just 
     made the beer sweet up front, with a chalky, bitter finish! 
 
     There will be quite a huge oil slick from the chocolate, and if you 
     whirlpool to remove hop debris and break material, it won't be very 
     effective.  The garbage seemed to remain suspended in the oil slick 
     which stayed on the surface.  I left quite a lot of wort in the kettle 
     because I didn't want all that junk in my fermenter. 
 
     On the other hand, the beer had very noticeable chocolate notes in 
     aroma and palate. 
 
     This weekend I'm going to try again, but this time with cocoa powder! 
     ---------------------- 
     A quick note about sharing recipes:  when you win a gold medal at the 
     AHA nationals, they publish it for all to see!  I'm happy and proud 
     that my Milo-Marzen #2 recipe is going to appear in Zymurgy! 
 
     We're brewing at home.  I would be pretty surprised if someone 
     duplicated my beer, even with the VERY detailed instructions I've been 
     giving out.  Am I scared that someone will make a better Oktoberfest 
     than me?  NO!  Somebody else with the same recipe might make a better 
     beer, or worse. That's homebrewing! 
 
     Have Fun! 
 
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY) 

Return to table of contents


From: Don Trotter <dtrotter at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:57:28 -0500
Subject: Have a beer on me

 
Here you go. 
 
I'll let you guess the style and what commercial beer it is an attempt at. 
 
7 lb US, 2-row (Klages) 
7 lb US, 2-row pale (Harrington) 
4 lb Victory or Dark Munich 
1 lb Crystal 10L 
1 lb Crystal 20L 
1 lb Crystal 40L 
1 lb Crystal 90L 
1-2 oz Chocolate malt 
 
0.5 oz Centennial 60 min 
1.0 oz Centennial 40 min 
1.0 oz Centennial 20 min 
1.0 oz Centennial  5 min 
 
Bitter to the tune of 40 IBU 
 
Mash in with 0.7 qt/lb to reach 135F 
After 15 min, add boiling water to reach 155F 
After saccharification, raise temp to 170F, and hold for 20 min. 
 
Collect 13 gallons of wort. 
Total boil time 80 minutes. 
 
Use any standard pale ale yeast with ~70% attenuation. 
 
Enjoy, 
don 

Return to table of contents


From: Todd Kirby <mkirby at bgsm.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:01:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Motorizing Maltmills

This has been absolutely beat to death in the past (I just searched HBD 
archives for information) but I need some specific advice that hasn't 
been covered to date concerning motorizing maltmills. The concensus seems 
to be that you need at least 1/6 hp with a pulley configuration that yields 
around 400rpm for the Maltmill. Given that, can anyone help with the 
following: 
 
1. Does anyone use a tension\idler pulley to control belt tension, such 
that you start the motor and then engage the pulley to smoothly start the 
grind rather than the abrupt, jerky start from just starting the motor. 
Seems like it would be easier on the mill, and safer if you run into trouble. 
 
2. Will a 1/6 hp motor start the grind with a full hopper? I have one 
from an old air conditioning unit that could mount nicely on the 
pressboard plate next to the mill. 
 
3. Where can I find appropriate pulleys with a 3/8 bore for the Maltmill. 
None of the hardware stores I have visited carry them. If they're 
unavailable, are there any suggestions for an adapter that will convert 
to 1/2 inch? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Todd Kirby 

Return to table of contents


From: "Paul Kensler" <pkensler at ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:08:37 +0000
Subject: Suggestions wanted for mash transfer

I am looking for a more efficient / easier way to transfer hot mash 
to my lauter tun. 
In my mash setup, I have a 10-gallon kettle that I mash and boil in. 
I prefer to mash in the kettle, since I can control the temperature 
steps more precisely, especially if there is a protein rest involved 
(in other words, I raise the whole mash through the rests, instead of 
doing a hot water infusion).  After mash-out, I transfer the mash to 
a 10-gallon cooler for lautering and sparging.  I usually use a 1/2 
gallon Pyrex measuring bowl to transfer. 
Unfortunately, this takes a long time, and is relatively difficult. 
I also seem to lose alot of heat this way.  Has anyone found another 
method to transfer large quantities of mash grist?  I was thinking 
about using PVC piping and 2"ID vinyl tubing to "siphon" the mash 
into my lauter tun, but that's a fairly 
expensive "experiment" to try, without knowing if it will really 
work.  Can PVC be used around hot mash without worrying about 
leaching compounds into the mash?  Is it heat resistant and food 
grade? 
Or, should I just deal with the difficulties of my setup?  I would 
prefer to stay with a temperature - controlled mash as opposed to doing a 
water infusion... 
 
 
Thanks 
Paul 

Return to table of contents


From: Don Trotter <dtrotter at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:19:28 -0500
Subject: Re: How Much Fills a 10 Gal Gott

 
The formula I use was found in HBD.  I forget whom to credit, but here 
a big thanks -- THANKS. 
 
 Volume in Gallons = Pounds grain * (0.08 + (qts per lb water  /  4)) 
 
I usually have no problem putting up to 25 lbs in the mash, but need to be 
conservative on the amount of water I put in at strike. I usually hit with 0.7 
- - 1.0 quarts per pound, depending on the type of mash I am doing. Single 
infusions can take more, because there are less additions, etc.
 
I have also gotten 15 pounds into a 5 gallon Gott, so I imagine that 30 
pounds in a 10 gallon will work, but this can get very messy! :^) 
 
Enjoy, 
don 

Return to table of contents


From: mikehu at lmc.com
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 10:30:04 PDT
Subject: Racking/Filtering

Edward Spadoni writes: 
>Anyway, I have a question about racking and filtering now. First of all 
>is it possible to do a third racking to help clear my brew? I know most 
>do a two stage (primary and secondary) and people have suggested 3 
>rackings for some fruit beers. Does this aid in clarity or is it a 
>waste of time in typical ales. Also, any feedback on when to filter or 
>ways to make your own filtering setup would be appreciated. 
 
Edward - I typically do a primary and secondary, and then put my secondary 
(5 gal. carboy) into my beer fridge for a couple of days before kegging. 
This essentially is 3 rackings. The extra benefit of putting my secondary 
into cold storage a couple of days before kegging is threefold: The beer 
clarifies very nicely, the yeast cake on the bottom of the carboy is very 
dense and solidified, and the beer can be carbonated much easier because it 
is cold when kegged. I have never even considered fining or filtering, due 
to the excellent results I get 'cold filtering' like this. If you try this, 
you will be amazed at how much easier it is to siphon out of the secondary 
without picking up any of the yeast on the bottom. This will also work if 
you are bottling. (you will get much clearer beer when siphoning into your 
bottling bucket) I think that commercial breweries do this - I believe it 
is called "cold-crashing" or allowing the beer to "Drop-Bright". 
 
Mike H. in Portland, OR 
mikehu at lmc.com 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:39:22 -0500
Subject: Unconditional Election

 
> From: Derek Lyons <elde at hurricane.net> 
> Subject: Who Elected You? 
 
> And just who elected *you* moderator of the digest? 
 
All of us elected all of us to be the moderator.  Now, speaking as the 
official (tm) moderator-moderator, please take your moderation activities 
to private e-mail.  This isn't the digest-moderator-digest, it's the 
homebrew digest. 
 
> From: Don Trotter <dtrotter at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> 
> Subject: Re: Recipe requests 
> 
> Seeing all the recipe requests in HBD doesn't make me feel well.  Can't 
> any of the requesters develop their own recipes?  It really isn't 
> difficult. 
 
With only a couple exceptions, every recipe I've used is a recipe I've 
developed myself.  HOWEVER, I want to see MORE recipes here, because I 
like to learn by example.  What sorts of things are people putting in 
their porters today, and how does that affect the flavor?  Much better 
to have 18 of 20 experiments for each batch run by someone else, eh? 
 
> I for one have given a few recipes away to strangers, but will give no more. 
 
But, when you give it away, you still got it.  I, for one, can't IMAGINE 
not giving a recipe to anyone who asks.  If anyone needs to relax, it's 
you. 
 
The very idea that you would willingly compromise the quality of my beer 
(by hiding your secrets) so you could win another stupid ribbon is appalling. 
We're not talking about military hardware here, people, it's homebrew. 
 
And Don, if you change your mind and share a recipe with me, and I win a 
prize with it, I'll give you a couple bottles (and a mention here) for your 
help.  For me, that would be reward enough.  I wish it were for you, too. 
 
No secrets, 
 
- -R 

Return to table of contents


From: Michael Gerholdt <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 13:48:18 -0500
Subject: Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 1)

- -- [ From: Michael Gerholdt * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- 
 
Al: 
 
Ya know, what you contribute is often informative and helpful, and I've 
always taken special note when I see your name in the From: field. However, 
I have to say that your attitude is often both offensive and defensive in 
rather negative senses of both terms. 
 
I followed closely your argument with Dave Burley regarding conversion and 
beta amylase. I was shocked when you demanded that he quit "posting 
misinformation" simply because he held a different perspective than you. It 
was a bit insulting to the general HBD readership as well, IMHO, when you 
expressed fear that the statements of you "gurus" might mislead the newbies, 
and that it would be better to have the conversation in private email and 
then post a summary. While some welcomed such an idea because the discussion 
- -cum-pissing contest was wearing thin, to me it simply demonstrated your 
egotism. We brewers are, as far as I can see, a reasonable cross-section of 
the general public, and most of us are able to think for ourselves. 
 
The discussion was very informative all in all, though you defenders of 
conventional wisdom lost your ability to discuss and fell to ranting when 
Dave didn't crumble. You never did really prove your point, you know; simply 
asserted it again and again. Alexander came a bit closer to persuading that 
beta amylase didn't survive in sufficient quantity to do what Dave suggests 
it does, but that's all - a bit closer. 
 
And your presence continued to deteriorate. Though I still stop to read your 
posts, "What a jerk!" always crosses my thoughts . . . 
 
Now your defensiveness is demonstrated. You've had to backpedal 
significantly in your claims and contentions regarding Porter and Wheeler. 
You wrote in your initial response (HBD#2119 "Porter"): 
 
>Perhaps the author should be sure before he puts pen to paper. 
>Indeed the microbe is different.  Lactic acid bacteria and 
>acetic acid are very different not only in their products but 
>also in that the former are facultative anaerobes and the latter 
>are strict aerobes!  For the record, I personally get 
>no acetic (vinegary) character in either of the Rodenbach beers. 
 
Please note what you wrote: "I personally get no acetic <vinegary> character 
in either of the Rodenbach beers." 
 
This was in response to this: 
 
Wheeler: 
>but nevertheless the sourness of Grand Cru is not unpleasant. It has 
>flavors of both acetic and citric acidity, providing a sourness which is 
>quite mellow. It is nothing like the back-shuddering sourness of badly kept 
 
>beer in the pub that many people regard as vinegary. Perhaps the souring 
>microbe are different,... 
 
Wheeler is asserting that it is *not* a "vinegary" sourness. Is sourness a 
taste or an aroma? Let's be clear here ... because in your non-apologetic 
non-retraction, you write (HBD#2125 ".../blind spots/..."): 
 
>Furthermore, neither you nor I nor anyone else can differentiate 
>acetic acid from lactic acid by *taste*.  I said that I did not 
>sense any vinegary character (aroma, actually) in Rodenbach. 
>Your taste buds will only tell you that "this liquid is sour" -- 
>it's your nose that will tell you that it is lactic, acetic or a 
>combination of the two. 
 
This is rather disingenuous. Taste relies on info from both tongue and nose; 
this olfactory involvement does not render vinegary sourness a pure aroma. 
Wheeler says Rodenbach includes "*flavors* of both acetic and citric acidity 
." If flavors is the subject at hand, how can you with integrity declare 
that you were discussing aroma? I didn't see you change the subject. (I read 
the recent thread regarding taste buds and olfactory cooperation, so a re- 
hash of that isn't what's required here.) 
 
******************************************** 
PART TWO to follow 
 
 
- -- 
Best Regards, 
 
P Michael Gerholdt 

Return to table of contents


From: Michael Gerholdt <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 13:48:47 -0500
Subject: Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 2)

- -- [ From: Michael Gerholdt * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- 
 
 
******************************************** 
PART TWO: 
 
 
If you re-read Wheeler's article, you will also note - *and this makes your 
entire discussion of the matter moot* - that Wheeler was not drawing a 
distinction between acetic and lactic, but rather raising the possibility 
that the microbe which created the acetic contributions to sourness in the 
Rodenbach might be different than that which created the "vinegary" sourness 
of badly kept pub beer. 
 
Here is the paragraph in quesion from Wheeler: 
 
>Neither beer seems to me to be as sour as they were just a few 
>years  ago, the brewery have probably toned them down to reach 
>a wider market, but nevertheless the sourness of Grand Cru is not 
>unpleasant. It has flavors of both acetic and citric acidity, 
>providing a sourness which is quite mellow. It is nothing like the >back- 
shuddering sourness of badly kept beer in the pub that many 
>people regard as vinegary. Perhaps the souring microbe are different, 
>or it may be that extended maturation also mellows the sourness that 
>develops so that it becomes less harsh and less assertive. 
>Most people do not find the taste of vinegar unpleasant, as observation 
> of the habits of people in fish and chip shops will confirm, so 
>it should be no surprise that an acetic beer can be quite pleasant. 
 
Please note that once "vinegary" sourness is mentioned, the topic remains 
strictly vinegar, and thus, as I said, your comment that: 
 
>Perhaps the author should be sure before he puts pen to paper. 
>Indeed the microbe is different.  Lactic acid bacteria and 
>acetic acid are very different not only in their products but 
>also in that the former are facultative anaerobes and the latter 
>are strict aerobes! 
 
is simply not at any point relevant to Wheeler's discussion. He's wondering 
if there is a "good" acetic microbe for Rodenbach vs. a "bad" acetic microbe 
for "badly kept pub beer." He's not wondering if lactic producers and acetic 
producers are the same microbe. 
 
So, when you wrote, 
 
>My other point was that indeed there are two different types of microbiota 
>contributing the two different types of acids (lactic and acetic), a point 
>that Wheeler was unsure about. 
 
you were still wrong. Wheeler demonstrates no such unsureness; you simply 
misread him. 
 
********************************************************* 
 
You also wrote: 
 
 
 
>Among these many people is Terry Foster whose very well-researched book 
>"Porter" contradicts this statement. 
 
Later, you wrote: (HBD#2124 Wheeler's Porter Article): 
 
>I was wrong about Foster contradicting Wheeler. 
 
How about taking your own advice: 
 
>Perhaps the author should be sure before he puts pen to paper. 
 
You also accuse Wheeler as follows: 
 
>Had Mr. Wheeler researched a little further, he would have found that 
>mixing soured beer with fresh is nothing new or history-breaking to 
>Guinness and that they have been making their flagship beer this way 
>for quite some time. 
 
when what Wheeler wrote is not what you say he wrote. Here's the quote you 
think you are writing to: 
 
>The newly introduced Guinness "Harwood's Porter" breaks history on 
>two grounds. Not only is it the first cask conditioned beer ever to be made 
 
>at the Park Royal Brewery, but it is the only example of the new generation 
 
>of porters that is a proper porter; a blend of mild and stale like old time 
 
>porters used to be. 
 
You even quote the above before typing your criticism, and can't even see 
that what you say isn't relevant to what Wheeler is saying. 
 
Methinks you simply like to criticize and contest and contend, and that you 
aren't as concerned about the truth as you are about going to battle. 
 
I've also seen a number of other corrections you've posted after erroneous 
claims. I have to wonder when you write something like this: 
 
>Reading back at what I've written, it sounds a little harsh, 
>but in my opinion, under-researching our posts to the digests 
>is one thing, but being unsure of things in an article or a book 
>is very bad form. 
 
So ... on the one hand, you are concerned that "misinformation" in the HBD 
might mislead the masses, and you demand that it stop at once! Then, on the 
other hand, you think that posting under-researched (read "flawed and in 
need of correction/retraction") messages to the HBD is "one thing" (read: 
"maybe kind of ok and understandable???????") while it is "bad form" in an 
article or a book. 
 
And yet you are the guy who makes sure he includes: 
 
>Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas 
 
Why don't you slow down and quit knee-jerking and shooting from the hip. You 
obviously aren't as sure of many of your facts as you seem to think you are; 
and your speculations are framed with your great experience and carry great 
weight.["Jim, I am a pretty good beer judge IMO (BJCP Master).] Speculate 
elsewhere, and when you've determined what really IS the case, as far as you 
are able, THEN post. You'd be doing us all a favor, because we would be able 
then to put more trust in what you say. 
 
And that's what we really want to be able to do! 
- -- 
Best Regards, 
 
P Michael Gerholdt 

Return to table of contents