---

	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:
  Cottonwood Brewery (301) 827-1391 FAX (301)" <RIDGELY at cber.fda.gov>
  Freezer control and sanitation problems ("Ben Oconnor")
  Re: Holiday beer (DanRabin)
  RE:  New all-grain brewer questions/"dropping" beer (George De Piro)
  Best of Philly competition (JUKNALIS)
  Steeping Grains and Low Carbonation (Nicholas Bonfilio)
  Science / Creativity / Importance of HBD (Samuel Mize)
  Re:  Headless extract beer and torrified wheat (George De Piro)
  re:steeping vs partial mash (Charles Burns)
  Minimum-science Homebrewing Now! (brian_dixon)
  ANNOUNCE: New recipe calculator ("Joseph S. Sellinger")
  Shakedown brews ("Rosenzweig,Steve")
  Re: Steeping your Grains (brian_dixon)
  Re: homebrew book (brian_dixon)
  122f is for punkinheads (SClaus4688)
  Pumpkin oil extract ("Michel J. Brown")
  Alan Moen's article (Jim Cave)
  Wyeast for wheat ale ("Leslie R. Peterson")
  FridgeGuy (korz)
  Re: Dry Hopping (Bob.Sutton)
  Filtering your Wort ("Mike and Mellissa Pensinger")


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: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 09:24:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Ridgely (301) 827-1391 FAX (301)" <RIDGELY at cber.fda.gov>
Subject: Cottonwood Brewery

In HBD #2523, Rob Moline writes:

        >You may also be pleased to know that Kinney Baughman's 
        >Cottonwood Brewery won a Bronze for American Browns.

Kinney Baughman is no longer associated with the Cottonwood 
(formerly Tumbleweed) Brewery in any way. In fact, Kinney has 
undergone many of the indignities that Rob has recently 
undergone.

I visited Kinney several weeks ago on a trip through Boone, and 
he promised to provide full details to the HBD community as soon 
as he could find the time (He's consulting for a new brewery in 
Richmond, VA - a very long commute for him - as well as trying to 
keep his homebrewing equipment business viable).

Suffice it to say that as more and more craft brewing operations 
are taken over by "suits" concerned only for a quick buck, the 
brewers who have dedicated their hard work to getting them there 
are increasingly suffering this sort of disrespect.

It's a lesson (and warning) to all those (like Kinney and Rob) 
who have dreamed of making the leap to the professional ranks.

Bill Ridgely
Alexandria, VA


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 8:50:42 -0600
From: "Ben Oconnor" <BBOconnor at vines.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: Freezer control and sanitation problems

Thanks to all for your suggestions regarding temperature control in winter 
for my fermentation freezer.  I took Jim Ellington's suggestion and 
purchased a Honeywell controller which is designed to switch on an outlet 
when temperature dips below a set point.  Max power is 120W and max set 
point is 60F.  I looked at pipe heat tape as a possible heat source, but it 
has a thermostat that I would have to bypass, so I will probably use a 
light bulb.

I elected not to simply have a large heat source and maintain the set point 
 with the freezer compressor because I want to minimize compressor cycling 
and energy use.

Now for a really ugly problem.  Every batch I've made in my new duplex has 
had bottle rings.  The first couple had large deposits and were 
overcarbonated.  

I think that the problem is a bacterial infection and have taken several 
steps to eliminate it.

First, I have stopped reculturing a starter from the dregs of a bottle of a 
previous batch and have made a culture from a fresh yeast packet.  Second, 
I have introduced a bleach-water soak and hot water rinse prior to my 
iodophor solution soak for both fermenter preparation and bottling.  I soak 
all components which contact the beer in the bleach and then the iodophor. 
 The exception is the bottles, which I only soak in the iodophor solution. 
 I have increased the contact time for the bottles in the iodophor 
solution.

The last batch had no rings in any of the bottles that I saw for almost two 
weeks.  Now, however, I have noticed a couple with extremely faint rings, 
which I wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't looking for them.  Carbonation 
seems close, with possibly a slight overcarbonation developing.

It's been an insanely wet summer and fall here in Fort Collins (you may 
remember our flood), which may have contributed to a lot more mold and such 
in the air.  I also have two dogs, which I put outside prior to doing 
anything which exposes the beer.  I've had the dogs for far longer than I 
have had contamination problems.

I can't taste any off flavors in these beers with the slight rings. 

My questions are:

1.  What typically causes these bottle rings?  Is it bacterial, fungal, or 
both?  What are likely sources?

2.  What further steps can I take to get rid of these problems? 

Thanks again for everyone's help.

Ben

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: DanRabin at aol.com
Subject: Re: Holiday beer

Greetings and Happy GABF Week to all Digest-ables!

I'm writing in response to Art M's questions regarding brewing a holiday ale.
I've been brewing a very spicy holiday beer for a number of years. In 1994,
it took a gold medal in the AHA nationals. If you're interested, the recipe
is in the 1994 Zymurgy Special Issue. Art, in answer to your questions,

1) I don't think your recipe has too many spices. As with hops, the goal is
to achieve a good spice/malt balance. Rather than boiling the spices, which
drives off some of the nice aromatics, I recommend making a spice tea and
adding it to your boiled wort before chilling. Bring a few quarts of water to
a boil, turn off the heat, add the spices and honey, cover and steep while
you boil the wort. By the way, your kitchen will smell great!

2) During my first attempt at making a spice beer, I added the spices to the
fermenter. Overnight, my airlock got clogged and blew off, staining my
ceiling. Moral: strain out the spices.

3) For orange zest, use a coarse grater. I've found that the aroma from
oranges is nice when the beer is young, but it dissipates quickly. It will
likely be undetectable in a well-aged beer.

4) I like to age beers in a refrigerator, but there's no reason why you
shouldn't do it at room temperature.

I hope this helps.

In good taste,
Dan Rabin

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:49:41 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: RE:  New all-grain brewer questions/"dropping" beer

     Hi all,
     
     Matt is thinking of taking the plunge into all-grain brewing, for some 
     of the same reasons I did (the desire to make beer from scratch, the 
     desire to use Munich malt, the ability to make light-colored beer...). 
     He has a few questions about the process.  He asks what the difference 
     is between "batch" and "fly" sparging.
     
     Batch sparging is the method of draining the liquid from the grain 
     bed, adding sparge water, stirring up the bed, draining the liquid, 
     etc. until the procedure has been repeated a couple of times.
     
     Fly sparging is the method of adding sparge water to the top of the 
     grain bed and allowing it to percolate through without disturbing the 
     bed.
     
     Proponents of batch sparging claim that it saves time, but I find it 
     hard to believe because you must recirculate the wort to achieve 
     clarity each time you stir the grain bed.  Recirculation can take a 
     bit of time.
     
     In fly sparging there is no need to carefully match the inflow of 
     sparge water with the outflow form the lauter tun.  It is good enough 
     to simply add a few inches of water to the top of the grain bed just 
     before the top of the bed goes dry.  In this way you only have to add 
     sparge water a few times, rather than standing there pouring slowly or 
     rigging up plumbing.
     
     Matt also asks about dechlorination of water.  Many towns are now 
     using chloramines, which are not as volatile as chlorine.  They are 
     easiest to eliminate using carbon filtration (they are not eliminated 
     by boiling the water or letting it stand overnight).  It is really 
     very convenient to use carbon filtration regardless of the form of 
     chlorine your water company uses.  In this way, you can always have 
     brewing water on demand, to make up for spillage or miscalculations.
     
     Omni filters are quite reasonably priced and very easy to install 
     (~$30 US for the undersink models).  You also get the added benefit of 
     using dechlorinated water for all of your drinking and cooking.  I'm 
     just a happy customer.
     
     I've been wondering if too few beginning brewers bother to 
     dechlorinate their water.  It could explain some common brewing 
     problems, such as phenolic notes in beer and sluggish fermentations 
     (chlorine reducing the yeast population early on).
     
     Brewing water should be dechlorinated PRIOR to ever using it in the 
     mash, so that phenolic compounds from the grain never have a chance to 
     form medicinal-tasting chlorophenols.
     
     Matt mentions that his current brew kettle is too small to do a 
     5-gallon boil.
     
     He could try partial-boil brewing, just like with extract, or 
     splitting the batch into a couple of pots.  The option I chose was to 
     go to the local department store and spend $35 or so on a 7-gallon 
     enamel-coated canning pot.  I bought it two years ago, and it's still 
     in fine shape (I use it for boiling my decoctions now).  It was money 
     well spent (I wish I could say that about all my brewing stuff...).
     ----------------------------------
     I have a question about "dropping" beer into the secondary to increase 
     diacetyl (this also rouses highly flocculent yeast; for those who 
     don't know, "dropping" is the term used to describe racking the beer 
     into the secondary while encouraging aeration).  I've been noticing 
     that many of the English beers in my area taste somewhat papery 
     (oxidized), even on draft.  Could it be that breweries that aerate the 
     ferment to rouse the yeast are also severely shortening the shelf life 
     of their products?  It makes sense.
     
     Anybody out there have any ideas about how this effects the shelf-life 
     of homebrew?   Must beer fermented in this way be drunk relatively 
     young (lending itself to cask conditioning and serving, perhaps?).
     
     Does anybody out there know of specific breweries that aerate the 
     fermented beer?  It would be useful to try their products from 
     different sources to determine if severe age and/or mishandling are 
     more responsible for the oxidation flavors than the fermentation 
     technique.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:30:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: JUKNALIS <juknalis at ARSERRC.Gov>
Subject: Best of Philly competition

Preliminary Notice:

The Best of Philly Homebrew Competition
(formerly HOPS-BOPS)
Run by the Homebrewers of Philly & Suburbs (HOPS)
will be held on November 16, 1997
at Manayunk Brewing in Philadelphia.

Entry packets and web info will be released later this month.
Stay tuned!  Brew 'em NOW!

	cheers
	
	Joe


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 10:22:27 -0700
From: Nicholas Bonfilio <nicholas at Remedy.COM>
Subject: Steeping Grains and Low Carbonation

First off, thanks for all of the private responses about the quantity of
water to use for steeping grains.  My next question regards troubleshooting
my home brew process because I have encountered problems with low
carbonation in the end product.

I primarily use malt extracts as a base.  I usually ferment the wort in a
primary for 5-7 days, then rack to a secondary for 5-7 more days to achieve
more clarity.  When bottling my 5 gallon batch, I rack the brew to a
bottling bucket where I add the standard 3/4 cup corn sugar solution and
mix with a spoon.  I then bottle.  After two weeks or so, I crack open the
first bottle and I encounter low carbonation in the final product--usually
I pour the brew into a glass and don't see much of a head.  The brew tastes
good (there is some carbonation) but there seems to be a lack of quality
because the carbonation is low.  Is carbonation in home brew "typically"
low?  I could go into details about the process--but I see it as pretty
standard.  I am very careful with sanitization--I use the diluted iodine
solution.  Any suggestions as to how I can achieve better results would be
appreciated.

Nick  

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:19:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Science / Creativity / Importance of HBD

Greetings to all, and especially to:
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> HOMEBREW Digest #2522		             Sat 04 October 1997
> From: Aaron A Sepanski <sepan001 at uwp.edu>
> Subject: Re: Science in brewing
> 
> Ok, OK.  Enough is enough.  I stated one little opinion and now I am
> getting crucified.

Well, Aaron, people don't like being told to shut the hell up.
Whatever was in your heart, that's how your words came across.


> Does a stamp collecter talk about the scientific
> process and chemical composition of the glue on the back?

Well, yes, some of them do.  Since we're producing the "stamps,"
analyzing the process and composition can increase our enjoyment.  If
it doesn't increase yours, ignore those posts.


> It's a hobby [blasphemy deleted].  Have fun.  Drink people's beer,
> share yours.  But [blasphemy], let's come back down to earth.  You guys that
> are interested in that stamp glue really aren't liking it at all.  

Well, we shouldn't be liking stamp glue, but licking it :-)

But seriously...

Some of us enjoy discussing these issues, and get passionate about them.
That's good.  (When we get angry and personal about it, we generally get
calmed down by other members.)

Some of us just skip those posts.  That's good too.

If HBD were so crowded it took 3 days to get a posting through, you'd
have a point.  But the science posts aren't "crowding out" the
"artist" posts.

We all coexist and benefit from each other.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> HOMEBREW Digest #2521		             Fri 03 October 1997
> From: Doug Moyer <moyer-de at salem.ge.com>
> Subject: Scientific content/A question of style

> 	The sub heading of Alan Moen's column in the 9/97 Brewing Techniques
> states, "Style guidelines define the playing field of creativity.
> Brewers, like all artists, must recognize that innovation is meaningless
> outside the bounds of tradition."
 ...
> 	What do the rest of you think? Is it a cardinal sin to brew beers that
> don't fit into a particular style?

Certainly not, your points are right on target.  (I haven't read the
column and assume you have characterized it correctly.)

Innovation against style guidelines has been a necessity, and has
created new styles and new experiences.  Consider that IPA was
originally (I would guess) considered pretty lousy beer, but the best
they could do for shipping.  California common beer was the best they
could do without ice; if they'd had refrigeration, we wouldn't have
Anchor Steam today.

I would, however, suggest that he COULD have been correct if he had
said that innovation is meaningless WITHOUT A BACKGROUND of tradition.

We can get really interesting, worthwhile beers that work within and
against the style guidelines, just as we can get excellent poetry in
the Shakespearean sonnet form.  The advantage is comparison with and
contrast against a rich tradition, the risk is that you will produce
just another typical IPA or Pale Ale or whatever.  Ho hum.  Yet a
really outstanding example becomes almost an avatar of the entire
style.

We can get really interesting, worthwhile beers that strike out into
new areas, just as we can get excellent free-form poetry.  The
advantage is the lack of restrictions; the risk is that the beer will
be just another undistinguished weird brew.

Artists say that "form is liberating" and that's true.  Even free-form
poetry depends on the existence of the static forms like the sonnet as
a tradition against which to rebel, a backdrop against which to be
viewed.  But the backdrop becomes static and meaningless itself
without the counterpoint activity in the foreground.

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

Finally, to the yutz (I've deleted the reference) who said that HBD
represents very few homebrewers so it is unimportant and doesn't
influence the homebrewing movement:

Is it important to homebrewing?  Yes -- some of the most active
leaders meet and communicate here, in a way that other media can't
support.  It provides a national network that feeds discussion and
thought at club meetings and personal labs and breweries; the work
done here is reported up to the national network, and feeds further
work across the country.  The HBD and the archives create a lively
environment of discussion and ideas, and act as a repository for
future brewers and brewing historians.

But the bottom line is: HBD is useful TO ME, so I participate and
value it.
 

Best,
Sam Mize

- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada
(personal net account)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:43:59 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Re:  Headless extract beer and torrified wheat

     Hi all,
     
     Dave asks why his last few extract + specialty grain batches have been 
     headless.
     
     One would expect quality, all-malt extract to provide enough medium 
     weight proteins to support a decent head.  This problem could be 
     caused by a few things:
     
     1.  Using a lot of sugar to make the wort, thereby using less malt 
     extract and diluting the proteins too much.
     
     2.  Using a brand of extract that has poor heading qualities.  Some 
     extract producers don't read the HBD and may still utilize a protein 
     rest at or below 130F (54C).
     
     3.  Contamination of the wort by microbes that are consuming the 
     medium weight proteins and thus robbing your beer of head potential.  
     If this is the case, you may also notice some off aromas and flavors, 
     like phenols (medicine, smoke, or clove) or vegetable notes.
     
     Using torrified wheat is not an option for extract brewers because it 
     must be mashed to convert starch to sugar.  Starch in your wort will 
     definitely invite infection (Saccharomyces can't use starch, but other 
     microbes can).
     
     If bacterial contamination is not the cause, or you would just like to 
     increase the heads of your beers in general as an extract brewer, you 
     could try using cara-wheat malt.  This is crystal malt made from 
     wheat, so it may help heading more than crystal malt made from barley.
     
     It is made by Weyermann and is available at many homebrew shops.  In 
     the New York City area it can be found at Hop, Skip, and a Brew in 
     Queens (no affiliation, just a happy customer).
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 08:44 PDT
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: re:steeping vs partial mash

Nick asks about the volume of water when steeping grains in hbd #2522.

Nick's calling it the partial mash method but describes the process I would 
call steeping. 

Nick, when you are merely extracting colors, flavors and existing sugars 
from the grains, steeping is fine and I believe can be done in as much 
volume of water as you wish. My brother is an extract brewer and he steeps 
his specialty grains in 7 gallons as the water at 160F for 30 minutes.

If however, you really are doing a partial mash where you are converting a 
base malt's starch to sugar, then you need to keep the grist/water ratio 
down to somewhere around 1 to 1.5 quarts of water per pound of grist. Too 
thin a mash will result in total dilution of the malt enzymes and no 
conversion will take place. You'll end up with flour in the wort and have a 
real mess on your hands.

Charley


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 11:14:20 -0700
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Minimum-science Homebrewing Now!


Ok, I still think the anti-science guy needs to quit making assumptions
about how unhappy we all must be for looking into the science side of
things, but TRYING to extract something good out of his ramblings,
here's a post that describes how to perform "Minimum-Science Homebrewing
(trademark, copyright 1997".   OOOoooops, I better not forget to mention
that these hints came out texts that contained "scientific"
information...

General keys for all brewers:
 - (yes, chant the usual sanitation chant here)
 - Base water should be soft as possible so you can treat as necessary to
get closer to the appropriate style for the recipe you are brewing.
 - Aeration, after the wort is chilled to less than 80 F or so and before
the introduction of yeast (pitching) is important.  Best methods, in
approximate order, are a) fine aeration stone with pure oxygen, b)
bucket-to-bucket pouring through air a half dozen times (through a
strainer helps too) or carboy shaking for 5 minutes (starting before the
carboy is full), c) some other techniques may also be as good, such as
using a venturi tube with side oxygen or air injection etc.  Adequate
aeration not only provides for proper yeast health, but also helps
encourage the 'good' chemical pathways rather than the bad, so you get
better beer too.
 - Pitching adequate volumes of yeast prevents infection by giving the
yeast a chance to overwhelm anything else in the wort.  Use a minimum of
1-quart liquid starter or 2 to 4 packets of dry yeast which has been
genty rehydrated.
 - Use whole-flower hops whenever you can.

Extract brewers:
 - Partial mash if you can or want to.  Since this isn't quite the
"minimum science" route, I won't dive into it here.  But be encouraged
that it can be made quite simple and only very slightly more complicated
than just steeping grains.  Start a new thread in HBD if you want more
info, because the many experts here will be very free with their advice.
 - Always base your recipes on fresh pale malt extract, high-turnover
name brand extracts purchased from a high-volume homebrew supplier for
example.
 - Use name-brand extract to help prevent the accidental inclusion of
non-malt sugars in your brew.
 - Always use steeped specialty grains (crushed with a mill, or zip-lock
bag and rolling pin etc) rather than colored extracts.
 - Aerate and use adequate yeast volumes as described above.
 - Don't use hopped extracts, use whole-flower hops in the boil.  Use a
hop bag if you must, but increase the hop rate by 20% or so if you do
(this is a point of controversy ... but everyone agrees that at least
some extraction rate is lost if a bag is used ... but boy is it easy to
get those hops out!).
 - Unless a particular style requires it, don't use non-malt sugars of
any kind.
 - Unless you are brewing a very light lager, use a 60 to 90 minute boil,
allowing the boil to proceed for 15-20 minutes prior to adding the first
hops.  Let the hop schedule determine how long the rest of the boil
should go.
 - Add any water treatment chemicals at the beginning of the boil, using
approximate amounts as suggested by Papazian and others (assumes you are
starting with soft water) in their recipes.  If you don't have soft
water, find out if it is sulphate or carbonate water.  If carbonate,
pre-boil, chill, and decant to another container as a simple water
preparation.  If any other type of water, buy distilled water and dilute
your water (approx. 80% distilled and 20% your water is a save start for
nearly anyone).  Either way, don't worry about matching a particular
water style exactly.

Grain brewers:
 - Follow all advice above about aeration, yeast etc.
 - Use single-temp infusion mashes only (149 to 156 F, for higher
fermentability/less body or lower fermentability/more body
respectively).
 - Use soft water (see extract brewing above)
 - Treat the mash to make the pH land between 5.0 to 5.5.  If the target
water is non-sulphate, then use calcium chloride to lower pH, otherwise
use calcium sulphate.  If you need to raise the pH, use calcium
carbonate.  Don't use more than 2 to 3 teaspoons of anything (for each 5
gallons of wort made by the recipe).
 - Sparge with your soft (non-carbonate) water to about 1.5 recipe
volumes.  That's 7.5 gallons for the boil for a 5 gallon batch etc.
Don't worry about boil pH, pH of sparge runnings etc.
 - Use a slow enough sparge to make the sparge last about 45 minutes or
longer.
 - Assume 80% extract efficiency when estimating grain bills, and just
use whatever you actually get for the brew.  Plus or minus a few points
won't hurt.

Well, there's probably more that could be said, but that's the basics!
Sorry if I accidentally mentioned any kind of numbers or anything ...
that may have been too close to science I guess.  Maybe using a
hydrometer might be too scientific too.  Maybe using a measuring cup
when making brownies is too, or postulating why you bake at 400 F rather
than 450 F might be too scientific too.  Afterall, stone-age people
didn't have thermometers, and didn't have to figure out all those
numbers and such.  (Excuse my attitude ... but I figure if someone
doesn't want science, then why read any newsgroup or digest at all.
Just buy your extract and boil it.  What happens happens.  Why clog the
newsgroup with complaints that won't change a thing?)

bd


 .......................................................................

Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:21:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph S. Sellinger" <jss at jrock.com>
Subject: ANNOUNCE: New recipe calculator

I have place a new toy on the internet.

I have written a new recipe calculator for the web.
This tool uses no java, no java script, no vbscript,
no nothing except straight html. My friends in my
homebrew club (FORD) have been kind enough to test
out the application and have found several bugs.
I think they are all fixed now so time for a release.

Here it is. The URL is
<a href="http://www.jrock.com/recipe_calc">http://www.jrock.com/recipe_calc</a>

Please if you have the time take a look at this toy.
I think you will like what you see. To access the recipe calculator
go to the page listed above and hit the ADD A RECIPE button.
Don't be scared to push the buttons. You can always start over.

This is the first announcement about this system and
I am only sending it to the HBD. This may keep the
traffic down for the first few days so use it soon. 

PS
  I am still working on the help and reference pages.

Thanks for your time.
Joe Sellinger (jss at jrock)


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:25:11 PDT
From: "Rosenzweig,Steve" <Steve_Rosenzweig at wb.xerox.com>
Subject: Shakedown brews

I reported in a month or so ago about the 7 gal Rubbermaid Mashtun 
 under construction - here is a follow up, and thanks to all who 
 generously dolloped out individual chunks of wisdom!  I shall 
 regurgitate them here for the masses!

On the holes vs slits issue, responses were fairly evenly split.  I 
 decided to use a single row of 1/16" holes drilled in each arm of the 
 "theta" and face them downward.  I bought extra 1/2" cu pipe to cut 
 slots in to test out later on!
______________________________________
Wisdom nuggets (and who contributed them):

I put a brass screw at each corner on the bottom of the elbows, to keep 
 the manifold off the very bottom, and somewhat level with the outlet 
 hole.  Theory is that this will minimize sucking up the fine particles 
 that may settle out.  (Val Lipscomb)

I cut a piece of perforated plastic to lay atop the manifold so when 
 stirring I don't get caught in the piping. (Ken Schwartz)

An idea I didn't use, but thought was brilliant came from CD Prichard:

"Instead of a Cu piped manifold, I *really* like the outer SS sheath removed
from the hose intended for connecting plumbing fixtures to water supply
piping.  Details are on my RIMS and boiler pages at the URL in the sig. line
below.  5' of the stuff ($5-10) is plently for a non-rims mash tun.  Kinda
like an easy masher, but much cheaper and much longer (i.e. more flow area)."

I pulled apart a hose just to check this idea out, and it looks like it 
 would work great!  I may do a couple of comparison batches with my 
 easy masher and this SS screen just to see how they come out!
________________________________________

First shakedown brew and questions:

Everything went pretty well.  I used 10# of MM crushed grain, added 13 
 qts of 175 DF water for a 90 minute single infusion mash at about 
 154DF.  Lost about 2 degress per hour in the cooler, as expected.  I 
 added another 6 qts of boiling water to mashout at 170DF for 15 min.  
 I ended up getting about 27ppg (vs about 30 ppg when I used an 
 easymasher and a three step infusion in my 5 gal brewpot).  

The only problem came in the sparge.  I recirc'd about 1 gallon (vs 
 about 3 pints with the EM) but I kept getting a stream of bubbles in 
 the runoff tube, and the slower I went, the worse they got!  I ended 
 up sparging about an hour to collect 7.5 gal of 1.036 wort, but am 
 somewhat concerned about HSA.  Recall I used a 90 degree 1/2" to 3/8 " 
 compression fitting reducer valve to control the flow.  Could this 
 have contributed the bubbles?  There was a very very slight leak at 
 the 1/2" compression - could this have been the source (I'll test this 
 theory out with water tonight)?  Should I go to a straight reducing 
 valve and let my hose do the bending into the brew pot?  Is there some 
 magic ratio of holes to pipe diameter that can only be solved by 
 hardcore science?  Maybe another row of holes in each pipe is called 
 for?  Maybe I go to slits right away?  I did include an extra tee and 
 a standpipe, which was capped, in the design.  Should I have underlet 
 the standpipe first with sparge water?  Maybe air was trapped in the 
 standpipe and sucked out along with the wort during the sparge?  

I'm not too worried about this brew, I plan to keg it and dispose of it 
 properly with my in-laws at Thanksgiving, so it sure won't go to 
 waste, but I certainly want to work the kinks out of my new system 
 ASAFP!  Got a lot of brewing to do and too little time to do it!

TIA for any and all insight, and thanks again for the previous suggestions!

Stephen





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 13:08:19 -0700
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Steeping your Grains

>Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:04:52 -0700
>From: Nicholas Bonfilio <nicholas at Remedy.COM>
>Subject: Steeping your Grains
>
>My brewing experiences have just started. I have brewed 3 batches of
ale.
>For the last 2 batches, I have been following the partial-mash
technique.
>One thing puzzles me regarding steeping the grain--is it critical to
steep
>in just a few quarts of liquor?  I have been using a couple of gallons.
I
>figured that I will be combining the steeped liquor to the plain liquor
>anyway...  Could there be any penalties steeping in even 5 gallons?  I
>appreciate any suggestions.
>
>Nick  

Nick,

First we need to know if you are really partial mashing, or if you are
just steeping specialty grains, because the answer differs (I provide
both answers below).  The way to tell is that if you are including any
pale (2-row, 6-row, "pale ale" etc.) malts in the grains that you are
using, then you _are_ partial mashing.  If you only have high-kilned
malts (chocolate, roast, etc) or crystal malts (darker than 10L) in the
grains that you are using, then you are "steeping", not partial mashing.

Ok, if you are steeping, then the greatest concern is the water
temperature, and only the volume if it is too low.  A couple of gallons
at 150-160F for 30-40 minutes is fine for steeping.

If you are partial mashing, then the volume of water becomes important
because if it is too high, the active enzymes in the pale malt will be
too diluted and won't provide much conversion of starches to sugars.
Since you seem to have the impression that you should only use "a few
quarts", I assume that you probably are doing a regular partial mash.
So yes, please do only use a few quarts (about 1.25 to 1.5 quarts per
pound of grain is a good start) for the partial mash.  Temperature of
the mash is also important.  Make sure that after adding the grains to
the water that the temperature stabilizes at around 149-156F or so.
Grain often cools the water too much and you have to add heat.  If you
do have to add heat, use 30-second intervals on a HIGH burner, stir for
a minute or two and check the temp until it's close enough.  Now if you
REALLY wanted to take the partial mashing to the limit, you could also
check the pH of the mash to see if it's between 5.0 and 5.5.  You can do
that later or whenever you feel like it.  It's good practice if you
intend to go with all-grain brewing sometime.  The reason is that if the
pH is outside this range by too much, the active enzymes become
increasingly inactive.  Shouldn't be a problem for you if your water is
anywhere close to soft or moderately soft, and you don't have too much
of the high-kilned malts in your mash.

Finally, the best check of how your partial mash is working is to check
the starting gravity of your wort.  If it's close to what the recipe
prescribed, then the partial mash is working well enough.

Brian


 .......................................................................

Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 13:23:41 -0700
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: homebrew book

>        Recently, and by accident, I found out that a major contributor
to the
>HBD had published a book about homebrewing. Yet there has been no
>mention of it in this forum. (that I have seen) I'm sure this is due to
>the professionalism of the author and him not wanting to profit from
>this forum.[snip]
>        Is it proper to ask for recommendations or discuss the book?
>                                        mike rose

Mike, by all means please do mention the book here.  Many authors of
articles, (books?), software, web sites that have calculators or
information in them, etc. all mention their work here and it is well
accepted.  I propose that the author you mention was being more polite
than what is required by the HBD readership.  That's fine and
respectable, but we'd like to know about the book!  It most definitely
would not be out of place for you especially, assuming the author had
cold feet about it, to mention the book to us.  Please provide whatever
info you can: ISBN, book stores that carry it (on-line or off), author,
publisher, your personal review, etc.

Thanks in advance!
Brian


 .......................................................................

Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:08:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: SClaus4688 at aol.com
Subject: 122f is for punkinheads

Greetings fellow zymurgophiles-

In HBD #2521 (10/3/97), Mike Uchima wrote:

"Next time I brew something like this, I'm going to double the amount of
pumpkin.  I'm also going to add some rice hulls to prevent lautering
problems.  (The previously mentioned batch had the "sparge from hell" --
got stuck 3 times.)"

I had a similar "sparge from hell" problem with a pumpkin porter that I
brewed 2 years ago.  It was bad enough that I swore I would never brew with
pumpkin again.  But, in a moment of weakness, I agreed to make a 10 gallon
batch of it for an upcoming halloween party.   [Off subject note to
attorney/HBDer Louis K. Bonham:  If supplying beer for a party turns out to
be illegal and I'm arrested, will you defend me?  Will the police confiscate
my brewing equipment and paint D.A.R.E. slogans all over the outside of it
like they do with drug dealers' sports cars and speed boats?  I don't think I
could stand that.]

Determined not to have another stuck sparge, I tried a protein rest mini-mash
with  the pumpkin (2# canned), 2# american 6-row (for high enzyme content)
and a small handful of black patent (to aid acidification).  I held this at
120f for 30 minutes, then heated it to 160f & added it to the main mash,
which consisted of 13# of british style 2-row and various specialty grains at
153f.  Then I let the whole thing sit long enough for me to have breakfast,
drink a couple cups of coffee and read the Sunday comic section to my kids.
 After that, I did the non-Burley iodine test, heated to 167f, recirculated
and began run-off.  

The sparge was a thing of beauty; better than my typical all 2-row sparge.  I
got a nice hot break during the boil and the cooled wort appeared to be haze
free (it's hard to tell for sure with a dark brown porter).  Also, If the
copious amount of long lasting foam I got in my hydrometer sample taken while
racking to secondary is any indication, this beer should have a good head.

So, there you go: if you're looking for a reason to do a 122f protein rest in
a world of highly modified malts, try brewing with pumpkin.

 -Steve Claussen in PDX

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:28:10 -0800
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com>
Subject: Pumpkin oil extract

A while back in the HBD, some individual mentioned the use of an oil or
extract that smells and tastes just like pumpkin. I searched the HBD archives
to no avail. If anybody out there remembers the name of this "essence", please
email me or post the info to the HBD. TIA, ILBCNU!
 


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:31:27 -0700
From: Jim Cave <cave at psc.org>
Subject: Alan Moen's article

	I know Alan Moen  and have enjoyed numerous discussions, debates, and =
judging sessions with him in the past.  I read his article and I agree =
with his sentiment on this issue.  I also think he's a pretty good =
brewer and judge.

	Consider this.  If you (North Americans) go to the UK for the first =
time and decide to enjoy a nice hoppy full strength IPA-buyer beware.  =
IPA is actually  another moniker for an ordinary bitter.  You'd be =
soundly disappointed.  Further, I'm offended when someone tries to foist =
off a "Belgian-style" beer off on me when there is nothing Belgian about =
it.  To me it's just a money grab.  It is annoying when micro brewers do =
this, since it fosters misinformation to the public.  From the =
homebrewer's end, if a beer of OG 1.070 wins in a competition in the =
ordinary bitter or the British mild category, it does a disservice to =
the hobby and misinformation as to what constitutes the "style" is =
fostered.  The style guidelines offer a lot of latitude for brewers to =
carry on their art. If you really want to get creative there is always =
the Specialty category. But a brown ale that has soured and gone off is =
a far cry from a Flanders brown or a Roddenbach and it is simply =
dishonest to attempt to fool judges into thinking or judging otherwise.

	Would you be happy if someone sold you pot roast under the name  of =
"tenderloin"?  Some butchers might justifiably consider their work to be =
art too.  How about coloured pink salmon as sockeye?  After all an =
"artist" might have worked on it.  In the fish industry, people put a =
nice cedar box with Native artwork on it, around any old piece of fish.  =
You notice the large print "Smoked Lox" but don't realize you're getting =
pink salmon until you open the box!  Don't get me wrong.  I like pink =
salmon but not at sockeye prices!

	So the real rub to me in all of this is: it fosters misinformation =
about beer and it's often done by those who might be the least =
knowledgeable about the craft.  It seems to me that they are the ones =
who speak out the most indignantly in "defense of art". =20

				Jim Cave

	

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:09:42 -0700
From: "Leslie R. Peterson" <LeslieP at pacifier.com>
Subject: Wyeast for wheat ale

	I've been lurking for several months now, and will be brewing my
first batch of beer this weekend.  The recipe that I will be following for
a wheat ale calls for Wyeast liquid yeast #3333 (German Wheat).  The shop
from which I bought my ingredients was out of #3333, and suggested Bavarian
Wheat Ale yeast (#3056).  The package indicates that the German Wheat yeast
is "Advanced" and for "unique beer styles."  I would appreciate hearing any
reasons why I should (or should not) not make the substitution.
	I believe it highly likely that I have not supplied enough
information in this posting, so private email would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Leslie Peterson
Vancouver, WA



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:51:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: FridgeGuy

>...Any door wiring will be visible in the form of a cord between the
>cabinet and door near the hinges.
> 
> Hope this helps!
> 
>Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
>duddles at Imbecile.kzoo.edu

Tuttle?  Is that you?


Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation...

Al.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:33:00 -0400
From: Bob.Sutton at fluordaniel.com
Subject: Re: Dry Hopping

  GuyG4 at aol.com asked:
  
  "What factors enhance dryhopping..."
  
  You didn't say what form your hops were in (leaves, 
  plus, pellets). I find that pellets yield the most 
  potent dry hop character since the oils in the leaves 
  are more available due to the pelletizing process. If 
  I skip my late hop addition and use the same amount in 
  the secondary - then my results are quite good.
  
  Notice I said secondary - if you're only using a 
  single fermentor, wait 4-5 days before adding the dry 
  hops (until CO2 activity subsides); otherwise you'll 
  scrub out much of the hoppiness. Good Luck!
  
  Bob
  Fruit Fly Brewhaus
  Yesterdays' Technology Today

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:35:18 -0400
From: "Mike and Mellissa Pensinger" <dolphinz at machine1.hrfn.net>
Subject: Filtering your Wort

 With all this talk of how to filter the wort I figured I would put in my 2
cents worth.  I used the standard racking cane and that worked alright. Next
I tried the circular copper tube (gooseneck) thing and when I put the siphon
in the boil it spit wort on the counter (bad siphon, bad!).  Well the newest
incarnation is stainless steel hose braid soldered closed at one end and
fastened to the end of the racking cane at the other.  So far it has woked
like a charm.  The braid is porous enough to allow all the wor you can put
through it to go but filters out everything else. I will be adding a
multiple end manifold to my new brewpot (one of Robert A's) with these
devices on each end. I will let you know how it goes.

Mike

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------
Mike and Mellissa Pensinger
dolphinz at hrfn.net
http://www.hrfn.net/~dolphinz
Man can not live on bread alone,
	There must be a beverage
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------
***WARNING***
Pursuant to US Code of Federal Regulations Title 47
Section 64.1200, any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent
to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the
amount of US$500.  Criminal penalties may also apply.

E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.



Return to table of contents

---