HOMEBREW Digest #2389 Thu 03 April 1997
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/up_level_button.gif)
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
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:
World Cup Results (DAVE SAPSIS)
sulphates and pH/mash heating/Wales/protein rests/AHA competition (korz)
ADDRESS REQUEST ("MS1 Lapell")
stretchy scum in bottles and fermenter/blowoff/spores (korz)
decoction and wheat (Brian Dulisse-1)
Re: alpha and beta amylase (Steve Alexander)
Plate type heat exchanger (haszarda)
Electric Immersion Chiller (Jim Elden)
Protien Spectrum (DepThought)
Alt recipe (Matthew Arnold)
March in Montreal / Planispiral chiller / Black and Tan / lost mail (Eamonn McKernan)
Incomplete conversion? Starch? - summary (Dave Riedel)
Bittering Hops - what's the difference? / Hop Survey (Dave Riedel)
Shorter brew day (Randy Ricchi)
1997 National Homebrew Competition ("Brian M. Rezac")
Re:RE: Wyeast 1275 (John Lifer jr)
New Orleans Homebrew Supply (DD)
RE: Setup in New House (Art Steinmetz)
glass grenades? & distilling questions (kathy)
RE: AHA ("Richard Scotty")
AHA NHC Again (Bill Giffin)
barbeque conversion (Joe Shope)
Kegging preferences/Isinglass (Dave Bartz)
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 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 from:
brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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, 1 Apr 1997 10:52:43 -0800
From: DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov (DAVE SAPSIS)
Subject: World Cup Results
World Cup '97 is now behind us. A big thank you to all our sponsors,
entrants, and folks who helped out. A smashing success. Lots of fine
efforts all around. Mailings targeted to go out by the end of the
week. 163 entries, the winners are:
1997 WORLD CUP OF BEER WINNERS
CATEGORY BREWER STYLE
America 1
first: Nancy Hawkins Cream Ale
second: Eric Chang/Steve Bruce Cal. Common
third: Mike Riddle Cal. Common
America 2
first: Matt McDougal Am. Pale Ale
second: Ray Francisco Am. Pale Ale
third: Eric Chang/Steve Bruce Am. Pale Ale
Belgium 1
first: Richard Mansfield Tripel
second: Lee Shephard Tripel
third: Forest Gray Dubbel
Belgium 2
first: Gary Harstead lambic- kriek
second: Martin Wilde lambic-peche
third: Ray Francisco gueze
Austria
first: John Cary Marzen
second: John Cammarota Vienna
third Brian Schwind/
Brian Bumgarden Marzen
Czech Republic
first: Ken Schroeder Pilsner
second: Ray Fransisco Pilsner
third: Jim Johnson Pilsner
England 1
first: Ray Francisco Best Bitter
second: Tyler Yarbrough ESB
third: Doug Ashcraft Ordinary Bitter
England 2
first: Ray Francisco Porter
second: Mike Ollinger Porter
third: Pat Laughran Porter
Germany
first: Tom Strand Doppelbock
second: John Cary Maibock
third: John Cammarota Traditional Bock
Ireland
first: William Warren/
Nile Zacherle Dry Stout
second: Pat Laughran Dry Stout
third: Jack Dawson Dry Stout
Scotland 1
first: Chad Thistle Scotch Ale
second: Leigh Ann Hussey Scotch Ale
third: Paul Wright Old Ale
Scotland 2
first: Scott Bickham Barleywine
second: Ray Francisco Barleywine
third: Norman Dickenson/
Rick Larson Barleywine
Best Of Show: Ray Francisco Porter
--dave
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 13:19:27 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: sulphates and pH/mash heating/Wales/protein rests/AHA competition
Sorry, but I deleted the author's name of this post:
>Why is Burton-on-Trent famous for its pale ales, while Munich is known for
>its darker beers? It's because of the brewing water's pH. OK, it's really
>from the dissolved minerals in the water, but that's what changes the
>water's pH. Lighter grains leave a higher pH in a solution of neutral water
>than darker, more acidic grains. Water that has a high concentration of
>Sulfates is lower in pH than neutral water. Put another way, water that is
>high in Sulfates is good for brewing pale grains in because the resulting pH
>allows the enzymes to work most efficiently. To sum up, adding Gypsum lowers
>pH, while adding Chalk raises pH. Burton-on-Trent water is high in Sulfates
>(just like adding lots of Gypsum), and thus lends itself to the making of
>pale ales. (This water also accentuates the bitterness of hops, and
>therefore is useful for making very hoppy beers.) Darker grains, and thus
>darker beers, are made where the water is high in carbonates. So all of the
>arguments about matching water to your favorite brewing locale pretty much
>boils down to getting the right pH balance for the type of grains that you
>want to use. One more word about salts and pH. Chalk does not readily
>dissolve in neutral water. It needs a slightly acidic environment to be
>suspended in (such as grains in water in your mash tun).
This is mostly right except for the pH effect from sulphates. It's the
calcium in the Burton-upon-Trent water that causes the mash pH to go down
and not the sulphates. It's true that Burton water is high in sulphates
but it's also high in calcium. Gypsum is calcium sulphate and again,
the calcium is the ion that reacts with the mash to lower the pH. Other
than that, yes, carbonate water requires the more acidic, darker grains
to get a more reasonable mash pH (Dublin is an even better example with
carbonate levels upwards of 700 and they are famous for their stout).
***
Randy writes:
>1. The main question is, how important is it to raise the temperature to
>the next step relatively quickly, or are gradual increases in temperature
>not a problem? What says the collective?
The risk with raising the temperature too fast is scorching. Traditionally,
the rate among commercial brewers has been 1 degree C per minute (if I
remember correctly from one of George Fix's articles).
>2. In about two weeks, I will be in Cardiff, Wales area (reading HBD from
>the laptop). Can anyone recommend to me (via private e-mail) the best way
>to spend my beer hunting time? I am looking for brewery tours (Brains does
>not offer one this time of year) and the best pubs.
Across the street from Brains brewery there is a corner pub which serves
well over a dozen guest beers from all over Wales and England. Very
upscale decor (Saloon bar) so you may feel a little odd in cutoffs and
a t-shirt. Great food, too!
***
Dave writes:
>Charlie Rich partially quotes me and gives me the opportunity to once again
>say - if one is giving advice on temperature and holds it is necessary to
>indicate the type of malt and grist composition being used. In my
>discussion I was addressing predominantly the case for people who wanted to
>decoct pale ALE malt. Malts that do fine in single malt infusions - AKA
>pale Ale malts already have plenty of protein and parking at the protein
>rests at 135F will produce perhaps more Mid-Mw protein than desired. This
>could lead to excessive chill haze.
Isn't it the high-molecular-weight proteins that contribute to haze and
not the medium-weight? Also, simply saying "Pale Ale" malt is incompleat
(yes, arcane, but I like it). I find that DeWolf-Cosyns Pale Ale malt
is far less modified than many *Pilsner* malts. When I use DWC Pale
Ale malt, if I don't do a protein rest (I do it at 135 to 140F), I get
a half-gallon of cold break in the fermenter! This is far too much, in
my opinion and this is why I have taken to doing a protein rest with
this malt whenever I use it.
>I suggested for pale ALE malts to avoid this problem, move to 145F and
>allow it to drop to 140F or so over the time it takes for the decoction.
>The reasoning being that If this malt is fine for a single temperature
>infusion it already has the correct protein balance, etc. Moving to 145F
>is in the middle of the beta amylase region, but so what? Limited alpha
>activity at this temperature does not give the beta anything to operate on,
>so very limited simple sugars get produced. The reason for moving to 145F
>was to denature all the proteinaceous enzymes so as to not upset the
>protein balance in this malt intended for a single infusion.
I believe (working under the assumption that HMW proteins are responsible
for cold break and haze) that it does not hurt to break down those HMW
proteins down to MMW proteins. I have not noticed problems with chill haze
on any of these beers, in fact, I believe that protein rests will only
decrease chill haze. Comments?
***
Just for the record, I think that the judging at the AHA Nationals tends
to be variable, I too have had the AHA lose scoresheets, but California
has had more than it's share of AHA 1st-place ribbons: except for last
year when the Chicago Beer Society won the HB Club of the Year Award,
the Sonoma Beerocrats were 9-time winners, if I'm not mistaken.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 20:59:58 +0000
From: "MS1 Lapell" <lapelll at nassau.navy.mil>
Subject: ADDRESS REQUEST
Would anyone having the address of East Coast Brewing Supply in
Staten Is.NY please forward it to me by private email preferably
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:00:32 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: stretchy scum in bottles and fermenter/blowoff/spores
Randy writes:
>It seems whenever I brew a beer with a weizen or a belgian yeast, I get
>rings around the necks of my bottles. The beers taste fine, so I don't
>think they're infected. If I had this problem with only my weizens or
>witbiers, I would think they might be "protein rings", but I've noticed
>this same phenomenon in my all-barley belgian ales as well. I don't have
>this problem with my other ales or lagers. I either do step infusions, or
>(usually with weizens)single decoctions.
<snip>
>By the way, I have a weizen in secondary right now and there is a film on
>the surface of the beer. It sort of looks like an oil slick and where it
>contacts the carboy sides, the smudge looks like the same stuff I get in my
>bottles. Once again, the beer tastes fine.
I tried blaming that kind of ring on proteins, but later found that it's
bacterial... it's some kind of aerobic bacteria, I think. Try switching
to filtered air or oxygen for aerating/oxygenating and see if that doesn't
fix the problem.
***
Mark writes:
>For many years I have been using the blow off tube to deal with the ferment
>head. In my five gallon carboy it seemed like the the thing to do. I
>recently went to a 6.5 gallon glass for primary. I'm curious (the curse of
>being a homebrewer, eh?)... what are the opinions of any who do either way
>(to blow off or not to blow off) and especially those that have done both.
>Comments could be couched regarding off flavors, etc., with mentions of
I have an article on this very subject in the May/June 1996 issue of
Brewing Techniques. You can read the article for the details, but the
bottom line is that even experienced judges found that bitterness was
the only difference. Tests at the Siebel Institute backed up these
findings. Protein, higher alcohol, and ester levels were not that
different. Blowoff reduced IBUs by 13 to 18%.
Also, don't believe what Dave says about blowoff tubes being sources of
infection... I use 1" ID blowoff hoses and they may be stained but
all the crud comes off from a 1-day soak in bleach water. Furthermore,
how could the infection crawl out of the tube and into the fermenter?
***
This reminds me that a few months ago, Dave asked what yeasts produce
spores... since I'm at home nursing a slipped disk (brewing related, but
not from heavy lifting), I can wobble over to the library and get
MBS.
>From page 529... Saccharomyces, Pichia, Hansenula, and Sporobolomycetes
are some of the genera that form spores. Incidentally, this last genus
of yeast form ballistospores. Could this be the way that infections get
from the blowoff tube to the wort? ;^)
I also happen to know (thanks to Jim Liddil) that the difference between
Brettanomyces and Dekkera genera are that the former does not form spores
whereas the latter does.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
Return to table of contents
Date: 1 Apr 97 12:38:08 EDT
From: Brian Dulisse-1 <Brian_Dulisse-1 at sbphrd.com>
Subject: decoction and wheat
the decoction thread has been excellent, the best thing we've had here in a
while . . .
a question: does decoction offer lautering benefits when using mashes
containing a relatively high (50 - 70%) proportion of malted wheat? given the
discussion, if there's no lautering benefit, i may start experimenting with
infusion mashed weizen . . . it would be nice to be able to chop a bit of time
off the process.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:24:13 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Re: alpha and beta amylase
Edward J. Basgall wrote that Simon Gilroy wrote that I wrote ...
>>.... Also that the beta-amylase is concentrated in the
>>>allurone layer(sub husk) and the outer portion of the endosperm.
...
>re: the sources of amylase enzymes in malted barley....
>>aleurone is an endosperm tissue
>>
>>beta amylase is found in the starchy endosperm - there's a neat story about
>>a-amylase activating the beta amylase that was laid down as the endosperm
>>formed by breaking the starch grains it is trapped in. Aleurone produces a
>>bit of every hydrolytic enzyme knwon to man but beta amylase is not its
>>major thing.
I should have written (and spelled) 'sub-aleurone' - mea culpa.
Beta-amylase is found in the endosperm. Protein and enzyme
concentration in malt both decrease at you go deeper into the starchy
endosperm. Aleurone tissue is listed as a BA source in the Enzyme
Handbook, tho' it's concentration is not. But BA is not, from my
reading available within in the starch granules per se. Is it part of
the starch granule surface?
The version of the 'neat story' that I have seen in the reviewed
literature is that it has been known since the 1940s that another
hydrolase, a papain-like protease is responsible for freeing BA from a
larger protein, and that virtually all of the BA present in malt is
also present in the raw grain endosperm. A large fraction, but not all
is in this bound form. The activity of the freed BA increases
dramatically. I have several recent papaers showing that there are
several isoenzymes of BA formed this way - different molecular
weights, possibly differentiated by proteolysis.
I'd be most interested in reading the reference source of Simons'
description for further information. It's certain that my
understanding in this area is incomplete. Is a limited hydrolysis
with enzymes supplied by the aleurone layer the first step making the
endosperms granule surface matter soluble when malting ? Or can the
endosperm absorb water and enzymes without enzymatic degradation from
the aleuone tissue?
>>>Alpha-amylase is formed in the embryo and concentrated near the
>>>embryo/endosperm barrier tissues. ...
...
>>The embryo does make some amylase (wimpy). Its the scutellum (cotyledon)
>>that is the best amylase tissue for the embryo and it is the organ that
>>makes the endosperm/embryoo border. But if you wnat amylase the aleurone is
>>the place to be!
The scutellum is listed as part of the embryo in the source I've just
checked [do I need a new reference?]. It is the portion of the embryo
at the embryo/endosperm layer just as I've indicated.
Actually if I'd read my M&BS more closely I'd have realized that they
estimate that 85% OF AA is from the aleurone and 15% from the
scutellum. This surprises me.
>>www.bio.psu.edu/faculty/gilroy/lab.html
Some nice stuff here and on the links to Jones Lab at UC Berkeley.
Thanks for the correction, sincerely, and even more for the improved
understanding.
- --
Re: the original HBD topic tho - the realization that the aleurone
layer is the most significant source of AA doesn't detract from the
argument that AA is largely soluble shortly after cracked malt hits
the mash water.
Steve Alexander
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 15:51:21 EST
From: haszarda at stricom.army.mil
Subject: Plate type heat exchanger
Does anybody have or know of any plans for construction of a plate type
heat exchanger? Are these devices applicable as wort chillers?
Thanks,
Mac (email - haszarda at stricom.army.mil)
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:43:05 -0500
From: Jim Elden <elden at accumedic.com>
Subject: Electric Immersion Chiller
With the summer weather just around the corner, I
will no longer have the luxury of tap water that is
<40F. A discussion with a friend, who is well-versed
in air-conditioning technology, resulted in the idea
that we could construct an immersion chiller from
1) a recycled air-conditioner
2) a plate-sytle heat exchanger
3) a copper-coil immersion wort chiller
4) a circulator pump
5) propylene glycol (anti-freeze 50/50 might just do)
The idea would be to run the coolant from the air
conditioner through one side of the heat exchanger
and the glycol through the other. The glycol would
be circulated through the wort chiller coil.
How many BTUs does it take to chill 10 gallons of
wort from boiling to 70F, in a reasonable time?
I'll only attempt this project if it can be done
with a 110v unit.
Has anyone else done anything like this?
Am I nuts?
Is my beer ruined? <g>
Should I build a counterflow chiller instead?
Jim
See the brewery at
http://www.accumedic.com/docs/jim/
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:06:41 -0500 (EST)
From: DepThought at aol.com
Subject: Protien Spectrum
Al says:
> There are two groups of proteolytic enzymes at
>work in the "protein rest" range which is about 112 or 113F to about
>140F (45-60C). 122F (50C) is sort-of the "middle" of the range and
>is said to be the temperature that maximizes the contibutions of both
>groups of proteolytic enzymes.
>Peptidases create amino acids from proteins of all sizes and the
>proteases create medium-sized (body-building and head-retaining)
>proteins from large (haze-producing and break-producing) proteins.
I've been contemplating proteases and peptidases and alpha and beta amylase,
how they work. My understanding is that the beta amylase and peptidase
(herafter referred to as "beta protease" per a related thread) "nibble" at
the ends of the starches and protiens, producing only single sugars and amino
acids, while the "alpha" proteases and amylases "chop" large strings into
smaller ones. Being of an analytical bent (and having entirely too much time
on my hands) I built a little computer model to compare and contrast beta and
alpha activity.
Starting with a population of molecule chains all of length 300 and letting
either the alpha or beta "enzymes" loose for a few hundred iterations, I
found that the beta enzymes left with you with a lot of single molecules, a
fair number of really big molecules, and NOTHING in between. In the protien
department, this translates to
plenty of yeast nutrition, a good amount of break, but no mouth feel. In
contrast, the alpha run showed a fairly uniform distribution of molecule
lengths. The single molecule numbers were still 75% of the beta run (little
yeasties are far from starving) but break should be greatly reduced, and
mouth feel greatly increased.
Bottom line: I'm not going to worry about the beta range in protien rests any
more, although there's still a balance to be struck in starch conversion. I
have had some very tasty beers with very poor head retention lately, and I
think the 122 deg rest is the culprit. I rested my last brew at 135 deg, and
I'll bet I'll see a big improvement.
Thanks for indulging my long windedness. My little exercise helped my
understanding of brewing chemistry. I hope it didn't bore y'all too much :)
Pat King
DepThought at aol.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 23:32:26 GMT
From: mra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Alt recipe
Greeting collective homebrewing (sub/un)conscience:
I recently made an extract Alt. FWIW, here's the recipe:
6.6# Northwestern Amber LME
1# 40L Crystal
1/3# Chocolate
2 oz 8.8% N. Brewer pellets (60 mins)
2 pkg Munton's dry yeast
Four days in primary (68 F), eleven in secondary (45-50 F)
It turned out rather nicely, but I would like to make it more
authentic. I don't have immediate access to Ireks extract, plus it is
almost twice as expensive as Northwestern. To improve this recipe, I'm
going to try a liquid yeast (Wyeast German Ale or European Ale). I
also thought of ditching the crystal malt and replacing it with a
pound or so of Munich malt and do a partial-mash. Would this give me
the flavor I'm looking for, or would I need more Munich? (And would I
need a protein rest, or can I do a single-step infusion with Munich?)
I'm trying to find Zum Uerige (sp?) or the like so I can get a better
idea of what I should be shooting at. I've tried August Schell
Schmaltz Alt and Summit's Duesseldorfer-Style Altbier. They were
entirely different, and I'm not sure which one is more "stylistically
correct." I'm not _overly_ anal about getting the style absolutely
perfect, OTOH I don't just want a glorified amber ale, either.
I've seen a lot of Alt recipes with hop additions for flavor and aroma
(some even with dry-hopping). Am I right in my understanding that an
Alt is to have very little or no hop flavor and aroma at all, just big
bitterness?
Thanks as always,
Matt
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:40:29 -0500
From: Eamonn McKernan <eamonn at atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca>
Subject: March in Montreal / Planispiral chiller / Black and Tan / lost mail
Hi all,
I recieved some mail from someone about corporate sponsorship for
the Canadian Amateur Brewers Association. I deleted it accidentally
before getting the information back to the individual in question. I now
have the answers if you're out there...
- ----------------------
Does anyone know how a Black and Tan works? Apparently pouring Guiness
on top of Smithwicks creates a layered beer which is stable. I've never
seen one myself, but viscocity alone won't explain it to my satisfaction.
And if the SG of Guiness is higher (is it?) it should sink to the bottom.
Any thoughts?
- ------------
Some of you may recall from a while back that I had some problems
implementing Ed Hitchcock's planispiral wort chiller. This chiller is a
copper tubing immersion chiller with all the coils in a plane circling
towards the centre, suspended at the top of the wort. Cold wort on top
creates a convective flow which obviates the need for stirring.
I believe the solution is as follows: Ed had all of his coils
touching each other in a tight loop near the perimeter of his pot. My
coils were fairly evenly spaced all the way to the centre of my bucket.
In order for strong convection to form, it makes more sense to have a
strong localised flux of heat, rather than a diffuse, weaker flux. Ed's
works, mine didn't. I now have a counterflow chiller, so I don't intend
to test this hypothesis, but anyone interested in building one is advised
to keep their coils as closely spaced as possible.
Any experimental results from planispiral immersion chillers would be
interesting to hear...
- ------------
Below are the results of the Canadian Amateur Brewer's
Association's March in Montreal contest. Thanks to all who entered!
Hopefully I'll be able to offer more warning in the future... In fact,
here's some warning about our next event: The Great Canadian Homebrew
conference and competition are scheduled for June 7. More details to
follow when I get them.
Cheers,
Eamonn McKernan
eamonn at atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca
MARCH IN MONTREAL 1997
AND THE WINNERS ARE
Blanche De Chambly -- Look Alike
3rd Place from Calgary Alberta, with a beer entitled Wifey's Wit, Dan Morley
2nd Place from Montreal, Pierre Valois
1st Place from Montreal with a beer entitled Blanche Neige, Deborah Wood
CLASS 1 CONTINENTAL LAGER
3rd Place from Saskatoon Sask., with a beer entitled Hop to it Pantyhose
Lager, Mark Nesdoly
2nd Place from Edmonton with a beer entitled Pays d'en Haut Pilsener, Ian
Maclaren/Keir Pearson
1st Place from Montreal with a beer entitled Pilsener, Pierre Valois
CLASS 2 PALE ALE
3rd Place from Edmonton Alberta with a beer entitled Prairie Pale, Harry Wagner.
2nd Place fromDorval Quebec, with a beer entitled Pale Ale, Denis Barsalo.
1st Place from New Westminster B. C. with a beer entitled Brew housenPale
Ale, Tim Vandergrift.
CLASS 3 NO ENTRIES _ BROWN ALE
CLASS 4 PORTER
3rd Place from Edmonton Alberta, with a beer entitled Pretentious Porter,
Harry Wagner
2nd Place from Edmonton Alberta, with a beer entitled Committees Punch Bowl
Porter, Ian Maclaren.
1st Place from Etobiecoke Ontario, with a beer entitled Porter Punch, Dave
Camilleri
CLASS 5 STOUT
3rd Place from Rexdale, Ont.with a beer entitled Quakers Oatmeal Stout,
Lorne Romano.
2nd Place fromNew Westminster B. C. with a beer entitled Caeneddi's Black
Wine, Tim Vandergrift
1st Place from St Hubert with a beer entitled Black Knight, Karl Boutin
CLASS 6 SPECIALTY-Herb and Unique Fermentables
3rd Place from Missisauga with a beer entitled Red one, Gord Nevery
2nd Place from Beaconsfield, Quebec with a beer entitled Olde Apple Smoke,
Ed Godberson
1st Place from Montreal with a beer entitled Citrounele Ale, Stephane Laroche
CLASS 7 & 8 BELGIAN BEERS (Combined class 7 Belgian extra strength with
class 8 Belgian Sour due to only two entries in the Belgian Sour class)
3rd Place from St Hubert with a beer entitled Great Fall, Karl Botin
2nd Place fromToronto with a beer entitled Firkin Frambozen, Martin Sewell
1st Place from Rexdale Ontario, with a Belgian Holy beer entitled Smack Test
Dubble, Lorne Romano
BEST OF SHOW
3rd Place from St. Hubert Quebec with a dry stout Karl Boutin
2nd Place from Montreal with a Pilsener Pierre Valois
1st Place from Rexdale, Ont.with a Dubble Lorne Romano
BEST NOVICE ENTRIES
Pale Ale fromDorval Quebec, with a beer entitled Pale Ale, Denis Barsalo.
Porter from Etobiecoke Ontario, with a beer entitled Porter Punch, Dave
Camilleri
Specialty (Herb & Unique fermentables) fromMontreal with a beer entitled
Citrounele Ale, Stephane Laroche
BOS from Montreal with a beer entitled Citrounele Ale, Stephane Laroche
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:40:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca>
Subject: Incomplete conversion? Starch? - summary
Last week I reported that my first all-grain batch tasted disturbingly
starchy after the recirc-sparge. If you recall, I did an iodine test which
was negative, so I proceeded to boil, cool, pitch and ferment.
Thanks to Nathan Kanous, John Mulholland, Tony Schmidt and Jim Thomas for
their advice, which was basically "Sounds like your beer is fine, perhaps
your were tasting 'grainy-ness' which is new to you at the moment; RDWHAHB."
This past weekend, I racked the beer into the secondary and diverted a sample
to take the SG and taste. The SG read about 1.013 (from ~1.048-9) and the
taste was *delicious* - I was truly amazed at how good it was. (If you are
hesitating about making the jump to all-grain, do it! You'll be glad you did.)
Perhaps I just don't get fresh extract around here, but this AG batch is far
better than my best partial mash.
For the batch I made this weekend, I did a conversion test after 1.25 hrs
(temp generally 152-149F). The test was negative. The wort, as the week
before, has a grainy-ness to it. This time I'm not worried.
BTW, I've only used a single-step infusion mash in these first two batches.
I'm using Canadian Malting 2-row. What would I gain from, say, a 15-30 min
rest at around 135F. Is it worth the effort?
Dave Riedel
Victoria, Canada
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:41:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca>
Subject: Bittering Hops - what's the difference? / Hop Survey
I'm going to be making a bulk order for whole hops from a mail-order source
to build up a general selection of hops on hand in my freezer. I understand
the obvious reasons to have a selection of aroma and flavour hops, but I'm
not sure I'm aware of the reasons for choosing various bittering hops.
1. Is the bitterness produced (for a set IBU level) by different hops
significantly different? If so, in what way? The spec sheets often mention
aroma... isn't the aroma contribution of the bittering hops pretty much boiled
off?
2. For example, 2 pale ales made identically except one uses XX IBUs of
say, Galena, and one uses XX IBUs of Northern Brewer; both have 1 ounce of
EKG as finish. How would the two beers compare?
Having said all that, it's time for an HBD survey. If you were setting up a
'pantry' of hops for the next several months' brewing of ales (all kinds:
British Mild to American IPA to Scottish Wee Heavy to Belgian Wit and
Bavarian Weizen), what kinds of hops would *you* buy? Try not to get overly
specific and suggest the accepted standards for each ale style. What 4-6
hop varieties would you buy? Concentrate on versatility and quality.
I'll post the results.
Dave Riedel
Victoria, Canada
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 21:54:37 -0500
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Shorter brew day
In response to Randy Reed's quest for a shorter brew day, here's what I've
been up to.
I've brewed almost 100 batches since switching to all-grain, and since the
third batch I've split my brew day into two days. I mash and sparge one
evening, cover the collected wort, and leave until the next day. I then
boil, chill and pitch the following evening. By doing this I can brew
during the week and have two leisurely evenings of brewing related activity
rather than one long tiring day of brewing on a weekend. Even when I do
brew on a weekend I would split the session in two: mash & sparge on Fri.
eve., for instance, then boil, etc. on Saturday morning.
By breaking the session up like this you can clean everything up after day
one, and then day two is almost like an extract brewing session. I've
never noticed any problem with malt flavor, stability or anything from
leaving the wort overnight. There's not enough time for bacteria to do
anything to the wort, and you'll soon be sterilizing it in the boil. I
have barley wines over two years old made with this method and absolutely
no signs of hot side aeration or oxidation of any type. Try it once and see!
The only thing is if you're into first wort hopping, I don't know how this
method would work. I just started doing this and have done
straight-through brewing sessions because I wasn't yet comfortable with the
idea of hopping and then leaving the wort overnight.
Randall B. Ricchi
394 Lakeview Drive
Hancock, MI 49930
(906)482-3754
"Should anyone thirst, let them come unto me and drink"
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 20:08:40 -0700
From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian at aob.org>
Subject: 1997 National Homebrew Competition
First, I would like thank everyone for their input on this topic. We were
only attempting to protect the individual homebrewers/entrants. We realize
that this may not be possible to do. Let me explain our motives for making
any change to the NHC rules.
The reason that we changed the NHC rules is that the AHA was contacted by
one of the NHC winners who informed us that his recipe was printed in
another publication without any attribution to him or the award that he
won. He asked for our assistance. While we encourage the printing of NHC
winners' recipes in other publications, we do want to ensure that the
homebrewer and the award that he or she won gets attributed correctly. As
a standing policy and as a
courtesy to the brewer, we ask each potential publisher to contact the
brewer directly and get his or her permission to print.
If you look at Rule F from last year, you will see that we only required
that the entrants "agree to allow (at no cost) publication of their recipe
by the Association of Brewers or any of its divisions in any publication.
Entrant will receive all due credit." This is all that the AHA wants to do
with any of the recipes. But the wording wasn't strong enough to prevent
the un-attributed publishing of recipes.
We apologize for the confusion and I have passed the posted comments on to
people here responsible for the wording of the rules. Thanks, again, for
all your input.
Keep Brewin'!
- Brian
Brian Rezac
Administrator
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 brian 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: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 05:20:54 -0600
From: John Lifer jr <jliferjr at mail.misnet.com>
Subject: Re:RE: Wyeast 1275
Ken said >From: Ken <kbjohns at oscar.peakaccess.net>
>Subject: Wyeast 1275
>
>I would have disagree with Charles Epps conclusion of problems with 1275. I
>have used it in 4 batches and found that my comments mirror those of Alex
>Santic below:
>
>"I've made 3 fine batches with 1275 and experienced no imbalance of esters
>or phenolic off-flavors. In fact, it seems like a relatively neutral
>strain. The reported results can be easily explained on the basis of
>common procedural problems. In particular, many people ferment ales at
>relatively warm room temperatures.
I would strenuously disagree with Charles and Ken. I have brewed 5 batches
varying from a porter, a stout two milds and an IPA and ALL have had a very
pronounced grapefruit taste. Obviously the stout and porter suffered the
least as I use a large percent of roast- chocolate malt but the taste was
there. The milds and IPA were almost undrinkable by anyone but me and I
will drink just about everything I brew-- some have been pretty disgusting.
I fermented all of the above at between 50 and 65f my freezer is in my shop
and is not really temperature controlled when the outside temperature is
below the setpoint of the freezer. This is not on the high side of
fermentation temp for ales. I will not use this yeast again. I will go
back to the other British yeasts.
John in Mississippi -----'nother brewin' fool
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 06:33:48 -0600
From: DD <dunn at tilc.com>
Subject: New Orleans Homebrew Supply
- --MimeMultipartBoundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Will be visiting New Orleans the end of this week and wonder if there is
a homebrew supply in the area? If so, could someone give me
directions? dd
- --MimeMultipartBoundary--
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 08:27:26 -0500
From: Art Steinmetz <asteinm at pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: Setup in New House
Don Mille(r?) <milledon at ix.netcom.com> is building a basement brewery...
After 8 brewing years of dragging stuff up from the basement and setting up
on the back patio, then tearing it down I did what you're planning. I'll
offer a few thoughts. I basically installed our old kitchen cabinets in a
14x13 room in the basement. I reused the old dishwasher and sink. Had an
old fridge already and I left room for another. I bought a SABCO RIMS
($$$) fitted for natural gas but I also installed a 2-burner electric
cooktop for starter prep/decoctions, etc.
Think about how you are going to get the four ancient elements in and out
of the brewery; earth, air, fire and water (well, skip the earth unless you
count spent grain). You need to get water into the kettle and a lot of
waste water will be dumped down the drain (tub sink?, floor drain?). Your
heat source, if gas, sucks up a lot of air and will need an exhaust fan.
Don't forget a CO detector in this case. If electric, make sure your
outlet is GFCI protected.
Think about clean up. Before I just had vessels to wash and I hosed down
the patio. Now I've got to clean up a room with lots of surfaces. I don't
know what the best cleaning regime is yet. I mop the floor and counter
with Ammonia. I sanitzize glass and hoses with bleach, stainless with
idophor. Finally, I use stainless cleaner on the kettles. Stainless
cleaner is kinda neat; it is basically water, silicone and mineral oil
aeresol. Safe for widows and orphans.
- -- Art
Brewmeister, janitor
Brauerei Steinmetz
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 09:08:29 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: glass grenades? & distilling questions
followed my usual ale procedure, had a great ferment, waited 13 days to
bottle and at the end of a 10g bottle finally remembered to take a SG.
Shock!!!! My 1.054 OG stout and porter had finished at 1.022, much
higher than the usual 1.015 or so.
I finished with the last several bottles a bit perplexed and eventually
thot I'd better check my basement fermenting temperature.....the usual
66F or so was reading 60F at floor level.
With a large starter of Wyeast 1084 Irish, generous pure O2 aeration,
all grain process for plenty of FAN, a low brewing temperature seems the
only possibility for a 1.022 finish? Am I missing something?
If the storage conditions warm up and the ferment drops 6 pts or so in
the bottle, do I have very fizzy stout, gushers, or glass grenades?
Second question, a hbing friend is asking about distilling and whether
an early fraction of the distillation should be discarded to avoid being
blinded or worse. I remember a distilling thread from HBD's past but if
someone has a good reference or summary of the topic, please share it
with me. He is not going to use car radiators or any thing with lead
as a condenser.
TIA and cheers jim booth, lansing, mi reply at
kbooth at waverly.k12.mi.us
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 07:46:15 -0600
From: "Richard Scotty"<rscotty at uswest.com>
Subject: RE: AHA
From: Richard Scotty on 04/02/97 07:46 AM MST
I too have become disgusted with the AHA. Several posts on
rec.crafts.brewing directed to the AHA leadership regarding their
organizational structure have gone unanswered. Cahrlie and Cathy take the
money and run. Zymurgy has become mediocre at best (Couldn't have lived
without the special edition and the history of bottle openers). Brewing
Techniques blows this rag into the weeds.
The NHC is a fowled up mess. They damn near killed the HBD. Somebody show
me how they're helping us.
I recieved my AHA membership expiration notice last night. At the bottom
it says that the AHA is "a membership driven organization". You'd have a
difficult time convincing me of that these days. Nothing about the AHA is
membership driven with the exception of the contribution of monies to their
coffers.
There is clearly only one effective course of action for us to take if we
want to effect change in the behavior of the AHA: *** Withold Your Money
***. I do not intend to renew my membership and emplore others that are
equally disgusted with the AHA to do the same. Its the only message that
will have any effect.
The AHA: Just Say No.
Rich Scotty
The Crapshoot Brewery
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 10:34:52 -0600
From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin at maine.com>
Subject: AHA NHC Again
Good afternoon all,
Steve <Meercat> Quarterman said:
>Hmmm, it is my understanding that there are locals who organize the
AHA first round judgings. Well, at least here in my town it is. I would
think that it would be the organizers and possibly you, or accepting the
judging of the barleywines after judging the ales, who would be at fault
and NOT the AHA.
<
Gee Steve don't you think that the AHA should at least have a
representative at all the first round judging? When you have a finite
amount of time to judge the beers sent to the first round and a finite
number of judges you do what has to be done. Or would you rather
that the some of the beers shouldn't be judged because that would over
tax the poor judges palates? THE FAULT IS WITH THE AHA!!!!
Don't try to past it off to the judges, many of whom have travelled
hundreds of miles and had to pay for a couple nights in a hotel to judge.
>Oh I see, only if you are on the east coast can you recognize beers
that match the style guidelines. It is true that the west coast brewers do
like hoppy beers and such but that in no way means that those of us
that live on the west coast do not know how to judge beers properly.
<
If you take the time to analyse the recipes for the winners of the past
five or so years of AHA NHC and compare the recipes to the
guidelines you will see that the majority do only have a nodding
aquaintance with the guidelines. I know that you will find the original
gravities of many of the winning beers to be as much as twice the
highest guideline original gravity . Calculate the bittering and compare
it to the guidelines and you will see that many of the beers appear to be
overhopped. Many of the recipes have ingredients which are not
approptiate to syle.
Steve I guess based on the recipes that have been published in Zymurgy
that none of us know how to judge beer. Maybe though, the beers
were presented so cold that they couldn't be judged properly and that is
the fault of the AHA!
Bill
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 07:55:27 +0000
From: Joe Shope <sltp5 at cc.usu.edu>
Subject: barbeque conversion
Brethren,
I've recently been given a gas grill and was wondering about the
possibility of converting it to an outdoor cooker. Ideally what I
would like to do is convert it so that it has two burners. Has
anyone had any experience with a conversion like this?
Private E-mail is fine: jshope at biology.usu.edu
OR: sltp5 at cc.usu.edu
ciao,
joe shope, Logan UT
brewin' in the promised land
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:52:11 -0500
From: Dave Bartz <gbrewer at iquest.net>
Subject: Kegging preferences/Isinglass
HBDers
Recently I have been asked, a couple times, what style of ales/lagers are
most commonly kegged at the homebrew level. Bitters, Pale Ales and such
lighter English styles seem to be the most popular to keg, but I was
interested in what others on this forum like and don't like to keg in cornie
kegs. Its fairly obvious that stronger beers would be candidates for the
bottle, because of their long term evolution, but has anybody out there
kegged those for the long run?
Also has any body used Isinglass in liquid form that hasn't been kept in
refridgeration?
Does it spoil? Any feedback is appreciated.
TIA
Dave Bartz
The Gourmet Brewer
"Beer is good" 5000 BC
Return to table of contents