---

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

Contents:
  PPBT qualifications (Jim Busch)
  Beer Stuff (eric fouch)
  Review of Brew Ware  (Mike Donald)
  GABF PPBT (Jeanne Colon-Bonet)
  Barley Wine Yeast (Ray Gaffield)
  Descrip. of dry yeasts (Robert Parker)
  plambics, pellicles, filters (Jim Liddil)
  disconnects/extract rye/reusing Nottingham/waxy scum/decoction (korz at xnet.com)
  Well Water (David A. Reid)
  RE: Racking off yeast scheme (John Wilkinson)
  Re: GABF judging, hazelnut beer, pale malt (Jeff Frane)
  Mini Kegs (Rick Lambert)
  Peat Smoked Malt ((Charles Burns))
  Re: kegging high-gravity beers (Brian Bliss)
  hops and dogs (bob rogers)
  Cornie keg fitting specs? (Louis Bonham)
  inexpensive digital thermometer (bob rogers)
  Mac Brewing Software (Stephen Ross)
  Re: PPBT qualifications (Derek Lyons)
  GABF Judging/ Airstones /FWIW (Rob Moline)

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: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:51:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PPBT qualifications

Dion wrote: 
 
<As far as Homebrew Club competitions are concerned, the majority of 
<them have BJCP qualified judges, which are *real* qualifications.  The 
<BJCP qualifies that one can pass both a written and and a beer 
<evaluation test with minimum score and does not advance in rank 
<without additional higher test scores *and* experience points.  Being 
<a BJCP qualified judge is a *meaningful* qualification. 
 
And since the judges are selected from homebrewers, mostly, it makes 
sense to have some checkpoint as to basic understanding.  IMO, experience 
points have little to no relationship to ones ability to accuratly 
judge beer.  Im a fan of the BJCP, dont get me wrong here, but its 
no guarentee. 
 
<Do the "professionals" have equally as thorough of a qualification 
<process as the BJCP certification, or can you qualify merely because 
<you make money from brewing or selling beer? 
 
Many of these folks would be embarrassed to have to take the BJCP test 
in order to "prove" some base qualification.  Embarrassed or not, 
many just wont do it.  It costs money, takes several hours out of 
a busy schedule and who wants to take an essay exam to prove something 
that may be well established in the industry already?  Years ago I 
struggled with these same questions before taking the exam.  I did 
and I am certified.  Would I do it again from my perspective today? 
Not sure.  I certainly dont look down in any way to others in the 
industry who choose not to go the BJCP route.  By and large these 
folks are highly qualified to evaluate beers.  That said, I see 
plenty of questions in the awards but Im not about to say the judges 
were flawed in some form for selecting on the basis that they did. 
Even the ugly duckling gets lucky sometime, and in beer shipping and 
handling anything could and does happen.  There are not that many 
Krones and SMB Technik bottling lines in the industry today although 
thats changing all the time. 
 
BTW, a lot of the PPBT are from the beer writing industry. 
 
<When I bought my 0.22 micron inline air filter from Heartland Hydroponics, 
<the person I talked to on the phone said absolutely do NOT run water 
<through the filter, because liquids were too big to pass through the 
<hydrophobic membrane.  My question is, given the admonition I recently 
<received, how does one sanitize the inline filter? 
 
You dont need to sanitize the .2 micron filter!  Sanitize the out 
side tubing and airstone and leave the filter dry, the filter takes 
regular air/bacteria and delivers just air. 
 
Jim Busch 
 
See Victory Brewing at: 
http://www.victorybeer.com/ 

Return to table of contents


From: eric fouch <S=eric_fouch%S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021+pefouch%Steelcase-Inc at mcimail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 14:15 EST
Subject: Beer Stuff

 
Date: Thursday, 3 October 1996 3:01pm ET 
To: STC012.HONLY at STC010.SNADS 
From: Eric.Fouch at STC001 
Subject: Beer Stuff 
In-Reply-To: Way Cheap Operations 
 
Perhaps this post is a bit premature, but somtimes I have that problem 
("I just think about baseball"). 
At any rate, I wanted to brag about my El-Cheapo EZ Masher Knockoff (Tm). 
What I did was modify an aquarium undergravel filter (cut to fit in the 
bottom of my plastic primary fermenter, boxed off the ends and bottom with 
polycarbonate sheeting and drilled a hole in the side for a drain hose). 
The hose I used is a food grade plastic hose of the proper OD to fit 
snugly inside the ID of my fermenters' spigot.  Total cost: about $5.00. 
 
I then tried my first partial mash, a cereal mash using 3#s Munich (remember 
the mushroom post?) and 1# Vienna with 8oz granulated Tapioca just for kicks. 
I crushed the malts using the fine cheese grating wheel on my Krups meat 
grinder & cheese grater.  Most of the malt got crushed between the wheel and 
the housing.  It looked a little finer than the pre crushed stuff you buy, 
but I saw a lot of whole husks, and not much powder.  Once again, at no extra 
cost (I'm truly the cheapest of bastards).  The down side is it took about an 
hour to crush 4#s. 
Combining 2#s malt and the Tapioca, I used the old 50-60-70 mash, then boiled 
it for 30 minutes, added the rest of the malt and gave it the old 50-60-70 
mash and sparged with about a gallon of 75C water, basically a no-sparger.  To 
this I added a can of hopped Bock extract, some Hallertuar hops and it's 
happily ignoring me in the secondary right now. 
 
*WARNING*  I welcome comments and constructive criticism, but if you belittle 
my technique, I'll smile when I drink it down. 
 
Oh yeah- to make this little endeavor even cheaper, I used a quart jar of 
yeast (4 to 11) the Brewmaster at the local brewpub pulled off a 7 BBL 
secondary of stout. 
 
Mo' money, Mo' money, Mo' money! 
 
I plan on bottling the secondary dregs for future use.  Now if I could 
just get free malt... 
 
E-man 
CEO 
Bent Dick YactoBrewery 
Kentwood MI 
"I am NOT a crook" 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Mike Donald <mpd at plaza.ds.adp.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 12:11:03 PDT
Subject: Review of Brew Ware 

 
 
Patrick asked if anyone had read Lutzen and Stevens new book Brew Ware: 
 
Yes, I have. I reviewed it for the current Sept/Oct issue of Brewing Techniques
and I will reprint the unedited review here. 
 
Brew Ware - 
How to Find, Adapt, and Build Homebrewing Equipment 
by 
Karl Lutzen and Mark Stevens. 
Storey Publishing, Pownal, Vermont, 1996 
300 pages 
 
 
Lutzen and Stevens, the authors of Homebrew Favorites - a collection of public 
domain recipes from the Internet, have done it again. Their latest effort is a 
compilation of the many homebrewing equipment and gadget ideas that have been 
discussed on the Internet over the past several years.  The book was written 
with the experienced brewer in mind, someone that has developed a need for 
gadgets to facilitate the brewing processes.  Logically, most of the material 
in the book is oriented to the grain brewer.  There are chapters devoted to 
discussing and building Grain Mills, Mash/Lauter Tuns and Kegging.  There are 
also chapters that deal with equipment used for growing and drying hops and 
yeast culturing; probably the first time these topics have been addressed from 
the equipment angle. 
 
The book is a bit awkward getting off the ground, though. The look and text on 
the cover conveys the impression that this book is for the beginner.  It is, 
but it's for the beginning gadgeter, not the beginning brewer.  Someone who 
picks up the book expecting to learn how to brew will be quickly overwelmed by 
the apparent need for lots of equipment.  This impression is not helped by the 
fact that the first chapter compares the homebrewing processes with commercial 
microbrewery processes and the second chapter is concerned with materials and 
processes for building a Three Tier, Gravity Fed All-Grain system.  The 
treatment of these topics is well done, it's just a matter of the reader's 
expections when getting into them. An experienced brewer, looking for ideas on 
how to build his all-grain brewing system will be right at home. 
 
The chapters proceed in much the same order as the brewing processes do. While 
this is logical for organizing an overall brewing system, it does not follow 
the normal learning curves for most brewers.  Presenting the equipement ideas 
that can be applied to extract and extract with specialty grain brewing first 
(ex. wort chilling, bottling), may have been a better way to arrange the 
comprehensive information this book presents. 
 
The individual gadget ideas that are presented in each chapter are easy to read
and well illustrated.  The illustrations of the various ideas are drawn by 
Randy Mosher, notable brewer and author of The Brewer's Companion. Many of the 
drawings are done in drafting style, showing the reader how the item is 
manufactured and assembled.  Ideas are laid out clearly, listing materials, 
parts, tools and assembly steps.  There is even a section in the back listing 
suppliers for commercial equipement and common parts as well as those hard to 
find items like food grade RIMS pumps. 
 
Lutzen and Stevens have brought together a lot of material for this book. They 
have contacted and quoted the original authors of some particularly notable 
ideas that were previously published to the Internet.  Likewise they have 
reviewed and compared notable commercial products when discussing grain mills, 
lautering and fermentation systems.  This book will be a welcome addition to 
the library of any brewer looking to learn new methods and facilitate their 
current processes. 
 
************** 
John Palmer - Metallurgist 
johnj at primenet.com 
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/ 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Jeanne Colon-Bonet <jmcb at jeanne.fc.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:36:31 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: GABF PPBT

 
Introduction: Manager of Great American Beer Festival Professional Panel 
Blind Tasting(96,95,94), assistant manager(93), table captain(92), 
steward(91) and server(90). 
 
My husband Glenn and I have been organizing the GABF PPBT for three years 
now.  The politics involved are incredible.  Glenn manages the 100 some 
volunteers we bring in each year as well as do most of the data base 
forms and reports, etc...  I do all of the things related to the judges: 
scheduling the judging (who judges what, when), invitation lists (who gets 
to come), who is considered a judge, etc...  The decision as to who is 
added to the judge list as well as to who is invited each year is determined 
by the board of directors each year. 
 
The process of managing such an event is incredible, we start about Feb. each 
year and go through the month of Nov.  Until last year I did judge recruiting, 
now I get interest from all walks of life and actually have to turn down 
good palets in hopes of being able to get them on the panel in the next year. 
 
It sounds like most of the issues I hear on HBD are because of lack of 
information about the GABF PPBT.  Let me try to be informative here. 
 
All year long I receive letters of interest to join the panel.  I request 
a resume and 3 letters of recommendation.  The resume should list beer and 
brewing related experience and education, anything that might give me 
an idea of what kind of palate you have.  The references come from people 
in the industry who can contest to your palate, professionals.  If I get 
a reference from the local liquor store manager it doesn't count.  More 
likely is a reference from Seible Institute of Brewing Studies in Chicago. 
Usually if a person is interested in getting on the panel they work hard 
to get excellent references.  I have no problem in letting an individual 
know that a reference is weak.  A reference from me is weak, a reference 
from Michael Jackson is strong, a reference from someone already on the 
panel who brews and wins medals is good. 
 
In Feb/March of each year the board of directors and myself review the 
source list.  30% of the initial invitations go out to new additions to 
the source list (never judged at GABF before, have their resume in and 
the tree letters of recommendation), 30% of the invitation are sent out 
to judges outside of the USA.  The remaining 70% of the judged inside 
the USA are distributed across the states such that regions of the states 
that have a lot of breweries have better representation: ie CA and CO will 
have a fair number of judges where as IL and OH will have maybe one. 
The response has been very good 70% of the people I invite can come. 
GABF does not pay for transportation to the event for the judges.  Once 
they get here we reimburse them for meals, provide some meals and will 
pay for accommodations if they are willing to share with another judge. 
They also get the run of the festival, a badge will get them into all 
events. 
 
There is a list of judges, their affiliation, and location in the GABF 
program book every year.  Every year I am overwhelmed by the level of 
expertise the judges bring.  All of the people on the panel live and breath 
beer every day.  Most of them do two to three tastings in a day.  Some 
of them can pick up such minute levels of defects in a product it's 
amazing to me, and I am no longer easily dazzled by these experts. 
 
There is discussion about BJCP.  The majority of the judges on the panel 
are BJCP certified in various levels, which is not required to be on the 
panel.  The majority of the judges on the panel have been through many 
other educational and testing institutes around the world and come with 
very high recommendations.  Sieble Institute in Chicago is one of the 
big ones.  To require a BJCP certification would be silly for a judge 
who has a doctorate in brewing studies. 
 
Scheduling: This year it took me four long days to schedule the PPBT. 
I had 37 different categories, 69 judges, 4 sessions and 1401 beers. 
I do not get the final number of beers in a category or the names of 
the judges who can come until 1-2 weeks prior to the event.  This is 
due to brewerys dropping out, changing products, etc... and judges 
ability to travel changing.  Each judge is required to provide a 
list to me of their top 12 categories which they have the most 
experience.  They cannot judge a beer for which they have ANY affiliation 
to and they let me know that, as well as categories for which they feel 
uncomfortable judging.  I cross check everything with what breweries 
entered as well.  The judges are provided the same style descriptions 
as the brewers.  I also try to balance the panels such that I may have 
3 American and 3 German judges judging German styles - all 
would have chosen those styles as one of their top 12.  This balances 
the panel mostly because Germans judging Americans brewing German styles 
have the tendency to be highly critical of the American brewers, I do 
the same with English styles etc... The English judging the Classic 
English Pale Ales is a good example of this - No Gold, Why?  The top 
beers in the final round were using American hops. 
 
Medals: There were only eight medals not awarded.  Some may say *only*?? 
This is great compared to past years.  This is mostly due to some new 
judging protocols we gave the judges - also we asked that either Glenn 
or I be called into any panel which decides not to award a medal in a 
style.  I was called in many more than 8 times.  Sometimes a group of 
judges butt heads and just need a mediator, we mostly ask them to re-read 
the style guide, the protocols, and ask for a re-pour of their top beers. 
I never put my palet on the table, I am the organizer, I always leave it 
up to them.  Neither Glenn nor I were pulled into final round of the 
Fruit beer judging this year :-(  I had a talk with ALL of the judges 
from the final round panel to find out what happened ( we were just as 
disappointed as everyone else ) I was assured of the beers on the 
table only two were of medal class.  Given I set up that panel and I 
believe they were the best of the list to judge it I support the 
decision.  All of the other seven medals not awarded either Glenn or 
I sat in on the panel.  The judges work very hard to come to agreement 
sometimes will spend a whole hour on ranking three beers.  On any of 
the seven they had major discussions, tried very hard to give out the 
hardware, but what they had in front of them just was not of the quality 
or style adherence expected in a GABF medal - an award that has been 
molded and defined by the last ten years of the GABF PPBT.  That's 
what defines the quality of these medals is the judges. 
 
I hope this information helps all those who are curious.  I do not 
believe HBD is really the place for this forum so I encourage those 
of you who want more info ask Glenn or I directly.  It is my 
impression that most of the flames to the GABF PPBT are due to 
misunderstandings 'if you only knew' but I agree that it can always 
use improvement and we are always open to suggestions. 
 
BTW 
- - none of my friends are on the panel - but judges on the panel have 
become my friends. 
- - the beers are refridgerated for both the fest and PPBT as soon as 
they are received. 
 
   Jeanne M. Colon-Bonet 
   PPBT Manager GABF 1996 

Return to table of contents


From: Ray Gaffield <ray_gaffield at il.us.swissbank.com>
Date: Thu,  3 Oct 96 15:12:30 -0500
Subject: Barley Wine Yeast

 
Hi, 
 I'm interested in making a Barley wine soon and I was 
wondering if anybody had any suggestions on a good yeast to use. 
  
Specifically I wondering ; 
  Is there a good liquid yeast to use ? Seems like 
most recipes suggest dry yeast or don't suggest a particuliar yeast 
at all. 
  Can "Alt" beer yeast be used ? I want to make a 
more malty barley wine, like Rogue, but I'm afraid with the Alt beer 
yeast it will either be too malty, or not alcohol-tolerant 
enough,or both for this style. 
   
Also,since this is an extract beer, has anybody tried using any 
wheat malt to aid head retention ? Syrup, dried , or other / 
 
Thanx, 
 Ray Gaffield 

Return to table of contents


From: Robert Parker <parker at rcltel.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Descrip. of dry yeasts

Many have expounded the benefits of liquid yeast, and I use it too. An 
important fact, however, is that dry yeast is VERY convenient.  Some among 
us claim (and I believe them) that they make excellent beer with dry 
yeast.  The convenience factor is now compelling for me, and I'd like to 
see a discussion of the various quality/traits and procedures of dry yeast 
brands.  You know, much like the way we have detailed descriptions of 
which liquid yeasts to use in different styles. 
 
I've checked the Yeast FAQ; only limited descriptive info. Please chime in 
with experiences. 
 
Rob 
parker.242 at osu.edu 

Return to table of contents


From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:52:19 -0700 (MST)
Subject: plambics, pellicles, filters

Joe said: 
 
>         What I have have attempted on some recent (last 4 mos. or so) 
> lambics that I've made is to ferment in plastic. I noticed on some earlier 
> attempts that I had a difficult time developing a nice pellicle of Pedio on 
> the lambics in glass. Flavor stayed quite bland, and I used either Boon, 
> Cantillion or Hanssens starters in them. 
 
Pedidiococcus damnosus is a bacteria and does NOT form a pellicle (crust) on 
the beer. The crust is composed of brettanomyces and/or other oxidative yeasts 
in the beer. Aeration intially probably has little to do with development of a 
pellicle over the long run (1-2 years).  If the beer is acetic now it maybe 
vinegar in a year. 
Kelly wrote, about filters: 
 
> Folklore!  True, most of these filters are made from expanded PTFE, or 
> Gore-Tex.  True, Gore-Tex won't pass loose water droplets freely.  That 
> doesn't mean that liquids can't be forced through the filter with a little 
> bit of pressure.  If you have the filter I'm thinking of, it was made to fit 
> on the end of a syringe.  Try filling a syringe with sanitizer and squirting 
> a few cc's through. 
 
You risk rupturing the filter. This material is hydrophobic, and thus you are 
better off sanitizing it using an organic solvent like 70% EtOH solution. This 
alos helps to dry the filter out.  A 70% solution is a better sanitizer than 
100% EtOH.  You can follow the 70% with 100% EtOH to fully dry the filter. 
Iodophor can probably be forced through the filter probably due to the 
surfactant it contains. 
 
Jim 
 

Return to table of contents


From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:59:44 -0500
Subject: disconnects/extract rye/reusing Nottingham/waxy scum/decoction

Darrin writes: 
>Even when I loosen the 
>hose clamps I gotta tug like all hell to get the hose off that thing. Being 
>such a PITA that it is I rarely do it. So how is everyone else easily pulling 
>their gas hose off the keg conects? 
 
I have a 4-way splitter (called an "air manifold" by Foxx): three ball 
lock connectors and one "air" sprayer from Ace Hardware. 
 
*** 
Also Darrin asks: 
>Does anyone have any suggestions for brewing extract/specialty grain rye 
>beer? 
 
Sorry, you'll have to mash it and for that you will need some barley malt, 
I think, not just crystal and black malts.  The rye malt may have enough 
enzymes, I don't know, but judging from the gummyness of the mash, I think 
lautering would be virtually impossible without some barley husks (or rice 
hulls) in there. 
 
*** 
 
Greg writes: 
>I was wondering if it's also okay to do this [reuse yeast] 
>when a dried, reconstituted yeast (such as Nottingham) is used. 
 
Sure... I've done it.  Nottingham is very clean (bacteria-wise) 
and I had no problem with a second generation of it. 
 
*** 
Kevin writes: 
>I recently brewed a extract/specialty grain stout.  When I racked it to the 
>secondary I noticed a waxy looking whitish film over the top of the beer. Now 
>that it has been in the secondary for a few days, it is still there. The beer 
>did not taste strange when I racked it.  I did use flaked barley and flaked 
>wheat in this batch (steeped with my specialty grains).  What could this be? 
>Any chance of it going away? 
 
I don't know what exactly it is, but I suspect that it came from the flaked 
barley and flaked wheat.  You had no enzymes in your steep and as a result, 
the flaked grains added mostly starch.  I don't think it will go away, but 
if you rack the beer out from under it carefully, it will probably not be 
noticeable in the glass. 
 
*** 
George writes: 
     I've noticed two people say that they have used substantial quantities 
     of rye with no lautering problems.  As you have all read, this is NOT 
     my experience.  I think I may know part of the reason. 
 
     My Roggen beer was double decocted.  Contrary to what one might think, 
     decocted mashes have LESS structure than infusion mashes and are 
     therefore sometimes more difficult to lauter (they even look "mushier" 
     than infusion mashes). 
 
     Proteins are a large part of what gives a grain it's structural 
     support (along with cellulose), and decocting does a wonderful job of 
     breaking them down. 
 
I agree 100% that decoction mashes are "mushier" and more difficult to 
lauter, but I have read (in Hough's "Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing") 
that the boiling of decoction mashing boils-out the entrained air from the 
mash and makes the mash less bouyant.  I think this is the main reason 
for decoction mashes being harder to lauter.  Rye clearly makes it even 
harder. 
 
Al. 
 
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL 
korz at xnet.com 

Return to table of contents


From: David A. Reid <DXR at mcul.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 17:05:06 -0400
Subject: Well Water

;) Newbie Lurker Mode Off! 
 
I implore the collective wisdom to help answer a perplexing question: 
 
I have recently moved to a house with a well and not city water. All of my 
brewing has been done with city
water, but I would like to try my next batch (an English Ale) utilizing the 
unique characteristics of our local
water supply. My question is should I use the water from the softener, tap in 
prior to it being softened, or
does it matter? I have been told that the softened water may have a higher 
sodium content, although I do not
believe this to be the case since the softener rinses out the brine after each 
cleaning cycle. Although my well
is not the equal of Burton-on-Trent, it is actually excellent for drinking 
softened or not, and may add some add
character to my ale. My other alternative is to buy spring water at the local 
market. Any comments would be
appreciated. 
 
Thanks in Advance! 
 
Dave Reid 
Business Development Analyst 
Michigan Credit Union League/CUcorp 

Return to table of contents


From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:35:55 -0500
Subject: RE: Racking off yeast scheme

In HBD #2212 Craig Wynn proposed pumping the sediment out of a plastic carboy 
by extending a tube to the bottom and repeatedly squeezing the carboy to force 
the sediment up the tube and out of the carboy, leaving sediment free beer. 
The problem with this, as I see it, is that the sediment I have observed has 
not been very liquid. When I siphon the beer off, only the sediment directly 
under
the siphon tube gets sucked up.  In my kegs there is usually sediment on the 
bottom when they empty with only that part around the down tube sucked up, and 
that mostly seems to be when the keg empties and the CO2 scavenges it. 
Creative thinking, though. 
 
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas 

Return to table of contents


From: Jeff Frane <jfrane at teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: GABF judging, hazelnut beer, pale malt

Dane Mosher wrote: 
 
>I wanted to put in my $.02 on the quality of the judging at the 
>festival.  Although I can't claim to have tried all the medal winners, 
>I can say that the medal winners I did try seemed worthy of the honor. 
>On the other hand, I also believe that the quality of American 
>microbrews as a whole still has a long way to go. 
> 
 
I have attended two microbrewers' conferences in the last 2.5 years; 
while these weren't the GABF (still haven't gone to that), there was a 
LOT of beer poured in both cases, and I made a concerted effort to taste 
as many as possible (a very selfless guy, you see).  In general, the 
beers were either boring, bad or not terribly exciting.  Very few of them 
were worth the sort of noise that we like to make about craft beers.  Over 
time, I've come to a few conclusions.  All, I hasten to add, my own opinion. 
 
1. There are a lot of people brewing beer that aren't very good at it. 
Just because someone has a job making beer doesn't mean that they're skilled, 
or craftsmen and a lot of them don't even notice the flaws in their own beer. 
 
2. There is a lot of bogus labeling of beerstyles.  As Dane noted, he 
was found a number of "Kolsch" that weren't worth drinking; probably even 
more that weren't even close to the style.  Same goes for "altbiers", 
"weizens," you name it.  Not to mention all those "British" beers full 
of Cascade hops. 
 
3. A lot of brewing technology simply isn't up to snuff.  We make fun of 
the big breweries all the time, but they do know how to get beer from 
Point A to Point B (as long as it isn't Stevens Point), without ruining it. 
Beers arrive at places like the GABF in poor condition, not just because 
they were roughly handled in transit, or had to travel a few hundred miles 
but because they were poorly packaged to begin with.  What is pretty tasty 
down at the local brewpub can taste like complete swill after being 
hastily bottled and packed to Colorado, but even the people with real 
bottling lines can be very sloppy. 
 
4. As Dane writes, brewers have a long way to go.  Some of the beers we 
tend to admire the most (from places like Bavaria, Belgium, etc.) come out 
of breweries with hundreds of years of history.  Craft breweries have been 
around about 10-15 years, and they've got a lot to learn. 
 
 Greg Moore wrote: 
 
> 
> 
>Well, ok - no one has the rogue hazelnut recipe.  I've heard that the 
>longshot hazelnut was a bit heavy on the hazelnut extract.  Also 
>heard that the recipe for the beer was on the bottom of the carton. 
>Does anyone have the longshot recipe they can send me and I'll try to 
>modify it to be closer to the rogue variety? 
> 
 
The recipe ran in Zymurgy a couple of years back, when it was the beer 
brewed for the National Conference by Chris Studach (that's his picture on 
the Rogue label, btw).  Wasn't a terribly complicated beer, as I recall, 
with the hazelnut flavor coming from an extract.  Dig back in the archives 
and you'll find it. 
 
>From: Jim Cave <CAVE at PSC.ORG> 
>Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT) 
>Subject: What is Pale malt: 
> 
> Al Korzonas writes that we shouldn't be using the term "Pale malt" in 
>reference to lager or pils malts.  This would cause unecessary confusion. 
>Unfortunately, both Canada malting and Gambrinus refer to their products as 
>"Pale Malt" and these are "lager type" malts.  Since Canada malting is the 
>world's largest malting conglomerate, I think we need to advise people of the 
>term "Pale Malt" and its designation. 
> 
 
Technically, Al is right, but "pale malt" is widely recognized, and 
probably used more frequently than "lager malt".  As Jim notes, Great 
Western and Gambrinus use it, probably to avoid the implication that it's 
not suitable for ales (although they also make excellent pale ale malts now, 
that make even better ales).  As long as we're not misusing terminology, 
we might as well stick with common language. 
 
- --Jeff Frane 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Rick Lambert <Lambert at tencor.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 16:15:01 -0700
Subject: Mini Kegs

Greetings Hoppy People! 
 
I have been brewing for 5 yrs now and using bottles exclusively, and 
have been interested in using CO2 cartridge driven mini-kegs.  I have 
looked at the different mini-keg systems around, and am very curious 
indeed. 
 
I am sure some are better than others, and like everything in 
homebrewing there is a effective way to do it versus 10 bad ways!  Has 
anybody had any luck with a particular system or technique for using 
mini-kegs 
 
TIA 
 
Rick Lambert 
- -- 
"If you're gonna succeed in this world, ya gotta adapt"- Muddy 
Mudskipper 

Return to table of contents


From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 16:54 PDT
Subject: Peat Smoked Malt

Ken writes: 
<snip> 
>  1/4 to 1/2 lb of smoked malt (like Hugh Baird Peated) 
>will add a unique subtle smokiness without completely overpowering the brew, 
>but be sure that's what you want before you use it. 
 
This is not what I have experienced. I made a scotch ale (all grain) and 
used only 1.75 ounces of the Hugh Baird Peat Smoked malt. I mashed it along 
with Hugh Baird Pale Ale (about 9 lbs if I remember right) in a 5 gallon 
batch. The resulting scotch ale was so smoky strong, it blew away any other 
flavor. Tastes like smoked water. Its still in the keg in the fridge 
hopefully some day to mello out a bit. Every week I go pour myself a 4 oz 
taste. Its been over a month now, no change. 
 
And the worst part is the homebrew shop guy even warned me this might happen. 
 
Charley 
- --------------------------------------------------------------- 
Charles Burns, Director, Information Systems 
Elk Grove Unified School District 
cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us, http://www.egusd.k12.ca.us 
916-686-7710 (voice), 916-686-4451 (fax) 
http://www.el-dorado.ca.us/~cburns/ 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Brian Bliss <brianb at microware.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 20:01:27 CDT
Subject: Re: kegging high-gravity beers

 
> Malty Bill asks about kegging his soon-to-be-made Imperial Stout.  His 
> main concern is that it may not develop the proper complexity if he 
> force carbonates rather than bottle conditions. 
 
If it turns out good, at least bottle half the batch.  Just speaking from 
experience, bottle carbonation has a more cutting, acidic bite that 
complements high-gravity brews, as opposed to the smoother keg carbonation 
(which complements lower-gravity brews of most types...) 
 
Of course, if you're not going to give it time to develop any complexity, 
then keg it! 
 
bb 
 
 
- ------------------------------ 

Return to table of contents


From: bob rogers <bob at carol.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 23:07:20 -0400
Subject: hops and dogs

i know spent hops are very dangerous for dogs. 
 
does anybody _know_ if growing hops are bad for dogs? 
 
and/or 
 
would dogs even eat them? 
 
i want to know, because i have some rizomes in the fridge i want to plant on 
the back fence, but i would much rather throw them away if max might get 
sick or die. 
 
bob- brewing in the heart of the bible belt. 
bob rogers   bob at carol.net 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at i-link.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 22:09:24 -0500
Subject: Cornie keg fitting specs?

Quick question -- what are the diameter and thread spec's for popit 
valves on a cornelius keg (supposedly ball and pin lock are the same). 
It doesn't look like NPT. 
 
Private e-mail is fine.  Thanks ----->   LKB 

Return to table of contents


From: bob rogers <bob at carol.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 23:47:56 -0400
Subject: inexpensive digital thermometer

radio shack (std. disc.) now has a lighted indoor/outdoor F/C digital 
thermometer on closeout for $10. the range listed in the specs only goes up 
to 120F, but it has a probe, so you can check the serving temp of your beer, 
the inside of your fridge, etc.. 
bob 
bob rogers   bob at carol.net 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Stephen Ross <rossst at duke.usask.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 21:54:00 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Mac Brewing Software

 
Hi Craig, I use Brewer's Notebook. It's ok, but not perfect. 1.1 is the 
version, and some annoying features include having to reenter the OSG and 
FSG whenever you want to calculate apparant attennuation or alcohol 
content.  Otherwsie it's fairly decent, but nothing you couldn't do 
yourself with Framemaker... 
 
It's also primarily for the extract brewer.  Brewmeister, also available 
through FTP like Brewer's Notebook, is for the  all-grainer, or advanced 
partial masher.  You can use for extracts if you have good info about your 
extracts. 
 
Stephen 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Derek Lyons <elde at hurricane.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: PPBT qualifications

At 02:51 PM 10/3/96 -0400, you wrote: 
>industry who choose not to go the BJCP route.  By and large these 
>folks are highly qualified to evaluate beers. 
 
And where do they *GET* that qualification?  That is the crux of the 
question here. 
 
Simply because they can judge their *own* product does not make them 
qualified to judge,(or more impotantly familiar with), a wide range of beers. 
 
How is a megaswill professional (The bulk of the industry, no slam, just 
truth) qualified to judge a weizen? 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 01:24:22 -0500
Subject: GABF Judging/ Airstones /FWIW

                        The Jethro Gump Report 
GABF....Yes, the mega's really do provide that much support, just think 
about how much it would cost you to take responsibilty for cold trasport and 
storage of all that beer from all over the country....of course AB can 
afford it and probably get a really nice tax deduction, but I'm glad I 
didn't have to pay to get my five 160 pound kegs the 500 miles to Denver, 
not on top of the entry fee! 
        And the large numbers of categories for the lagers is a perennial 
bitchin point... But when you look at it there are only 4 categories like 
this, Lager, Light Lager, Premium Lager, and Specialty Lager....I say let 
them have it...you may notice that most micro's and brew-pubs wouldn't go 
near a lager beer..... 'Cos they are too damned hard to make WELL. ANY 
defect shines like a flashlight in your eyes when you get pulled over. (And 
take up too much time, and tanks, etc.) 
        There is always moaning amongst brewers who didn't win....and this 
is always going to happen...if a brewer doesn't have the wherewithal to 
believe that he can or does make the best, he shouldn't be in the 
game....and this kind of attitude will also be reflected by the fact (in 
Jethro's opinion), that brewers are too close too their own products and 
lose objectivity.  I am sometimes unable to step back and see things 
clearly, and that's when it's time for a trip to another pub for someone 
else's beers. 
        The thing that GABF does provide is objectivity, and this is ensured 
by the Blind tasting...no one knows who's beer they are evaluating, and the 
high number of foreign based judges helps too. The concept that these judges 
may not be qualified is a new one on me. I have heard this said about other 
comps, but but have never heard anyone voice doubts about GABF judges 
qualifications, neither winners nor those who haven't. I feel it is a 
non-issue, and have always felt this way. 
        It was my opinion before the 96 GABF, that this comp in past years 
was the best comp for the above stated reasons. When all a judge see's is a 
randomly generated number on a glass, there is no room for playing favorites. 
        This being said, it is still my opinion that the GABF, like ANY 
OTHER comp, is a crap shoot. You get a good beer past the first round, where 
they dismiss any beer that doesn't fit the style, or has major defects, and 
from that point on, it depends....on which judges you get, what time of day 
they judge your beer, did you CP fill the bottles well (my biggest worry), 
did you select the right category for the beer, did the judges get enough 
sleep, and on and on.... 
        Crap shoots involve luck- Was I lucky that the brewer who beat my 
Barleywine in the World Beer Cup decided not to bring it to GABF? Or did he 
truly feel that his other beers were better, as the staff said? Maybe he 
didn't have any left? Realizing that barleywine wasn't there allowed me to 
go back to another priority worry, the CP filling. 
        As for Kolsch...the judges are simply saying that the best Kolsch 
entered was true to style, but did possess some defect or flaw. The judging 
criteria, and I'll paraphrase, goes like this....Bronze, true to style, good 
example, but with some flaws or defects...Silver, excellent representation 
of the style, but with minor flaw or defect...Gold, excellent representation 
of the style, with no flaws or defects. 
        And I don't believe I have ever had a good Kolsch...most brewers 
can't seem to get it right....but then, I've never been to Cologne, so how 
the hell would I know! 
        Hell, some brewers from my region claim that their beers didn't even 
make it to the PPBT, that they got lost in transit. True or not, I know my 
beers went to the same facilty for storage and shipping and apparently, mine 
made it OK......HEY, I get it!!! My porter, stout, smoked porter and IPA got 
lost in the mail!!!! YEAH, that's it!!!  Hell, they HAD to be STOLEN, right 
out of the same box my barleywine was in, those BAS****'S!!!!!    ;-) 
 
Airstones- I use an inexpensive sintered steel stone of 15 micron porosity 
to aerate.......30 bucks from Charles McElevey...(206)-932-6877. I would 
prefer a finer porosity, but the price goes up as the pore size comes 
down...and this one seems to work OK for me. 
 
FWIW- I did taste the IPA that beat mine.....clearly superior...the 
stout...I liked mine better, and thats why I brew it that way...but theirs 
was a great beer.....the porter was much better than mine....and I didn't 
get to try the smoked beer, they had run out before I got there... 
        Now that's JUDGING...the BEST beers always run out first! 
 
Jethro (GET A MILL!!) Gump 
 
Cheers! 
Rob Moline 
Little Apple Brewing Company 
Manhattan, Kansas 
 
"The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about 
beer!"
 

Return to table of contents