---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  mixing bitter and mild (Hal Davis)
  Secondary fermentation in bottles? (Hal Davis)
  Welcome Back/Call Oliver Stone/1002 Uses! (Rust)
  Re: Counterflow chill. cold break, house flavor (Oliver Weatherbee)
  Munich malt and flaked maize (Charles Rich)
  Soapy beer and lurking nast ("Mark Tomusiak")
  High Point Part 3,brewing way down under,skunkiness correction ("David R. Burley")
  Draught Guinness & porter connection? (Dave Hinkle)
  Re: AOB/AHA:The $100,000 Question (charlie)
  re: Blonde Ale (Charles Burns)
  rack off hop pellets?/bottle fillers/iodophor (korz)
  Best Porter for Style Demonstration (Charles Burns)
  Stupid newbie tricks (Matthew Arnold)
  Homemade EM (Bob McCowan)
  Lots O' Trub (Scott Goeke)
  what else? botulism/mash methods (Richard Seyler)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  brew.oeonline.com 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu 
  that says: UNSUB BEER-L

Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
  Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
			http://brew.oeonline.com/

If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
  ftp.stanford.edu.  Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
  e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
  /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.  AFS users can find it under
  /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.  If you do not have
  ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
  service at gatekeeper.dec.com.  For information about this service,
  send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
  "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.


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


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:15:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Hal Davis <davis at planolaw.com>
Subject: mixing bitter and mild

Greets, brewers and brewsters:

Rob Moline's articles on Porter are much appreciated. He mentions mixing
stale and mild for Porter, and he mentions mixing modern-day mixing of
bitter and mild. I confess to being largely ignorant of BOTH practices
(actually *each* practice). I have a "porter" in bottles, and I like it a
lot (reminiscent of Anchor Porter), but it doesn't use any kind of sour
beer. BTW, if mixing stale and mild gives Porter, then what do you call the
combination of bitter and mild?

I have a three empty kegs, and I'd like to fill them with stale, mild, and
bitter. Then I could try my hand at beer mixology. Unfortunately, I am
knowledge-handicapped. I have only brewed about 24 batches of beer, and only
one of them is a full mash. I have a recipe for Ordinary Bitter (in
Papazian's New Joy, as well as Cat's Meow), and I have some home brewed
special bitter in bottles and an ESB in a keg right now. First questions:
would it be inappropriate to use a special bitter or an ESB for these mixing
experiments? Or would that be contrary to the purpose, as they have higher
alcohol than ordinary bitter, and the whole purpose of mixing with mild is
to decrease the alcohol content?

I also see a couple of recipes for mild in New Joy. "Cheeks to the Wind
Mild" on p. 198 says it's a traditional English mild. (4# English dried
light plain malt extract, 1/2 # black patent malt, 1 oz fuggles 60 minutes,
1-2 pks ale yeast, priming sugar or DME). However, it appears not to be a
brown (it uses light extract), and the porter articles spoke of porter being
a mix of two different kinds of brown ales. Second questions: would Cheeks
to the Wind Mild be a good choice for mixing with bitter or with stale? If
not, does anybody have a fairly easy recipe for a more traditional mild beer
for my purposes?

Finally, I am at a complete loss for a recipe for making stale (sour) beer
for making porter. The porter articles covered it in generalities, and
mentioned innoculation with cultures to speed up the process, but I'd sure
like to try it so the beer didn't have to age for a year, while maintaining
a traditional flavor for comparison. Third and final questions: Should I
start out with whatever recipe I use for the mild and then try to sour it?
If so, does anybody have a recipe/procedure for turning it stale/sour? If
you recommend a different base recipe, anybody have a good recipe for stale?

Hal Davis
The Safety Brewery, Plano, Texas
member of the North Texas Home Brewers Assn


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:37:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Hal Davis <davis at planolaw.com>
Subject: Secondary fermentation in bottles?

Greets, brewers and brewsters:

Tim Plummer asked if secondary fermentation can take place in the bottle
instead of in a carboy. I wrote him a private missive, but before I sent it
I noted another question about secondary fermentation. Recognizing I am a
newbie but do know a few things, I am posting what I think I know, but I'm
ready for correction. Please be gentle in telling me I'm wrong. 

Dear Tim:

You have fallen victim to sloppy terminology by brewers. We use the term
"secondary" altogether too sloppily. The more common use of the term is
referring to the racking of the fermenting wort from the first (primary)
unpressurized fermentation vessel (usually a carboy for the home brewer) to
the second (secondary) unpressurized fermentation vessel. This is done to
remove the brewing beer from most of the hot break, cold break, and
exhausted yeast cells. While it's universally regarded as a good idea to do
this, it also carries risk of infection with bacteria because of the
increased handling of the beer. Charlie Papazian in his New Complete Joy of
Home Brewing ("New Joy") balances the equation that if you need to keep the
beer fermenting for more than three weeks, you should rack to a secondary,
but not necessarily at three weeks. That is, if the recipe says that it's
likely to take longer than three weeks to ferment, you may want to rack to
the secondary after the first few days or a week (after the foamy period is
over). 

The second use of the word "secondary" is in secondary fermentation. Primary
fermentation is done unpressurized (whether in a primary, secondary,
tertiary, quaternary (and so on) vessel). I made a mead that I racked three
times over a period of four months. Secondary fermentation is done
pressurized, either in a keg or in a bottle. It is the ageing process, of
fermenting some of the off flavors into more palatable compounds. An aged
beer tastes better than a green beer because of secondary fermentation. 

Just to confuse things farther, adding priming sugar or malt extract to the
beer in order to carbonate it does not DIRECTLY cause secondary
fermentation. The sugar or malt extract undergoes PRIMARY fermentation, but
releases CO2 gas which pressurizes the bottle/keg and carbonates it. This
leads to favorable conditions for the secondary fermentation. You can just
as easily leave out the bottling sugar and then force-carbonate your beer
with a canister of CO2, and then let the secondary fermentation occur. OTOH,
I confess to a fair amount of ignorance here, because my dry, still mead is
ageing (undergoing secondary fermentation) in the bottle even though there
is little or no pressure in the bottle.

So, to at last answer your questions:

Yes, secondary fermentation can occur in the bottle. Indeed, it must occur
in the bottle or in a pressurized keg.

The difference between storing in a secondary fermentation vessel and
storing in the bottle is that the second will allow the beer to age and
mellow. Storing in an unpressurized secondary fermentation vessel will allow
the beer to finish its primary fermentation until it's time to bottle, while
having removed it from the trub in the primary fermentation vessel, because
the trub can cause off flavors if left in contact with the beer for too long. 

Hal Davis
The Safety Brewery, Plano, Texas


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:42:50 -0600
From: Rust <rustwa at hqamc.safb.af.mil>
Subject: Welcome Back/Call Oliver Stone/1002 Uses!

Howdy All,

Glad to see the Digest is back in action.  I've
been reading the last few issues from the HTMLized
version, and things look a lot better.  Kudos to
the resurrectors.

Get Oliver Stone on the phone, I think I may have
another conspiracy.  I live in the St. Louis area,
and over the last few months I've noticed that
every time I order a draft micro (I'm including
Sam Adams with these, even tho I know...) I notice
a distinct chemical taste.  It's so strong that it
renders the beers undrinkable.  The other day I
got yet another 'chemical' SA Boston Lager, and I
asked the bartender for an Amber Bock in its place
(an AB micro attempt).  Lo and behold, even though
it came from the same tap tower, it was free of
the chemical after taste.  It was then that I
realized that at all the other establishments
where I've noticed the off taste, the AB products
were fine.  Could AB be asserting its influence
with the local distributers to 'infect' the local
micro draft products by being less than careful
about rinsing cleaning solution from some of the
beer lines?  As paranoid as this sounds, if you
were from this area, you would be be amazed at the
enormous influence that AB has over local
business.  It would not surprize me at all if this
were indeed the case.

This weekend I was trying to modify my Corny keg. 
I wanted to take about a half inch off the length
of the dip tube to reduce the amount of sediment
in my naturally carbonated draft beers.  I was
using a hack saw and I was having some trouble
getting through the tube (no, I wasn't using a
vise), and I thought, "Why not use my Dremmel
tool, a 1001 uses right?"  Took the end off like
butter, and the grinder tip took the burrs off
like a dream.  Yet another cool brewer's gadget!

Make beer not war!

- ------------------------
Bill Rust, Master Brewer
Jack Pine Savage Brewery
http://www.i1.net/~wrust

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:08:45 -0500
From: oliver at triton.cms.udel.edu (Oliver Weatherbee)
Subject: Re: Counterflow chill. cold break, house flavor


Nathan wrote in part:

>Does anyone out there that uses a counterflow chiller have a system for 
>removing break material from the fermentor?  Yes, some break is good, 
>but I have heard too much (of any good thing) can be detrimental.

I am still using an immersion chiller but have been thinking of building
a counterflow one. One of the considerations as you mentioned is the 
carry over of cold break. I am considering two options. One is to use
a pump and recycle the cooling wort back into the kettle until the
wort is at pitching temps and then diverting it to the fermenter. With
leaf hops this should create a good filter bed and prevent carry over
of too much break material. The only drawback I see is the increased
water usage. 

The other option I am considering would be to make the typical mason jar 
hop back, but put it after the chiller, prior to the fermenter, and thus 
filter out the break material there. My idea is to sanitise the jar, skim 
leaf hops out of the kettle to fill it, and then run the cooled wort through 
to the fermenter. I don't think I would want to waste fresh hops in the
jar because I think little aroma extraction would occur from the brief
interaction with the cooled wort. I suppose you could also try to fill the
jar with two or three choreboys and a muslin bag/filter on the outlet.

I think preventing the carryover of the break material is easier than
using a settling "tank" (an interim container to allow the settling of trub) 
and then syphoning again to the primary.

______________________________________________________________
Oliver Weatherbee			oliver at triton.cms.udel.edu
			First State Brewers
	http://triton.cms.udel.edu/~oliver/firststate/
_____________________________________________________________

		

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:20:25 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR at SAROS.COM>
Subject: Munich malt and flaked maize

In HBD #2349 Paul Sovcik <U18183 at UICVM.UIC.EDU> asks:

> Has anyone used both Munich malt and Flaked maize in  the same beer?
> What were the results?

Yes, I have with happy results.  While pulling together my Fullers ESB
clone recipe, I found two or three purported recipes for the real FESB
from good sources.  While not identical, the two best both used Munich
and flaked maize (corn).  I did too and had no complaints.  I say go for
it.



Return to table of contents


Date: 18 Feb 1997 10:23:04 -0800
From: "Mark Tomusiak" <Mark.Tomusiak at amgen.com>
Subject: Soapy beer and lurking nast

                      Subject:                              Time:  8:44 AM
  OFFICE MEMO         Soapy beer and lurking nasties        Date:  2/18/97

Greetings all...I have a question regarding a specific off-flavor that has 
cropped up in two of my batches.  I would refer to the taste as undeniably
 soapy.  The only reference I have ever encountered regarding this flavor 
is with respect to autolysis, yet I doubt this is the cause as neither beer 
was sitting on sediment long enough to have this happen (5 days in
 primary, 2 weeks in secondary).  


I am guessing that this taste is a result of a wild yeast problem, which I 
seem to be engaged in a continual struggle with ever since moving to a 
new location (three years problem-free brewing in my old location). 
 Despite rigorous sanitation, big starters, aeration, quick fermentation 
starts, etc., it seems that every other batch has some slight degree of 
off-flavors (soapy is fairly rare, but a subtle spicy, cinnamon-like taste
 is more common).  The only visible symptom is that when I rack to 
secondary, I frequently observe a slight film on the surface of the beer 
(barely visible, except if you shine a flashlight on the surface and peer 
from underneath).  Perhaps I should just skip the secondary?  Any musings
 on these issues would be appreciated before I torch my new home.


Thanks, Mark Tomusiak.


Return to table of contents


Date: 18 Feb 97 12:53:04 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: High Point Part 3,brewing way down under,skunkiness correction

Brewsters:

OK OK Even though no one pointed it out here,Thirty days hath September, January
has thirty one, there are seven days in a week and the 15th of February is the
THIRD Saturday of February.  I jumped the gun on bitching about High Point
Brewery not being responsive to PR.  They weren't supposed to be there for a
tour last Saturday. I screwed up.  Greg Zaccardi did return my third phone call
and I went to visit the brewery last night. As I suspected, I couldn't see the
whole brewery through the window.  HP does decoction mashing (one of the few in
the US) and uses a German wheat beer yeast used no where else but at a single
German wheat brewery and at High Point and a minimum of 50% wheat according to
Greg. I also met Jeff Levine, Head Brewer, and the three of us shared some young
blond and dark beers.These had the expected heads and lace of a wheat beer,
unlike the beers I tasted in the bars. I think because of the youth, the
Tettnanger hops were still pungent and the yeast gave a sharpness to the beer
unlike any other I have tasted.  As Greg pointed out - no esters were extant
with this yeast.    

The beers I tasted locally in the bars and reported on previously were the
"Crystal" which had been filtered,and  had none of the sharpness or hoppy nose I
experienced at the brewery.  I was told Crystal was sold only locally in Butler
and Kinnelon and were not distributed to other specialty bars.  I intend to
visit some of these other bars over the next couple of weeks and see how these
other beers, like Blond, Brown, and Winter Bock beers fare commercially.

I especially enjoyed Greg and Jeff personally and thoroughly enjoyed their
enthusiasm for bringing a distinctive beer to the US scene.
- -----------------------------------------------
Bruce Baker from Way Down Under in NZ asked about hops and about asking and
answering on the HBD.

> I've got a few questions that I hope you can help me with:
> 
> 1.  Is there a definitive table of hop characteristics out there somewhere, 
> describing  aroma, bitterness, alpha analysis? >

Charlie Papazian's New Joy of Homebrewing, page 74 and forward. Since I don't
know if you can get a copy quickly , I will privately send you a scanned  copy
of the tables by e-mail, but I certainly do recommend you get a copy of this
book and his Homebrewer's Companion for tables like these.
 
> 2.  Do US brewers use a US gallon for a "5 gallon batch" or are they talking 
> in Imperial gallons.  Similarly, are Dave Millers gallons US or Imperial.  

U.S Gallons.  16 fluid oz to the Pint. In the US we say "a pint's a pound -the
world around"  not true, of course, the U.S. is the only place.  20 Oz in the UK
for a pint. Our quart ( 2 pints) is a little less than a liter, so 1 US gallon a
little less than 4 liters and  5 gallons is 20 liters almost.  All US authors
use 128 oz US gallons.  British authors sometime give conversion from British
gallons to US Gallons or dual recipes. Sometimes CGS or MKS systems are used.
 
> 3.  I tasted my most recent batch of Pils against three Czech varieties.  
> Mine was hoppier, had a finer head, and was quite pale.  The Czech beers were 
> a nice dark gold,

No doubt due to the long two hour boil and high pH mash

> but were also a bit skunky -- even the ones in brown bottles.

I think this is perhaps not skunkiness from light in some cases, but old Saaz
hops we smell.  I am currently trying to think of a definitive experiement.

>   They also seemed to have more body.

Probably due to the hold temperatures which encourage medium weight proteins to
be dissolved and a high temperature saccharification step.

 > From what I've read about lack of body,
>  it results from sparge water with too high Ph or temperature.  Since I've
only 
> recently learned about Ph, I can only presume that my Ph was too high.  But 
> how can that reduce body?  If I've got extra tannins, shouldn't there be too 
> much body?  How can addition lead to subtraction?

Tannins can react with proteins, come out of solution and with long lagering
fall out of the beer.  This can remove some proteins.  Tannins also possess
astringency which reduces the mouth fullness.

 
> 4.  As a newcomer to the HBD, I wonder about the protocols.  There are lots 
> of questions asked with scarcely any replies.

Too many replies to the same question is almost as bad as no reply. To my
knowledge, no one is being snobby. Often answers don't appear because everyone
thinks someone else will answer it.  Ask it again if you don't get an answer the
first time, or ask someone offline.

> My earlier questions on yeast 
> received lots of private answers with even more private mailings requesting
the 
> answers.  Why don't answers go on the HBD?  Is this because the questions are 
> deemed too elementary to answer?  The other lists I'm familiar with (BBQ, 
> chile-heads) have a lot more answers.

It's up to the author of both the question and the answer.  No protocol that
I've been able to discern. I vary myself, depending on my opinion of how
generally interesting the answer will be to others and whether or not I want to
get into a discussion on the subject privately.
- -----------------------------------------------------
BTW I may have stated my opinion on skunkiness caused by light incorrectly or at
least I confused people, based on private e-mail.  I do believe that light can
cause skunkiness.  No argument.  I just don't buy the mechanism suggested
because my information is that iso-humulone doesn't absorb light in the visible
region.  Other chromophores, energy transfer or free radicals may be
intermediates.  Also, I suspect other observations of "skunkiness" are due to
warm beer aromas, oxidation, old beer, etc.  I'm thinking of an experiment at
present to help sort this out.  Other correspondents have provided me with
literature references which I will gather up and comment.

Any thoughts definitely appreciated.
- ------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK


Return to table of contents


Date: 18 Feb 1997 11:47:54 -0700
From: Dave Hinkle <Dave.Hinkle at aexp.com>
Subject: Draught Guinness & porter connection?

Alex wrote:

<<Thanks to Rob for posting the interesting Wheeler thread on the history
of porter. I was struck by the apparent similarity of Irish draught stout,
particularly Guinness, to the description of some porter styles brewed in
the waning days.

I understand that some of today's stout brewers, including Guinness,
were originally porter brewers.>> 

When I was in Ireland last June, many old-timers in the pubs called Guinness 
porter, not stout.  Remember, stout is a relatively modern term used to 
abbreviate the original term (A Guiness marketing term in the late 1800s) 
"Stout Porter".  Guinness always made "porter", didn't they?  From Wheeler's 
writings, it is apparent that Guinness was making "entire", not "London 
Porter", but I believe the Dublin brewery started up mass-production after 
"Porter" was falling out of fashion in London?  Also, I find it quite 
interesting that in England you can still request a "black and tan", or in 
Ireland a "half & half", you know, the mixture of pale ale and stout (porter).  
The origins of this mix are much more apparent to me now thanks to Rob posting 
Wheeler's writings.  For those who haven't been fortunate enough to have 
Guinness in the mother land, it is quite different than the versions exported 
to the US - much less "burnt/bitter" tasting.  It's dry, slightly tart, very 
dark but NOT completely opaque.  I understand that the sour (& pale) beer is 
blended in at kegging / botttling time, so would this make it the last "entire 
butt" still being made today?  I seriously doubt that black patent and/or 
chocolate malt (or crystal for that matter) were ever used in "true" porter, 
either the London style or the Entire, although Wheeler indicates unorthodox 
ingedients were used in smaller country breweries to make porter 
"taste-alikes".  Seems like a pale & roast mix was and still is the best 
approximation of using all brown malt, though rations of pale to roast vary 
from 80/20 to 90/10, depending on who you ask.  I have a feeling that many US 
brewers (pro and amateur) have a mis-conception of what a dry stout (porter) 
should taste like, based on all the ones I've tasted since my trip.  The notion 
of porter in the US seems to mean a sweetish, dark and malty ale, but totally 
different from stout;  have we gone amuck in our style categories?  Perhaps our 
current AHA porter style should really be called "country porter", considering 
all the unusual ingredients seen being used like licorice, molases, honey, 
etc.?  And "stout" should really be "porter", with sour beer blended in as 
being definitive?  Those of use who were confused about porter now can have 
good reason to be! (a little knowledge is dangerous...) 

On a related note, I know that the St. Francis Abbey Brewery in Kilkenny, where 
Smithwick's and Kilkenny Irish Ale are brewed, is owned by Guiness, but I 
wondered if anyone knew what year Guinness bought the operation.  Are the 
Murphy's and Beamish breweries still independent, or are they owned by larger 
interests now?  If anyone can share some of the history of breweries in 
Ireland, I'd love to hear from you.  One last question, is Kilkenny Irish Ale 
the export version of Smithwick's Ale, or are they different?  I can't seem to 
get either in the US.  :-(

Dave Hinkle

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:10:16 -0800
From: charlie <charliep at aob.org>
Subject: Re: AOB/AHA:The $100,000 Question

I can recall the days when the American Homebrewers Association was
inspired.  There was a lot of homebrew, laughter and great ideas.  One
of which was the AHA.  I was teaching children in a private school in
those days as well as teaching homebrewing every Monday evening to
hundreds of people in Boulder, Colorado.  The idea of publishing a
journal for recipes was a novel one, that both my buddy Charlie Matzen
and I thought was a unique and perhaps fun quest.  We thought about it
for over a year before taking the plunge.

Fully financed with about $5,000 of our own money we set forth on the
endeavor that has become the Association of Brewers; an educational
organization that has members in over 70 countries numbering over
27,000.

I sometimes recall in disbelief that we had the balls to start this
whole thing with absolutely NO business plan or vision other than "hell,
we don't expect to ever see a million dollars in this business - let's
have fun while providing seriously good information."  Have a homebrew.

I taught children for 8 years, starting at a salary of $2,700 a year.
After 8 years I was earning about $11,000 a year.  That was in 1981.  I
was 31 and that was the year I left teaching (I still immensely enjoyed
teaching) to take a pay cut to $3,600 a year to do "this beer thing" we
now call the AHA/AOB.

For those of you who are aware of the personal attacks on me, I must
sincerely admit I am very uncomfortable defending what I hear has been
said about me (I haven't personally read these messages, but have been
told about their general nature).  I don't feel it necessary to defend
my personal lifestyle, philosophy, reasons for being involved in the
beer business, my salary, or my position at the Association of Brewers.

I've been very happy being involved with the Association of Brewers for
19 years now.  I feel extremely fortunate that I still love what I do.
I'm fortunate to have a great Board of Directors and supporting staff
that has allowed me to pursue new ideas and the dreams I have for the
Association, while still maintaining my day to day contact with the
operations.  My job description has changed a lot over 19 years.  From
the time I use to paste up Zymurgy magazine with rubber cement and cut
galley type with scissors to learning how to evolve as a manager to now
serving roles of helping develop new programs and ideas that will best
serve beer enthusiasts and brewers, hopefully for years to come.

I still love what I'm doing and am still trying to figure out how to
develop more of my personal life (life is not all beer and vittles). 
Trying to work less than 50 hours a week, reduce travels, reduce stress,
be at home more, develop other interests, spend less time in bars (it's
uniquely part of my job), enjoy my own homebrew the way most of you
enjoy homebrew - with friends.  In many ways I'm not too different than
most of the people who are members, who work for living, build a
business and care about the quality of their lives.

There's really nothing in my life that I feel the need to defend.  I
enjoy it immensely and the fact that I've been part of a team here at
the Association of Brewers that has helped increase the quality of life
for millions of people in the United States and in other parts of the
world. It feels really neat to have a great staff, supporting members
who offer constructive comments and to see positive results.  "It's
cool."  And I would wish this for anyone else who has the notion of
helping others improve the quality of life.

Homebrewing is fun.  It was always meant to be.  I know there are
several individuals out there, pecking away at their keyboards who are
NOT having fun homebrewing.  Homebrewing for me is not about being
angry.  Our Association of Brewers was designed for people who enjoy the
brewing industry - be it homebrewers, professional brewers, industry
suppliers and beer enthusiasts (it may not be very meaningful to angry
homebrewers). For those of you who are angry, thankfully for all of us
in this country, you have the choice to stress, be angry and have a
homebrew.  You even have the opportunity to form the kind
of organization that serves your own needs.  It's a choice we all have.

Finally, I'd like to tap out a few most important words of thanks to all
those beer enthusiasts and brewers out there that provide the
Association of Brewers the support and continuing confidence that has
allowed us to provide the educational and informational services,
products and events that millions of Americans have benefited from or
have been touched by.

It's kind of "cool" to be doing something for 19 years and still be
enjoying the job and the people who are involved with the international
community of brewers.

Relax ... Have a Homebrew!

Charlie

- -- 
Charlie Papazian
President
Association of Brewers            (303) 447-0816        (voice)
736 Pearl Street                  (303) 447-2825        (fax)
PO Box 1679                       charliep at aob.org  	(e-mail)
Boulder, CO  80306-1679           info at aob.org          (aob info)
U.S.A.                            http://beertown.org	(web)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 13:01 PST
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: re: Blonde Ale

Tim asks about a blonde ale recipe in hbd 2347.

Here's one, leave out the strawberries and it makes a nice plain blonde.
=======================================
Strawberry Blonde Ale (5 gallons)

Original recipe as it appeared in July '96 Brew Your Own magazine:

0.5 lb 2-row pale malt
0.5 lb light crystal (15 to 20L) or cara-pils malt
1/8 tsp. winemaker's acid or citric acid
6 lbs extra light dry malt extract (or 6.6 lpbs extra light malt syrup)
1 oz mild flavoring hop (2-3% alpha)
10-14 g. dry yeast or liquid Wyeast 1056
4 lbs fresh strawberries
7/8 cup corn sugar

Step by Step:

Toast the pale malt in 350F oven for 15 minutes, then crack it coarsely. 
Steep the toasted malt along with the light crystal or cara-pils malt in 
2.25 gals of cold water. Bring water up to 170F, remove the grains, and 
rinse them in a strainer or colander back into the fermenter with 3 or 4 
pints of 170F water. Add acid blend or citric acid, and continue heating the 
water until boiling. Add extract or syrup to the kettle. Return to boil, add 
 .5 oz hop such as Mt Hood, Crystal , or Willamette. Boil 30 minutes add 
another .5 oz of the same hop, boit 15 minutes longer, remove from heat and 
cool. Top up fermenter to 5.25 glas, cool to 75F and pitch yeast. Ferment 
through the primary stage as usual (a bit on the cool side, 65F to 70F). 
When ready to transfer to the secondary, prepare strawberries by immersing 
them for 10 minutes in 160F water then cooling rapidly. Place berries in 
bottom of your secondary, rack your beer onto them (avoic splashing - 
strawberries tend to emphasize stale flavors created by oxidation), then age 
for about a week. You can rack this beer into a third vessel for a few days 
to give it a better chance of clearning. When you are ready to bottle, prime 
with corn sugar. Age no more than two weeks and consume quickly. The 
delicate flavor of the strawberries will fade in the bottle.

Here's what I did:

substituted 9 lbs of 2-row malt for the extract
combined cara-pils with 2-row in the mash
mashed for 30 minutes  at  132
mashed for 60 minutes more  at  152
added toasted malt into the lauter tun at lauter time
Used Saaz hops  at  2.88 (.5 oz 60 min, .5 oz 15 min)
Added 1 lb raw honey at end of boil
Froze strawberries 24 hours before secondary
Cooked strawberries in 170 degree heat for 20 minutes
Used Wyeast 1056

11 days primary
1 week in secondary
1 week in tertiery

Kegged and force carbonated. 

It tasted great, but it never did clear, even with polyclar in the tertiery.

OG 1.052
FG  1.005

Called it my Honey Berry Blonde



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:22:51 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: rack off hop pellets?/bottle fillers/iodophor

More very old topics...

Tom writes:
>I am an extract brewer and my question is, should you or shouldn't you rack 
>the wort off the hop pellet and/or spice-herb residue from the boil before 
>primary ferm.? 

You're probably better off racking off of that stuff.  Personally, when I used
pellets, I simply used a large polyester hop bag for the hops and added
10% more hops to compensate for the bag.  After the boil, you simply remove
the bag and, with it, about 95% of the pellets.   There will be no noticeable
bitterness further extracted from the hops... no, that's not the problem...
the only problem could be when the pellets rose up on the kraeusen they
could help clog the airlock/blowoff tube.  That's about the only reason to
bother removing them (and an easier time racking once the beer is done).

***

Jacques writes:
>Results: less airspace in the bottle, less foaming during bottling, the 
>beer keeps fresh a lot longer , and...the judges give a higher score. 
>IMHO  the comercial bottle fillers using a spring valve create too much 
>oxidation and foaming 
>I hope this helps. 
 
Less headspace is fine for counter-pressure-filled, force-carbonated
beer, but that's not what's being discussed here.  This post was about
filling bottles with primed, uncarbonated beer for bottle-conditioning.
If the beer is uncarbonated, it should not foam upon filling unless you
have a very large height difference between the top of the beer in the
source container and the bottom of the filling tube.  A large height
difference means that there will be a lot of pressure (head) and the
the beer will go into the bottle with great force (and significant
oxidation, true).

I've used an orange-tipped, spring-loaded filler for nearly 10 years
and my beers have been remarkably free from oxidation problems (one
notable example was an 18-month-old, 1.034 OG, English Mild that made
it to the 2nd round of the AHA National Competition).  I believe that
that the key to my success is that when I siphon the beer into the
bottles, I raise the bottle and filler so the bottom of the filler
is just below the level of the beer in the source containter so that
the flow is very slow until the bottom of the filler is covered with
beer.  Then, I lower the bottle and filler so the filling doesn't
take an hour.

Granted, when you remove these fillers, there is quite a bit of
headspace left, but I don't think it is a problem (judging from
my experience).  There si one other think that should be considered
when it comes to small headspaces.  Experiments that I (and others)
have done and posted to the HBD indicate that a high fill (less than
1/2" or about 1.25cm or so) results in much slower carbonation and
possibly even a lower final carbonation level.  See the archives for
details -- search for "fill AND carbonation" -- I'm pretty sure this
search has already been done before.

***
Patrick  writes:
>I am finding it difficult to locate iodophor here in Australia.  I
>just noticed that the active ingredients were listed in my brand-new
>copy of "Brew Ware", so I am considering getting the iodine and
>phosphoric acid and making my own.

There is more to iodophor than just free iodine and phosphoric
acid.  While some iodophors do have phosphoric acid in them, the
"phor" in "iodophor" stands for "carrier" an not "phosphoric."
The iodine is bound up in a carrier (the one I use says:
"Butoxy polypropoxy polyethoxy ethanol-iodine complex and polyethoxy
polyproposy polyethoxy ethanol-iodine complexes").  The carrier
slowly releases free iodine as the iodine it gets used up.

You can probably get iodophor from restaurant supply stores or maybe
stores that cater to dairy farmers.  Just be careful to not get
the type that has lanolin in it (e.g. "teat dip").


Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 13:32 PST
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Best Porter for Style Demonstration

Thanks to Rob Moline and Graham Wheeler for the wonderful writeups on 
Porter. I get to do a dog/pony show at next months homebrew meeting about 
Porter. What are the group's feelings about which Porters I should bring for 
sampling?

Charley


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:46:41 GMT
From: mra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Stupid newbie tricks

Greetings, fellow HBDers!

Please help out a poor, confused newbie.

I made what was intended to be an extract IPA with the following
recipe. It was my second-ever batch.
3.3 lbs Gold Northwestern LME
3.3 lbs Amber Northwestern LME
1/2 lb Maris Otter
1/2 lb 40L Crystal
2 oz. 7.7% AAU Perle (60 mins)
1 oz. 5.5% AAU Cascade (15 mins)
1/2 oz. 5.5 % AAU Cascade (5 mins)
2 pkgs dry ale

It is not bitter. At all. With that much hops in it (BTW, due to a
miscalculation in the amount of sparge water to rinse off the
specialty grains, this ended up being about a 3.5-4 gallon boil). I
put the hops in a little "tea bag" my wife made out of scrap linen.
It's about 6.5" x 5". I used it to avoid getting the wort filled with
hop pellet floaties. The 2 oz of Perle became quite water logged and
almost filled up the whole bag after the 45 minute point came to add
the 1 oz Cascade. I just ended up chucking the last 1/2 oz into the
brewpot because there was absolutely no way it would get in the tea
bag. 

Question 1: Did this destroy my hop utilization to the point that the
beer isn't at all bitter?

Question 2: How much water should I use to sparge the 1 lb of grains?

Question 3: My grain bag isn't particularly fine. The grains stayed
in, but I shook all the husks out beforehand to avoid
floaties/tannins, etc. Is this OK, or should I get a bag with a finer
mesh?

Question 4: Is my grain bill adequate for an IPA? My OG was 1.038,
once again, I think too much water took it's toll.

FWIW, my first batch was a simple 3 gallon Pale Ale: 3.3 lbs Gold LME,
1 oz Cascade (60 mins), 1/2 oz Cascade (15 mins), full 3 gallon boil
(down to 2.5 gallons). It was quite bitter and I liked it alot. Used
the tea bag for this as well.

In the end, I have a pretty respectable Amber Ale, but it certainly
isn't the hoppy IPA I was shooting for. Any hints or suggestions would
be appreciated.

I now return you to the Home Botulism Digest,
  Matt

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:55:29 -0500
From: Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan at bmd.cpii.com>
Subject: Homemade EM

>Any EM, whether home-made or not, need to sit a few inches above the bottom
>of the boiling kettle (not so in the mash tun) so as not to pick up any
>break material or other scum.  
A few inches from the bottom!  If you're using a half-barrel keg as a
boiling kettle, you're going to leave a *lot* of wort behind.  Put the EM on
the bottom and use whole hops.  The hops will filter out the scum and give
you a nice clear wort.
>My biggest concern still exists though.  The
>stainless screen I have to construct this with is a very fine mesh, but
>also quite sturdy.  I still don't see how it will not be crushed by the
>wieght of a 20# grain bill without any frame to support it.  Am I worrying
>to much?
Yes.  Roll the stuff into a cylinder and see how much it takes to crush it.
With an EM design, I bet the mash is nearly self supporting; the EM is just
a tunnel. 

Bob

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McCowan                            
                                     
ATG/Receiver-Protector            voice:  (508)-922-6000 x208
CPI BMD				    fax:  (508)-922-8914
Beverly, MA  01915               e-mail:  bob.mccowan at bmd.cpii.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:09:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Goeke <sgoeke at fhcrc.org>
Subject: Lots O' Trub

	Howdy!  I am a somewhat experienced brewer with a new development
I'd like some info on from the rest of you out there.  While aerating my
current batch of brew (an Alt with seven pounds of fermentables), it
foamed rather considerably after I slipped and it fell on its side and
rolled for a ways.  everything seemed fine, but I noticed that I've got at
least twice the amount of trub as usual.  Should I worry for my poor beer?

Scott


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:35:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Seyler <tad at bimcore.emory.edu>
Subject: what else? botulism/mash methods

In response to wonderment by Mark Taratoot, Energo Ed stated:
>Mark Taratoot wonders:
>>I am specifically suspect of the outright claim that temperatures above
>>240F are REQUIRED to kill clostridium spores.
>
>You should be, because it's 121 deg celsius. (~250 deg F)

Actually, it's not so simple as that.  A wide range of factors affect the
heat stability of Clostridal spores.  Water, fat content, salt, other
solutes, pH, microbial concentration, organism age, presence of inhibitory
compounds, and duration of treatment must be taken into condsideration
when calculating the temperature REQUIRED to kill the spores. 
Additionally, the strain type must be considered.  One way to measure heat
resistance is by thermal decimal reduction values (D values).  D values
are the time duration in minutes required to reduce the population by a
factor of 10.  That is, it is the reciprocal of the slope of the survival
curve.  So, if 10^9 spores are present (very unlikely), heating for 10
times the D value would be suffcient to inactivate all the spores.  The
non-proteolytic strains generally have thermal D values, at less than 85C,
of less than 2 minutes. For example, C. botulinum type F non-proteolytic
spores heated to 82.5C in phosphate buffer or crabmeat had D values from
0.25-0.84 minutes (1).  The greatest heat resistance I have heard of for
botulinum spores was for proteolytic type A spores where at 110C D values
were just under 3 minutes in phosphate buffer (2). 

To add to the nice summary and reasonable advice offered by Jack Mowbray
who wrote in HBD #2888:
>
>2) Temperature, water activity, pH and the presence of oxygen all have an
>impact on the growth of C. botulinum.
>
>3) The reason there is a concern with low acid canned foods is because they
>are stored at room temperature, have a pH above 4.6, have a water activity
>(more on that later) that supports bacterial growth and anaerobic 
>conditions.
>
>4) #3 is the reason it is necessary to kill C. Botulinum spores.

I would emphasize that C. botulinum is very non-competitive, too.  That
is, the cells seldom grow very well in the company of other bacteria
(there are a few exceptions).  This is another reason botulism is
associated with low heat canned food, where most all of the competing
flora is killed.  This is also why infant botulism occurs, there is little
resident microbial flora in the intestinal tracts of infants, allowing
germination, growth, and toxin production of C. botulinum. 

>5) Foods that are acidified (ph below 4.6) can be rendered shelf stable in
>boiling water baths at atmospheric pressures.

True, as long as no heat resistant organims that raise the pH are present.

>6) Refrigerated temperatures, pH lower than 4.6, water activity below .85
>and the presence of oxygen (any one or a combination of these) will
>prevent the germination of C. botulinum spores. 

While it is true that most C. botulinum strains require water activities
in the 0.94-0.97 range, there have been reports of growth and toxin
production in broth by non-proteolytic strains (Types B and F) at
temperatures as low as 3.3C (3).  The proteolytic strains (which tend to be
the ones that produce more heat resistant spores) are generally less
tolerant of cold and will not grow at temps below about 10-12C (2). 

>Bottom line: If you want to preserve wort so that it is safe to store at
>room temperatures, you should pressure can it. Otherwise, just keep it in
>the refrigerator and it will be just fine. There is no need to reboil
>before pitching. 

Thanks, Jack; good advice.

References:
1. Lynt, R.K., et al. 1979. Heat resistance of nonproteolytic Clostridium 
boutulinum type F in phosphate buffer and crabmeat. J. Food Sci. 44:108-111.

2. Jay, J.M. 1986. Modern food microbiology. 3rd ed., Chapter 19 Food 
poisoning caused by Gram positive sporeforming bacteria. Van Nostrand 
Reinhold, New York, NY.
 
3. Solomon, et al. 1982. Effect of low temperatures on growth of 
nonproteolytic Clostridium botulinum types B and F and proteolytic type G 
in crabmeat and broth. J. Food Protect. 45:516-518.
- ---------------------
I have seen somewhere on the web, a homebrewer's site describing a mash 
system where the mash is recirculated through a copper coil in the hot 
liquor tank, for temp boosts.  I am interested in hearing from anyone who 
uses this method, or the location of the web site.  I am interested in 
setting up something similar but I have questions including:  How hot do 
you maintain the hot liquor tank?  How long is the coil and what's the 
rate of flow through the coil?  I have been using direct steam injection 
with good success but have noticed an astringency in my lighter beers 
like cream ales that I think may be attributable to the steam.  My crush 
is coarse, the pH never gets above 5.5, I don't oversparge, my sparge 
water is 170F, my pH strips and thermometers have been checked against 
our lab equipment; I can't think of anything else.  Single infusions seem 
less affected than beers with a lot of steam heat steps, and beers with a 
lot of wheat, rice, or corn are less affected (no husk material).  
Anyway, I thought I would play around with another heating system 
(mashtun is a 10 gal Gott) so I am open to suggestions.  TIA!

- --Tad Seyler <tad at bimcore.emory.edu>
  Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, Emory University, Atlanta GA.

Return to table of contents