---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Mike Donald, Digest Janitor-in-training
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  RE: Aeration thru stones (Joe Rolfe)
  Re: Lambic brewing (<satterfield at gentire.com>)
  Am. 2-row, Pils, DMS ((Jim Layton 952-3733))
  Lambics!! (Michael Caprara)
  GABF Medal Results (Michael Caprara)
  Newbie with whole hops (David Conger)
  Ideas for a homebrewed unitank (Kevin McEnhill)
  Airstone Sanitization ("Sutton, Bob")
  Coleman Cooler as Mash Tun (Erik Larson (Tel 202-622-1322 ))
  Low Calcium and Acidic Grains / Steeping Grain Technique & Water Ratios (KennyEddy at aol.com)
  Re: EasyMasher tubing (tgaskell at syr.lmco.com)
  What are PPBT Judging "qualifications"? ((David C. Harsh))
  Thanksgiving beer ((BJM <Manbeck, Brad, J>))
  Re:Roggen Beer (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Racking off yeast scheme ((Craig Wynn))
  Cleaning Copper, Air Pumps (Bob McCowan)
  High Gravity Yeasts and Counterpressure Bottling for Imperial Stouts (MaltyDog at aol.com)
  Re: GABF ((Mark Stevens))
  Brewpubs in Toronto? (TheTHP at aol.com)
  air pump question (Tim Martin)
  GABF entries ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Steeping grains: something to ponder (Steve Alexander)

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,
homebrew-digest-owner 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.

COPYRIGHT:
  As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
  original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
  Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
  collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
  may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
  posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.


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

From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:13:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Aeration thru stones

 the best way, that many pros use 
 
 pure o2 - expensive 
 compressed air - cheaper over the long haul 
 
pure o2 will put more into the wort, but do you really need it - who knows. 
we use compressed air and a healthy pitch and fermetnation starts in 
less than 2 hours (gas being produced). 
 
with either method 
 
 a pre filter of around 10 ucron and a .2 ucron filter should prevent 
  unwanted visitors from messing with your wort. 
 
if a compressor is used - it is best to add a dryer before the first filter 
 those desicant ones work, and you can redry in an oven when the need it. 
 the moisture will have a negative effect on the filters. 
 
even if the stone is very small in pore size use the filters, ours is .5 ucron 
and you want to soak the stone in a compatable cleaner and sanitizer after 
every use.  you also want to insure that the final hose length, filter 
to stone is of extremly good quality- esp. if it is submerged in the wort. 
small scrapes in the walls of the plastic will harbour bugs - a metal final 
section is easier to clean and keep bug free.  plastic *really has no place 
in any brewery imho. 
 
good brewing to all 
joe 

Return to table of contents


From: <satterfield at gentire.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:19:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Lambic brewing

 
> 
> Tom writes: 
> >I had my first bottle of lambic beer a few days ago; a Strawberry; 
> >WOW!! THIS IS GREAT STUFF!!  I finally bought a bottle; at $4+ it was 
> 
> Since "strawberry" was mentioned, I suspect that what you had 
> was  DeTroch "lambic."  DeTroch are syrupy, sweet, "soda-pop" 
> beers and do not resemble lambics any more than Bud resembles 
> Pilsner Urquell. 
 
Nope, not DeTroch. I looked at the label again last nite and now I 
forget but it wasn't DeTroch. The label clearly said "lambic" brewed 
in Belgium, aged in oak casks, etc. The taste was not sweet, not 
syrupy at all, very dry and in keeping with the textual descriptions of the 
style I've read. It was perfect (IMHO) not at all soda pop and 
consistent with expectations of lambic but no experience of the 
style. To confirm that it wasn't a fluke I bought another bottle of 
lambic from a different brewer, this time a peach. It was very 
different from the strawberry but also very excellent: I'm hooked; 
Lambics are GREAT!! 
 
Before you decide that you want to take 3 years 
> to make a beer in which the cultures will cost you as much as some 
> entire recipes, you had better taste Cantillon and/or Boon lambics. 
> 
> Once you have tasted Cantillon and/or Boon, if you still think "THIS 
> IS GREAT STUFF," like I do, your first steps should be to get a copy 
> of J.X.Guinard's book "Lambic" from the Association of Brewers or 
> your local homebrew shop.  The next thing would be to subscribe to 
> the Lambic Digest by sending email to 
lambic-request@ longs.lance.colostate.edu
 
Thanks for the opinions: I'm doing all the above. The book is on 
order and I'll try the other variants as much as I can over the 
winter as I plan/research for brewing a batch of this. If I still 
feel this way in the spring (as fresh fruit comes in) I'll go for it. 
 
> Please note that the administrator for this list is off-line this week 
> so subscriptions may take a week.  If you hate the Boon and Cantillon, 
> then just brew some fruit beers.  There is litle point to going through 
> all that effort just for a fruit beer if you don't like the acidity 
> and horsey/sweaty Brettanomyces character. 
> 
 
Ok, that explains to response to my subscription request. I'll 
probably be brewing fruit beers anyway as I've had several rasberry 
wheats and ales that have been really excellent and I've got a recipe 
for Rasberry Stout that looks real intriguing (Papazian). HOWever, I 
loved the "acidity  and horsey/sweaty Brettanomyces character. " of 
the limited samples I've tried so far. 
 
I've found Jeremy's web page (thanks!) Looks real good, I'm reading 
it all. Also, The Scientific American article mentioned: what issue 
was that in? It doesn't show up in a search of the SciAm web site. 
 
Tom 
satterfield at gentire.com 

Return to table of contents


From: layton at sh28.dseg.ti.com (Jim Layton 952-3733)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:42:49 -0500
Subject: Am. 2-row, Pils, DMS

I use Am. 2-row malt (from Great Western) in most of my ales and I have never 
experienced flavors that I could attribute to DMS. On the other hand, I've 
used continental pils malts, from DWC and Durst, in five-or-so batches (a 
Belg. strong ale, three Munich helles', and 50% in an alt). In each of these 
cases a pleasant flavor I believe to be due to DMS is present. I can detect 
this same flavor in many commercial German beers (helles, helles bock, and 
pils) and therefore I believe it to be appropriate in these styles. 
 
My boiling and cooling techniques are consistent (90 min. boil, immersion 
chill to pitching temp within 45 min). I cannot attribute this flavor to any 
factor other than the malt. Does this experience match with that of others? 
Is this flavor, which I can describe as smooth and grain-like but not really 
"corny", due to DMS? 
 
Jim Layton 

Return to table of contents


From: Michael Caprara <mcaprara at awwarf.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 07:45:36 -0600
Subject: Lambics!!

I tried to respond to Tom's lambic question via private email, but the 
message bounced back to me.  So... 
 
First, I am not an expert on Lambics or how to make them, but I do make 
them and they are worth the extra cost and hassle.  I suggest reading 
the beer style guideline book called Lambic.  Great information and some 
recipies.  I also used a sour mash technique per The Bible to make a 
Kriek.  (BTW, it won 2nd place in the AHA regionals, and the recipe is on 
my club's homepage.) 
Go to:  http://www.dimensional.com/~godbey/louthan.html 
 
My advice is to get a separate racking cane and siphon hose for lambics 
only.  Some of the bacteria cultures that you use can contaminate your 
plastic.  Also, they stink BIG TIME, and you may not want to put a stinky, 
white mold covered bacteria starter into your lambic, but JUST DO IT! 
Ferment only in glass and clean thouroughly with bleach before using for 
a "regular" beer. Finally, let it age, let it age, let it age, and then, let it
age
some more.  Bottle at least 12 or so small bottles and try one a month for 
a year, take good notes, and you will be amazed at how the lambic 
changes. 
 
Brewfully Deadicated, 
Michael                           :{P}    MAN!  I Love Lambic! 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Michael Caprara <mcaprara at awwarf.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 07:54:45 -0600
Subject: GABF Medal Results

There has been some discussion on the judging at the GABF.  I 
personally tried many of the medal winners (except the Coors and Bud!) 
and I feel that, for the most part, the awards were justified.  On 
Thursday night, I tried all of the Barley Wines and noted that the gold 
medal would go to either Little Apple Brewing (way to go Jethro!!) or 
Golden City Brewery (Colorado Rules!) and they took gold and silver 
respectively.  As for the bronze, I felt that Steelhead's Wheat Wine was 
better than their Old Weasel.  In the wheat category, Heavenly Daze's 
(Colorado Rules!)  was by far the best.  BUT, I was dissapointed with the 
medal winners in the Stout category, except for Crusty Butt's Rodeo 
Stout (Colorado Rules!). 
 
Anyway, had to give my $0.02.  All of the opinions expressed above are 
the sole opinion of the author.  The author has no affiliation with any of 
the above mentioned breweries, etc... 
 
Brewfully Deadicated, 
MC 
:{P} Hey Jethro, send me some more of that Barley Wine!!                       
 

Return to table of contents


From: David Conger <dconger at hal.hscribe.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 10:02:16 -0400
Subject: Newbie with whole hops

Newbie brewer questions: 
 
1)  I'm brewing a beer this weekend that calls for two ounces of Cascades 
hops and I just happen to have two ounces grown in my own backyard. 
Obviously I don't know the AA%, but I don't feel that my recipe will be 
ruined if I'm off by just a few HBU's. Am I safe using these hops for 
bittering or should I save them for finishing? 
 
2)  If I use the aforementioned hops, it will be my first use of whole leaf 
hops as opposed to hop pellets. I'd be putting them into the standard 
extract brewer's 1 1/2 gal. boil. What differences in the brewing process 
can I expect? 
 
David Conger 
dconger at hscribe.com 
 
- -- David 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Kevin McEnhill <kevinm at kci.wayne.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 05:24:01 -0400
Subject: Ideas for a homebrewed unitank

Howdy one and all, 
 
I was flipping though the July/August issue of Brewing Techniques and 
saw an ad from Serious Equipment (don't know them, don't make money from 
them yadda yadda yadda) for eleven gallon uni-tanks with cornelius 
fittings on top. GREAT!! Sign me up! Lets see how much, $600?!?!?!? I 
don't think so. I had to scrape to get my keg system going, there is no 
way I am going to be able to afford these tanks. Why not modify one of 
my cornies by adding a cone to the bottom. 
 
So, my questions are; What is the ideal angle for the conical part of 
the uni-tank? Is there a max/min ratio of radius/height for the 
fermentor? What kind of valve shoud I have on the bottom? What should I 
do to make sure this thing can handle 40 psi (wide safety margine) when 
I am done? 
 
Tanks! 
- -- 
<Signature deleted for lack of anything witty or thoughtful to say> 
Kevin McEnhill kevinm at kci.wayne.edu 
Machintosh fanatic and Linux guru in training. 

Return to table of contents


From: "Sutton, Bob" <"bob.sutton" at fluordaniel.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 08:31:00 -0700
Subject: Airstone Sanitization

Jeff Sturman stated: 
 
>>>A customer of mine (Mark) recently 
built an aquarium pump and airstone 
contraption for aerating his wort, a la 
Dave Miller's recommendations.  He 
has used it twice and both batches are 
horribly phenolic.  I am quite 
positive it is an infection problem. 
Mark makes terrific beer with great 
consistency so these infected batches 
have him quite distressed.  Dave 
Miller recommends sanitizing the 
aquarium airstones but does not 
recommend a specific technique for doing 
so.  Mark soaked the stones for 24 hours 
in a dilute bleach solution and then 
thoroughly rinsed them with boiled 
water. 
 
Is this the preferred method for 
sanitizing these stones?  Is there a 
better way to sanitize them?  Heat 
sanitation melts the plastic doohickey 
on the stone.  He tried isopropyl 
alcohol which caused the stone to 
crumble into dust.  Good thing they only 
cost 50 cents!<<< 
 
 
Jeff, 
 
I don't use airstones, however one 
alternate sanitizing agent would be 
hydrogen peroxide, available at any drug 
store. I can't vouch for compatibility 
with your airstone, but a 30 minute soak 
should suffice. 
 
A less exotic method would involve the 
use of iodophor. Just make a solution up 
to the strength required to sanitize 
bottles, etc. and soak the airstone. See 
the iodophor label for 
concentration/exposure time for 
guidance. 
 
Most importantly, the air itself should 
be free of competing microorganisms. The 
most positive way to achieve this is to 
use a 0.2 micron (absolute rating) 
inline filter (don't forget to sanitize 
the filter). Some folks bubble the air 
through hydrogen peroxide or vodka, 
however this approach is only partially 
effective, as the sterilant only 
contacts the wall of the bubble; the air 
in the bubble is unaffected. Hope this 
helps. 
 
Bob 
Fruit Fly Brewhaus 
Yesterdays' Technology Today 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Erik Larson <Erik.C.E.L.Larson at MS01.DO.treas.sprint.com> (Tel 202-622-1322 )
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:58:06 -0400
Subject: Coleman Cooler as Mash Tun

Greetings HBDers: 
 
I have a "square" 10 gallon Coleman beverage cooler (to which 
I've added an adjustable flow spigot that attaches easily to 3/8" 
hose) that I've been using as a bottling bucket for my large 
batches. 
 
I'd like to get a false bottom for this cooler so that I could 
use it as a mash/lauter tun when I start doing all-grain brews. 
Does anybody have a source for such a thing?  Or simple 
directions on how to build one?  I'd like to avoid shelling out 
$60+ for the 10-gallon Gott, just so that I can then go buy the 
Listermann Phalse Bootom for $16. 
 
Cheers, 
Erik (erik.larson at treas.sprint.com) 

Return to table of contents


From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:06:12 -0400
Subject: Low Calcium and Acidic Grains / Steeping Grain Technique & Water Ratios

John Wilkinson asks about calcium and dark grians: 
 
"That is certainly my understanding of the situation and to expand on it, 
I hope correctly, isn't it the calcium in the high alkalinity water that 
reacts with the darker grains to lower the pH?  My brewing water is low pH 
but very low in calcium so I would not expect darker grains to lower the pH 
too much further.  Is this correct? " 
 
As was pointed out in HBD2210 by David Burley, roasted grains are acidified 
due to the production of carboxylic acids during roasting.  It's therefore a 
"direct" addition of acid.  The "acidification" of the mash by calcium is due 
to reactions of the calcium with phosphate compounds in the grain, and is 
therefore sort of an "indirect" acidification.  Two totally separate 
mechanisms.  So the acididy of your dark grains may grant you the happy wort 
pH that your low-calcium water alone might not.  Just like the London 
brewers, though for the "opposite" reason:  their water is high in 
alkalinity; yours is low in calcium, with the net result being pretty much 
the same. 
 
***** 
 
George De Piro comments on the grain-bag "mashing" technique: 
 
"    I guess the idea is to convert the starch to sugar, but at the 
     extremely dilute enzyme concentrations that exist in this system, does 
     conversion happen that quickly, if at all?  Proteins tend to be less 
     stable in more dilute solutions. 
 
     I really don't want to go back to the "how fast are enzymes denatured" 
     thread, but I don't want to see a lot of beginners making starchy 
     beer!  (I've been there, it sucks) " 
 
I've had success with the approach without noticible starchiness.  Also, our 
club's 1995 Brewer of the Year (who's a shoe-in for '96 as well) uses this 
technique routinely, with apparently excellent results.  I would agree that 
there *is* an effect on conversion due to dilution as George points out, but 
anecdotal evidence, at least, indicates it's not as much a concern in 
practice as he suggests.  But on the other hand, adding 1/2 lb of grain to 
four gallons of water probably *will* impede effective conversion, so yes, 
some clarification needs to be made and a limit really should be placed on 
the dilution.  To be on the safe side, stick with around 1-1/2 quarts water 
per pound of steeped grains, and let the stuff sit an hour or more or as long 
as your patience holds out.  Also never let the temperature get above 160F 
and do your best to keep it around 150 - 155.  An adequate supply of enzymes 
is crucial in any case, so add as much pale or wheat malt as you have room in 
the bag for. 
 
The technique used by my friend involves using two pots -- a small "mash" pot 
and the larger "main" pot.  The grain-bag mash takes place in a *small* 
amount of water (1.3 qt/lb) in the mash pot, and the balance of the (clear) 
brew water is in the main pot, which is heated to ~170F during the mash 
period.  After conversion, the grain bag is lifted and drained into the mash 
pot, then he dunks it a couple times in the main pot to rinse and "mash out". 
 Finally, the mash pot is dumped into the main pot and brewing continues. 
 
Concern about this technique has been raised before here on the HBD, 
centering around the release of flour and husks through the grain bag into 
the brew, which when boiled will cause all kinds of problems like astringency 
and starch haze.  While I certainly can't quantify the results, I'll propose 
that the small amount of junk released is insufficient to cause noticible 
damage to the brew.  I think my friend's experience and my own testify to 
that.  Perhaps leaving the last couple of ounces of mash water in the mash 
pot along with the escaped husk and grain particles will eliminate the 
majority of these "contaminants". 
 
***** 
 
Ken Schwartz 
El Paso, TX 
KennyEddy at aol.com 
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy 
 

Return to table of contents


From: tgaskell at syr.lmco.com
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 96 11:06:27 EDT
Subject: Re: EasyMasher tubing

Greeting fellow brewbloods, 
 
A couple of recent posts ask about keeping vinyl tubing on their 
EasyMasher spigot: 
 
> > > His dilemma involves making a connection from the Easy 
> > > Masher spigot to his counter-flow chiller.  Any helpful hints from the 
> > > gadget crazed tinkers :) out there??? 
 
> > Get a piece of hose that will fit over spigot from easymasher.  When the 
> > spigot is hot (maybe boil some water in the pot), toss a hose clamp 
> > around the hose, feed the hose up until it shapes into place, and clamp 
> > it down around the shank of the spigot, between the valve and when the 
> > spigot turns down.  Shape the hose so that it will have an unobstructed 
> > flow from the end of the spigot. 
 
I got this idea from the HBD many moons ago (1994?) and posted on the same 
topic in HBD 1905 12/7/95 (from which this is excerpted) : 
 
> My all grain set up makes use of 2 EasyMashers, one in my mash/lauter 
> tun the other in my sparge water tank, this setup makes for a very 
> balanced flow.  Like Paul in Al's post, I had air leaks around the 
> tubing when attached to my EM.  Another problem I had was that as the 
> vinyl tubing heated and became more flexible it slipped off the EM spigot. 
> 
> To solve both of the shortcomings of my EM I used a small file to smooth 
> out the casting marks on the sides of the brass spigot that the tubing 
> slips over.  Then I used a triangular jewelers file to make a very shallow 
> groove all of the way around the spigot about 1/8 inch from the end.  This 
> groove serves as a barb to hold the vinyl tubing in place.  As the tubing 
> warms and becomes flexible, it fills in the groove holding itself in place. 
> I also speculate that the groove, along with the smoothed casting marks, 
> make an airtight seal between the brass and vinyl.  No more airleaks due 
> to a venturi (or is it Bernoulli?).  8^) 
 
I still stand by my method for "improving" a valuable piece of my brewing 
eqipment.  Two years with about 15 batches of all-grain, and I am still 
very happy with the performance of BOTH of my EasyMashers. 
 
I have yet to have a hose slip off, and am still free of air leaks (well, 
my brewing system; not me personally)! 
 
And best of all: 
  I DO NOT have to putz around with the EMs while brewing, and I don't 
  need any other parts, fittings, or tools.  It just works! 
 
Cheers, 
 
Tom Gaskell  tgaskell at syr.lmco.com  Hog Heaven Homebrewery  Clayville, NY, USA 

Return to table of contents


From: dharsh at alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:06:04 -0400
Subject: What are PPBT Judging "qualifications"?

Glenn Colon-Bonet <gcb at hpesgcb.fc.hp.com> writes in #2211: 
 
>(prospective members of) the panel ...are asked to submit 
>a JUDGING resume and 3 letters of recommendation as to their JUDGING 
>qualifications from people in the industry.  This information is reviewed 
>by the festival staff and the most qualified people are chosen. 
 
Maybe you could tell us what is on a judging resume?  Are the letters of 
recommendations written by their employers who would want to claim that 
they have X number "PPBT judges" at the GABF in their next ad campaign? 
What makes someone qualified to apply to be a PPBT judge?  What percentages 
of the PPBT people were also part of BJCP at any level? 
 
>...numerical score simply states your "favorites" numerically rather 
>than verbally.  It is no more accurate. 
 
Personally, I would argue that a numerical score determined at a separate 
time would be more accurate.  Tasting several beers of a specific style 
simultaneously makes the beer with the greatest sensory impact stand out, 
regardless of whether or not it is the most true to style.  The side by 
side judging of best of show, you recall, usually involves beers of vastly 
different styles and I don't think that comparing 1 lager, 1 bock, 1 stout, 
1 lambic, and 1 mead, for example, is the same as comparing 5 lagers. 
 
>This process *IS* judging. 
 
I'll concede that the PPBT method is judging.  I'll also point out that the 
same is often said for the scores given for figure skating or synchronized 
swimming in the Olympics. 
 
>..There is *NO ONE* on the panel that is not qualified to be there. 
 
Once again, what are the qualifications that are required? 
 
>...The comments I've received indicate that this is one of the 
>best run competitions in the world.  I and my staff take pride.... 
 
The vast majority of the HBD understand that running a competition on the 
scale of the GABF is no small task, and there's a huge amount of work 
involved to make sure that the event is not a complete fiasco.  However, 
running the judging by finding industry "experts" with nebulous 
qualifications is bound to make people wonder. 
 
People have questioned the qualifications of the PPBT judges and the only 
responses are assurances that we have a highly qualified panel of specially 
selected experts.  The collective understands technical beer talk - explain 
to us who the judges are.  Not by names, but maybe a breakdown of their 
occupations as to why these "professionals" are so wonderfully qualified. 
 
So, define the word "qualified" for us.  We're listening. 
 
Dave 
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 
&                            Dave Harsh                              & 
&                  DNRC Minister of Bloatarianism  O-                & 
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: BJM at roisysinc.com (BJM <Manbeck, Brad, J>)
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 10:33:39 -0600
Subject: Thanksgiving beer

- --_[INTERGATE-SMTP1826785703]_ 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
 
I am interested in making a Cranberry/Wheat or Cranberry ale (with all 
barely malt) as a special Thanksgiving beer. I have tried fruit beers in 
the past and have had limited success. Does anyone have a recipe for this 
type of beer, where I might find such a creature, or a favorite recipe 
for the Thanksgiving holiday. I do extract and partial mash brews. 
Personal e-mails are welcomed 
 
bjm at roisysinc.com 
 
Thanks in advance 
Brad Manbeck 
- --_[INTERGATE-SMTP1826785703]_ 
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="WINMAIL.DAT" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="WINMAIL.DAT" 
 
eJ8+IiIPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy 
b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEgAEAEgAAAFRoYW5rc2dpdmluZyBiZWVy 
AKsGAQWAAwAOAAAAzAcKAAIACgAnACAAAwAzAQEggAMADgAAAMwHCgACAAoAIgAjAAMAMQEBCYAB 
ACEAAAA0NTg2QjgzRTMxMUNEMDExQkJFOTAwMjBBRkY3ODdGOAAsBwEEkAYADAEAAAEAAAAMAAAA 
AwAAMAIAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAARAAAAAAAAAAAYJRkYEG4AQgAKyuKKQAA+LPEBGQAGgAz 
ABEAAAAUACdIQkQtcG9zdGluZ3MnAGhvbWVicmV3QGFvYi5vcmcAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAA 
AAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAABob21lYnJld0Bhb2Iub3JnAAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAA 
AA8AAAAnSEJELXBvc3RpbmdzJwAAAgELMAEAAAAWAAAAU01UUDpIT01FQlJFV0BBT0IuT1JHAAAA 
AwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AAAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAKJKgEDkAYALAMAABAAAAALACMAAAAAAAMA 
JgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQDAIUHod7C7AR4AcAABAAAAEgAAAFRoYW5rc2dpdmlu 
ZyBiZWVyAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbuwd+goPriGTBwxEdC76QAgr/eH+AAAAwAGENLOFbwDAAcQ 
ZAEAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAElBTUlOVEVSRVNURURJTk1BS0lOR0FDUkFOQkVSUlkvV0hFQVRPUkNS 
QU5CRVJSWUFMRShXSVRIQUxMQkFSRUxZTUFMVClBU0FTUEVDSUFMVEhBTktTR0lWSU5HQkVFUklI 
QVYAAAAAAgEJEAEAAADvAQAA6wEAAKQCAABMWkZ1XKXo4P8ACgEPAhUCqAXrAoMAUALyCQIAY2gK 
wHNldDI3BgAGwwKDMgPFAgBwckJxEeJzdGVtAoMz9wLkBxMCgH0KgAjPCdkCgAcKgQ2xC2BuZzEw 
Mw8UUAsKFFEL8SBJIGG8bSALgBPQFhATwWQZoSogAMBrC4BnGXAgQwpyAHBiBJByeS9XeGhlYQVA 
BbEbJxlwbMhlICgD8HRoHOEDIDJiCsBlbBzQAMBsdM4pGXAEIBsAc3AFkAcxBCBUEYBua3NnaW52 
GsIbYASQLhlREYB23R0QdAiBGkADUHUdUCAzfwQgGmEdYB0QCrATwBlwbu8aQCDDEYAaQGwHcB1Q 
GjFQc3VjYweQcyCARPZvB5EAcHkCICNiIOEbAP8WEB8gHwAhYAWxHWAEACEAEnkmQW9mIDMsIHdP 
G9AWEBlRI+BnaAVAZncLgCQjHXEgBQAb4QhwZfcnwAWxGwBmINAFsCPxJfwLHRAfe2gG8GlkYXnB 
IIJkbyBleCEQANBbItQKsXQfMgDAcx1wYnUWEHckoVAh8QIgH0Fl3i0AwAMQHrEoEXceAAWgDQeA 
ZAqFCoViam1AzwNgBAATsAuAYy4xITF8dx90GlIjkHYAcCRwCoVCyxswGkBNG0JjawqFFTECADcw 
AAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAABAAAcwoMssN3ewuwFAAAgwoMssN3ewuwEeAD0AAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA 
ltY= 
 
- --_[INTERGATE-SMTP1826785703]_-- 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 07:52:32 -0800
Subject: Re:Roggen Beer

There has been a bunch of discussion over the potential difficulty 
mashing high quantities of rye malt.  I made a 40+% rye beer last 
year.  I cereal mashed the rye and got a perfectly normal 
lautering rate.  If you were going to go up to 60% I guess it 
would be hard to do a cereal mash however. 
 
FYI: in a cereal mash, hard to mash adjuncts are mixed with a small 
amount of pale malt.  This is brought through a mini mashing regimen. 
I did the Fix 40-60-70 (the 40 rest should help break down the 
gummy beta glucans).  After the 70 rest it is brought to a gentle 
boil.  This is then remashed with the remaining pale malt. 
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman 
mailto:jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu 
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb 

Return to table of contents


From: cwynn at sawyer.ndak.net (Craig Wynn)
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 16:20:47 GMT
Subject: Racking off yeast scheme

I have a mouth wash that comes in a plastic bottle. To dispense a dose 
you squeeze the bottle and it fills a cup in the mouth of the bottle. 
 
I note that some brewers are using plastic carboys for fermentation. 
If they are like the ones I've seen you should be able to squeeze them 
like the mouth wash bottle. Suppose you had a plastic tube (like a 
blowoff tube) except inserted to the bottom of the carboy. I think you 
then could pump off the sediments! 
 
The carboy will draw in air on each pump ( which could be filter 
through cotton soaked in alcohol). This air would not be mixing with 
the contents to any significant degree. You could rig up something and 
flush the air out with CO2. 
 
What you'd get is a method for taking the yeast off the beer vs what 
we do now which getting the beer off the yeast when we move it to a 
secondary fermenter. 
 
craig 

Return to table of contents


From: Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan at bmd.cpii.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:27:48 -0400
Subject: Cleaning Copper, Air Pumps

Citric Acid works well for cleaning copper.  I use citric acid and salt to 
clean copper mixing bowls.  Gets them nice and shiny.  You can get citric 
acid crystals from a winemaking supplies shop. 
 
For clean air with an aquarium pump you can get .22 micron syringe filters 
from Yeast Culture Kit Company. http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/yckcotbl.html 
 They go in line and seem to provide very little back pressure.  They're a 
couple of bucks, and I'm told you can use them many times if you are 
careful.  I got some white plastic airstones from petco - they seem to work 
OK.  To sanitize put the stone on the tubing, drop it in the iodophor, apply 
suction to get iodophor into the airstone, and let it sit for a while. 
 
Also try the following location for a make your own using aquarium floss; 
not sterile but will likely do the trick. 
 
http://alpha.rollanet.org/~mckay/brew/tips/aeration.html 
 
Bob 
 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Bob McCowan 
                                      voice:  (508)-922-6000 x208 
ATG/Receiver-Protector                fax:    (508)-922-8914 
CPI BMD 
Formerly Varian CF&RPP                e-mail: bob.mccowan at bmd.cpii.com or 
Beverly, MA  01915                            bob.mccowan at cfrp.varian.com 
 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

Return to table of contents


From: MaltyDog at aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:43:20 -0400
Subject: High Gravity Yeasts and Counterpressure Bottling for Imperial Stouts

I am preparing to make an Imperial Stout within a couple of weeks, and I have 
a couple of questions: 
 
1. Has anyone had any experience with making a high gravity beer (should 
start about 1.104!) with the  WYeast Irish Stout Yeast (don't have the number 
on me)? Can it handle the gravity? Any other ale or stout yeast that anyone 
has had a particularly good experience with in brewing an Imperial Stout? 
 
2. Recently, I began kegging beer, and carbonating in the keg. Seeing as how 
an Imperial Stout, and  its close cousin, the Barley Wine, both need extreme 
aging, to smooth out some of the flavors, and add complexity with others, I 
would assume off the top of my head that it would not be wise to keg an 
Imperial Stout, let it sit for a while, and then force carbonate it, and 
counterpressure bottle. I'm thinking that for the beer to reach its full 
complexity, it would have to be bottle conditioned, with a fresh dose of 
yeast in the bottle. But am I correct in this assumption? Has anyone out 
there made either an Imperial Stout or a Barley Wine that was force 
carbonated, and counterpressure bottled? What was your experience? How long 
did it take for it to smooth out? 
 
I would be very interested in anyone's experiences on these two points. 
Thanks a lot. 
 
Bill Coleman 
MaltyDog at aol.com 

Return to table of contents


From: stevens at stsci.edu (Mark Stevens)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:50:06 -0400
Subject: Re: GABF

 
 
I'd like to thank Glenn Colon-Bonet for taking the time 
to respond to HBD about concerns over the quality of 
judging in the GABF. 
 
It must be more difficult than most of us can manage to 
run such a panel and to try to ensure reasonable results. 
I'm sure also that the GABF organizers work hard to 
secure as many qualified judges as they can. The festival 
is certainly a class act and Glenn and his volunteers 
deserve a great deal of credit. 
 
But, that being the case, it's even more disturbing when 
serious problems do appear. Two problems that seem 
obvious this year are: 
* High number of medals not awarded 
* Fruit beer category 
 
I can understand wanting to withhold awards for beers that 
are poor examples of a style, or for beers that are 
flawed, but I have always assumed that the role of a judge 
should be to find winners, not insult entrants by saying, 
"None of you are good enough." With the high number of 
unawarded medals, I think it's fairly clear that too many 
of the judges have more respect for themselves than for 
the many hard-working brewers standing behind each beer. 
 
The fruit beer category is, I think, a VERY serious problem. 
There were 83 entries in the category, making it the 2nd 
largest at the festival. Yet from all those commercially- 
brewed beers, the judges could not find three medal 
contenders?? I find it hard to believe. No, I find it 
impossible to believe. 
 
I hate to be overly critical of judges, most of whom work 
very hard to do a good job. Unfortunately, in a loosely- 
defined style like fruit beer, judges cannot easily fall 
back on "oh, they're poor examples of the style" without 
sounding like fools. Especially when these are *ALL* 
professionally brewed beers. Especially when there are 
83 to choose from. Wow! 83. What *COULD* the judges be 
thinking??? 
 
I've heard that it's the squeeky wheel that gets the 
grease, but that fruit beer medal being withheld strikes 
me not as a squeeky wheel but as friggin' fingernails 
on a chalkboard! 
 
Cheers! 
- ---Mark 
   stevens at stsci.edu 
 

Return to table of contents


From: TheTHP at aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:39:18 -0400
Subject: Brewpubs in Toronto?

Greetings oh fellow homebrew brethern and sisters, 
 
I am traveling this 3day-weekend to Toronto and am wondering if any of you 
know of any Brewpubs there.  I'd love to visit them! There are 3 couples 
going on the trip and all us homebrew! There may even be some homebrew on the 
train... Any help will be gratefully toasted with our first round of brew. 
Thanks in advance. Phil 

Return to table of contents


From: Tim Martin <TimM at southwest.cc.nc.us>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 14:22:19 -0300
Subject: air pump question

Hey Neighbors, 
 
Now that the topic of using air pumps to oxygenate wort has 
come up again I thought I would jump in with a question.  I 
now have a pump (2.5 amps) from a printing press that I am 
considering using to oxygenate the wort.  I've always had 
good luck with the ole shake rattle and roll the carboy 
method.  What I don't understand is why do I need to use a 
filter on the pump?  Will the pump not introduce ambient air 
and germs into the wort just like shaking the carboy will do. 
I mean I don't filter the air when shaking the carboy so why 
filter when pumping?  And why use an airstone?  Well, I do 
think I understand this a little better, to make the bubbles 
smaller so they saturate the wort with oxygen quicker.  But if 
the stone are such a pain in the arteries to sanitize and 
clean from reading other posters, so why not just insert a 
sanitized hose in the wort and pump away. 
You can probably tell I've never used this pump yet but I don't 
intend to ruin a single batch with it because I don't get to 
brew that often and when I do brew I like to keep it as simple 
and cheap as a monk would.  So what do you think? 
 
Thanks, 
Tim Martin 
Buzzard's Roost Homebrewery 
"with that strong predatory taste" 
Cullowhee, NC. 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 13:27:38 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: GABF entries

Glenn Colon-Bonet <gcb at hpesgcb.fc.hp.com> writes: 
> 
>In HBD #2210, Ed Westemeier wrote: 
>> I'm much more concerned that the microbreweries and brewpubs aren't getting 
>> a fair shake at the GABF. They produce stunning beers, but I've tasted many 
>> of them (both at the source and at the GABF) and I've very often been 
>> appalled at the discrepancies I've noticed. 
> 
>Rather than write off the judging as being inaccurate, consider that a lot 
>is involved in getting beers from around the country to Denver to be judged. 
>Some of the products may not travel well, or may not have been bottled in a 
>manner that they will stay fresh for the time before the judging begins. 
 
This is a good comment.  I helped a local brewpub get their entries 
together.  The bottled entries had to arrive about five weeks before the 
judging.  (The kegs for serving had to be ready a couple weeks before 
that, at least here in Nashville).  I brought my counter-pressure bottle 
filler to the pub and we filled and capped the entries which were Fed. 
Ex'd the next day.  Shipping and bottling is probably a big variable that 
can't be equalized between breweries. 
 
          - Bryan 
            grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu 
            Nashville, TN 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:33:14 -0400
Subject: Steeping grains: something to ponder

 
George_De_Piro asks about enzymic reaction in partial mash. 
 
>     I guess the idea is to convert the starch to sugar, but at the 
>     extremely dilute enzyme concentrations that exist in this system, does 
>     conversion happen that quickly, if at all?  Proteins tend to be less 
>     stable in more dilute solutions. 
 
 
I've never tried a partial mash - so can't claim any expertice here 
and am not even sure of the methodology of partial mash brewing.  If 
the p-mash is dilute, then my expectation is also that the enzymes will 
be less stable, and the catalysis rate slower - and so there is a good 
possibility of starchy beer. 
 
If the partial mash takes place in wort made from extract, then the 
enzymes will be more stable, but the sugars from the extract will 
inhibit the enzyme activity (product inhibition).  Read - even slower 
conversion. 
 
>     I really don't want to go back to the "how fast are enzymes denatured" 
>     thread, but I don't want to see a lot of beginners making starchy 
>     beer!  (I've been there, it sucks) 
.. 
>     On the other hand, I only ever made a few extract batches before going 
>     on to mashing, so I'm no expert. 
 
My long but intermittant interest in extract brewing ended abruptly 
when I was introduced to all-grain (thanks Mark B.).  If an extract 
brewer was limited to similar extracts that I had access to - then a 
starchy but flavorful beer would be a step up.  I believe starch hazes 
eventually clear - don't they ? 
 
Steve Alexander 

Return to table of contents