---

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


Contents:
  causation and experimetation (DAVE SAPSIS)
  MN Ren-Fest Contest (Jim Ellingson)
  mint beer ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Plato Conversions (Troy Hojel)
  IPA recipe (Mark Tumarkin)
  New contraversial sparging method (Jon Bovard)
  RIMS v. Decoction Part Deaux (Louis Bonham)
  Efficiency of Propane vs Nat gas vs Electrical ("Thor")
  Jethro forwards a Comment ("Rob Moline")
  Filters ("Marty Purselley")
  Bucket Cooler (Bigdogs)
  Another use for hops (John Varady)
  RE:Coors response to Blue Moon (Kit Anderson)
  A Pint's a Pound the World 'Round (John W. Braue, III)
  Re: Hops and Cows ("Audra Macmann")
  Pints, pounds ("Michael Baum")
  Flying Brews ("Decker, Robin E.")
  What a find! ("BRIAN F. THUMM")
  First faltering steps... (MIS, SalemVA)"
  Bottling in pop aka soda bottles (Brent Irvine)
  born-on dating (Samuel Mize)
  Kidney stones/Alcohol and Medications ("Nathan L. Kanous II")
  Status of eisbock/BATF issue (Oliver Weatherbee)
  A pint's a pound..,hoppiness f(C), 122F again ("David R. Burley")
  Queen of Beer - Competition Announcement (Charles Burns)
  Boiling Mash volume ("David L. Thomson")
  Judge Digest? (Steve)
  Extract IPA, revisited (Matthew Arnold)
  Sanke material ("Raymond C. Steinhart")
  Bicarbonate ppm (Dana Edgell)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com

Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org

Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:

  Anonymous ftp from...
	hbd.org	/pub/hbd	
	ftp.stanford.edu	/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
  E-mail...
        ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with 
                                   the word help for instructions.)
  AFS users can find it under...
        /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)


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


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:16:14 -0700
From: DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov (DAVE SAPSIS)
Subject: causation and experimetation

     While I agree with the general intent (to not presume causation due to 
     a single factor when whole methodolgies are changed) of his message, 
     Alan writres:
     
     >For what it's worth, though, in my own controlled experiments (i.e.
     >only one variable changed), I get at least 5% better extraction if I
     >include a mashout (~170F) than when I don't (~155F).
     
     I would cuation him against being too rigid in his condemnation of the 
     use scientific method by homebrewers.  There *are* no controlled 
     experiments without replication, and I have yet to see a homebrewers 
     setup that can effectively replicate mashing regimes (the most obvious 
     factor that varies when trying to repeat identical mashes is 
     temperature -- just get yourself a very accurate and spatially 
     resolving temp probe, and you will see what I mean).  Also, while not 
     obvious, I beleieve that Alan refers to attempts at controlling the 
     main variables involved in carbohydrate transformations (temp, 
     thickness, grain, crush, lauter vessel/method, etc.); there are likley 
     additional environmental and procedural factors that not only have 
     main effects, but also interactions (effect of factor A dependent on 
     level of factor B).  Hence the need for rigorous testing with 
     replication to find out which ones really drive the system.  This does 
     not mean our observational studies regarding causation are meaningless 
     -- just considerably weaker in power to detect effects.  Where we are 
     interested in homebrew methods in particular, and cannot directly 
     relate our questions to those explored by the big guys and reported in 
     refereed journals, we are relagated to doing our best at controlling 
     extraneous factors, which is I'm sure what Alan refered to.  However, 
     remember: there is no "proof" in science and that is why the null 
     hypothesis is the thing that is tested.
     
     cheers,
     --dave in Sacto         "Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?"
                                                                --Sundance

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 21:54:55 GMT
From: Jim Ellingson <jellings at me.umn.edu>
Subject: MN Ren-Fest Contest


Renaissance Festival Beer, Mead and Cider Competition.

Call for Entries, Judges.

The 3rd annual AHA Sanctioned Beer, Mead, and Cider
competition will be held in conjunction with this year's 
Minnesota Renaissance Festival.  Final judging will be
on Labor Day, Monday September 1.  Entries will be accepted 
from 11:00 - 6:00, 19 August (Tue.) through 24 August (Sun.)
at L. L. Kraemer Co., 9925 Lyndale Ave. S., Bloomington, MN  55420.

Entrant must specify the AHA category for the entry (1-28, 
A-G).  Entries will be grouped into 6 prize categories
after 24 August.  2 12-oz. standard (AHA) bottles are 
required and the fee is $6 per entry.  A S.S.A. Legal
Size Envelope is also required.

This contest is sponsored by L. L. Kraemer Co. Homebrew Shop, the
Minnesota HomeBrewer's Assoc. and Mid-America Festivals.  Contact
the Shop FFI on the contest.

     1-800-200-3647            LLKRAEMER at aol.com

Please contact me if you're interested in judging.

Cheers,
Jim
- ------------------------------  http://www.menet.umn.edu/~jellings/  *
*  James Lee (Jim) Ellingson                    jellings at me.umn.edu  *
*  University of Minnesota, 125 Mech. Engr.        tel 612/645-0753  *
*  111 Church St.SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455         fax 612/624-1398  *


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:27:53 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: mint beer

>I was contemplating a chocolate mint stout recipe that called for 4oz of mint
>leaves in the secondary.  Based on all the posts about hops and drying
them, I
>became concerned about how to best use the mint.  The recipe called for raw
>mint leaves, not "dried", in the secondary.  
>1)  Now presumably hops are OK in the secondary but is there anything I
can do
>to "clean" the mint leaves that I pick so that I reduce the infection
chance? 
>
>2)  Should I use raw leaves, or should I dry them first?   I don't want that
>grassy flavor similar to undried hops.  
>3)  Should I add mint leaves to the secondary?  Or has anyone tried them
added
>at the end of the boil like aroma hops?
>4)  Is 4oz of undried mint leaves too much?

Four oz. sounds like a lot, based on my experiences with basil.  But I
added to the boil.  Basil is a pretty "strong" herb, and I think mint is
almost as "strong".

I would suggest you add some mint leaves to warm water and steep, or warm
tea.  See what the flavor is like before trying in five gallons of beer.

I guess you could also add more mint and only leave it in the secondary for
a couple days.

Let us know how it turns out.  I'm interested in such a beer myself...

          - Bryan
            gros at bigfoot.com
            Oakland, CA

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 17:33:51 -0600
From: Troy Hojel <hojel at flash.net>
Subject: Plato Conversions

Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me the formulas for Plato conversions.
I received three different formulas (from the simple, divide by four, to
a few that are a bit more involved).  Thanks to David Mercer and Graham
Wheeler for their contributions.

Anyway, for those who are interested, the following is the most
"accurate" formula I received:

%Plato = -616.868 + 1111.14*SG - 630.272*SG^2 + 135.997*SG^3

I programmed an applet that does most of the common conversion types.  I
hope it helps.

 BrewConverter Applet  (http://www.flash.net/~hojel/)

Troy


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 21:08:23 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at mindspring.com>
Subject: IPA recipe 

Hi all,=20

I got home this evening to find that several people had sent requests to me
for the IPA recipe I mentioned in my post. This is the first time I am
trying this recipe, and it is still dry-hopping in the fermentor (to be
bottled this weekend) so I can't vouch for it yet. So I am also sending a
porter recipe that came out extremely well - I think you'll like it, if
you're a hop head that is.  =20

Porter -  Scorned Lover  -A Dark & Bitter Brew

3.3 Lbs NorthWestern Amber Malt Extract
3.3 Lbs Northwestern Light Malt Extract
1 Lb Munich grain
1 Lb British Crystal grain
=BD Lb Black Patent
=BD Lb Roasted Barley=20
1 tsp Gypsum
4 oz Chinook - boil 1hr
4 oz Cascade - 40 min
4 oz Cascade - 5 min
pitched on Wyeast 1056 from previous batch


Brewed April 27, 1997, 6 gal batch
SG 1.042
FG 1.012
Bottled June 7, 1997


India Pale Ale -  Anniversary Ale

8 lb. Alexander's Pale Extract
1 lb. Crystal grain=20
1/2 lb. Pale Ale grain=20
1/2 lb. Munich grain=20
2 oz. Columbus hops 12.4%   1.5 hrs
2 oz. Columbus hops		1 hr=09
2 oz. Cascades hops 5.8%	15 min
2 oz. Cascades hops		5 min
2 oz. Cascades hops		dry hop
1 tsp. Gypsum
pinch table salt
Danstar London Ale - dry yeast=20

Brewed Sunday  Aug. 3
6 gal. batch
OG   1.048
Dry hopped Thursday,  gravity at 1.014

Don't know the final gravity yet although it's probably mostly done. I
usually use Wyeast liquid rather than dry yeast. But this was a last
minute, unplanned brew day and I didn't have time to do a starter. So I
just ran to the brew shop and got the Danstar. It seems to be cleaner than
most dry yeast.=20

I know some of you are going to say that I am using so damn much hops that
I can't taste anything else. Not true. First of all, I'm doing extract
brewing on a stove top, also I'm using hops bags - so the hops utilization
is not as good as it could be. But the results speak for themselves. I have
really been trying to create a full hops experience  from a deep, bitter
bottom through a rich tasty flavor, and a heady hop aroma. Dry hopping is
great for that aroma! (Delano DuGarms's "Wall of Hops", what a great
descriptor!) And I do try to balance it with the malt flavors. I'm an
extract brewer but I try to do partial mash as well to get better malt
flavor.=20

I have been playing with hops combinations. I love Cascades, but I have
been trying to find other hops that work well with it. I like the Columbus
a lot, and have also had good success with Chinook. Chinook seems sort of
like Cascades on steroids. I know that some people seem to find the high
alpha hops like Chinook or Columbus to impart a harsher flavor, but I have
been pretty satisfied. Do you all have any combinations you particularly
like? I'd love to hear about them.=20

Hoppy brewing,=20

Mark Tumarkin
The Brewery in the Jungle


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:57:44 +1100
From: Jon Bovard <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au>
Subject: New contraversial sparging method

I know of many German breweries and a local micro which uses a method of
sparging similar to that of some English breweries, but with a twist.
Once recirculation has completed. The bed is 90% drained and filled with
water at around 80C. Once this covers the grain bed the mash is then
stirred like mad . This supposedly encourages sugars into solution and
increases efficiency.The mash is left to settle for 15 minutes and then
re-circulated once again. The process is repeated until enough wort is
colected or pH>6 etc ect.
My question is ( I plan to try this) will mixing the mash bed so
violently cause irreversible damage. ie Leaving it almost undisturbed
for 1.5 hours beforehand creates a preety decent bed.??

Cheers 
Jon BOvard
Brisbane, Aus

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 23:24:59 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net>
Subject: RIMS v. Decoction Part Deaux

A real puzzler for the HBD collective . . . .

Along with my fellow Foam Rangers Andy Thomas
and Steve Moore, last month we conducted a
follow-up experiment to last year's RIMS v.
Decoction mash-off (the original experiment is
written up in an article to be published in an
upcoming issue of BT).  In this follow up
experiment, we once again brewed the same beer
(this time, a bock) on the same day, in the same
place, using the same malt, hops, water, yeast,
etc., etc. etc., but with the only differences
being that I used a step mash on a RIMS system,
while Andy did a triple decoction mash and Steve
did a standard single infusion mash.

OK, brew day went as planned, and each 6 gallon
batch (OG's = 1.066) were aerated and pitched
with 2+ quarts of Wyeast 2206 starter that had
been grown on a stir plate (i.e., smack pack to
1 quart of starter, which was grown for 24 hours
on a stir plate and then used to innoculate 6
quarts of additional starter, when was similarly
grown on a stir plate with constant aeration for
24 hours, then split into thirds and used to pitch
each batch.)  All 3 batches were in identical 7
gallon acid carboys, and were in the same fridge
(in which a powerful fan has run constantly to keep
the temperature consistant throughout the fridge).

All 3 batches were off to the races within hours
at 50F, with typical krausen formation.  After 10
days  at  50F, the heads were subsiding, and the temp
was increased to 60F for 48 hours for a diacetyl
rest, then slowly lowered to 39F, where it remained
for a month.  Everything appeared to be going
according to plan.

Tonight we racked the batches to kegs.  Guess what:
the &*%#% Wyeast 2206 had pooped out, and none of the
three batches were anywhere close to being done.  The
decoction batch was at 1.039, while the RIMS and the
single infusion were at 1.031.  I checked samples on
my scope and the RIMS batch had yeast at about 6
million cells/ml, while the decoction was at 2 million
cells/ml.  Yeast viability was high.

OK, the questions:

1.  Should we just grow up some additional 2206 and
repitch?  Or perhaps go with something neutral like
1056 or 1007 that would finish the job?

2.  What gives?  I know 2206 can be finicky, but we
pitched tons 'o yeast and aerated all batches quite
a bit.

3.  Any theories why the decoction mash would be
substantially higher gravity than the others?
One possibility: the decoction mash had considerably
less trub than the other two.  OTOH, the RIMS batch
had considerably more trub than the SSI mash, yet
the SSI mash was at about the same gravity.

All theories greatfully accepted!

Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham at phoenix.net




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 21:41:38 +0000
From: "Thor" <*Dont.spam* at dnai.com>
Subject: Efficiency of Propane vs Nat gas vs Electrical


Does anybody know what the relative efficiency of heating your brewery 
with propane, natural gas or electricity? My current setup is made 
for propane but I'm planning on moving it indoors and cant safely do 
so with propane  because of the fumes and because it will be easier 
to automate. Its currently set up to make 15 gallons with plenty 
space. If I convert it to electrically heated with immersion 
elements, is it going to cost a fortune? Would it be better to use 
natural gas?

THOR
- -----------------------------------------------------------
email addresses: *mikew at ricochet.net, *thor at onthemenu.com
(remove *)       *thor at dnai.com, *thor at expressway.com

Raw Web page  at  http://www.dnai.com/~thor/index.html

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 97 22:00:08 PDT
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at kansas.net>
Subject: Jethro forwards a Comment

		The Jethro Gump Report

>From: Fal_Allen at mdv-beer.com
>Subject: FWD> An Idea who's time has

>All this fuss about freshness, born on dates, best-by and such. Whether
>it's the date it was brewed on or the day it was bottled. We are missing
>the real question here people! Sure it's important to know that the brew
>is fresh but isn't it much more important to know that the beer is going
>to be compatible with you? To really agree with you, as a person? That is
>why I propose the astrological dating of beer. I might know that a certain
>beer was made on the 8th of May but what does that tell me;  I mean,
>really tell me about that beer? Sure, it's a Taurus with Virgo rising but
>what house is it in?! These are the important issues. Now that many of us
>are brewing round the clock a simple date no longer suffices. I mean what
>about when it was lagered or crash cooled? Say the beer was primarily 
>fermented as a Scorpio but finished as a Libra and was packaged as a >Virgo
>unaware, and takes it home to enjoy with his wife, an Aquarius with >Pisces
>on the cusp. I think you can see that something needs to be done. Sure, I
>could have gone ahead and selfishly implemented this at my own brewery,
>getting a jump on the rest but this is too important an issue. I am, after
all, >a virgo with a
>taurus bull in the house of the rising sun.
>
>      the ubiquitos Anon.

>"Eagles may soar but weasles don't get sucked into jet
>engines"

>From:  wdan at oz.net (W. Dan)
>Subject:  An Idea who's time has come

	Thought the collective might enjoy this. I know I did.

Jethro Gump

Rob Moline
Brewer At Large

"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 23:42:15 -0500
From: "Marty Purselley" <brewer at flash.net>
Subject: Filters

Anyone filtering their beer?  I read the reviews in Zymurgy, but would like
to hear some unbiased opinions.  I was particularly interested in the
Marcon filters-well maybe a bit less interested since they've apparently
(based on the prices on their web page) gone up $45.00 in price to $160.00.
 Is anyone using the filter from the "Vintage shop".

Marty

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:05:12 -0700
From: Bigdogs <bigdogs at concentric.net>
Subject: Bucket Cooler

>A question that arose during a discussion about building a CF chiller.
>Rather than have the copper tubing run thru a hose, why not just set
>the coil into a bucket of water?  Or, if the space is available,
>freeze the water first. Cleaning out the tubing would still be an
>issue, but construction would be much simplier.  Has this been tried?

Yes and it works GREAT if done correctly. I used 50" of 3/8" copper that
connects to a ball valve on my kettle. The copper tubing is wound into a
coil (I used a paint can for a form) that sits in a plastic bucket that
is filled with ice. It spirals down to where it passes through the side
of the bucket near the bottom. There are many ways to achieve this last
"pass through" . I think that the best way may be with a short piece of
vinyl tubing that fits snugly in a drilled hole. This last piece of
tubing can drop directly into your fermenter where the cooled wort can
splash and become oxygenated. There is minimal outside air (infection
possibility) contact.

No muss, no fuss and less than 5 gallons of (prevoously frozen) water
that can go right into the pool or garden.

Steve Berry
Barking Cat Brewery

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net>
Subject: Another use for hops

I frequent a brewpub that used to have these revolting mints stuffed into
the vents in the mans bathroom. After discussions with the owner, i
convinced him to switch the grapefruit mints with an oz of pellet hops. Now
the bathroom smells like a hophead dream come true. From time to time I
bring an oz of hops down and stuff them in the vents in the laboratory. Now
people walk out of there with a smile on their faces and a renewed desire
for some fresh hoppy beer (of which a get a sample). I hope that this
catches on because I hate the smell on bowl mints in the morning (well late
evening anyways). So if you are a bar owner, I suggest that you get hops.
They smell sooo good, and they get me thristing. This is very similar to the
pratice of casinos where they actually pump in the sound of money falling
from a slot machine. Well? mmmmm.... Hops....
John Varady                     * New email address ***> rust1d at usa.net
Lafayette Hill, PA


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:57:33 -0400
From: Kit Anderson <kitridge at bigfoot.com>
Subject: RE:Coors response to Blue Moon

Thanks to Graham Barron for this article.

> In what I consider a very much appreciated gesture and a commentary on
> the relevance of our discussions on this digest, Coors Brewing Company
> has responded directly to me regarding the recent thread on Blue Moon and
> surrounding issues.  Per their request, I have posted the email I
> received from Keith Villa, the brewer of the Blue Moon line of beers. 
> Commentary, etc., is welcome.


> Regarding beer quality and medals, I ensure that Blue Moon ales
> are made from only the highest quality 2-row malt, hops and spices. 
> The only adjunct we use is the real honey in Honey Blonde Ale.

Maybe it's only a typo. Where's the unmalted wheat?

> Finally, as you claim to have a cynical
> view of large brewers, you might be surprised to find out who really
> owns Hoegaarden and Celis breweries

I don't care who makes anything as long as it is good.

> 4) reiterated that while Blue Moon white may be in style, I am not
> obsessed with style nor am I very concerned with style definitions;

If it is distracting because it is too far from style, then you should
be concerned.

> 5) that being said, I was trying to state in my original post that there
> are several far better examples of Belgian white beer available in the US
> (both domestically produced and not) that homebrewers should try to
> emulate when reproducing white beer;

BINGO!

> First, some of my credentials.  I am a homebrewer (since 1983),
> a professional brewer (since 1986), and a certified beer judge with
> the BJCP.  I judge at numerous homebrew competitions (including the
> national AHA competitions), and at the Great American Beer Festival
> and our state fair microbrew competition.  I also lived in Belgium
> for almost 4 years while earning my Ph.D. degree in brewing
> biochemistry from the University of Brussels (Flemish campus). 
> During my studies, I had the opportunity to visit and tour in-depth
> many Belgian breweries including large, small, artisanal, lambic,
> Trappist, etc.

Further evidence that Coors knows better but chose a recipe not to
style.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. It is a good example of a wit?

No.

- ---
Kit Anderson	   ICQ#2242257
Bath, Maine	   <kitridge at bigfoot.com>		

I suppose that it's theoretically possible for a Yankee to
make decent barbecue. But it sure ain't a pretty thought!
                                        -Smokey Pitts


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:24:36
From: braue at ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: A Pint's a Pound the World 'Round

Ray Kruse <kruse2 at flash.net> writes:

>Dave Burley writes:
>> Eugene Sonn asks how to measure out his
>>  hop extract in pounds when he doesn't have a scale.
>> 
>> First idea is to make your own scale (balance).
>>  Use a flat board on a fulcrum ( a pencil taped on,
>>  for example)  on which you can place bowls at
>>  either end. Put a bowl with 16 ounces ( 2 cups)
>>  of water on one end and a similar weight bowl
>>  on the other.  Pour in warm hop extract into the
>>  bowl at the other end until the board balances.
>>   Measure the volume with a measuring cup.
>
>Sorry, Dave, but what you have here is 1 pint, not 1 pound.  Common
>mistake in the English measurement system.
>

But a trivial and inconsequential mistake.  In fact, the weight of
one pint of water at English STP is close enough to one pound that
it may be taken as such in an activity such as brewing.  This is,
IMHO, no worse than the equally common (and equally
inconsequential) mistake of identifying the weight of one liter of
water at metric STP as "one kilogram" (as we pedants like to point
out, the kilogram is a measure is *mass*, not *force*; the weight
of the water is about 9.81 newtons).

- --
John W. Braue, III                     braue at ratsnest.win.net


I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work 
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 14 Aug 97 10:38:40 PDT
From: "Audra Macmann" <kestrel at full-moon.com>
Subject: Re: Hops and Cows

I'm a little behind on the digests -- about 12 digests' worth.

As a nursing mom who gave birth in Germany, I can tell you
this: I was advised to drink a) beer to help my milk let down and
b) because the hops in beer are supposed to increase milk
production. I have since read this in a few herbal books that
I have as well.
Maybe if you give cows hops to eat they'll produce too much
milk or too fast or something. But hey if you can give them
BGH why NOT hops? At least they're natural. <G>

Audra Macmann, Ohio
kestrel at full-moon.com
ICQ UIN 1674976



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 08:54:31 -0400
From: "Michael Baum" <michael.baum at nist.gov>
Subject: Pints, pounds


>Dave Burley writes:
>> Eugene Sonn asks how to measure out his
>>  hop extract in pounds when he doesn't have a scale.
>> 
>> First idea is to make your own scale (balance).
>>  Use a flat board on a fulcrum ( a pencil taped on,
>>  for example)  on which you can place bowls at
>>  either end. Put a bowl with 16 ounces ( 2 cups)
>>  of water on one end and a similar weight bowl
>>  on the other.  Pour in warm hop extract into the
>>  bowl at the other end until the board balances.
>>   Measure the volume with a measuring cup.
>
>Sorry, Dave, but what you have here is 1 pint, not 1 pound.  Common
>mistake in the English measurement system.
>
>Why not just use an empty 3.3# can to measure the extract?  Seems like
>as good a measuring cup as any.
>
>Ray Kruse
>Glen Burnie, PRMD

Ray, while I wouldn't go bail for the accuracy of a balance based on a
board, a pencil, and a couple of kitchen bowls, I think what Dave is doing
here is capitalizing on the fact that -- to _his_ levels of accuracy -- a
pint of pure water at STP weighs roughly a pound. Hence the traditional
saw "A pint's a pound the world around." Or something like that. Granted,
it's a bit of the long way 'round given that you could use the same
technique with some other kitchen item -- sugar or salt or flour, say --
that is traditionally sold by weight as your reference mass.

=========================================================================
Michael Baum
Public & Business Affairs Division
National Institute of Standards & Technology
<michael.baum at nist.gov>
(301) 975-2763
=========================================================================


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 9:12:00 -0500
From: "Decker, Robin E." <robind at rmtgvl.rmtinc.com>
Subject: Flying Brews


Scott Jackson reports that he flys his brews in a backpack....  I like this 
idea Scott! (BTW, hello from Greenville, how is Denver treating you? <g>) 
 However, I have never had a problem carrying brews onto a plane.  I have 
found that a case box which holds the standard 12 oz bottles fits great 
under the seat (on smaller planes it sticks out towards me a bit, but I 
don't mind and the stewardesses never complained).  So whenever I travel, I 
stop off and cram a case full of whatever I can get my hands on that isn't 
available at home.

I do have to admit that I get a lot of attention carrying my case thru the 
airport.  I guess I can't blame people for wondering about a 5'2", 120 lb. 
female with a case of belgian beer and barleywines in her arms, but I enjoy 
the good natured ribbing my party in a box, and people asking if they can 
sit next to me!  Also, I have never noticed any ill-effect from the beer 
being sent thru the x-ray machine. YMMV <bg>

There are also specially designed wine and beer shipping boxes, which are 
great if you're trying to move more than you can carry.  Since each bottle 
is in its own styrofoam compartment, its quite safe, either in checked 
luggage, or by UPS, regulations and strikes notwithstanding.

Goldings in SC
check out our web page (www.biermeisters.com) for premium recipe kits

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:16:04 -0400
From: "BRIAN F. THUMM" <THUMMBF at GWSMTP.NU.COM>
Subject: What a find!

> Recently I was cleaning up my brew cellar and came across
>  a batch of a IPA that has to be at least 5 or 6 month old. It
>  is in a secondary fermentor (glass carboy)...

How does one forget there is 5 gallons of beer in the basement?

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:13:24 -0400
From: "Moyer, Douglas E (MIS, SalemVA)"
Subject: First faltering steps...

Fine folks,
	With a combination of fearful reluctance and quivering
excitement, I purchased a 5 gallon Igloo and fitted it with a CPVC
slotted manifold. While I have some leaking issues to resolve, I am
looking forward to taking my first steps towards all-grain brewing. (I
suspect that my parents would not be as proud as of other first steps,
but then they are teetotalers, so I won't tell them...;-) )
	So, here are my first questions to the group:

(1) At what rate should I expect the liquid to run off? Yes, I know that
mileage varies, but what range am I shooting for? I want to make sure
that my manifold isn't designed completely wrong. Is 6 minutes/gallon
reasonable? (I haven't put any grain in it yet--I'm just running water
through it.) 

(2) What is the normal method to recirculate the first runnings to build
up the filter bed? How do you prevent HSA? How do you keep the
temperature constant? Do you care at that point? (FWIW, I will NOT be
buying a pump yet. Of course, who knows about next week... %-) )

(3) How much grain can you mash in a 5 gallon Igloo?

(4) Several people have mentioned mashing in the range of 1.25 qt/gal.
If you are doing several step infusions, do you start with a thicker
mash to make up for the boiling water added later?

TIA!

Doug Moyer
Big Lick Brewing Collective
"Big Lick--our excitement is evident."

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 9:24:20 EDT
From: Brent Irvine <brenirvi at enoreo.on.ca>
Subject: Bottling in pop aka soda bottles

When I started brewing some five years ago, I used standard brown bottles. 
However, I did not find it at all enjoyable to have to fill so many small 
bottles or cap using a non-reuseable cap. At the time, at least in Ontario, 
our pop (aka soda) could be purchased in 500 ml (imperial volume??) glass 
bottles which fit the screw-on caps available at homebrew outlets. I collected 
about 20 cases of 24 bottles. Though the bottles are clear, I never had a 
problem with degradation from light - I brewed in a dark environment, and 
stored the covered cases in a likewise dark environment. Since then, our 
province has changed over to 600 ml plastic pop bottles (presumably for the 
lower costs of shipping and manufacturing). My question is as follows...

Though brown plastic beer bottles are sold at homebrew supply shops, it seems 
that both in my area and across the HBD brewers use the standard 341 ml beer 
bottle with metal caps. Why? Does the plastic bottle have a shorter shelf 
life? Do people not like re-using screw-on caps? For me cost is not an issue, 
since the return value of a standard beer bottle is $0.10, the pop bottles are 
free and the caps range from $0.05 to $0.10 and can be used over and over.

Not really a pressing issue, but I am afraid that the problem might be the 
shef life, and I would HATE to waste a batch in finding out.

Thanks.

Brent Irvine
149 Third Street, Cochrane. Ontario
"Home of the Polar Bear Express."



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:38:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
Subject: born-on dating

>From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson at rocketmail.com>
>
>It seems to be the consensus of those who responded to my post
>regarding Bud's "born-on" dates that they assume the date represents
>the bottling date. To me, a beer is born when it is set to
>fermentation -- after all, you don't label your child's birth as the
>day he or she left the hospital -- but I realize I'm playing with
>semantics a bit here.

Since they pasteurize before bottling, wouldn't it be more accurate
to call it a "killed-on" date?

- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:04:40 -0400
From: "Nathan L. Kanous II" <nkanous at tir.com>
Subject: Kidney stones/Alcohol and Medications

Hi, I'm actually a clinical pharmacist.  Kidney stones can be comprised
of a variety of things.  There are oxalate stones, urate stones,
struvite stones.  You need to know what kind of stones you had.  Alcohol
can do a couple of things.  Yes, it causes a relative diuresis and can
result in some dehydration.  Dehydration causes urine to concentrate and
this can lead to a worsening of kidney stones in susceptible
individuals.  Second, alcohol can lead to a relative hyperuricemia.  If
you had urate stones, you could potentially worsen your situation.  The
recommendation to avoid alcohol is a CYA thing.  Moderation is the key.
So is adequate hydration.

Alcohol and medications.  It is primarily a CYA thing.  Some medications
require that you avoid alcohol because of potential toxic reactions. 
TALK TO YOUR PHARMACIST.  Pharmacists know more about the medications
than the physicians.  You will find pharmacists that don't have a clue. 
Similarly, you will find some physicians that just aren't up to date. 
YMMV.  I am not trying to defame anyone.  Using the proper source of
reference for any information is critical.

Sorry for the wasted bandwidth on a non-brewing topic.  Heresay and
misinformation is a pet peeve of mine.  Yes, I do offer my opinions
about brewing on occasion here, but I am always open to other more well
informed brewers correcting my mistakes.  That's how we learn.  What the
hell would we know about bridge building if someone hadn't built a
bridge over the Tacoma Narrows in Washington?  

TTFN

nathan in frankenmuth, MI

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:08:26 -0400
From: oliver at triton.cms.udel.edu (Oliver Weatherbee)
Subject: Status of eisbock/BATF issue


Just thought I should post a short note about the current 
status of the eisbock/BATF issue. It went offline for a 
little bit and we are now just waiting. Jim Parker agreed 
that as the director of the AHA and a representative of many
homebrewers, he would approach the BATF for a definitive 
statement or ruling about the homebrewing of eisbocks.

Jim said he would post the results to HBD (and maybe rcb) as
well as possibly making it a letter from the editor in
Zymurgy. For those who thought this thread is excessive like
the botulism one, I apologize. I just felt it was time to 
get a definitive answer to this question rather than the 
traditional hearsay.

	- Oliver

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:49:46 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: A pint's a pound..,hoppiness f(C), 122F again

Brewsters:

Ray Kruse says in response to my suggestion on how to make a balance at
home using 2 cups of water as a known 1 lb weight:

>Sorry, Dave, but what you have here is 1 pint, not 1 pound.  Common
>mistake in the English measurement system.

Sorry Ray, but in  the American English system a pint (16oz vol) IS a pou=
nd
(16 oz wt.) since an ounce in volume of water weighs an ounce. Didn't you=

learn "A pint's a pound the world around" at your Mommy's knee?"  Of cour=
se
this is ONLY true in the US of A.

It would be a mistake in the English English system to assume that. What
with 20 fluid ounces to the pint and where a pint is a pound and a quarte=
r.
Maybe that's why you made the mistake, being from Pennsylvania and all...=
=2E
- ---------------------------------------------------
Nathan in Frankenmuth comments about the non-linearity of hop extraction =
as
a function of added hops, and not being able to locate this being taken
care of in formulas estimating the extraction.

To my knowledge, although hop extraction is dependent on time and OG of t=
he
wort, it is not dependent on the amount of hops within even abnormal
amounts being added, unless some kind of mechanical blockage occurs to
prevent the free movement of hops during the boil.  However your
*perception* of hoppiness and specifically bitterness, like all of our
senses, are logarithmic in concentration and negatively time dependent in=

nature. Doubling concentration of the source of the sensation does not
double the sensation and later sips will *appear* to be less bitter.
- ---------------------------------------------------
Charlie Rich, criticises me for apparently saying that 122F produces
heading proteins.  I'll admit it looks that way and is a result of sloven=
ly
editing on my part.. He is absolutely correct that held for a long time
(not 15-20 minutes as I suggest) at 122F will reduce the proteins in
solution to amino acids and other short chain nitrogen compounds which wi=
ll
damage the mouth feel, compared to the proteins in solution without the
122F hold. There is plenty of protein available ( as the volume of the ho=
t
break will indicate) to be chopped up before the mouth feel is affected.
The biggest danger of a long hold at 122F may be the off flavors produced=

by excessive yeast growth or contamination from bacteria growth may resul=
t
from the high amino acid concentration.   It often used to be common
practice in low modified malts to hold at both 122F and 135F, but for sur=
e
the Germans held in the 122F region.  Highly modified malts need shorter
lower temperature holds since the majority of the proteolysis was done at=

the maltsters.

If I remember, I believe the point of the discussion I was commenting on
was how to increase the yield of sugars or how to use flaked barley.  My
suggestion of a short hold at 122F (definitely necessary for flaked barle=
y)
 was to  chew up the protein matrix using the proteases and phosphatases
active at this temperature , freeing the carbohydrates for later easy
amylolysis. As I understand it ( do you agree Charley?) this chopped up
matrix along with all the other high molecular weight proteins will be us=
ed
later ( at 135F or thereabouts)  to produce the mid-molecular weight
heading proteins as (in my suggestion)as the mash is heated up from 122F =
to
155F and passing through the high 120s and mid-130s.

As I read your comments, you would not hold at 122F under any circumstanc=
e
 - contrary to my understanding of most of the professional activity with
adjuncts today.  Most of the work on malt proteins is carried out at the
maltsters. The more highly modified the malt, the shorter should be the
hold in the low 122F region, as I have commented in the past.
- ------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 08:34 PDT
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Queen of Beer - Competition Announcement

H.A.Z.E. - Hangtown Association of Zymurgy Enthusiasts announces the 4th 
Annual Queen of Beer Competition. The Queen of Beer women's only homebrew 
competition is open to all non-commercial home brewed beer, mead or cider 
produced by a person of female gender. Sponsored and hosted by HAZE. AHA 
sanctioned competition, entries due by October 11, 1997.

All details and forms are on our web site:

        <http://haze.innercite.com>

questions? email Nora Keller-Seeley, our VP and competition organizer:

        nkseeley at jps.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:49:34 -0300
From: "David L. Thomson" <dlt at ici.net>
Subject: Boiling Mash volume

Hello fellow brewers!

I would like to start mashing i have a mash tun and sparger setup made.
My poblem is boiling the volume from a full mash. I only have a 5 gal
enamal caning pot. And do not possess the funds as of yet to buy a 7-10
gal pot and the burner/ vent to boil it.  Is it ok to use two smaller
pots?? does anyone have a source of partial mash recipies??
Thanks 
Dave Thomson

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:27:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve <JOHNSONS at UANSV5.VANDERBILT.EDU>
Subject: Judge Digest?

Anybody have any info on what has happened to the BJCP hosted Judge Digest
that I used to get daily along with my HomeBrew Digest?  Haven't seen one
from them in about a week...

Steve Johnson
Music City Brewers,
Nashville, TN   

(6 of us are stepping up to the plate tomorrow and taking the BJCP exam...
wish us well...hope they don't ask me how to brew a plambic!  ;)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:44:07 GMT
From: mra at skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Extract IPA, revisited

Greetings fellow botulism fearers,

Thanks to all who responded to my post regarding the extract IPA
recipe. Some major events transpired over the past couple of days
which has resulted in a major "Britishization" of the recipe. I
managed to get some supplies from a member of my homebrewing club who
runs a supply store out of his house part time. Unfortunately, the
good people at UPS have forced his selection to dwindle (as well as
eliminate his ability to ship anything). So here is the revised
version:

Zoot's E.P.A., Mk III
6.6# Munton and Fison Light LME
1.5# Northwestern Gold D(Dry)ME
1# British Crystal
2 oz Galena pellets (8.8% AAU)
1 oz Galena pellets (12% AAU)
3 oz Willamette whole leaf (4.3% AAU)
2 pkt Danstar Nottingham dry ale yeast

I got the Galena hops from two different sources, thus the different
AAUs. The hop schedule will be as follows: 1) 1 oz 8.8% Galena and 1
oz 12% Galena for 75 minutes, 2) 1 oz 8.8% Galena for 30 minutes, 3) 1
oz Willamette for 10 minutes, 4) 1/2 oz Willamette for 2 minutes, 5) 1
1/2 oz Willamette dry hopped in secondary. This recipes assumes a
between a 4 and 3 1/2 gallon boil. It should weight in around 91 IBUs.
I'll let everyone know how it turns out.

I will also be using the recipe to teach my sister and brother-in-law
the fine art of brewing. My sister and my wife are two of the very few
women I've met who like both IPAs and Stout. My wife and I have been
known to share a barleywine on occasion too. Life is rough.

Later,
  Matt (are all IPA-lovers named "Matt"?)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:42:11 -0500
From: "Raymond C. Steinhart" <rnr at mcs.net>
Subject: Sanke material

Are Sanke domestic kegs made of 304 or 316?  I am getting conflicting
information.  How about Cornelius kegs (ball lock).

Thanks,

Ray Steinhart

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:00:44 -0500
From: Dana Edgell <edgell at quantum-net.com>
Subject: Bicarbonate ppm

Hi!

I have two questions about the ppm of bicarbonates vs carbonates. As I
understand it the chemical equations of importance here are...

CaCO3  <--> Ca++ + CO3--

CO3-- + CO2 + H2O <--> 2(HCO3-)

for the dissolving of chalk in a mash or in reverse the precipitation
of chalk by boiling water. Every  molecule of CaCO3 produces one CO3 
carbonate ion which then is converted into 2 bicarbonate ions. 

Now water analysis usually gives the carbonates in ppm as CaCO3 which 
needs to be multiplied by 0.6 to calculate the ppm CO3. 

My 1st question is: When calculating the HCO3 ppm from a water analysis 
or from chalk addition do I need to roughly double the CO3-- ppm? 
(actually multiply by 122/60)
i.e. 1 gm of chalk in 1 litre of water gives
1000 ppm(mg/l) chalk = 600 ppm CO3 = 1220 ppm HCO3 (=20 mval HCO3)

My 2nd question is: What ion are people talking about when they report ppm
in the literature?

Half of the literature I have talks about CO3-- ppm and half HCO3- ppm
For example an article by Greg Noonan (Beer & Brewing Vol 11) says that
London water has 125 ppm HCO3- while a brewing techniques (Vol 1 #3)
article says it is 125 ppm CO3-. These obviously are taking the number
from the same source but which ion is really correct?

My personal guess right now is that the water analysis numbers are for
carbonate and not bicarbonate (even though bicarbonate is the ion actually
present in the water) This would be because they are traditionally measured
by the dry weight precipitated out of water by evaporation or
chemical treatment. This solid residue would be CaCO3.

The reason I am asking is that I am working on a JavaScript water treatment
workpage (www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale/beer/water.htm). I have been using
the HCO3 ppm as input because it is the ion actually present in the 
water/mash but I suspect that I should switch to ppm CO3 because that is the
number people are actually using even when they say it is ppm HCO3.

Thanks for any help clearing this up

Dana Edgell

PS: Any comments on the water analysis webpage would be appreciated
also.
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Dana Edgell
edgell at quantum-net.com
www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale


Return to table of contents

---